Ugh.

First rule of holes. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

"Well, they say that the conference, or at least the presidency of the U.S. Bishops' Conference, has a conservative Republican line -- no. On questions such as the defense of life the bishops speak in the same way to Republicans as they do to Democrats."

Vian is correct here. What he is saying is that the bishops are articulating the defence of life in the same way to everyone and that Republicans are no more supportive of it than are Democrats.

And that's only the truth.

What have Republicans done, in a concrete, objective way, to reduce or end abortions, other than attend rallies or prayer services? In the political arena, not one single thing has been accomplished.

All the Republicans have done is given the subject lip service.

...the guy needs to go. The worst enemies of the Church are those on the inside.

Not nearly enough, but I'd prefer judicial appointments like Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Thomas then Breyer, Ginzburg and "the wise Latina".
Vian's statements and those of "L'OR" are evidence that while the higher ranks of the Curia have been internationalized, the rest of the Vatican bureaucracy mirrors Italian attitudes.

Tom,

What have Republicans done other than lip service? How about finally passing the ban on Partial-birth abortion in the U.S. which Republican President George W. Bush signed into law during his first term? That doesn't count for doing something concrete to end abortion? The Democrat-controlled Congress and Presidency never passed it... It is inaccurate to say "not one single thing has been accomplished."

There's still much more that needs to be done, but don't count on Democrats to do any of it. By the time Obama and his crew are finished, abortion will be a constitutional right until the second before delivery, with no one allowed to object.

OK, here's the main point which gives away that Vian doesn't know what's what.

He is making the usual weaselly distinction between being "pro-abortion" and "pro-choice".

Can he, as the editor of the Vatican's newspaper really not understand where the term "pro-choice" comes from? That it has been one of the most pathetically obvious weasel terms invented by the sloganeering abortion lobby?

Try this: "Obama's not pro-abortion, he's pro-choice" about genocide.

He truly believes that although he would never attempt to wipe out an entire race of people, he doesn't feel that he has the right to impose his personal moral beliefs on other countries who want to slaughter selected portions of their or someone else's population.

Being "pro-choice" on abortion is saying that a woman should have the legal right to "choose" to murder a defenceless innocent human being. Moreover, that only the mother of the defenceless human being should have that legal "choice", the very person who is most solemnly charged with that child's defence.

Being "pro-choice" is being "pro-abortion".

A note from the Innkeeper, to everyone: Please remember to stick to issues, and avoid taking personal/sarcastic shots at others. Comments that violate our posting rules will be edited to comply or removed entirely (we just did both).

We can all disagree and debate vigorously but charitably. Those are the house rules.

Thanks to everyone.

We don't need any more Neville Chamberland's within the Church either in the laity or the hierarchy.
The many naive Catholics who voted for Obama, believing the likes of Doug Kmeic and a host of lukewarm clergy blinded by his smooth political rhetoric constantly directing our attention to our own “shortcoming” in providing for the less fortunate rather than his obviously very questionable past socialist tutors, hate filled spiritual director, and his rating as the most liberal senator in congress especially in regards to abortion, were welcomed aboard the “we are racists if we don’t vote for him” campaign bus.
The results?

The doors are now being opened wider than ever for abortion, condom distribution, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and same sex marriage. As for the poor or less fortunate, well they are being joined by thousands of average citizens from foreclosed homes, lost jobs, and closed businesses as a result of “crises” politically created by the Obama’s handlers to initiate government takeovers of the private economy. On the horizon is another government takeover of heath care where seniors will be denied certain operations or medication due to their age or cost efficiencies. Already the administration has done the unthinkable by ending the DC voucher program for the poor Blacks there. Coming next will be an all out attack on Home Schooling and eventually private schools who can’t comply with “government” requirements. This only points to the beginning of many anti-Christian values to be injected into our society by the ND “Honored Man” who has announced to the world that we’re no longer a Christian Nation.

