The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Vatican's moderate line on Obama has deep roots
Vatican balances competing interests on multiple fronts
May. 04, 2009
President Obama
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF versionAnalysis
When L'Osservatore Romano published an essay this week suggesting that U.S. President Barack Obama's positions on abortion and other life issues "have not confirmed fears of radical changes," it provided the latest confirmation of a glaring difference in tone between the Vatican and the most ardently pro-life circles in the American Catholic church, including a growing number of American bishops.
In general, several voices in the Vatican have taken a moderate and conciliatory line on the Obama administration, while several U.S. bishops, buoyed by a network of pro-life activists, have been more pugnacious.
The essay, by L'Osservatore's frequent foreign affairs contributor Giuseppe Fiorentino, appeared in the April 29 edition.
Fiorentino's core argument was that Obama's first 100 days "have not shaken the world," contending that despite the president's popularity and communications skills, his policies in many areas have not amounted to a sharp break with the past. Obama has largely continued the policies of the Bush administration in Afghanistan, Fiorentino wrote, and he compared Obama's reluctance to nationalize banks and other lenders to the laissez faire approach of the Reagan administration.
The L'Osservatore essay pointed to some concrete foreign policy moves that seemed positive, but still tentative and undeveloped, including cautious openings to Iran, Russia and Cuba.
On the "life issues," Fiorentino argued that Obama's controversial executive order on embryonic stem cell research was actually fairly restrained, because it still prevents the creation of embryos for purposes of research or cloning, and it limits the use of federal funding for research to "surplus" embryos.
Fiorentino also argued that Obama's support for the "Pregnant Women Support Act" represents a "rebalancing" of his abortion policies "in support of maternity."
In general, Fiorentino said, the first 100 days of the Obama presidency are too soon to reach a definitive judgment. "It's better to wait for the next 1,361 days," he wrote, referring to the rest of the president's first term.
One striking feature of the L'Osservatore essay was what it did not contain. There was no reference to the controversy among American Catholics over the University of Notre Dame's plan to award Obama an honorary doctorate on the occasion of his commencement address this month.
The L'Osservatore essay was the latest in a string of amicable gestures from the Vatican, beginning with an unusual telegram of congratulations sent by Pope Benedict XVI the day after Obama's election. (Typically, popes do not address new heads of state until they take office.)
Fiorentino's piece did not sit well with many pro-life activists in the United States. The web site "LifeSiteNews.com," for example, said the piece "sent shock waves through the pro-life world." It carried an interview with an official of Human Life International comparing the Vatican's line on Obama with the policy of "accommodation" towards Soviet Communism associated with the papacies of John XXIII and Paul VI.
How to explain this contrast between Rome and the American church?
Some analysts have theorized a "good cop/bad cop" dynamic, with the Vatican dangling the carrot of cooperation and the U.S. bishops wielding the stick of cultural war.
Less speculatively, however, there are at least two basic factors at work.
First, abortion has never been the overriding focus for conservative Catholic intellectuals and activists in Europe that it is in the United States. In Europe, the dominant issue tends to be the continent's Christian identity, which is often expressed in anti-EU activism or concern about the social impact of immigration. As a result, it does not come naturally for many European Catholics, including many in the Vatican, to evaluate leaders primarily through the lens of their policies on life issues.
Second, the Holy See is a sovereign state with its own diplomatic corps and a wide range of international interests. On several matters of global concern -- including the reconstruction of Iraq, the Israeli/Palestinian problem, multilateralism in foreign policy, and nuclear disarmament -- Vatican diplomats generally believe the early signals from the Obama administration are encouraging. For that reason, some Vatican officials are reluctant to take a hard anti-Obama line, particularly on the eve of Pope Benedict XVI's much-anticipated trip to the Holy Land, which the Vatican hopes will lend momentum to the peace process.
In general, the Vatican does not like to be in the position of seeming to undercut positions taken by a country's bishops, in part for ecclesiological reasons, in part for fear of creating an impression of disunity. As a result, there will almost certainly be pressure on both sides to avoid public disagreements.
At the same time, the two factors cited above represent long-term historical realities that will not be easy to work around -- suggesting the difference in tone may endure.
[John L. Allen Jr is NCR senior correspondent. His e-mail address is jallen@ncronline.org.]
Every American Catholic
Every American Catholic Bishop is an Apostle in their own right. Bishops maintain communion with the Pope and are personally accountable to Jesus-God come in the flesh. This is why you will never see all Bishops marching in lock-step to one set of priorities. Don't mistake the fact that there is a USCCB for some kind of national American Church. Cardinal George has said many times that although he is President of the USCCB, it does not mean in any way that he is the National Bishop. Each Bishop is accountable personally to Christ. But don't misunderstand. For each Bishop is in Christ, and each gives glory to God the Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit. So don't expect that the Pope's priorities are the same as each and every American Bishop. Christ is risen! Alleluia! Alleluia!
There is only ONE Catholic
There is only ONE Catholic Church, headed by the Pope in Vatican City. There is NO American Catholic Church. If we say there is, then there must be a French Catholic Church, an Italian Catholic Chrurch, a Spainish Catholic Church, etc. But we don't; the Pope is the leader of all and he lives in Vatican City. As usual, U. S. Citizen are showing their arrogance by saying the American Catholic Church is somehow different from the original which was begun by Christ over 2000 years ago. The Catholic Church is NOT a "cultural" Church, but brings truth to all who will listen.
