From The Catholic Key, the text of a letter written last week by Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago and President of the USCCB, but not readily available until now:
During the campaign, you promised as President to represent all the people and respect everyone's moral and religious viewpoints. You also made several statements about abortion. On one occasion, when asked at what point a baby has human rights, you answered in effect that you do not have a definite answer. And you spoke often about a need to reduce abortions.
The Catholic Church teaches that each human being, at every moment of biological development from conception to natural death, has an inherent and fundamental right to life. We are committed not only to reducing abortion, but to making it unthinkable as an answer to unintended pregnancy. At the same time, I think your remarks provide a basis for common ground. Uncertainty as to when human rights begin provides no basis for compelling others to violate their conviction that these rights exist from the beginning. After all, those people may be right. And if the goal is to reduce abortions, that will not be achieved by involving the government in expanding and promoting abortions.
Do read the entire letter, which addresses issues including the Mexico City Policy and embryonic stem cell research.
On a related note, The Tuscon Citizen has a piece about how some young Catholics are taking an open-minded approach to the new President and his potential policies regarding abortion, over against the uncompromising "black-and-white chatterboxes" (including their parents) who think abortion is bad, period:
Penned by a 20-something graduate theology student at Catholic University of America, the letter challenges Obama to live up to his statement in the third presidential debate that there is common ground on which people from both sides of the abortion issue could gather.
Well, thank goodness for the innate talent of youth to spot contradictory
reasoning! Has anyone else noticed any disparity between candidate Obama's statements and politician Obama's positions? Anyone at all? (I mean to say, anyone other than "black-and-white chatterboxes," ahem.) Good grief. Well, I confess I'd not been aware that youth had an innate talent for spotting contradictory
reasoning, perhaps because I, sadly, didn't have a lot of that talent when I was young. And now I'm worried: if that talent in innate in youth, and I'm no longer a youth, is there any hope for me?
The article concludes:
Yet, there is middle ground, and it is the place where, according to the latest polls, 54 percent of Americans would prefer to stand. It isn't a perfect place and is too gray for the black-and-white chatterboxes because the starting point is legal, but somewhat restricted, abortion rights.
The young man in Tucson and the millions more like him who supported Obama's candidacy think talking with the opposition instead of demonizing it might just point the way to that middle ground and change how our society deals with the tragedy of more than 1 million abortions annually.
Oh my, where to begin? Some quick questions:
• Is there a "middle ground" when it comes to, say, rape, child abuse, murder, genocide, or pornography?
• Since many forms of pornography are legal, can we say that those who think it is still immoral and sinful are "black-and-white chatterboxes", while those who stand in the "middle ground" are, maybe, just maybe, right?
• Is it really correct to say that there are only two approaches to the issue of abortion: "demonizing" and "talking"?
• What, exactly, is the purpose of this "talking"? Not that I have anything against talking to people who have different beliefs than I do, but where does this talking lead?
• Is it actually "demonizing" someone who supports abortion to say, "They support abortion and all evidence suggest they will continue to do so, especially since they have said so themselves"?
• Is it not demonizing to say that those who tell the truth about abortion and the stances of political candidates who support abortion are on the "fringe" and are "demonizing" others?
• Is it not obvious that those pro-lifers who say abortion is wrong and yet pursue changes in both attitudes and laws regarding abortion through persuasion and legal channels are the ones pursuing the authentically middle ground--that is, the ground between giving up and saying, "We need to ban all abortions, right now, period!"?
And so forth...
I would love to be a fly on the wall when the President, his chief of staff and his communications director discuss the Cardinal's letter, which I think superb.
I hope that the President replies and that this is made public.
Posted by: Dr John James | Monday, January 19, 2009 at 09:13 PM
A long time ago, when the Catholic schools of St. Louis were integrated, some white Catholics formed a group to oppose this integration. Cardinal Ritter threatened to excommunicate them and the group dissolved. St. Louis now has a very fine Catholic school named after Cardinal Ritter. In regard to excommunication, how does the abortion business differ from integration? What are the canonical rules? Surely Cardinal Ritter wasn't bluffing? President Obama is a Christian, but he is not a Catholic. Vice-President Biden is a devout Catholic. Who is his shepherd, the Bishop of Washington D.C. or the Bishop of Wilmington?
Posted by: Dan Deeny | Tuesday, January 20, 2009 at 06:37 AM
If I recall correctly, Stephen Douglas was one of those who tried to stake out a "middle ground" on slavery.
