I respect Cardinal Rigali greatly for his courage, faith, and intelligence. However, I believe that his letter has gone a bit too far. Rigali has openly endorsed the Pregnant Woman's Support Act, an act which was put forth in Congress by the Democrats and has been supported by President Obama. His eminence is also likely aware that President Obama has made abortion reduction the major task of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives.

While I disagree with President Obama's stance on legalized abortion, I think it is unfair of conservatives, particularly Cardinal Rigali, to call Obama a hypocrite. He is certainly not going to rescind abortion rights anytime soon, but his actions and words aimed at reducing abortion, while keeping it legal, are hard to ignore. Those who choose to ignore them would rather stoke fire of culture wars than attempt to make any real progress to save lives.

As Vice President of Florida Democrats for Life organization, I have not heard anything about Obama supporting or pushing forward the Pregnant Women's Support Act- this would be very praiseworthy and some proof that he is indeed at least looking at ways to actually reduce abortions- since he is committed to keeping it legal in all circumstances.

As I understand it, the pro-life Dems in Congress need more co-signers for the PWSA legislation- it is a good litmus test of Republican pro-lifers as well- if they are really concerned with saving lives of unborn children, this bill should save many since it addresses many of the reasons women themselves give as to why they choose abortions in the first place. For any pro-life legislator to not support this type of legislation it is like saying- "Well these women are lying". This bill shouldn't get the partisan treatment, for Catholics it is important to note that the USCCB has looked favorably upon it- I can't find any contraception promotion in it- and the only argument I've heard against it is from very entrenched Republican advocates who simply dismiss it saying- "It probably won't save many unborn babies anyway". How in the heck can they know that? At least supporters of the bill are pointing at actual surveys of women who have had abortions- that is as close as one can get to predicting future events.

If Obama isn't pushing his people to support this legislation and if pro-life Republicans are not jumping forward to co-sponser this legislation, I feel safe in concluding that none of the above are really and truly interested in saving unborn children lives as the top priority- they are playing games, partisans to the bitter end. I pray that this isn't the situation, I don't believe Obama to be a devil, and I like to believe that many pro-life Republicans are genuinely pro-life. So I won't pre-judge any outcomes yet.

Obama has a grave disconnect between his words & actions. I don't listen anymore; as far as I'm concerned we can count on the opposite action of his rhetoric on any given subject. If he were an enemy of the USA I don't think he could do a better job at destroying the private sector of our Nation than he is doing.

In his naive arrogance he has actually convinced himself that he understands the "Catholic thing." His glass is murky rather than half full. I'm sure the good Cardinal is rolling over in his grave at the continued misuse of this imagery. I can vouchsafe that Obama has never spent any quality time around a genuinely holy devout Catholic person, using as examples his heretical "Catholic" advisory boards, Kathleen Sebelious, Pelosi, Kmeic. He is much deceived and they are as confused as he.
His joke about the Notre Dame controversy only shows his ignorance. I don't like how he discounts the pro-lifer's discernment that his administration has a hardline abortion agenda. This is disingenuous on his part as he panders to the billion dollar abortion industry. He has sold his soul for votes on this one. It's quite sad that he views the U.S. Bishops as just another organization with varied opinions--but I guess that is what wishy-washy catechetics & stances produce. That Catholics don't give the perception of a people set apart for God from the world is to our shame before Jesus.

His perception is certainly correct about the Pope having a wider scope than His Catholic flock; for he is Shepherd of all Christians; all peoples before God. Our souls, including Obama's are in his care. Obama is baptised and a potential brother in Christ, but even the the baptised who commit sin without repentence & acceptance of God's mercy will not enter heaven; as nothing unholy will. God has revealed what comes under His judgment; it is our responsibility to find out His revelation and change/conform our lives in imitation of Jesus.
Merely playing at being Christian won't cut it in the end. It's not easy to follow Jesus; all the Apostles save one were martyred for the Faith. Perhaps we will be, also, in such a secular world.

Oh yeah, Obama is all about abortion reduction right-y-o. And his actions prove it -- actions like rescinding the Mexico City policy, actions like pressing for government funding of abortion in DC, pressing the UN for inclusion of universal access to "sexual and reproductive health services including universal access to family planning." in the 2009 Annual Ministerial Review.

Oh, yessireee, 'dem actions shore is hard to ignore.

