Vatican newspaper trumpets Obama’s “common ground” message on abortion

posted at 8:31 pm on May 18, 2009 by Allahpundit

There must be some vestigial loyalty to the Church buried deep in my disbelieving heart because I find this so disappointing.

The Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano said Obama’s speech at the leading Catholic university on Sunday confirmed what he had said at a recent news conference — that signing the so-called Freedom of Choice Act in the U.S. Congress wasn’t his highest legislative priority. The bill would protect a woman’s right to have a child or end a pregnancy…

The article didn’t mention the protest by dozens of U.S. Catholic bishops who denounced Notre Dame for honoring Obama because his abortion rights record clashes with fundamental church teaching.

Instead, it simply quoted Obama as inviting all Americans to work together to reduce the number of abortions and unwanted pregnancies, and concluded he was searching for common ground on the “delicate question of abortion.”…

In addition, L’Osservatore Romano gave Obama a positive review after his first 100 days in office, saying in a front-page editorial that even on ethical questions Obama hadn’t confirmed the “radical” new direction he had discussed during the campaign.

Partisanship aside, and duly noting the political delicacy involved here in not wanting to attack a head of state, can the house organ of the Catholic Church really not muster anything more critical than this about a guy as radically pro-choice as Obama? The idea that they’re clinging to the fact that he hasn’t said he won’t sign the Freedom of Choice Act but merely that it’s not his highest priority is so pathetic, it’d make Doug Kmiec blush. Slublog managed to produce a more righteous editorial last night in our Greenroom, during odd hours away from his kids. I get that the Church doesn’t want to alienate The One’s liberal Catholic supporters, but I suspect those supporters have already made peace with the idea that disapproving sounds about the president’s position on life are bound to emanate from the Vatican now and again. If the Church won’t even stand up for the bishops who spoke out on an issue as fundamental as life, what will it stand up for?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I don’t know about the church’s position on Galileo. I do know that the scientists of the day were very, very strongly upset by Galileo. Back then, all “serious thinking” was done by philosophers drinking tea and speculating about how the universe should work. Galileo’s radical idea was to just look at it and see how it did work. For example, the leading minds of the day debated endlessly about whether the moon was a smooth sphere or had mountains. Galileo built a telescope and found out. Many refused to look through it, they hated it so much.

joe_doufu on May 19, 2009 at 1:31 AM

Somebody’s been reading Nostradamus.

Oh PLEASE!
Let’s give the ‘choosen one’ the Catholic Church as well are better yet, maybe the Church should just go away.

foxone on May 18, 2009 at 10:28 PM

Or was it St. Augustine.
Quick, anybody remember how many names are on the Pope list?
/***removing my tin foil hat now***

Blacksmith8 on May 19, 2009 at 1:46 AM

joe_doufu on May 19, 2009 at 1:31 AM

Guess not much has changed huh?

angelwing34215 on May 19, 2009 at 1:46 AM

angelwing34215 on May 19, 2009 at 1:46 AM

actually that’s not fair to say, but I think its fair to say the scientific community has needed some pushes and shoves to keep the learning going over the years.

angelwing34215 on May 19, 2009 at 1:48 AM

Does anyone here really suppose the Pope pre-approved the opinion piece, or that it represents a change in official doctrine – which contradicts the Pope’s own very direct statements on the issue?
`
The ignorance evidenced by many or most of these comments is truly regrettable. I blame the public education system.
`
Too bad the Church failed to react in a manner fully approved by this largely non-Catholic audience’s personal political desires, isn’t it? I’m sure the loss of all your financial support will certainly send the Church a strong message in this regard.
`

Adjoran on May 19, 2009 at 1:57 AM

MedSchoolCatholic: Thanks for the link
Everybody else: Here’s a paragraph for you to ponder.

By expressing strong support to the U.S. bishops and quoting Archbishop Chaput’s recent conference at the Becket Fund dinner, L’Osservatore Romano has put to rest speculation that the Vatican was being “unsupportive” of the American Bishops’ strong criticism to Obama’s anti-life policies.

I continue to be amazed at the number of folks who say they’re not Catholic, but profess beliefs that would put them in line at Communion.
That is until I looked at this thread.

Blacksmith8 on May 19, 2009 at 2:11 AM

Peace in our time!

Nah, HitlerObama wouldn’t invadesign CzechoslovakiaFOCA. Would he?

rasqual on May 19, 2009 at 2:24 AM

There’s nothing conservative about modern Catholicism. It is anathema to conservatism. It is humanist-socialism to its core. There’s a very good reason why most of them vote democrat. The social and political views of the Vatican:

pro-union
pro-immigration
pro-welfare
pro-taxation
pro-social justice
pro-environment
anti-war
anti-capitalism
anti-death penalty
anti-”racism”

and now this. There’s little room between the Vatican and Code Pinko on the major issues.

keep the change on May 18, 2009 at 10:09 PM

What do you mean by “anti-’racism’”, and why did you include it? Why should they be anything but anti-racism? (Until I understand what the scare quotes mean, I can’t interpret what your problem with it is.)

capitalist piglet on May 19, 2009 at 2:47 AM

Unbelievable!