There are millions of devout “Protestants” among the population who would gladly help those Catholics who want to stand with Christ rather than compromise the faith to unite in a movement to confront the mounting Spiritual Holocaust of Christian values by the progressive agenda led by the Obama administration. We can no longer wander under the heat of hate and oppressive regulations which Satan and his followers have established within the heart of our government and, yes, even our Holy Mother Church and has systematically imposed or permitted on our society step by step until all of our values and sacred beliefs become a desert where the American dream is to be buried.
The good fight for us has begun. One thing we must remember is this; we are in a battle for the souls of men whom God desires to be returned to Him. We are at war! There is no retreating or deserting. We are guaranteed victory but not casualties. Our only weapon is the Truth and every sacrifice or wound is in honor of it. Maintaining its power and might within us requires consistent prayer, meditation, and devotion to our just cause. Be sworn to do all that will be asked of you for we can also be assured that our “leadership” can not fail and our “reward” will not be taken from us.

Standing for Christ is standing by Him. Standing by Him is standing by His Word. He has said “he who is not with Me is against Me” and again “the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak”. Our strength must be in Him for we are but human and the enemy, the deceiver, is very strong, like a wild beast set to devour his prey. However, Jesus rebuked him three times with but the Word alone and sent him on his way. Gods Word is truth. It is our eternal weapon and our shield never to be forgotten, never to be overcome.

Lord, give us wisdom to know you, a heart to love you, and the will to serve you for we have put our trust in you and your word. Our lives are now in your almighty hands.

These kind of stories just frustrate me to no end. This is the newspaper that is suppose to have the Vatican's ear and represents their point of view. The damage done by this editor is mindboggling. No wonder so many Catholics felt they were justified in voting for Obama. These messages from the heirarchy of the Catholic church, whether it is this newspaper or the bishop's "faith conscience voting pamphlet" cause so much much confusion. When the shephards do not educate their flock accordingly, more than just a silly election is at stake, the Catholic voter's soul. I also do blame the Catholic voter, it is their responsibility to know their faith. Unfortnately this is not the case.

about who is calling the shots at the Vatican. Obviously the Holy Father cannot have his hand on the pulse of the day to operations of the Catholic Church around the world but someone obviously has oversight over the official newspaper of the Vatican.

On a related matter of media problems caused by those in high positions in the Church is the recently-published book by Archbishop Rembert Weakland in which he tries to justify his and others' homosexual acts. There seems to be no censure on the part of the Vatican for this outrageous, shameful act of causing scandal to the Church. We're not talking here about just anyone but a bishop ordained to be a teacher of the faith.

And yet the Vatican is quick to jump on the Society of St Pius X for its planned unauthorized ordination of priests. What gives?

I am surprised that the LOR has descended into flat-out vapidity (I am being charitable) under this Pope and that, apparently, little, if anything, is being done in response to the scandal.

What will be done? Prolly not much, if anything.

We Catholics are now hearing that the Bishops will not punish N.D. for the Barack and the Honorary Degree fiasco (You knew they wouldn't. Admit it)and we get to read about Weakland's pro-homosexual agitprop and you know (admit it) that he will not be silenced, punished, or excommunicated and all the while Catholic Legislators vote for abortion absent any consequences and our Church appears to be one that really doesn't care what the heck its members are doing publicly. A Church in which its members have no shame and its Hierarchy is too craven to punish...

and so it goes.

Every day, the Laws of Bokonon must be appealed to so this Catholic can make sense of his Church.

In addition to the other "concrete examples" of the defense of life made here, let me expound on Deal's line about fetal stem cell research. There is much more here than meets (or HAD met) the eye.

When President Bush declined to expand federal funding of embryo-destructive research, many in that scientific community took it as a challenge to find ways to conuct what they thought was important research in OTHER ways. This led directly to the discovery of IPS cells (induced pluripotent stem cells). These IPS cells are embryonic-LIKE, they "act" like embryonic stem cells, but without the destruction of human life--AND without the problem of uncontrollable tumors (STILL a problem with embryonic stem cell research).

This has been, arguably, the single most important scientific advancement in the stem cell arena in the past 10 years. Of course, Obama's relaxation of regulations means LESS scientific discovery, not more. And the destruction of still more human lives at the embryonic stage of development

"What have Republicans done other than lip service? How about finally passing the ban on Partial-birth abortion in the U.S. which Republican President George W. Bush signed into law during his first term? That doesn't count for doing something concrete to end abortion?"

As barbaric and disgusting as partial birth abortion is, and as glad as I am that it was banned, those really only make up a very small percentage of abortions. So, it counts for something, and its good in itself, but lets be real - it will have a virtually unnoticeable impact on the abortion rate.

