Pope congratulates Barack Obama
November 5, 2008
Pope Benedict wasted little time in sending a personal greeting to Barack Obama congratulating him on his election victory and offering prayers for his presidency. Traditionally, the pope sends his congratulations only after the new president has taken office.
Advertisement
42 Comments
Comments are closed.
It make me so sad to see the Pope congratulating a professed Muslim terrorist. I hope he remembers this when Barack tries to bomb the Vatican and force everybody their to convert to Islam.
Well, they do have some things in common, both lead a cult, both think God anointed them, although the pope thinks he’s the ‘vicar of Christ’, versus Obama cutting out the middle man, thinking he is the Messiah :P
Come on guys, Obama has a lot of major flaws and incorrect beliefs, but he is not the anti-Christ.
In order to save the lives of many Catholics and Jews, Pope Pius XII did not directly confront Hilter on his “issues” either. You see, one of the reasons why there are so many objectors to his canonization is because there are many people who mistakingly believe that, because of this, Pope Pius XII was in favor of Hilter.
Your point is?
Obama is not a confessed Muslim terrorist; if you really believe that, you are, I believe, invincibly ignorant.
Henry is name calling again. Surprise!!
I suppose that the pope’s congratulations now instead of January is a sign that he has become a true believer, bows down to Obama as the new messiah, has become an abortion promoter and has converted to Islam.
Really. What the hell is your point?
What the??? he’s not a terrorist how can you say that?
Name calling? I didn’t call any names. Oh well.
This is exactly what I’ve come to expect from the Islmo-Liberal blogosphere. Way to prove all of my suspicions correct, Vox Nova!
It make me so sad to see the Pope congratulating a professed Muslim terrorist. I hope he remembers this when Barack tries to bomb the Vatican and force everybody their to convert to Islam.
LOL. Run off and take your meds now.
If I can make a serious point. I wish more Catholics would take the Holy Father as their example for Christian behavior. It really saddens me that so many Catholics in this country are so quick to abandon the virtues of charity, compassion and hospitality.
In order to save the lives of many Catholics and Jews, Pope Pius XII did not directly confront Hilter on his “issues” either.
Okay, I’ll take the bait of your terrible analogy. Which lives are being saved by Pope Benedict XVI in not “directly confronting” Obama on abortion?
professed Muslim terrorist
Adamv–
I am no big fan of Obama, and I didn’t vote for him. But, “professed Muslim terrorist”?
Obama may be radical, but he is neither a terrorist, nor is he Muslim.
jn
I believe Adamv was being sarcastic.
Islmo-Liberal blogosphere
I assure you that at least Katerina and Policratus are not IslAmo-liberals.
I am not sure about everybody else. :) j/k
jn
MZ –
I wish I had the optimism you do. ;) –jn
I don’t think Pope Benedict has directly confronted anyone in his entire papacy. Not even Hans Kung who probably deserved to be confronted directly.
Greg–
He made Kung stand in the corner in the Vatican Library.
does that count?
jn
Ressourcement,
No, that is not enough….only if he had required Hans Kung to celebrate a Mass according to the Missal of 1962. But that would probably be tantamount to torture which is intrinsically evil.
Can one even imagine Kung honestly saying, “Per Ipsum Et Cum Ipso Et in Ipso…”
That is funny. -jn
Ressourcement,
On second thought, yes that would count making Hans Kung stand in the corner of the Vatican Library…..but only if Kung was in the “Tan Publishers” section of the Vatican Library.
but only if Kung was in the “Tan Publishers” section of the Vatican Library.
Hahahaha
Greg,
Kung is still a human being made in the image and likeness of God. Regardless of what he has done, there is no need to inflict undue torture upon him by sticking him in a section where all the books have broken bindings, frightening covers, and archaic commentary.
Waterboarding would be much more humane.
jn
I, for one, am genuinely confused. Suppose a candidate for president, among the many positions he advocated in the campaign – some good, some bad – had also promised that “the first thing” he’d do as president would be to sign into law the “Freedom to Kill Jews Act.” Would the Pope send such a congratulatory letter upon such a candidate’s election? Do the Pope and much of the hierarchy really believe what they teach about abortion?
Okay, I’ll take the bait of your terrible analogy. Which lives are being saved by Pope Benedict XVI in not “directly confronting” Obama on abortion?
We have yet so see how Obama’s policies will affect the Church and Catholics in America.
In order to save the lives of many Catholics and Jews, Pope Pius XII did not directly confront Hilter on his “issues” either.
You mean. . . that in order to make real progress, it might be necessary to reach pragmatic agreement with those who you find morally repugnant?
That an inflexible adherence to principle might not always be the wisest course of action?
What a novel idea. I wonderif anyone else has thought of it!
sarsfield,
Maybe Benedict XVI feels it is better to engage with Obama as a fellow human being than to demonize him as a bloodthristy baby killer. And perhaps the pope, unlike some of his bishops, realizes that there was more than one issue in the election. Also, perhaps Benedict also is more realistic, pragmatic, and far more charitable than many who claim to speak for the pro-life movement.
“Henry is name calling again. Surprise!!”
‘Invincibly ignorant’ is, logically speaking, not a name, but a description. Henry is describing again.
Accurately, as it happens.
