Pennsy bishop seeks to bar Kmiec from speaking
“Blue state, Red Bishops.” This time it is the other side of the Keystone state from Scranton’s Bishop Martino. In the Diocese of Greensburg, Bishop Lawrence E. Brandt has issued a statement decrying the invitation extended by Seton Hill University to Douglas Kmiec, to speak on campus about faith and politics. Kmiec is a prominent pro-life supporter of Barack Obama, and his reasoning for that support appears to be at the heart of the bishop’s complaint:
“As the teacher of authentic Catholic doctrine in the Diocese of Greensburg, I feel compelled to state in view of this situation that Mr. Kmiec distorts Catholic teaching by making it synonymous with his own personal views. There is no “other” Catholic position except the one which appears in authentic Church documents. His misrepresentations of Catholic doctrine do a grave disservice to the Catholic community and far beyond.
I seriously question the good judgment of the University administration in allowing him a platform on campus. [snip]
Is it any wonder then that not only the demonstrators at the event, but many others as well, consider his presentation an offensive trivialization of the institution’s declared Catholic identity!”
The bishops says he has tried “in vain” to reach the university’s president, so I don’t know the disposition of the case, or what influence/authority he has here. In any case, these episodes seem to represent a broadening of the definition of who is to be barred from Catholic property. Here is the diocesan website. The hyperlink to the statement is on the right-hand side under the “What’s New” banner.
Yikes. It’s no secret where my sympathies lie in this election, but … at some point, the bishops need to trust their people to see, pray, think, judge and act – even in the voting booth.
I want to know when the Bishop is going to go after Archbishop Egan. Egan allowed Obama to speech at the Al Smith dinner and therefore didn’t Bishop Egan disregard the”should not honor” statement in the “Catholics in Political Life of June 2004, written by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops?
I also did not like his implied encouragement for demonstrations to occur outside the College. That truly is twisted logic. The actual cause of any demonstrations will be the bishops’ own inflammatory language that has whipped up the crowds. I presume these demonstrators are obedient orthodox faithful Catholics. They are not disobedient Catholics like Kmiec. All the bishop has to do is snap his fingers and say, “No demonstrations” and they would say,” Yes Bishop” and blindly obey without question. Wouldn’t they? It seems like he’s trying to wash his hands of any responsibility if anything terrible happens at the demonstrations.
I don’t know what the Church or the United States will be like if these outrageous Bishops intimidate the faithful to vote for McCain. They might win the battle but loose the war.
What would you think of a Church if you were young and had worked your heart and soul out for Obama and your church condemned you and your candidate? How much respect would you have for it?
What would you think if you were black and the Church that had allowed slavery and discrimination against you for so long and now actively supports the opponent of the first black man that could become President of the United States? The church didn’t seem to exert such effort and pressure on your behalf when you were the weak and vulnerable ones.
.
What about the poor executed Jewish people? We didn’t seem to exert much effort on their behalf in World War Two. Now we want to elevate to sainthood the man who might have exerted pressure on their behalf.
We might all benefit by again reading Rev. Charlie Curran’s fine autobiography — “Loyal Dissent: Memoir of Catholic Theologian.” While the issues are being framed differently, academic freedom and plain old citizenship are truly being challenged in the militant assertiveness of these prelates beyond thier competencies. Perhaps this is their emotional resonse to criticisms throughout these past years on issues of their judgment in the sex abuse sccandals.
Kmiec is not just promoting a candidate he is misrepresenting Catholic teaching. Kmiec says that the Catholic position includes the idea that religious freedom counsels that abortion be legal.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kmiec17-2008oct17,0,163397.story
He also argues that the Catholic notion of subsidiarity better comports with letting a mother and her doctor decide whether to dismember a child.
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=28238&page=2
These are not only a rejection of universal Church teaching, they are preposterous, and insulting to the millions of children killed by abortion and those of us who were considered non-persons by this govermnent when we were in the womb.
