Bishop Finn to Obama: No dialogue possible over 'irreconcilable' differences

[Benedict108]

Kansas City, Kan., May 25, 2009 / 02:24 am (CNA).- Bishop Robert W. Finn of Kansas City-St. Joseph has pointed out that Notre Dame’s president said he chose to honor President Obama and let him speak to promote dialogue, but that Obama said in his speech that he and the Church have “irreconcilable” differences on abortion. This admission, the bishop said, “shut the door on dialogue.”

Regarding this latter idea, Bishop Finn expressed that the Church can and in fact does cooperate with the government, but that this cannot mean it will ever move away from its values and ideals, making any negotiation regarding the Church’s tolerance of abortion impossible.

“As a country we want to see an end to racial prejudice. We want a more secure peace in the world. We want sound economic justice for people. So we can’t give up on working with the administration,” Bishop Finn said.

Areas where the Church can work with an administration that protects abortion involve the “many associated elements that have to do with taking care of women in distress, offering alternatives to abortion,” he told Jack Smith, editor of his diocese’s newspaper.

Bishop Finn added, “We have to work together, discuss and study how best we can provide for the needs of women and families. How can we reduce the number of abortions? These are elements for dialogue.”

“But the rightness or wrongness of abortion – this is an intrinsic evil,” the bishop stressed.

…

“I fear that the specific way that the President frames this in terms of ‘reducing unintended pregnancies’ is through the promotion of Planned Parenthood and contraceptive services. The President has supported the Prevention First Act bill that’s going forward. This is not about abstinence education. This is about promoting contraception and giving Planned Parenthood a huge blank check. If Catholics don’t see a problem with this then I don’t think they understand the threat it represents to the meaning of marriage, to fidelity, to chastity, to the very sanctity of human life and intimate love.”

Full text: catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16095

I had to include the last quote. I thought it was awesome.

 

[Eucharisted]

Hurray! Bishops are speaking out!

 

[tm30]

Perhaps I’m reading it a little too cynically, but I see the statement as Obama declaring that he has no desire to have a discussion. In effect, he told Catholics not to bother trying to broach the subject, since agreement is futile. This wasn’t some philosophic “truth” he arrived at. He came to Notre Dame to stick a flaming stake through the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

Is Jenkins that much of a rube or is he equally pro-abortion?

 

[recondelta]

The following comments, which I posted on another blog, seem to fit in here as well.

In addressing the policies of the Obama administration, Bishop Finn has chosen to stress differences instead of areas where some agreement might be reached. For example, Cardinal George spoke favorably about President Obama’s attitude toward a conscience clause. Likewise, Cardinal Rigali spoke favorably about the Pregnant Women Support Act. It is politically realistic to do things that will reduce the number of abortions in this country. But as long as the United States is a democratic republic governed by our constitution, it is not politically realistic to think we can eliminate abortion entirely.

Much has been made of a recent Gallup poll indicating that a higher percentage of people identify themselves as “pro-life” as opposed to “pro-choice.” A closer look at the numbers shows that less than 25% of those polled opposed abortion in all cases. Likewise, less than 25% of those polled felt that abortions should always be allowed. The remaining majority felt abortions shoud be allowed in “some” cases. Clearly, the definitions of “pro-life” and “pro-choice” have become very fuzzy.

The end result of all this is that those opposed to abortion have to make a choice: Eight years from now, do we want to have significantly fewer abortions than we have now or do we want more of the same? We know where we were 37 years ago; this decision will help determine where we will be 33 years from now.

One additional point: The Notre Dame incident is over. Our focus now should be on the President of the United States, not the President of the University of Notre Dame.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Great post, recondelta (i.m.o.).

Do people want to win some battles on the way to the Apocalypse? Or would they rather hold out for “all or nothing”?

Refusing to dialogue with the opposition is not likely to hasten either a utopia or The Second Coming. Sincere moralists will show their sincerity by continuing to seek smaller victories along the way.

 

[rossum]

In addressing the policies of the Obama administration, Bishop Finn has chosen to stress differences instead of areas where some agreement might be reached.

This is an excellent point. In his speech President Obama also pointed out areas where some agreement could be reached:“So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women.”
Is Bishop Finn against making adoptions more available? Is he against providing care and support for women who carry their child to term? Is he against a sensible conscience clause? I do not think so. There are areas where the President is willing to cooperate with the Church, and other pro-life organisations, to reduce the number of abortions.

For example, Cardinal George spoke favorably about President Obama’s attitude toward a conscience clause. Likewise, Cardinal Rigali spoke favorably about the Pregnant Women Support Act.

I find the Cardinals’ attitudes more constructive that Bishop Finn’s reported remarks.

rossum

 

[Havard]

This is an excellent point. In his speech President Obama also pointed out areas where some agreement could be reached:“So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women.”
Is Bishop Finn against making adoptions more available? Is he against providing care and support for women who carry their child to term? Is he against a sensible conscience clause? I do not think so. There are areas where the President is willing to cooperate with the Church, and other pro-life organisations, to reduce the number of abortions.

