The American Spectator : A Blessing for Catholics

Text Size

A Blessing for Catholics

By Lisa Fabrizio on 4.15.09 @ 6:06AM

President Obama's championing of pro-abortion Catholics is backfiring.

In the 1960s, the American Catholic Church, like the rest of the nation, underwent a period of tremendous upheaval. Proceeding from, though not limited to, the willful misinterpretation of the Second Vatican Council by some in the clergy, thousands upon thousands left the Church; older members who could not withstand the confusion, and the younger ones who could not perceive an enduring faith amid the calamitous changes.

But as has happened countless times in her long history, the Church has, by the grace of God, seen good priests and bishops arise to bring her back. Yet still today, far too many American Catholics are like far too many other citizens of their country: they have a vague notion of their history or of the tenets on which they were founded, but not much more than that. Sadly, many of them get serious about the faith a few times a year, much like Americans who recall our founding principles only briefly on the Fourth of July, if at all.

Faithful, practicing Catholics are already painfully aware that, in addition to having to defend their faith to others, they must also sometimes explain it to their fellow Catholics. And, just as knowledge and respect for the U.S. Constitution and capitalism -- which were ingrained upon the American psyche for decades -- have faded into the past, so too it seems incomprehensible that today's Catholics need to be reminded that adultery, euthanasia, and the murder of the unborn constitute grave sin.

Upon this scene comes Barack Obama, the first American president to embrace abortion both personally and politically. Not only does he support a "right" that seeks to cut short innocent life, he has made the case that such life might be the "punishment" for sexual "mistakes." This goes beyond what even some of the most strident advocates of abortion have been willing to say in public, but such is the sorry state of morality in our country.

Now given Barack Obama's radical support of abortion -- even to the extent that he has voted that the lives of the survivors of this heinous act should also be snuffed -- you'd think that he would be wary of alienating the great majority of practicing American Catholics. Yet, spurred on by exit polling that suggests he won the overall Catholic vote by a slim margin, he has managed to elevate some of the most notoriously pro-abortion Catholics to important posts in his administration.

He has even reportedly gone so far as to try and nominate such nominal Catholics as Caroline Kennedy as ambassador to the Vatican. These choices, of course, have been rejected. Try this stinging rebuke from a Vatican source:

The Holy See has always set a very simple standard: the person should not be in opposition to fundamental teachings of the Church that belong to our common shared humanity. He or she may not believe in Catholic dogma if he or she is not a Catholic, but we could not accept someone who is in favor of abortion, or (human) cloning or same-sex unions equated to marriage. That is a fairly simple principle that governments like, say, Spain and Cuba, or Mr. Clinton's administration, have been able to understand without a problem.

Unfortunately, Obama's reward for all this is that he will be the sixth president to speak at Notre Dame and the ninth to receive an honorary degree from that formerly venerated institution. This despite the fiat from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that "…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."

No doubt Notre Dame and its leadership think that they are being courageous in honoring one who has so publicly spit in the eye of Mother Church, but it's hard to imagine why. In reality, true courage lies in opposing popular opinion in defense of principle. As Jesus explained:

If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. (John 15:19)

And here is where we find that God does indeed continue to work in mysterious ways. Notre Dame and Barack Obama have combined to supply the Church with an opportunity to exercise one of its fundamental missions; to provide the faithful with a true teaching moment. Dozens of American bishops have issued statements condemning the Obama invitation and other indiscretions at Notre Dame, perhaps none more eloquently than Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska:

Permit me to add my name as well to the long list of Bishops of the Catholic Church who are utterly appalled at your dedication to immorality and wrong-doing represented by your support for the obscenity called "The Vagina Monologues" and your absolute indifference to the murderous abortion program and beliefs of this President of the United States...I can assure you of my prayers for your conversion, and for the conversion of your formerly Catholic University.

Harsh words indeed, but most welcome to the ears of faithful Catholics everywhere. Let us hope that more and more of our brethren will heed the voices of these brave bishops who understand that one's faith cannot be checked at the church door. And let us all pray together with Pope Benedict XVI who said in America last year:

Praying fervently for the coming of the Kingdom also means...rejecting a false dichotomy between faith and political life, since, as the Second Vatican Council put it, "there is no human activity -- even in secular affairs -- which can be withdrawn from God's dominion."

About the Author

Lisa Fabrizio is a columnist who hails from Connecticut (mailbox@lisafab.com).

Letter to the Editor View all comments (45) | Leave a comment

Appleby| 4.15.09 @ 6:37AM

I pray the Rosary three times a week for the conversion of Obama, that he will reject Satan, his empty promises, pomps and vanities. And I pray that God will convert Fr. Jenkins too -- although that may be a harder task.

I am a fairly new Catholic (in my third year) and it is my impression that the Church seriously needs a house cleaning. Better a small group of actual Catholics than a large mass of CINOs, yes?

JamesD| 4.15.09 @ 7:08AM

Yes.

Diliver us from evil| 4.15.09 @ 7:25AM

Obama is not the Satan, it's the people who runs the world Obama is only the Manager, following the orders he has been given.

Abortion, famine, wars, desease, poverty. It all causes death, it's just a matter of how you die, but that is Satans plan for you me and every one out there. Health care is just another way to ensure you die, by using rationing.

Who you vote for does not make any difference, Obama is only following what Bush was told to do as well. The next one that follows Obama will do the same. Promise one thing to get elected then do what they have been told to do.

Pray for your self and your children.

John| 4.15.09 @ 8:22AM

Agreed, Appleby. There's no such thing as a pro-choice Catholic. Pelosi, Kennedy et al. are not Catholics.

Church teaching states that all life is sacred and, since it's a biological fact that the unborn are human beings, abortion is incompatible with Catholicism.

Part of the solution is for all Catholics to be far more vocal against CINOs.

RJ| 4.15.09 @ 8:32AM

Obama is a confused man. The University has a leadership that is more than confused, it is corrupted and does so to its students. Perhaps a conflict will arise wherein wiser heads will come to the fore and make decisions that come from critical thinking, and serious beliefs. Fools come from everywhere.

Becky| 4.15.09 @ 9:12AM

This is not just a Catholic problem, nor religious one. Proverbs 11:3 claims that "the integrity of the upright shall guide them", is very relevant to today. I am glad to see the Bishops taking a "here I stand, I can do no other" position. There is nothing worse than a person who claims to be moderate. You can't entrust them with your business, you don't know what issue they'll give away. I suspect the good Father of ND imagines himself a person of moderation and open-mindedness.

Spike| 4.15.09 @ 9:57AM

There's a simple question regarding abortion, "... would you have liked your mother abort you?" As difficult as life can be, I would not have missed the joys and love I have received from my wife, daughter, partents, sister,......

Sandra| 4.15.09 @ 10:17AM

Just a gentle reminder that not all non-Catholics, non-Christians, pan-theists or atheists condone or endorse abortion, "mercy" killing, or euthanasia. That these same people also live moral lives.

The (Catholic) Church is not a hotel for Saints, but a hospital for sinners. Someday we will be called to task for our faith, our acts and how we lived our lives. Can we give good account of OUR LIVES and ACTS?

I pray for those whose public lives exhibit that they fall short, and continued strength and grace for those that lead lives of virtue.

Tim| 4.15.09 @ 10:35AM

19"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
22"The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. 23But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

24"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew 6:19-34&version=31;

Tim| 4.15.09 @ 10:36AM

"For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

Cross the Elder| 4.15.09 @ 11:48AM

AMEN; AGAIN I SAY 'REJOICE.' AS AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN I SEE HIS HAND IN ALL THINGS, AND THIS PARTICULARLY SHINES THROUGH HERE. AMEN, AMEN, AMEN.

Pat| 4.15.09 @ 12:11PM

As the most prolific child killers in the history of the world, it's no shocker that Americans accept a president who endorses abortion without uttering the standard weasel words that he respects the law while personally opposing abortion. C'mon now, those approx. 48 million abortions weren't performed on spaceships during alien abductions - Americans know who performed the abortions and there's no point in pretending abortion is somehow distasteful to the majority of Americans.

And Fabrizio is correct, the Catholic church accepted Roe vs. Wade, not with open arms of course, but as a conditional and regrettable price to pay for the remainder of the Democaratic Party platform of welfare and "social reform". Remember the 60's and the Great Society, blue collar Catholics were enthusiastic supporters of the Dems and their reforms. Later, in the 70's, the Dems retained power in Congress and continued with their reforms - Catholic bishops actually believed Roe vs. Wade was transitory and would lead to very limited numbers of abortions.