The bishop has every right and responsibility to exclude that kind of teaching from Catholic forums in his diocese.
The bishops have lost the war, Clara. In discussing the authority of the bishop in his diocese we cited Canon Law which has no scriptural foundation. Neither does it have an unbroken tradition. These kind of bishops have lost their moral force and should lose their funding and support. They are only into condemning abortion, contraceptives and homosexuals. http://www.c-fam.org/ Their voice is way in the background for the poor and downtrodden, the principal constituents of Jesus. They are more into dogma than living the gospel. More into controlling liturgy than proclaiming the good news to the people. They have lost their way because they have lost “The Way.”
People are losing homes, jobs and their health. Yet these guys have myopic focus.
The time will come when they will lose total support. Financially and otherwise.
Here is what I think the “one issue” bishops are missing. Faithful Citizenship has to be accompanied by an accounting of Faithful Stewardship, a recognition that there is a social compact between citizens and government that does not impose all of the price for ethical voting on the backs of voters, with no expectation that their values — all their values — will be given due consideration. What did values voters get in exchange for their presidential votes for Bush in 2000 and 2004? Mostly, they got tax reductions for people who would no sooner vote based on values (other than dollar values) than they would fly coach, and a war that many if not most opposed. If the other party hadn’t been so hard nosed, they might have had to endure the collapse of any notion of a comfortable retirement in the loss or diminution of Social Security benefits. Now, their economic situation is even worse and promises to get a lot worse before it gets better, and many may doubt the future that their children will inherit.
This is not a seamless garment argument; it is an argument for understanding that a party (or government) that does not put the people who gave it power first has not earned the right to expect re-election, however much it may may pay lip service to their underlying values. I don’t think it takes anything away from the importance of abortion as an issue to hold elected officials accountable for their conduct.
The Bishops have no right to be disappointed in their members. Their complaint should be with those who squandered an opportunity to be better than they needed to be under the circumstances. Where is the expression of that moral outrage?
Kmiec is not just promoting a candidate he is misrepresenting Catholic teaching. Kmiec says that the Catholic position includes the idea that religious freedom counsels that abortion be legal.
He also argues that the Catholic notion of subsidiarity better comports with letting a mother and her doctor decide whether to dismember a child.
Matt,
You read things very differently than I do. On the matter of religious freedom and the legality of abortion, Kmiec says:
He is saying that sometimes it is impossible in a democratic country to arrive at a consensus, and when that happens, the best you can do is “leave space.” John Paul II, in Evangelium Vitae, allows for the possibility that sometimes existing laws cannot be overwritten:
On subsidiarity, I believe you have completely distorted what Kmiec said, which is
He is rejecting the arguments for both McCain and Obama’s positions. I read him to say that from a certain standpoint an argument can be made that Obama’s position is better, but he is not making that argument because he understands the Constitution to guarantee the right to life. So I believe you attributed to him a position he is actually not endorsing but rejecting.
This story particularly interests me because I am an alum of Seton Hill. Doug Kmiec doesn’t even show up on the college’s slate of upcoming events. I wonder why Bishop Brandt has issued this statement, especially implying that Dr. Boyle is avoiding him. I completely recognize the Bishop’s authority over Seton Hill, but something seems really…strange about this. He is responding to receiving word on October 21 of an invitation, and in less than a day issues this? Less than a day trying to reach Dr. Boyle is trying in vain?
David your interpretations don’t do the job. Also, Kmiec has made the religious freedom argument elsewhere. It’s out of bounds.
“I completely recognize the Bishop’s authority over Seton Hill”
Canonically, I’d be surprised if the bishop has direct authority. Most Catholic universities are legally independent of the church. The bishop can “decry” the event and reach out to the university president but most likely, the university can decide on its own.
It does bring up issues that we’ve discussed here in the past about Catholic colleges and their Catholic identity.