I find the Cardinals’ attitudes more constructive that Bishop Finn’s reported remarks.

rossum

You’re assuming that President Obama’s comments aren’t just rhetoric, which I believe is naive. The President’s actions (not words) are already contributing to more abortions, such as his overturning of the Mexico City Policy, and his funding of UNFPA, which supports forced-abortions in China. Also, the fact is that President Obama is the one who has made the conscience clause an issue. Why is its reasonable-ness even in question?

A member of the Obama administration even clarified his message recently, stating that its not necessarily the number of abortions that the President wishes to reduce, but rather just the need for said abortions. By doing what, exactly? Children are already inculcated via sex-education and condom distribution in public schools. Is the President going to push for adoption incentives? Considering he’s got NARAL and Planned Parenthood execs now on his staff, not too mention both organizations are among his donor list, is he really going to make an earnest push away from abortion toward adoption?

 

[Janet_S]

Words are cheap. Let’s pay more attention to what he does than what he says. Is there any indication from his Notre Dame speech that Obama has changed his mind about abortion or embryonic stem cell research? In his speech he uses the typical pro-abortion buzz words and appeals to emotions and women’s rights. He still fails to see the unborn as a human being and thus fails to see the complexity of the issue. But let’s judge him by his deeds which, so far, give the pro-life community much to worry about.

 

[Darryl1958]

Bishop Finn has chosen to stress differences instead of areas where some agreement might be reached. For example, Cardinal George spoke favorably about President Obama’s attitude toward a conscience clause.

And yet Obama’s work in February to strike down the conscience clause of the former president goes unmentioned?

cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/27/conscience.rollback/index.html

There seems to be a discrepancy between everything that the American president says, and everything that he does.

As long as he says the right things, is that enough for liberals of today?

 

[slyboots]

President Obama has already stated he would acquire an abortion for his own daughter killing his own innocent grandchild in the case.
This is not a man with whom we can reconcile our differences regarding the murder of the unborn.

 

[redrosetea]

Words are cheap. Let’s pay more attention to what he does than what he says. Is there any indication from his Notre Dame speech that Obama has changed his mind about abortion or embryonic stem cell research? In his speech he uses the typical pro-abortion buzz words and appeals to emotions and women’s rights. He still fails to see the unborn as a human being and thus fails to see the complexity of the issue. But let’s judge him by his deeds which, so far, give the pro-life community much to worry about.

Exactly and Obama is the most pro abortion president we have ever had…look at what he has done in regard to forcing US taxpayers to subsidize forced abortions in China, and what he wants to do regarding FOCA…by their fruits ye shall know them

 

[SIb4G]

Of course the abortion issue is much greater than one Bishop Finn; but it sure is great to see a faithful son of the Church, one with authority I might add, give such honest witness.

 

[SIb4G]

The following comments, which I posted on another blog, seem to fit in here as well.

In addressing the policies of the Obama administration, Bishop Finn has chosen to stress differences instead of areas where some agreement might be reached. For example, Cardinal George spoke favorably about President Obama’s attitude toward a conscience clause. Likewise, Cardinal Rigali spoke favorably about the Pregnant Women Support Act. It is politically realistic to do things that will reduce the number of abortions in this country. But as long as the United States is a democratic republic governed by our constitution, it is not politically realistic to think we can eliminate abortion entirely.

Much has been made of a recent Gallup poll indicating that a higher percentage of people identify themselves as “pro-life” as opposed to “pro-choice.” A closer look at the numbers shows that less than 25% of those polled opposed abortion in all cases. Likewise, less than 25% of those polled felt that abortions should always be allowed. The remaining majority felt abortions shoud be allowed in “some” cases. Clearly, the definitions of “pro-life” and “pro-choice” have become very fuzzy.

The end result of all this is that those opposed to abortion have to make a choice: Eight years from now, do we want to have significantly fewer abortions than we have now or do we want more of the same? We know where we were 37 years ago; this decision will help determine where we will be 33 years from now.

One additional point: The Notre Dame incident is over. Our focus now should be on the President of the United States, not the President of the University of Notre Dame.

1. By stressing the differences, Bishop Finn is going to the heart of the matter: a woman’s right to kill her unborn child. On this, all else turns.
2. Re: constitutional government and democratic republics: the public will is what it is; but, it wasn’t always so. In 1973, some rogue justices went against the majority will of the people and began the current holocaust— that some want to euphemistically call: “the right to choose”. ANOTHER change of minds and hearts is what is morally required and it won’t happen through some negotiated compromise or middle ground. This is not a land deal. This is human life.
3. Yes, “the Notre Dame incident is over”; but. Notre Dame remains. The defiant mindset that birthed the abomination remains. And, as Notre Dame proceeds down its slippery slope, the caring must ask: what will be next?