The foolish clergy and leaders of the Catholic Church in America learned to their horror they gave political and moral support to, not a temporary, but rather a permanent feature of America's birth control technology. They've been trying to repent ever since with a wavering and shaky pro-life stance. Unfortunately, the naive and gullible nature of Catholic bishops seems endemic within the Church.

JP| 4.15.09 @ 12:49PM

Pat,
If I remember correctly, the majority of Catholic Bishops in 1973 reacted strongly against Roe. The Pro Life Movement began at the behest of the Bishops right after the Roe ruling. Many Democrats were also Pro-Life. Even Jesse Jackson made plenty of speechs in favor of the not aborting. The Dems in 1973 (at least those over 40) would most certainly be considered Far Right today (at least from a point of view of morals), and the average Bishop in 1973 was born before 1915. Those Bishops in thier early 70s were born around 1900. The entire mindset of those men was far more conservative or at least more Orthodox. They were less nuanced, and not afraid to take an unpopular stance -a far cry from many of the Bishops of today, who are more media savy but less Orthodox.

carl palm| 4.15.09 @ 1:36PM

This is reminiscent of the 'dual primacy' conversations over birth control when the discussions were procreation vs. 'pleasure in marriage'.....Fr.Jenkins needs to determine whether he is first and foremost a Roman Catholic priest/leader or.... just another college president.
It seems obvious he thinks the latter supercedes the former.

Don L| 4.15.09 @ 2:00PM

Great article by one of my favorite writers.
I personally can't get too excited by only 29 bishops protesting out of 365 plus archbishops and cardinals.
In the words of Christ one might ask: "Where are the others?"

It seems too many shepards are concerned more about the wolves howling than they are about the safety of their sheep.

Pat| 4.15.09 @ 3:00PM

JP
You remember correctly, the Catholic Bishops in 1973 were strongly pro-life but you may not recall that position was moderated later. For example, Archbishop Joseph Bernardin flip-flopped on the issue by the early 80's. See also the public statements of Archbishop Gerety and Fr. Robert Drinan the first priest elected to Congress. The Dems gradually changed their abortion position as well. In 1972, George McGovern had actually killed a movement to put a pro-abortion plank into the Democratic Party Platform.

Teddy Kennedy was also a staunch pro-life proponent in the early 70's. But, like Kennedy, the Catholic Church moderated its position over the years to tacitly accept abortion as the price of other social reforms advocated by the Dems. The Catholic bishops issued statements on domestic food policy, a position on SE Asia (the Viet Nam war), Proposals on Handgun Violence, Support of Farm Labor, etc. Their concerns stretched over a broader range than sanctity of life issues and most of their support and approvals tended toward the positions of the Democrats.

In the 80's, liberal catholics and Church leaders adopted the "shopping cart" defense according to Richard John Neuhaus. The "shopping cart" referred to all the social reform policies advocated by the Dems. Avoiding strong condemnations of abortion was the price paid to receive all the supposed good things in the Dems' shopping cart.

By the 90's, American Catholic leaders were alarmed over where the country was going. Abortion among minorities was endemic in urban areas and there was no sign that abortion rates were lessening in the general population. Euthanasia in Europe and support for it in America was frightening to Catholic leaders, sanctity of life as a moral and religious concept was taking repeated blows throughout the First World Catholic nations. Killing the unborn would inexorably lead to killing the old and helpless as well, with or without their permission as is legal within the Netherlands today.

Edthe Provenzano| 4.15.09 @ 4:04PM

What a wonderful article. Right on the mark! It is so disheartening when you not only have to explain to people who are practicing Catholics, but to have them treat you like you are some fanactic. When these are just the basics! God bless you Lisa.

Joe Turner| 4.15.09 @ 6:03PM

Of course, I don't like the Notre Dame honor. But Catholics need to wonder about our own bishops more than the Notre Dame honors for an abortionist like Obama. Only a small fraction of bishops have had ANYTHING to say about this matter. We constantly asked to be kicked. If only bishops had a little courage and would excommunicate public sinners like Pelosi, Kennedy, Dodd, Biden and other politicians who use their association with the church to hurt and undermine it. If you lack the courage to confront these sinners, then you have NOTHING to complain about except your own weakness. First, find some strength, then do something to confront these Democrat "Catholics."