Along those lines, my own opinion is that the format of the event matters. If Kmiec’s appearance simply amounts to a campaign commercial, I think the college’s critics would be justified in protesting. If it’s done in the context of discussion, debate, consideration – that is to say, as an exercise in thinking and learning – I’d think it would make more sense.
What job is that, Mr. Bowman? Making sense or convincing you? Those two things are evidently not the same. If you have arguments against Mr. Nickol’s interpretation, please present them; no one here — no, not even Doug Kmiec — is above scrutiny. But facile mischaracterizations of Kmiec’s position do not help your cause, or ours.
Never mind. According to the news he was there, without the college’s official endorsement (he was invited by a club), but wasn’t at all on the calendar or mentioned on the college’s website.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_594738.html
It strikes me as rather ironic that none — not one! — of these “prophets” among the bishops who feel it is their divinely bestowed duty to tell the faithful how to vote was ever heard to raise his voice during the terrible Priest Pedophile crises that we suffered as an American Church. i would like to see any of them — even one! — offer to surrender tax exemption for his diocese. Now, that would be prophetic! Other tax-exempt non-profit organizations are prohibited by law from endorsing candidates for political office. I dare them: walk the talk…for a change!
I enjoyed this blog because of the mutually respectful atmosphere. But with the approach of the elections, the tone is increasingly stringent and the tolerant discussions have all but disappeared. I quit reading it until after Nov. 4.
Hi David Nickol,
I agree that Matt Bowman overstated Kmiec’s position, but isn’t this something new from Kmiec? What I’ve read from him before, he never seemed to say that abortion is a religious issue and maybe we don’t need to restrict it. I think JPII is talking about supporting laws that would restrict abortion, but not make it illegal. Whereas Kmiec seems to be giving up.
I posted an article by George McKenna here a few weeks back, and I’ll just summarize it for a moment: if a candidate took as his/her motto: tolerate, restrict, discourage abortion, then that would be a pro-life position. In an other words, even if we recognize that Roe is going to be with us for a long time, shouldn’t we at least try to narrow it? Kmiec seems to be giving up on this idea.
I am astounded by the lack of unity from the bishops. What does that really say and how does that serve the church and teachings, to be openly so strident and not pastoral? At least that is how I experience them, especially Martino.
As I study Faithful Citizenship I keep coming back to the fact that single issue is not the way to vote. I will have to make my peace with God when that moment comes.
As for the ongoing demonization of Douglas Kmiec and others, it is not very forgive your enemy, turn the cheek behavior.
And like Ken Lovasik aptly points out, there was never this kind of outcry during the scandal! I also liked what Clara said about Egan and the Al Smith dinner.
Rick Garnett has also noticed that Kmiec seems to have changed his position in this LA Times piece: http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2008/10/chaput-kmiec-an.html
GOOD EVENING,
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY AT FIRST THAT I HAVE MET THE BISHOP IN PERSON SEVERAL TIMES. HE IS A PERSON WHOM YOU CAN TALK TO.
NOW, THIS LITTLE UPROAR CONCERNING A PERSON’S VIEWS IS CRAZY GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE GREENSBURG DIOCESE HIRED A NON-CATHOLIC TO BE THE HEAD OF ST.VINCENT COLLEGE. IT SEEMS THAT THERE IS A DOUBLE STANDARD HERE.
THE BISHOP’S WANT TO SILENCE ONE PERSON’S VIEW BUT THEN AGAIN THEY ARE TELLING CATHOLICS TO VOTE 1 ISSUE WHILE IGNORING THE FACT THAT THEY WANT CATHOLICS TO VOTE FOR AN ANTI-CATHOLIC CANDIDATE. LET ALONE HIS RUNNING MATE HAS HER HEAD IN THE ALASKAN SKY LIKE PUTIN ACCORDING TO HER WHEN PUTIN GETS UP HIS HEAD IS IN ALASKAN SKIES. BOY WHAT A PAIR OF AIRHEADS.
