President Obama to receive honorary degree from Notre Dame

[Highwayhound]

:clapping:

I really don’t care to correct your technical understanding of stem cell research and/or cloning here.

However, O is being honored with a doctorate of law from Notre Dame. This to an individual who has denied every and all legal protections and recourse to the pre-born at every opportunity. If this doesn’t constitute at least tacit approval for his stance on abortion, I don’t know what the word “honor” means.

In the words of Inego Montoya “I do not think that word means what you think it means”.

Anyway, Beckwith explains it better than I can.

 

[magdelaine]

I did read the piece you posted, but it grossly mischaracterizes Obama’s record on abortion. I did a lot of research into the candidates last year, when deciding how to vote, and the charges he levies against Obama are the same discredited ones from back then. Obama voted against the partial-birth abortion ban because it didn’t contain exceptions to save the life of the mother, but he said he would have voted for it if it did. The “Born-alive infant protection act” that he voted “present” for, was a bill that the Illinois senate tried to pass for the sole purpose of using it against Democrats at election time. It was poorly-written, and there would be no conceivable way for that law to save a single life, since Illinois law already covered what the bill was ostensibly claiming to accomplish. Politicians pull these stunts all the time. Joe Biden did it too with his ridiculous “Violence Against Women Act”.

But the main reason I didn’t like it was because it basically ignores every time in the past where Obama has tried to find common ground with the pro-life movement. During the primary campaign last year, Hillary Clinton’s people were accusing Obama of “not supporting a woman’s right to choose”, and he was losing votes for it. He said he would support the partial birth abortion ban if it had those provisions I mentioned. He actually managed to add the goal of reducing the number of abortions to the Democratic party platform. I’m not saying we need to compromise on our morality, but we should at least recognize that Obama has been able to make a modicum of progress. If we can’t ever recognize this, then what incentive do Democrats have to incrementally change abortion laws for the better?

He voted no, not present, to what I highlighted above.

If you see anything that Obama has actually done, not said, but actually done as having been a “modicum of progress” in the life arena then you are seriously deluded.

 

[elts1956]

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the fetus is implanted somewhere where it shouldn’t be. Allowing it to grow would kill the mother. There is no diseased organ that needs to be removed, unless that is what you are calling the embryo. You are right that the death of the embryo cannot be the intent, but the fact remains that abortion is the only possible treatment for an ectopic pregnancy, and the Catholic Church allows this.

My point was that the concept of “intrinsic evil” is not a very good one for ranking the severity of injustices. Exceptions exist for many of them, including abortion. An intrinsic evil such as homosexual relations is not as great of an injustice as killing a person, which may not be evil under certain circumstances.

But the war was never just or moral in the first place! This is exactly why the Pope opposed it! Because things like that are inevitable during war, which is exactly why Jesus and the Church are so against it.

Then the bombed hotel is not proportional either. The US did not know for sure that Saddam Hussein was in that hotel, but bombed it anyway. As it turns out, he was not in the hotel, and all those people died for nothing.

The diseased organ is not the embryo, but the fallopian tube. Why this is called diseased, you would have to ask a doctor which I am not, just the messenger. Apparently once a woman has an ectopic pregnancy, there is more of a liklihood the same type of pregnancy will happen again. This is why the fallopian tube is considered diseased. To remove the embryo and leave the fallopian tube intact would be considered an abortion.

As Catholics we support life from conception to natural death. The idea of War, unless in self defense should certainly be considered repugnant to us. However, please give the source you found that said Pope John Paul II or Benedict XVI said the Iraq war was unjust.

 

[diggerdomer]

Obama: “So, as long as they don’t look like people, go for it!”

Is this an actual quotation? Do you have a reference?

Or is this rather your own slanderous and incredibly un-Christian (at least, by most respects, from anything I know about Christianity) vitriolic de-humanizing statement?

 

[mapleoak]

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the fetus is implanted somewhere where it shouldn’t be. Allowing it to grow would kill the mother.

One cannot perform PREVENTATIVE surgery which results in the death of a person on the basis of possibility of pathology. A baby growing whether in the fallopian tube or some other odd place may not be killed just because it might pose a danger to the mother.

