Cardinal praises Obama's "measured approach" on abortion

[canadianguy1143]

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

What you say is very interesting however I think the following link shows that he has dissented from Catholic teaching before:

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09070609.html

Cardinal Cottier gained notoriety in 2005 when he publicly dissented from Church teaching by endorsing the use of condoms to prevent disease. While emphasizing that he was giving his private opinion, the cardinal said that sex with condoms could be permissible as a means of avoiding killing one’s partner with AIDS. “The virus is transmitted during a sexual act; so at the same time as [bringing] life there is also a risk of transmitting death,” he said.

“And that is where the commandment ‘thou shalt not kill’ is valid.” Cardinal Cottier suggested that condoms could be used in situations when people are “prisoners” of unusual circumstances.

 

[JReducation]

What you say is very interesting however I think the following link shows that he has dissented from Catholic teaching before:

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09070609.html

If we notice in the citation, the Cardinal is emphatic that this is his opinion. He is not teaching in the name of the Church, but speaking as an individual. This is something that theologians are allowed to do by the Church. They are allowed to opine on any subject as long as they do not say that they are teaching Catholic theology.

We cannot deny a theologian the right that the Holy See gives him, the right to think and share his thoughts.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

I’m losing a little respect for Pope John Paul here. Why would he sit and listen to it?

What you say is very interesting however I think the following link shows that he has dissented from Catholic teaching before:

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09070609.html

Cardinal Cottier gained notoriety in 2005 when he publicly dissented from Church teaching by endorsing the use of condoms to prevent disease. While emphasizing that he was giving his private opinion, the cardinal said that sex with condoms could be permissible as a means of avoiding killing one’s partner with AIDS. “The virus is transmitted during a sexual act; so at the same time as [bringing] life there is also a risk of transmitting death,” he said.

“And that is where the commandment ‘thou shalt not kill’ is valid.” Cardinal Cottier suggested that condoms could be used in situations when people are “prisoners” of unusual circumstances.

 

[pnewton]

I will give the Cardinal the benefit of the doubt. At 87, I will blame dementia and assume he forgot he was a CATHOLIC!

A balanced approach to sin??? That’s like saying a balnced approach to anti-Semetism or a balanced approach to genocide.

 

[canadianguy1143]

If we notice in the citation, the Cardinal is emphatic that this is his opinion. He is not teaching in the name of the Church, but speaking as an individual. This is something that theologians are allowed to do by the Church. They are allowed to opine on any subject as long as they do not say that they are teaching Catholic theology.

We cannot deny a theologian the right that the Holy See gives him, the right to think and share his thoughts.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well of course its his opinion, that was never in dispute. What was in dispute was the interpretation of what he was trying to convey. I can respect what you say about systematic theology but when you consider he was talking to the media who reports to people (laity) then he should have realized that his words would easily be misconstrued. However that is an overly optimistic point of view considering his other statements re. condoms.

We can and must instruct the ignorant about the authentic teachings of our Faith.

 

[BrianIndy]

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.

There is NO COMMON GROUND between Pro Life and President Obama. None. As long as the unborn are being slaughtered in this nation, by the thousands per day, there will never be any common ground.

 

[RobbyS]

If we notice in the citation, the Cardinal is emphatic that this is his opinion. He is not teaching in the name of the Church, but speaking as an individual. This is something that theologians are allowed to do by the Church. They are allowed to opine on any subject as long as they do not say that they are teaching Catholic theology.

We cannot deny a theologian the right that the Holy See gives him, the right to think and share his thoughts.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well, obviously this theologian has not taken the time to read the abortions cases decided by the US Supreme Court. He does not know what they say. Any theologian who begins with errors of fact as his minor premises, is bound to reach false conclusions, and any false conclusion, I say, is out of line with Catholic thought.

 

[Nordar]

This is just what Obama needs to hear, that a Cardinal in Rome agrees with him.

 

[JReducation]

I believe that the Cardinal is being misjudged and sentenced unjustly here.

1. He is old, but not senile. He is a very intelligent theologian. In fact, John Paul II loved him, because he made him think. He had a way of throwing some out of the box thought on the table that would make others stop and think about what they said. That is good when you have a room full of scholars.
2. The Cardinal makes clear the difference between his opinions and the teachings of the Chuirch. There is nothing wrong with sharing his opinions. Joseph Ratzinger beings his Christology in Jesus of Nazaretch by telling the reader that his writing is not dogmatic, but his theological opinion and invites others to express their own opinions on the nature and mission of Christ. Ratzinger and Rahner did a lot of work together and neither is a heretic. In later years some of their work was discarded and some was adopted.
3. The Cardinal is not dissenting. He is not speaking as a Cardinal. He is speaking as a scholar. He tells you this.
4. We cannot lock every Catholic scholar away and not allow the same right as any other scholar, to express their opinion and share it with the public. Of course the liberal media is going to hijack it; but so does the conservative media.
5. The Cardinal chose select words and phrases from the President’s speech and show how they could lead to the Catholic faith, because they were first used by the Catholic Church. He does not say that the President is in communion with the Catholic Church.
6. We must also remember, that the Cardinal is looking at the President’s speech, not his voting record. He said this at the opening of his statement. He clearly says that politics is out of his field of knowledge. He does not bother to explore the President’s political moves, because that is not what attracted his attention. What attracted his attention was the presence of some Catholic thoughts in Obama’s speech, even if Obama himself does not know that these are Catholic themes and uses them incorrectly. In that case, it is up to President Obama to rise to where the Cardinal is.

In conclusion, when any society, including the Church, begins to censor well intentioned speech, there begins the deterioration of human freedom, which the Church has committed to protect. It is clear here that the Cardinal does not mean harm.

The fact that many people do not understand systematic theology should not inhibit a systematic theologian from working at his art. That would be unfair.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

I believe that the Cardinal is being misjudged and sentenced unjustly here.

The fact that many people do not understand systematic theology should not inhibit a systematic theologian from working at his art. That would be unfair.

I remember Peter Kreeft saying that what one needs to believe the one hundred most absurd things is a PhD. or as Paul put it, “[Rom 1:22](http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

I understand that the ranks of scholars are afforded more freedom in such things areas as moral theology. I will stand be the old black and white of the Ten Commandments, though, lest God fashion a millstone with my name on it.

You know in a thousand threads, I think this is the very first time I have taken a different view than this. I still admire your willingness to look for the best in all situations. May God bless you, Brother.

 

[JReducation]

I remember Peter Kreeft saying that what one needs to believe the one hundred most absurd things is a PhD. or as Paul put it, “[Rom 1:22](http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

I understand that the ranks of scholars are afforded more freedom in such things areas as moral theology. I will stand be the old black and white of the Ten Commandments, though, lest God fashion a millstone with my name on it.

You know in a thousand threads, I think this is the very first time I have taken a different view than this. I still admire your willingness to look for the best in all situations. May God bless you, Brother.

I always tell my novices that our brotherhood is not about agreement, but about walking together in search of goodness and holiness.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF