The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Pope presses Obama on pledge to reduce abortions
Leaders find 'general agreement' on Middle East, other issues
Jul. 10, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF versionRome
When President Barack Obama came calling on Pope Benedict XVI today, the two men enjoyed a “truly cordial” encounter, according to a Vatican spokesperson, but at the same time there was no diplomatic silence from the pontiff about their differences over abortion and other “life issues.”
Not only did Benedict press his pro-life case with his words to the president, but he even found a way to make the point with his gift, offering the president a copy of a recent Vatican document on bioethics. According to a Vatican spokesperson, the pope drew a repetition from Obama of his vow to bring down the actual abortion rate.
Beyond the life issues, the Vatican’s statement indicated that Benedict and Obama also found “general agreement” on the Middle East peace process and other regional situations. The two leaders also touched food security, development aid especially for Africa and Latin America, immigration and drug trafficking, according to the statement.
Coming away from the meeting, however, it was hard to escape the impression that Benedict wanted to use it to deliver a clear pro-life message.
While Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesperson, said after the meeting that it would be wrong to interpret the pope’s message as a “polemic,” he added that the life issues are “important for the American church” and “it would be ambiguous to try to hide these differences, or to put them in second place.”
(CNS photo)
According to a written statement from the Vatican, the first issues discussed during a 35-minute private meeting this afternoon in the Apostolic Palace were “questions which … constitute a great challenge for the future of every nation and for the true progress of peoples, such as the defense and promotion of human life and the right to abide by one’s conscience.”
The latter phrase was understood as a reference to the current debate in America over protections for health care workers who assert a conscientious objection to participating in abortions or other procedures. During a session with Catholic journalists last week, Obama promised a “robust conscience clause” which would not weaken protections in vigor during the Bush administration.
In a briefing for reporters in Rome, Lombardi said that Benedict XVI said afterwards that Obama had seemed “attentive” to the church’s concerns, and that Obama had reiterated his commitment to adopting policies that will bring down the actual number of abortions.
Lombardi said that Benedict XVI seemed “very satisfied and content” with how the meeting went. Obama left the meeting saying to the pope that he wants to forge “a very strong relationship” with the Vatican.
The face-to-face session between Obama and Benedict XVI, accompanied by two interpreters, was scheduled to last around 15 minutes, but in the end the two men were behind closed doors for more than 35 minutes. Afterwards Obama introduced his family to the pope, along with key members of his administration, and the two men exchanged gifts.
(CNS photo)Typically that gift exchange is pro-forma, but this afternoon Benedict XVI used it to underscore his message on the life issues. In addition to a signed copy of his recent encyclical on the economy, Caritas in Veritate, which has become the pope’s standard offering to heads of state this week, Benedict also gave Obama a copy of Dignitas Personae, an instruction from the Vatican’s doctrinal agency on bioethics released last December.
Dignitas Personae lays out the church’s position in defense of human life “from conception to natural death,” and also treats a wide range of new bioethical questions such as embryonic stem cell research, cloning, preimplantation diagnosis and genetic engineering.
As reporters waited outside during the private session, a top papal aide approached them to explain that the pope was presenting Obama with a copy of Dignitas Personae. He said, “The reading [of this document] could help the president better understand the church’s position.”
Later, as Benedict pointed the document out to him, Obama said it looked like he had “some reading to do on the plane.”
Prior to his session with Benedict XVI, Obama sat down with the Vatican’s Secretary of State, Italian Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, for roughly 15 minutes.
Well before Obama even strolled into the Apostolic Palace, both sides had made clear they were committed to making this meeting happen.
Obama called on the pope in the middle of what is arguably among the busiest days of his presidency to date. This morning he wrapped up a G8 summit in the Abruzzo region of Italy, meeting with the heads of state of African nations and then conducting a bilateral meeting with President Jacob Zuma of South Africa. Obama then made his way to Rome to see the pope, en route to the airport for a state visit to Ghana, where he’s due to arrive tonight.
On the Vatican side, two small but telling concessions reflect their eagerness to receive Obama. For one thing, it’s long been diplomatic protocol here that the pope receives heads of state in the late morning, with the afternoon often reserved for meetings with curial officials. For another, the normal procedure is for a head of state to meet first with the pope, in his library on the top floor of the Apostolic Palace, and then to descend to the first floor for a session with the Cardinal Secretary of State in his office. In this case, Bertone came upstairs to meet Obama in the sala d’angolo, or “corner room,” just a few doors down the hall from the papal apartment. In an inversion of the normal sequence, Obama met first with Bertone and then with Benedict XVI.
All these gestures were designed to accommodate Obama’s tight schedule, and although the concessions may seem small, in the carefully orchestrated world of Vatican diplomacy – where nothing is too insignificant to escape notice – they amounted to unmistakable signals that the Vatican wanted the chance to put some matters on Obama’s radar screen.
Despite the weighty nature of the issues at stake, some of the rock-star-like excitment that Obama often induces was evident even in and around the Vatican this afternoon. In the Press Office of the Holy See, for example, a French correspondent displayed a banner above his work space, playing off the famous “Yes We Can!’ mantra of the Obama campaign.
The banner read: “Yes We Vatican!”
Is anyone curious as to what
Is anyone curious as to what gift our president gave to the Pope?
It sounds as though the Vatican was in control of the interview session and was able to stress the important moral issues that neded butressing. I did not read anywhere as to what Mr. Obama's message was other than responding to Pope Benedict. Perhaps just basking in the glow of our pontiff and a photo op was all he could muster.
He presented the pontiff with
He presented the pontiff with a stole which St. John Neumann was originally buried wearing.
No he was presented with a
No he was presented with a stole that was put on his body decades after his death.
Yes I am interested in what
Yes I am interested in what the President gave the Pope. I assume it wasn't some movie videos.......as was the gift at another occasion.
YES, WE VATICAN! Thank you
YES, WE VATICAN!
Thank you once more, Mr Allen, for your excellent, insightful, accurate adn ever wry reporting, and for the lovely photo of Mrs. Obama veiled!
Is it me or does Michelle
Is it me or does Michelle Obama look like she's going for "nun-chic" on this visit?
It is Vactican protocol that
It is Vactican protocol that in a private audience withe the Pope that women wear black--including a black veil.
Um...that scores you a "duh"
Um...that scores you a "duh" for the day. It was a joke.
Speaking of costuming, was
Speaking of costuming, was the Pope purposely "dressing down" for Pres. and Mrs. Obama by featuring his CARDINAL RED mozzetta - or is this just one more sign of his retro-restorationism?
When the former Irish
When the former Irish President Mary Robinson was visiting Pope JP II she was wearing a green dress!
I suppose it's better than a
I suppose it's better than a burka, but what is the symbolism?
The symbolism of a burka to a
The symbolism of a burka to a Muslim WOMAN who CHOOSES to wear it is similar to the symbolism of a Christian/Catholic WOMAN who CHOOSES to wear a veil at her wedding, or when she attends another special event with traditions that go back centuries, such as visiting with the Pope.
Please do not assume that every Muslim woman is being forced to wear what she wears. As a teacher at a public university, I see Muslim women in blue jeans with or without their head covered, who also come to special events in their "best" clothes - and those are elegant burkas.
It's the height of good manners to consider the cultural specifics of someone with whom you are spending time. Christians should be known by their good manners - you know that's the answer to the pop question, what would Jesus say.
Which is a bunch of baloney.
Which is a bunch of baloney. We don't wear that to church to worship our God. Why should women wear it to visit the pope? Is he more important than Jesus himself?
It's you.
It's you.
Thanks be to God that we have
Thanks be to God that we have the Holy Father, whose actions and words epitomize the consistent ethic of life, as those of both the Catholic left and right so often fail miserably to do. I am praying for all on both sides of the political and ecclesiastical divide to be open to the grace that will enable us to follow this Pope's teaching and his courageous example of charity and truth, without compromise and without exception. I pray for my own ongoing, daily conversion and also for the conversion of Barack Obama, so gifted, so full of potential and so flawed. There is no limit to the miracles God can work!
We should feel good. This
We should feel good. This was pretty much what I expected and it was done nicely and our president likes to read, we know that. Not only that, Obama can comprehend what he's reading. He made an impression, right?
I would agree that the life
I would agree that the life issues are important for us as Catholics, but would remind President OBama and those interested on this board that documents with the input of the Papal Academy of Sciences are looked on as suspect by most scientists. The reasons for these suspicions are many but perhaps no graver reason is that appointments are made to this body only to people that agree with the papal position before the appointment. This takes completely away the critical thinking necessary for a scientist or a scientific ethicist. As a scientist we look at what nature is pointing out to us and study these phenomena. I suggest this is the proper way of Listening to the Spirit. Members of the Papal Academy on Science are pledged to "knowing" truth prior to observation of phenomena. This is not the scientific method at all; in fact if scientist were to actually use this method then science could not have progressed beyond about the fifteenth century. Some such as our Pope describe a study of phenomena as "modernism" something to be avoided, but in fact without the modern scientific method, there would be no science or recent inventions as we now enjoy. Without theories of relativity and quantum physics and etc., we would have made very little progress. Yes these are theories and they are relatively true, but this is correct for all human knowledge. We relatively know very little of truth when we compare ourselves to an Almighty Being. So to truly study bioethics, I suggest that Obama and the Pope listen to the multitude of good scientists working in the field. For the episcopacy not to do just that means that they would be and are repeating the mistakes of the Copernican era but a thousand fold. Not only the ethics of birth control but also medical knowledge is studied from the perspective of observation prior to church pronunciation of its own theories of what is happening. This seems to me to be a simple lack of the humility to listen to the Holy Spirit by our clerics at the highest levels. It makes the Episcopate as it did in the time of Galileo all but irrelevant and continues to erode respect for Church leadership at all.