Solomon| 4.15.09 @ 6:58PM

I am a Jewish abortionist, I make a good living and pay my taxes. My Partner is a Roman Catholic, we age glad to help people who has got themselves into trouble, many are rich Catholics.
Our Clinic is very comfortable.

I strongly think people have to make up their own minds.

stmichrick| 4.15.09 @ 7:05PM

As for the Notre Dame invitation; apparently hierarchy- climbing clergy are no different than any others, they are dazzled by proximity to Higher-Ups.

It will be fascinating to hear how the Dear Leader finesses his differences with church teachings.

Trad Tom| 4.15.09 @ 7:27PM

Solomon,
Your partner is NOT a Roman Catholic, no matter what he/she may say. What you both are doing is violating the Commandment that states "Thou shalt not kill."

stmichrick| 4.15.09 @ 7:36PM

Solomon;
What do you think the effect on your 'good living' would be if every candidate for a termination had to view an image of the living fetus before consent was given?

Steve| 4.15.09 @ 9:34PM

Solomon, I suppose you feel that nazi guards in auschwitz have moral standing since they were simply doing their jobs. (i apologize for pulling the holocust card but it seemed too good a fit)

pnmnm| 4.15.09 @ 10:17PM

Do you really think Solomon is legit?

Sandra| 4.15.09 @ 11:13PM

"Do you really think Solomon is legit?" pnmnm

Actually I don't, just someone looking to stir the pot.

Alan Brooks| 4.16.09 @ 12:15AM

Obama is half-right; unwanted life IS a punishment for sexual error.

however the solution is abstinence, not abortion.

Paul Crowley| 4.16.09 @ 12:32AM

=>“A Blessing for Catholics by Lisa Fabrizio”
“President Obama's championing of pro-abortion Catholics is backfiring” [“The American Spectator” Homepage].

No.

Support for abortion, or anyone who supports abortion, is never a blessing.

‘A good deal’ for opportunitunist politicians and the political hacks (A.K.A. Intellectual Prostitutes) That Are Owned By Them, perahaps.

But, Support for abortion, or anyone who supports abortion, is never a a good thing for people.

Paul Crowley| 4.16.09 @ 3:30AM

=>“Obama is half-right; unwanted life IS a punishment for sexual error.” [Alan Brooks]

Hi Alan:

You’re wrong.

You also seem to be pontificating more forcefully than Obama is being alleged to have done.

As to punishment:

With the death of Jerry Falwell, and the passing from the scene of Pat Robertson, I was hoping that all this bad-Protestantism cant of divining ‘punishment’ for particular actions or events would FINALLY fade away.

What exactly is “sexual error?”

What exactly is “unwanted life?”

How exactly is this “unwanted life” a punishment for this “sexual error?”

What system of ethics is all of this?

Planned Parenthood, George W. Bush & Artificial Insemination Advocates.

(an interesting confluence, no?)

I’m aware of the phrase: “every child should be wanted.”

Planned Parenthood has been propagandizing this statement for decades.

Now the advocates of artificial insemination are joining in.

Advocates of artificial insemination for human beings [A.K.A. In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF)] advertise it as ensuring that the children resulting from artificial insemination will be “the most wanted children history.”

[Well, it’s true of the horses, cows, swine, poultry, and other various domesticated food animals for which artificial insemination has been the norm of commercial production for almost 30 years now (it’s been around longer)].

Then there was George W.

“I think every child should be wanted” --G.W. Bush (2001-09).

What does the phrase that “every child should be wanted,” mean, PRECISELY?

G.W. Bush repeated, this line, ad nauseam, for the eight years he had to be endured, while also parroting, in like manner, that he was “a pro-life president.”

What the “a pro-life president,” never said was that abortion was wrong.

His father, G.H.W. Bush (1989-93), was the last American president to say that abotion was wrong, publicly, while in office.

G.H.W. Bush was also the last to use the word murder in association with abortion, in a dizty, questioning manner: Rightly pointing out that if abortion is murder, then the
mother who aborts her child would also be guilty of murder.

G.H.W. Bush, and American presidents in office, went silent from then on (1989).