Kamilla

Obama's agenda by now, I simply pity you. My problem is clearly with our whoring "Catholic" press. When I want to be informed about things Catholic, I don't frequent sources like National Catholic Reporter, Commonweal, or the Washington Post. Sorry, but I am neither impressed with them nor Obama.

Hi Joe,

Respectfully, I must disagree with much of your assessment of Obama and his "actions" in reducing abortions in this country, as much as I wish it were true. I agree that Obama talks an awful lot about reducing abortions, but I would ask you if you could produce any evidence from him to back two claims you have made: 1) that President Obama publicly supports the PWSA (as Tim Shipe has mentioned in his comment above, sadly it's politically a very unpopular initiative, and as far as I've heard, Obama has never publicly supported it at all); and 2) that Obama has taken meaningful ACTION, not simply spoken nice-sounding words, on ways to reduce abortions in fact.

I'm coming at this from the angle of a conservative-leaning independent who doesn't trust ANY politicians in Washington, from either party. The flames of the culture wars you mention are undoubtedly stoked by both sides, often as a way to manipulate emotions to garner votes and to raise funds. However, there is truth behind the claims of pro-lifers that Obama talks a great game on many life issues but does either very little, or in fact, does the opposite of what he claims to believe (e.g., partial-birth abortion, same-sex marriage, and "don't ask , don't tell" are just three issues where this is patently true). Obama is, at heart, a true politician, and as Tim mentions above, too, I don't think he's "the devil"; however, I do think that he, like all of us as fallen human beings, is blinded by sin, including his own complicity in supporting the horrors of abortion and even partial-birth abortions. The cognitive dissonance of saying one wants to reduce such horrendous acts, but then voting and doing everything possible to support them, is something that the human mind has trouble dealing with. Just look at the legal and moral contortions Doug Kmiec must make to support his patron's political views on Catholic life issues--he is Exhibit A in what is an open-and-shut case in cognitive dissonance from pro-life Catholics supporting everything Obama says (not does) on "reducing abortions" and every other Catholic life issue.

I'm not one for the Ritually Impure Source Argument, to borrow a phrase from Mark Shea, but I can't help but notice that the publications invited to this talk have a certain...reputation. America, Commonweal, National Catholic Reporter, etc.? The only credible name on the list is National Catholic Register. The others have proven themselves time and time again to be willing to run cover for Obama's real agenda. Hardly a surprise that it was they who brought up the "seamless garment" trope.

Obama constantly calls press conferences as long as he can control the message that's going out. Where was Our Sunday Visitor? It's only, you know, the most popular Catholic publication in the country. I see that CNS reported on the meeting, but their name is not on the list invited. Why not?

Obama keeps talking about being open to dialogue, and then rigidly controlling who gets a voice at the table in the first place.

I don't think Pres. Obama is the problem. He's listened to the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright for twenty years and is, therefore, very confused. His education doesn't help him - too much abstract theory and analysis.
The problem is the Catholics. They know the rules.

So 11th-hour actions are automatically without merit and should be overturned even if you claim to agree with them on principle, but 1st-hour actions are courageous and necessary. Got it.

The President's actions often vary from his words, so I take what he says with a grain of salt.

For example, his administration is, as we speak, pushing universal access to abortion at the UN.

With regard to conscience clauses, I would have asked him what he thinks should happen if there is no alternate medical provider available? Does the medical provider's right to conscience prevail or does the woman's so-called right to abortion, morning after pill, contraception, etc. prevail?

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

I should have known that the person who questioned Lila
Rose and expected an apology, would critique Justin Rigali
and give a pass to Obama and the DNC.
Since Ronald Reagan was in office, the democrats pretty
much have attacked every pro-life judical appointee, whether
it was for the Supreme Court or at a lower level. The DNC and
their supporters needed the blood money from the abortion
industry, as well as upholding their reputation for defending
human rights, such as the "right to choose to abort". Such
a philosophy did not build the Kingdom of Christ, but instead
attacked it. And so know that we have a DEMOCRAT MAJORITY IN
THE HOUSE, SENATE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH, just can't get it done
in the pro-life arena. So they have you focus the blame on
the republicans.

Mark,

The "Joe" who wrote the Rigali comment is not "Joe H," who wrote the blog post on Lila Rose. Just as there are two Marks who comment here (you and "mark"), there are also two Joes ("Joe" and "Joe H").

Indeed, that first Joe was not me.

