The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
President Obama's Catholic problem
Apr. 15, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
President Obama speaking at Georgetown University April 14 (CNS photo)
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionPresident Obama has a Catholic problem. The vituperative attacks on him over his decision to deliver the commencement address at the University of Notre Dame are evidence of a deeper disquiet because they have not been restricted to the radical pro-life fringe. Nine American bishops have publicly voiced their opposition to his going to Notre Dame. This kerfuffle was largely avoidable but the White House has seemed tone deaf to Catholic concerns since January 20.
Three days after the Inauguration, President Obama revoked the Mexico City policy that prevented government funding of overseas family planning groups if they provide information on procuring an abortion. This was expected but, the White House did not send out emissaries to argue that the change was mostly about family planning services, and that it is precisely the absence of such services that has resulted in the high abortion rates in many developing countries, including Catholic countries.
The decision to overturn the “conscience regulations” for Catholic health care workers was also mishandled. The Obama administration said that the regulations, which the Bush administration enacted in its final months in office, were overbroad and vague. Conservatives claimed that without the regulations Catholics would be coerced into performing abortions, something that is actually prohibited by federal law already.
No one at the White House, however, argued that they intended to draw new regulations that were not vague, still less that coercion of conscience is a significant issue. In Connecticut two years ago, after a very nasty brawl, the legislature ordered Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception that might function as an abortifacient. A tentative compromise was worked out eventually, but it would be wrong to dismiss Catholic concerns as alarmist. And, on liberal grounds, the coercion of conscience is suspect.
Finally, when the President announced he was permitting federal funding for embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), he endorsed a policy most Americans and most Catholics support. But, his spokespeople seemed to go out of their way to say things offensive to Catholics. “This [decision] is consistent with the president’s determination to use sound scientific practice, responsible practice of science and evidence, instead of dogma in developing federal policy,” said Obama’s science advisor Harold Varmus. Scientism, too, has its dogmas and besides Catholics do not consider dogma a bad thing.
The President did much better himself when asked about ESCR at his last press conference: He did not dismiss the ethical issues involved and acknowledged their difficulty, even holding out hope that someday this ethically challenged research might be avoided. Common political sense suggests it would have been wise to have Sen. John McCain, who also supported ESCR, standing over Obama’s shoulder at the signing ceremony.
Had the Obama administration rolled out these three policies with greater care, the controversy about Notre Dame would not have become so explosive. Extremists like Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue, would have made a fuss no matter what and there are some conservative Catholics who are as devoted to the GOP as they are to the Blessed Virgin. But, if the President had called several key members of the hierarchy to discuss these policy changes, the controversy over his Notre Dame invite might have been avoided.
President Obama also might have learned earlier that his administration was developing a problem with Catholics if his administration had a sharper ear for Catholic concerns. No bishop was going to endorse ESCR but it might not have become a casus belli if the President said early on that he was committed to continuing research using adult stem cells in the hope that they might allow us to avoid the ethical issues raised with embryonic stem cells.
If he had coupled his rejection of Bush’s “conscience clause” with the naming of a panel to craft another that included an American cardinal, he could have defused the criticism he has received since.
Instead, Catholics who voted for Bush in 2004 but for Obama in 2008, in large part because he spoke differently about life issues from the way previous liberal Democrats addressed life issues, are beginning to worry that they were had. They knew he was pro-choice, but they believed him when he said he was not pro-abortion. The tone-deafness of the administration, however, plays into the conservative criticism that this is a distinction without a difference. Seeing as the Catholic vote was decisive in states like Ohio, Indiana, Nevada, and Colorado, the White House might want to recalibrate their approach.
The Bush administration paid very close attention to Catholics. In 2001, the first time the newly inaugurated President left the White House was to attend a dinner hosted by the Catholic archbishop of Washington. Deal Hudson, the editor of Crisis magazine, served as a go-between for the Bush administration, conservative Catholic organizations and some members of the hierarchy. Hudson was a controversial figure, but he could smell trouble for the administration on Catholic issues and help them avoid it. Bush increased his share of the Catholic vote significantly from 2000 to 2004.
So far, no one has been named to serve as the Obama White House’s liaison to the Catholic community yet. Nor is it clear that the administration understands the need to fill the liaison job with someone who can do more than preach to the liberal Catholic choir. A political liaison must keep the choir singing, assuredly: Some people come for the music. But, the White House needs a liaison who knows how to reach beyond the choir, especially to two key groups: the hierarchy and those Catholic swing voters who flipped in 2008.
Public spats with men of the cloth earn you the worst kind of press and the Catholic hierarchy has its own newspapers, radio programs, etc. As for Catholic swing voters, they will be as critical in the 2010 midterms as they were in 2008, concentrated as they are in swing states.
The administration also has not yet named an ambassador to the Vatican. This job is too important to go to a big-time fundraiser with no credentials for the work. The Vatican is much more enthusiastic about Obama than some of the more vocal, conservative American bishops. Placing someone with ecclesiastical savvy at the Vatican embassy would provide the administration with another avenue of communication.
Both Duquesne law professor Nick Cafardi or Pepperdine law professor Doug Kmiec have many, varied and deep relationships within the Catholic Church and could not only promote good will in Rome but could serve as a sounding board for Catholic concerns as well.
Obama’s Catholic problem is not dire. Like most Americans, Catholics are principally concerned about the economy and applaud the President’s efforts on that score. But, voters can multi-task too: they want the economy fixed and they want progress on the President’s stated goal of reducing the abortion rate.
Catholic swing voters are not doctrinaire about abortion or ESCR, but life issues do concern them and when they hear a presidential advisor denigrate “dogma” they roll their eyes. And, when their local bishop denounces the President, they listen. The President needs to pick his fights judiciously and fighting with the Catholic hierarchy is one fight he should avoid.
During the campaign, Catholics felt that Mr. Obama understood their concerns. He listened to our heroes like Sen. Bob Casey and grasped the symbolism of providing Casey a primetime speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention, a slot denied his pro-life father in 1992.
Obama spoke passionately about the need to reduce the abortion rate. He spoke about “the dignity of work,” a phrase frequently used by Pope John Paul II in his writings on social justice. But, in his first two months, it is not clear the President’s staff understands Catholics the way their chief does. They had better hurry up. Obama may or may not be able to turn the economy around by the midterms next year. The last thing he needs is to unnecessarily alienate Catholic swing voters.
Michael Sean Winters is the author of "Left at the Altar: How the Democrats Lost the Catholics and How the Catholics Can Save the Democrats."
Catholic bishops forget that
Catholic bishops forget that our laws are made for all citizens, not just Catholics...that Catholics do not run the country...that they (bishops) have become screeching voices in the night instead of speaking with authority following their assistance of and participation in the sexual abuse scandal...they must re-earn their right to speak with moral authority and that won't happen overnight or even a few years down the road...it will take decades of humble service.
