Sebelius: A Response to Michael

Michael states that "no one who blogs at MOJ is more theologically informed or astute than, say, David Hollenbach, S.J."  Certainly, Fr. Hollenbach is more "theologically informed" than I am, and I'll leave it at that.  

But, Fr. Hollenbach's accomplishments in theological studies -- for which I have great respect -- do not, in my view, make the "26 Catholics for Sebelius" any more persuasive or the Sebelius nomination any less cynical.

For starters, it is important to appreciate that Gov. Sebelius's abortion-related errors go well beyond reluctantly embracing the view that (quoting Michael) "all things considered, pre-viability abortions should [not] be criminalized."  For more on her record, go here.  (Michael is certainly right that recognizing Roe's wrongness does not necessarily commit one to the view that pre-viability abortions *should* be criminalized.  But, the Church's authoritative teachings, as I understand it -- Faithful Citizenship is, clearly, not to the contrary -- *are* to the effect that abortion is not merely a private wrong, and that unborn children should be protected in law.  I would be quite surprised if, say, Fr. Hollenbach believed that Gov. Sebelius's views on abortion -- putting aside what one might think are her other merits -- were sound.)

It is becoming clear that, whatever might be the other upsides of his election, Pres. Obama's administration will, in many ways, aggressively promote the abortion-rights agenda.  This agenda will include movements on, e.g., conscience-protection, RU-486, Plan B, increased public funding of abortion around the world, embryo-destructive research, pro-Roe litmus-tests for judges, etc.  (How this agenda is, as the Statement suggests, going to reflect "values that . . . protect human life" and, on balance, "meet the needs" of "unborn children" is not clear to me.)  The President has chosen, as the likely "point person" for many of these efforts, a prominent pro-abortion-rights Catholic.  (And it's the Governor's *critics* who are "divisive"?)  Those pro-life Catholics who voted for Obama should, I think, be disappointed.

Particularly regrettable is the "26 Catholics" statement's tired charge that "partisan use of our religion regrettable and divisive."  "Divisive" is here, as it usually is, merely code for "counter to our policy preferences."  No one is "using" her "faith to attack her"; they are objecting to her nomination because her abortion record is bad.  If anything, it seems to me that it is the administration, not her critics, that is cynically "using" her religion.  Plenty of people -- not just a pro-abortion-rights Catholic -- could have helped the President pursue "[a]ffordable and accessible health care" etc., etc.

That Prof. Kmiec is one of the signatories to this letter is disappointing, as its premises are difficult to reconcile with positions he took, publicly and enthusiastically, for decades.