L’Osservatore Romano On The First 100 Days of President Obama
CNS News reports on a news article printed in L’Osservatore Romano about the first 100 days of President Obama. Interestingly enough, Obama is not seen as an extremist, unlike what many on the Catholic blogosphere suggest:
On ethical questions, too — which from the time of the electoral campaign have been the subject of strong worries by the Catholic bishops — Obama does not seem to have confirmed the radical innovations that he had discussed,
Indeed, the article addresses the issue of ESCR and sees it in a light quite different from so many in America:
(The guidelines) do not allow the creation of new embryos for research or therapeutic purposes, for cloning or for reproductive ends, and federal funds may be used only for experimentation with excess embryos
Of course, as the article points out, this does not mean concern is unjustified, but the concern must be based upon what is, and not the unjust intepretations of Obama’s actions. After all, one doesn’t have to be an extremist for one to be wrong; but if Obama isn’t, perhaps Catholics shouldn’t act as if he is in order to make him become one.
H/T to Commonweal
Comments are closed.
Some of the descriptions I read – that Obama is a “leftist” or “extremist” or “socialist” – remind me why I left the Republican Party behind a decade and a half ago, and have never looked back.
I get the tactic, of course – try to define the political “middle ground” ever more to the right – so that Obama raising rich peoples’ tax rates to a rate that is still almost two thirds lower than they were under Eisenhower is “socialism” and “radical wealth redistribution,” rather than being a modest adjustment of the tax code in a more progressive direction.
The thing is, most of the country is extremely tired of, and see right through, Republicans’ cheap attempts at manipulation, and is behind Obama, and they trust him and want him to succeed.
Matt
Seems like those at the Vatican also don’t like the rhetoric, and I think they understand the danger of it. Some want to make a self-fulfilling prophecy, I am afraid. If they truly cared about abortion instead of politics, they would engage him and the situation differently. It’s quite easy to tell that the rhetoric will do nothing but encourage a negative reaction. Politicians love that, since it is good for votes, on both sides. But we shouldn’t
A headline of “100 days that did not shake the world” is hardly a compliment.
Nor is “not confirmed the radical innovations that he had discussed” means he is not an extremist. Obama has simply been less extreme then he promised to be, as FOCA has not yet come to the table, among others.
Michael Denton
Or perhaps he is less extreme than cherry-pickers from the Republican side of the debate have made him out to be, taking quotes out of context. I could make St Paul look like an extreme feminist if I wanted to, taking only a few quotes of his and say “see, that’s St Paul.” And “does not shake the world” doesn’t have to be a compliment, but it isn’t an insult, either.
Henry
I didn’t say it was an insult. However, not shaking the world is akin to saying Obama has been lukewarm, a state which I believe a greater authority than the Vatican newspaper speaks of.
As far as his extremism, I’m not going to argue based upon vague references to cherry-picked quotes without knowing which ones you’re talking about, not to mention “extreme” is a difficult term to define as well. That said, Obama has been very firm in his pro-abortion beliefs and has been very active in enacting them. Whether his actions count as extremism or not isn’t all that important.
On your response to Matt, how do you propose they engage him? Obama barely gives them a seat at the table, and when they do get a seat, the “mediators” are former Emily’s List people. It seems the pro-life movement has done a good bit to try to engage Obama, but he’s just not going to listen.
Clearly an anti-Benedict mole was behind the release of these statements…
This interview makes it clear that this is the most honest, the most humble and the most REALISTIC President of my lifetime:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03Obama-t.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
One of the things I’ve had to ask myself recently about America’s leaders is “Which one of them actually cares about history’s judgment of his integrity and his decent respect of others’ judgment of his virtues and purposefulness–as opposed to his “SUCCESS”–success being as much a matter of luck as anything else?
I’ll take Obama over all the rest, at this point.
Politicians love that, since it is good for votes, on both sides.
…and I would add, long commbox discussions ;-)
“. However, not shaking the world is akin to saying Obama has been lukewarm, a state which I believe a greater authority than the Vatican newspaper speaks of.”
Michael very good
>>On your response to Matt, how do you propose they engage him? Obama barely gives them a seat at the table, and when they do get a seat, the “mediators” are former Emily’s List people. It seems the pro-life movement has done a good bit to try to engage Obama, but he’s just not going to listen.
How have they tried to engage him? I’ve seen confront, criticize, demonize. Do you have an instance of an honest attempt at real engagement?