There is no diseased organ that needs to be removed, unless that is what you are calling the embryo. You are right that the death of the embryo cannot be the intent, but the fact remains that abortion is the only possible treatment for an ectopic pregnancy, and the Catholic Church allows this.

The Catholic Church does not allow any direct attack against the life of an innocent human being. Your use of the term treatment indicates that you consider a misplaced embryo to be a pathological condition requireing treatment. An embryo is not a condition but a living human being. To kill it in the name of preventative surgery because there is a possibility it might pose a threat to the mother is nothing short of murder.
Regarding preventative surgery, note the term pathology and what it means in medical linguistics. Then note the term possibility. There is a possibility I can go outside and get hit by a car. Does that mean my life is in emminent danger?

My point was that the concept of “intrinsic evil” is not a very good one for ranking the severity of injustices. Exceptions exist for many of them, including abortion. An intrinsic evil such as homosexual relations is not as great of an injustice as killing a person, which may not be evil under certain circumstances.

When something is intrinsically evil it means it is evil by its very nature. There are never exceptions to them and it is never licit to commit an action that is intrinsically evil. The rank of the injustice is irrelevant. Neither of the above may ever be licitly performed.

 

[magdelaine]

Is this an actual quotation? Do you have a reference?

Or is this rather your own slanderous and incredibly un-Christian (at least, by most respects, from anything I know about Christianity) vitriolic de-humanizing statement?

No, this is not a quote. This is my interpretation based on Obama’s own actions and the statements by the “scientists” in the article.

Perhaps my comment was un-Christian and de-humanizing. But if my comment is so, then how much more so are Obama’s own actions?

Oh, wait. I guess we ought to excuse him because all of this is “above his pay grade”.

 

[diggerdomer]

No Catholic can compartmenalize their morals.

I am not doing this. Neither is the U.S Conference of Bishops.

I’m concerned that this is exactly what you are doing, though, contrary to what the US Conference of Bishops teaches in “Faithful Citizenship.” You are putting the abortion issue into one compartment, and refusing to consider any other moral issue in making your political decisions (as I understand what you’ve shared).

Unless I’m misunderstanding you, which is of course possible and if true I hope you’ll continue to correct me, you are “compartmentalizing” abortion above and beyond any other moral issue or consideration. This is not what “Faithful Citizenship” does, although it does not preclude individual Catholics from doing so (which is why I am not objecting to you doing it, for yourself, as your own understanding of the best way to live out the Catholic faith).

Apparently you and I have read the same USCCB document which was about as clear as a snow storm in Minnisota. I like to give that comparison.

I am glad to hear we’re reading the same document. That should help! I differ, though–I think that Faithful Citizenship was remarkably clear, in many respects, given the complexity of the issue it addressed. Still, though, I can see why you would say it’s not clear, at least in some respects. Still, despite the complexity of the issue, which in my opinion admits of no easy answers (though I recognize many would prefer easy answers, black and white, yes or no, etc.), I see much of what it says as being very clear and very helpful, e.g.:

1. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of
   dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. Racism and
   other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war,
   the use of torture,4 war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering
   from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious
   moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not
   optional concerns which can be dismissed. Catholics are urged to seriously consider
   Church teaching on these issues. Although choices about how best to respond
   to these and other compelling threats to human life and dignity are matters for
   principled debate and decision, this does not make them optional concerns or
   permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore Church teaching on these important issues.
   Clearly not every Catholic can be actively involved on each of these concerns,
   but we need to support one another as our community of faith defends human life
   and dignity wherever it is threatened. We are not factions, but one family of faith
   fulfilling the mission of Jesus Christ.

Please, note, concern for abortion (or any other single issue) cannot dismiss consideration of other moral issues (many of which are also classified by the Church as intrinsic evils…oh, and of course, note how the Bishops comment that choices about how best to respond are matters for principled debate and decision…did you read that? Do you agree? Do you agree with the U.S. Bishops here, or do you deny their teaching? I won’t even mention further the part about “support one another.”).

1. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so
   important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper
   relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes
   a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s
   intent is to support that position.

Please, note the “if” clause in the last sentence.

1. The consistent ethic of life provides a moral framework for principled Catholic
   engagement in political life and, rightly understood, neither treats all issues as
   morally equivalent nor reduces Catholic teaching to one or two issues.