It is a given that the
It is a given that the Bishops in the country were sinfully negligent in the handling of the sexual abuse cases within this country. It is a scandal that should never be forgotten and steps should always be taken to protect all our children and young people. At the same time:
It does not give anyone the right to manipulate the teachings of the Church to meet their own ideological leanings or agenda. So, the Bishops now have the duty and right to speak out when they see such teachings abused.
You can't be a Catholic Sometimes. There is no such thing.
I contend and have always contended: religion is a tool that we use to bring ourselves closer to the Spirit of God. If the present religion is interfering in your faith; then, you have an obligation in conscience to find a religion that primarily will lead you to the face of the living God.
So, if you can't adhere to the teaching, then, my suggestion is leave and find one that meets your needs.
You can't sit back and say well the Bishops didn't handle the sexual abuse cases very well. We know that. In lieu of that, it doesn't mean they don't have the right to speak out on the social problems facing the church.
Our present Catholic Population is terribly educated. Most of them under the age of 60 would fail the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you are my age of 86, then, in my day, you not only had the answer, but, you knew the question or else.
We can't make sequiturs that have no logical conclusion.
The Bishops still have the right to speak out. YOu may not like it, but, they should and are doing it now. Granted, they should have done it loudly and more often during the sexual scandal . .it's unfortunate they didn't.
So, let's be happy that they are doing their jobs as Bishops . ..shepherding.
I heartily agree with you
I heartily agree with you when you say:
"It is a given that the Bishops ... were sinfully negligent ...
does not give anyone the right to manipulate the teachings of the Church (Jesus) to meet their own ideological leanings or agenda"
The biggest problem the Magisterial Authorities have created for themselves and for the laity is their constant twisting and distortion of the gospel message of Christ to suit their own personal agendas.
Example, many of the verses quoted as an excuse for the persecution of homosexuals when reexamined and retranslated by biblical scholars render the same passage as "child molesters", not homosexuals.
--- Error or deliberate deception?
Another example, the only works that the early catholic church included in the bible are those that place women into subservience to men. They conveniently excluded ALL of the works that show women in discipleship, and some that even show Jesus placing Peter in a subservient role to Mary.
--- Coincidence or deliberate deception?
Recently - "voting democrat is supporting abortion". Now we see that all of those who have supported the republican party, have in effect supported a party that created legislation that has caused a sharp increase in the number of abortions. Using their teachings, ALL of the Magisterial Authorities have been, and continue to be guilty of supporting abortion".
--- no question about this one
and on, and on, and on.
With global communication and the education of the laity, which in many cases is higher than those in the Magisterial Authorities, it is clearly evident that there has been a campaign of deception carried on by the leadership of the RCC for centuries.
Ever asked anyone who has left WHY they left? The majority say because they could no longer tolerate the hypocrisy and deceit of the RCC Leadership. Ever ask those who stay how they deal with the deceit of the leadership? The majority say they just ignore them and follow their conscience. The masses leave because they can no longer tolerate the hypocrisy and deceit, the majority of those who stay simply ignore the teachings and do what they please ... that says there is a HUGE problem that needs to be addressed.
The Magisterial Authorities however continue to assert "We are infallible, it is the majority of the laity that is the problem. If you dont like the teachings then get out, (just as you wrote in your post) we dont want you here, and good riddance to you. There is no room in this church for protestants."
As far as doing their jobs as shepherds: If they are losing the majority of their flock how effective are they really being? If the majority of what is left is doing whatever they please, how effective are they really being? If those who call themselves "truly faithful" have devolved into behavior that at best can be called hateful and vindictive, how effective are they being?
I will be the first to acknowledge that there are many in the clergy who are leading by Christ's example, but there are many more, far too many in the RCC leadership, who are clearly leading by a different example, far too many who are clearly serving a different master.
Father does that mean that
Father does that mean that all us Jesuit educated scientists must leave the church rather than to speak out when the Bishops speak nonsense to scientific observation? During the time of Copernicus and Galileo should the scientists that observed the correctness of the Copernican theories have left?
The Sexual scandal hidden by the bishops for a thousand years is only the tip of the iceberg for an authoritarian Episcopacy that knows little of reason other than they believe themselves to have the authority to be right. Why has not the Church investigated the Vatican Bank as Pope JOhn Paul I declared he would? (He was found dead about one month later.) Should scientists maintain the phony belief of the Vatican Cardinals that have declared that condoms allow the HIV virus enter through the pores in the latex even in the face of the evidence presented by the NIH and WHO against this false idea? Should people in general follow and Episcopate that has a propensity to see themselves in an expanded infallibility. Should Theologians have the right to question what the Catechism teaches? Should we accept the obvious misogyny and homophobia of the Bishops? Is it not the duty of the People of God to speak truth to this nonsense? I think it is and yes I have been Catholic all my life and though I can not agree with the present leadership on much, I see it as my duty to speak out why and not merely to leave our beloved church to minds like some of our current Bishops and particularly the current one in Rome!
Father how can you proclaim to be a member of the Universal and Holy Church in the face of chuch misbehavior without continued disagreement.
Peace and understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Not so fast there, Father.
Not so fast there, Father. With all due respect, in acting as "shepherds", the bishops are wont to use the phrase "embarrassed and ashamed" when describing the Notre Dame invitation of Obama. Yet, not one time have said anything about being "embarrassed and ashamed" over the assignment of Cardinal Law to a place of honor in the Vatican, nor have they said anything about being "embarrassed and ashamed" over the current pope who keeps Cardinal Law in that place of honor. Forget the stupid act of lifting the excommunication of a renegade bishop who claims the holocaust did not take place. You need to reexamine your praise of the bishops. They don't mind lasing out at those who can't hurt them, but keep "embarrassingly" silent when it comes to their own sins. Sorry Father. I am not at all impressed with the bishops who are "embarrassed and ashamed" when they never mention their own moral failures, but know so well the moral failure of others.
Actually, you are quite full
Actually, you are quite full of disrespect. The substance of the article was not about the bishops' handling or mishandling of the abuse scandals in the church. It was about Obama's stance on abortion and ESCR vs that of the church. So, you and all the other closet protestants can drop the act and stop setting up strawmen to crawl out of every argument.
Actually, the article had to
Actually, the article had to do with the bishops' response to the Notre Dame invitation and my reply had to do with the hypocrisy of the bishops in that regard. And I gave an example to demonstrate my point. My point still stands. Sorry you missed it.