Michael,
“Not shaking” doesn’t mean “lukewarm.” Those are not equivocal terms, and it is reading into the comments; the context of which was basically saying he has not been the demon some expected him to be. “Lukewarm” in regards to what Christ said is, again, a different context, and to read Jesus’s “don’t be lukewarm” was an issue of “you must shake the world” if you engage politics, well, that’s an unusual expectation, to say the least!
The Vatican has never liked the American dualist rhetoric. No surprise here. I really wish that the American Catholics who are trapped in their bubble would just try to see a bit more of the Catholic world. I’m not saying other countries don’t have their own problems, but it could be eye-opening.
The CNS article quotes a whole 120 words from the L’OR, so it’s difficult to say what kind of judgment is involved. If it were me, I’d prefer to see the actual article before making ultramontanist declarations about what “the Vatican” thinks, but de gustibus.
Just 2 notes: First, the moderate ESCR guidelines are simply draft regulations subject to comment and modification. I’d reserve judgment on that point until they become finalized, and after the intensive lobbying by ESCR proponents is finished. Moreover, even in draft form, they authorize solicitation of embryos for research from those who avail themselves of IVF. That’s a non-negligible moral problem, and potentially large loophole for mischief.
Second, the excellent pregnancy support legislation is the laudable creation of pro-life Democrats, not the President.
On a related note, Doug Kmiec and Cardinal Rigali went head to head in CNS this week, with Kmiec positively spinning Obama’s ESCR guidelines and Rigali challenging him.
I must say I am tad in the dark how things could beworse on Catholic ethical concerns. It is true that Obama did not give out free coupons for abortions but Catholic ethic wise on life issues it has not been a great hundred days on our worst fears. It has gone as expected
I am afraid the repeal of DOMA is next
I am afraid the repeal of DOMA is next
Of course it is, as it should be. And let’s hope that “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is repealed, as well.
“Of course it is, as it should be.”
Oh, absolutely. Because the entire nation should prostrate itself before the whim of less than 20 lawyers in three states and the legislature of the fourth smallest.
Maybe you should take a long, calm look at these statistics, Dale:
http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/04/the_two_gay-friendly_cohorts.php
You and others of your ilk are about to become a very small minority.
DOMA repeal is not on the table. The Hate Crimes bill is next. Employment Non-Discrimination will follow with the Republicans and Catholic conservatives fighting to preserve the right of large employers to fire people from their jobs simply for being gay.
Next year it is possible that DADT will be reviewed and domestic partner health insurance for federal employees will be considered.
From the press conference last night, a question from CNN’s Ed Henry:
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. In a couple of weeks, you’re going to be giving the commencement at Notre Dame. And, as you know, this has caused a lot of controversy among Catholics who are opposed to your position on abortion.
As a candidate, you vowed that one of the very things you wanted to do was sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which, as you know, would eliminate federal, state and local restrictions on abortion. And at one point in the campaign when asked about abortion and life, you said that it was above — quote, above my pay grade.
Now that you’ve been president for 100 days, obviously, your pay grade is a little higher than when you were a senator.
Do you still hope that Congress quickly sends you the Freedom of Choice Act so you can sign it?
OBAMA: You know, the — my view on — on abortion, I think, has been very consistent. I think abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue.
I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they — if they suggest — and I don’t want to create straw men here, but I think there are some who suggest that this is simply an issue about women’s freedom and that there’s no other considerations. I think, look, this is an issue that people have to wrestle with and families and individual women have to wrestle with.
The reason I’m pro-choice is because I don’t think women take that — that position casually. I think that they struggle with these decisions each and every day. And I think they are in a better position to make these decisions ultimately than members of Congress or a president of the United States, in consultation with their families, with their doctors, with their clergy.
So — so that has been my consistent position. The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is I would like to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion, particularly if we can reduce the number of teen pregnancies, which has started to spike up again.
And so I’ve got a task force within the Domestic Policy Council in the West Wing of the White House that is working with groups both in the pro-choice camp and in the pro-life camp, to see if we can arrive at some consensus on that.
Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not highest legislative priority. I believe that women should have the right to choose. But I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that’s — that’s where I’m going to focus.
Yes, yes, “we will bury you.”
Been there, done that, saw the shoe divots in the table.
Faith in “inevitability” is the mental Ecstasy of those on a permanent holiday from history. While you’re enjoying the soma, make sure to poll the non-Europeans taking the citizenship oath what they think about this.
http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/2008/11/7/prop_8_and_the_hispanic_vote.htm