Please, note everything following “nor.”

1. As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support.

Please, note…everything in these sentences.

There were SO MANY other documents written by various individual Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals that give support to what I am saying.

Yes, yes, yes, the news has been full of them. Goodness, they certainly have no problem getting their faces and opinions in the news! I don’t have the time or interest to keep up with what every indivudal bishop, priest, commentator, journalist, whoever, is saying about this topic. To guide my life I’ll continue to by what the universal Church teaches, what the U.S. Conference of Bishops teaches, and what the Bishop of my diocese teaches. You can search out and find those others who say what you want and already agree with and align yourself with them if you want to. Just don’t pretend that those opinions have any universal authority. I have no objection to any of them sharing their opinions.

Also one cannot judge individuals and their reasons for supporting Obama. The action was wrong, their soul is known by God.

Sorry…what? Did you just say we can’t judge individuals, but then you turned right around and judged them? Please clarify. Or, are you really claiming God’s certitude that anyone voting for Obama has been judged wrong by God?

I for one do not see how a practicing Catholic who understands what has been taught by the Church could vote for a pro abortion candidate thereby promoting either direclty, or indirectly, his policy of abortion. :coolinoff:

Ok. Fortunately, your lack of understanding is not binding on the rest of us Catholics.

I support your commitment to the issue of abortion and, from what you’ve shared, what I understand this means for you and your political choices. I may not agree with you in all respects, but in this respect I am confident that you are acting in line with Catholic teaching and I support that.

I do not support your contention…if I read it right…that anyone who voted for Obama is not following Church teaching as taught by the Vatican and by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

 

[JimG]

It is quite sad that a supposedly Catholic university rushed to invite as a commencement speaker the most ardently pro-abortion president ever in this nation’s history. It is a shame and an outrage.

 

[JimG]

“Additionally, Fr. Jenkins has put some of his students into a position of moral dilemma as to whether they should attend their own graduation. Many pro-life seniors, along with their families, now feel personally conflicted about participating in the commencement. The lack of concern for these devoted sons and daughters of Notre Dame, who love this University and the Catholic principles on which it was built, is shameful.”
Source = ndresponse.com/

 

[Luis_Santiago]

One cannot perform PREVENTATIVE surgery which results in the death of a person on the basis of possibility of pathology. A baby growing whether in the fallopian tube or some other odd place may not be killed just because it might pose a danger to the mother.

The Catholic Church does not allow any direct attack against the life of an innocent human being. Your use of the term treatment indicates that you consider a misplaced embryo to be a pathological condition requireing treatment. An embryo is not a condition but a living human being. To kill it in the name of preventative surgery because there is a possibility it might pose a threat to the mother is nothing short of murder.
Regarding preventative surgery, note the term pathology and what it means in medical linguistics. Then note the term possibility. There is a possibility I can go outside and get hit by a car. Does that mean my life is in emminent danger?

In an ectopic pregnancy, the chance that the fetus will not survive is 100%. The only way the mother can survive is by aborting it, either naturally or by inducing it. In certain instances, the fetus becomes lodged somewhere and a natural abortion is impossible. In this situation, there is no way the mother can survive without surgically removing the fetus.

When something is intrinsically evil it means it is evil by its very nature. There are never exceptions to them and it is never licit to commit an action that is intrinsically evil. The rank of the injustice is irrelevant. Neither of the above may ever be licitly performed.

Killing a person is not necessarily evil, in the case of fighting a just war, defense of others, etc. The Church itself has killed people in the past.

So does that mean you think a gay couple living together is just as bad as what Josef Fritzl did?

The diseased organ is not the embryo, but the fallopian tube. Why this is called diseased, you would have to ask a doctor which I am not, just the messenger. Apparently once a woman has an ectopic pregnancy, there is more of a liklihood the same type of pregnancy will happen again. This is why the fallopian tube is considered diseased. To remove the embryo and leave the fallopian tube intact would be considered an abortion.

So you’re saying the amount of tissue surrounding the embryo when it’s removed is the determining factor in whether that constitutes murder or not?

