Cardinal praises Obama's "measured approach" on abortion

[diggerdomer]

cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=14933

 

[rjs1]

WHAT ???

 

[Middleman]

I suppose everyone, even cardinals, are entitled to their opinions. However, I heartily disagree. Mr Obama is extreme in his views on abortion rights.

 

[rlg94086]

From the article…

Cardinal Cottier argued that Obama has not defended abortion as an absolute right, that he recognises the “tragic gravity” of the problem, that Obama does not defend “relativism,” and that “his words move in the direction of reducing the evil” by seeking to make “the number of abortions as small as possible.”

When has Obama conceded that abortion is not “an absolute right?” If it isn’t an absolute right, is he planning to restrict abortion? If so, when, how? Inquiring minds want to know.

“I’m reminded of the first Christian legislators, who didn’t quickly abolish the tolerant Roman laws regarding practices which didn’t conform to the natural law, or which were actually contrary to it, such as concubinage and slavery,” Cardinal Cottier wrote. “Change happened along a slow path, often marked by steps backward, as the Christian population increased, and, along with them, the impact of a sense of the dignity of the human person.”

Perhaps what the Cardinal is recognizing here is that Obama is one of the steps backward. He certainly hasn’t made any steps forward that I have seen.

 

[Fitz]

I suppose everyone, even cardinals, are entitled to their opinions. However, I heartily disagree. Mr Obama is extreme in his views on abortion rights.

Also take into consideration the Cardinal’s age. His statements make you wonder how much he grasps the reality of what Obama’s administration is passing and aims to pass in terms of abortion. A measured approach? I think not.

 

[Middleman]

Also take into consideration the Cardinal’s age. His statements make you wonder how much he grasps the reality of what Obama’s administration is passing and aims to pass in terms of abortion. A measured approach? I think not.

I was wondering about his age as well. The Cardinal is most likely from the era before the Democratic party supported pro-death, anti-family policies. Many older Catholics come from staunchly Democratic backgrounds and have difficulty breaking away from that.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

This is just one person’s opinion on what the Cardinal said in his essay. Without reading the essay, how can we know what he really said?

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

Here’s another clue for you all

“the National Catholic Reporter said”.

Can they ever get anything straight?

“only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.”

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

I took a quick look at some Google results when I searched for "Cardinal George Cottier’, and it looks as though he’s also in favor of the use of condoms.

Weren’t there many clerics that supported Hitler? I found a few websites, which I won’t provide links to because they are anticatholic, but they show “pictures of Nazi Catholics”. Were they wrong? Will people like Cardinal Cottier one day be found wrong?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Here is the text of the actual article written by the Cardinal

30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=21194

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I hope we’re not all so extreme in our positions that we can’t tolerate for anyone to ever say anything good about a person on the opposite side.

I don’t really see the article as praising Obama’s policies on abortion.

 

[tm30]

cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=14933

If nothing else, this demonstrates the insidious nature of the philosophy of political correctness. Europe - perhaps the most PC-obssessed culture on earth, has so fallen in love with one man because of the color of his skin and exotic backstory, that even a Cardinal of the Church can be dazzled straight into praising a relativist view of INTRINSIC EVIL.

The Church desperately DESPERATELY needs to completely re-tool their approach towards communications in this day and age. They really have to be ready to swat down and address these kinds of scandalous, independently given interviews and columns.

 

[tm30]

I hope we’re not all so extreme in our positions that we can’t tolerate for anyone to ever say anything good about a person on the opposite side.

I don’t really see the article as praising Obama’s policies on abortion.

Can we criticize it for its starkly incomprehensible saccharine canonization of the President?

I was struck by how Obama did not dodge the thorniest issue, that of abortion, on which he had received so much criticism not least from the US bishops.

Except for the part where Obama says the two sides are irreconcilable…i.e.,“some crimes are better left unsolved.”

In addition, Obama recognizes the tragic seriousness of the problem. That the decision to abort “is a heart-wrenching decison for any woman”.

This is a special trait? Does anyone think it’s not an emotional decision? If he didn’t recognize this, we could only assume he was a lower life form.

His words go in the direction of diminishing the evil.

Or whistling “Que Sera Sera”. Take your pick.

Even St Thomas, who had no doubt that the law must be moral, added that the State should not make laws too severe and “lofty” because they would be despised by those incapable of applying them.

Outlawing the murder of unborn children is too severe and “lofty”? We gave people less leeway in this country when it came to switching television signals from analog to digital. Additionally, why was it okay for the judicial branch to foist upon us the severe and lofty decision that, overnight, made the murder of unborn children perfectly legal?

He saw the performance of good works nourished by the Lord amongst them. And he was “drawn - not just to work with the church, but to be in the Church. It was through that service”, he concluded, “that I was brought to Christ”.

Yet no discussion of his desire to withhold care and treatment from live birth abortions. Does the Cardinal know a lie when he hears one being told?

That only forty-one years after the assassination of King he himself is president of the US is a sign and proof of the historical efficacy of trust in the power of truth.

There it is. The insane notion that because of Obama’s background - and not his beliefs - his election is somehow a victory for Truth. I find this particularly appalling, coming from a prelate, when the mystical life of the Church is geared AWAY from outward appearances and TOWARDS inward substance - ummm, the HOLY EUCHARIST, for example?

Obama’s humble realism

He came to ND and told practicing Catholics that there’s no point in trying to win the abortion debate. That’s arrogance of the highest order.

 

[Georgia]

The cardinal made a mistake that seems to have overtaken many. Mr. Obama’s speeches are not necessarily reflective of his actions.

