Editor of Vatican newspaper: Obama’s “not a pro-abortion president”
posted at 6:14 pm on May 21, 2009 by Allahpundit
If you were wondering whether their squishy editorial celebrating The One’s “common ground” nonsense at Notre Dame might have been mistranslated, rest assured that it wasn’t.
I don’t know what to say anymore, guys.
In the interview with Rodari, Editor-in-chief Gian Maria Vian discussed his thoughts on President Obama at the University of Notre Dame. “Obama has not upset the world,” he said. “His speech at Notre Dame has been respectful toward every position. He tried to engage the debate stepping out from every ideological position and outside every ‘confrontational mentality.’ To this extent his speech is to be appreciated.”
Vian continued, “Let me be clear, L’Osservatore stands where the American bishops are: we consider abortion a disaster. We must promote, always and at every level a ‘culture of life’.”
“What I want to stress is that yesterday, on this precise and very delicate issue, the President said that the approval of the new law on abortion is not a priority of his administration. The fact that he said that is very reassuring to me. It also underlines my own clear belief: Obama is not a pro-abortion president,” he told Rodari.
Abortion’s a “disaster,” and Obama’s almost certainly the most comfortable with it of any president in American history, and all it takes to let him off the hook is the fact that he’s not terribly eager to expand the policy further? By that same logic, a legislator who voted to legalize rape would only be considered “pro-rape” if he supported commission of the deed itself, never mind the incentives involved in lifting penalties for it. In fairness to Benedict and his staff, other Catholic commentators have stressed that the paper isn’t exactly a house organ for the Church and so its position shouldn’t be confused with the position of the Holy See. The Church can replace the editor, though, can’t it? Why’s he still there, then?
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: « Previous 1 2
There is no “free speech” in a church, you don’t understand that?
There is no “other side” to what Christ stated, you don’t understand that?
Do you think you have a right to an hour, after the priest gives his sermon, to counter his sermon? A rebuttal?
right2bright on May 22, 2009 at 8:58 AM
I always thought accountability was one of the most important aspects of Christian life…he is stating that there is little accountability for these leaders?
right2bright on May 22, 2009 at 9:01 AM
The Papacy neither now nor ever makes a distinction between the two.
mankai on May 22, 2009 at 9:04 AM
Not to engage in bashing the Roman church, but being comfortable with abortion means being comfortable with SIN. Now, if you’re comfortable with sin, WHICH sin is irrelevant. At that point, sin has become relative and standards are cast adrift in the sea of relativism. Your comfort level has become the measure. Relativism is what’s caused Christian Churches, regardless of denomination, to become worthless.
I can point to the same problem in churches of protestant denominations, which is the main reason I’ve stopped attending.
oldleprechaun on May 22, 2009 at 9:09 AM
“…His speech…has been respectful toward every position.”
Vian
And how is that total lack of principles a good thing? Clearly Vian thinks it is. Does he believe all American president’s speeches should be neutral and vapid regardless of the true beliefs of the speaker?
SKYFOX on May 22, 2009 at 9:12 AM
That’s the “royal WE” of Leo XIII.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm
mankai on May 22, 2009 at 9:15 AM
As there is a difference between the Vatican and the newspaper published in the Vatican, so there is a difference between the Catholic Church and many Catholics.
As an adult, I chose to be a Catholic. I am traditional in my religious beliefs and orthodox in my practice. My Catholic faith informs my politics. But my conservative politics also led me to the Catholic Church.
Talk with traditional Catholics. You will find you have differences on faith and politics, but you will also share many political positions. Traditional Catholics have been and will be allies with many other conservative groups. So, let’s try to sift the wheat from the chaff.
Loxodonta on May 22, 2009 at 9:25 AM
Let’s examine this constant charge…
http://www.vatican.va/index.htm
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/home_eng.html
Now, should use the “not a real, mass-attending Catholic” canard against Benedict or Vian next?
mankai on May 22, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Via vatican.va:
mankai on May 22, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Notice it does not say that “we are God” or that “we are equal to God” It says that we hold the place of God on earth. To “hold the place of” means one is a “representative of”. We are all ambassadors of Christ on this planet and thus we all hold the place of God on this earth.
In the same encyclical the following paragraph reads:
clarifides on May 22, 2009 at 9:54 AM
The quote you have is by Pope John XXIII, there have been changes since then. The official section of the paper is “Nostre informazione” (“Our News”) that includes papal speeches, writings, etc.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/434172/LOsservatore-Romano
clarifides on May 22, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Well, you ignored “sweet Christ on earth”… but be that as it may… claiming the powers of God on earth is tantamount to claiming an authority equal to God. I try to only use catholic sources…
mankai on May 22, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Yes, John XXIII (the 2nd one, btw)… The links I provided are to vatican.va and it is they who provide the quote. It is at vatican.va where you may see that the paper is listed as the official news service of the vatican.