Peace and understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
To Doctor Porch, I would
To Doctor Porch, I would simply say that the document to which he refers was produced by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the highest magisterial authority except the Pope himself, who, in any case, signed it. Perhaps the Academy of Sciences had an advisory role, but its scientists were not the main authors of the document.
In any case, would he or any other scientist disagree that what comes to be at the moment of conception is alive and human, and that it will go through all the stages of human development unless it dies naturally, as all human beings do eventually, or is killed, as any human being can be? Would he argue that the question of whether this human being can be denied human rights, including the right to life, is a scientific, rather than a moral, one? If so, I would challenge him to produce scientific evidence that the zygote, embryo, or fetus is not fully human and does not contain within itself everything necessary to develop in a fully human way, making it fundamentally different from a specialized cell, like a skin cell, that is living and human but not a human being. Certainly death may intervene, but the fact that we all die does not justify direct and intentional killing.
The Magisterium of the Church has the capability and the right to comment on moral issues. Jesus was a teacher as well as a savior, and the Apostles began the long tradition of continuing His work. Furthermore, the Church's teaching on life is not purely religious, but derives from principles that have been recognized from as long ago as the Code of Hammurabi right up to the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Obama himself often speaks of the dignity of human life.
Without moral teaching, science becomes purely utilitarian, and then who knows who will be the next to be judged not fully human, not eligible for human rights? Humanity has been down this road before, many times. The Holy Father will do what he sees as his duty to keep it from happening again, and when it is happening, he will not be silent because someone accuses him or his advisors of being "unscientific". For this, I thank God.
Humanity from the moment of
Humanity from the moment of conception (as if "moment of conception" was itself a meaningful term) continues to be more a philosophical argument than a scientific theory. Since this concept has limited "practical" value, I tend to doubt that it will be investigated by anyone other than those who are trying to prove their own preconceived (pun acknowledged) notions on the matter.
"moment of conception" is a
"moment of conception" is a meaningful term because it is the description of a specific action in time. If left undisturbed, what else could a human embyo become other than human. All is in the embryo that makes it human. Because of it's size and form, some can call it human.
That is denying reality itself.
The term is a fiction -
The term is a fiction - useful only to those whose philosophy demands it. Biology recognizes no such "moment".
Putting yourself or any
Putting yourself or any member of your family under what you call medical procedures is, I believe, the best means of putting your "scientific reasoning" to an an acid test. Let the public find out your reaction if, for instance, we'd get your own wife's or daughter's baby removed surgically - well, after all, whatever that is in her womb doesn't constitute a major problem to you. Denying the meaningfulness of an embryo's existence from the moment of conception belies no less than the meaningfulness of your own existence. A lie based on a systematic argument such as yours doesn't necessarily represent a logically valid truth, while procedures of science even if valid in the perspective of scientific judgment cannot act without a moral basis. One cannot establish order in society if you do not respect its fundamentals. Social order is an order based on predetermined moral foundations (inherent moral obligations and rights ascribed to human beings) more than freewill. Choice is pre-ordered by these unwritten norms that dictate how human beings should relate to all these issues, similar to how we should deal with abortion.
Dear Artemis 3, Any
Dear Artemis 3,
Any conjecture on your part that I was referring to a specific document is incorrect. I was pointing out in gerneral that the back ground information that the Vatican uses when it discuses science or any belief that a prudent person would also consider the scientific evidence- such as the once proclaimed earth as the center of the universe.
The real problem is the pseudo science that the Vatican uses in its argument against stem cell research and birth control pills. The Vatican also takes a lot of license with past history of Church thinking on ensoulment.
The first problem begins with how the Vatican selects "scientists" to the Vatican Academy of Sciences. These people are first chosen for their loyalty to what the curia wants to hear and not necessarily for their faithful adherence to the scientific method. The Bishops had the same problem when they chose special psychologists out side of their individual dioceses' to treat pedophiles. Had they in the 1960's, consulted their own Catholic Social Services composed of men and women that attended Catholic Universities, as I did in Medical School, they would have been given the advise that Pedophilia was not curable as was taught me by the text books and the Professors of that day in Psychiatry classes. No, the Bishops wished a different standard for clergy and sent them to "scientists” that were willing to tell the Bishops what they wanted to hear that "these men could be treated and even cured!" Had they sent offending clergy to the Social Workers in their own Catholic Social Services, besides dealing with professionals with the most up to date training, they would have dealt with men and women who had children and grandchildren at risk from allowing the passing on of these criminals from parish to parish, diocese to diocese and country to country.