But I may as well say here that I agree with one thing Obama said:



I think he has a point. I need only to point to the blowup over FOCA, which is quietly being forgotten, as evidence that there are some people who indeed are determined to believe the absolute worst from the Obama administration - no matter how outlandish the claim. And I don't see how this attitude is at all healthy or productive.

Political reality begins with who is in political power. How many times did I hear, when I questioned the position of John McCain, that "politics is the art of the possible" and all sorts of other platitudes? Maybe it is time to shake the dust off of those platitudes, and start looking at what is possible based on the facts:

1. Obama is a democratically elected president. He is in office because abortion is not a political priority of the American people. That is a cultural problem with which Obama has nothing to do.

2. There is no way abortion is going to be outlawed under an Obama administration and a Democratic majority in Congress.

Doesn't it make sense then, to discover what areas the president might be willing to collaborate on, or at least not interfere with, and go with them? The Pregnant Women Support Act is one such example. I don't think he would oppose it in principle.

I agree especially with Andy's posting (#7). Mr. Obama's weird control of the so-called mainstream media (which would include almost all of the "Catholic" outlets screened for participation his calculated interview) may be in the very early stages of coming unglued, if the recent anti-Obama outburst from, of all people, Helen Thomas is any hint of things to come.

But if and when the media acquire some semblance of honesty in the next year or so, Obama's "Catholic" acolytes (America, Commonweal, The NC Reporter, etc.) will still lack sufficient capacity for shame to admit that they let themselves be gulled by the mendacious secular culture.

It's strange to watch all this happening. Apparently, if one rejects true authority, one quickly stuffs the resultant vacuum with false authority. Or as Chesterton put it, when a man stops believing in God, he'll believe anything.

I've just learned that there are actually three Marks who comment regularly: Mark, Mark, and mark. Maybe it's time for a last initial, as well?

An invite to a controlled press conference isn't too far down the slippery slope from having Pravda print the 'real' news.

Sure, Joe. As author of "Invitation to Agree" at this site, I completely concur. [A Joe with an "H" commented .. perhaps you.] And I am eternally hopeful. But I am also still waiting. Where are the "reduce abortion" initatives? The Pregnant Women Support Act is a perfect podium - but I haven't heard a word of support from our Reduce Abortion Presdient. Have you? Maybe I missed it. And FOCA may be "quietly going away" but the President's thumping proclamation he would sign it if the Dems got it to him has not, my friend. (I also understand the bill is strategically parked, not gone.) I observe here a politician at his finest - who is going to go with his party on this issue, while trying to placate feelings of voters he values. Which means Dems For Life ought to be pounding the pavement in support of targeted initiatives that "reduce abortion". Otherwise, you and Shipe are toast, I think, in this forum.

Ok- I see no one in this "forum" is willing to deal with the non-Obama side of the equation- why aren't pro-life Republicans jumping in on the side of the Pregnant Women's Support Act or something like it? Is there something wrong with trying to reduce the number of abortions? Why aren;t Repub pro-lifers pressuring their own party leaders to get some momentum behind this bill and put Obama et al to shame, or more positively- get the bill through so we can see how many unborn children will be saved next year? There seems to be a whole lot of criticism of pro-life Democrats even when some of us stand up strong against the establishment power within our Party- but pro-life Republicans seem very, very content with what I consider a very soft pro-life establishment within the Republican Party itself. I cannot find any enthusiasm within me for the sending abortion back to the states endgame of the mainstream Republican party- why are so many so impressed with that strategy- acting as if the Constitution has no way of identifying the unborn as actual humans- for shame- very few have clean hands when it comes to abortion in this country.

Personally I would like to see abortion outlawed using natural law reasoning and application of the 5th and 14th Amendments, and I would like to have abortion prevention social programs in place to deal with the fact that many women will unfortunately still seek illegal abortions if that should come to pass- I want to change the law and save every life- and I don't find either major Party strong on either front at this point. But Obama makes for a nice fall guy- a personal Hitler like Bush was for the Left- so no thinking required- no self-assessments necessary when up against the nazis. Turns out that evil is spread out pretty far and wide, we all may have a touch of it in our political associations. The old plank in the eye keeps getting in the way of seeing how deficient most of the national political figures are if our Lord and the Church social doctrine is our guide.

I don't think Tim or I are the ones who have to account for anything. I don't recall either of us making the claim that Obama has gone on record in support of PSWA - but he hasn't opposed it either.