OUR NATION RUNS ON MORE THAN 1 ISSUE. THE LAST ADMINISTRATION MADE OUR GREAT COUNTRY LOOK LIKE A BULLY TO THE REST OF THE WORLD. NOW WE HAVE OUR BISHOPS TELLING US HOW TO VOTE. DOES THIS MAKE THE BISHOPS OR THE RELIGIOUS IN CHARGE OF RUNNING OUR GREAT COUNTRY?
IF THE RELIGIOUS ARE IN CHARGE THEN WE ARE THE HEW MIDDLE EAST.
The vacuity of the Catholic bishops is never clearer than when one reads words such as these: “The United States is battered and drifting after eight years of President Bush’s failed leadership. He is saddling his successor with two wars, a scarred global image and a government systematically stripped of its ability to protect and help its citizens — whether they are fleeing a hurricane’s floodwaters, searching for affordable health care or struggling to hold on to their homes, jobs, savings and pensions in the midst of a financial crisis that was foretold and preventable.”
They are bereft of any conscience with reference to the above. Most of them need to resign for the good of the church.
The depletion of Catholic social teaching ever since the phobic repression of Liberation Theology has now reached the point where bishops can only rant obsessively on a single topic. If the bishops had their hands on the lever of power they would outlaw all abortions, treating even the morning-after pill as murder. This may be logically consistent, but it is so irresponsive to social reality as to verge on the insane.
Mr. Boudway would like an explanation. Doug Kmiec says that “when there are differences among religious creeds, none is entitled to be given preference in law or policy.” That is radically false. It is never, not “sometimes,” true that because of religious freedom “the law must simply leave space for the exercise of individual judgment” to allow baby murder, nor that allowing the butchery of children is preferable or a “political ideal,” according to Catholic teaching. The EV quote David uses is irrelevant. If a legisator can, maybe, barely vote for a law that only limits the harm, it is, by definition, not something the law must allow, not a political ideal, and not something the law is entitled to do in the situation.
Kmiec thinks that keeping baby killing legal is preferable from a standpoint of subsidiarity, a Catholic concept. But that is impossible under the Catholic concept of subsidiarity. Kmiec also thinks as a *constitutional* matter baby killing should not be legal, but as a *Catholic subsidiarity* issue he thinks legality is preferable. It’s as wrong as wrong can be.
Oh, and let’s not forget the perpetration of this falsehood by Commonweal itself:
“In a thoughtful chapter on issues of church and state, Korzen and Kelley demonstrate how emphasizing anti-Roe strategies alone sits uneasily with the church’s promise of religious freedom to all in Vatican II’s Dignitatis humanae (1965).”
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=2339
Can’t wiggle out of this one. It only “sits uneasily” for someone who has a perverse, death-deferential view of both religious freedom and abortion law. That’s a view, by the way, that is contradicted by Church teaching.
The contributors here love to throw responsibility on other people. Archbishop Chaput is responsible for the denial of Kmeic communion, Prof. Kaveny insists. http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=2045
I have a simpler proposition. Profs. Kmiec, Cafardi, Kaveny and Peñalver, each in their own contributions, are responsible for the babies that will be murdered under policies and personnel appointments Obama signs, but that would not have been murdered under McCain’s vetos and appointments, because of them claiming to represent a Catholic position while not telling people up front that they reject the Church’s universal teaching on abortion, and instead trying to convince Catholics that a vote for Obama is just the status quo and obstinately omitting mention of Obama’s massive increase in abortion by decimating pro-life laws.
My proposition also has the advantage of being direct and egregious. The denial of communion to Kmiec was unknown to Chaput and was hundreds of miles away, and no one was murdered, not even one.
Kmiec is all the less entitled to speak in Catholic venues when he goes around publicly rejecting Church teaching while claiming to represent it to get Catholics to vote for his candidate.