And from 2006:
mankai on May 22, 2009 at 10:42 AM
New editor in November 2007
clarifides on May 22, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Close the Cafeteria, there is no free lunch on the Roman Catholic Church – for Barack Obama or this author Vian.
Dr Evil on May 22, 2009 at 11:01 AM
I guess Benedict is just another Cafeteria Catholic! No real Catholic would have chosen Vian or suffered his brazen anti-Catholicism.
mankai on May 22, 2009 at 11:09 AM
mankai on May 22, 2009 at 10:34 AM
I see this as term of endearment.
This is in reference to Jesus Christ
clarifides on May 22, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Maybe Rome is The Great Whore.
chunderroad on May 22, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Nuance…
Explain it away… there are many more references I could post, but you’d just explain those away as well. Pope after Pope, Council after Council… just nuanced away.
The point in the quote in regard to Christ’s “power” is that the Pope claims that Christ “committed” these powers to him.
The RCC was, is, and ever-shall-be a threat to the Republic.
mankai on May 22, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Giovanni Maria Vian : Appointed September 29, 2007
Perhaps he came highly recommended, no worries he can always appoint a new one
clarifides on May 22, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Nuance ?? Perhaps it is just reading comprehension, grammar and understanding the language usage of the era in which it was written.
No need for your last comment, it is untrue and disparaging of the Church and it’s members.
clarifides on May 22, 2009 at 11:50 AM
THE H3LL HE AIN’T!
CynicalOptimist on May 22, 2009 at 12:17 PM
If it is about White Catholics absolving themselves for being born white. They didn’t have to give up any of the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church. They could have aligned themselves with the non secularist, who agree with what the Roman Catholic Church teaches.
http://www.blackgenocide.org/
Dr Evil on May 22, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Tell that to John Adams.
And do I need to quote the disparaging things the Popes and Councils have said about non-Catholics for the last 1500 years? I don’t think HA has the bandwidth to handle it.
mankai on May 22, 2009 at 1:10 PM
That’s your opinion… just as the comments in regard to the editorial are merely the opinions of the RCs here… unfortunatley (so far) one RC doesn’t share that opinion of the man or the article… his name is Benedict, I think.
So should I trust his opinion or yours as to what the “Catholic” position is? I put this question to Laura Ingraham as well… SHE may not consider ND (Georgetown, etc.) “Catholic”, but her opinion is meaningless so long as the one committed with the powers of Christ himself considers ND “Catholic.”
I can only conclude (from the majority of opinions expressed at HA over the last week or so) that Benedict is a “cafeteria Catholic” who “probably only attends mass twice a year.”
mankai on May 22, 2009 at 1:15 PM
You know the mind of the Pope?? If you are trying to attribute this article to Pope Benedict, you fail miserably. Your quotes from the Vatican, are as the newspaper should be, however this is not always the case when dealing with human beings. It may or may not be that the editor, Giovanni Maria Vian is liberal, under his direction he has ruffled many feathers. In time we will see how the Pope deals with this. The Church is very patient and takes it’s time in dealing with wayward Catholics.
clarifides on May 22, 2009 at 1:32 PM
If the ND situation is such an obvious call for real Catholics… why is the Pope silent? Is he drawing on that “2000 years of wisdom” (the vast majority of which we are not allowed to quote lest we be labeled a “catholic basher”) before opining? In the meantime, can we blast him as a coward for not speaking up before BHO spoke?
mankai on May 22, 2009 at 1:40 PM
You appear to me to be on a mission, to put the Pope and the Catholic Church in the worst possible light. You sight excerpts of documents many times out of context to prove a fraudulent point, that is where I find you at times cross the line into anti-Catholicism.
The Pope has no immediate need to speak out at this time, personally on this article. He may choose a Bishop to deliver any message he may have and there may now be private communications taking place. It is no big secret that the Vatican has communication problems.
clarifides on May 22, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Popes weren’t so weary in years past… and I recall certain bishops being lambasted for their silence on this issue. Perhaps it is you who has the blinders on. I believe the Popes would agree with me on the interpretation of their clear words.
Oh yeah… and “liberty of conscience” for everyone is an “absurd and erroneous proposition.”
mankai on May 22, 2009 at 1:57 PM
(1) As you mentioned, this is a newspaper. Christ never guaranteed us that a newspaper would have spiritual authority, only that the Pope would.
(2) In this case the editor is actually correct: Obama is not actually pro-abortion. He doesn’t care one way or the other (see “pay grade”), and he just does whatever advances his own political career. He has portrayed himself as pro-abortion to get support from Naral, Planned Parenthood, and the abortion industry. But I guarantee you that if a pro-life org had a lot of taxpayer funding and political clout, Obama would start to sound pro-life.
Gaunilon on May 22, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2