The most horrendous and unjust war that has ever been waged is the war in the womb. As a Catholic Christian I approach my civic duty informed by a hierarchy of values and recognize that the right to life is first on that hierarchy.

People are making too little out of embryo destruction. All unborn children, including embryos, are human beings and have a right to life, which must be defended by each and every citizen.

We all must come to recognize the human person in everyone who is victimized, rejected, abandoned, and defenseless in the worldwide community. This cannot be accomplished if we do not firstly recognize and protect the most defenseless among us, the unborn. Not until we have done all in our power to end the abomination of abortion (and embryo destruction) worldwide by peaceful measures, can we hope to see a measure of peace in the world. Let us unite in our defense of each and every one of us.

I do not believe we will ever see an end to war in this world until we end the war in the womb. Perhaps our loving and merciful God will help us end poverty and war if we help Him end the war in the womb.

God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap." (Gal. 6:7)

Pass that on to McCain, Clinton, Obama, Romney, Thompson, Giuliani and even Paul (who would let each state decide the fate of the unborn).

Deal,
First of all apologizing for the intemperate remarks shows a lot of class.
Second Doug Kmiec is totally off base to suggest that supporting McCain and opposing Obama is partisan. It is required because of the extreme pro-abortion position advocated by Obama. What should bother any decent person as well, is that Obama, for all he claims to be doing for the "poor," the downtrodden and his own, is in favor of a procedure (abortion0 that disproportionately kills the poor, the downtrodden and his own. If he were truly beyond the failed liberal politics of the past, he would oppose the killing of hte unborn. He would challenge the society to look to the future by caring for all the children, born and unborn.

As for a moral duty to examine the candidates, is he for real?

five minutes and you are done.
Simply ask the question: which candidate is in favor of reversing Roe v Wade?

Deal,

Thanks for calling Kmiec on his Hate charge.

There has got to be something fundamentally wrong with anyone who begins a sentence with, "Well apart from the life issues,..." and then goes on to say that a candidate is a good guy. That statement leads me to wonder why not defend the virtue and prudential judgements anyone, even a Hannibal Lector? It's a Terror kind of world we live in. Even Kmiec is infected by it.

"Well apart from from the murderous violence on the unborn... and partially born and... okay, newborn, and yes, the "death by drug and dehydration" medical policies against the disabled and elderly to keep nuisance and medical costs to a minimum, our candidate stands to defend anybody else because he's a good guy for change." (Cue and bring up angelic voices)

It is strange world, strange times when "change" comes dressed in a skinny suit and more melanin than the average Ted Kennedy. If change is spelled O-b-a-m-a, I see no change. The fanatic swooning is amusing to watch; it signals a deplorable lack of imagination and experience of the swoooner, but I see no change regarding the Left except that its gone more Left but it calls itself centrist. Can Dems spell o-b-f-u-s-c-a-t-i-o-n? If they can't, they can just say "lie." It means the same thing. Same old politics.

Maybe all the swooning, even at sea level, means that somebody is sucking up all the oxygen in the room. Any conspiracy theorists want to tackle this one?

Illinois attorney Donald McClarey, commenting at my blog, makes a compelling case that former Romney advisor Professor Doug Kmiec's embrace of Obama and rejection of McCain has more to do with personal animosity toward McCain than it does with any sort of policy disagreement.

The evidence? On the policy issues for which Kmiec criticizes McCain, Romney's positions were either identical or even MORE at odds with the Church than McCain's:

http://tinyurl.com/yvrhwf


Why the inconsistency? Why criticize McCain for his immigration stance - a position that is very close to the USCCB's own position and one that he has staked out at great political risk, when Romney's immigration position was the sort of harsh position of which the U.S. Bishops have been so critical?

And why does McCain's position on Iraq make him unpalatable, when Romney had the exact same position?

And what about torture/waterboarding? McCain, again to great political risk to himself, staked out a position on the issue in line with Church teaching while Romney was busy trying to out-Jack-Bauer the other GOP candidates. How in the world, then, was Romney supposedly acceptable to "Catholic Reaganites" but McCain is not?

If Professor Kmiec wants to be taken seriously on this matter of Obama being a "Catholic natural" while McCain is not, then he needs to address these inconsistencies between your previous support for Romney and your criticisms of McCain. If he can't or won't address the matter, then I'm afraid Mr. McClarey is right that Kmiec's "Catholic Reaganites for Obama" movement looks like nothing more than just sour grapes against McCain.

The last paragraph of my previous post should read:

"If Professor Kmiec wants to be taken seriously on this matter of Obama being a "Catholic natural" while McCain is not, then he needs to address these inconsistencies between HIS previous support for Romney and HIS criticisms of McCain. If he can't or won't address the matter, then I'm afraid Mr. McClarey is right that Kmiec's "Catholic Reaganites for Obama" movement looks like nothing more than just sour grapes against McCain."