I can see where "some" Catholics in the U.S., clergy and laity would like to have the entitlement, American Catholic Church. Then they could make up their own rules which many clergy and catholics have done already.
Excellent article--we can
Excellent article--we can count on John Allen.
To explain the American Bishops line toward Obama we have to pay attention to the line that the Republican National Committee is taking toward Obama--they are nearly identical. Obama knows this; just the same old same old--if it wasn't abortion it would be something else--the environment or taxes or the stimulus. The bishops are Republicans and the Republican leadership is becoming more Catholic. Newt Gingrich, Michael Steele.
Actually Obama's social policies with help for poor women will result in many less abortions than previous Republican
administrations. The Bishops know this. The American Bishops are becoming like their South-American counterparts--aligned with the rightwing, always.
The US Bishops are so totally
The US Bishops are so totally one-sided: Abortion issue; nothing else. People hear this, only this, so they are turning off the Bishops. In one ear, out the other, from now on. How many other issues are out there, not attended to! Sad!
What in the world could
What in the world could possibly be more important than stopping the genocide against human babies in their mothers' wombs? Over 50,000,000 have been murdered since the Democrats got their Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Your values are sadly lacking perspective. There is nothing at all in the entire world that calls for urgent action more than stopping the heartless murders of the innocents!
Excuse me, but it was a
Excuse me, but it was a republican judge appointed by Nixon that wrote the decision in Roe vs Wade. The republicans play the bishops like fiddles every election cycle and never do anything so that they can continue to get the Catholic vote. That did not work during the last election. And it was the democrats who put in their platform the goal to reduce abortions. So quit being a dittohead and look at the big picture!
I think you got your facts
I think you got your facts wrong, the reason Obama got elected is because Catholics heavily vote democrat. There has been a disconnect and a misunderstanding of the church's social teachings for many years. Lately though, the fog is clearing and the bishops are finally speaking out with the truth. To paint the democrats as fuzzy, warm compassionate pro-lifers is really a spinning of the facts. Abortion is their #1 agenda,everyone in the administration has promoted abortion in some way, they would not have a job if they didn't. It seems with them, that there can be no economic justice without the killing of unborn children. How do you reduce abortion when the USA has just given Planned Parenthood carte blanche to promote child killing around the world. In Mexico, the people in thir individual states are hurrying to enact laws to protect their unborn citizens from the reversal of the Mexico City Policy by Obama. America is now exporting abortion, something our middle eastern enemies deplore. I think you need to look at the BIG PICTURE.
Great point about the Bishops
Great point about the Bishops by supporting life are like the republicans! But have you read any of the Bishops documents on immigration, health care, family, wages, etc. which makes them not sound like republicans.
How about the democrats that support abortion on demand, assisted sucide, partial birth abortion, cloning, etc. They fall more in line with...who Margaret Sanger, Hitler and Satan.
Glad to be able to use your thought process to demonize political groups...even though some seem to be following demons.
BobCicero To be honest--no I
BobCicero
To be honest--no I haven't and that's my fault. But I will say if the bishops have written about this they are truly keeping it to themselves or in some out of the way place that doesn't reach me. They certainly haven't gone out of their way to publicize what they have to say--and they could do this by joining together with the traditional groups concerned with healthcare, family wages. I'm not in any way aware they have. The unions never cite them, health care advocates never cite them ( but I do know they've demonized many health care advocates because of "choice". )
So let them get out on the picket lines. I remember the March on Selma and a bishop or two right there in the line of march--how my heart glowed for my church. I suggest you read Nicholas Cafardi's article on the Bishops and the Republican party.
This is not true
This is not true Morthcountry. Solid rumors are that over half of he bishops voted for Obama. Kinda shows why there are so many problems here in the US Church doesn't it?
"The Bishops are
"The Bishops are Republican"
....dude, that has to be the most ridiculous, slanderous and ignorant comment I have ever heard...
So they don't believe in killing babies...Obama does...so "they MUST be Republican"
Why not independent? or better yet Theocratic!!
Don't embarrass yourself. God love you
"By their fruits ye shall
"By their fruits ye shall know them." Previous Republican presidents have identified themselves as pro-choice and the guys with the pointy hats and red beanies said nothing! The US bishops are, and have long been, closet Republicans! This should not be surprising given the "authoritarian" bent of both bishops and Republicans! For our bishops, church authority trumps everything including the Gospel! Our bishops only pay lip-service to the "People of God" -- Make no mistake, they see themselves as shepherds (in charge) and us as sheep (pray-pay-obey). And, most have an arrogance that was captured by their corporate reaction to the election of President Obama. Instead of seeing the collective wisdom of the Catholic laity and possible Divine Providence in the election returns, they saw only their own failure to get their point across! I'm old enough to remember when our bishops told us it was a mortal sin to set food in a Protestant church and to recall when eating meat on Friday was equally damning! I am convinced that half the "rules" are there only to have the laity jumping through hoops to the tune called by the bishops. The more strident our bishops become, the more they marginalize themselves and forfeit opportunities to change hearts and minds! Their principle task is to spread the Good News and to draw people of the Person of Jesus Christ, not to condemn and deny the sacraments!