This is probably a dumb question and maybe not even relevant to the thread, but it seems like all the emphasis in abortion prevention is on damage control once the pregnancy has occurred. If more emphasis was placed on preventing unwanted pregnanvy, abortions would be reduced. Just wondering why that’s not often addressed.
JC, thanks for the link to the LATimes piece–it’s a good point for debate.
Matt, you do continue to be “direct and egregious,” and than cannot continue if you want to continue here.
DavidG–is your objection that I am calling abortion murder, or that I suggest like Prof. Kaveny that people are responsible for the effects of what they advocate, or that I have argued that Prof. Kmiec can be excluded by a Bishop because he rejects and confuses Church teaching?
or is your objection that I say Commonweal is responsible for the things it publishes?
Matt, your language is inflammatory and your assigning of responsibility for heinous acts is irresponsible. We are all responsible for what we say and do, and that includes you. So cool it.
DavidG–you have assigned a lot names to my comment above and I am interested to know what your specific objection is–calling abortion murder, suggest like Prof. Kaveny that people are responsible for the effects of what they advocate,arguing that Prof. Kmiec can be excluded by a Bishop because he rejects and confuses Church teaching, or saying Commonweal is responsible for publishing Kmiec’s rejection of Church teaching?
Mr. Bowman,
I’m afraid you don’t get the job done either, though you’ve certainly done a job on Kmiec.
I am prolife, anti-Roe, and deeply concerned about what would happen if FOCA were enacted. I believe abortion is a grave injustice and that the abortion-on-demand regime has done great harm to the country — and not only to its immediate victims. I would like to see it end, as soon as possible. But I know that as-soon-as-possible may not be soon. Even the election of a president for whom the prolife cause was a primary concern would not be enough. Even the reversal of Roe, a necessary condition for any substantial reform of our abortion laws, will not be enough: this will simply throw it back to state legislatures, which will do the will of the people; and the will of the people is not now what you or I or the bishops would like it to be. In a democracy, there is no getting around public opinion. Our first priority (and our only hope) is persuasion. You won’t persuade many Catholics who disagree with you by threatening them with hellfire, and you will persuade no non-Catholics — on the contrary, you will alienate people who might have listened to the many good arguments the prolife movement can make. Given what’s at stake, your impatience is understandable, but it is not quite excusable, especially where it turns into presumption and malice, as it does in your brazen misconstrual of Kmiec’s arguments.
Now, I do not agree with everything Kmiec has written or said, and I think that even his best arguments have not always been expressed as precisely as they might be. Their ambiguity has allowed them to be mined by you, and others like you, for political ammunition. But let’s go through the points you raise one by one, and ask ourselves what Kmiec probably meant — I understand why you may not find this method expedient, but perhaps you will agree it is at least fair and charitable.
First, you fault Kmiec for writing that “when there are differences among religious creeds, none is entitled to be given preference in law or policy.” This is not “radically false.” It is at worst incompletely true. I take Kmiec to be saying here that if abortion were only a religious controversy, then it would be a matter of indifference to public policy in the United States; and this is true as far as it goes, as Archbishop Chaput — and I hope any other bishop — would acknowledge. But abortion is not only a religious controversy, even if many people still think of it that way. It is a matter of basic justice, which is, or ought to be, the primary concern of the state. The bishops are not entitled by virtue of their ecclesial authority to dictate public policy according to a creed. Their argument against abortion — our argument against abortion — does not depend on their authority or on our creed, and it must not be treated as if it did. Again, there is no getting around public opinion, and you will not convince the many Americans who need to be convinced on this issue by insisting they defer to the local chancery, whether or not they are Catholic. So Kmiec is merely remarking on an indisputable fact: No creed is entitled to be given preference in law or policy, and there happen to be differences among religious creeds about abortion. This, however, should be irrelevant to the political discussion, where what counts is not revelation but reasoned arguments about justice. So make some.