Currently no scientist that work in embryonic stem cell research are on allowed on the Vatican Academy of Science, as Galileo was not given even a fair hearing in his time. Some Bishops by their very statements about ensouled embryos seem to be contradicting themselves, as somewhere around 70% of all blastocysts produced by women under no hormonal influence are simply discarded by their own bodies. This would make nature the biggest abortionist of record. Would a Great God allow natural “abortion” of 70% of His ensouled creation? Many current Roman Catholic authorities will tell you that the Church has always taught life and ensoulment begin with fertilization, yet both Augustine and Thomas Aquinas did not see it this way. There were even some Popes who stated that abortion was OK until the time of quickening (first movement of the fetus at about 12 weeks.) So both history and science contradict what so many of the powerful leaders of our Church are saying. Furthermore, we know that a very complicated mammal, Dolly the sheep, was cloned without the participation of 2 gametes. This would seem to indicate that in the years ahead humans could and probably will be cloned. When will these people be ensouled? It could not be at fertilization (which does not take place), or will it be the Church's stand that these humans will never develop a soul even though they have all the Human DNA and function fully as any other human?
There is a false argument used that a fertilized zygote contains all the DNA that is human, therefore it is a human; so does a simple liver or skin cell contain all the human DNA! Yes these cells live too, but they are not in themselves ensouled! A blastocyst, which is a multi-celled structure forming, after the Zygote phase is akin to a seed. Like a seed some implant in the fertile soil of the Uterus but most don’t implant or survive. Any child can distinguish that a seed dose not have the magnificence of a tree! Yet without the careful observations of the embryologist’ examination of natural phenomena, it is impossible to gain the understanding of these structures, and pronouncements about them would have the weight of telling an astrophysicist that the Earth is the center of the Universe.
Embryology is a wonderful science that produces an awe in the men and women who study it and observe phenomena as it happens. The Holy Spirit told us that He would be with us until the end of time. No where does it say or mean that He will magically only be with bishops or members of the Roman Curia. In fact when these Church leaders fail to listen to scientists of the day, as they failed in the the time of Copernicus, they seem to fail to listen to the Holy Spirit for purposes of trying to control men rather than serve God or humanity. It is worse now than in the time of Copernicus because our leadership is interfering - either irrationally or from Blind Faith or from reason of control or a combination of all - in the understanding and the cure of disease that is given to those listening to the Spirit with the gifts of scientific minds. On the part of these leaders, this failure to listen is either megalomania or irrationality or sin, or a combination of some or all of the above.
May we have more Peace and Understanding from the Holy Spirit,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Dr. Porch, it seems that you
Dr. Porch, it seems that you mistakenly believe that the only valid forms of knowledge are those that are gained through the observation of empirical phenomena. If this were true, then our faith would be absurd, since God's existence cannot be empirically proven. This is not to suggest that there is a dichotomy between faith and reason. Some things are true that cannot be observed according to the scientific method, e.g., the existence of the soul and the dignity of the human person. These truths guide the scientist, whose proper competence does not extend into the realm of immaterial truths (apart from mathematics); these are the domain of the philosopher and the theologian. To deny them their proper functions results in the instrumentalization of science, whereby it becomes a tool in the service of a de facto utilitarianism. This is the heart of current problems with respect to human life, and the reason that, more than ever, the world needs the Church's, the Spirit's, guidance. Let us pray that President Obama reads the documents that the Pope has given him and takes them to heart.
Dear Jim, Your assumption
Dear Jim,
Your assumption about my belief about valid forms of knowledge is false. Also your idea that our faith can not be understood while still seeking the truth in science is somewhere in left field. The problem lies when a leadership does not look to truth that is found in science and makes absurd statements that are contradicted by the observations of science. It is not genuine when the leadership then pretends to be understanding and listening to the science of the day. For what reason do you believe that the Vatican has an Academy of Science? Truth is one and when there is disagreement about truth, we must take into consideration the reason for faith and the observation of natural science. There was a time that the Bishops taught that the earth was the center of the Universe and that man was the central being in that universe. This has been essentially disproved first with very good theories then by telescopes. The Bishops no longer teach this bit of pseudo science, but today when they quote science on about their teachings concerning embryos, they are not taking into consideration what embryologists are reporting. This is a serious mistake on the part of our leadership and it is misleading to faithful Catholics.
