Obama and the Pope - on abortion

Having just given the Vatican document a cursory reading, it looks to me to be a thorough but dry application of church dogma to a vast array of scientific and medical practices of concern to the pro-life movement. It does not appear to have much by way of empassioned argumentation or pursuasive force to it, other than to restate the church's predictable stance with arrid dogmatism. I seriously doubt this document will have any affect on our beloved president, aside from possibly encouraging a power nap on the flight to Africa.

I think the Pope felt like he had to give the President the most recent document. But in truth the document he himself wrote as prefect of the CDF, Donum Vitae, was better written. (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html)

It should be noted though that Benedict also gave the President a copy of his latest encyclical, which is far more meaty than the kind of casuist-like documents Put out by the CDF.

One last thing. I met Benedict before he became Pope and had an extended conversation with him. TV does not do him justice! He really is a presence--he has a profoundly gentle demeanor but he exudes brilliance. He is extremely impressive. When he shakes your hand, he's got a very firm grip. He looks you right in the eye when he talks. He follows carefully every word you say and reacts in such a way that you know he's listening intently--he's very focused. He smiles but in a "knowing" kind of way. He understands English perfectly well. None of this personally is really caught on camera--he's clearly uncomfortable being filmed. He is also very articulate in English himself. His vocabulary and eloquence far exceeds that of a typical English speaker--even someone who has English as their first language.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that Benedict took Obama by surprise. I think Obama--like most people would--expected to meet some elderly, pious type, who is well-respected but not entirely persuasive. I can only imagine that he was taken by surprise by the Pope's erudition and thoughtfulness. He is NOT at all what you expect. And most people who I know who have met him have had the same experience I did.

Thanks Jodi. The comment assumes some stuff I've said here before.

Obama has said he's personally against abortion but in the legal and political world he's not. I assume that he distinguishes between his personal, Christian ethic and his political, constitutional, etc ethic. Between personal beliefs and what is right according to the Constitution.

I find the claim of Christ on our lives to be that we would do what we think Christ wants all the time, whether at the personal or political level.

Other example: the issue for civil unions and marriages of gays/lesbians is a Constitutional (Federal, State) matter. I get that. I agree. And at the level, the law and judges render judgment. But a Christian does not root morals on the basis of the Constitution, though he or she will want to be governed by the law of the land to some degree. Instead, the Christian asks -- what does God's Spirit, Jesus, Bible, Christian Tradition, etc teach me.

I might agree that Constitution permits one thing but my conscience is captive to God's Spirit through the Word. That, I think, is the Christian's obligation.

Stephen,
Here's what I mean by consistency:

If I, as a Christian, think abortion is wrong, it is always wrong -- even if the Constitution or some law protects the right to have an abortion.

It is one thing to say "Yes, the law says it's OK." In that sense, it is justifiable and within a person's rights. But, as a Christian, I don't make moral judgment on the basis of what the law says -- I make judgment on the basis of what the Spirit says through Scripture etc.

The all-too-common claim that so many make that says "I don't think it is personally right, but I won't say that for everyone" is tolerance but it is morally inconsistent.

Steve, no need to be sarcastic here.

Scot,

Maybe Steve is not being sarcastic but rather taking the roof off those who think their is such a thing as a personal conviction and a legal one. After all, all law is moral to some degree. Therefore the question is not if we will legislate morality, but whose morality we will legislate.

Besides, saying you are personally against abortion but do not want to pass laws against it, is the exact same logic of saying you are personally against slavery but do not want to legislate against it.

On another note, I am always perplexed when I hear Obama say he wants to reduce the number of abortions...Why? If it is not the killing of an innocent baby, than why any desire to reduce the number of them? If the fetus does not have a right to life and human, than an abortion should be viewed just like having your wisdom teeth removed or a mole frozen off. There is no moral component.

Fair enough Scot, and you are right, sarcasm does not work well on blogs:) My point was simply that its silly to state we do not want to legislate morality when all law is morality.

Ohh, and my other point was that if a President is going to publicly state that he wants to reduce the number of abortions, he has to tell us why he wants to do that.

Peeling Dragon Skin

All laws are legislating morality to some extent, and that's an important point. We do have to articulate what parts of our morality we will legislate and which we won't. I will not support laws to force people to give money to the poor or to pray or to worship Jesus. This kind of personal piety should not be the subject of laws.

But with abortion, an innocent human life is at stake. We have a duty to protect the basic human rights of the unborn child. Slavery is a good analogy. Banning slavery legislated morality. People at that time disputed the moral status of slaves. Banning slavery imposed a moral framework on slave owners to their severe financial detriment. But it was the right thing to do (and it is still the right thing to do).

Personally, I'd lkie to do away with laws against anything that only hurst yourself, but if a fetus is even potential life, showldn't it have some protection or rights? If not, I CERTANLY oppose any of my tax dollars paying for anyone else's abortion, especially overseas.

There was a recent trial in my area where a young man got 15 years for killing his girlfriend's unborn child when he assaulted her. This is just not in our region, but across the country. I have a very simple question, is there anyone out there besides me that sees the irony in all of this? There can be a trial for killing an unborn child in a crime, but not as an abortion. Isn't that essentially the same thing? I really don't understand the logic of it all. No one seems to be able to explain this oxymoron to me.

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.

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?

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.