Joseph Bottum Goes For “Strange New Respect”

Saturday, August 24, AD 2013

Patron Saint of Opportunists



Former editor of First Things Joseph Bottum, before he got canned in 2010, writes a truly vapid and interminable essay at Commonweal in which he comes out for Gay marriage.  I am not going to link to it.  The writing is atrocious and the thinking behind it worse.  The Henry Luce Foundation that paid for it should demand their 30 pieces of silver back.    Bottum I assume is going for the ever lucrative conservative apostate market.  There are always people willing to reward conservatives who, unafraid not to be able to look square in the mirror when they shave, are ready to give the heave ho to what they purported to believe.  Old friend of this blog Richard Rich Douglas Kmiec, former ambassador to Malta, can perhaps give Joe tips about the rewards that await turncoats.  Damon Linker, until now having cornered the market for First Things apostacy, is no doubt green with envy!

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Joseph Bottum Goes For “Strange New Respect”

  • The two cases are somewhat different.

    It is difficult to believe Linker was aught but a fraud who collected a salary from the Institute on Religion and Public Life while compiling material for a book denouncing that enterprise. If you followed some of the online debates Linker got mixed up in, you got to marvel that a lapsed professor of political theory who had spent four years on the editorial staff of publication not pitched to simpletons was less than deft attempting to argue with obscure professors (Joseph Knippenberg) and assorted laymen. It was difficult to understand what Neuhaus ever saw in him; the Editorial Board reportedly attempted to dissuade Neuhaus from promoting him, to no avail. Linker could never get an academic department to hire him for longer than two years; maybe they got a good idea of his talents. (Rod Dreher fancies he’s a decent chap).

    The Joseph Bottum story is much more obscure. He was rather more a generic Republican than the other editors (he comes from a prominent political family in South Dakota and was employed primarily for Rupert Murdoch’s Weekly Standard) and made some curious editorial choices while editor. After the Institute axed him, he moved to Rapid City – not having lived in South Dakota for a generation – and went about attempting to make a living as a free lance writer. I hope he gets ad copy commissions because it is difficult to figure how you make a living at that otherwise; Joseph Sobran ended his days as a ward of the Commonwealth of Virginia. I suspect that he is, like a great many people, just too bloody other-directed.

  • Don, there’s been a lot of pondering lately as to what has happened in the last five years in particular and 50 years in general that have caused so many to doubt their faith and bedrock beliefs. Some including myself have talked about historical events like elements of the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, Modernism, the 1960s etc. However, while all of this is true, I think our biggest problem is that we live in an era of “disbelief.” We have thrown out dogma and mystery for hyper technology. People line up for days at their local techy store to await some midnight release of this device or that believing it will give them all matter of answers about life. Jesus told us we couldn’t serve two masters and sadly we see another prophetic example of His teachings.

    The faithful need the kind of zeal displayed by hyped up sports fans before a big game. Yet, too many of the faithful (leadership included) are afraid to be disliked so they refuse to take a stand and sadly the people lose their faith and their vision. As I have stated in my various articles and books, I do believe the Church is much better off in 2013 than 1973, even as society grows ever closer to tumbling over the precipice. Prayer and courage are needed lest more people lose their faith.

  • If and when my loved one leaves the “lifestyle” he wiil face the jeering from that side. Many people can only make their own leap back knowing that love is the true mark of a Christian

  • I was saddened to see this. I became acquainted with Jody when be commissioned an article for my book on Doctors in the Movies for the Weekly Standard. Later he was instrumental in the publication of my book on Christians in the Movies by Rowman and Littlefield and wrote an excellent foreword for it. He was very close to Richard Neuhaus. i wonder what Father Neuhaus would have said about his current stance– another of many reasons that he is sorely missed..

  • Well that’s a decade of my life I’m never getting back.

    One wonders if the Luce Foundation pays as much per word as the Wall Street Journal.

    All right, enough snark. That was a depressing read. Bottum’s naivete is particularly galling in light of the fact that this was published days after the New Mexico Supreme Court case. He actually has convinced himself that if we just surrender on this one little issue, then homosexuals and same sex marriage supporters will stop hating the Catholic Church, and we can all just move along now. I wonder what other fairy tales he believes in.

    Also, I must ask in all seriousness – he was an editor? At one point in the article I thought he might start talking about what he ate for breakfast. There’s certainly room for personal anecdotes in such a piece, but couldn’t he have edited down by about half and still made roughly the same point?

  • Never had much use for a grown man who calls himself “Jody” (sort of like a 40-something year old man who still calls himself “Chipper”, but that’s more about me hating the Atlanta Braves than it is anything else).

    But I do have to confess that I very much enjoyed Bottums’ suggestion that Dougie Kmiec do anatomically impossible things to himself in response to Dougie’s self-serving “eulogy” of Fr. Neuhaus.

  • If I had a surname like his I would have chosen a different subject on which to comment.

  • This is one(of scores) reason I wake up each morning and thank God Almighty that I am not an intellectual.

  • I skimmed the article, and it only took me six years, Paul. But at no point does he ever seem to make an argument for gay marriage. He says that the fight is over; he (maybe correctly) cites gay marriage as the “cost” for the Catholic sex abuse scandal. He talks a lot about stuff, boring stuff mostly. He says that the natural law argument is weak (although I don’t remember him pointing to specific weaknesses in it). The subtitle of the article is “A Catholic’s Case for Same-Sex Marriage”, but the article isn’t interested in making the case, only giving up on making the opposing case.

    The only thing I found truly offensive in it is that he thinks that gay marriage may lead to improvements in chastity, love, and family. You can argue the latter two if you want to, although, again, you’d have to actually argue them rather than just walking by them nodding. But that first one: how do you argue that gay marriage might lead to chastity, in any Catholic understanding of the word? It is nearly the exact opposite.

  • The man got a grant from the Luce Foundation to write this article. I guess the ad copy work has dried up.

    Fr. Neuhaus said Midge Decter used to tell him, “You don’t think low enough”.

  • Pingback: Pope Francis and Fatima -
  • People writing as angrily as Mr. McLarey miss at least one (maybe the only) point in Bottom’s essay. He is genuinely pained by the experience of homosexuals regards marriage and the Catholic Church. Some writers are making fun of the sentiment but it appears genuinely held. Attacking a very long (for the web) essay with a paragraph of “atrocious” “turncoat” “pieces of silver” etc. does not come across as serious.

  • “Where we’re going with all this is toward a claim that the thin notions of natural law deployed against same-sex marriage in recent times are unpersuasive, and, what’s more, they deserve to be unpersuasive—for their thinness reflects their lack of rich truth about the spiritual meanings present in this created world.”

    “…after the long hard work of restoring cultural sensitivity to the metaphysical meanings reflected in all of reality, Catholics will have enough experience to decide what measure of the deep spirituality of nuptials, almost absent in present culture, can reside in same-sex unions.”