May we have more peace and understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Peace and understanding
Thank you, Dr. Porch, for
Thank you, Dr. Porch, for your comment on "science" according to the Papal Academy. Clearly, it's not science! Indeed, church leadership continues to be irrelevant to the world in these matters and many others because they don't start with the observable facts.
Mary
I hope POTUS used the
I hope POTUS used the opportunity to say a few good words on women's rights.
Nothing really surprising
Nothing really surprising here, except I loved the last line.
Loved that banner: "Yes We Vatican."
Made my day.
Sense of humor at the Vatican? Hmm, we may be on to something.
I can't imagine why President
I can't imagine why President Obama would waste his time visiting this pope!
Chuck K, people of good will
Chuck K, people of good will can understand why these two world leaders met. I shall pray that you become a person of good will.
Chuck, Would you care to
Chuck,
Would you care to expand on your comment? Why would the President >not< want to visit with the leader of the billion or more Roman Catholics of the world?
VIVA BENEDICT XVI & PRESIDENT
VIVA BENEDICT XVI & PRESIDENT OBAMA!! GREAT EVENT - NOW LET'S GET DOWN TO READING THE NEW ENCYCLICAL AND PUT IT INTO PRACTICE. DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHAT ARE FIRST LADY IS HANDING OVER TO THE POPE? WHY IS SHE DRESSED LIKE A NUN? THE PROTOCOL OF WOMEN WEARING ALL BLACK WENT OUT OF THE VATICAN PROTOCOL OVER 40 YEARS AGO...
Well, if it is not part of
Well, if it is not part of protocol then perhaps she did it of her own CHOICE.
I was looking forward to
I was looking forward to reading about this meeting between Pope Benedict and President Obama. I am happy to see that their discussion was longer than normal, that they brought up several issues and that Obama is pledging to reduce the number of abortions in the U.S.
The one thing that bothered me was seeing a picture of Michelle Obama dressed in black with the head covering. So that still goes on. Of course one should dress appropriately when meeting heads of church and/or state, but this is ridiculous and misogynistic. When will it end?
Just curious: What gift did
Just curious: What gift did OBAMA give the Pope?
The POTUS gave the Pope a
The POTUS gave the Pope a stole that was briefly dressed on the corpse of St Newman. He never wore it when he was alive, and it was manufactured by Episcopalians and only dressed his corpse for a year or so. But still, he couldn't be expected to know all this. But the Catholic who sold it to him sure did : )
Sorry, wrong Newman. The
Sorry, wrong Newman. The stole had laid for 18 years with the remains of St. John Neumann, a Redemptorist priest who worked in the Philadelphia area. He was canonized as an American saint in 1977. No Episcopalians were involved.
The stole looked like an Almy
The stole looked like an Almy one, aka Episcopalian clerical goods store. Not saying anything bad about them, but that is who runs CM Almy.
Reads like a good meeting!
Reads like a good meeting! Vivo Christo Rey!
Thanks be to God for our
Thanks be to God for our beloved Pope Benedict XVI.. He is a warrior for
God in every respect...May President Obama come to know that abortion is
anti God, and should not be funded by the United States Government..not
in America or in any country.
If the government wants to be more Godly, it could fund the states to open
up adoption agencies, so that those unwanted pregnacies, and the beatiful
newborn innocent souls, would not be killed by abortion, but would have a chance at life..the life that God created. The adoption agencies would be able
to let a beautiful baby be placed into a home, where the infant will be loved..and the infant will bring happiness to a family, who really wants to
love and raise the new infant..Thanks be to God for these people.
Why should the federal
Why should the federal government or the states be asked to fund adoption agencies? Since the Catholic Church and many Catholics are so anti-abortion, as opposed to being truely pro-life, they (the Catholic Church and anti-abortion Catholics) should put their money where their mouths are and hopefully allow cost free adoptions. Just think what that would do to reduce the number of abortions in this country and around the world.
Imagine, President Obama
Imagine, President Obama wants to make it easier for babies to be adopted so that will be one less reason for an abortion. Did you know that?
and yet he advocates for
and yet he advocates for policies that would allow full government funding of abortion and zero government funding of educational choice is areas with horrible schools (like the DC schools he would not send his children to). He advocates policies that force Catholic adoption agencies to go out of business if they do not provide children for gay "couples."
Let's hope and pray Obama
Let's hope and pray Obama gets the message....and then acts on it.
Let us also hope and pray the
Let us also hope and pray the church gets the message and also finally acts on it--that message is Jesus' vision, expressed in the Gospels and, especially in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus seems to have little to do with a church that says it represents him and acually is Jesus' vicar. This apple falls far from the tree.