Dear QualisRex, If there is
Dear QualisRex,
If there is any disrespect I see it as yours, QualisRex. The comments made above are back to a rather conservative priest who apparently no longer sees the Church as a Universal body. When you call others closet protestants, perhaps you are just projecting your own closted beliefs onto others- Not very respectful QualisRex. Kind of takes one to know one!
Actually, the article was
Actually, the article was about the bishops' response to the Notre Dame invitation and honorary degree extended to Obama, and my comments were about their (the bishops) hypocrisy in that regard. I provided an example to demonstrate my point. My point still stands. Sorry you missed it.
Very well said, thank you. I
Very well said, thank you. I too have been very discouraged about the inconsistancy of the bishops in their ability to stand up to authority. Ultimately it does affect their credibility and that is troubling, as it should be.
Jay, Just because You believe
Jay,
Just because You believe in Obama and that whatever HE says as president you will fight for, does NOT cross out the fact that the Bishops were doing what Jesus Christ did when HE threw out the moneymakers from the Temple!
The Bishops have spoken! Thank God!
If you are are Father Josphe
If you are are Father Josphe Fessio -- I can only take your comments with a grain of salt. I hope we will get to the point where the Coutnry and the Church can see themselves as cooperative without being tied at the hio. The Church basked in the Bush Administration -- but look wher that got all of us.
Shouldn't WE as concerned
Shouldn't WE as concerned people be concerned about the LAWS OF GOD?
The laws of God are two fold. Love God & Love of neighbor.
If we do NOT Love God then in actuality we will NOT love our neighbor!
I know that it is difficult for humans to realize that they are only HUMAN!
It is in the Divinity of Christ's Love which I have learned from both my mother and father, as a child.
The Catholic Bishops are not making up laws. Just look to the Bible and you will find out the Truth! In the twenty sixth verse in Genesis 1, it states that God said, "Let Us make man into our own image and likeness..."
That is proof that God is Three persons in ONE God!
God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. God loved Mary Magdallen not because she was a sinner, but because of the fact that she was truly sorry for her grieviences, and she never wanted to commit them again.
I know just where these men who are our ordained Bishops are going with this. Why give a man a degree in humanity, when all he is trying to do is harm people. By that in the way that he said it last April during the Clinton-Obama Campaign. It came down to the little way that he wiggles out of every little thing that he says and does wrong! The main thing that bothered me during that campaign was the time when he during one of his speeches said that if his daughter got pregnant, HE would take her to the ABORTIONIST. That doesn't look like a very intelligent person to me!
Not nine but according to
Not nine but according to LifeSiteNews' latest count, 33 bishops have expressed opposition to Notre dame honoring Obama:
1. Bishop John D'Arcy - Fort Wayne-South Bend, IN
2. Bishop Samuel Aquila - Fargo, ND
3. Bishop Gregory Aymond - Austin, TX
4. Bishop Gerald Barbarito - Palm Beach, FL
5. Archbishop Daniel Buechlein - Indianapolis, IN
6. Bishop Robert Baker - Birmingham, AL
7. Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz - Lincoln, NE
8. Archbishop Eusebius Beltran - Oklahoma City, OK
9. Auxiliary Bishop Oscar Cantú - San Antonio, TX
10. Cardinal Daniel DiNardo - Houston, TX
11. Archbishop Timothy Dolan - New York, NY
12. Bishop Thomas Doran - Rockford, IL
13. Auxiliary Bishop John Dougherty - Scranton, PA
14. Cardinal Francis George - Chicago, IL; President, USCCB
15. Archbishop José Gomez - San Antonio, TX
16. Bishop William Higi - Lafayette, IN
17. Archbishop Alfred Hughs - New Orleans, LA
18. Bishop Jerome Listecki - La Crosse, WI
19. Bishop William E. Lori - Bridgeport, CT
20. Bishop Robert Lynch - St. Petersburg, FL
21. Bishop Joseph Martino - Scranton, PA
22. Bishop Charles Morlino - Madison, WI
23. Bishop George Murry - Youngstown, OH
24. Archbishop John J. Myers - Newark, NJ
25. Bishop R. Walker Nickless - Sioux City, IA
26. Archbishop John C. Nienstedt - MN
27. Archbishop Edwin O'Brien - Baltimore, MD
28. Bishop Thomas Olmsted - Phoenix, AZ
29. Bishop Kevin Rhoades - Harrisburg
30. Bishop Alexander Sample - Marquette, MI
31. Bishop Edward J. Slattery - Tulsa, OK
32. Bishop Richard Stika - Knoxville, TN
33. Bishop Anthony Taylor - Little Rock, AR
Also, more than 250,000 have signed the Cardinal Newman Society's online petition (http://www.notredamescandal.com/) against the same.
Are you making any
Are you making any distinction between someone who doesn't think it was a brilliant idea given that it would cause controversy versus someone who is appalled that someone who is not in favor of outlawing abortion will be given an honorary degree by a Catholic institution? I believe the President of USCCB falls into the former category while Bishop D'Arcy falls into the latter.
Looks more like a Catholic
Looks more like a Catholic hierarchy/clergy problem. The graduating students of the University of Notre Dame invited President Obama. Seems to me the younger generation wants to listen to what he has to say. Perhaps it will be as memorable as JFK's "Peace" speech at American University.
It's my understanding that
It's my understanding that the bishops’ objection is to President Obama speaking at Notre Dame is not the invitation itself, but to his being honored by receiving an honorary degree.
RJ
Certainly not being willing
Certainly not being willing to attend the graduation because Obama will be honored there is the same as not being willing to attend the graduation because Obama will be there. If it is not the same, then why didn't Bishop D'Arcy make that clear?
And did all these bishops
And did all these bishops have the same position for the speech at Georgetown University? How come there hasn't been anything said about President Obama speaking at that Catholic University? If his words are so dangerous for students to hear then he shouldn't be speaking at any Catholic school right?
With opposition like this it
With opposition like this it is easy to get support. You go, BO!
how many of these
how many of these uber-Catholics (too Catholic now to be American) filed their income tax this year? If they did where is their consistency? Their courage and belief in their professed ideals and moral outrage?
Give Barack a chance, like we real Catholics are, and thank God!
I'll give Obama a chance
I'll give Obama a chance after he makes a 180 degree conversion to the pro-life position. That is all. Until then, he has nothing but my contempt. And I don't care if he is the President. That does not entitle him to my loyalty or respect.
"we real Catholics" - You
"we real Catholics" - You should really get over yourself.
Your argument about tax-filing is a non-sequitor and is ridiculous. Fact of the matter is, Notre Dame has come under fire NOT for inviting President Obama to speak, but for offering him an honorary degree in law. Anyone who doesn't make that distinction is being purposefully misleading.