As for poor Gian, well... I think at least some of the perception of Obama as "pro-abortion" has to do with hyperbolic exaggeration of statements and positions - such as those who believe he actually supported infanticide, or those who were absolutely convinced that his top legislative priority was FOCA. Some of us knew it was nonsense, but it was obvious that absolute hatred for Obama, and not rational analysis, was the driving force behind many of these statements made about him. I'm not singling out conservatives as haters either - I think the way the right talks about Obama is as foolish and useless as the way the left talked about Bush and Cheney, and I include myself in that.

So, I don't blame poor Gian for not taking the vicious smear-machine that US political campaigns often become as something to be taken seriously.

Someone who is pro-abortion, moreover, simply does not talk about "abortion reduction" - it immediately suggests that there is something wrong with abortion. "Pro-choice" is more than adequate to describe Obama, and I don't see that he is significantly worse than Bill Clinton. Which is to say, its bad, pro-choice interests and projects and legislation will get a boost, and the pro-life movement will have to struggle harder. But it doesn't necessarily mean anything more than that.

The following list was made by Fr. Peter West (Priests For Life) during the first term of Pres. George W. Bush. I believe it is still available at http://tinyurl.com/ls2dax

I think that Gian Maria Vian should have been aware of this information, and tempered his remarks with a sense of all that has been lost... in only 100 days.

'President Bush..... reinstated the Mexico City policy, placed pro-life advocates on international panels, provided grants for abstinence education, opposed federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, supported a ban on human cloning world-wide, refused to back down to UN on abortion, proposed coverage of unborn children in health insurance, classified the developing fetus as an unborn child, influenced the UN to discard CAIRO +10, opposed abortion at UN Child Conference, withheld money from UNFPA sponsored initiatives to encourage adoption, signed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, supported the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act, supported the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, supported the Child Custody Protection Act, appointed pro-life panelists in important State Department and FDA positions, ...'

Fr. West's list is long and well referenced. It gives a sense of the vigilance required to make even a dent in the trillion dollar, world-wide abortion industry. Every committee, every vote, every study is slanted to promote abortion in every corner of the world. The Church cannot afford to misstate her values, as Vian clearly has. Catherine

Catherine,

Thanks for the great link above (http://tinyurl.com/ls2dax). After reading through that it becomes even more clear how different the policies of Republicans and Democrats really are on the life issues.

It also becomes clear that the Bush administration and the Republican controlled House, were far more busy with pro-life measures than people realize or give them credit for.

When I read articles and opinions by Catholics who claim that Democrats are somehow pro-life and try to trivialize the well-documented Republican pro-life record, I am struck by how political allegiance trumps truth and clouds judgment.

The arguments of Democrats and their sympathizers display such incoherent reasoning and the opinions are so removed from the reality of the political records of both parties that they would be laughable if the subject were not such a grave matter.

It's time for liberal and Democratic Catholics to decide if their supreme authority in faith and morals is their Church or their political party. Our Lord doesn't like fence-sitters and temporizers.

Also read strong commentary about L'Osservatore Romano at www.TheRomanCatholicWorld.com

Gian Maria Vian has done a great disservice to all Catholic writers that have defended the Church through the turmoil it has experienced since the end of World War II. I have lived that turmoil and been grateful to the fervent Catholic reporters, priests and laity who have been unafraid to speak the truth in face of the dumbing down of true Catholic teaching in the United States by those entrusted to defend it!

"Pro-choice" is a misnomer. There is no such thing. No one has a choice to kill an innocent human being. We must have the guts to say so to anyone using the term!

Yes, the Republicans have done some heroic pro-life work but it has been done by too few and been too slow.

I blame the culture and those in the Catholic Church that have made abortion secondary to social concerns.

I pray our Holy Father will speak out, no matter the cost. If he does not, we must fight our battle alone.

I am ready and I know you who love our Holy Catholic Church are too.

Rosina San Paolo

"opposed federal funding of embryonic stem cell research"

What?!

GW Bush was the first President to give such funding, and went on the record as it being one of his accomplishments.

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2004pres/20040714b.html

... but it was obvious that absolute hatred for Obama, and not rational analysis, was the driving force behind many of these statements made about him

Of course it was a rational analysis of all of his pro-death actions and his 100% NARAL and his 100% Planned Parenthood ratings as a Senator and his FOCA promises made during the campaign and his statement that he wouldn't want his daughters punished by a pregnancy etc etc that caused sensible Christians to not vote for him and to describe him in terms as right and just as they were stark but some folks think casting sensible Christians as haters is a kinder and gentler way to politic.