And it was one of those "black and white chatterboxes" named Lincoln that ended up being his debate opponent. And, eventually, the Great Emancipator.
Posted by: Richard L | Tuesday, January 20, 2009 at 08:08 AM
May God bless and strengthen Cardinal George. The discernment involved in diplomacy is mind-boggling. I would be so confused after ten minutes of such mental tip-toeing that I'd be running in circles forever after.
Posted by: joanne | Tuesday, January 20, 2009 at 08:46 AM
Come on, this talk of "abortions should rare" is newspeak for: "it won't be prohibited on my watch." Pretty weak plausible deniability.
Has anyone thought, should they, in the afterlife, meet one of the many millions killed in such a cruel way, what they would say? Supposing that God let these slaughtered infants grow to maturity, albeit without ever running through the grass, or waking up for Saturday morning cartoons, or getting that first box of brand new crayons for kindergarten. And that they came upon you and asked why you felt the need to kill them, or to stand aside and nod in approval? What would you say? Would you care to run your fingers along their scars and say that it was all for the best? That their death was part of a rare two million that year? That the environmental policies of the other candidate weren't as good? Do you think that they just disappear once ripped from their mother? That their souls stay in the trash can with their little bodies? So what will you say?
Posted by: jacob morgan | Tuesday, January 20, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Middle ground-- legal but restricted, huh...
How's this: a 12-week cutoff, parental/spousal/partner notification, and mandatory viewing of ultrasound with 24-hour waiting period. Across all 50 states. Legal but restricted.
I'd take that for starters. It would be far from perfect, obviously, but would dramatically cut the abortion rate in this country. But I don't think that's the "middle ground" MSM has in mind.
Posted by: Margaret | Tuesday, January 20, 2009 at 02:43 PM
Please remember that FOCA hasn't been signed yet. Please pray that God will send someone to help President BO see the truth. BTW, media rumor has it that Pope Benedict will meet the president sometime during the summer.
Posted by: Jeannine | Tuesday, January 20, 2009 at 04:33 PM
Yes, Jeannine, thanks for bringing up FOCA- and we should be praying about that. Thanfully (as I have said again and again), those who bring up the single instance of Obama saying FOCA would be his first order of business simply misjudged the man and did not take into account all of his other campaign promises. FOCA was not his first order of business, and hopefully this trend will continue. I'm not hopeful that he'll turn on a dime and start pumping out pro-life orders, signatures, and appointments, but I do think (and again have said often enough) that he has demonstrated a clear interest in listening to those who differ with him. I think he'll do so for the Cardinal's letter, and he will take into account these concerns when he considers the question of abortion.
First full day of Obama's presidency and the single most pronounced concern on this blog has been dashed. Thank the Lord. May the trend continue.
Posted by: Evan | Wednesday, January 21, 2009 at 04:18 AM
Evan - I think you are jumping the gun a little. Of course he won't sign FOCA the first day in office... it isn't even through the House and Senate yet. But, on his first day in office, check out the change to the "Women" section of his agenda on the White House website:http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/women/
He "will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Adminstration" and wants to "expand access to contraception, health information, and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies."
I would say that the concerns of those on "this blog" (seems a little argumentative to me to say it that way) have thus far, unfortunately, been reinforced by the actions taken in the first 12 hours of this presidency.
Posted by: Kevin Cary | Wednesday, January 21, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Kevin, where precisely am I jumping the gun? I've always said that Obama's promise to Planned Parenthood about FOCA (that signing it would be the "first thing" he would do) was an exaggeration, and that the single occurrence of this promise was and is dwarfed on Obama's agenda by matters of the economy and foreign wars. I've also always said that Obama's stance on abortion was, is, and likely will be exactly as he's stated it in his updated White House statement... that is, I haven't written off FOCA or other abortion legislation as a non-issue, I've simply objected to the exaggerations about it.
The concerns of this blog may very well have been reinforced by Obama's stated agenda on women. I was referring to a particular concern, however... "the single most pronounced concern", which in my judgment (open to criticism, of course) was FOCA as the promised "first thing" of Obama's presidency. That quite simply didn't happen and wasn't going to happen, as you seem to agree.
As for my reference to "this blog", I had no idea that demonstrative pronouns were such sensitive matters! Rather than being argumentative, I was simply speaking with precision. Had I not, I likely would have incurred the same objections as Kmiec, for leaving anonymous the objects of my criticism! No argument was implied, I assure you.