You ask where the "reduce abortion" initiatives are. After the hysteria over FOCA, I think it is more appropriate to ask where the extreme pro-abortion agenda is. The measures taken so far are token measures that haven't outdone anything that happened during the Clinton years.

It doesn't make Obama good, but it doesn't make him out to be quite as single-mindedly devoted to the destruction of as many human lives as possible as some of his opponents make him out to be.

What I see are a bunch of conservatives treating Obama the same way their counterparts on the left treated Bush for 8 years - absolutely nothing he says or does, short of abandoning his position and embracing the one they hold in its entirety will earn him a kind word or five minutes of thoughtful listening. It was wrong then, as I fully admit, and it is wrong now.

I also have to ask why someone so dead set on promoting abortion would say the following:

"I don't know any circumstance in which abortion is a happy circumstance or decision, and to the extent that we can help women avoid being confronted with a circumstance in which that's even a consideration, I think that's a good thing."

No matter what he believes, no matter what he intends, public statements like this weaken the moral legitimacy of abortion. I don't believe he is dumb enough to sabotage a cause he believes in with careless language. The more likely explanation is that he isn't fanatical about abortion.

We certainly can't expect to inhabit a political world where everyone agrees with us all the time on every issue. At this point we have very little to loose and perhaps something to gain by hearing the man out, cutting him some slack, and seeing where it goes. What is the alternative, really? We live in a democracy and the people chose a pro-choice president. If we don't like that, its up to us to change the culture. To the victors go the spoils of war. I don't see how railing against Obama day in and day out is going to change a single thing.

That there are many nutjobs on the right who want to paint Obama as the very face of satan is a fact that is widely acknowledged but this is not the point here...

The point is that Obama is the one who at the end of the day defines the policy and signs the bill into law. And Obama is also the quintessential politician who has mastered the art of expediency and double-speak. So he can complain about seemingly unjust suspicion from prolifers while simultaneously rescinding the Mexico City policy and allowing federal funding of ESCR...the fact that he can say:"it's not based on anything I've said or done, but is rather just a perception, somehow, that we have some hard-line agenda that we're seeking to push." while at the same time his bunch of hardline ideologues at the UN are pushing for "universal access to reproductive health services"- reproductive health services being of course an Orwellian term for abortion as the ideologically-neutral Hillary Clinton has said unapologetically infront of a senate committee.Hard-line proaborts? No, sir, an erstwhile theologian replies: Obama is a pragmatic leader whose policy on life issues echoes St Thomas Aquineas. That Obama is a master of double-speak has been pointed out by none other than Bishop Rigali himself, a guy one cannot accuse of being a merchant of fiery rhetoric. An "hypocrite" indeed he is: how come one intends to reduce abortion by pushing for state funding in the DC area? And I prefer to leave aside the guy's record in the senate...

As for Tim Shipe, I don't know what his problem is: everytime someone points out the obvious ( that Obama cannot be trusted on life issues and that his meeting with a section of the catholic press - which is whore-like in its admiration of the man- is mostly an exercise in manipulation (I am shocked! Shocked that people consider me a proabort..)) he goes on and on about people not trusting obama and considering him as the great Satan. Then he falls back on his favourite rejoinder: what has the Rubber hose right of Cheney and Rush been doing? The obvious answer is: nothing except lip-service. But then my question is : And so what?

And so what? I don't care what the rubber hose right is doing- they are gone and long may it remain so! It is not the pro-life credential of Repubs which are in question everytime Obama is trashed on life issues- it's his and that of his party. A party that Tim Shipe can't help defend as evidenced by his presence on threads trashing the Dems and Obama on abortion and related things...His assumption is that the presence of Democrats for Life, a (I have to admit)brave but nonetheless fringe group ignored by the rank and file of the party somewhat redeems the democratic party. Tim Shipe profess a litte disappointment when he suddenly finds out that most people in his party can't even bring themeselves to accept the very modest propostions in the PWSA put forth by his group, so entranched are they in proabort mentality. So entranched is the mentality that top officials in the Obama administarion cannot accept "Abortion Reduction" as a common ground because that will imply that...you know..abortion might be problematic, pushing instead for "Abortion need reduction" to satisfy their ideological bent.

