Victoria Hawkins
Staff Writer
It has become one of the political arena’s most contested topics of the summer — Caruso Family Chair and Professor of Constitutional Law Douglas Kmiec denounced and denied Communion for possessing and professing the very idea that a man who doesn’t have “pro-life” branded on his forehead could do this country a service.
The issue was sparked by Kmiec’s endorsement of Democratic candidate Barack Obama for president back in March. For those who are new to campus, or merely unfamiliar with Kmiec, this news doesn’t sound like something profoundly extraordinary.
Yet, delving deep into Kmiec’s political history, it is apparent that this decision defies his past ideological trends.
Kmiec’s accomplishments include serving for presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush as head of the Office of Legal Counsel, as well as former Dean of the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law. He also served as a faculty member at Notre Dame Law School for almost 20 years.
Kmiec is known for being a staunch Republican, a conservative Catholic and a contributing writer for the Catholic News Service. Thus emerges the notability of his endorsement of a candidate who shares a key belief contrary to his own.
Obama’s pro-choice stance on abortion is at the forefront of the outrage that spread among many in the Catholic community. Apparently, it was such a serious aberration that one priest in particular decided to take action.
Following the spectacle from which his wife fled in tears, according to National Public Radio, Kmiec spoke to a group of Catholic businessmen and women for whom the Mass was held.
He told E. J. Dionne Jr. of the Washington Post that the priest went on to address the issue during the service, calling support of candidates who favor abortion as “participating in a grave moral evil.”
He declined to name the priest in hopes of preventing retaliation against the cleric. The event organizers sent him a letter of apology.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops states that Catholics cannot vote for a candidate who favors issues, including abortion, if they are doing so with the intent to support that issue. By that definition, it seems Kmiec did nothing wrong and the priest was at fault.
The professor readily admitted he disagrees with Obama when it comes to abortion and several other issues in a blog he wrote for Slate.com. However, Kmiec said he considers Obama “a person of integrity, intelligence and genuine good will.”
Trusting that, as president, he could bring a focus to human rights (bridging our nation’s monstrous religious and racial gaps), Kmiec is another willing to lend his voice to a growing chorus, just as any other private citizen might do.
We all have opinions, and, as Americans, have the right to publicize them. After all, California is still one of the 50 states.
I agree that there are political agendas and religious freedoms, but I also know that, while they are known to clash, there are times they have found common ground.
In his blog on Slate.com, Kmiec wrote, “As a Republican and a constitutional lawyer, I believe religious freedom does not mean religious separation or mindless exclusion from the public square.”
This statement brings up another imperative point. At the center of it all is the reminder one doesn’t have to be a Catholic or an Obama-con to appreciate the arguments being posed — religion and politics affect everyone on a majority of levels. This election is proving that fact on both local and national stages, where people in power are strategically using their platforms to influence as many as they can.
There is no such thing as an issue that is only relevant or accessible to a certain group of people who wear a particular label, or at least there shouldn’t be.
All things are available for comment by all people, because everyone offers a unique and impacting look at the world.
Kmiec was clearly within his right to make public his support of Obama. No one, priest or otherwise, should have reprimanded him for taking the risk of going against political expectations.
This issue is not merely a Catholic one, nor is it just a symbol of the changing role of religion in the 2008 election. It is a statement about the lack of tolerance within humanity. We would all do well to learn and grow from it.
08-25-2008