If I ran the Church:

1) Catholic bishops who profess to be engaging in "pastoral dialogue" with publicly pro-abortion communicants, and can't make up their minds, after 35+ years of said "pastoral dialogue," to obey Canon 915, would be informed that they are manifest grave sinners. After one week, those bishops who decline to obey Canon 915 would be informed that they are <I>obstinate</I>, manifest, grave sinners, and, pursuant to Canon 915, are forbidden to receive Communion. After one (1) more week, any bishops who continue to decline to obey Canon 915 would be retired to suitable jobs which do not involve the administration of the sacraments.

2) Bishops' conferences would be forbidden to make any statement on any issue, or containing any proposition, upon which two Catholics can take opposing positions while both remaining in communion with the Catholic Church. Thus, the Catholic in the pew would be freed from the task of "weighing" Candidate A's dissent from the bishops' position on Involuntary Suicide for Seniors against Candidate B's dissent from the bishops' position on a 3.6% increase in federal funding for Fuzzier Puppies for Preschoolers.

<b>I could find no other explanation than that he was looking to ingratiate himself to Obama.</b>

Ingratiation is correct. Sounds like someone wants to be a federal judge--in the mould of Anthony Kennedy.

Now that former "Catholics" for Free Choice president Frances Kissling has endorsed Obama, will Kmiec reconsider ? His persistence in trying to legitimize voting for Obama is getting close to a Canon 915 violation. He should ask for an audience with his Bishop and repent.

I'm not sure what my favorite part of Kmeic's hyperbole is -

1 - his insistence that he isn't personally stumping for Obama while admitting he is personally giving Obama strategic advice on how to lace his empty rhetoric to engage Catholics in the swoon fest.

or

2. The tail end of the long painful hypocrisy where he labels Inside Catholic as a fake Catholicism.

You won't see any hateful or ad hominem coming out of that fellow's pie hole. No siree.

I'm interested in engaging Kmeic into a discussion about just exactly where he proposes Catholics should draw the line on discretion, if it isn't decpatitating partially born live infants.

Is it permissible for Catholics to judge the suitability of a candidate who support lesser crimes like wife beating, slavery.

Deal,

Many "Catholics" will make the same justification to vote for Obama as did the Professor - because it is easy. But as I argued before, should these people be referred to as Catholics? I am a member of a parish with over 1000 families registered. The parish prints only 600 bullitins each week and hands out even less (around 450), so you can do the math.

But when a financial need arises within the parish the Faithful can always count on the C&E's to help because this is thier modern "indulgence. It absolves them from thier responsibility as part of the parish family. So to is it for the socialist movement within the Church. They want the Government to do what God intended us to do as individuals and communities - which is to be charitable and take care of the sick and the poor. This is not the governments role but there are many who belive the government should take it on - because it absolves them of thier responsibility to live out thier faith.

But is it that easy? For those who support open boarders I ask: will the Mexican Government ever be forced to reform it's deep rooted corruption if we do not stop the flow illegal aliens into this country?

For those opposed to the war in Iraq I ask: should we go on about our lives with indefference to the fact that there regions in the world that 95% of the population lives in fear and is deprived of thier God given right to liberty by the other 5%; which ultimately fosters hate and terrorism against others?

For those who insist on universal (government provided) heathcare I ask: will you be there to fight for the rights of the aged, handicapped, and the unborn (and especially the unborn who are also hanicapped) when the government decides that it is too costly to the system to care for these "burdens?"

Professor Kmiec there are many questions beyond the life isues we should ask ourselves when deciding to supporrt one candidate over the next. But they are not as easy to come by as your article suggests.

TED

Kmiec's attempt to get in front of the front-runners (first Romney, now Obama)would seem like blatant political posturing -- because it is. The man has done it before. In taking the job as Dean of CUA's law school, Kmiec was in a position to get close to the Bush administration. It was rumored in print that he was being considered for the Court of Federal Appeals in D.C., and the rumor was quickly criticized based on his pro-life jurisprudence. He shot back in <a href="http://tinyurl.com/2qk9dl">an article in the Wall Street Journal</a> in which he told his critics to judge him by his works, not his faith. Calling yourself out like that in advance of a nomination requiring Senate confirmation equals political death, and the nomination never materialized. He left CUA shortly thereafter to return to Malibu, Pepperdine, and his family who (tellingly) never permanently relocated to Washington.