Second, your interpretation of Kmiec’s statement about subsidiarity is, to say the least, uncharitable. The phrase “one can make an argument that” is not interchangeable with “I am willing to make the argument that.” Kmiec is playing one possible argument against his own, which is that the Constitution, rightly understood, guarantees the inalienable right to life — to all human beings, whatever their stage of development or condition of dependency. That guarantee will not be enforced until there is a consensus behind it, and you will not recover the consensus that Roe helped to destroy simply by reversing Roe. It is much easier to knock a house down than to rebuild it.
Maybe Kmiec’s LA Times column was not only too imprecise but also too nuanced, inasmuch as it invited an opportunistic misreading like yours.
You overlooked the Korzen and Kelly review.
You overlooked the Korzen and Kelly review.
Matt,
Kmiec says in the review
Note that Kmiec is talking about “emphasizing anti-Roe strategies alone,” which I believe is what some of the bishops, and perhaps even all of them (through FC) are doing. What is going on now is not a debate about whether or not there should be fewer abortions. It is a debate about how to reduce the number of abortions. Kmiec and others who believe the anti-Roe strategy is not working, and that additional approaches need to be tried, are not being criticized regarding their position on abortion per se. They are being criticized because they do not buy into the belief that the only correct approach is to elect a president who is likely to nominate judges to the Supreme Court who are likely to overturn Roe.
In short, the bishops are not merely saying what the role of government should be (to stop abortions), they are dictating how that should be done, and they are demanding Catholics vote in accord with their preferred political strategy.
Consider what the reaction would be if instead of the bishops saying health care was a right, they said it was mandatory to vote for universal health care for all Americans by expanding Medicare coverage to everyone.
It seems to me the discussion has gone past abortion and is now about what the law ought to be in the United States, how to achieve the change in the law, and how Catholics must vote in order to achieve the changes the bishops want.
I would argue that in addition to what Kmiec says, emphasizing the anti-Roe strategy alone ignores Catholic teaching. I always quote this paragraph from the Declaration on Procured Abortion, and I will quote it one more time:
The “anti-Roe alone strategy” totally ignores that aspect of Catholic teaching, which conservative “pro-life” politicians (and the people who vote for them) would never support. And instead the entire emphasis is on a very long-term approach of overturning Roe v Wade, which apparently even those who conclude is impossible are required by the bishops to support.
I have had discussions with people who are so committed to the anti-Roe strategy that they would favor criminalizing abortion even if that would increase the number of abortions. They would consider an increase in the total number of abortions, legal and illegal, to be a victory, just so long as the number of legal abortions declined. That does not seem to me to be a “pro-life” argument. The law may be a teacher, but when more emphasis is placed on the law saying the right thing than on people doing the right thing, I can only be appalled.
I’ll grant that an anti-Roe alone strategy is inconsistent with Church teaching (it’s not what anyone advocates now, and Kmiec knows it–the undisputed choice is in this election is anti-Roe and anti-FOCA and anti-anti-Hyde and anti-anti-Mexico-City and anti-anti-pro-life-pregnancy-centers etc., etc., etc.).
But even considering anti-Roe alone. How in any way does that “sit uneasily” with religious freedom?
And how can you defend what Korzen and Kelley themselves say about the alleged tension between abortion’s illegality and religious freedom?
You don’t make the nexus. Because there is none. It is not in any way true that keeping abortion legal respects religious freedom.
Your and Mr. Boudway’s concerns simply highlight the problem. Kmiec rejected Church teaching on these points. Only with highly strained and extra-contextual efforts can you even attempt to rehabilitate those statements something rather confusing than dissenting. Kmiec has made many statements before and after these, and received criticism along these specific lines, and rather than clarify that he does not reject Church teaching he just continues to issue more inscrutable comments of the same kind. Fellow Obama Catholic advocates openly reject extremely similar teachings, such as that abortion is murder and must be illegal (see Prof. Peñalver).