Once again the Vatican fails the people. How sad. :(

sarahpalinfan99 on May 19, 2009 at 5:30 AM

W….T……..F…….

ToddonCapeCod on May 19, 2009 at 6:06 AM

I know of many who turned their backs on the Catholic Church for the priest absue scandal of a few years back.
This will cost the Church even more losses, I guarantee it.

ToddonCapeCod on May 19, 2009 at 6:09 AM

Just a question here, am I talking mostly to men?

Just curious.

AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 10:08 PM

I only got as far as the comments up until 10:23, but after reading your MANY posts, I assume your point is not to offer your opinion on this subject (which you have before, and one or two comments would have sufficed,) but to throw bombs at those who feel they’re grieving at a funeral. The commenter you remind me the most of is Athensboy, because like you, he/she/it is prideful over the pleasure he gets from watching others suffer. I think the proper word is “sadist”.

Clearly you are only one of the latest in a long line of Obama supporters who suddenly appear by one means or another to infect this blog for a few weeks/months, and are ultimately banned. But you are effective, because you do succeed in driving away long-time readers who can’t understand why you’re allowed to remain to monopolize threads.

I nominate you for Gauleiter of California in the new world order.

JiangxiDad on May 19, 2009 at 7:08 AM

The Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano said Obama’s speech at the leading Catholic university on Sunday confirmed what he had said at a recent news conference — that signing the so-called Freedom of Choice Act in the U.S. Congress wasn’t his highest legislative priority. The bill would protect a woman’s right to have a child or end a pregnancy.

Is this an Italian to English translation problem? Since when is a woman’s right to have a child endangered (other than in, say, Communist China)?

Buy Danish on May 19, 2009 at 7:51 AM

Is the Pope becoming a moral relativist? What the hell is he thinking when he skirts matters of conscience like life or death of unborn with feel-good pap about “common ground”? Disgusting.

petefrt on May 19, 2009 at 8:07 AM

I’m extremely disheartened by this.

davecatbone on May 19, 2009 at 8:14 AM

Partisanship aside, and duly noting the political delicacy involved here in not wanting to attack a head of state

This is so hysterical in historical terms… I can’t believe someone could type it with a straight face!

capitalist piglet on May 19, 2009 at 2:47 AM

He/She means Rome plays the race card. I’ve documented Rome’s leftism/anti-Americanism/pro-Palestinian positions many times and this is what you get… a nit-picking.

But I’ll take this… you at least acknowledge that the RCC is a force for destruction of the Republic more than a source of upholding it (John Adams was right).

All the invectives thrown at ND (accusing the vast majority of American Catholics of not being real Catholics) can now be hurled (albeit with less severity) at the Pope… but the duplicity evident in all these threads won’t allow it.

Having been fully immersed and educated in the RCC (being a teacher myself), I can report (anecdotally) that the majority of loyal, devout, never-miss Catholics I’ve known and know are politically liberal (because the RCC is on just about everything except abortion, marriage and masturbation!).

mankai on May 19, 2009 at 8:16 AM

Correction: because the RCC is wrong on just about everything except abortion, marriage and masturbation!).

mankai on May 19, 2009 at 8:19 AM

I have to say, I’m thankful I’m not Catholic. I couldn’t imagine looking to a human being for the direction to go; I just open my Bible or hear from someone teaching the Bible. To be honest the Pope is just another human being who is suceptible to The One.

youngO on May 19, 2009 at 8:56 AM

I’m a little puzzled over this myself. I have to console myself with the notion that the Pope/Vatican are largely much better equipped for real-world politics than our current Administration is, and that they have some sort of larger reason for not decrying Obama on this (for now?).

I hope I’m right.

I’m not a Catholic, but I have a lot of respect for the Roman Catholic Church as a world organization.

bluelightbrigade on May 19, 2009 at 9:05 AM

However, there is one core point that I cannot abandon and that state sanctioned abortion on demand is wrong. Not just wrong, evil.
Limerick on May 19, 2009 at 1:01 AM

We agree.

a capella on May 19, 2009 at 9:28 AM

This is another reason the church is doomed to fail. Allowing this to happen. When you decide to become a priest/bishop/Pope you are deciding that you are going to stand for the principles of the church. Never in a million years should Obama have had the chance to speak, let alone stand on that stage and make a mockery of the people that do stand by the church. The Church was duped. Baby Killer Praise C’mon!

Tremmy on May 19, 2009 at 9:32 AM

When you decide to become a priest/bishop/Pope you are deciding that you are going to stand for the principles of the church.

