Yesterday President Obama and Pope Benedict XVI met and discussed, among other things, ethical concerns like abortion. Below is an extract from Newsweek. I hope the Pope pressed him on two things: (1) that talking about reducing either the need for or number of abortions can be measured -- is it happening? and (2) that Obama's personal view that it is wrong and his political support are not consistent for a Christian.Obama's assurance to the pope that he would read the Vatican document on bioethics ... on the plane to Africa. "Dignitas Personae" (dignity of a person) condemns abortion, artificial fertilization and embryonic stem-cell research.NYTimes pieces on this topic.
"He sure seems to signal to the Vatican that they are going to attend and listen" on these issues, said Schneck.
It was a far different picture of Obama's relationship with Catholics than before his speech/honorary degree at the University of Notre Dame commencement, when more than 60 bishops wrote letters objecting to the event and Catholic protesters turned the area around Notre Dame into a circus.
"What a long way we have come in two months," said Schneck. He predicts we'll see a "pragmatic, businesslike and cordial" relationship between the Vatican and Obama--unlike relations between Obama and some American Catholics.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Nancy (#20),
If an unborn child is "wanted," she has human rights.
If an unborn child is "not wanted," she has no human rights.
That is the logic. And at least 5 Supreme Court justices believe our Constitution requires this logic. But to define the moral status of the unborn by the desires of the parents makes no sense to me. We can do better than that.
Jjoe (#19)
You sound pretty judgmental. If there is a principled distinction between the examples you give, then there is no "hypocrisy." You need to understand the distinctions others draw before you attack them as hypocrites. Do you see no distinction between the moral status of a convicted serial rapist and murderer and the moral status of an unborn child?
You seem to suggest that if a pro-life person does not accept your personal view of whether the Iraq war was "just," then they are a hypocrite. That is pretty remarkable, in my opinion.
Are the only arguments you are going to make ad hominem? If so, they are quite weak, in part because there are many "Protestants" who are against the death penalty and against the Iraq war.
Steph (#21), not to lead this discussion too far afield, but I find it interesting that you include prostitution in your list of things that the religious right wants to make illegal. Do you imagine that this is a profession to which people aspire and work toward, or are you aware that the contribution of the sex trade is one of the greatest to human trafficking around the globe? I hope that President Obama does not show his social responsibility by working to legalize prostitution. I'd like to comment further on your interesting use of the phrase "self righteous," as well as your inclusion of birth control and sex ed as those things the religious right would restrict. Shot-gun approach to criticism?
Peter: do you think legalising prostitution and making it a safe health controlled profession, is going to encourage 'human trafficking'? Maybe you think it will encourage rape, sexually transmitted diseases and the rest. If you do, you miss the point. Lavatory cleaning isn't a job many aspire to but those working for respectable cleaning firms can be very happy in their work. Likewise prostitution in a safe environment is an occupation in which there is job satisfaction. Prostitution is legal in my country now, and the effects on those in the trade has been great. There is no use calling it immoral, making it illegal and then pretend it won't still go on in the back street. I have seen plenty of religious right criticism of birth control and sex education so I don't see your point.
Steph
#21
I expected some honest discussion on a Christian blog, not more sarcasm about the Christian right and legislating morality. This is the first time I responded to a blog, and will probably be my last. I was just hoping for some discussion about 2 laws on our country's books, that contradict each other. And they are both valid laws. Thank you PDS #22 for your response. I can get sarcasm in the real world for my beliefs, I don't need it here.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.