Thanks, John, for your
Thanks, John, for your insights regarding President Obama and his relationships with the leadership of the Catholic Church, i.e. the Vatican versus the American Bishops. From my experience, it is difficult to have a dialogue with those on the "right" as they consider their positions as the "truth".
This is another anti-papist
This is another anti-papist article from the left. How many times will John go see "Angels and Demons" and cheer when it mocks the Magisterium? When are you Protestants going to get a clue and go start another denomination which will further your leftist agenda? Your time is up in God's church. Your high noon hour rendezvous is coming soon.
Democrats from the top in Obama and down to you marye don't do the same "I'm right, you're wrong" dance when it comes to your complete lack of respect for opposing views on Marriage, Abortion on Demand, Fiscal Responsibility, Health care, Immigration, Death penalty, Foreign Policy, Separation of church and state, and too many other issues to list here. Don't kid yourself, the Democrats embrace of moral relativism doesn't put anyone in a better position.
Keep your change, and let me keep my freedoms.
What the Vatican does
What the Vatican does publicly vs what it instructs the US Bishops is oft two different things--unless one is naive.
What the Vatican does is take
What the Vatican does is take a much more informed, subtle and intelligent view of things -far from the parochial, partisan, insular and semi-literate local attitudes of that funny country of yours.
I suppose you believe that
I suppose you believe that the Vatican communicates with bishops secretly via aluminum foil hats and TVEE SIGNALS.... This conspiracy kind commentary is at best ridiculous and at worst raw anti-catholic bigotry. Instead of "John Churchman" you really ought to update yourself and use "Ron 'Opie' Howard". But thn again, who would believe that you were that wealthy?
"Snowdrop" The Catholic
"Snowdrop"
The Catholic Church hasn't stayed in power as long as it has (and I mean as a political entity), by remaining "innocent and pure" of the politics games. They've been doing it a long, long, time. What John Churchman wrote is absolutely correct.
Suggest that you get a hold of some good Church History books and read them. What some of the popes did in the past would curl your hair (or cause you to loose it). Then read up on what the Vatican Curia was trying to do as stall tactics against Pope John XXIII and the Vatican Council II. They all had themselves appointed as moderators of commissions--to drag things out---to discourage as many as they could.
And guess, what, the current Curia---many of whom were young priest assisting the Curia in the early 60's are still playing the same political games as their mentors. The Vatican does play "Good Cops" while the American Bishops play "Bad Cops"---but the main point is---it is a studied script.
How encouraging to read about
How encouraging to read about the Vatican's view of Obama and his first 100 days. It confirms my belief that those Catholics who are so negatively vocal--one could even say hateful--in their comments regarding anything related to Obama, about their anti-abortion views, about Notre Dame, are fueled more by their conservative political ideology than by any Christian/Catholic position---and this includes some bishops. I hope we can all take a deep breath, ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit and "let go and let God".
Well said! My thoughts
Well said! My thoughts exactly.
Wow, this really sheads light
Wow, this really sheads light on some big divisions between the American Church and the Vatican. I'm not sure what to think anymore. I know that I am pro-life, but the Vatican is pro-life and the American Catholic Church is also. Yet, there seems to be a disunity between them. All I can say is that extremes on either side scare me.
me too!!!
me too!!!
This article is more than a
This article is more than a bit misleading. The "Vatican" is not the same as the opinions of an Italian journalist writing in the Italian edition of the semi-official Vatican newspaper. Let's get that straight. If the "Vatican" were to be officially asked for a statement regarding President Obama's position in support of abortion and his strong support of infanticide through the so-called "partial-birth abortion" - I am sure that the voice of the Vatican would be exactly in step with that of the US Bishops' Conference. Get real John, you know the way it works in Rome - you know better than to put out an article so one-sided. To somehow imply that the Vatican's stance on abortion is somewhere in-between Obama's and the Bishops of the United States is extremely misleading. The sad conclusion is that NCR and yourself may hope that this is true? Keep printing articles like this and we'll refer to it not as reporting, but as destructive social engineering tactics. Last time I checked, the Catholic Church was founded by Christ and not NCR. The Church's teachings and the deposit of the Faith are unchanging within the Magisterial framework - that is the same framework within which Cardinal George is acting. What framework are you working in? To indicate that a part-time foreign affairs jounalist is the voice of the Vatican is unbelievable. Sad thing is - many of your readers would not know this. The conclusion is that your headline "Vatican balances competing iterests..." somehow represents your opinion as a valid insight into real Vatican official foreign policy approach. Unbelievably irresponsible spin-jouranlism, even in an "analysis" article.
Thank you, I'm always
Thank you,
I'm always frustrated by the media's phrase "The Vatican said ...". The Vatican is a fortress containing a group of museums and offices; it does not speak. The above refers to an editorial by some little know writer published in L'Observatore Romano, though someone in the vatican bureacracy no doubt had to approve it, I doubt the Holy Father has the time to play editor-in-chief. So this is not a statement by the Pope, and it certainly isn't a statement by the Vatican or any other building for that matter. Without knowing who approved the article it has no authority to speak for Christ's Church beyond the strength of it's own arguments, such as they are. And the same goes every time some petty Vatican official makes an off-hand comment reported with: "The Vatican said ..."