    “I believe in a thick natural law.”

    I’ll leave my commentary on the intellectual content of his essay to the minnions:

    As for Bottums himself, he appears as either one of two things. He may simply be a confused man who has not thought through the basic positions involved in the subject. He goes part-way in confessing this in the essay. “…I went along with them on same-sex marriage mostly because I lacked the seriousness and strength of mind to work through it for myself.” The arguments, or lack thereof, in this essay show that not much has changed for him.
    He could also be of that sort that knows in his heart what is right, and knows intellectually what the real, non-straw-man arguments are, but doesn’t like their conclusions. Or perhaps it’s the company he would be keeping if he fully embraced those conclusions. You don’t get invited to all the cool parties if all the cool people know you’re a medieval Christian reactionary.
    Whichever his faults, he tucks them nicely under the worn blanket of nuance. With nuance he could be confused, a coward, or both since it yields the same result; not doing the hard things.
    At least Bottums will get invited to all the right cocktail parties now.

  • “does not come across as serious”

    Much more serious than that stream of consciousness drivel that Mr. Bottum inflicted on the reading public ec. His pain is truly newfound since he had no problem defending traditional marriage when he was paid to do it as editor of First Things.

  • “At least Bottums will get invited to all the right cocktail parties now.”

    “I have known a human defended from strong temptations to social ambition by a still stronger taste for tripe and onions.”

    CS Lewis, Screwtape Letters

  • He is genuinely pained by the experience of homosexuals regards marriage and the Catholic Church. Some writers are making fun of the sentiment

    Funny thing about that.

  • “… but for Wales, Richard.”

  • What is very striking is that nowhere in his lengthy article does Mr Bottom touch on the heart of the issue.

    It is a fact that every jurisdiction that has introduced same-sex marriage has also permitted human gametes to be treated as articles of commerce or tolerated a market in babies, bespoke or prêt-à-porter through surrogate gestation, assisted reproduction and joint adoption by same-sex couples.

    In France, the commission established by the National Assembly, “the Mission of Inquiry on the Family and the Rights of Children” (usually referred to as the Pécresse Commission, after its rapporteure) reported in 2006 that “The link between marriage and filiation is so close that the question of making marriage accessible is inseparable from that of making adoption and medically assisted conception accessible. This link was acknowledged by almost all witnesses, whether they were in favour of or opposed to developments in this area.”

    In this, they were prescient; the recent legislation does authorize both SSM and joint adoption by same-sex couples. In that country, opposition to SSM, much of it secular, stemmed from the belief that it would erode the ethical principle, enshrined in the law of France, that children cannot be made the subject and source of a transaction, restricting joint adoption to (opposite-sex) married couples and declaring that the human body, its parts and products cannot be the subject of a patrimonial right. In this, I believe they are absolutely right.

    Mr Bottom could do with a spot of Gallic logic.

  • Fathom the depth, breadth and height of meaning of the human activity known as marital, conjugal, um, nuptial (oh, how many of these adjectives do I need to make my meaning clear?), ‘honest’ sexual intercourse.

    It is the arch between the pillars of the two sexes, each of which “hold up half the sky”. It is the generating driveshaft working mightily between this generation and the next one; thus, between 10,000 generations past, and (God grant) 10,000 generations to come. It is a holy Communion between Heaven and Earth, since by it we obey God’s first command, conjure Eden anew, and invoke upon ourselves His Eden blessings. It is a constitutive element of a holy Sacrament which — in any Creed and even for the creedless — is still a natural covenant recognized, by being solemnized, in every civilization, in every century, on every inhabited continent.

    This intercourse is a connector between male and female generative organs (am I still allowed to say that?) and makes solid, mutually resonating sense of male and female anatomy and physiology. This intercourse breeds — bless it, breeds immortal beings. The close study of its cells, tissues, organs and systems invokes awe; even in videos it thrills our little ones and, alike, their elders on whose laps they rest. Seeing this, we’ve see and sense wonders equal to a billion galaxies: and we sense it in our own flesh!

    Fecund phraseology? Still, you know what I’m talking about.

    It seems to me that one of the sad and disappointing things about homosexual relations is that they reduce the two participants to a kinds of nut/nut or bolt/bolt absurdity. Clunk. Thud-headed. Where’s the sense in this sensation?

    Now speaketh the Bride:
    High must be the chamber –
    Make it high, you builders!
    A bridegroom’s coming –
    Like the War-god himself, the tallest of the tall!

    Same-sex relations take the whole grand architecture of sexual differentiation and divide it by zero.

    “Immanentize the Eschaton,” did somebody say?

    I say, Immanentize the Epithalamion.

  • I probably shouldn’t be but I’m still curious. By what creative mechanism does someone who ought to know better and certainly understands the distinction between prudential judgment and defined moral precepts, one day wake up and decide that prudential judgments are too restrictive for the purview of their conscience? I can understand that when one is outside the Church but once you acknowledge you are not your own vicar then how do you ever arrive at usurping that authority as if it’s open to discussion on a case by case basis? Crazy apostates.

  • echarles1 – Concern for the individual person, homosexual or heterosexual, is a good thing. No one’s faulting Bottum for that. But concern is not an argument, for gay marriage or for anything else. Indeed, concern for the individual should drive him to be more outspoken in defense of the teachings of the Church, because those teachings can steer all of us toward God. His essay muddies things up for the people who are under attack by our messed-up society. Those who would give up some truth out of a sense of love will lose both.

  • Indeed, concern for the individual should drive him to be more outspoken in defense of the teachings of the Church, because those teachings can steer all of us toward God.

    If you suggest someone has to adhere to a standard that requires some discipline and is not defined by the social work/psychotherapeutic trade, you are not feeling their pain. Recall that the exchange between the bourgeois and the homosexual is one of mutual ego satisfactions, affirmation for opportunities for self-congratulation.

Obama Can Count on Kmiec!

Wednesday, September 5, AD 2012



My good friend Jay Anderson is being brilliant again at his blog Pro Ecclesia.  He brings us up to date as to the activities of the former ambassador to Malta Richard Rich Douglas Kmiec:

The Daily Beast is running a story about some of the prominent “conservatives” who crossed over to support Obama in 2008 (i.e. the “Obamacons”), noting that many of them are remaining steadfast in their support for The One. I find it interesting that, with one or two exceptions, most of the folks can no longer be described as “conservative” in their viewpoints, assuming they ever were actually conservatives (a number of them pan Romney, for example, for – of all things – being too conservative). But I’d like to focus in particular on one of the figures profiled in this story – our old “friend” Doug Kmiec.
When last we saw Kmiec, it was shortly after he had penned a break-up letter to his beloved over the HHS Mandate, but after Obama’s feigned “compromise”, he was taken strongly in the arms again of the The One, and he did not remember that he had ever felt the pain of betrayal and separation.
And, so, we fast-forward several months to today, and we find Kmiec quoted in the pages of The Daily Beast clarifying for us, in no uncertain terms, that he is firmly in the camp of the ObamaCaths – nay, the DemoCaths – for whom Catholic teaching is generally an afterthought in relation to the overall Democrat agenda, except insofar as said teaching can be twisted to push said agenda.

