America’s newly inaugurated president was told this week that the Catholic Church will fight his plans to make abortion more readily available, and will oppose any easing of current regulations restricting embryonic stem cell research.
The warning was contained in two letters from US bishops delivered to Barack Obama, the first dated 13 January and released on 15 January, and the second, more strongly worded, dated 16 January and released on 19 January, the eve of Mr Obama’s swearing-in. The bishops said they wanted to work constructively with the new administration, but issued a tough challenge on life issues.
“We will work to protect the lives of the most vulnerable and voiceless members of the human family, especially unborn children and those who are disabled or terminally ill,” the bishops said in the first letter signed by the president of the bishops’ conference, Cardinal Francis George, the Archbishop of Chicago.
I’m surprised the President jumped so quickly into the abortion debate. He was largely successful in making it a back burner in the election. Other things of more pressing nature were at the forefront, but the debate has not gone away. I think the President just made a tactical error, as this is going to blow up in his face if he is not careful.
This is a huge and potentially explosive issue, and if he pursues it as he says he will, it will alienate many of us who voted for him……and he may not be able to repair the damage. I applaud and support the Roman Catholic bishops’ action. I encourage everyone who supports them to get on board with them and write to the President. Tell him what you think……I will!
I did NOT vote for Obama for precisely that reason! He has been, from the beginning, crystal clear on his stand and his intentions regarding this issue. Perhaps if others had not compromised their belief, knowing that life belongs to God and not to us, at least some lives might be spared. CatholicVote.com was out there instructing the faithful on this very issue and very obviously (and sometimes disdainfully) ignored by many alleged Roman Catholics, as I personally witnessed. As far as I’m concerned, everyone who voted for him shares in the resulting death of the innocents.
T
Obama’s actions are a slap in the face to all Catholics who voted for him.
Catholics, you have been betrayed AGAIN by a slick-talking politician.
When will the religious voters in this country wake up? 🙄
Catholics weren’t betrayed – Obama has done exactly what he said he would. Obama NEVER said he wouldn’t promote abortion! Catholics decided they didn’t care or that other issues took precedence and priority. Why is anyone acting surprised at this?? Cennydd says this might alienate those of us who voted for him. WHY?? Obama voted four times to deny medical treatment to babies born due to botched abortions. This was reported extensively, including here at TitusOneNine. If voters decided that Obama had changed or that he really didn’t mean it, they were just fooling themselves. Of course he meant it, and of course he will sign FOCA if it makes it to his desk. NOW people are upset. Dear Lord!
I am -in all truth- flabbergasted that anyone with a brain can condone abortion in any way whatsoever. There is not one argument in defence- which if applied to a baby out of the womb- would not be termed murder in the courts of law.
Abortion is a moral evil – as slavery before it- and it desperately needs Christians to rise up and speak out with force.
My blog yesterday made the point we all need to make – LOUDLY:
http://sbarnabas.com/blog/2009/01/24/by-their-fruits-shall-ye-know-them-2/
It surprises me that any church would seek to manipulate the U.S. government against the clear wishes of the majority who voted for that government’s current administration.
Ember, You are surprised the Church would stick to her teachings and instruct the faithful in those teachings? You are surprised the Church would continue to defend life even when the law of the land sees the preborn as no more than packages of meat to be disposed of at will?
So on what other moral issues past or present should the Church be silent on? Slavery, the Third Reich’s Race laws, segregation, eugenics? All these at one time were favored by the majority who did vote to either establish these things or to allow them to continue.
Show me one just one Biblical justification for the deliberate killing of a healthy preborn child in the healthy womb of a healthy mother. Which I am sure you are aware is the case in the majority of abortions in this killing. Then show me any proof that the majority of voters in this country favor unrestricted abortion in all circumstances including in the case of a viable fetus. After that we’re done.
Branford,
Re: “Catholics weren’t betrayed – Obama has done exactly what he said he would.”
I expect the “surprise” is faux. Christians who voted for Obama had all the knowledge in the world about the clearly stated actions that Obama would take if he were elected. They knew exactly — very precisely — what they were voting for.
Following the election, the “L. A. Catholic” blog made reference to an interview conducted by talk radio host Laura Ingraham with Raymond Arroyo, head of the Eternal Word Television Network. Ms. Ingraham is a convert to Roman Catholicism and EWTN is noted for its conservative Catholic content. This is one of the questions she put to Mr. Arroyo:
[blockquote]She asked him, “Here is the problem: How many of the bishops voted for Obama?”
Raymond Arroyo answered, “…The bishops I spoke to say that maybe half of their brother bishops, if not more, voted for Obama. Because they thought the symbol of Obama would overcome racism and be a great healer and unity [sic].”
http://onelacatholic.blogspot.com/2008/11/how-many-of-hierarchy-voted-for-obama.html%5B/blockquote%5D
The Modesto Bee, in an article dated 11/29/08, reported on the controversy surrounding Roman Catholic priest Father Joseph Illo who gave this advice to his parishioners: “If you are one of the 54 percent of Catholics who voted for a pro-abortion candidate, you were clear on his position and you knew the gravity of the question, I urge you to go to confession before receiving communion. Don’t risk losing your state of grace by receiving sacrilegiously.”
