OK. I’ve had quite enough out of these guys. Seriously. L’Osservatore Romano seems to be praising Obama, at least according to news reports. I don’t speak or read Italian but all the news reports seem to be reporting the same thing. That there’s a great big puckering sound coming out of Rome from the newspaper.
According to CNS, the Vatican newspaper said,
“The search for a common ground: This seems to be the path chosen by the president of the United States, Barack Obama, in facing the delicate question of abortion,” the newspaper said.
Are you kidding me? That could be a quote right out of Scott McLellan’s mouth if you just added a few Uhm’s and uhhh’s and odd pauses between words for no apparent reason.
The newspaper seems to be hanging their hat on the fact that Obama said that signing FOCA isn’t his highest legislative priority.
THAT’S BECAUSE IT WOULDN’T PASS, GUYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But make no mistake, Obama is still mucho committed to the pro-abortion agenda. He just doesn’t have the votes necessary. Do you really think he wants to be slogging out a brutal battle against parental consent laws and for partial birth abortion during his Presidency. No way.
But here’s the thing, this kind of article from Rome is just damaging because a lot of people put themselves out there on this Notre Dame issue. Hundreds of thousands of people signed the petition to stop Obama from being honored at Notre Dame and over 70 bishops spoke out against it.
And then the newspaper which many people see (erroneously) as being the mouthpiece of the Pope comes out the day after Obama speaks and praises Obama for what? Sounding like Rodney King asking why we all just can’t get along just a month after allotting taxpayer money to support ESCR efforts?
This will almost certainly be played up in the media and many many good people will feel undercut by this article. And they’ll start feeling like the Vatican doesn’t really have their back on this issue.
But don’t worry, all the folks against Obama being honored at Notre Dame were mentioned too. You ready for this one:
“Yesterday, too, as could have been predicted, there were protests. But from the podium set up in the basketball arena, the president invited Americans of every faith and ideological conviction to ‘work in common effort’ to reduce the number of abortions,” it said.
The newspaper noted that Obama had called for reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, facilitating adoption and supporting women who want to carry their babies to term, and that he had also spoken of drafting a “conscience clause” for medical personnel who are morally opposed to participating in abortions.
Did you catch that line: “Yesterday, too, as could have been predicted, there were protests. That’s what we get. A snarky aside tossed out so they can get back to their main point of praising Obama?
Everyone knows Obama has absolutely no interest in reducing the number of abortions as the abortion industry is one of his biggest financial backers. And that’s what it comes down to for these folks. Dead babies means mad cash.
And guys, Obama’s talking about a “conscience clause” but one of the first things he actually did was put under review the actual conscience clause that was already in place from President George W. Bush. Putting it under review is the first step toward dumping it. As always, Obama says one thing and does another. And L’Osservatore Romano falls for it?
Here’s some text from theAP’s report on the article:
VATICAN CITY – The Vatican said Monday that President Barack Obama was clearly looking for some common ground with his speech at the University of Notre Dame about abortion.
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.”
The Vatican has been open to Obama ever since his election, despite his record on abortion and support for embryonic stem-cell research, which the Vatican also opposes.
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.
All I can hope is that all the translators were out late last night and messed this up really badly and when they sober up in the morning they’ll realize it and straighten all this out. But I’m not hopeful.
This is incredibly disappointing.
One thought: I wouldn’t want to be in the same room with Archbishop Burke when he reads this thing. Whew.
May 19, 2009 at 5:36 am
I have been really disappointed with L’Osservatore Romano lately. I think the Vatican should really break off with it and no longer have it be their “official” newspaper. There is too much possibility for scandal by having editorials in an “official” paper. People will see headlines that say the Vatican newspaper says something, and they will take that to mean that is what the Pope believes.
May 19, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Are they competing with National Catholic Reporter or something?
May 19, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Matthew,
When is the raid on the Vatican Press Office, again? Would it be too much mission creep to include the L’Osservatore Romano?
May 19, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Why was the Lord born in Bethlehem and not Rome? They can’t find 3 wise men in Rome.
May 19, 2009 at 3:01 pm
The Holy See Press Office Bulletin publishes the official news of the activities of the Holy Father and of the various departments of the Holy See. All speeches, messages, documents, as well as the position statements issued by the Director, are published in their entirety. The Bulletin is released every day in one or more editions, in Italian, although all texts are published in their original language. Translations are also published when available.
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/index.htm
FYI only
May 19, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Remember, these are typical European bureaucrats: all principles, scruples, and backbones strictly forbidden. Get rid of them all.
May 19, 2009 at 5:25 pm
“(M)any, many good people will feel undercut by this article.”
Who needs L’OR when you have eighty bishops and Randall Terry? C’mon.