The IVY-League educated, upper-class WASP, dubbed “Dubya” by his PR agents, did periodically throw a few terms into some of his incoherent statements, while going through his look-and-sound-stupid ACTs, that would be familiar to some people in the now beaten Pro-Life Movement.

The only thing that miserable, dissembling, mis-directing LIAR, and brother of degenerates, ever advocated clearly, was the absurd “abstinence” stuff.

I don’t say that the G.W. Bush administration and the Republican Party INVENTED it.

But it was the G.W. Bush administration, and the Republican Party, that PUBLICIZED “abstinence,” nation-wide, and world-wide, for the first time.

The highlight of the popularization this decade was Bristol Palin, no? A 17 year old adolescent female, pregnant, her adolescent boyfriend, who played 'monkey-in-heat with her, Knocking Her Up, and the promise of a ‘shotgun’ wedding (quietly dropped in December).

The Climax of the “a pro-life preseident” and “Abstinence.”

Filthy, seedy, and miserable climax, that it was.

The only consequence of the past eight years of the “a pro-life president” and the Republican Party, and for a great many more reasons, many distincly ANTI-Human Life, has to been to leave a bad taste in the mouths of millions, rightly.

As to Obama:

If Obama said something like what he is alleged to have said, then he’s wrong.

I’m not familiar with just what Obama actually said.

I don’t trust the veracity of a sentence like:

“he has made the case that such life might be the ‘punishment’ for sexual ‘mistakes.’ ”

No sentence constructed by a political hack out of bits and pieces should be taken as any man’s actual statement or act (nevermind one like this that has only two words in the construct that are direct quotations: “punishment” and “mistakes”).

Your reading comprehension seems ok Alan, but you need to work on paying closer attention to what you read.

Paul Crowley| 4.16.09 @ 4:45AM

=>“however the solution is abstinence, not abortion” [Alan Brooks]

->“If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” -Sun Tzu, “The Art of War”

Hi Alan:

No.

Where solutions are concerned, then:

The constant Sexual Stress that is induced and kept up continually uon the population has to be lifted.
(this has been going since about 1965, steadily increased in dosage, and periodically ramped up).

Getting rid of the constant barrage of pornography is a minimum as a start

Again, I'm referring to the formal definition, not just the commercial industry named “XXX Porn,” that first went public in America, beginning in 1972, or the centerfold stuff (kicked off in 1953).

Pornography: Something that induces sexual desire in a human being (i.e. something that induces lust in a Human Being: 1 of the 7 Deadly Sins).

As I said, I’m sure many people don’t even know what it is that affecting them (especially when they start ramping it up like, 1967-73, 1978-83, 1989-93, and now 2005-present).

No question that Hollywood, publishers, music, the XXX porn industry, and entertainment media of all kinds, have done more for the abortion industry than could have been done without them.

It’s stupid, or, where many are concerned, disingenuous, to the deepest levels of evil, to
advocate that people “abstain” from “sex” in a society that is now so structured that a constant sexual stress is maintained upon its population.

It’s a good ‘training ground’ to teach people to self-sterilize themselves though.

I don’t expect to see this government (legislative, judicial, executive, federal, state) or either major party (republican or democrat) do any more than what all have done for 45 years now: continue to run interference for the peddlers of perversion.

High-level members of the government have openly joined the advertising aspect of the effert since at least 1998 (Clinton and Dole).

Paul Crowley| 4.16.09 @ 5:16AM

=>“. . .the solution is abstinence. . .” [Alan Brooks]

Hi Alan:

You’re sick of people yapping about “sex” (so am I).
To be honest, I’m also sick and tired of this bizarre “abstinence” cant.

I don't question your sincerity, I know that you didn't formulate this, it's a matter of Having Been Taught where most people are concerned..

I do strongly suspect that whoever phrased this, was a miserable, sneaky, creature.

Abstain from what?

Yeah, I know: “Abstain from sex until married.”

But that doesn’t answer the question.

Up to as recently as 30 years ago, a common phrasing in everyday language of Americans (born at least 1960 and before), where marriage was concerned, was to get married, to have children and to raise a family (Catholic, Protestant, Jew, unbeliever. . .).

How in the world, did that get transformed (deformed) into THIS:

“Abstain from sex until marriage”

This sounds like the formulation of a pervert suffering from an unhealthy obsession of some kind!