As Catholics we support life from conception to natural death. The idea of War, unless in self defense should certainly be considered repugnant to us. However, please give the source you found that said Pope John Paul II or Benedict XVI said the Iraq war was unjust.

How did you manage to miss that? It was all over the news.

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80875,00.html
cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html
newser.com/story/21728/pope-slams-iraq-war.html
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2605367.stm
usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/04/16/a-rift-over-iraq-between-president-and-pope.html

 

[diggerdomer]

It is quite sad that a supposedly Catholic university rushed to invite as a commencement speaker the most ardently pro-abortion president ever in this nation’s history. It is a shame and an outrage.

“supposedly” = your opinion, for what it’s worth.

ND did not “rush to invite”, it’s been common practice to invite Presidents to speak at commencement following their first inauguration (Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Bush all spoke).

None of them upheld 100% Catholic moral teaching.

 

[elts1956]

In an ectopic pregnancy, the chance that the fetus will not survive is 100%. The only way the mother can survive is by aborting it, either naturally or by inducing it. In certain instances, the fetus becomes lodged somewhere and a natural abortion is impossible. In this situation, there is no way the mother can survive without surgically removing the fetus.

Killing a person is not necessarily evil, in the case of fighting a just war, defense of others, etc. The Church itself has killed people in the past.

So does that mean you think a gay couple living together is just as bad as what Josef Fritzl did?

So you’re saying the amount of tissue surrounding the embryo when it’s removed is the determining factor in whether that constitutes murder or not?

I have seen a picture of an ectopic pregnancy because the implantation of the baby did not occur in the womb. It looked as though the fallopian tube was cut above the baby’s head and below its feet. It was a teeny tiny little thing, but was undoubtedly human.

How did you manage to miss that? It was all over the news. Don’t know, but I did.

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80875,00.html
cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html
newser.com/story/21728/pope-slams-iraq-war.html
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2605367.stm
usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/04/16/a-rift-over-iraq-between-president-and-pope.html

 

[elts1956]

Luis Santiago;5019094:

Not true. The USCCB themselves have said that the important thing is intent; NO THEY DID NOT

. Some interpreted it that way due to the USCCB’s muddled teachings. Catholics cannot vote for politicians because they support intrinsic evils, but may vote for them in spite of their stance on these issues, because of other positions that are more in line with Catholic beliefs. Uh uh,and don’t tell me to read the document. I have several times and unless you believe wholeheartedly in the doctrines and teachings of the Catholic Church, it is easy to get confused. You should really read this document yourself: You should read the statements given by such clergy as Chaput, Finn, Hermann, Martino, the Bishops of Kansas (try www.kscathcof.org) to read their statement. The Bishops of Dallas/Ft Worth also gave outstanding clarification of voting with a Catholic conscience. There were many more, at least 100 and more leaders of the Church had the backbone to standup and support the teachings of the Church. Too bad too many depended only on the USCCB document which was beyond the comprehension of the majority of people.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

Here’s an artice by Nicholas P. Cafardi on this subject:

I do not support him because he is pro-choice, but in spite of it. Is that a proper moral choice for a committed Catholic? Spliced conscience?

Last November, the U.S. bishops released “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” a 30-page document that provides several examples of intrinsically evil acts: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, torture, racism, and targeting noncombatants in acts of war. These were three of the INTRINSIC evils listed along with cloning and homosexual marriage. The rest of the issues were issues of Prudential judgement, although I would have to think about “torture” a bit more.

Nicholas CafardiNicholas CafardiObama’s support for abortion rights has led some to the conclusion that no Catholic can vote for him. That’s a mistake. While I have never swayed in my conviction that abortion is an unspeakable evil, I believe that we have lost the abortion battle – permanently. A vote for Sen. John McCain does not guarantee the end of abortion in America. Not even close. I don’t know about you, but I didn’t vote any party line. I voted for the person representing the least of the evils. I chose morals and values as my guides. This was the direction given by those stalwart Bishops who tried to untangle the original USCCB document.

To answer that question, let’s look at the rest of the church’s list of intrinsically evil acts.

Both McCain and Obama get failing marks on embryonic stem-cell research, which Catholic teaching opposes. The last time the issue was up for a vote in the Senate, both men voted to ease existing restrictions. Later during the campaign, McCain changed his stance.