Continue reading...

One Response to Obama Can Count on Kmiec!

  • Kmiec’s perversion shocked me in 2008 and this is more absurd with the total lack of any progress and concern for justice not to mention the unborn and marriage.

The Catholic Left Falls Into Line

Wednesday, February 15, AD 2012

It was inevitable that most of the Catholic Left, in any confrontation between the Church and Obama Caesar, would side with the Messiah from Chicago.  A petition making the rounds indicates how quickly this process has played out. 


Today the Obama administration announced an important regulation that will protect the conscience rights of religious organizations and ensure that all women have access to contraception without a co-payment. We applaud the White House for listening carefully to the concerns raised by religious leaders on an issue that has provoked heated and often misinformed debate. This ruling is a major victory for religious liberty and women’s health. President Obama has demonstrated that these core values do not have to be in conflict.


Specifically, this new regulation guarantees that no religiously affiliated institution will have to pay for services that violate its moral beliefs or even refer employees for this coverage. Instead, if a woman’s employer is an objecting university, hospital or other religious institution, her insurer will be required to offer her coverage at no cost. This is a sensible, common-ground solution.


In recent days, sound bites and divisive rhetoric have too often pitted the faith community against sound science and public health.The previous regulations caused an unnecessary conflict between the administration, the Catholic Church and other religious institutions. We are encouraged that the Obama administration has developed a substantive solution that addresses the concerns of the many constituencies involved. We look forward to bringing the same level of passion displayed in this debate to other pressing moral issues that face our nation.

Continue reading...

23 Responses to The Catholic Left Falls Into Line

  • Any people in this list who are Catholic should be publicly excommunicated.

  • These are brilliant and well-educated people but you realize that they’re not the magisterium.

  • Oh I understand that Mike. I am not at all certain that the Catholic signers of this piece of tripe understand that however.

  • These brilliant and well educated people have “been done educated into imbecility.” I realize that’s a quote from Fr. Corapi, and he sadly fell off the wagon as it were. Nevertheless, in this case, it’s correct.

  • Our first acts of civil disobedience should be protesting at the DNC in Charlotte this September.

  • They know what to think.

    They do not know how to think.

    I’m imagining Tokyo Rose propaganda broadcasts . . .

    Peace and justice!

    It’s okay to lie and cheat to advance peace and justice.

    And, to provide political support to those killing 45,000,000 unborn humans . . .

    Peace and justIce!

  • They are not educated.

    They are indoctrinated.

  • Donald, I should have said, “we realize that they’re not the magisterium.”
    Paul, that’s an oldie but a goodie.

  • T Shaw,

    I stand – er, sit – corrected.

    BTW, while I have mentioned this before, perhaps it bears repeating. I know of a very intelligent man who runs a pro-nuclear energy blog site and he is thoroughly liberal (which is oxymoronic given that liberals have fought nuclear energy tooth and nail for 40+ years). He (and most of his readers) know far more about science, engineering, and technology than I ever will. But they BELIEVE in that godless man of sin, Obama, hook, line and sinker. They look at us as hate criminals. The division between “us” and “them” couldn’t be greater. They twist around history to say what they want it to mean. They hate Israel, love Iran, and object to everything the US has done in world affairs since WW II. They openly despise the Church, and where they claim to follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it isn’t holiness and righteousness that matter to them but what T. Shaw pointed out: “peace and justice” nonsense. They won’t look at the actual statistics regarding the real reasons for abortion given at Priests for Life or the USCCB web sites. They won’t even consider that life begins at conception, physical evidence be damned. The obviousness that homosexual behavior is contrary to natural law is sneered at. And these are SCIENTISTS of the highest order! I just don’t get it. I never will. How can someone be so smart – far, far smarter than many others at this blog, myself included – and be so abysmally deceived? Despair is a sin and I am sinful.


  • Great! Where do I sign? Second question, why is this pen drawing blood from my hand?

  • This ruling ….

    That says it all, doesn’t it? Presidents are not supposed to rule; kings and Caesars are.

  • I don’t doubt that these are smart folks (both the ones who signed and the one to which Paul alludes). For that reason, I find it very hard to accept that they are duped, indoctrinated, etc. What I do not find hard to accept is that they deliberately ignore these teachings because they simply want contraception/abortion (or whatever). They know; they just don’t care.

  • Now, this “when does life begin thingy” hits close to home.

    Our first grandchild is scheduled to make her debut in early July.

    Our daughter-in-law has emailed us sonogram pictures since early as God Almighty began forming in her mother’s womb our granddaughter.

    That is clearly a human on those pictures.

    Re: the sad social justice crowd. It’s not me. I know next to nothing. My education is clearly lacking. It’s St. Augustine. He dealt with such error in the early 400’s anno domini Rome.

    “The only evils these people recognize are having to endure hunger, disease, and murder. It is as though man’s greatest good were to have everything good, except himself.”

  • I sincerely believe there is an emotional disorder that transcends intelligence or level of education, wherein the victim has an underlying sense of insecurity, bordering on phobia, necessitating a strong political figure in which to invest. This insecurity then blinds the victim to inconsistencies or outright contradictions in his or her belief system, making the inherent synthesis imbalanced and objectively invalid.

    It may be due to lack of a strong father-figure in youth. Perhaps Dad was there, and even loving, but lacked principle and steadfastness. It may be that, as they grew and were being ‘taught,’ that there were no teachers or other intellectual figures of authority that drew out the aspects of critical thinking necessary to make rational decisions that all follow common principle in logical order.

    Regardless of cause, it is quite evident that a foundation of concept and process that produces ideas of a stripe in one area but contradictory ideas elsewhere exists. There needs to be an object within which to rationalize that inequality, so that it can be contained, and that object is then The Leader, who spins fact and fancy into a complex web of duplicitous confusion, allowing the imbalanced person the ability to simply “follow the leader” instead of confronting the intellectual contention within.

    Contradiction is a rock in the shoe of the critical mind and it will be ejected when it becomes intolerable. That such an ejection is not happening in the minds of people like the above signatories, it leads me to believe that they are in fact just stable enough to retain positions of influence, but would crumble if made to explain such inconsistencies in a logical, orderly fashion. Of course that leads to the “subjective truth” tripe that the Left falls upon when challenged, and that’s another conversation.