Maybe Benedict XVI feels it is better to engage with Obama as a fellow human being than to demonize him as a bloodthristy baby killer. And perhaps the pope, unlike some of his bishops, realizes that there was more than one issue in the election. Also, perhaps Benedict also is more realistic, pragmatic, and far more charitable than many who claim to speak for the pro-life movement.
And yes, AdamV was joking. He’s a friend of mine. But please don’t hold that against him.
I just assumed people would roll their eyes and move on. I guess its a telling statement about our culture that after commenting on this blog for over a year, people’s immediate assumption was to assume that I was being 100% serious.
“I just assumed people would roll their eyes and move on. I guess its a telling statement about our culture that after commenting on this blog for over a year, people’s immediate assumption was to assume that I was being 100% serious.”
D’oh!
Adamv–
Sorry for missing the sarcasm…
–jn
Maybe Benedict XVI “feels” [Yes, the Pope is driven by pure emotion... "feels" - the language of the 21st century.] it is better to engage with Obama as a fellow human being than to demonize him as a bloodthristy baby killer.
I’m sure Pope Benedict XVI’s greeting didn’t sound like this, “Hey buddy, congratulations! I was pulling for you!”, as the initial post implies. I also have no doubt that the Pope finds Obama’s philisophical and practical support for abortion and not providing life-saving care to infants that survive abortion abhorrent. I’m also quite sure that the Pope respects Obama as a human being and loves him no less for his morally deficient views.
As Catholics we must pray for Obama and Biden, that they come to see the error of their ways, but we shouldn’t be falling all over the guy who, judging by his comments to one of his major supporters and a group that is directly opposed to the Catholic Church, Planned Parenthood, can’t wait to sign his name to FOCA.
I just assumed people would roll their eyes and move on. I guess its a telling statement about our culture that after commenting on this blog for over a year, people’s immediate assumption was to assume that I was being 100% serious.
adamv, I took you seriously at first because I’ve seen that type of opinion (and much worse!) expressed on many of the so called Catholic blogs over the years. Not putting them all in that category but a certain wacko fringe element seems quite at home there since the Church has become so hyper politicized. I assume that was your parody?
And yes, AdamV was joking.
Michael,
I was responding to sarsfield’s message posted at 2:12 pm in which he was confused because the pope sent a message of congratulations to Obama. I am pretty sure sarsfield was not joking.
David – Sorry, I copied what you wrote intending to express agreement with you, and then follow it up with the comment on AdamV. Sorry for the confusion.
Clearly sarsfield was not joking and is a great example of the phenomenon of being “more Catholic than the Pope.”
David Nickol -
I’m afraid your response does little to clear up my confusion. It would seem to me that, if the Church is right about abortion, then the election of a president who has vowed to protect,promote and subsidize the practice is not a matter for congratulations whatever his other virtues may be. I mean, suppose someone was elected who actually was,by whatever standards you choose to apply, a “bloodthirsty baby killer” to use your phrase. Would you congratulate him on his achievement?
I was likewise dismayed – maybe that’s a better word than confused – when the Pope went above and beyond the call of diplomatic duty in showing hospitality to Pres’t. Bush on Bush’s last European tour. If, as the Pope has said, he views the Iraq war as an unjust war, then G. Bush is guilty of thousand of murders for initiating and prosecuting that war. No need to go beyond the bare minimum in acknowledging American politicians – then Bush, now Obama – who, according to one’s teachings are promoters of murder.
Oh well, I guess it’s too much to expect Catholics at all levels to be consistent in their application of Catholic morality. Apparently the choice is between being a smirking sophisticate of the Left who is able to wink at the slaughter of the innocents by abortion or a serious realist of the Right who is willing to accept the slaughter of innocents by aerial bombardment in order to protect the American corporatocracy.
Whatever “vox” you call this, there’s nothing “nova” about it.
Oh well, I guess it’s too much to expect Catholics at all levels to be consistent in their application of Catholic morality.
sarsfield,
Are you questioning the pope’s morality?
The pope was cordial towards Obama because Obama is now (unfortunately) a world leader. The pope has been also been very cordial towards President Bush over the years — though I don’t seem to recall Michael I. ever thinking that was worth a post.
Fellow conservatives: Chill. Though it’s not the Renaissance anymore, the pope is still and earthly prince and as such communicates with other heads of state.
Progressives: I doesn’t mean much — if anything.
Should be: “It doesn’t mean much”, though I’m sure that some have accused me of the other as well.
DarwinCatholic,
I think a cordial, personal message of congratulations from the pope at this point, when apparently the custom is a formal message at the time of inauguration, may mean something.
And also there was a very positive article in L’Osservatore Romano, from which Father Imbelli over on dotCommonweal pointed out this sentence: “Gli Stati Uniti — e non è la prima volta che accade — sono stati a loro modo capaci di indicare una nuova strada al resto del mondo.”
And perhaps there is a message to be gleaned from this, from the article linked to above:
I, for one, am genuinely confused. Suppose a candidate for president, among the many positions he advocated in the campaign – some good, some bad – had also promised that “the first thing” he’d do as president would be to sign into law the “Freedom to Kill Jews Act.” Would the Pope send such a congratulatory letter upon such a candidate’s election? Do the Pope and much of the hierarchy really believe what they teach about abortion?
Are you sgguesting that after Roe is overturned we have Nuremberg style trials for women who had abortions?