But what about an unjust war? In 2003, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) said flatly that “reasons sufficient for unleashing a war against Iraq did not exist.” McCain voted for it; Obama opposed it. ?Source again please

How, some may ask, can I compare these evils with abortion? The right to abortion is guaranteed by the federal judiciary’s interpretation of the Constitution. And while the president appoints federal judges, the connection between a president’s appointments and the decisions rendered by his appointees is tenuous at best. After all, in 1992, five Republican-appointed justices voted to uphold Roe v. Wade in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Yet on other intrinsic evils – an unjust war, torture, ignoring the poor – Not Intrinsic evils, no way no how. I can address those evils directly by changing the president.

There’s another distinction that is often lost in the culture-war rhetoric on abortion: There is a difference between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion. UH UH!!! Obama supports government action that would reduce the number of abortions, :whacky:and has consistently said that “we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion.” He favors a “comprehensive approach where … we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children.” And he wants to ensure that adoption is an option for women who might otherwise choose abortion. Adoption has ALWAYS been an option.

Obama worked all of that into his party’s platform this year. By contrast, Republicans actually removed abortion-reduction language from their platform. Unfortunately all Obama used was rhetoric. What about the Mexico policy? We now get to support abortion internationally with our taxes. What about his wanting to rescind the clauses that protect the freedom of conscience for medical personnel and others?
What’s more, as recent data show, abortion rates drop when the social safety net ??? is strengthened. If Obama’s economic program will do more to reduce poverty than McCain’s, then is it wrong to conclude that an Obama presidency will also reduce abortions? Not at all. Has there been a reduction yet of over 3000 abortions a day???

Every faithful Catholic agrees that abortion is an unspeakable evil that must be minimized, if not eliminated. ELIMINATED. I can help to achieve that without endorsing Republicans’ immoral baggage. Overturning Roe v. Wade is not the only way to end abortion, and a vote for Obama is not somehow un-Catholic.

The U.S. bishops have urged a “different kind of political engagement,” one that is “shaped by the moral convictions of well-formed consciences.”

I have informed my conscience. I have weighed the facts. I have used my prudential judgment. Can’t use Prudential Judgement when judging an Intrinsic evil, or didn’t your/his well formed conscience inform you/him of that?? And I conclude that it is a proper moral choice for this Catholic to support Barack Obama’s candidacy.

Cafardi is a civil and canon lawyer, and a professor and former dean at Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh. His most recent book, Before Dallas, examines the bishops’ failures in handling the clergy sex abuse crisis. That was indeed a misuse of power, in that I can agree with you. So now you think it should be allowed to compound that horendous error through tacit approval of abortion?

Sorry I had to delete some of your post for my answers to fit.

 

[catharina]

This thread has been effectively derailed by so many posters.
Granted, for whatever reason, they seem enamored of Obama.
May God re-direct them in that matter.

The issue is that Obama is being honored by a Catholic university.
The Church HAS spoken to such a travesty of recognition.

“As the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed in their statement Catholics in Political Life, “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” For Notre Dame, or any Catholic institution, to provide such a platform is to abandon its Catholic character for the lure of worldly desires.”

(from the ND Right to Life Students Group)

Such an honor (Obama’s) should never have been suggested, much less activated.

 

[Ronald_E]

CCC 24
Whoever teaches must become “all things to all men” to win everyone to Christ…Above all teachers must not imagine that a single kind of soul has been entrusted to them…

CCC 25
The whole concern of doctrine and its teaching must be directed to the love that never ends. Whether something is proposed for belief, for hope or for action, the love of our Lord must always be made accessible, so that anyone can see that all the works of perfect Christian virtue spring from love and have no other objective than to arrive at love.

 

[catharina]

If one wishes to take action AGAINST an Obama-proposal, here’s one way.
The following is linked from the USCCB website, Conscience Protection.

http://actions.nchla.org/Core.aspx?Screen=compose2&SessionID=$AID=970:SITEID=-1:VV_CULTURE=en-us:APP=GAC:ISSUEID=16808$

The link connects to the Bishops’ page-link requesting that WE implore the gov’t to retain FULL PROTECTION of CONSCIENCE for all medical personnel so that pro-life employees will not be subject to duress and job-loss if they refuse to participate in abortion activities.