  • I agree that insecurity and inferiority feelings are the culprits– these are very bright capable people and as we continue to seek the way to evangelize them we need to respect their intellect and their will to do the good– teachers know demeaning a pupil doesn’t work, but building on what is good and enlarging it does–
    we need not to polarize more within our church… and cause our cause to fail– But instead find a way to haul them into the boat (barque) -highlighting contradictions while respecting their intellectual commitment to truth might be a way to do that

  • ANYONE that supports Obama does NOT support being Catholic, or even Christian.
    As I keep stating Where is the Christ in his action? You cannot claim to be Catholic if you are willing to compromise the teachings of the Church, the mandates of the Pope, or the teachings of the Bible. Murder is Murder. no matter what name you give it. Sin is sin no matter how you wish to wrap it. The devil comes in many forms. Sins provides many options. If a criminal was coming to rob you would he ask for in invitation to take your possessions? Your soul is open for the taking once you close it to the will of God!

  • Half of the list doesn’t claim to be Catholic.

    The half claiming to be Catholic here replace Teachings of the Church/objective truth with satanic opinions. That, by definition (look it up, Doogie), is heresy.

    Christ did not come among us to save us from suffering or to create Heaven on Earth.

    Jesus Christ came to save us from our sins, and by His Life, Death and Resurrection to purchase for us the rewards of eternal life.

    I see a couple of them have “S.J.” in their handles. Every one on the list ought to put “S.J.” behind their name: “Society of Judas.”

    While there is time, they must repent, confess, do penance, amend their lives, and through good works glorify God.

    Otherwise, I’m pretty sure none on the list will be getting into Heaven.

  • Well indoctrinated liberals perhaps but brilliant no. Brilliant is when Churchill pithily grasped the criminal folly of the Kaiser:

    “The Germans took a somber decision. Upon the western front they had from the beginning used the most terrible means of offense at their disposal. They had employed poison gas on the largest scale and had invented the ‘Flammenwerfer.’ Nevertheless, it was with a sense of awe that they turned upon Russia the most grisly of weapons. They transported Lenin in a sealed train like a plague bacillus from Switzerland into Russia.”

    Anyone who has thought about this knows that the HHS compromise is nothing but ‘plague bacillus’, even worse than the original requirement, in that it will destroy the moral integrity of the Catholic Church in the US, infecting everything she touches. This is Pharisaic at its worst – the Catholic Church does not accept birth-control and knows that abortion is murder – but is willing to look the other way as insurers, PP and Warren Buffett keep the muck off her hypocritical hands. Obama must be counting on a lot of stupid Catholics.

  • so I guess my idea about trying to evangelize the Catholic Left is right out. : /

  • Some lovely groups represented on that list: Sojourners, NETWORK, Evangelical Partnership, DJAN. These are alynsky progeny and closely working with the DP. I trust they are not receiving CCHD funding but would be curious.

  • Paul, do you remember this Prayer?,,”….I thank You, Father for hiding these things to the learned and revealing them to mere children…..”. “….The Wisdom of God is Foolishness to the World…” These Truths were given to us 2000+ ago and they sure ring true today from what I have just read in this Post.

  • Who was the first “social justice” Christian?

    In other words, who was the first follower of Christ turned his back on the salvation of souls and gave precedence to a worldly agenda?

  • Perhaps the answer to T Shaw’s question is in John 12:1-7:

    1* Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 There they made him a supper; Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at table with him. 3 Mary took a pound of costly ointment of pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment. 4* But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was to betray him), said, 5 “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii * and given to the poor?” 6* This he said, not that he cared for the poor but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box he used to take what was put into it. 7* Jesus said, “Let her alone, let her keep it for the day of my burial. 8 The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.”

Vichy Catholics

Saturday, February 11, AD 2012

While most Catholics with at least two brain cells to rub together realize that the HHS Mandate “compromise” is a transparent fraud, the usual suspects among the Obama-uber-alles branch of Catholics in this country have been hailing it.

Richard Rich Doug Kmiec is back on board the Obama bus (and demonstrates again the truth of the Socrates adage that an unexamined life is a tragedy):

Sister Carol Keehan, head of the Catholic Health Association, last seen getting a pen from Obama for her support in passing ObamaCare, loves the compromise.  She was actually supporting it before it was announced, indicating that the Obama administration slipped her advance knowledge.  The administration is aware of the tame Catholics they can rely on.

And, mirabile dictu!, Morning’s Minion at Vox Nova gives the “compromise” a thumbs up!

Streiff over at Red State sums up this phenomenon of Catholics who can always be counted upon to carry Obama’s water for him in any dispute with the Church:

Continue reading...

36 Responses to Vichy Catholics

  • Watching that Granholm and Kmiec clip makes me want to throw up.

  • Oh how nice – my former governor and Catholyc Jennifer Granholm, still carrying the water for Obama. Another one that deserves ex-communication.

    I just realized – that news clip will probably get viewed by more people than there are total Current subscribers, merely because you linked to it. And that’s not saying much.

  • Its said to say but there are far too many useful idiots in the Church willing to follow Obama despite his blatant assault on our beloved Church.

  • Morning’s Minion at Vox Nova gives the “compromise” a thumbs up!

    Sheesh. I see that the ruling troika of Mornings Minion, MZ and Henry are all full throatedly in favor of the “compromise” and accusing the USCCB of being a bunch of out of touch rubes led around by partisan hacks. What a pathetic disgrace that place can be.

  • I cannot go to look at anything on Vox Nova. My eyes will bleed.

    Some Catholics amaze me. They should not, but they do. They shouldn’t be referred to as Catholics, but as left wing nuts.

  • I don’t get to be a ruling troika DC. I moved on several months ago from Vox Nova.

    …the USCCB [are] a bunch of out of touch rubes led around by partisan hacks.
    That sounds about right.

    While most Catholics with at least two brain cells to rub together realize that the HHS Mandate “compromise” is a transparent fraud, the usual suspects among the Obama-uber-alles branch of Catholics in this country have been hailing it.
    Most Catholics had no problem with the mandate. I’m doubtful any new dissent will be created with the compromise.

    The administration is aware of the tame Catholics they can rely on.
    You mean the ones that successfully applied political pressure and achieved their goal. I suppose I can concede that Obama wasn’t looking to receive respect from hacks like yourself who still believe he instituted health care reform in order to fund abortion. It is quite apparent the Obama administration is not interested in dialog with those who willfully continue to misrepresent his health care package. Unfortunately, that includes the USCCB. That is too bad for the USCCB, but I can’t really feel too much pity for them.

  • Carol Keehan ( I doubt if she is really a nun) is an Obama pawn. What is she thinking.

    She is for the compromise before it was announced? So the Lame Stream Media will herald this as a support for the compromise of a very influential group.

  • It seems that the basic economics of insurance are lost a great many people. Who do you think makes up for the “free” contraceptives? There is no free lunch.

  • “Most Catholics had no problem with the mandate.”

    Actually MZ, most Americans in general and Catholics in particular had a big problem with the mandate, although I understand you do not like being confused with facts.

    Obama understood this, which is why he floated this “compromise” to take the political heat off him, Obama having a better grasp of public opinion apparently than some of his more crazed acolytes.