Mugridge is right. Shame on
Mugridge is right. Shame on NCR for its deceit.
The Vatican essay has a
The Vatican essay has a strange factual error. Obama has not offered support for the Pregnant Woman Support Act.
I have noticed that abortion
I have noticed that abortion issues are not the major emotional issues that they are in the US. In some countries, the church largely ignores the status quo while working quietly for change - without alienating people. I think the US bishops get things stirred up to keep the spotlight off themselves and their failure to act against fellow bishops who empowered the clergy abuse scandal.
John wisely reports what was
John wisely reports what was written as:
"Obama has largely continued the policies of the Bush administration in Afghanistan, Fiorentino wrote, and he compared Obama's reluctance to nationalize banks and other lenders to the laissez faire approach of the Reagan administration.
The L'Osservatore essay pointed to some concrete foreign policy moves that seemed positive, but still tentative and undeveloped, including cautious openings to Iran, Russia and Cuba.
On the "life issues," Fiorentino argued that Obama's controversial executive order on embryonic stem cell research was actually fairly restrained, because it still prevents the creation of embryos for purposes of research or cloning, and it limits the use of federal funding for research to "surplus" embryos.
Fiorentino also argued that Obama's support for the "Pregnant Women Support Act" represents a "rebalancing" of his abortion policies "in support of maternity."
Right now in fact Gates is seeking to ameliorate Gulf concerns about future openings to Iran instead of the past insanity of the past.
By the way, our President's alleged "bow" to Saudi leaders looked to me like the nod a tall man might give to shorter people mumbling far below, first to say, "What was that?" then to say "Sure, I understand (NOT) whatever you're mumbling . . ." But a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse, and the eagerly outraged in America quickly insisted (as quickly and strenuously and stridently as insisting a Bush2000 win in Florida before all votes were counted) this slight nod or two was a subservient bow and scrape.
As eagerly and viciously and immorally as American bishops concealing their racism under the wool of ideological outrage, wolves in sheep's clothing.
Remember the only ones Baby Bush and his boss Dick Cheney permitted to fly in American airspace after 9/11/01 (not 9/11/73) was the Saudi family, not even Papa Bush.
The whole world breathes easier with President Obama at the helm of our damaged ship of state after eight years of pure piracy, no matter how cautiously he must proceed in reining in the rampant banking abuses and the immoral capitalist collapse. WIth all due speed and diligence we may finally achieve social and economic justice in our nation after our recent long national nightmare, as we at last have a President with a firm moral compass and courage of his convictions, which are ours, and with whom we must unite in prayer, to grow as one nation, under God, once more.
It is sad to say that the
It is sad to say that the Roman Catholic Church has had, roughly, 1700 years in which it has ignored the fact that all of Jesus' teachings was about nonviolence and that the Roman Catholic church along with the Greek "Catholic" church, were the first "Christian" churches to make wars justifiable.
I have given up on Rome getting it straight. The United States has pushed the notion that we are a just nation consistent with the teaching of Christianity, although has been involved with supporting other countries to go to war with each other and their own civilian populations.
Obama is a fresh breath of air. Maybe it is going to take someone who doesn't believe that everyone must believe that Jesus died to atone for their sins, even though their sins are completely against the teachings of Jesus.
Why do Christians still believe that Jesus death has made a change to the world. If anything, the teachings of Jesus have been completely ignored by all of the followers of Pope Constantine, or was it saint Constantine?
Peace
War is alive and well under
War is alive and well under Obama. He's no pacifist, and even allows robotic drone attacks on uncertain targets. He's not what you think he is. Read the papers.
The deeper roots of the
The deeper roots of the Vatican response can be found in the Gospels. Jesus was not into making enemies out of people who were not in complete agreement with him. In an extreme case he suggested treating them like publicans or Gentiles. We know how he treated them. The twenty per cent of bishops who are closer to the Republican party than the Gospel would do well to reread the New Testament.
I keep reading the same
I keep reading the same things over and over from the same people. The Vatican does not think Obama is a bad man. Now we are told that the American Bishops do not follow the Pope. They do their thing. I too think we have a little politics mixed-up in this. What we have is the extreme right in this country associating itself with the Church. That is scary. Thanks John for the article.
So called "pro-life" American
So called "pro-life" American bishops are anything but when it comes to peace and justice issues like war and poverty. Their choice of abortion, embroyonic stem cell research and gay marriage as the core issues represent a thinly veiled attempt to manipulate Catholics to support right-wing political candidates. Certainly the Vatican recognizes this.
Indeed. The Vatican's
Indeed. The Vatican's principal worry at the moment is that the American Catholic hierarchy is turning into a sockpuppet for the Republican Party.
Which does suggest that the
Which does suggest that the Vatican sometimes understands the problem.
It's not just the Vatican
It's not just the Vatican that recognizes the American Bishops' full court press to push catholics into voting Republican. The American catholics see it as well, which is part of the reason a larger percent of catholics voted for President Obama than did the general population.
And the Bishops know this happened, believing the Catholic vote gave the election to President Obama. So we can expect an even more absurd effort to change their vote the next time.
A catholic professional in Scranton, PA, published an open letter explaining why he was going to vote for President Obama in spite of the fanaticism of the Scranton bishop. His position: Bishops teach, ADULTS decide.