Submission deadline for such emails is APRIL 9th.

(If link is inactive, cut and paste.)

 

[Luis_Santiago]

That was indeed a misuse of power, in that I can agree with you. So now you think it should be allowed to compound that horendous error through tacit approval of abortion?

Sorry I had to delete some of your post for my answers to fit.

So if I’m not mistaken, is this what you’re trying to say?:

• The USCCB has clearly said that every issue that is important to Catholic moral theology must be considered when deciding how to vote, and that Catholics should not be single-issue voters.
• Several bishops and priests disagree with this, saying that abortion trumps everything else.
• You agree with these bishops and priests, rather than the USCCB, and in fact have given virtually no consideration to issues like pollution, war, poverty, torture, and international cooperation when deciding how to vote.

Here’s my problem with the Republican party: their anti-abortion policies generally work by cutting funding from programs like USAID and stem-cell research, then they use the savings to wage wars and give tax cuts to rich people. Often, they’re pro-life only in name, so they can manipulate well-intentioned Christians. Can you name a single Republican-sponsored federal program that provided funding to reducing abortions? I bet you can’t. Democrats have funded programs like this though; in fact if you look at the numbers, the US abortion rates have gone up under Republican presidents and down under Democrat presidents since Roe vs. Wade.

Here’s my other problem: the Catholic Church has always been known for supporting knowledge, intelligence, and social justice. This stands in contrast to many American Christian groups, who often disparage intelligence and focus more on conversions (often from Catholicism) than they do on things like reducing poverty. By blindly following Republicans as long as they claim to oppose abortion, we lose our identity as Catholics and become just another easily-exploitable Christian group.

 

[catharina]

So if I’m not mistaken, is this what you’re trying to say?:

• The USCCB has clearly said that every issue that is important to Catholic moral theology must be considered when deciding how to vote, and that Catholics should not be single-issue voters.
• Several bishops and priests disagree with this, saying that abortion trumps everything else.
• You agree with these bishops and priests, rather than the USCCB, and in fact have given virtually no consideration to issues like pollution, war, poverty, torture, and international cooperation when deciding how to vote.

Here’s my problem with the Republican party: their anti-abortion policies generally work by cutting funding from programs like USAID and stem-cell research, then they use the savings to wage wars and give tax cuts to rich people. Often, they’re pro-life only in name, so they can manipulate well-intentioned Christians. Can you name a single Republican-sponsored federal program that provided funding to reducing abortions? I bet you can’t. Democrats have funded programs like this though; in fact if you look at the numbers, the US abortion rates have gone up under Republican presidents and down under Democrat presidents since Roe vs. Wade.

Here’s my other problem: the Catholic Church has always been known for supporting knowledge, intelligence, and social justice. This stands in contrast to many American Christian groups, who often disparage intelligence and focus more on conversions (often from Catholicism) than they do on things like reducing poverty. By blindly following Republicans as long as they claim to oppose abortion, we lose our identity as Catholics and become just another easily-exploitable Christian group.

Here’s MY problem wioth your posts and others like yours.
You are way OFF the point of this thread.

Should Obama be HONORED by a Catholic university?
NO.

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholics in Political Life, “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

Going off-point to ‘political choices’ is diversionary. TOTALLY diversionary.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Here’s MY problem wioth your posts and others like yours.
You are way OFF the point of this thread.

Should Obama be HONORED by a Catholic university?
NO.

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholics in Political Life, “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

Going off-point to ‘political choices’ is diversionary. TOTALLY diversionary.

I wasn’t talking to you. Yes, this thread has diverged from the original topic, but what we’ve been discussing is still relevant to the discussion. As for what you’ve said two or three times already, I’ll focus on this part: “They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” Now, I believe it is appropriate to give Obama an honorary degree provided it’s made explicitly and publicly clear to him that in no way does this suggest support for his actions that have supported abortion.

 

[JimG]

Here’s my problem. President Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion president in the history of the United States. His very first actions and executive orders served to promote abortion around the world and at home. His positions on life issues are so antithetical to Catholic (and human) morality that it is a scandal for a Catholic University to confer an honorary degree and a speaking engagement.