And at this point in time, it’s a darn vague phrasing as well.

What is “sex” to the advocates of “abstinence,” precisely?

What does it mean, to new & reformed (darn sure not improved) “conservatives,” precisely?

“Sex” in this reformed America (USia?) has, in the minds of tens of millions, been redefined from what a person is (male or female), to mean an act. Actually the loose term now incorporates many acts, numerous of which are un-natural:

Debauchery: Sexual intercourse for one’s gratification only (now dubbed “for recreation” To Be Taught to the unsuspecting).

Masturbation (becoming something of an art form, via modern technology?).

“Oral sex,” an act of sodomy: The technique of masturbating someone with one’s mouth.

“Anal sex,” an act of sodomy: The technique of buggery (for “traditionalists”) or use of
implements (for the more technologically “cutting edge?”).

“Group Sex”

There’s plenty more, and the list just keeps growing, but that’s enough examples.

What's next?

A new "traditional" marriage vow?

"to have sex only with each other, 'till death do us part."

Might as well, it's no more bizzare, and no less anti-Christ, and therefore, anti-human, then the abstinence cant.

Bill| 4.16.09 @ 11:06AM

This is not just a Catholic issue. This is a issue for all Christians. The Church has closed the closet door and turned off the light when we are called to be a light to the world. Called to be people through whom our Lord can reach out and touch the lives of others. My dear Christian friends it is long past time for us as Christians, regardless of the denomination, to unite and to speak out. We are called to do this and to not do this is a sin against our fellow men and women

Sex is Healthy| 4.16.09 @ 11:42AM

Abstinence, not a good idea, I have sex every day where possible. I feel people who claim not to be sexually active are normally rapists, Catholic Priests, who are having sexual relations with young boys.

Most Rapes are carried out by Catholics, who think sex is dirty, sex is a healthy part of life in a happy relationship.

Then there are those who are homosexual, or bi'sexual. They have their two children and spend the rest of life being homosexual, that way they don't produce children. The Romans were the biggest group of homosexuality during the Roman Empire.

Kay| 4.16.09 @ 2:06PM

"Look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

Obama said this while campaigning in Pennsylvania last year.

Paul, it's called "the internet." You can reference these things when you're in doubt of what a journalist is reporting.

And SexIsHealthy, where in the world can you find a statistic to prove that Catholics commit the most rapes? Because I'd really like to see that report...

Tim| 4.16.09 @ 2:42PM

The Vatican should develop and test an ICBM, then they would see Obama and company fall all over themselves in simpering apology.

Paul Crowley| 4.16.09 @ 3:10PM

=>“Abstinence, not a good idea. . . ” [Sex is Healthy]

Hi SIH:

Out trying to be a Jerk and try to work people up today, are you?

Paul Crowley| 4.16.09 @ 3:19PM

=>“This is not just a Catholic issue. This is a issue for all Christians. The Church has closed the closet door and turned off the light when we are called to be a light to the world. Called to be people through whom our Lord can reach out and touch the lives of
others. My dear Christian friends it is long past time for us as Christians, regardless of the denomination, to unite and to speak out. We are called to do this and to not do this is a sin against our fellow men and women” [Bill| 4.16.09]

Hi Bill:

Is this a general comment on the essay by Lisa Fabrizio?

->“This is not just a Catholic issue. This is a issue for all Christians”

The title of the essay by Lisa Fabrizio’s essay was posed as a question:
“A Blessing for Catholics by Lisa Fabrizio”
And “The American Spectator” added the statement under the link on its Homepage:
“President Obama's championing of pro-abortion Catholics is backfiring.”

As far as I’m concerned, that makes it a Catholic issue.

My response to the queston was clear (and the TAS statement under the link):

“No support for abortion, or anyone who supports abortion, is a blessing.

‘A good deal’ for opportunitunist politicians and the political hacks (A.K.A. Intellectual Prostitutes) That Are Owned By Them, perahaps.

But it is never a good thing for people.”

As to the rest of your statement, then, not to be rude, but honestly, I don’t have a clue of what you’re talking about or just wrote.

What church are you talking about?
What, precisely it is that it “is long past time for?”
What exactly does “reach out and touch the lives of others” mean? (this sounds like the old AT&T commercials).
As to “not do this,” then I obviously don’t understand at all, since I”m not sure at all what
it is that you think that people should be doing.