But it is the Bishop’s job to make sure people don’t confuse the faithful in his diocese on important issues that are universally taught by the Church. Even if you are right in defending Kmiec (with all your great effort), the Bishop was perfectly within his responsibility to exclude Kmiec, and a man who has made such a persistent mess of Catholic teaching in this area would have no right to complain of the attempted exclusion.
I also want to thank Mr. Boudway for establishing that it is legitimate for the contributors on this blog to engage in name-calling. I count at least eight names he hurled at me above, and several other insinuations independent of my argument. It is ironic, however, for him to do it in the context of criticizing me for supposedly doing the same thing.
And how can you defend what Korzen and Kelley themselves say about the alleged tension between abortion’s illegality and religious freedom?
Matt,
An absolute ban on abortions would definitely deny some people religious freedom. Within Judaism, abortion is permitted and, some would even argue, mandatory under certain circumstances when the life of the mother is threatened. The Catholic Church imposes an absolute ban among its own members. Would you be willing to grant certain religious exceptions if Roe is overturned, or would you insist that only an absolute ban would do?
DavidN: I do appreciate that you state the position so clearly: If religions allow or require abortion, making it illegal violates their religious freedom, *as understood by the Catholic Church and Dignitatis Humanae*. That is a clear position. It is the position we have gotten from Kmiec and Korzen and Kelley. All I tried to say above is that it is their position, and in response I received strenuous denials. But it is what they said–indeed, it is hard to imagine what else they could have meant. I am glad now that you have stated it in a way we can discuss it.
This position is not at all compatible with religious freedom as understood by the Catholic Church and Dignitatis Humanae. Nothing in the Catholic understanding suggests that people’s religious beliefs allowing the killing of innocent human beings trumps the duty to protect innocent human beings from being intentionally killed. On the contrary–the Church says that it is urgently necessary to protect innocent human beings from being intentionally killed, and in fact she says that nothing could be more fundamental, because don’t the innocent children have religious freedom too? And this is a requirement not just of revelation, but of the natural law and basic human rights. The Church and her bishops could not be more clear on this point. If someone thinks she is not clear on it, that maybe religious freedom does “sit uneasily” with making abortion illegal, and that someone goes around publishing the point and saying he is presenting a legitimate Catholic viewpoint, then a Bishop unquestionably has the right and responsibility to intervene and make sure his flock is not subjected to this person’s argument made in a Catholic venue in his diocese.
As for life of the mother situations, the double effect principle gives us a way to treat the lives equally and not directly and intentionally kill one to save the other. But I think this is a different issue than the religious freedom point.
Mr. Bowman,
I said one should not insult the people one is trying to convince. A simple enough rule and incontrovertible, I should think. The purpose of my last comment in this thread was not to convince you but to rebuke you for bad-faith arguments and bad manners.
David Nickol is free (and welcome) to express his opinion on this blog. You, however, are not free to pretend that David Nickol and Douglas Kmiec are the same person. Nickol does not speak for Kmiec, and he does not pretend to speak for Kmiec. The identification of his position with Kmiec’s is entirely your work.
Again, Kmiec’s arguments are not unanswerable — and they are not arguments made on behalf of Commonweal – but they admit of more than one interpretation (that, one could argue, is part of the problem). Kmiec never said that “religious freedom does ‘sit uneasily’ with making abortion illegal.” What he wrote was: “Korzen and Kelley demonstrate how emphasizing anti-Roe strategies alone sits uneasily with the church’s promise of religious freedom to all in Vatican II’s Dignitatis humanae.” I wouldn’t have put it that way myself, but in the context of the other things Kmiec has said or written, it seems likely that he was here referring to the mistaken idea that once Roe is reversed the church will automatically get its way, which is simply not so. If we succeed in getting rid of Roe, as we must hope (but not expect) to, then we will be left with the problem of building up a new consensus, one based not on Catholic theology but on arguments available to Americans of every — or no — faith. His point, I think, is not that religious pluralism is itself incompatible with laws protecting the unborn. His point is that those who imagine that, because the Supreme Court created this problem, it can also impose a satisfactory solution to it are failing to consider many things — including the fact that most Americans, for reasons religious or nonreligious, do not agree with the church’s teaching on this very important question. It’s your job and mine to persuade them. You are wrong to imagine you can get the laws you want before you do.