“And they’ll start feeling like the Vatican doesn’t really have their back on this issue.”
Interesting articulation of moral theology here: the political pro-lifers are the center of the universe and the Church only exists to back them up. Silly me: I thought it was Christian believers who were here to back up the Gospel.
On the other hand, it could be that the Vatican news organ is taking a middle ground here, and they only look like traitors to those who have been self-exiled to the Far Right for so long.
May 19, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Yes. That’s what the Vatican should be doing. Finding a middle ground. Forget all those strict rules. And anything that Jesus might have said. We need to find a middle ground.
May 19, 2009 at 8:16 pm
L’Osservatore Romano – Sono pazzeschi!!
(They’re crazy!!)
May 19, 2009 at 8:52 pm
“Yes. That’s what the Vatican should be doing. Finding a middle ground. Forget all those strict rules. And anything that Jesus might have said. We need to find a middle ground.”
Let’s be clear about this. The middle ground includes the words of Jesus. It’s when you get to the fringes that people add gospels of their own: how to think, how to act, how to conform, etc..
Why is it so important for L’O R to toe an ideological party line? Why are the good feelings of some pro-lifers so hooked up on pep rally material? If the Gospel is so central, then who cares what a newspaper editorializes?
May 19, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Todd,
What does criticizing L’OR have to do with towing a “party line.”
It is about the tendency of some, and in this case L’OR, to value compromise and “middle ground” over the lives of real babies.
So anyone who thinks that L’OR is wrong for seeking a middle ground is on “the far right” or is it anyone who takes this more seriously than you?
May 19, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Patrick, the sense of many pro-life bloggers I’ve been reading is to cheer when people criticize the president, ND, and Fr Jenkins. Few of them have developed an original line of criticism, letting bishops or others state it for them. Now, that’s not bad or wrong, per se, but it does suggest that many Catholics are going along with the “party line.” Maybe it’s a coincidence, maybe not, that Republicans are cheering on this.
I think your thought on “real babies” is misplaced. Pro-lifers getting discouraged or annoyed at L’OR doesn’t save babies; it bruises egos and calls the party line into question.
You’ve convoluted what I wrote earlier. Some people set up their own gospel and criticize others, including L’OR for non-conformity. That’s different from people who may have a legitimate criticism of L’OR but aren’t extremists.
In other words, (most) all extremists criticize L’OR, but not all critics are extremists.
May 20, 2009 at 2:22 am
1.) We believe we are being faithful to the gospel yet you say we’re setting our own. Please confer the teachings of the Magisterium to see who is doing that.
2.) If you call that “party line” then there is a nuance of diminishing the convictions of faith into a socio-cultural-political position that is human. It makes it easy for pro-abortionists to dimiss pro-lifers as GOP lackies when in fact the pro-lifers witness to the goodness of the Creator and the truth of the personhood of a fetus.
3.) The middle ground smacks of compromise and negotiation; in matters of life or death, there is no middle ground.
May 20, 2009 at 3:31 am
Thanks for responding, Rick. Let me try to be clearer.
“We believe we are being faithful to the gospel yet you say we’re setting our own.”
I don’t know that “you” are doing this. There’s nothing in the church teaching that merits the name-calling I’ve read on certain web sites. As for the topic on this thread, L’OR finds some laudable things about the American president. Some pro-lifers find that “disappointing.” That’s all a matter of prudential judgment, and I don’t understand why some Catholics seem to be fussed about finding something good to say.
“If you call that ‘party line’ then there is a nuance of diminishing the convictions of faith into a socio-cultural-political position that is human.”
And yet, calling people names or calling for their jobs is not a matter of faith. I think they have diminished the witness of the faith by adopting what I see as Republican tactics: enemies lists and the practice of detraction. And let me be clear: I’m not talking about bad-mouthing President Obama. I’m talking about marginalizing some pro-life Catholics who just don’t feel as strongly about how others criticize. Personally, I don’t think ND was a good hill to die on for the pro-life cause. Saying so makes me an unpopular Catholic in some quarters, a non-Catholic in others. But there’s nothing about these tactics in the Creed, is there?
“The middle ground smacks of compromise and negotiation; in matters of life or death, there is no middle ground.”
Again, the middle ground is how we handle strategy and tactics. Witnessing, as you say, to the goodness of God, doesn’t happen when the witnesses are sullen or angry or insulting or deceptive. The message is right on, and I have no problem sharing that and standing with them. But the methods are extreme and sometimes, frankly crazy.
In other words, being pro-life and feeling/believing it strongly does not give a person carte blanche to do as she or he wishes as long as her or his heart is in the right place. Ends don’t justify means.
Take the last word, friends. I’ve said my peace here.