I believe him when he says he wouldn't sell his soul for Wales. Surely he wouldn't compromise his pro-life position. But I don't think he is acting without regard for his future political career. Perhaps he thinks he can be an avenging Trojan Horse candidate for the conservatives. In any case, he's not advancing the political or moral authority of his Church by saying nice things about a man who is so pro-death that he made a speech on the floor of the Senate in support of letting the victims of botched abortions die of exposure. How anyone who is dedicated to the pro-life cause could lend any credence to such a ghoul as Obama is beyond me. I suppose you have to be as smart as Doug Kmiec to figure that one out.

WAC (CUA Law '04)

When I see musings as Kmiec's, I believe they really don't get it about abortion. What other law or policy in our public life has resulted in 50,000,000 deaths? 50,000,000 Doug. 50,000,000!!!! I vote for no candidate (of either party) who dips his hand into that bloody holocaust.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that quote paradoxical considering he is pooh-poohing infantcide to get a political appointment?

Doug is not only selling his soul, he's trying to entice others into sell theirs. He went on a retaliation rampage against Dr. Hudson when he protected women and children by calling out the spiritual suicide.

The number of men willing to sacrifice women and children for their political aspirations is staggering.

Now I have read Kmiec's SLATE article, and his response to Deal Hudson. Kmiec should be ashamed. He recycles the standard, worn-out claptrap so effectively peddled by Mario Cuomo, Card. Bernardin, Ted Kennedy, et al.: Throw five or ten different issues having nothing in common into one big stew, carefully omitting all relevant distinctions, and you get Democrats who take "Catholic" positions on "most" issues, and Republicans who take the "Catholic" position only on abortion.

There IS no "Catholic" position on whether the invasion of Iraq was just or unjust. Pope John Paul had an opinion. That was not and is not "the Catholic position."

Evangelium Vitae INTRODUCES the subjects of abortion and euthanasia (following a discussion of capital punishment) by making precisely the point that abortion and euthanasia belong to A RADICALLY DIFFERENT CATEGORY of violation against human dignity. Namely, they are ABSOLUTELY prohibited by the moral law, while capital punishment is not.

And the rest of so-called differences between the "Catholic" Democrat position and the Republican position are nothing but BUDGETARY differences--which are grossly exaggerated, by the way. Republicans want to kill the poor, while Democrats seek to care for "the least among us." Baloney. Claptrap. Purest bunk.

Does the Republican Party embody all that is excellent, having no fault or flaw? Of course not. Does a Catholic commit a mortal sin by voting Republican. Rarely, if ever. Does a Catholic commit a (material) grave/mortal sin by voting Democratic? I say: in concrete fact, outside of those FEW races where the Republican is pro-abortion: Almost always. There is no sound refutation of this conclusion. The only argument available is the one Kmiec peddles: the same old Republicans-want-to-kill-everybody-EXCEPT-the-unborn garbage.

Why do the laity go 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round on this question? Because those whose duty it is to speak decisively OUTSIDE the field of politics--the bishops--refuse to do so BECAUSE of their political preferences. If the bishops would defend the Blessed Sacrament from sacrilegious reception--a totally NON-political duty--the effect would be a political earthquake.

Because they fear that political earthquake, bishops refuse to carry out one of their primary GRAVE duties--which can be summed up as: obedience to Canon 915. The bishops who refuse to obey Canon 915 scandalize all the faithful. And those bishops are themselves, because they refuse to carry out this grave duty, obstinate, manifest, grave sinners, and should not receive or be given Communion. (Of course, none of them should be permitted to celebrate the Eucharist.)

No well-informed Catholic should be able to witness these bishops going through the motions of (necessarily) sacrilegious liturgies without praying, primarily, that these men will repent. It seems reasonable to suggest that a movement ought to exist among well-informed Catholics, not calling for ANY kind of disruption, but simply to refuse to be present at any liturgy that actually features the reception of Communion by pro-abortion Catholic politicians. Perhaps if a bishop in, say, Washington, at the annual Red Mass, were to find himself facing a congregation consisting of ONLY notoriously pro-abortion Catholics...

Mr. Hudson:

Catholic online has done it again by posting another heavily politically motivated Kmeic. He keeps saying that we ought to be charitable and kind meanwhile he's treating us like children. What do I mean by that? He's not sincere in proclaiming that he's 100% pro-life while supporting a 100% pro-abortion candidate. I just don't see his point in many of his arguments. He resources to this kind of accusation about the pro-life and calling us 'fanatic' so that he can shut us up. His tactic is not working well because he has an extremely weak case. He makes no sense.

I stand by your honesty and sincerity in voicing your true belief in the teaching of our Church.

Thank you very much for your work.

It is great to be a Catholic and pro-life today!

Obama's vote for partial birth abortions (Rather a no-vote against the bill) was justified in that there was already a law on the books in regard to this type of abortion. To vote for the bill would allow additional challenges to the legality of all abortions.

As it stands now, abortion is an issue of privacy, not of the rights of a unformed mass.