I hope, "brother," that you are not insinuating that the legal actions of President Obama (which have consistently flown in the face of the notion of the need for protecting the innocent unborn) are worthy of "honor" .... are you?
The list of numbers does not
The list of numbers does not impress me. It simply tells me this is a list of "one issue" bishops. They will have my respect when they have the courage to speak out on other issues which are "life" issues as well: the empidemic illegal drug usage which has lead to the funneling of guns to Mexico for the illicit drug trade and the money laundering of drug dollars coming from Mexico. The continued silence on their part for not speaking up against the continued American presence in Iraq.
Really? "Drug use" and "money
Really?
"Drug use" and "money laundering" takes precedence over the killing of the unborn for you?
You have your priorities sadly confused, I think.
No, it doesn't take
No, it doesn't take precedence. I am saying that these are all "respect life" issues. As the late Cardinal Bernadin said, we must have a seamless garment approach to respecting life.
A university is a place where
A university is a place where ideas are exchanged. Welcome President Obama!
Congratulations to Notre Dame and shame on Cardinal not-so-gorgeous George and those lemming bishops who openly agree with him.
Mitred imbeciles and others should remember that you will attract more flies with honey than vinegar.
I trust these good bishops
I trust these good bishops are ready to put their money where their mouths are and refuse any and all FEDERAL taxpayers' dollars for their schools and other faith-based programs currently receiving aid, right? You can't have it both ways, boys. Now let's really see what you've got under all that silk and lace...
I guess they will miss a
I guess they will miss a golden opportunity to hear an intelligent President. Too bad!
Finally a balanced
Finally a balanced perspective on Obama, Notre Dame and Catholics. Well done.
Nothing balanced about this
Nothing balanced about this article. It just tries to have it both ways, while thinking that Catholics are stupid.
His choice of words betrays where the author comes from.
The same could be said about
The same could be said about those who are opposing Obamas invitation. They must think that catholics are stupid peasants who are too ignorant to see what is really going on here. The rhetoric and actions of those who are opposing the invitation speak very clearly about which master they are really serving, very clearly about their real agendas.
Most pro-life people I know
Most pro-life people I know are devoted to being pro-life and would gladly be democratic if not for the democrats pro-choice, pro-abortion platforms. Most pro-lifers are "independent," because no political party fully captures what Catholicism teaches on a whole host of social issues beginning with the right to life of the unborn. The concern about the right to life is precisely that and does not have to do with being affiliated with any one political party. The main issue now is Catholics who have betrayed the Church's consistent ethic of life and are finding ways to further divide the Church in this area to weaken her pro-life agenda. Die hard democrats, even those who claim to be Catholic, are gleeful that the Church is being divided in this way to weaken her claim to moral truth and influence in the American political system. It is not necessary to give voice to those who wish the Church's moral agenda weakened and privatized.
Very true. I was once a
Very true. I was once a democrat and voted democratic for some time after my conscience began telling me I shouldn't, because of the party's pro-abortion platform. I was sad to have to switch allegiance, and would switch back if saw any reasonable hope they would once again become pro life. But I am particularly upset and saddened at the way Obama led so many of us Catholics up the garden path during the election campaign, with his bait and switch tactics on reducing the number of abortions. Thank God, I did not vote for him, but obviously many devout Catholics did. His deception in that area betrays, in itself, a serious blemish in his character. His actions since inauguration day are a source of great sadness to faithful Catholics who voted for him.
So I guess the Republican
So I guess the Republican pro-death penalty, pro-war, pro-capital punishment, pro-torture policies are better?
There is no moral equivalency
There is no moral equivalency between destruction of human life by abortion and embryonic stem cell research, and war, capital punishment, etc. Abortion and ESCR involve an intrinsic evil. The others can be debated.
The democratic party is NOT
The democratic party is NOT PRO-ABORTION. I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion. It is pro-choice -- very different. Demonizing women who choose abortion only widens the divide between people, and that's what this discussion is about. It's easy to get indignant over these kinds of issues. Instead of "talking" about it, why not take President Obama up on his invitation to GET INVOLVED. Then you will earn the right to be heard.
*I don't know anyone who is
*I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion.*
Vhemt.org, among others.
*It is pro-choice -- very different*
There's a differenc, but morally the pro-choice attitude is not one bit better than being pro-abortion.
*only widens the divide between people, and that's what this discussion is about. *
The discussion is not about whether there is a "divide between people". That happens whenever anything contentious gets discussed. The discussion is about whether it is moral to kill a child (oh, excuse me, fetus) in utero.
*Instead of "talking" about it, why not take President Obama up on his invitation to GET INVOLVED. *
How do you know we aren't "getting involved"?
Doesn't protesting this travesty constitute a form of "getting involved"?
What form of "getting involved" is unrelated to "talking about it"?
Life is not black and white
Life is not black and white without having any room for exceptions.
I agree with your description: "... Church's consistent ethic of life ..." as the RCC position on abortion.
In Brazil a 12 year old (86 lbs.) girl, pregnant as a result of rape by her step father, could not have lived to go full term. The doctor that aborted her pregnancy and the mother who gave permission were "automatically" excommunicated. The bishop publicly affirmed that excommunication and I have not read anywhere that it has been reversed.
So the bishop would have let the girl die as the pregnancy proceeded in order to fulfill the "... Church's consistent ethic of life ...". Even if she were not going to die, he would have condemned her to the probable physical harm and definite psychological harm of carrying the seed of rape to full term. While I’m sure that he would have prayed for her, she would have paid the price for his decision.
I would have had my daughter receive an abortion in these circumstances.
RJ
I had to reply to your
I had to reply to your argument which is one I've heard for many years by those who are pro-abortion. "What if your daughter, grandaughter,etc got raped?" I was a labor & delivery nurse for decades. I took care of many young girls who were pregant-some by rape and yes as young as 12. You do not die if you have a bsby at age 12 and yes you can go to full term and deliver a healthy baby normally. It is tragic that a child is molested by an adult and gets pregnant but will killing her child make her feel better about the rape? Does the baby deserve to die because of how it was conceived? Do two wrongs make a right? Will she not feel that loss the rest of her life because she was forced to abort? Abortion takes innocent life-does the baby have a "choice"? Can it defend itself against the instruments and machines that destroy it? Have you seen an abortion performed? Have you seen an ultrasound? There is life at conception and a heart beating at 8 weeks. When others criticize the church saying it doesn't stand for other social issues like the war, capital punishment etc. There is an inherent difference. The life of that child is innocent and helpless. It cannot defend itself. A criminal on death row made their choice of their own free will to kill and take an innocent life. When Bush invaded Iraq it was to keep an evil man from harming us and his own people. Bush did not send in people to purposely kill innocents. Most of those deaths were caused by the insurgents. Our mililary are in the military by choice and their service to this country was exemplary. The Catholic church is correct on the issues of abortion and embryonic stem cell research. It is morally wrong. Although I like Obama as a person I dislike his abortion policies. He is the most pro-abortion President we have ever had and does not deserve to be honored at a Catholic University. I commend all the Bishops who are strogly shepherding their flocks.