    “receive respect from hacks like yourself”

    And the Pope MZ?

    Don’t worry MZ, you will get all the respect you can stomach from those like yourself who confuse Catholicism with a love of the welfare state, everything else be damned. Enjoy whatever solace that gives you.

  • ‘ … I don’t like my faith being used as political weapon … ‘ DK
    ‘ … Obama on the ropes taking punches from …’ JG from the war room
    and the CA lady distributing NYT gospel on the good people in Cinn., OH ?
    and an old vox of heresy just blathering against the Church Jesus established on earth to help us get to His Father ?

    War cry n. – A phrase or slogan used to rally people to a cause.

    All this muscle flexing talk in reaction to the Church standing up for the Constitutional right of its own religious liberty which is granted in the political arena where it’s now necessary to speak. What happened to pretty philosophic ideas of celebrating diversity and leaving no children behind? The answers given to the Church and public are in the spirit of telling misbehaving children to go sit in the corner and be quiet forever.

  • 10:28 ‘ I suppose I can concede that Obama wasn’t looking to receive respect from hacks like yourself who still believe he instituted health care reform in order to fund abortion. It is quite apparent the Obama administration is not interested in dialog with those who willfully continue to misrepresent his health care package. Unfortunately, that includes the USCCB. ‘

    Then, please explain why his ‘magnanimous’ 2/10 “Compromise Speech” was centered on the word ‘contraception’ with no specific details for the listening public. Or what areas of health, other than women’s preventive healthcare, is included.

    It is inconvenient to point out that the result of some of the healthcare is death. ( I think of that part as hellth.) The USCCB, the Catholic Church, and many other religions which branched off from the Catholic Church are the places where people entrust the guidance of their Souls. They are as much doctors as the ones guiding the executive branch.

  • Hitler on Vichy Catholics:

    “Do you really believe the masses will ever be Christian again? Nonsense. The tale is finished but we can hasten matters. The parsons will be made to dig their own graves. They will betray their God to us. They will betray anything for the sake of their miserable little jobs and incomes.”

    Describes Kmiec and Sr. Carol pretty well, I’d say. And as for Vox Nova – well, it’s interesting. Over the past week, I’ve seen outrage about this from Protestants and Jews and even atheists and agnostics, who understand full well what an assault on religious rights it is. But the Catholic statists like MZ and the Vox Nova crowd keep digging their graves. However, I wouldn’t say they are betraying their god – no, they’re in full grovel mode before him. Well, if you can stomach voting for a man who approves of leaving babies to die on tables, forcing the Church to pick up the tab for birth control isn’t going to be that big of a deal to you.

  • I do not find it at all difficult to imagine a situation arising here similiar to the one in China, where you have the state-approved “Catholic” clergy and the ones who actually follow the Vatican.

    And I also do not find it difficult to imagine left-wing “Catholics” gleefully helping to turn in and persecute those who remain faithful to Rome rather than to Obama and the nanny state. Really. They are showing us now who they really worship and adore.

  • The filthy animals are showing themselves for what they are: Obama first, the state second, hatred of liberty third, and Christ number ten.

    You can’t reason with those in the thrall of the demon; those . Those that call good evil and evil good.

    It’s way past talking. Some real Christians say they’ll go to jail.

    Next from the Obama-worshiping imbeciles:

    3 . . . 2 . . .1 . . . Racists!

  • Maybe we should take comfort in the fact that WE know right from wrong as is noted in the commits here. The problem is that the propaganda seems to reach more than the truth does. Then again, more and more do not find the truth comforting as it conflicts with their lifestyle and desires.

  • While Obama got 54% of the overall Catholic vote, McCain got 57% of the vote of Catholics who attend Mass every Sunday. The fact that Obama got 43% of the Catholics who attend Mass on Sundays is what I find more troubling. While it is true that not all of those who attend Mass every Sunday, most of them are. So, we can safely say, as a conservative estimate, that about 25% of orthodox Catholics went for Obama. That is what concerns me. That is far more telling. And what it tells is that many orthodox Catholics do not understand how economic, national security, foreign policies affect the cultural and life issues. I mean how can honestly claim to be for life when you support big government nanny state policies that financially underwrite the culture of death (of which Obamacare is proof postive) or when you have a national security posture that projects weakness?

  • Very well said Donna-
    Well, if you can stomach voting for a man who approves of leaving babies to die on tables, forcing the Church to pick up the tab for birth control isn’t going to be that big of a deal to you.

  • Simply, this assault on Church Teachings (Pharaoh calls it opinion and ancient religious hatred) is the straw that broke the USCCB’s back.

    All that common good, justice and peace guff is corollary to the alibi (welfare of humanity) of tyrants and, worse, cynical political posturing.

    How is any of this (higher food and energy costs) good for the common man?

    In 2008, Obama promised he’d bankrupt the coal industry and raise the cost of energy if elected. He was elected, and we are suffering.

    This year, Pharaoh is closing three West Virginia coal plants.

    The shortages in energy supplies will ripple through the economy and put out of work about 100,00 people more, with added misery, and will raise the cost of living for all Americans, . . . including those deleted from the propaganda, unemployment/labor force numbers.

  • I’m reading various threads on Catholic blogs and I’m amazed at how disconnected (IMO) so many people are from Church teaching and an understanding of the moral component as well as the deeper understanding of the person and society. They are actually factoring in the idea that contraception is a cost savings and trying to use that angle in evaluating “compromises”. Contraception is NOT a cost savings. Only in the narrowest and inhuman view can one say that. The cost of contraception to our society is huge. It’s in part why as a nation we kill millions of innocents a year. It has probably done more to destroy the foundation of society, the family, than anything else in this country. The effects of that have resulted in many expensive, yet family destroying “fixes”. Not mention the overall degrading of both men and women. I really wish the bishops would call this out. It’s not that they need it for their defense of the Church and religious and conscience rights, but maybe they could help take that sort of misguided logic off the table.

  • Not one liberal did a thing to help.

    Don Surber: “About 40,000 people signed an online petition to demonize the bank of a Nashville woman who stands to lose her house to foreclosure, instead of actually stepping up and helping her.

    “Liberals: Not here to help so much as to seize power on your misery.”

    Justice and peace!!! All that 2008 human dignity, faux charity, “have-you-no-decency” wailing and gnashing of teeth was truly partisan BS.

    In 2012, a majority of liberal hypocrits, like MM et al, support drone assassinations and keeping the Gitmo tortuary operational. Funny how just as in 2008, death penalty, evil tax cuts for the evil rich, and water boarding still trump abortion, contraception, gay privileges, the moral destruction of our youth, mass desperation, tyranny, etc.

    It seems Obama-worshiping idiots think we are as stupid as they.

  • Whatever Doug Kmeic says to do, do the opposite. You won’t go wrong.