There is no such thing as a “sin against our fellow men and women?”
Sins are an offense against God, not men.

Paul Crowley| 4.16.09 @ 3:23PM

=>“Paul, it's called "the internet." You can reference these things when you're in doubt of what a journalist is reporting.” [Kay]

Hi Kay:

Don’t be a smart alec.

Fabrizio is a writer and this is a political essay.

It’s not “reporting.”

Even if it was, don’t be a smart alec. :)

Michele San Pietro| 4.16.09 @ 3:36PM

That's something already seen with Mr. Clinton. I am so sorry to see that too many catholics really behave like zombies.

Paul Crowley| 4.16.09 @ 4:32PM

=>“Obama said this while campaigning in Pennsylvania last year.” [Kay]

Hi Kay:

Thank you for posting the quotation by Obama.

I remember this statement by Obama.
I found it depressing.
Obama’s statement will appeal to millions, especially aged about 45-30 years old.
It brought back to mind the miserable sight of some who are now in their late 30s-mid 40s who
were the teenagers that kicked off the un-wed teenage pregnancy boom, about 1982-88.

In fairness to Fabrizio (whose essay I don’t like), are you sure this is the quote that Fabrizio is writing about? I don’t see a citation or reference by her.

If it is, then: “he has made the case” would be exaggerated phrasing, on her part.

I’m curious, how do you know that this is the statement she was referring to?

“Not only does he support a ‘right’ that seeks to cut short innocent life, he has made the case that such life might be the ‘punishment’ for sexual ‘mistakes.’" [Fabrizio]

"Look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first
of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished
with a baby." [Obama]

Jeannie| 4.18.09 @ 2:58PM

Amazing how many, in addition to Obama, spend an entire lifetime making God in their image and likeness. What a surprise when they meet Him face-to-face. I mean it is He who will determine the success or failure of our creation, yes?
Jean

Elaine| 4.21.09 @ 1:15AM

Jewish abortionist, you have got to be kidding. How is a Jewish, or Catholic abortionist any less culpable than a person of any other race or belief? Shame on you for being so full of pride as to come here and brag about your killing innocents in the womb!!!

Elaine | 4.21.09 @ 1:23AM

Pat. You have misquoted the Church in your statement " But, like Kennedy, the Catholic Church moderated its position over the years to tacitly accept abortion as the price of other social reforms advocated by the Dems. The Catholic bishops issued statements on domestic food policy, a position on SE Asia (the Viet Nam war), Proposals on Handgun Violence, Support of Farm Labor, etc. Their concerns stretched over a broader range than sanctity of life issues and most of their support and approvals tended toward the positions of the Democrats."

Agreed, the clergy here in the US has made Social Justice of many issues their mantra and have forgotten the basic issues of life and death, those absolute truths which underlie and support ALL other life issues. But to say the CHURCH has changed its perspective is misleading. The CHURCH has never abrogated its teachings for over 2000 years. It is some of the faithless clergy and cafeteria catholics who have not even given lip service to the truths of the Church.

The CHURCH can NEVER contradict its teachings.

Tor Kaymaada| 4.21.09 @ 11:20PM

The next time Canadian, U.S., Dutch or other Nato troops in Afghanistan hold a ramp ceremony for a departing dead comrade why don't they invite a Taliban speaker?

That's about the logic Notre Shame -America's university now, not ours - is employing. In centuries past, Father Jenkins would be scrubbing floors in a monastery for a decade or two for penitential and juridical reasons.

Jim| 4.22.09 @ 1:30AM

You, my friends in Christ, have made some very excellent remarks concerning Catholicism and Christianity. I believe this entire shameful event can be summed up in one word, "OBEDIENCE". It really matters not what belief a priest of the Catholic church adheres to, he is obliged, by his ordination, to obey his superior(s) and support the teachings of the Catholic Church. Even though he is of an order (Holy Cross I believe) he is still under the authority of his local bishop. I agree this is good for the Church, Catholics will be forced to get off the fence and fight for our beautiful religion. This is also an excellent time for coversion-WOW, here's a church that actually takes a stand on something I believe in! God bless you all, and pray for discernment to come to Fr. Jenkens and the authorities at "The University of The Fighting Irish".