While you're right, nothing
While you're right, nothing is as it ever appears to be, understanding what is clearly part of God's plan, which extends well-beyond our the pale of earthly confines, I would NOT terminate the pregnancy.
Pro-abortionists and others, who choose it as a convenient type of birth control, are of the ilk who believe the created are more important than the Creator.
BTW, fire Fr. Jenkins and the Board of Trustees for betraying the Catholic Faith and for not having enough faith in GOD, that it would all work out. What would be the worst thing they would suffer - martyrdom at the hands of the media scum?
I must've missed where the
I must've missed where the Republican Congressional majority (2001-2007) and the Republican president (2001-2009) rescinded Roe v. Wade???? When did that happen?
1 - Roe vs Wade, being a
1 - Roe vs Wade, being a SCOTUS ruling, can only be rescinded effectively by (a) a contrary SCOTUS decision, or (b) a constitutional amendment. In order for the former to happen, a case has to be brought before the Supreme Court that they can rule on. In order for the latter to happen - there has to be substantial political will to get it done, as a constitutional amendment must be ratified by a majority (2/3 majority, I believe) of state legislatures. So the "Republican Congressional majority" and "Republican president" couldn't necessarily get the job done.
The problem is that the whole
The problem is that the whole debate is centered around a court decision motivated by special interest. This isn't an issue for that arena. It's a moral issue now. Anyone with higher moral standards knows that killing the unborn baby is wrong. Problem is, the Church, and any other church for that matter, didn't prepare the people for it. Liberal Bishops afraid of upsetting the people won't demand their priests to preach this.
The pro-life movement has been bumbling around like a bunch of lost sheep without a shepherd. What is needed is unity among all pro-life groups, a willing leader who will set up spiritual formation among the group - maybe like a Fr. Frank Pavone. Protests, blocking clinics, lobbying, etc., has little value because that occurs in the physical world. A larger part of the war is being lost in spiritual warfare. To explain, a respect for all life concerned even the baby killing doctors - but more importantly - and this is key - THE SOUL. SOULS HAVE TO BE CONVERTED! The pro-life movement, if it EVER stands a chance at overturning anything, must soften the hearts and souls of those who don't think it's a top priority or just plain think it's appropriate to chop a baby into pieces and send it into a vacuum.
"Whatsoever you do to the least of them, you do unto Me." Most people would rise up and try to see Christ in the poor on the street who have no one to love them. Why not the poor in the womb who have no one to love them? Mother Teresa understood all that purely. Most people in this country obviously are more worried about comfort and wallets then make saving innocent lives a TOP priority. That's sick if you ask me. More faithful to the Democratic Party then they are the Roman Catholic Church. I have voted both - depended on where they stood on that single issue too, and i'll be darned if that single issue isn't the most important!
Roe only foreclosed state
Roe only foreclosed state action. Congress can still act to change when a child or fetus is given full protection of law. That is one of the inherent rights of a sovereign legislature (state legislatures are not sovereign in these matters).
It is very difficult for
It is very difficult for someone who is not intimately involved with Catholics to comprehend the Catholic perspective. Protestant churches do not give detailed instructions about the most intimate details of living to their members the way the Catholic Church does. Believe me, there is nothing in any Protestant religion that prepares a person to expect the kind of involvement of outsiders in one's life that one comes to find when one's life becomes intimately connected to the life of a Catholic person. Therefore, while it might seem that Obama is being insensitive to the Catholic perspective, that is really not the case. He is simply oblivious to its existence, as I once was. You Catholics look and act just like the rest of us, so why would we think you were seeing things so differently?
(I'm starting a tangent
(I'm starting a tangent here... please forgive me.) You wrote, "Believe me, there is nothing in any Protestant religion that prepares a person to expect the kind of involvement of outsiders in one's life that one comes to find when one's life becomes intimately connected to the life of a Catholic person."
As a once and now-again Catholic, with years in-between of agnosticism and evangelical Christianity... I find this statement puzzling. Could you mention an example of what you mean by "involvement of outsiders in one's life?" The evangelicals, in my experience, were Far, Far more involved in each other's lives than I've ever seen in a Catholic parish... and every bit as doctrinaire. Certainly the evangelical Christian pastors I encountered (and there were several) were overwhelmingly more-involved in individuals' lives than any priest I've ever met.
Or are you, perhaps, referring to Church doctrine (and its specificity about things such as birth control) as the "involvement of outsiders?"
To a degree I am referring to
To a degree I am referring to Church doctrine on contraception, but it is more than that. I'd rather not tell the entire story of my life, but I will share a couple of incidents.
For example, while we all get palms on Palm Sunday, only Catholics consider them objects of special reverence. For most of us after Palm Sunday, palms are junk that is messing up the house, so they get thrown away in the trash. In a Catholic household, palms must be burned or buried because they have been blessed. Well, I didn't know that when I was first married, and while I try to be respectful of people's religious practices and beliefs, it surprised me that I was treated as though I was endangering people by my intended action, as though it would result a run of bad luck ordained by God.
Similarly, I was aware of the meatlessness of Lenten Fridays, but I had not realized that Ash Wednesday was included. Not giving it much thought, on my first married Ash Wednesday, I prepared a meal that included a form of meat.
The reaction I got resulted in my never, ever, forgetting that again. It was not until this year that I was not zealous about enforcing the dietary restriction by serving the much despised tofu or lentils on Ash Wednesday, rather than the desirable fish dishes that are permitted. I'm not normally passive-aggressive, but that is where Catholicism forces one to go.
The point of my previous comment, though, had to do with the difference between the Catholic approach to life and the approach of the rest of us. The rest of us consider almost everything our responsibility. We believe God has left most earthly matters up to our discretion. We do not see God judging day to day what happens on earth.
Having become more aware of the Catholic approach over the almost thirty years that I have been married, I have integrated the two, so that I believe what happens day to day is our responsibility, but that God reveals Himself when we act, decide, and interact. However, it has also become evident to me that most Catholics, especially newer Catholics, are afraid to act, decide, and interact, except according to a script which they have developed out of the Catholic Catechism.
Clearly, that script includes behavior that most of us would consider, if not sinful, then at least, extremely rude, despite the fact that the Catholic Catechism teaches that ends do not justify means. This behavior is being modeled by bishops, such as D'Arcy, and it is the signature behavior of nouveau Catholic Randall Terry. This behavior marginalizes Catholicism and its practices. Those of us who consider that it is God's wish that people live peaceably together and who consider it our responsibilty to make that happens, merely rise above this behavior, and the beliefs that fuel it, by giving them token attention and limiting their influence on our policies.