RCharles
The uproar over the Notre
The uproar over the Notre Dame Graduation indicates to me that the American Bishops (at least 55 of them)have nothing better to do than to criticize every step that the current administration is taking. Maybe they should devote more of their time in resolving the pedophile situation in their own diocese and to repent their own involvement in it.
American Bishops are playing
American Bishops are playing power politics, using threats of eternal damnation for anyone who doesn't vote against abortion. They are trying, I believe, to stem the tide of catholics drifting away from the Church. But they are, in fact, pushing more away with their all-or-nothing position on abortion.
The past election is a clear example, especially in PA, a critical state for both sides. There was a full court press against voting for President Obama by the Bishop of Scranton, but PA Catholics voted for Obama in higher percentages than the general population.
The loss of most Republican congressmen in the Northeast could not happen without the catholic vote, yet there are only two Republican senators left in the area. Given the more balanced views of younger catholics, many of whom think abortion should be legal and a personal choice, the Bishops will gradually lose the fight. It's a good thing.
RCharles
As usual, another
As usual, another enlightening article. I vote for John Allen to become American Ambassador to the Vatican!
As an elderly and retired priest I often find myself extremely embarrassed by some of the statements and activities of those few extremely “anti-abortion” Bishops.
So are you saying you think
So are you saying you think abortion is A-Ok? The reason that this country has become so left leaning and pro death is partly due to our shepherds being unwilling to stand up for life! I will pray for you and your soul.
Regarding all of the other things that we should worry about... They don't matter if we do not have a respect for life!
Erich's comment shows why
Erich's comment shows why most people are tired of the abortion issue. If the writer were really interested in respect for life, he would not address a retired priest in the sort of language demonstrated above. The bishops who are the puppets of the Republican Party are responsible for the policies of deregulation, unjust war, torture and all the other things done by the Republican regimes for the past nearly 30 years. Why should anyone believe a radical right wing bishop who has sold out to politics, but who cannot see the consequences of his narrow-mindedness?
Abortion is a great social evil and the lack of an understanding of metaphysics implied in embryonic stem cell research very troubling, but the simplistic, sound-bite, reactionary vitriole that has emerged in the culture of deregulation and extreme capitalism is a product of those bishops who supported the Republicans instead of finding a more creative and more authentic response to a real cultural problem. As with the sex scandals, the bishops seem incapable of knowing what to do. The nearly 220 or so bishops who have said nothing at all about the current state of our culture are as responsible as the 55 bishops who are clones of George Bush.
Are the bishops going to take responsibility for voices like Erich's? No, just as they never take responsibility for anything else. They simply point the way and wash their hands of the consequences. Thus is the culture made.
Thank you, John Allen, for
Thank you, John Allen, for this refreshing report.
How lovely it would be if the Vatican were able to see the full picture in every instance. From our lips to God's ears!
The majority of American
The majority of American Catholics support President Obama, with little or no regard to either the Vatican or the bishops. Indeed one can make the case that the vast majority of Catholics worldwide support our President.
Could it simply be that the
Could it simply be that the Vatican is reluctant, as it has always been, to take on the most powerful government and only remaining superpower in the world?
Did Papa Ratzi not invalidate an Italian referendum by urging all Catholics to abstain from participating in it and directly confront the Spanish government's legislation on gay mariage, abortion and other "life" issues, getting the national bishops to organize massive street rallies and demonstrations against it. True, the socialist prime minister Luis Rodriguez Zapatero was then reelected ...
"Vive la Difference !" as
"Vive la Difference !" as the French would say,
between the rush to judgment American Catholic Bishops
and the cautious, let's wait and see approach of the Vatican
on the domestic and foreign policies of the Obama Administr-
ation. The cultural wars being promoted by the American
hierarchy will only alienate still further from the Church American Catholics who voted for the president. While the news of the more moderate and thoughtfully mature Vatican
approach will encourage and foster peace and harmony.
"Vive la Difference !" ---- indeed.
On the contrary, I don't
On the contrary, I don't think that this article sheds light on the "BIG DIVISIONS" between the American Catholic church and the Vatican. I think it shows that the Vatican is able to take a moderate stance rather than the radical one we see from some of our bishops. It shows a willingness to appreciate what our president is trying to accomplish in the world rather than the tunnel-vision view of the radical bishops, whose voices, unfortunately are given way too much publicity and whose minds seem to be focused on only one issue--abortion.
Why is the solution for
Why is the solution for reducing abortions always changing national law by so many right wing Catholics? The solution is not in the law, it is in the personal morality, conscience and ethics of women AND men who are faced with that decision. The Catholic Church should direct its efforts to strengthening the moral fiber and committment to life of its members -- through education, counseling, persuasive writing, rationality and personal support. The legal solution is really no solution at all. There are too many ways to go around the law. Instead of trying to change President Obama, lets impart stronger efforts to change our members and also reach the vulnerable with much more solidarity and support.