For you see, it is not the pro-death politician who must be denounced it is Christians who react in horror to monstrous acts of evil who must be denounced and cast as haters.

And haters are dismissed out of hand as untouchables while common ground is sought with those whose shield of syrupy words hides his hideous and sulphurous actions.

As for poor Gian, well... I think at least some of the perception of Obama as "pro-abortion" has to do with hyperbolic exaggeration of statements and positions - such as those who believe he actually supported infanticide, or those who were absolutely convinced that his top legislative priority was FOCA. Some of us knew it was nonsense, but it was obvious that absolute hatred for Obama, and not rational analysis, was the driving force behind many of these statements made about him


I copied and pasted this from the What Does the Prayer Really Say website. It was written by Fr. Zunlsdorf. So, I guess he is a hater too.



Dear Editors of America,

For the umpteenth time, numbers too large to measure of American Catholics were disgusted by Notre Shame’s decision to award President Obama an honorary doctorate in law, ... in law ...because, as an Illinois law maker, he twice voted against a bill that would have criminalized the abandonment-to-death of babies who were born alive in spite of medical teams’ attempts to kill them.

That is, infanticide.

And while we’re at it, dear Editors of America, what part of “partial-birth abortion” don’t you understand?

Sorry for the error, it ought read Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, not "Zunlsdorf"

L'OR's "100 Days" piece wasn't just bad opinion, it seems to have been factually inaccurate. One of its main justifications for calling Obama not pro-aborton is the Pregnant Women Support Act as a common ground initiative to reduce abortion. But Obama does not and never has supported the PWSA--instead he wants to give money to Planned Parenthood and call it common ground. The PWSA atually proves the opposite point they were trying to make. It would have been fun to see Vian questioned on this.

It seems to me, much of the fault here also lies heavily with the pro-life movement leaders. They have been giving out the "pro-life" label like it is some kind of "I'm a nice person because I don't think all babies should be killed" award. Is it any wonder people are confused? Do pro-lifers believe in no abortion or a "little" abortion? No one has a clue anymore. The confusing message from pro-life leaders is that "if you think only some babies should be killed then you're pro-life, congratulations".

We must keep the label of "pro-life" for only those who believe that all abortion should be made illegal, NO exceptions, and vote in accord with this belief. If they don't believe this and don't vote in line with this belief, then they should not be labelled "pro-life". (Be clear, this does not rule out moral incremental steps toward banning abortion.)

If a politician said "I'm pro-life except for Jews", would anyone call them "pro-life" - No! So, "I'm pro-life except for rape, incest, and the life of the mother" is not "pro-life" it is a statement in favour of legal abortion - aka pro-abortion.

Re Chris B's comment on Supreme Court appointments: Were Roberts and Alito each worth the lives of 2,000 Americans in Iraq, who knows how many grievously wounded there, and a million or more Iraqis?

The Roman Catholic Church will continue to make the SSPX seem problematic, whereas editors such as this are stars. Gee, do you think it is even remotely apparent that there is a GARGANTUAN problem here. And this with the most 'conservative' pope we are likely to ever have.

"For you see, it is not the pro-death politician who must be denounced it is Christians who react in horror to monstrous acts of evil who must be denounced and cast as haters."

Wrong. I react in horror to monstrous acts of evil. There is a difference between how one reacts, and how one proceeds to act after.

I fully support and believe in denouncing those pro-abortion things that Obama has said and done. But I don't believe in making hyperbolic exaggerations and distorting the truth - which is hardly necessary to demonstrate Obama's position anyway. He did not support infanticide, which was already against the law. Perhaps his reasoning for not supporting a second version of the law was false and misguided, but there is nothing to suggest that his position that was that survivors of abortion should be left out to die. Those who reported, ceaselessly, endlessly, that he did support that only discredited themselves.

And the FOCA pledge was nothing but campaign-speak. I didn't believe for one second that he meant it seriously, and I was right.

I love how you omit the rest of my post - as if I am some sort of choicer in disguise. I argued for days defending the right of the pro-life movement to use graphic language and images to convey its message after Tiller's death. I did so because those images and words not only effective, but also, unlike the wild claims about Obama's beliefs and intentions, TRUE.