If there is profound truth in the position of the Catholic Church with regard to life issues, it is not persuasive for multiple reasons, not the least of which is the means by which it is being conveyed. However, despite the failure of the message to convey, the rest of us believe that to inflict suffering upon the living in order to conform in technicalities to Catholic teaching would be an abdication of our God-given responsibilities. We believe suffering to be bad, while Catholicism teaches that suffering purifies and avoiding it is hedonistic.
So, perhaps, you see that there is a wide gulf between the Catholic perspective and the perspective of everyone else that rests in how we view suffering, God's will for us, and our consequent responsibilities.
"So, perhaps, you see that
"So, perhaps, you see that there is a wide gulf between the Catholic perspective and the perspective of everyone else that rests in how we view suffering, God's will for us, and our consequent responsibilities."
Perspective on suffering: St. Paul calls us to put on Christ. To live like Christ is to die like Christ. We all are the Mystical Body of Christ. There can be no resurrection if there is no crucifixion. The measure of the spiritual life of a Catholic is measured by Christ's life....all of it....from conception to death to resurrection to being a member of the Mystical Body of Christ - His Church. If we view it from the outside and if we aren't personally experiencing the pains and sorrows or pleasure and joy of some part of Christ's life, it is then that we have to contemplate it and help those that are experiencing it. The more we experience it the more Christ-like we become provided that our perspective is not self-centered and seeking to do God's will.
Being a recovering alcoholic, I began to ask questions of just who I am and how I fit into the bigger picture of life. The self-absorption of living in a vacuum had to change for me. First off, I read Rick Warren's The Purpose Driven Life. The very first line of the book reverberated through my soul and has changed my world view and view of the Church. There were times that I thought of leaving the Church before this as a selfish response to not being able to control my actions. But in truly seeing the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ - with sinful human beings making this Body up, I began to see that it's not about me - just as the line in that book says. Each individual person has obligations to be the children of God in the light of Christ's life and Church. How well we participate in the continuing Life of Christ in His Mystical Body determines if we are the holder of the whip that scourged Our Lord to offer relief or if we are Veronica offering a veil of relief and consolation.
All this ties into the will of God. It was God's will that he create man and woman. It was God's will that he communicates the fullness of His Truth through the human race by way of the Israelites in the Old Covenant and perfects this Covenant through Mary's Yes . It was God's will that Jesus came as God from God and Light from Light, the Word of God made flesh. It was God's will that He began to institue the foundation of the Church of this New Covenant. It was God's will that He allowed the bitter Passion and Sacrifice of His Son to be the redemption of mankind. It was God's will that when the lance was pierced into Christ's side that the Church was born. It was God's will that there be a hierarchy of individual sinful human beings ordained as priests, Bishops, Cardinals, Pope - but together in their teaching capacity they are guaranteed to be free of doctrinal error by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is God's will that in knowing it's naturally humanly impossible to carry this teaching out, He made it supernaturally possible through the proper reception of the Sacraments given to the ONLY Church to teach us about them.
This all isn't some idealogy among the choices of many. If one believes it to be the ONLY 'fullest' Truth there is, then by definition we are obligated to use this Mystical Body of Christ as the only vessel that can guarantee our transport to our True Home.
Therefore, our eternity is not banked on how well others have lived their lives - it's banked on how well we personally live ours according to the Teachings of the God-given Church in Rome. Since we are all intimately united within this Mystical Body of Christ, there is no wide gulf you speak of. Unless, by an act of our will, not God's, we cause ourselves to 'feel' this way. Each act of any individual has a direct effect on the united Body. This illumination should also then provide enough light to see the enemy which attacks her. Through following OUR will, which is the flesh and blood response to the world and the Church, we are subject to being logically seperated from the Mystical Body and therefore are subject to attacks from the evil one. As flesh was separated from the body of Christ causing agonizing pain in the scourging, so to we cause the same pain to the Mystical Body of Christ when our ideas followed by our actions seperate us from the Church Christ instituted. A child-like faith is needed to accept what she teaches with humility.
Which brings me to this speculation.... Why are people so infatuated with the sex scandals that are rocking the Church? I dare say, and without disrespect to this sensitive subject especially the victims, that deep within quite a number of them lies not so much the inspiration to console and care for the victims of the abuses, but also some teaching has antagonized the 'caregiver' personally. Therefore quite a few currently still crying foul are using this as a redirect for why the Church should do this or why the Church should do that rather than focus on personal accountability in The Mystical Body of Christ that Christ Himself institued - with sinful human beings making up the whole of it.
You wrote, "our eternity is
You wrote, "our eternity is not banked on how well others have lived their lives - it's banked on how well we personally live ours according to the Teachings of the God-given Church in Rome". I would tend to disagree with you that this is truly the Catholic understanding. If you look at the concept of the Treasury of Grace, it expresses the sense that one individual's deeds can and do have influence on the eternal well-being of others.
In any case, the distinction that I was making was between the Catholic sense of being called to suffer with Jesus, which you embrace, and the Protestant sense of having been rescued by Christ's crucifixion and ressurection and thereby being called to do the work of Christ to minimize suffering in the world.
I think the concept you are
I think the concept you are referring to is being manipulated into a good works can't save you argument. Lorraine Boettner perhaps? We can discuss this elsewhere but all I will say is faith without works is dead. But I don't have the power no matter how many good works I do to save anyone, including myself. That's all been done by Christ for me and any sacrificial acts I do is offered up to Him for Him to use as he sees fit. Mother Angelica said it well..at least I think it was Mother A "To be a saint, all you have to do is seek to do God's will". So I know I am trying....But if they won't live God's will, then that's just the way it is sad to say.
The point I was trying to make is that in regards to suffering, as Catholics, practicing ones anyway, we are called to offer up personal suffering and participate in the sufferings of Christ. Our suffering can be offered up for any number of reasons but the point in it is that we do it out of love for Christ. It's not saying that Christ's suffering wasn't good enough to redeem us. It's saying to our Brother, Jesus - I love you - I offer this suffering up to be more intimately united to your Sacred Heart. After Christ's death on the cross, people didn't stop sinning. You think it doesn't hurt Christ when people sin still? After all He did on that Cross and people still turn away...that's got to hurt. So, the work of redemption continues....He died once and for all but the world still produces sinners. So rather than feeling like we are making up for what is lacking in redemption, we acknowledge the fact that the work of redemption continues and therefore we take quite literally the passage in scripture - To live like Christ is to die like Christ and elsewhere, Take up your cross and follow me.