There is no way on earth that Mr. Obama’s abortion position can be defended. Partial birth abortion is the most extreme thing that can be done legally. There are few nuances in killing a full term baby or letting one die in the hospital linen. Mr. Obama supports allowing that terrible thing, so I am at a loss to explain how any Christian can help being sickened by praise, especially from a cardinal.

 

[JReducation]

Having studied theology for many years I can actually see what the Cardinal is doing. The title of the post is misleading. I know that the title comes from the first article cited.

What the Cardinal is doing is Systematic Theology. This is not the kind of statement that one makes from the pulpit or in a religious education class. It is an exercise in Systematic Theology. What he does is take certain points in President Obama’s speech and show how they can be understood in the light of faith.

This is what Systematic Theology does. It takes reason and sheds faith on it. What the Cardinal has done is taken some reasonable statements that the President made, such as unity and about the openess to dialogue and he tries to establish what unity and what it is that we should be discussing in dialogue. He also proceeds to explain how dialogue is impaired by a disparity of opinion in a pluralistic society. This he takes from President Obama’s statement that the pro-life and pro-choice position are irreconcileable. The Cardinal dedicates a significant portion of his article discussing Original Sin as the root of the problem.

The second link is a more honest one, because it gives you the Cardinal’s statement without saying that it says something that is not in the Cardinal’s intent or interest. He’s not interested in the politics of abortion. He is interested in those statements that the President made that resonate with the Catholic faith and he proceeds to show how. The Cardinal does not even say that the President intended to resonate with the faith. Simply speaking, he said some things that the Church has said. Whether he realize it or not.

The key whether President Obama will use these statements that he made in the same manner that the Church has used them. The Cardinal does not set out to make any predictions on that score. In fact, he reminds us that reaching truth is a process where you take forward and backward steps. But you take more steps forward than backward, three forward and two back and so forth.

The Cardinal is actually an excellent systematic theologian. But his writings are not for the average man or woman in the pews. But I don’t think that he means them to be. This is the man who was the Pope’s theologian. You don’t make theological statements to the Pope on the same level that you make to the laity. You can go a little higher and take some risks, because your audience is much better educated in theology and can dialogue with you at your level. This is the audience that he writes for, other theologians, including popes.

Now, the article has been thrown out to the laity without someone to translate it into language that the laity can understand.

I can understand some of it, but not all of it. Systematic Theology is not my area. I majored in Mystical Theology. But with two years of Systematic Theology under my belt, I can understand some of it. It’s like having studied a foreign language in school. You understand some things that sound familiar, but not all of it.

Those parts that I understand, are not in conflict with the teaching of the Church. I hope this helps some people feel a little more comfortable.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[MDK]

I hope we’re not all so extreme in our positions that we can’t tolerate for anyone to ever say anything good about a person on the opposite side.

I don’t really see the article as praising Obama’s policies on abortion.

Obama is so extreme, that we must encourage him at each stage that seems like moderation or progress toward what is actually decent, what is Catholic. It is not intended to say that we totally agree with him, but like encouraging a baby to walk (albeit a baby who has given himself largely over to evil), that hopefully he will walk a better path, even if slightly. I would be very happy to see Obama converted to decency… true Catholicism. I’m under no illusion that he intends to, but nothing is impossible with God. It is our job to root for God’s ways and encourage them in all, and that certainly includes and perhaps especially those whom we disagree with (since they oppose Catholicism).

 

[Darryl1958]

“I’m reminded of the first Christian legislators, who didn’t quickly abolish the tolerant Roman laws regarding practices which didn’t conform to the natural law, or which were actually contrary to it, such as concubinage and slavery,” Cardinal Cottier wrote. “Change happened along a slow path, often marked by steps backward, as the Christian population increased, and, along with them, the impact of a sense of the dignity of the human person.”

Poor guy, he is so senile he actually thinks that the Christian population is proportionally increasing like it was in Roman times.

 

[RobbyS]

cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=14933

The Cardinal misreads the man when he says:

…*. that Obama has not defended abortion as an absolute right, that he recognises the “tragic gravity” of the problem, that Obama does not defend “relativism,” and that “his words move in the direction of reducing the evil” by seeking to make “the number of abortions as small as possible.”

“I’m reminded of the first Christian legislators, who didn’t quickly abolish the tolerant Roman laws regarding practices which didn’t conform to the natural law, or which were actually contrary to it, such as concubinage and slavery,” Cardinal Cottier wrote. “Change happened along a slow path, often marked by steps backward, as the Christian population increased, and, along with them, the impact of a sense of the dignity of the human person.”*

There is no reason to think that Obama does NOT think of abortion as an absolute right. or that he thinks of abortion as an evil. He has proposed nothing that would halt the extension of abortion. If he did, then he would have spoken against the public funding of abortions in DC. If he wishes to make small steps, it will be those extending of the right in the direction of making it an entitlement.

 

[rjs1]

I hope we’re not all so extreme in our positions that we can’t tolerate for anyone to ever say anything good about a person on the opposite side.

I don’t really see the article as praising Obama’s policies on abortion.

When it comes to abortion I guess I’m pretty extreme! The murder of the unborn tends to make things pretty clear cut to me.

Obama has actively supported abortion, even late term abortion. For a Cardinal to attempt to portray this as balanced is disgraceful. If that sounds like an extreme statement - so be it.

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

I hope this helps some people feel a little more comfortable.

Sorry. It doesn’t make me feel any more comfortable at all.

What was the purpose of the Cardinal writing this? Was he trying to make us feel more comfortable? Should we feel more comfortable about evil?