Indeed, GWB was the first president to fund ESCR... limited to cell lines already being used for research. I didn't like it either, however I read recently that those cell lines have 'played out' now, and researchers would like more money to generate more embryonic stem cell lines, even embryo farms. Do you think they'll get them?

The point for this discussion is, there are those in the secular/political/media world, as well as in the Church, who are willing to compromise truth in order to justify their own desirable outcomes. So, we have the Vatican newspaper spinning a politician's pro-abortion record to be pro-life, only different. Perhaps Father West could make a similar list of BHO' pro-life record, and we'll compare it to President Bush's; and see where we are in four years.

Further, in contrast to the statement, I knew [Obama} didn't mean it, I knew GWB meant every word of pro-life rhetoric he spoke. Spinning the truth of GWB's pro-life commitment helped make it easier for Catholics to vote for the most pro-abortion president ever to be elected, and the Vatican rhetoric does the same.

Excellent analysis, Deal.

Passing judgment on Obama based on his words creates a much different portrayal of the man, than passing judgment based on his actions does.

Ignorance of this fact appears to be what led Vian astray.

Mr. H
http://allhands-ondeck.blogspot.com/

"As for poor Gian, well... I think at least some of the perception of Obama as "pro-abortion" has to do with hyperbolic exaggeration of statements and positions - such as those who believe he actually supported infanticide, or those who were absolutely convinced that his top legislative priority was FOCA. Some of us knew it was nonsense, but it was obvious that absolute hatred for Obama, and not rational analysis, was the driving force behind many of these statements made about him"

Ok, I got stuck on the comment above that quotes Fr Z as saying this. If this is true, then I think EVERYONE who lives in Europe & claims to know what is going on the USA should consider the possibility that they don't. Really. Just because you're a citizen of this country & spend your vacations here doesn't mean you really know what its like in the trenches here anymore. Geez.

Joe,

Please provide the link to Fr. Z's quote. I don't find it ad WDTPRS.

Guys, I was the one who said that. Why 'I am not Spartacus' attributed it to someone else, I don't know. You have to ask him.

Perhaps his reasoning for not supporting a second version of the law was false and misguided, but there is nothing to suggest that his position that was that survivors of abortion should be left out to die.


The woman who had intimate knowledge of the facts disagrees with you. Maybe you can find common ground with her (and others) and stop calling Christians who oppose Obam's evil, haters.

www.catholicnewsagency.com web

Nurse says Obama supports infanticide

Washington D.C., Feb 16, 2008 / 05:35 am (CNA)...

Jill Stanek is a nurse who discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms while working at a hospital in Illinois and since has been a strong advocate against partial-birth and live-birth abortions.

According to her commentary on WorldNetDaily.com, Stanek explains why Keyes made his statement.

At the federal level, legislation was presented called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) which stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.

BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote and by an overwhelming majority in the House. President Bush signed the bill into law in 2002.

Stanek wrote that, “in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left...”

“I don't recall mentioning religion when I testified against live-birth abortion. I only recall describing a live aborted baby I held in a hospital soiled utility room until he died, and a live aborted baby who was accidentally thrown into the trash,” she told WorldNetDaily...

You never responded to my question. Did you vote for Obama?

And the FOCA pledge was nothing but campaign-speak. I didn't believe for one second that he meant it seriously, and I was right

No. You are wrong. FOCA will be implemented incrementally, piece by piece while you spend time calling pro-life Christians haters. And most folks, proaborts and prolifers thought he was serious about FOCA - from NARAL to the USCCB.

Since he became President, how many columns condemning Obama's pro-abortion activities have you written?

Could you provide links?

Here is what FR. Z wrote at WDTPRS

Dear Editors of America,

For the umpteenth time, numbers too large to measure of American Catholics were disgusted by Notre Shame’s decision to award President Obama an honorary doctorate in law, ... in law ...because, as an Illinois law maker, he twice voted against a bill that would have criminalized the abandonment-to-death of babies who were born alive in spite of medical teams’ attempts to kill them.

That is, infanticide.

And while we’re at it, dear Editors of America, what part of “partial-birth abortion” don’t you understand?

This commentary is what constitutes, according to our friend, Joe H, hatred