I am not understanding in
I am not understanding in your comments. Where do you allow for the individual to find his own conscience and own desire to be pleasing to God? Do you expect that Obama's perspective on what he is called by God to do should be understood by him as wrong just because you accept the Catholic perspective and not the Protestant one?
"Where do you allow for the
"Where do you allow for the individual to find his own conscience and own desire to be pleasing to God?"
Man doesn't find his own conscience. It's already there but is formed through godless life experiences - or for those with religious convictions, formed by creeds or tenets of their faith. Desires pleasing to God are only three (and I dare say most all other jealous gods): To know Him, love Him, and serve Him. If any of those desires of God are not followed or strayed away from, then an ill-formed conscience is the result and a potentially deviant life awaits. Such gives birth to moral relativism.
The free will allows the individual to find a direction in life that more times than not will be conformed to following their feelings and emotions. The conscience is not found by anyone. It's there as a God given gift to equip us with base moral decisions. If feelings and emotions, passions or desires cause one to abuse this free will and violate their conscience, then if unrepented, violating the conscience gets easier and morality becomes relatively negotiated. This forms our will into OUR WILL, not God's.
"Do you expect that Obama's perspective on what he is called by God to do should be understood by him as wrong....."
If Obama was truly called by God to do what he should - or more precisely put, consciously following God's will (at least the tradional Judeo-Christian God), then if he's done his homework nor consciously or unconsciously strayed from truth found in God's will, he would thoroughly be convicted that abortion is murder - plain and simple - and the only thing from declaring it murder is words on a paper. All the elements of murder are there. The only reason a doctor doesn't use a gun instead of a knife is because the baby won't suck through the vacuum. THAT IS NOT GOD'S WILL AND AS THE CO-CREATOR OF THAT BABY, SURELY CANNOT BE PLEASING TO OUR FATHER WHETHER YOU ARE PROTESTANT OR CATHOLIC!
......just because you accept the Catholic perspective and not the Protestant one?"
There is only one perspective that matters - God's. God's perspective is expressed more fully through the Catholic Faith because its Church is founded by Christ and has the original four marks required as defined in Scripture; One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Check out http://www.catholic.com for more insight.
Throughout the Old Testament lies evidence of free wills abused and consciences trampled upon. God in His Mercy came Himself to show us The Way, The Truth, and The Life. He was the Word of God made flesh. Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law and did show us The Way. He showed us how to live. He showed us The Truth of The Law that had been so darkened by almost all of the futile efforts of superficial worship of the Father. Jesus came to make it personal that was lost over time beginning with Original Sin. As part of this fulfillment of the Law, He put in place His Church which is likened to be an outpost of His Kingdom. As Christ Himself has said, "My kingdom is not of this world."
Since we know whose kingdom this world is then, we can look at the Church and be so very thankful that Christ instituted this outpost for us to turn to. Within her walls lie everything sufficient to gain us entrance into our true home. This includes teaching us The Way, The Truth, The Life.
The Servant of God, Fr. John Hardon once answered the perplexing question: "Why does God give us a free will?" That question haunted me for years. Being a recovering alcoholic, I knew my will stank to high heaven. I became a passion-enslaved, desire-driven slob. Finding realities about myself at the tables of A.A. through the 12 step process made me realize one thing so powerfully that it is changing my life in profound ways. My will sucks. My self-formed conscience sucked. My marriage was about to be destroyed because of my desires being fulfilled. I'm rather thankful you asked this because it has made me reflect on how I got the way I was, and right now as I sit here typing this, where I am at now. By violating my conscience through following my desire just one single time, it paved the way to the satanic bondage. So how Fr. Hardon answered that question made complete sense to me after I hit bottom. The answer is: "God gave us a free will, so we can freely give it back to Him."
It made sense in a profound way. While having reign over my will, I didn't use it for it's intended purpose of giving it back to Him. I used it for MY purpose, for MY addictions, for MY sins and for MY alcoholism. What those 12 steps did for me was to strip down EVERYTHING and then it was just me and God. I had a choice to make - I could make a God of my own understanding or I could put my lapsed Catholicism in order and actually live what I already knew. To me, I know 'making a God of my own understanding' was not in my best interest because I would make him as soft and cushy, lackadaisical and lenient as I could. My whole life up until that Eureka moment was lived that way anyway and it didn't make ANY sense at all to continue that way.
I know this went rather long, but through personal experience, I am very passionate about it.
Is it not the morally right
Is it not the morally right thing to keep the government from making reproductive choices for individuals? Isn't there a difference between personal morality and the government's role in personal morality?
We are not discussing whether Obama does abortions, after all. We are discussing the morality of Obama's opinion as to what government should and should not be doing about personal immorality.
I think it is unreasonable to make government responsible for preventing people from doing immoral things. This is different from having government punish people after the fact, which is something it can do and does do with regard to many things. With regard to abortion, specifically, do you see that it is God's will that the government punish people for having abortions?
Marie, I replied but it
Marie, I replied but it hasn't made it on here yet evidently. Didn't want you to think our dialog was dead.
Marie: your last sentence is
Marie: your last sentence is absolutely right on!
We're always in danger of talking one line and living another.
Once a fixed idea of duty gets inside a narrow mind, it can never get out.
". . . while it might seem
". . . while it might seem that Obama is being insensitive to the Catholic perspective, that is really not the case. He is simply oblivious to its existence, as I once was."
Bingo! The President, a Protestant, only has a 'Catholic' problem in that he has not singled out 'the Catholics' as a group that needs to be related to as a group outside of normal political categories. Trust me, no one worries about the 'Presbyterian' problem, or 'the Methodist vote.'
I say this as someone who recently entered the Church: there seems, at least in the blogosphere, a lack of understanding of how the world even looks to non-Catholics. I doubt that the governor of Kansas, Notre Dame and Georgetown's background for photos, were ever even remotely considered as part of a complex of issues. They were evaluated and handled by different people in the administration who come from different task orientations. I can assure you that what looks, from within, as a huge storm, is barely a blip in 'the world.'
To be clear, it is not unwarranted to *ask* for consideration of a specifically Catholic viewpoint. It is just that it is naive to imagine some type of unified response to, or conspiracy against, Catholics is in place in this administration at this time.
The Georgetown plywood
The Georgetown plywood incident, especially, looks different from the non-Catholic side. It really would not do to send pictures around the world of Obama giving a speech with a crucified Jesus just behind him. Who knows, but it's possible that other religious symbols have been plywooded in other venues without comment from the groups that hold them dear.