  • I know, I know. We’re all supposed to be adults. We’re supposed to educate ourslves on the vissicitudes of life. But can it be ignored that the silence form the pulpits is deafening? Especially concerning the American Holocaust. I guess it’s just human nature. If it doesn’t affect me directly then so what.

    Let’s face it; there are alot of socialists in the Ivory Towers of chancery buildings who just got bitch-slapped by Marxist numero uno and have been temporarliy(?) awakened.

  • Obama just wanted to get the Carol Keehan Catholics back into his flock, and it looks like he has succeeded. It is for the Bishops to revoke some charters which includes so-called Catholic association as well as religious orders such as the one which spawned Carol Keehan.

  • They have their reward.

  • Pingback: SUNDAY EDITION |
  • I think Obama was on a fishing expedition, 1) to see just how the Church would respond, and 2) back off enough to win back his ‘Catholic’ supporters and drive a wedge in the Church’s opposition.

  • If the Bishops keep slamming hard, and don’t give up their just criticisms, then it doesn’t matter what these Catholic ignoramuses (or is that ignorami?) blurt out of their mouths.

    Keep writing to your Bishops who have demonstrated courage and tell them that you’re in their corner, helping on blogs, newspapers, etc. They NEED to hear that from you.

    Do it now.

  • Dan, and they (Bishops/USCCB) want us to contact our US Reps. about supporting the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179 S. 1467).

    We can support these brave defenders of the Church as well. The Reps aren’t afraid to ask for votes, so it seems like a time to urge cooperation all around. There’s more at stake than O’s contraception card.

  • …the USCCB [are] a bunch of out of touch rubes led around by partisan hacks.
    That sounds about right… I suppose I can concede that Obama wasn’t looking to receive respect from hacks like yourself who still believe he instituted health care reform in order to fund abortion. It is quite apparent the Obama administration is not interested in dialog with those who willfully continue to misrepresent his health care package. Unfortunately, that includes the USCCB. That is too bad for the USCCB, but I can’t really feel too much pity for them.

    God love ya, MZ, being an ObamaCath means never having to admit you’re wrong. The fact is that the “out of touch” USCCB and the “partisan hacks” who allegedly lead them around turned out to be 100% right on the conscience clause issue, and you and the rest of the ObamaCaths turned out to be 100% WRONG, as the original HHS mandate clearly demonstrates.

    “Trust us”, you said in the debate over the Stupak Amendment, “ObamaCare won’t lead to Church insitutions having to do anything that violates their beliefs, and the out of touch Bishops who are telling you otherwise are being led around by partisan hacks.” You were wrong (or lying) them, so forgive me if I believe you’re wrong (or lying) now when you claim the same thing about this alleged “accomodation”.

    The fact is that Catholic institutions providing medical coverage as part of their employee benefits will be providing things that violate their beliefs. Nothing has changed with the alleged “accomodation”. And it’s just a matter of time before additional items that violate Catholic teaching are added to the list of “must cover” items, abortion among them.

    Again, when I see you and yours FOR A SECOND TIME paying less heed to the Bishops on these matters than you do to a man who, via the extreme position his adminsitration took in the recent Supreme Court case that he lost in a 9-0 decision and via the extreme position his administration has taken with the HHS mandate, is clearly trying to limit religious freedom, you’ll have to pardon me when I say you no longer have any credibility (not that you ever did) after having been conclusively shown to have been WRONG the first time you chose sides.

  • Being credible in your eyes and $5 will get me a cup of coffee at Starbucks. I shouldn’t be shocked that you lack the intellectual honesty to admit the USCCB was wrong about abortion coverage. I confess to being slightly disappointed though. Good play though on attempting to question mine by shifting the goal posts to a phony conscience controversy.

    And for the record, I don’t see any any conscience issue involved with employers being compelled to offer a contraceptive benefit if they provide health insurance. I don’t think employers have a legitimate interest in whether or not their employees have a sex act that respects the unitive and procreative dimensions.

  • Pingback: The HHS Mandate: It Was Never About Healthcare | The American Catholic
  • I must post what I know, after are my comments and opinion. FAITH IS A GIFT FROM GOD. GOD IS BEING AND EXISTENCE. All men come into existence at the will of God, our Creator. The virtue of religion is how man responds to the gift of Faith from God in private and in public. The virtue of religion can be perfected only by complete adherence to the love of God. Doug Kmeic teaches? Law? Constitutional LAW? An open question on conscience rights? What is an open question but to do what one knows is right in accordance to the will of God? I am stunned by the profound ignorance of Doug Kmiec. Doug Kmiec belongs on Saturday Night Live. no foolin’. Doug Kmiec has a problem with his “faith being used as a political weapon”. What Kmiec really means to say is that his virtue of religion, his response to the gift of Faith from God, is being pressed to do what is right in the eyes of God and he does not like it.

  • MZ “a phony conscience controversy”? Justice is giving each man what he truly deserves. Can there be JUSTICE without conscience? Animals have no conscience and do not require JUSTICE. Devils have no conscience because demons have no human body, therefore no human soul, therefore no eternal life in heaven. Justice requires that the newly begotten sovereign person, who constitutes our nation and whose perfect moral and legal innocence is the standard of Justice be given life as an unalienable right. Our nation’s constitutional posterity is being deprived of Justice and you call it a”phony conscience controversy”? The rest has been deleted by the poster.

  • Dan: Ignorami is Latin for ignoramuses. I really enjoy reading your post. You are correct especially the part about supporting our bishops, It is up to each and every man, if he enjoys freedom, he must stand together with the truth for the truth will set you free.

  • RL: Cost saving contraception drives Divine Providence away from our nation. Our Creator, WHO made us, makes the rain fall, the seed germinate, the sun shine. Malthus and Population Bomb ignored Divine Providence in their calculations. Therefore, It may be said of Thomas Malthus and Paul Erhlick: IGNORAMI. The horror of abortion is that the abortionists and those whose minds and souls are pro-abortion is that they enjoy murdering the innocent. Pro-abortionists revel in bloodlust, worship in bloodlust their demon god, moloch.

  • Hope and Change:

    “I strongly urge you not to be intimidated by extremist politicians or the malice of the cultural secularists (me: e.g., vox nova) arrayed against us.” Bishop Daniel Jenky

    “Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria, Illinois warned Catholic democrats that one day they will indeed have to meet their Creator and will have to give account for their irresponsible acts before God.” Gateway Pundit

    That goes for all you rascals that voted for pharaoh.

    Malicious secularist MZ: Thanks for reminding me!

    We NRA Endowment (I upgraded from Life) Members are going to Starbucks to show our support. Starbucks supports Second Amendment liberties. We will support Starbucks.

    3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . . “Justice and peace and cynical political posturing!!! Only criminals and the gestapo are allowed to carry weapons!”