The President has not
The President has not indicated support for the Pregnant Women Support Act and the L'Osservatore article did not claim he did. It would be a great boost to the Act if he supported it. See details - http://tinyurl.com/c3zdyo
95% of US Catholics are
95% of US Catholics are pro-life in that they consider abortion morally wrong, and that includes virtually all Democratic Catholic politicians. But the American bishops, probably through well-meaning over-zealousness, and in reaction to Roe vs. Wade, have gone further, demanding for 30 years that abortion be re-criminalized, women and girls who have abortions and those who assist them, be arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned, a political/public policy position that 80% of Americans have consistently opposed and which the Vatican has never explicitly endorsed. Lately, some American bishops have even gone father, asserting that Catholic politicians who oppose criminalization have therefore somehow excluded themselves from the reception of the body and blood of Our Lord in Communion, again something the Vatican has never required or endorsed. This position is extremist even though 10% of American bishops endorse it. It does nothing to reduce abortions and makes Catholics seem like fanatics who want to dictate civil law. It is time for the American bishops to re-consider their whole approach to this important moral issue -- since the present one is obviously not working.
I have always wondered why
I have always wondered why the powers that were at the time when Jews and others were being killed by the Nazis, did not shout at the top of their voices for the world to hear that millions of people were being murdered.
We all know that millions of babies are being killed and yet we and the powers that be remain politically and convieniently silent.
When people ask for dialog, do they mean there is wiggle room to negotiate between the death of the innocent and something else?
Migel in OKC,OK, USA
"The SHIP OF STATE is an
"The SHIP OF STATE is an OCEAN LINER, not a SPEED BOAT," as President Obama remarked in last week's TV press conference - complete with a question from CNN's Ed Henry specifically addressing the "O'DRAMA" at Notre Dame, which rabid pro-lifers would do well to access and review, especially that part about his Task Force for "reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies that result in abortion."
But compared to the Vatican, Obama's ocean liner is a speed boat! Luckily, the Vatican, like President Obama, does not have the LUXURY of turning their leadership positions into ONE ISSUE crusades a la the newly vocal 50 or so "abortion bishops" of America (would that they had HALF as much to say about healthy, holistic programs of SEX EDUCATION in their dioceses). And after they have finished baptizing key Republican has-beens and wannabes, they may sadly discover that they have missed both boats -the one in Washington and the one in Rome. Steady as she goes!
Let it be said that having an
Let it be said that having an "anti-abortion view" is a matter of Catholic teaching. There is no room for negotiation on the killing of children (at any age). Whether children live or die is not an issue of political ideology.
Adam Nichols writes: "There
Adam Nichols writes: "There is no room for negotiation on the killing of children"
But the vast majority of abortions are done in the first trimester when we are dealing with an embryo or a fetus, not a child, which is someone who was already born. Medical research reports that about 40% of all normally occurring embryos are dumped by Nature, yes, aborted - too late in the cycle, hormone problems, whatever. Since god invented Nature, these are "god approved" abortions. There is no reason for man to have a stricter set of rules.
Given the huge collection of problems facing the world and the USA, it is beyond absurd to cast a single-issue vote. It is also illegal for the Church to take such a vocal position to sway catholic voters, an effort that clearly failed in the last election. Bishops can teach; ADULTS get to decide.
RCharles
Check your Embryology; human
Check your Embryology; human life begins at fertilization. A human embryo is just as much human as a human child, just at a different stage of life. When you kill a Monarch Larva or a Monarch Pupa, you are not killing a Monarch Butterfly, but you are still killing a Monarch, you're still killing the same insect-being. So you're right, an embryo doesn't have the form of a child, but whether you kill a human zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, child, adolescent, or adult, you are still killing the same human being, just in a different stage of his or her development.
Don't use an arbitrary benchmark, depending on ability, strength, intelligence, race, gender, age, or development, to dictate that some humans have the right to life and others don't. Reproductive systems are not fully developed until around 13 years old, so a human who is younger than 13 is not fully developed and therefore not fully human, right? Of course people younger than 13 are human and have the right to life. Human rights do not depend on development. Arguments that superimpose the benchmark of sentience, viability, or any other developmental criteria for human rights all fall equally, logically flat.
No matter how White or Black or Arian or Jewish or strong or weak or old or young, the inherent right to life of all innocent humans should be respected. It's always those in power that formulate a criteria for which humans are inconvenient and should be deprived of rights by recasting them as sub-human. Hitler justified killing the Jews through propagating Eugenic ignorance of Biology and Science to claim that Jews were sub-human and therefore had no right to life.
Embryos that are "dumped by nature" as you so eloquently stated, are more commonly referred to as "spontaneous abortions" a.k.a. miscarriages.
Why do you cite statistics without admitting the inherent difficulty of accurately determining the prevalence of miscarriage? I also wonder where you got the 40% figure. Perhaps you misread "Conception, early pregnancy loss" by Wang, X (2003). The conception rate in that study was 40%. Spontaneous abortions, however, only occurred 25% of pregnancies before the 6th week and 8% of the pregnancies after the 6th week. That's only 33% total miscarriages.
And that 33% does not refer to "all normally occuring embryos" in all women as you imply. It refers to 33% of the study's subject pool, which consisted of only 18-year-old girls in China. Those results are not necessarily generalizable to woman of all ages and in all areas. There are too many variables that effect fertility and miscarriage to cite the results of one study as definitive for the entire global group of pregnant women varying in age and environment.