See John Allen’s column at NCR today, about bringing folks on both sides together post eelection to promote not only Catholic tradition but develop candidates sympathetic thereto.
Of course, I beleive, that post-election we’ll need to find a way forward.
The cotinuous deep division manifested at this site on this topic gives me less hope that Allen’s desire is genuinely accheivable; it’s like NPLC promoting dialogue but not touching “neuralgic” issues.
There needs be a change in how folk appraoch each other.
Matt,
My question to you was the following: “Would you be willing to grant certain religious exceptions [for example, for a Jewish woman whose life is in danger if she does not have an abortion] if Roe is overturned, or would you insist that only an absolute ban would do?”
Also, are you saying that religious freedom in the United States must be religious freedom “as understood by the Catholic Church and Dignitatis Humanae”? If only the Catholic Church gets to define what is and is not religious freedom, and if American Jews or American Lutherans disagree with that definition, how in the world can that be called religious freedom?
And Matthew Boudway is correct. I don’t pretend to speak for Doug Kmiec. I am just commenting on what I interpret him to be saying, and although I don’t pretend to be any kind of expert on his thought, I can tell that in some cases you are distorting what he says, as when you interpreted “one can make an argument that the Obama position is preferable” to mean, “I, Doug Kmiec, am making an argument that the Obama position is preferable.”
Mr. Boudway: DavidN reached a reasonable conclusion on what he interprets Kmiec to be saying. It just happens to agree with me and disagree with you (and by the way, it happens to correspond to Prof. Garnett’s interpretation). If the interpretation is worthy of the caliber of name-calling you have used (“bad-faith arguments,” “presumption”, “brazen misconstrual”, “mined … for political ammunition”, not “fair and charitable,” “opportunistic misreading,” “a job”), that is a broad-sweeping judgment (but not the first by contributors to this blog).
Kmiec’s statements “admit of more than one interpretation (that, one could argue, is part of the problem).”
A slight understatement.
“are you saying that religious freedom in the United States must be religious freedom as understood by the Catholic Church and Dignitatis Humanae?”
If someone postures himself as presenting a legitimate Catholic position on religious freedom, the Bishop has every right to restrict his use of Catholic venues in his diocese if his comments “admit of more than one interpretation”. Of course, I am also saying that religious freedom has an objective meaning–that’s why the Church believes what it believes about it. But that’s not the issue here.
I “imagine [I] can get the laws [I] want before [I]” persuade Americans.
No “presumption” or “brazen misconstrual” of my views here. One good turn deserves another, I guess.
Actually, the multitude of pro-life laws to be struck down and forbidden by FOCA have already been passed by Americans, and Americans are waiting to restrict abortion much more but Roe won’t let them.
Yes, Matt, that’s right: “a broad-sweeping judgment,” which you have invited with your reckless arguments and indendiary language. Mr. Garnett has made a good case against some of Kmiec’s arguments. You have accused Kmiec and others of blood-guilt for disagreeing with you about whether a Catholic may vote for Obama in this election. There is a difference, and you do not have to be an Obama supporter to recognize it.
Fair enough–it’s nice to get it on the table.
“ … at some point, the bishops need to trust their people to see, pray, think, judge and act – even in the voting booth.”
Oh, do you mean like this one: http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/717708397.html
Jimmy Mac: I don’t understand — seems like that’s the opposite of what Jim Pauwels was calling for. How distressing (the news, and the writeup you linked to).
Bishop Gracida’s use of Obama’s middle name is a nice touch. He places himself in the very select group that has chosen to go that route. Maybe he can record some robocalls.