The Pope's comportment toward
The Pope's comportment toward President Obama was exactly right. Instead of the harsh, angry and often seemingly partisan rhetoric issuing from the lips of many American bishops and conservative Catholics, the Pope has opted for education and persuation. Let us hope that he is successful.
"The Pope's comportment
"The Pope's comportment toward President Obama was exactly right. Instead of the harsh, angry and often seemingly partisan rhetoric issuing from the lips of many American bishops and conservative Catholics, the Pope has opted for education and persuation. Let us hope that he is successful."
To: orion 71
It would seem that they use the same methods =-)
I agree that the Pope's public image has seemed much more pastoral and compassionate than the bishops of late. It is a relief to me, as I was beginning to be very discouraged with the message I perceive from the American bishops. I think this Pope might bring many conversations to the forefront. Could be a good thing.
For those who have asked,
For those who have asked, President Obama presented the Holy Father with a stole that adorned the enshrined body of St. John Neumann for nearly two decades.
Isn't that kind of creepy?
Isn't that kind of creepy? Can someone clarify for me why that would be considered a really appropriate gift???
Thanks.
President Obama presented
President Obama presented Pope Benedict with a stole that had been part of the vestments for the encased body of St. John Neumann. A couple of years ago St. John's body was re-dressed in fiddle-back vestments closer to those he would have worn. The stole was stored at the shrine until a religious goods store owner contacted by the by the State Department for help with a present for the Pope. That person apparently had some connections with the Redemptorists, who made the stole available for the gift.
Story from the Philadelphia Inquirer.
"In a previous age the idea
"In a previous age the idea of an Emperor investing a Pope with the sign of priestly authority would be taken as definite sign of the subjection of the Church to the secular authority."
Well said. Maybe it is the Obama administration's attempt to divide and conquer the Catholic Church in America.
Yes, no doubt it's some sort
Yes, no doubt it's some sort of leftist plot.
As I am unable to reply to
As I am unable to reply to Dr. Porch, I am posting this, which is in fact a reply, as a comment.
I would simply say that the document to which he refers was produced by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the highest magisterial authority except the Pope himself, who, in any case, signed it. Perhaps the Academy of Sciences had an advisory role, but its scientists were not the main authors of the document.
In any case, would he or any other scientist disagree that what comes to be at the moment of conception is alive and human, and that it will go through all the stages of human development unless it dies naturally, as all human beings do eventually, or is killed, as any human being can be? Would he argue that the question of whether this human being can be denied human rights, including the right to life, is a scientific, rather than a moral, one? If so, I would challenge him to produce scientific evidence that the zygote, embryo, or fetus is not fully human and does not contain within itself everything necessary to develop in a fully human way. Certainly death may intervene, but the fact that we all die does not justify direct and intentional killing.
The Magisterium of the Church has the capability and the right to comment on moral issues. Jesus was a teacher as well as a savior, and the Apostles began the long tradition of continuing His work. Furthermore, the Church's teaching on life is not purely religious, but derives from principles that have been recognized from as long ago as the Code of Hammurabi right up to the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Obama himself often speaks of the dignity of human life.
Without moral teaching, science becomes purely utilitarian, and then who knows who will be the next to be judged not fully human, not eligible for human rights? Humanity has been down this road before, many times. The Holy Father will do what he sees as his duty to keep it from happening again, and when it is happening, he will not be silent because someone accuses him or his advisors of being "unscientific". For this, I thank God.
Actually, in answer to your
Actually, in answer to your question "I would challenge him to produce scientific evidence that the zygote, embryo, or fetus is not fully human and does not contain within itself everything necessary to develop in a fully human way" I would say it does not contain within itself everything necessary because no one has been able to grow these embryos to the normal birth stage without a uterus. The embryo needs to implant itself into the uterus or it will never become a baby. It can't grow beyond some basic cell divisions on its own, petri dish included. I am not saying I am pro abortion as I am not, I am just clarifying that there is more needed. An egg needs sperm, needs womb or no baby.
Dear Artemis 3, Any
Dear Artemis 3,
Any conjecture on your part that I was referring to a specific document is incorrect. I was pointing out in general that the back ground information that the Vatican uses when it discuses science or any belief that a prudent person would also consider the scientific evidence- such as the once proclaimed earth as the center of the universe.
The real problem is the pseudo science that the Vatican uses in its argument against stem cell research and birth control pills. The Vatican also takes a lot of license with past history of Church thinking on ensoulment.
