Support First Things by turning your adblocker off or by making a  donation. Thanks!

I have a confession to make: I don’t dislike Barack Obama.

Oh sure, I dislike his policies and wish he wasn’t the most powerful leader on the planet. I also believe that some of the views he holds are—there’s no other way to put it—evil. Nevertheless, he appears to be a decent guy (at least compared to some of our creepier past presidents like JFK and Richard Nixon).

Because his is such a relatively normal chap, I suspect he’s somewhat appalled by the messianic adoration of his most eager supporters. Not enough to not exploit it and use if to his advantage, of course. After all, cults of personality can certainly be useful—particularly when you’re the personality. Still, he must cringe when his supporters are carried away in their POTUS-love.

How could he not when they embarrass themselves (and him) with their sartorial choices ? Or when they make inappropriate did-they-really-just-say- that analogies?

If I could ask him about such shameful fawning, I would naturally start by asking about his new ambassador to Malta. In a recent interview Douglas Kmiec, the former Romney-supporting Roman Catholic law professor, attempts to shed the last remaining vestige of his credibility. After defending Obama’s indefensible position on abortion, Kmiec reaches a new level of absurdity:

Even though there were areas of disagreement, Mr Obama pointed out the responsibility of government to provide a family wage, to care for the environment and to provide healthcare for the uninsured.

“When I thought about all these things, I thought ‘this is my catechism come to life’ because we are called to each of these things in the social teachings of the Church.”

It is for that reason, Prof. Kmiec says, that he was convinced he had found a person of intelligence who had articulated a set of views and policies he could easily support.

It’s unclear whether the “this” is referring to President Obama or simply his policies. But either way this is one of the most bizarre things every said about either. Although I’m an evangelical Protestant, I’ve actually read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Has Kmiec? His understanding of what it teaches is a bit askew.

For instance, it is not the “responsibility of government to provide a family wage” but of those “responsible for business enterprises.” Likewise, the Catechism says that it’s the duty of society to “help in the attainment of . . . health care . . . ” When did society become synonymous with government? Has Kmiec never heard of subsidiarity?

The most obvious point at which the analogy breaks down, though, is on the issue of abortion. No president in history has supported or proposed to expand the right to destroy the unborn as has Obama. Despite Kmiec’s gullible defenses, Obama has done nothing to reduce the demand for the procedure. Indeed, he has expanded access for abortion whenever possible. How does this square with the Catechism?

It’s understandable why some non-believers would put all their hope in Obama. But presumably Kmiec, as a Roman Catholic, knows where our true hope lies. Since we already have the Messiah, why does Kmiec need to make one of the President?

(Via: American Papist )

Show 0 comments



Filter First Thoughts Posts

Related Articles