Posted on 03/24/2008 11:12:54 AM PDT by Wuli
"Today I endorse Barack Obama for president of the United States. I believe him to be a person of integrity, intelligence and genuine good will. I take him at his word that he wants to move the nation beyond its religious and racial divides and to return United States to that company of nations committed to human rights. I do not know if his earlier life experience is sufficient for the challenges of the presidency that lie ahead."
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
I don’t think this has anything to do with Catholicism (which I haven’t seen evidence that he has turned away from) or his views of the Constitution.
I think it is all about Iraq. I think he is against the war and thinks it has created somewhat irreparable damage to the nations psyche. So he wants to support the ‘peace, unity and love’ platform. And at the same time, he admit that all of the things he wants to see done: pro-life, limited gov, reduce spending, supporting religion, family values, etc are all in stark disagreement with Obama.
Kmiec is a good guy from my experiences. But I’ve seen a number of people just get totally weak-kneed because of Iraq. Matthew Dowd is another one that comes to mind. Did great work for the conservative cause but has a kid in Iraq and is just losing his mind over it and started backing Obama cuz Obama is the most anti-war and wants to end ‘politics as usual’.
Its tanamount to a declaration of surrender from the fight for everything else important. And I don’t think these guys will be the last ones to quit on us. But the idea that somehow if we all just agree to ‘get along’ that things will get better is insanity. If we ‘get along’, we are just agreeing to join liberalism and we get the liberal agenda in return. Getting liberals to join US should be the goal so they can gain conservative agendas.
People seem to have forgotten that W ran on a ‘ending the politics of personal attacks’ in 2000. And W kept his word. He has never said anything disparaging about the democrats personally (and hardly ever professionally). He is the most bipartisan President we’ve seen in a generation or more with huge leglislative accomplishments with huge libs like Kennedy and Feingold and McCain. And in return, the democrat/liberals have heep scorn, defamation, venom and ad hominem attacks on W. There is no such thing as ‘unity’ when the balance of power it as stake. Unity on comes with one side quits or one side is defeated. Period.
Kmeic also claims to be a Republican, so on the whole, I’d say he’s living in fantasy land and is none of the things he claims to be.
Furthermore, I read the article and I honestly couldn’t even figure out why he was “endorsing” Obama. Maybe Kmeic’s whole brain has turned to mush.
The heresy of liberation theology though closely embracing Catholic social teaching is not to be embraced to achieve these aims. Taught by both JP II and Benedict XVI.
Liberalism is a mental disorder!!
I agree with you - and most excomunication is of the self-imposed de facto nature and not some official de jure prononcement. I’d like to see a more pro-active Catholic clergy come out speaking the truth about this kind of thing and not allowing guys like this to hide behind the facade of being a “Catholic” and, especially, his position at Catholic University.
True - but the Catholic Church doesn't recognize it's own (self-)excommunications as valid when it comes time to count membership. How else could there be 68+ million Catholics living in the United States right now?
As Wuli said in post 13, "somebody didn't get the memo".
my experience has been the reverse
i find marxist catholics all the time when talking on economic issues, catholics who, mostly remain pro-life and anti-gay-marriage
many have no problem with a supreme court that radically took the reverse of roe v wade, claiming our present constitution, unamended, can be read by a dictatorial court to say it already bans abortion
whereas, the real judicial problem that all conservatives can recognize is just such a dictatorial court - one that can claim constitutional stipulations that we the people have in fact not placed there
when you carefully read that great catholic justice scalia you see that is the heart of the LEGAL side of the debate - that the u.s. constitution neither prohibits the people, through their state legislatures, from outlawing abortion nor demands that they do
One thing you have to take into consideration is that Constitutional Law has very little to do with the Constitution.
It is simply the “body of decisions” of the USSC, and we all know how much those relate to the Constitution.
“I don’t think this has anything to do with Catholicism”
let me see
he writes as a Catholic
he writes of why he as a Catholic supports Obama
he, former dean of CUA
he, currently a writer for Catholic institutions,
he, citing his endorsement as related to his Catholic social and social justice beliefs (educated into him from somewhere)
and you say it has nothing to do with Catholicism?
i think your head is in the sand
“Douglas W. Kmiec is Caruso Family Chair and Professor of Constitutional Law, Pepperdine University. He served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel (U.S. Assistant Attorney General) for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Former Dean of the law school at The Catholic University of America, Professor Kmiec was a member of the law faculty for nearly two decades at the University of Notre Dame.”
Well, goodbye, Professor Kmiec. It was nice knowing you. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Excommunications latae sententiae are incurred automatically.
The public record of it is Kmiec's own published support of an advocate of procured abortion.
You sound like a Catholic hating bigot, lol.
You're obviously ignorant of latae sententiae excommunication.
see additional post/thread on this slate article at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1990793/posts
Yes "social justice" as near as I can tell means taking something at gunpoint from someone who worked for it and giving it to someone else who doesn't work, but who voted for it. This goes along with the Catholic church's new since of being wealthy (what is the wealth of the catholic church anyway - Near as I can tell just the Vatican alone is worth between 500,000,000,000 and $1 trillion.)
This post (<-click), while addressing a tax-related thread, explains in more detail why federal politicians like Obama are actually in contempt of the Constitution, foolishly following in the footsteps of FDR's dirty federal spending politics.
Obama claims to be a conservative spender as evidenced by this link.
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa080228_mo_obamathur.859c5cb.htmlHowever, in stark contrast to what Obama claims about his spending ideas, one group has identified Obama as the biggest spending proposer in the Senate for '08.
http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/blogs/investorcentric/2008/02/presidential-candidate-budget-analysis.htmlThe people need to wise up to the major problem of constitutionally unauthorized federal government spending by politicians like "constitutional expert" Obama who are foolishly walking in FDR's footsteps. The people need to send big shot federal spenders like Obama home instead of trying to send such people to the Oval Office.
apparently so is mr kmiec, a catholic and possible millions of catholics who agree with him
a standard that, by total absence of institutional enforcement, is ignored, by the institution and all those against whom it should be enforced makes a mockery of the process of having a standard to begin with
it makes such standard sound like the work of the legalistic-ridden Pharisees
Hah! -- I'd throw him under the bus if he was [pretending to be] on my team, also.
Although I could conceptualize the idea of a 'socialist' still being a Christian - albeit misguided and ignorant of history and human nature - I can't see how this person could call himself one and still support a person, such as Mr. Obama, who holds such an unnatural 'zeal' for abortion. To support a person who is in favor of homosexual marriages. To support a person who was a member, for 20 years, in a 'renegade church' that basically blasphemed the Name of the LORD.
Mr. Obama wins the trifecta as being an unworthy candidate (for dogcatcher...let alone President).
I grant you that the pickins' are pretty slim this year -- but announcing support for Mr. Obama should be anathema to a sincere Roman Catholic.
Endorsing any democrat is crazy. Endorsing a racist is unacceptable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.