Richard Rich Quits as Ambassador to Malta

Monday, April 18, AD 2011

Hattip to Creative Minority Report.  Richard Rich,  Douglas Kmiec, in the wake of a state department report declaring that he was pretty much a disaster as Ambassador to Malta, has resigned.  The LA Times has the details:

Kmiec wrote that the inspector general had a “flawed and narrow vision of our diplomatic mission” and said his writings had a “highly positive effect on our diplomatic relations.”

He complained that, as a result of the inspector general’s recommendation that he end that work, “my voice has been prevented from speaking; my pen has been enjoined from writing; and my actions have been confined to the ministerial.”

Kmiec, a devout Roman Catholic and a onetime frequent contributor to The Times opinion pages, held important legal posts under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He has been a prominent figure in the antiabortion movement and in efforts to give greater latitude for religion in public life.

He was also impressed by President Obama’s religious faith and interest in improving relations between religions, and he supported him during the 2008 presidential election campaign.

After Obama was elected, Kmiec was appointed ambassador to Malta, a conservative Catholic island, and White House officials said that one of his roles would be to advance Obama’s views on interfaith dialogue.

But the inspector general’s report, issued in February, says he had an “unconventional approach to his role” and devoted much time to writing on the “interfaith initiative.” It said his official schedule was “uncharacteristically light,” and that he had had “friction with principal officials in Washington, especially over his reluctance to accept their guidance and instructions.”

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Richard Rich Quits as Ambassador to Malta

  • Just in time for him to devote himself full time to getting Obama reelected…

  • The Devil loves useful idiots.

  • I’m sympathetic to Kmiec to this extent: while I would love to visit Malta some day, how much is there for even the American ambassador to do? The Maltese were happy, and so were most of his staff. What else was he supposed to do?

  • Just in time for him to devote himself full time to getting Obama reelected…

    Prof. Kmiec’s account of himself never made much sense. One tends to wonder if he is merely getting goofy with old age, rather like Albert Gore or Jeffrey Hart.

  • I hear that a lot of American forces being used in Libya are staged out of Malta. Right now there might be a lot for him to do. Maybe the embassy work was beginning to take away from his Obama apologetics.

  • The post was supposed to be his reward for being a high profile Catholic for Obama. Needless to say, the Obama administration is not the first to reward supporters who know nothing about diplomacy with an ambassadorial spot. This is a long and dishonorable tradition in American diplomacy. The inexperienced ambassadors often come a cropper and that is what has happened to Kmiec. What is unusual in the Kmiec situation is that he ran into trouble in what should have been the most placid of postings.

  • Phillip raises a good point. The Libya situation probably does magnify the importance of the Malta ambassadorship. It will be interesting to see if the Obama administration goes with a professional diplomat now.

  • If this is any example of the diplomatic back and forth, Kmiec is probably being overwhelmed by the position.

  • I agree with you Phillip. My guess is that Kmiec is probably way out of his depth now in regard to what was supposed to be almost a ceremonial role in a diplomatic backwater, and this resignation could be a face-saving device.

  • Clueless professor meets real world. Real world wins.

  • Malta like Italy or Greece or for that matter any country caught between Islam and the West, knows that her interests will not be protected under the current Western dispensation. The days when the West was led by men of the calibre of Churchill or Nixon, who for all their numerous flaws tried their best to do what is right and in some fashion identified with the interests of Christians are long gone.

  • This news is shocking! I still cant believe it! Kmiec is a Catholic no matter how many times I read it I still have trouble believing it.

  • Devout Roman Catholics – DO NOT – support Pro-Abortionist ! He is a prime example of the anti-dogma, supposedly educated types that have been allowed to infiltrate & take over our once good Catholic Colleges. He publicly disgraced himself in 2008 & automatically excommunicated himself by lying to other Catholics about the godless senator from Ill. The Koran thumper in the oval office duped him & numerous other supposedly highly educated clergy & Catholic theologians !

Richard Rich Pretty Much a Disaster as Ambassador to Malta

Friday, April 8, AD 2011

Hattip to Catholic Key Blog. Richard Rich Douglas Kmiec, who sold out the pro-life movement by supporting the most pro-abortion candidate in our nation’s history for President, Barack Obama, now the most pro-abortion President in our nation’s history, is pretty much a disaster as ambassador to Malta, his equivalent of the going rate for traitors of thirty pieces of silver, according to a State Department Report.

He is respected by Maltese officials and most mission staff, but his unconventional approach to his role as ambassador has created friction with principal officials in Washington, especially over his reluctance to accept their guidance and instructions. Based on a belief that he was given a special mandate to promote President Obama’s interfaith initiatives, he has devoted considerable time to writing articles for publication in the United States as well as in Malta, and to presenting his views on subjects outside the bilateral portfolio. He has been inconsistent in observance of clearance procedures required for publication. He also looks well beyond the bilateral relationship when considering possible events for the mission to host in Malta. His approach has required Department principals, as well as some embassy staff, to spend an inordinate amount of time reviewing his writings, speeches, and other initiatives. His official schedule has been uncharacteristically light for an ambassador at a post of this size, and on average he spends several hours of each work day in the residence, much of which appears to be devoted to his nonofficial writings.

At the same time, he has not focused sufficiently on key management issues within the embassy. . .

. . .The Ambassador advised the inspection team that he intended to discontinue his outside writings and focus on matters that directly pertain to the embassy and priorities outlined in the Mission Strategic and Resource Plan (MSRP). Within weeks of the team’s departure, however, he resumed drafting public essays that addressed subjects outside his purview as Ambassador to Malta and detracted from his core responsibilities. These activities also detracted from the core responsibilities of embassy staff members who devoted time and effort to reviewing and editing the ambassador’s drafts and seeking approvals occasionally after the writings had been submitted for publication from Department officials.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Richard Rich Pretty Much a Disaster as Ambassador to Malta

Kmiec Explains It All

Tuesday, September 22, AD 2009

Douglas Kmiec, ambassador to Malta and spiritual descendant of Richard Rich, has an interview with the Times of Malta here.


“Prof. Kmiec’s views on abortion have certainly not changed since he was appointed an ambassador by the Obama administration.

“I believe life begins at conception, in the womb, and is to be protected there as it is to be protected at every moment throughout the progression of life,” he emphasises.

He was disappointed when the US Supreme Court legalised abortion in 1973 and for some 30 plus years, as an advocate in the judicial system, including when he worked for Mr Reagan in the White House, he wrote briefs and made arguments seeking to reverse the law on that question.

“Of course it hasn’t happened; year after year, millions die in those awful procedures.”

He recalls how he told Mr Obama during the campaign: “How can you allow someone to terminate another person’s life? What moral authority do you have for that?”

Mr Obama replied: “Well, professor, not everyone sees life beginning in the same way. The Methodists see it differently, the Jewish faith in part sees it differently.” And he went through the list, Presbyterians and so forth.

“If I am elected President,” he told Prof. Kmiec, “I am President of all these people.”

