That's nice of him

There’s some brouhaha going on in (where else?) California about a priest asking for a car to be moved and it was identified by it’s Obama stickers. Now he’s apologizing for it.

What I don’t understand is why the servants of the Church are taken to task at every possible occasion but everyone else can run roughshod over the Gospel, the Unborn, the elderly, etc. What is wrong with (this picture) our world?

http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_11000434?source=most_viewed

I attended the talk as well, but haven’t blogged about it yet. The presentation was intellectually disappointing and morally disturbing.

I don’t doubt his sincerity, but I do believe he has deceived himself, and it’s sobering to think of the way he may have caused others to stumble.

He spent the first ten minutes praising the Vincentian Fathers (who hosted the event) by telling friendly stories about their community, the priest after whom the lecture series was named, etc.

The he talked about how he first met Barack, and how he had challenged him on several occasions about the life issues, but from there it devolved into a personal testimony about Barack’s greatness. He had three stories, each of which I found not only unimpressive, but actually unsettling. One story had to do with Barack’s response to some evangelical asking him if he thought Jesus was the way, the truth, and the life. Barack shook his head and said no. When asked for clarification, Barack said, “I would say that Jesus is MY way, but not THE way” and went on to say that he couldn’t fathom that his mother, a virtuous non-believer, would not be going to heaven. Kmiec was quite taken by this response to the “fundamentalist.”

Kmiec is, quite literally, an apostle for Barack. And he gave the impression that those who disagree with Barack just don’t understand him, while he, as an eyewitness, can testify on his behalf.

Then he made a half-dozen unrelated points, none of which were terribly convincing in themselves or even corporately. He would present facts, but then interpret them in highly dubious ways. Several sets of false alternatives being presenting as angst-inducing dilemmas. Never even a mention of the concept of a third-party or protest vote.

He spoke of Chaput as an advisor and friend, which I thought was a bit unjust, given Chaput’s clarification on that score.

Then he ended his lecture with several minutes of nursing his wounds from the experience of being denied communion. He described it as “the experience of being damned.” He described it as a humiliation he would never get over. “I will always feel condemned for choosing a man who lives the Beatitudes.” Then he closed with a quote from Tolstoy: “God knows the truth, but waits.”

Kmiec strikes me as a man who reasons out of his emotions. The martyr complex is especially unfortunate, but typical of a dissenter who somehow confuses prophetic witness with caving to the cultural path of least resistance, perhaps because of a sense of despair.

His lecture lasted more than an hour, so there were only 10 minutes of Q&A. Three questions asked. All good questions. Didn’t really feel he answered any of them satisfactorily.

I think he’s genuinely concerned about the choices women face, but he seems to be stuck in a Kennedyesque approach to his faith. He has put his light under a bushel basket, and I don’t know how long such a thing lasts without oxygen.

In response to a question, he did say that if Pope Benedict were to clarify his note about “proportionate reasons,” and told him that he (Kmiec) had interpreted it wrongly, he would recant his position. But why should he require such a thing? I wish he demanded as much of Barack as he seems to demand of Benedict.

Why just talk about poor Doug? Send him an e-mail telling him what the pope says.

Douglas.Kmiec@pepperdine.edu

Here is part of what I sent him:
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Pontiff Lists 3 Principles for Christians in Politics
Defense of Life; Recognition of the Family; Freedom of Education

VATICAN CITY, MARCH 30, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI insists on three non-negotiable principles for the Church and Christians in public life: protection of life, recognition of the family and freedom of education.

Mormsoorike says:

Very grateful to you. Your site is an excellent occasion to find pleasant and educated people, capable of constructive discussion and criticism. 🙂

Mormsoorike’s name links back to a garden blog.

Last night, at a work function, a nun (yes, a nun) got on my case about abortion and voting for Obama.

“There are parameters allowing for abortion,” she said. “Besides, I don’t know when ‘it’ has a soul…”

“Where?” I asked. “The Catechism makes the issue pretty clear: abortion was, and always will be, a mortal sin.”

“Well,” she replied, “the Catechism is outdated and needs to be radically altered.”

Then, of course, it dissolved into a “thou shalt not kill” condemnation of all wars (including the Revolutionary, Civil, and WWII – wonder if the Jews and others killed by Nazis feel the same way) and the death penalty. When I said there were limited parameters justifying both, I was, again, told the Catechism is wrong. There is no reason to kill a murderer or defend yourself against an agressor.

But, of course, since we don’t know when an unborn child has a soul, it’s okay to kill them.

You just can’t argue with people like this. I left the dinner early, called in sick today, and am looking for new work. This isn’t the first time, either. A co-worker is very anti-Catholic, has issues with the celibate, all-male priesthood, the Eucharist (“it’s just a piece of bread”), and pretty much anything Catholic (we’re “oppressive” and “brainwashed”).

Prayers for all, especially my co-worker and this nun. I had great respect for her, but it’s become evidently clear that those of us who stand in defense of faith and life have no right to speak their minds.

To Amp P. — Ther is one thing I have learned is never assume that a cleric has read the catechism.
The responce you received ( as you note here) sounds like a diversion to get you off topic. The Catechism is a fantastic document. As I read it, I could not help to think how can anyone not beleive in this ? As for Mr. Kmiec – maybe if we start ignoring him maybe he’ll just go away.

To Amy P.:Youv’e got backbone, good luck with the job search. I had a similiar experience in RCIA, a Franciscan told us that one day Luther will be sainted, WOW where have I been.

Amy,

What’s the matter with you? Where is your backbone? What you experienced is called a hostile workplace and you don’t have to stand for it. You need to contact your HR and complain. If they don’t take your complaint seriously, you can sue and end up with lots of $$$. These people you spoke of need to be fired. What they did is no different they leaving a noose in the locker of an African American co-worker. If you live in Maryland, contact me immediately. I will give you the names of several lawyers who are very successful in defending people against hate mongering bigots.

Would Professor Kmiec support the President-elect if Barack Obama supported the criminalization of doctors who refused to be involved in any way in the killing of Catholic academics?