Regardless, even if a study could definitively describe the entire population's rate of miscarriage as 33%, your use of statistics is misleading and moot. You seem unable to differentiate between spontaneous abortion and induced abortion. A spontaneous abortion occurs when an embryo dies of natural causes (miscarriage). An induced abortion is performed by an outside agent with the express intent of killing the otherwse living embryo, in many cases by an abortionist who cuts her to pieces and then sucks her dead remains out of her mother.
I refer to human embryos as he or she, because humans are not objects, they are not 'its.' Although doctors cannot observe gender until 7 weeks, gender has already been genetically determined at the moment of fertilization depending on if the sperm cell introduces an x or y chromosome into the egg.
To reduce confusion, most people refer to spontaneous abortion using the term "miscarriage." And when referring to induced abortion, they use the generic term "abortion." But confusing these terms or using them synonymously, as you have done, blurs the line between miscarriage and murder.
Misrepresenting limited statistics of naturally occurring miscarriages to justify induced abortion is no different than twisting naturally occurring deaths into a justification for murder. It's like saying, "27 percent of men die of natural causes, such as heart disease, these are "God-approved" deaths, and "There is no reason for man to have a stricter set of rules," therefore, I am justified in killing a man by cutting him up. There is nothing morally or legally wrong with it, and it is my "right to choose" this course of action that kills an innocent human life.
According to your argument, God allows people to die; therefore, we have the right to kill. You're putting yourself in God's rightful place; BIG mistake. God has the right to our lives, to give and take life, but we do not have the right to take an innocent human's God-given life, because we didn't give life. He did. When a Mother and Father conceive a child, they are the secondary cause of life, God is the primary cause and giver of life, with Whom man and woman cooperate to pro-create.
As far as "Bishops can teach; ADULTS get to decide" it's true that we ADULTS have the free choice to "decide" to obey or reject church authority. But consider this:
Bishops are the successors of the apostles to whom Christ says, "The person who listens to you listens to me, and the person who rejects you rejects me. The person who rejects me rejects the one who sent me." (Luke 10:16)
Christ also teaches that we ADULTS must become as little children:
"Truly I say to you, Except you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."(Matthew 18:3)
You say that "ADULTS get to decide"
"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both you and your seed may live."(Deuteronomy 30:19)
Sources:
Christ says "'If you want to get into that life. you must keep the commandments.' The young man asked him, 'Which ones?'Jesus said, ‘You must not murder,you must not commit adultery, you must not steal, you must not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’and ‘you must love your neighbor as yourself.’”(Matt 19:18)
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you"(Jeremiah 1:5)
"1 And the second commandment of the Teaching; 2 You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, Exodus 20:13-14 you shall not commit pæderasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, Exodus 20:15 you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten."(Didache 2:1-2)
"I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion."(The Hippocratic Oath)
Wilcox AJ, Baird DD, Weinberg CR (1999). "Time of implantation of the conceptus and loss of pregnancy.". New England Journal of Medicine 340 (23): 1796–1799.
Wang X, Chen C, Wang L, Chen D, Guang W, French J (2003). "Conception, early pregnancy loss, and time to clinical pregnancy: a population-based prospective study.". Fertil Steril 79 (3): 577–84.
http://www.natural-holistic-health.com/general/ten-leading-death-men/
“Obama should also say that
“Obama should also say that every one should work to be a true pro-lifer by not only supporting the pro-life view, but supporting the holistic concept of respect for life as God would want it: that is, by each of us not only personally abhorring abortion, but also spread that abhorrence to wasting of life through unnecessary war and torture, death penalty, guns, and indiscriminate and wanton killing of life using God given natural embryos for embryonic stem cell research. We should dedicate federal funds for preserving life, improving quality of life, and providing good affordable health care for all. “
If he had said that, no one would have any difficulty.. Rush Limbaugh/Hanity/Gingrich and cohorts would have to look for other wedge issues.
The reason I am no longer a
The reason I am no longer a Catholic is because of what appears to be hypocracy on the part of the heirarchy.
The church is quick to proclaim that life begins at conception and must be protected. Protests are organized at clinics where women go for birth control information so they can plan their families. Yet daily, doctors in fertility clinics discard thousands of fertilized eggs and freeze the ones they may want to implant later. Over 400,000 of those fertilized eggs are about to be thawed and discarded. Will anyone protest that? Will good Catholic women sign up to save those eggs? Why are there protests only when the fertilized egg is in a woman's body? A fertilized egg has potential for life but it's not a life. When I fry my eggs in the morning I'm not frying chickens
The church says that homosexuals are not allowed to receive communion. Some of the most caring priests I have known are homosexual. It is a known fact that after the exodus of Priests in the 60s more than 50% of the remaining priests were/are homosexual. There is even a support group in my diocese for homosexual priests. So does that mean it's ok for homosexuals to consecrate the host and consume it but not ok to give it to other homosexuals? Just wondering.
reply
The reason I am no longer
The reason I am no longer Catholic is because of what appears to be hypocracy on the part of the heirarchy. The church is quick to proclaim that life begins at conception and must be protected. Protests are organized at clinics where women go for birth control information so they can plan their families. Yet daily, doctors in fertility clinics discard thousands of fertilized eggs and freeze the ones they may want to implant later. Over 400,000 of those fertilized eggs are about to be thawed and discarded. Will anyone protest that? Will good Catholic Pro Life women sign up to save those eggs? Why are there protests only when the fertilized egg is in a woman's body? Yes, a fertilized egg has the potential for life, but it's not a life. When I fry my eggs for breakfast I'm not frying chickens.
