We can argue about whether The Vatican newspaper was right or wrong when, according to CNS, it said that President Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office have not confirmed the Catholic Church’s worst fears about radical policy changes in ethical areas.

I assume they’re referring to Obama not signing the Freedom of Choice Act. But other than that I can’t think how much more anti-life Obama could’ve been in his first 100 days short of slaughtering a toddler in a televised news conference.

There’s much to argue too where it says that the new president has operated “with more caution than predicted in economics and international relations.” To me, tripling the deficit doesn’t seem like he’s acting with caution. It seems like a cautionary tale that’s going to end in big trouble.

But here’s where the article became very disturbing to me. It said that the new draft guidelines for stem-cell research, for example, did not constitute the major change in policy that was foreseen a few months ago.

And then here’s a quote I found incredibly disturbing coming from the Vatican Newspaper: “

(The guidelines) do not allow the creation of new embryos for research or therapeutic purposes, for cloning or for reproductive ends, and federal funds may be used only for experimentation with excess embryos.”

I’m sorry but did the Vatican newspaper really refer to “excess embryos?”

Look, I know what they’re saying but that’s a term that the left pushes to marginalize those defending life. As if the only reason for that embryo’s life was the use intended by scientists in the lab. I don’t accept their terminology of “excess embryo” because I don’t accept their premise that any life is a means to some other end.

This could be a mistranslation by CNS or just lazy language usage but doesn’t this strike anyone else as problematic?