The first problem begins with how the Vatican selects "scientists" to the Vatican Academy of Sciences. These people are first chosen for their loyalty to what the curia wants to hear and not necessarily for their faithful adherence to the scientific method. The Bishops had the same problem when they chose special psychologists out side of their individual dioceses' to treat pedophiles. Had they in the 1960's, consulted their own Catholic Social Services composed of men and women that attended Catholic Universities, as I did in Medical School, they would have been given the advise that Pedophilia was not curable as was taught me by the text books and the Professors of that day in Psychiatry classes. No, the Bishops wished a different standard for clergy and sent them to "scientists” that were willing to tell the Bishops what they wanted to hear that "these men could be treated and even cured!" Had they sent offending clergy to the Social Workers in their own Catholic Social Services, besides dealing with professionals with the most up to date training, they would have dealt with men and women who had children and grandchildren at risk from allowing the passing on of these criminals from parish to parish, diocese to diocese and country to country.
Currently no scientist that work in embryonic stem cell research are on allowed on the Vatican Academy of Science, as Galileo was not given even a fair hearing in his time. Some Bishops by their very statements about ensouled embryos seem to be contradicting themselves, as somewhere around 70% of all blastocysts produced by women under no hormonal influence are simply discarded by their own bodies. This would make nature the biggest abortionist of record. Would a Great God allow natural “abortion” of 70% of His ensouled creation? Many current Roman Catholic authorities will tell you that the Church has always taught life and ensoulment begins with fertilization, yet both Augustine and Thomas Aquinas did not see it this way. There were even some Popes who stated that abortion was OK until the time of quickening (first movement of the fetus at about 12 weeks.) So both history and science contradict what so many of the powerful leaders of our Church are saying. Furthermore, we know that a very complicated mammal, Dolly the sheep, was cloned without the participation of 2 gametes. This would seem to indicate that in the years ahead humans could and probably will be cloned. When will these people be ensouled? It could not be at fertilization (which does not take place), or will it be the Church's stand that these humans will never develop a soul even though they have all the Human DNA and function fully as any other human?
There is a false argument used that a fertilized zygote contains all the DNA that is human, therefore it is a human; so does a simple liver or skin cell contain all the human DNA! Yes these cells live too, but they are not in themselves ensouled! A blastocyst, which is a multi-celled structure forming, after the Zygote phase is akin to a seed. Like a seed some implant in the fertile soil of the Uterus but most don’t implant or survive. Any child can distinguish that a seed dose not have the magnificence of a tree! Yet without the careful observations of the embryologist’ examination of natural phenomena, it is impossible to gain the understanding of these structures, and pronouncements about them would have the weight of telling an astrophysicist that the Earth is the center of the Universe.
Embryology is a wonderful science that produces an awe in the men and women who study it and observe phenomena as it happens. The Holy Spirit told us that He would be with us until the end of time. No where does it say or mean that He will magically only be with bishops or members of the Roman Curia. In fact when these Church leaders fail to listen to scientists of the day, as they failed in the the time of Copernicus, they seem to fail to listen to the Holy Spirit for purposes of trying to control men rather than serve God or humanity. It is worse now than in the time of Copernicus because our leadership is interfering - either irrationally or from Blind Faith or from reason of control or a combination of all - in the understanding and the cure of disease that is given to those listening to the Spirit with the gifts of scientific minds. On the part of these leaders, this failure to listen is either megalomania or irrationality or sin, or a combination of some or all of the above.
May we have more Peace and Understanding from the Holy Spirit,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Catholic Friends, I'm sorry
Catholic Friends,
I'm sorry but I don't see what good could come from this meeting between the Holy Father and Obama. Considering Obama's record in his first months in office*, we see a compelling picture of an anti-life zealot whose aversion to the moral principles of our Church is apparent in his associations, policies, and hiring decisions. I cringe at the thought of having to look at photos of the Holy Father and Obama together over the next four years.
*http://www.lifenews.com/obamaabortionrecord.html
Sounds like you'd prefer a
Sounds like you'd prefer a new Pope since the one we have isn't living up to the ever so high "moral principles" of you and your friends at lifenews.com ???
Don't be so hard on Benedict.
Don't be so hard on Benedict. Yeah, his record isn't the best - but it's not all THAT bad.
I hope President Obama had a
I hope President Obama had a good meeting with the pope. I hope Obama addressed women's rights and can help the pontiff to become less misogynist, less anti-women.
Mrs. Obama by dressing like that makes a point that the Vatican culture has still got medieval attitudes towards women.
I am sure Mrs. Obama was just trying to show respect for the Vatican, however such dress poignantly sends the message that she is as a woman is considered by the pope second-class and less spiritual than a man by this pope and the Roman clergy.
This limitations placed on women is a serious error of the pontiff to deny women the place in the church that Jesus gave happily to women, that is, denying that women have true co-apostleship, are true co-workers and true co-disciples with the same spiritual and pastoral service that males have.
