Why Professor Douglas Kmiec as Vatican Ambassador is A Bad Idea

Tip of the Hat to Southern Appeal for this Link


I think this explains it in a pretty good way.

Let me point out AGAIN Ambassador to the Vatican is the improper title. It is Ambassador of Envoy to the Holy See!!! See you can see it on our Embassy Web Site!!!. But I guess I need to use both terms.

My problem with Kmiec is not that he supported Obama really. It was the way he conducted himself. Also the fact that it appears he keeps changing his legal view of certain issues he just held a couple of years ago (and argued) is disconcerting to me.

Among many "What the Hell" statements he made (This post is a must read to see the errors in the full scope he delivers):

By this demanding measure, neither of the major party candidates is a perfect Catholic candidate on abortion. Whether the voter chooses McCain or Obama, there is some remote cooperation with sin – with McCain, reversing Roe leaves the states effectively pro-choice; with Obama, leaving Roe settled respects the woman as the decision-maker. Neither course guarantees absolute legal protection to human life.

What? As soon as he wrote this I knew he had gone from the respected Catholic Legal scholar to political hack. I really have a hard time think he actually believes the above.. A good short response to this nonsense is found here also. Also see the above link where this gone into a good bit in several places

Kmiec also seems to have some personal vices I rather not see in the Envoy the Holy See. That is seeing his opponents in the worst possible light it appears.

I have often mentioned that I can still not understand how he went from ROMNEY supporter to Obama supporter. In a recent forum he said:

An early supporter of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, Kmiec said he was disappointed that, in his view, the Republican Party rejected Romney’s candidacy on the basis of his Mormon religion. Not finding the views of the eventual Republican nominee Sen. John McCain consistent with Romney’s positions, he looked elsewhere.

Wow. So his guy lost and contributes that to the worst motives. It had nothing to do with lets say Romney going negative and scorched earth on all his opponents. Sometimes you have to do that but the key is not to do it too long. When you do that you have the amazing debate in New Hampshire where campaign staff tired of that nonsense all had their guys gang up on him like it was cage fight. Oh and let me note that he had some of the leading people of the right and people associated with the GOP backing Romney. From the pundit ON TV (Hannity) to Rush, to the National Review and numerous pundits. McCain and Huckabee were not feeling similar love. Goodness even the anti Mormon Bob Jones of Bob backed him.

In any event in what ways is Obama positions more consistent with Romney than lets say McCain. The point is laughable and I have never have heard him make it. Again his "conversion" leads me uneasy and makes me wonder what really is up.

Obama no doubt has a whole slew of acceptable Catholics that would make better choices. Bill Clinton found two good choices. One was a former Congresswoman from my State Lindy Boggs.

There have been too many Election year Road to Damascus experiences all in a short period of time for me to feel comfortable in Kmiec being Envoy