So it is intellectual dishonesty to make a case for the Democratic Party by citing the hypocrisy of Repubs: your party is the party of proaborts, own it. And I find it hilarious to see people taking the "holier than thou" stance while basically saying "both Repubs and Dems are bad, so Dems are not that bad". I don't care if people pile on and trash the repubs as the liars they truly are, but I have strong objections to people using that to gather sympathy for the Dems. As for Obama and his "I'm Shocked..." routine, I have news for him: Your actions are shouting so loudly that I can't hear you.

This Obama is really a fraud. He wants you to think he is bi-partisan, meets with everyone, talks about "dialog," then does the most liberal thing possible, or the most anti-innocent life thing possible. His policies have already resulted in more abortions, his appointees are pro abortion, and his pro-gay marriage stuff is really radical.

My apologies to everyone upset by my postings- my goal is simple- I would like to change the abortion laws at the national/international levels, and I would like to address all the root causes that lead women into the unthinkable in the first place. Some of these root causes are in part addressed by the Pregnant Womens Support Act, and so I call upon all pro-life Dems and Repubs, as well all true pro-choice Dems to get behind this legislation. On blogs such as this I attempt to provide a little balance from a perspective that is not often found in conservative-leaning media outlets such as this one. If some would like Joe H. and I to become "toast" here at inside catholic forums, then so be it. There comes a point where one feels that the best thing is to just kick the dirt off the sandals and move on- It may come to that with my connections with the Democratic Party, and it may come to that when deciding whether it is worth the expense of time and effort to blog in conservative or liberal ideological circles. Perhaps there are better ways to love the world and help improve things than spinning wheels in the blogosphere.

I don't consider anyone "toast", and cetainly not Joe H whose logic and consistency I have greatly appreciated at the American Catholic blog. I hold no grudge against people who like to think that Obama the senator will not reemerge into Obama the president and hence believe in his sincerity. However, that said, those suggesting that Obama is not the proabort many people claim he is are certainly under some sort of delusion as his administration is pushing for abortion and the lot as a "fundamental right" overseas; anyone familliar with C-FAM and the dealings at the UN (particularly the CEDAW committee) will certainly confirm that.As for the "tragic choice" rhetoric spouted by the President, well, its a routine that has been used by many proaborts in other countries (Simone Weil in France, Sir Julain Huxley in England) mainly to appear compassionate and caring, hence capturing the moral highground...this is perhaps due to the fact that Man is a moral animal and feels compelled to appeal if not to reason, then to emotions, to garner some sort of moral respectability, as has been observed by Dr Jerome Lejeune during his testimony in the US.

Obama is working to accomplish what Bill Clinton intoned:
"...Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare." It sounds
like the Obama administration is working to produce and
"acceptable" body count of aborted children. Obama's policy
would serve to futher entrench abortion in America and
elsewhere.

The best summary of the abortion & common ground issues in limiting the number of abortions by the current administration come from Dr. Robert George--Prineton in his debate with Dr. Doug Kmeic--Pepperdine; with Mary Ann Glendon as moderator. Every Catholic should see this debate. Even the body language of the 2 Professors is telling. The questions following are excellent, as well. Bravo Dr. George. Dr. Kmeic displays a misguided sense of empathy in his reasoning that veers from authentic Catholic teaching on social justice, but mirrors the Obama Administration.

Dr. George clearly lays out the argument of where President Obama & his Administation fundamentally disagree ("and go wrong") on the abortion issue with the Catholic Church & pro-lifers. Obama does not believe that by virtue of our humanity alone that all persons are entitled to right of Life. He is very careful to say that his administration wants to limit the NEED for abortion--NOT limit the number of abortions themselves.

He has put key people that share his idelologies in positions that will administrate policies in favor of increased abortion thus fulfilling campaign promises to the abortion industry that facilitated his election. The administration is not going to initiate FOCA as one intact piece of legislation, but rather in separate more cloaked increments much harder for the public to detect & protest. He will deliver on his campaign promise.

Dr. George welcomes a discussion with Obama that will show in the slightest way any common ground that he is willing to limit the number of abortions performed in the USA & worldwide. We could start with late-term or gender-only (which always involves female babies). Since the Obamas have 2 daughters & the First Lady is always encouraging young girls in their pursuit of success, this seems an excellent starting point. Perhaps this could become problematic in that she thus far has targeted only young women of the Black Race and not all young women.

Will Obama have the courage to meet with Dr. George. I think it would be problematic for him. If Dr. Kmic had not been disingenuous, he would have admitted his re-conversion to a rightly ordered pro-life stance right then & there....so convincing wwere the arguments of Dr. George.