I hope that President and Mrs. Obama can supply the pope and the curia with books and reading matter on women's dignity and vocations, and help the pope overcome his bigotry and misogyny towards women. God bless, from Joyce.
. Two things caught my
.
Two things caught my attention about this meeting.
.
1. Body language says more than words. It is a very good indicator of whether two people can dialogue and exchange their thoughts, without aggression or defensiveness. Multiple still-shots and videos were made during the meeting. Both men had a relaxed and 'open' posture, and there was a lot of direct, engaged eye-contact. This was true both before and after the private meeting.
.
2. Both the Pope and the President had to adjust the timing within their heavily packed schedules to make this meeting happen. That indicates that each of them viewed this as more than a formality or social nicety. They both really wanted to meet and talk face to face. The President made a point of saying that he had "some reading to do on the plane" (referencing Dignitas Personae). The Pope in turn, saw value in at least the incremental good of reducing abortions, rather than the hard-headed all-or-nothing approach that hasn't worked at all.
.
It is encouraging to see their mutual respect and their ability to not waste an opportunity to work together where they can agree to achieve significant good, while at the same time acknowledging their obvious differences. Quantitatively, these two men have more agreement than did their immediate predecessors. Hopefully, some of that goodwill and potential can spread to Catholics in the United States.
.
Mara, Obama did not "invest"
Mara,
Obama did not "invest" the pope with the stole, he gifted it to him with the knowledge the pope would not -wear- it. It is a relic! It is a gift of a relic, and an excellent gift in my mind.
I can't believe how the
I can't believe how the Catholic Church coddles this man. Barack Obama has a brutal agenda on abortion as evidenced by the little bit of experience gained in the Illinois state senate. He voted 4 times against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act for crying out loud! He argued with the ACLU to let babies who survive abortions die, essentially asphixiate to death, rather than give them medical care because that would put the right of the "viable fetus" above that of the mother.
This is disgusting. I wish the Vatican would for once be strong and stop being so worldly. Obama should have received a strong repuke on his position.
I'm finding it harder and harder to be Catholic and its a shame I have to do so much fighting for orthodoxy WITHIN the Church rather than from the enemies of the Church.
Yes, it's a shame Obama
Yes, it's a shame Obama didn't receive the "repuke" you were drooling for. It's even more of a shame that Benedict does not subscribe to your particular orthodoxy, whatever it is. You embody the phrase "more Catholic than the Pope" - but thanks for the laugh.
Holier than the Pope. What a
Holier than the Pope. What a burden that must be.
“Truth is the light that
“Truth is the light that gives meaning and value to charity.”
I have just started to read Pope Benedict’s XVI encyclical online. Pope Benedict XVI values truth. Let us widen our vision to look at humankind’s contribution to truth. What the Church needs now is to look at biblical-historical scholarship, scientific, and philosophical contributions in particular, as signposts to make the dream of social justice and environmental restoration become an expanding reality. It can be done. Let’s do it.
Caritas in Veritate: John,
Caritas in Veritate:
John, you write in this otherwise good article (as usual!): "In addition to a signed copy of his recent encyclical on the economy, Caritas in Veritate,…".
I wish you would not narrow this encyclical down to "tge economy".
As the title clearly states, it's topic is "ON INTEGRAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
IN CHARITY AND TRUTH" (please excluse the capitals; I copied from text.
Thank you, and keep up the good work.
Of all the comments I have
Of all the comments I have read about the Obama-Benedict meeting, I think the observation by Dr. R. Dennis Porch is the most fruitful. It has always struck me as a bit odd, that the Vatican in its so-called search for the truth, always consults with people who share its belief on the topic. When I read in a synopsis of the meeting that the Pope had addressed the topic of religious freedom of conscience, I thought that he was speaking about the right of well-informed prayerful Catholics to hold a belief contrary to his on abortion. Apparently, freedom of conscience doesn't apply when it is free of "official" doctrine. This sort of doctrinal slavery that obliterates meaningful and meditative thought and reflection precludes the working of the Spirit in true freedom of conscience.
Well stated. The Vatican's
Well stated. The Vatican's propensity to only credit members of academia which support their positions is disengenous at best and grossly manipulative at it's worst. The only place I've seen any real dialogue allowed between competing points of view is over the use of Genetically Modified Organisms as they pertain to agriculture.
Thank you again for your
Thank you again for your informative article! I do so enjoy reading the NCR. It is about as close to the truth and vital issues as one can get today from the information media. Who can rely on the cable news today! Even a sixth grader can discern the bias. We need to have real and truthful journalism preserved. Perhaps that is another good job for us as Catholics!!
Can we see Jesus in that
Can we see Jesus in that meeting or similars.
He never had a palace.
He never was a king of a kingdom of this world.
His aidea of the power was only service, etc.
Post new comment