However, this response to Father Illo’s position was offered by Catholic Bishop Stephen Blaire:
[blockquote]”Our position on pro-life is very important, but there are other issues,” Blaire said. “No one candidate reflects everything that we stand for. I’m sure that most Catholics who voted were voting on economic issues.
“There were probably many priests, and I suspect many bishops, who voted for Obama.”
http://www.modbee.com/2078/v-print/story/516162.html%5B/blockquote%5D
If this information is correct, then it appears that a significant number of Roman Catholic priests and bishops may actually have voted for Barack Obama. If that is so, then I am left to wonder what compelling issues a Catholic Christian might identify which would somehow outweigh the gravity of protecting the right to life of unborn children. I confess that I am unable to think of any at all.
Again, if this reportage is accurate, I fear that this is a development which may have disturbing implications for the credibility and effectiveness of the Roman Church’s witness on behalf of pro-life issues in this country which has otherwise been above reproach. Nevertheless, I continue to wish Rome’s faithful pro-life bishops every success in their efforts.
‘Catholic’ politicians include such Democratic luminaries as Biden, Pelosi, Kennedy. Clearly party trumps religion. CINO?
The Catholic Bishops themselves put out a position paper that said life issues take precedence over the economy and voters must oppose intrinsic evil. I can’t find the link right now, but it was very clear guidance–not like the nuanced nonsense that comes out of the Anglican Communion. I guess the protection of life wasn’t one of the most popular entrees in the cafeteria this year.
Ralinda:
Could this be what you are referring to: “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” by the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops?
http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf
I’ve read it myself, and it certainly goes to the heart of the matter:
[blockquote]There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil” actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation,
“abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on
the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.[/blockquote]
Clear enough, one would think, and I agree completely. But here’s the thing. In a “Medical News Today” article, Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D. C., gave this comment in reference to “Forming Consciences“:
[blockquote]According to Wuerl, however, the “document does not make the judgment, ‘This is how you must vote.’ It offers the principles.” He added, “Different people arrive at different conclusions from the same principles,” and bishops must clarify and teach those principles (New York Times, 11/11).
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/129047.php%5B/blockquote%5D
So, Roman bishops may teach clear principles concerning “things we must never do,” and based on those principles the Catholic electorate in this country can arrive at widely divergent views about the election of a candidate who has long since professed his commitment to allowing us to do those very things as freely as we might like?
Again I have to ask, what principle was involved in our recent election which takes precedence over the right to life in such a way that a vote for Barack Obama could be justified for Catholic Christians? Either 54% of Roman Catholic voters thought there was one, or Anglicans aren’t the only ones who have a problem with “nuance.” (And I’ll leave the subject of “nonsense” alone.) 🙂
As to the 54% of Catholic voters, please remember that these polls don’t generally control for belief or practice. If someone calls themself “Catholic”, the pollsters often don’t ask about whether they believe the Creed or go to Mass. I would be interested to know how many Catholics who go to Mass weekly and Confession at least annually voted for Pres. Obama. That would tell us something.
Archbishop Wuerl is the one said that he wouldn’t restrict a pro-choice politician from Communion, but would continue to teach the Catholic view of blah blah blah. I read today, perhaps on this blog, the joke about the English bobby who shouts: STOP! Or I’ll yell stop again. As in the sex abuse scandals, the problem is the bishops. They are a sorry lot: the faithful among them fail to deal with the quislings among them, as they failed to confront the enablers of the last scandal.
#8 Paula, Thank you for responding to that in a more charitable manner than I could have managed.
[blockquote]So on what other moral issues past or present should the Church be silent on?[/blockquote]
Some of the Catholics I know who do not agree with the absolutist stance against abortion feel—and woundedly, aggrievedly so—that when the Church remained silent about clergy sexual abuse, it gave up the moral authority to instruct anyone about their morals. This fact should sadden us all.
I hope your Catholic friends had the integrity to renounce their Catholic Faith and leave the Church, at least over their support for murdering babies, if not for their dehumanizing ecclesiology. But then, dehumanizing the People of God and dehumanizing the unborn aren’t completely different matters, are they?
“The Church remained silent”… and “it” gave up moral authority. And here I thought the modern Catholics were all about “We are the Church” and “The People of God”.
#16, the clergy and laity of the Church have done far worse than that throughout history. If the sins of the members of the Church strip it of moral authority, then it never had any moral authority to begin with. If that’s your logic, what person or organization DOES have any moral authority?
Yes I am with #18. As lamentable as it may be to discover that evil deviants were operating under the guise of priests in God’s church…that in no way effects a different ethical debate.
In effect that is akin to me justifying raping my wife because the neighbour strangles his…..
Abortion is murder. Those three words are all that any Christian needs to know, to refute that is to walk away from God and the gospel of love and sacrifice.
[blockquote]So on what other moral issues past or present should the Church be silent on? Slavery, the Third Reich’s Race laws, segregation, eugenics?[/blockquote]
Does [url=http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/01/29/antisemitism/]de-excommunicating a Holocaust-denying bishop[/url] count as silence on the Third Reich’s race laws?