From my experience (and it is fairly extensive)… the “principles” amount to “social justice” and “peace” issues.

mankai on May 19, 2009 at 9:35 AM

Well that about does it, the Catholic church has been neutered on the issue of life. Once the first line of defense, now they are the appeasers.

Guess it’s up to the Protestants and Mormons now (as well as the orthodox Jews and Muslims). Hey Gingrich, maybe you should convert to Lutheranism now?

Daemonocracy on May 19, 2009 at 9:48 AM

The Pope and the Catholic Church are political entities. Always have been and always will be.

Zola on May 19, 2009 at 10:17 AM

Thanks for that highly relevant post about Galileo.

corona on May 19, 2009 at 10:28 AM

what will it stand up for?

The same thing it has always stood up for. Itself.

spmat on May 19, 2009 at 10:51 AM

I hear people throwing around terms like “murder,” and I think of the woman who will die if she goes full-term. Her family is pleading with her to terminate the pregnancy. But she is hearing those voices in her head. “It’s murder.”

I’ll always argue vociferously against that attitude.

AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 10:59 PM

Why would you argue vociferously against that attitude? I thought you were Pro-Choice!!

PappaMac on May 19, 2009 at 10:51 AM

Thanks for that highly relevant post about Galileo.

corona on May 19, 2009 at 10:28 AM

Yahhh! Makes my point from yesterday (and I didn’t even have to reference Galileo)!

To reiterate: If you mention formal, official, codified Catholic papal or conciliar history… you are “anti-Catholic” for picking “irrelevant” teachings or teachings from “time before lightbulbs were invented” (as I have been accused when I have quoted Popes or Councils on this very site)… BUT…

On a different day

, the “wisdom of 2000 years” and “the unchanging faith” are trotted out to silence any criticism of current Catholic thought.

It’s a win-win! ;)

mankai on May 19, 2009 at 10:52 AM

I haven’t been to church, in years. For my own personal reasons. The abortion issue, was not one of them. But reading this now, I can’t help but feel so sorrowful, and disappointed, not just in the church, but in the Pope himself. Did he sanction this glowing report? I can only think that he did.

What is happening? That we now look the other way to abortion, and give glowing reviews, to a man who goes so far as to advocate infanticide? This is what the church finds, middle ground?

I have a very strong feeling, when word of this spreads, so will the faithful of the church. This is wrong, and hurtful. To all those faithful, that stood strong over the years, against such an abomination, against innocents, to turn and do this. It just hurts, to the soul.

From here on out, the church has only themselves to blame now, for the future of itself.

capejasmine on May 19, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Christ warned of this.

He also told them a parable: “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? – Luke 6:39

Turn from following a blind man and instead follow who Peter describes as the rock.

As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture:
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone.”

and “A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense.

shick on May 19, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Acutally, it’s the AP reporting on what LO said. The AP’s lack of credibility is only made worse with this:

The Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano said Obama’s speech at the leading Catholic university on Sunday confirmed what he had said at a recent news conference — that signing the so-called Freedom of Choice Act in the U.S. Congress wasn’t his highest legislative priority. The bill would protect a woman’s right to have a child or end a pregnancy.

That’s not all FOCA is intended to do, sorry AP.

Furthermore, ‘common ground’ is nowhere to be found in the quote by LO. What gives? Check this drivel against the original before believing anything the AP has to say on the topic.

GoodSamaritan on May 19, 2009 at 1:09 PM

Common Ground nothing… The only common ground is “YOU DO IT OBAMA’S WAY”

CynicalOptimist on May 19, 2009 at 1:11 PM

I really think that our religious leaders, and this includes most faiths, have lost touch with reality. They no longer practice what God demands as written, instead they wish to set the standards as they see fit. That is through their world view.

Also a note to the Vatican. Instead of listening and printing what Obama says, why don’t you look at what he has done and what he is doing?

SGinNC on May 19, 2009 at 1:42 PM

Obama is not even a Catholic and he has purchased an “indulgence”; that much is clear. The church criticized Pelosi over her milder position on Abortion. The real question is, what was the price?

GunRunner on May 19, 2009 at 3:03 PM

Furthermore, ‘common ground’ is nowhere to be found in the quote by LO. What gives? Check this drivel against the original before believing anything the AP has to say on the topic.

GoodSamaritan on May 19, 2009 at 1:09 PM

Will you take it from the Catholic News Service then?

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0902273.htm

By John Thavis
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — The Vatican newspaper said U.S. President Barack Obama sought common ground on the divisive issue of abortion in his commencement address at the University of Notre Dame.

But from what I’ve learned at HA… this “Pope” fellow must not be a “real,” “mass-attending” Catholic. He is surely ignorant of Church teaching.

mankai on May 19, 2009 at 3:36 PM

mankai on May 19, 2009 at 3:36 PM

This was not a statement by or from Pope Benedict. It was an editorial by an author of unknown identity.

clarifides on May 19, 2009 at 4:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3