This particular Notre Dame
This particular Notre Dame issue is not simply or only a one issue, i.e., abortion, matter. However important that issue is, and, parenthetically, I believe it is crucially important. But it is also, as several bishops have pointed out, an "ecclesial" issue. Is Notre Dame doing what Catholic institutions are meant to do,namely, is ND "thinking with" the Church on this issue?
And if they were, should not ND have consulted with its own bishop before extending the invitation to the President and before offering him an honorary degree?
If they are "thinking with" the Church, I think the answer is "yes." That's what they could have and that's what they should have done.
Rather, they chose not to, and in so doing they embarrassed themselves and they embarrassed the American bishops who can credibly say that ND has acted in defiance of a specific stricture that they asked all Catholic institutions to follow.
You got it, John McCarthy
You got it, John McCarthy
I find it interesting that
I find it interesting that every one throws all the blame on ND for not being in synch with the Bishops. Why don't the Bishops look at themselves and ask what they have done wrong such that the Universities don't bother to ask their opinion?
It's like a pitcher blaming the batters for hitting home runs....
An extremely good article,
An extremely good article, easy for amyone to understand and keep us calm.
What Would Jesus
What Would Jesus Do?
Proposing this question is perhaps too simplistic in responding to the current ‘tit-for-tat’ concerning the invitation extended to President Obama to deliver the commencement address to this year’s graduation students of Notre Dame. Yet, I believe it is a question worth pondering. Jesus got Himself nailed to the Cross because of people He chose to associate with, dine with and invite into His life to come to know Him. He came into a world that set up boundaries pitting one group against another, refusing to see any possible good coming from the ‘other.’ He came into this kind of world of opposition to reveal Truth to us, to tear down boundaries and bring us to oneness with Him and one another. While many times the Truth He revealed were words that left many uncomfortable, He seems never to refrain from being open to hear people’s questions and engage them in conversation. I believe this should be the attitude taken with President Obama coming to Notre Dame this May.
While there may be no formal forum set up to challenge the President’s reasoning stemming from his recent decision-making policies in the areas of abortion and stem-cell research, I presuppose he will attend the entire graduation ceremony. This means that he will not be the only voice heard. Hopefully, he will be actively listening to other speeches given. This is an opportunity for the voice of Christ in our Catholic faith to be heard. This can be a shining moment of enlightening others to why we hold ALL life, no matter who’s life it is, as sacred, upholding the words we profess in the our Creed: “God is the maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.” We are ‘stewards’ of this creation, not the makers or destroyers. We hold sacred the unborn, not just because the Catholic Church professes this belief, but because in the roots of Scripture we proclaim it in the words of Psalm 139:13,15-16: “For it was you who formed my inward parts, you knit me together in my mother’s womb….My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven I the depths of the earth, Your eyes beheld my unformed substance.”
Pilate, before Jesus, questioned ‘what is truth?’ In response, Jesus did not berate or rebuke Pilate as He stood before him. Neither people of Notre Dame nor we should do the same towards President Obama. Rather, we should stand as Christ for the Truths we hold, remembering that while Jesus never kept silent the Truths He held; He also never ‘pushed’ His beliefs upon others. Many times, it takes time, a lot of prayer and perseverance to come to see the ‘Truth.’
The disciples of Jesus ‘didn’t get it,’ for the first time around. They didn’t get it until they allowed Christ’s Spirit to really touch their lives. In the end, it will be that Spirit that will change people’s hearts, understanding and way of looking at life. And, that Spirit comes from us, given to us by Christ through the sacraments we receive. As St. Paul says, “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me, and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself to me.” [Galatians 2:20] May these words be the motto in which we deal with others, remembering the words of St. Paul to the Colossians 3:17, “Whatever you do, in faith or action, do it in the name of Christ.”
Father Stephen Banet, It
Father Stephen Banet,
It seems quite unusual for me, a woman to be talking to a Catholic Priest in this way. I find the ways of Jesus quite enlightening. When Jesus went about and threw out All of the people making money in his house, I thought that it was like the thing to do! I don't know about you, but I would have wanted John McCain to take the reigns of being our "Christian Leader", rather than Obama.
For the mere fact that Obama said during one of his speeches that HE would take his daughter to an ABORTIONIST, rather than have an "unwanted pregnancy".
I don't think that Notre Dame University, should have had Obama speak, much less hand him a degree!
Does that degree mean that Obama will get into heaven? If that were the case, I don't think that you even have an opinion that I or any other Catholic, Christian, or Jew, need to listen to!
The biggest life issue is the
The biggest life issue is the economy. Obama passed a stimulus bill that featured extended unemployment insurance, stimulus projects and an increase in the take home pay of working families. Senator McCain voted against that bill. Surveys show that economic uncertainty about raising a child are responsible is a major factor in the decision to obtain an abortion. Obama's policies are at least going in the right direction on this issue.
ESCR, Mexico City and the "midnight" conscience clause regulation were planted by Bush & Co. to appeal to wedge voters and set traps for any Democratic successor. There don't seem to be any traps left, since Obama seems in no hurry to do anything about the partial birth abortion law, which would be tinkered with but not repealed - and may possibly include a ban on all late term abortions.
The point is that about 15 minutes after the evening news the day after the Notre Dame speech, the pro-life movement's 15 minutes of fame will be over for quite a while. Not even the most virulent right-wing Catholic bloggers will have much to talk about, unless they start calling him a socialist for actually making it economically easier to raise a child (getting through pregnancy is child's play compared with issues like housing, daycare and college - issues where the right wing currently has no answers and Obama does).
It is my understanding that
It is my understanding that Obama appointed Caroline Kennedy to be the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican, but the Vatican has rejected that selection. Have you heard anything about this?
You inferred that by looking
You inferred that by looking at the pictures in a prior NCR piece. Try reading it next time.
Very well written and
Very well written and insightful article but I have to question whether the basic premise is wrong. Is the problem really with the broader Catholic demographic or is it with the more vocal conservative segment of the Catholic population in the U.S.? President Obama's actions per the examples noted in this article are not that different from his public statements prior to the election. Could it be the conservative Catholic voice is simply a bit wounded the President has not given them the attention they think due to them?
Indeed, a well written and
Indeed, a well written and insightful article that articulates concerns of mine. I voted for President Obama and I am concerned that he seems, now, to care little about what Catholics think or believe. His actions seem to be consistent with the values free wing of the Democratic Party. That concerns me because I want him to succeed as President.
As a faithful Catholic, I
As a faithful Catholic, I chose to vote for Obama and use comments@whitehouse.gov to state concerns over choices that concern me. Your review of the issues was clearly stated and I hope the president has a chance to read them.
Noone seems to notice that unlike the former president, his faith based group that he has, he is willing to LISTEN to.
Also, noone seemed to fuss when he spoke at Georgetown yesterday.
Post new comment