Prof. Kmiec says Mr Obama told him that he views abortion as “a moral tragedy” and that there were two ways of addressing it. There is the law in which people who involved themselves in this procedure would be subject to a penalty. The Supreme Court has put that off limits.

The other way is to do something about it and look at what causes people to have an abortion.

Mr Obama asked Prof. Kmiec: “What would cause a mother to contemplate taking the life of a child? It has to be something awful. It has to be a woman without shelter, without insurance, without the next meal on the table.”

Prof. Kmiec admits that this approach to abortion is not the ideal solution, saying that poverty or not being married is no excuse to take the life of a child. However, he believes one should be realistic about the problem and if the abortion rate could be reduced – and some studies point out that tackling poverty could lead to fewer abortions – “this seems to me a good interim step”.

“I prayed on this,” he explains, pointing out that Pope John Paul II had said that Catholics must be clear on their stand on abortion but also that people in political life could sometimes do less than they would like to do as long as there were moves towards the protection of life.

“Mr Obama has taken some steps towards this, perhaps not as fast as some would like,” he says.”

I will do Kmiec the courtesy of assuming that he is being mendacious in the interview and that he really isn’t stupid enough to believe the bilge Obama was dishing to him.

Thomas Peters has a must read article here on the interview.

“This is delusional. Mr. Obama has “taken steps towards the protection of life … not as fast as some would like” in Dr. Kmiec’s view? In fact, Mr. Obama has taken steps in the opposite direction. And fast.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Kmiec Explains It All

  • “If I am elected President,” he told Prof. Kmiec, “I am President of all these people.”

    All these people – except the unborn. Of course, the unborn don’t vote Democrat.

  • Mr Obama asked Prof. Kmiec: “What would cause a mother to contemplate taking the life of a child? It has to be something awful. It has to be a woman without shelter, without insurance, without the next meal on the table.”

    Doug has never stood outside a PP clinic on abortion days.

    “Mr Obama has taken some steps towards this, perhaps not as fast as some would like,” he says.”

    What alternate reality is he living in…. or….

    as my favorite SC legislator says….

    HE LIES.

  • Thanks for this post, my blood pressure was feeling a little low. Nothing like a little Kmiec to fix hypotension.

  • What interests me is this:

    “What would cause a mother to contemplate taking the life of a child? It has to be something awful. It has to be a woman without shelter, without insurance, without the next meal on the table.”

    Obama, like some pro-choice advocates, is taking a position that is even worse than the traditional position.

    After all, if one believes that the unborn child is not really a child, but a valueless clump of cells, then it follows that abortion is no crime or sin. As one pro-life writer I like has often put it: if abortion isn’t murder, no justification is necessary – if it is murder, no justification is sufficient.

    Here Obama, like a lot of “religious” pro-choice, acknowledges that it is a life – but that it deserves no protection under the law. He acknowledges, at least here, the premise of the pro-life position but denies the only moral conclusion one can draw from it.

    This inconsistency demonstrates a far greater callousness and moral cowardice than the pro-choicer who maintains that abortion ought to be legal because the thing being aborted isn’t human and has no value.

    As for being the president of all those other people, well, that argument didn’t work out so well for slave owners, did it? He’s president of racists too – where is their voice in administration of government?

  • Obama, like some pro-choice advocates, is taking a position that is even worse than the traditional position.

    After all, if one believes that the unborn child is not really a child, but a valueless clump of cells, then it follows that abortion is no crime or sin. As one pro-life writer I like has often put it: if abortion isn’t murder, no justification is necessary; if it is murder, no justification is sufficient.

    Here Obama, like a lot of religious; pro-choice, acknowledges that it is a life; but that it deserves no protection under the law. He acknowledges, at least here, the premise of the pro-life position but denies the only moral conclusion one can draw from it.

    The Great Obama did, in fact, acknowledge that there is a moral dimension to abortion, but that any person of “good will” can have an abortion and still be considered doing the “right” thing. As he said previously:

    I absolutely think we can find common ground. And it requires a couple of things. It requires us to acknowledge that..

    There is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that’s a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about.

    People of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what’s right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ.

    And if we can acknowledge that much, then we can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion.

  • It moves one to pity and sorrow to see such a lack of character in a person who claims to be a member of the Church but has succumbed to culture and become one with it. The vignette from A Man For All Seasons is a perfect accompaniment to the pathos of Doug Kmiec.

  • At the very least, Kmeic got Wales, errrr…Malta; but what did all the supposedly Pro-Life Vox Novans get for their support of The Great One?

  • It has to be a woman without shelter, without insurance, without the next meal on the table.

    If this is a justification for abortion, then it is also a justification for gunning down anyone who is homeless, uninsured, or without food.

  • “It has to be a woman without shelter, without insurance, without the next meal on the table.”
    This statement isn’t true. Surveys have shown that these issues account for <20% of abortions. ( Data courtesy of Gutemacher Institute aka Planned Parenthood )

  • “What would cause a mother to contemplate taking the life of a child? It has to be something awful. It has to be a woman without shelter, without insurance, without the next meal on the table.”

    Off the top of my head, I can think of two women I am actively acquainted with who have had abortions. Both had insurance, both lived in agreeable digs (one lived in a succession of ducky apartments and the other owned her home), and both could well afford groceries. The motive for one of these abortions was never specified; the other aborted a child with a genetic defect of modest significance.

  • Secretary of Health, Sebelius, of course, the recipient of donations per Tiller, I don’t know how much and to what extent. Obama of course, placates (Lapdog is a better word but doesn’t sound too kind) Planned Parenthood, Obama said something like “I wouldn’t want my daughters to be punished with a baby”, I mean, you can’t see your nose despite your face (however that expression goes). I know somewhere, there may be a liberal that is enamored with the talk or more likely, don’t know what the talk is, enamored with the individual. It is understandable that some figure comes along who can look like the new JFK or something to some people.

  • If our President really believes in what he says and is against abortion, why hasn’t he used his position to tell NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc he wants them to use their resources to help the women to have the child and help them with their resources afterwards toward adoption or helping to raise the child if necessary instead of the the killing. Why does he not spend dollars on taking care of these unwanted children versus aborting them.

  • “…what did Vox Novans get for their support of the Great One?”

    Income redistribution.

  • Things have been great since the Glorious One took office. The US is out of Iraq and Afghanistan, Gitmo is closed, the “need for abortion” has been eliminated, the deficit is under control, unemployment is down, we have many nice icons of Dear Leader with a presidential seal halo, and an unicorn in every driveway.

    It’s all good…

  • Perhaps they can develop a test to determine if the pre-born child is a Republican or a Democrat and then only murder the ones that won’t vote for them.

    Then we can treat murder through pregnancy abortion like all other moral issues — it is just another political choice subject to the whims of the mob.

  • Pingback: Obama and Conscience « The American Catholic