The church says that homosexuals are not allowed to receive communion. Some of the most caring priests I have known are homosexual. It is a known fact that after the exodus of Priests in the 60s more than 50% of the remaining priests were/are homosexual. There is even a support group in my diocese for homosexual priests. So does that mean it's ok for homosexuals to consecrate the host and consume it but not ok to give it to other homosexuals? Just wondering.
reply
"The church says that
"The church says that homosexuals are not allowed to receive communion"
No. The church says that homosexuals who act out their homosexual tendency (having homosexual acts, 'marry' someone with same sex etc.) are not allowed to receive the communion before they change their lifestlye and go to confession.
This is the same law for the heterosexuals who has sex outside the bond of marriage.
Having a homosexual tendency (sexually liking people who has the same sex) is not a sin and doesn't prevent anybody from receiving communion. Acting out on those tendency is a sin. Acting out heterosexual tendency inside the bond of marriage is not a sin.
A priest can be a homosexual (having homosexual tendency), but of course he should not acting out those tendency.
Meff: With respect - it
Meff: With respect - it could be the reason you are no longer Catholic is because of poor catechesis. The Church has been against abortion and infanticide since the early 1st Century (read the Didiache). There are a number of blogs and fora which very specifically discuss the issue you brought up (the appropriate Catholic response to vast amounts of fertilized eggs.) Finally, nowhere does the Church say that homosexuals cannot receive communion - the stance of the Church is the same for anyone participating in a sex act outside of the bounds of a marital union. It doesn't matter if the act is one of fornication, adultery, homosexual or unitary. The fact that a man may have homosexual tendancies is not an issue - it is the act that is sinful not the man. The Church is pretty clear about this - please do some more research - the Catechism is a good place to start. JohnS
What does God say about LIFE?
What does God say about LIFE? HE says that that HE is the Giver of LIFE! If more of the Catholics truly taught what Jesus Christ has taught there wouldn't be any discussion about this at all. Now I heard that OBAMA stated that if his daughter became pregnant, he would take her to an ABORTIONIST. Obviously He Believes that hE is the starter and finisher of LIFE!
Hang on people he only has another three years and about 258 more days til the end of his term!
You fail to count the days
You fail to count the days and hours and minutes of our fine new President's second term. James Carville's new book in fact is called 40 More Years!
"Now I heard that OBAMA
"Now I heard that OBAMA stated that if his daughter became pregnant, he would take her to an ABORTIONIST."
**PLEASE CITE YOUR SOURCE. I WANT TO SEE THE VERBATIM STATEMENT WHERE OBAMA SAID HE WOULD TAKE HIS DAUGHTER TO AN ABORTIONIST. I WILL WAIT FOR YOU TO POST THAT INFORMATION**
Actually, he said no such thing despite what you "heard". This is a prime example of the ridiculous lies that are spread by the so-called orthodox catholic (fringe) blogosphere. And, whether you like it or not, Obama is very likely to be president for the next 7 1/2 years plus. Enjoy!
"Look, I got two daughters —
"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," he said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."
Candidate Obaama, Johnstown PA Town Meeting, March 2008
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Stop_these_abortions_.html
Diplomacy is at the root of
Diplomacy is at the root of this. The Vatican is making diplomatic overtures in order to cooperate fruitfully with the administration, but underneath the uncompromising stance on life issues remains - thanks be to God. It's that simple.
For nearly 20 years, the
For nearly 20 years, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul has operated a maternity home/residence, Marillac Place, in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada for young pregnant and post-partum teenage girls to give them a positive option against abortion.
Keeping this home viable has been a constant financial struggle. One can only hope that President Obama's support of the Pregnant Women Support Act will lead to the creation of more Marillacs and the ongoing financial support they will require.
Marillac is an example of putting one's money where one's mouth is. Protests are one thing; dollars to help pregnant teens facing choices are another. Donations welcome: http://www.marillacplace.ca/
Too bad Obama doesn't support
Too bad Obama doesn't support the Pregnant Women Support Act. Please cite his support of it, or correct the record.
This was taken from the
This was taken from the accompanying article. Whether it is correct, I don't know but hopefully it is.
Bottom line: You want to do something positive about preventing abortions? Offer pregnant teens and others an alternative such as is done at Marillac Place...it's been proved time and again - that, I do know!
It cracks me up that people
It cracks me up that people still think that the bishops who speakout in defense of life are part of the Republicans. They never mention the rebuke Rudy G. got when he ran for president. I don't understand ANY true Catholic being completely aligned to ANY political party. This is our main problem. We must first and last be members of the Body of Christ. That will help us get to Heaven. A political party may get us to where we don't want to be.
"Abortion has never been the
"Abortion has never been the overriding focus for conservative Catholic intellectuals and activists in Europe that it is in the United States...the dominant issue tends to be the continent's Christian identity. As a result, it does not come naturally for many European Catholics, including many in the Vatican, to evaluate leaders primarily through the lens of their policies on life issues.
In my many years of travel and living in a number of European countries, I have found this to be the case, especially before Presidential elections.
How long before Randall Terry
How long before Randall Terry shows up in Rome calling for the Pope to be removed?
Post new comment