On FOCA, it is worth considering that, at least as Obama has framed it (and this interpretation is up for critique), the act does simply seek to reinforce the law of the land as determined by the Supreme Court. A comparable case might be the aftermath of D.C. v. Heller, where many who did not interpret the 2nd Amendment as an individual right had to simply say, "well, like it or not the Court has spoken." That's not to say that FOCA should be supported by any means, but rather that any contrary legislative effort would run afoul of Supreme Court precedent and so be problematic. All I'm saying is, the legal solution to this problem does not run through the battle over FOCA insofar as FOCA does simply reinforce the law of the land.
Posted by: Evan | Wednesday, January 21, 2009 at 12:07 PM
those who bring up the single instance of Obama saying FOCA would be his first order of business simply misjudged the man and did not take into account all of his other campaign promises.
Sin #1 of "This Blog": Taking President Obama at his word and not realizing that he was lying--that is, this blog has misjudged his misleading comments, which we know are misleading because Evan says so.
I've always said that Obama's promise to Planned Parenthood about FOCA (that signing it would be the "first thing" he would do) was an exaggeration,
Sin #2 of "This Blog": Not realizing that President Obama is given to exaggeration and to misleading core supporters.
I haven't written off FOCA or other abortion legislation as a non-issue, I've simply objected to the exaggerations about it.
Sin #3 of "This Blog": Not understanding that while "exaggerations" by President Obama are necessary, common, and immune to criticism, exaggerations by critics of President Obama (based directly on his "exaggerations") are objectionable.
More sins to follow, I'm sure.
Posted by: Carl E. Olson | Wednesday, January 21, 2009 at 01:01 PM
I enjoy discussing these issues, and I do so in plenty of venues; as it happens, this is actually one of the few venues where I tend to argue in defense of Obama rather than against him. I find these discussions not only interesting, but more importantly, important. Which is why I take peoples' comments seriously, and why I offer serious critique when I disagree.
You're welcome to do with that what you will. I've learned a lot from people here who challenge me, and as I've said on a few occasions, I recognize that I may very well be wrong about my judgment of Obama. When someone like Kevin finds my thoughts objectionable, I hope that I'm accommodating and at least offer a respectable response, if not a convincing one.
You obviously aren't convinced of that, Carl, and I don't know what else to say in that case. If you really think I'm being so accusatory or so pompous about the weight of my own opinion, then I suppose your response is out there for everyone to consider. I hope that your facilitation of the blog leads to critical and charitable thought on these matters.
Posted by: Evan | Wednesday, January 21, 2009 at 02:11 PM
Evan: Don't let a little bit of mild sarcasm (which you have also employed in some of your responses to me) distract you from the fact that I've taken your comments seriously, otherwise I wouldn't have specifically responded to them. Put another way, if I had simply called you names or mocked you (which I haven't done, nor will I), I could better understand your last comment. As it is, I think you are getting a little huffy for no good reason.
I also think that you are employing a double standard: you downplay the exaggerations (your word) of President Obama, but then object to the (supposed) exaggerations (your word, again) in my comments, which were, in fact, based on a straight reading of what Obama has said (not to mention what he has done, in a public career that is unwavering in supporting abortion). As you must know, concerns about FOCA and many other potential pieces of legislation and policy regarding abortion are hardly restricted to this blog. Those concerns, for example, have been expressed loudly and clearly by the USCCB. Are the bishops exaggerating or overreacting, in your opinion?
Finally, your comment--"First full day of Obama's presidency and the single most pronounced concern on this blog has been dashed."--set the stage, in my opinion, for subsequent comments. It was not altogether insulting or upsetting, but it was, in my estimation, a bit snarky and underhanded.
Posted by: Carl E. Olson | Thursday, January 22, 2009 at 12:52 AM
I think you're reading a bit to many "oughts" where I'm simply saying "is", and this is a lot of the problem... whether I sound "huffy", or "snarky", I'm honestly just trying to state the matter clearly. Nor did I ever say that Obama's exaggeration was necessary or immune to criticism. I don't think I pointed out too much about the exaggerations of this blog except that I thought it was incorrect, too. That's the main thing that's been missed, I think. I seem to be read as attacking you, when I'm really just trying to say, "well, no, I don't think this is how to look at Obama's presidency."
That the most pronounced concern of this blog (later clarified as the idea that FOCA would be his first order of business) was dashed should be a matter of (cautious) celebration, not something to be read as underhanded. We are, after all, hoping that he won't sign anything like that, right?
I wonder what others think about my association of FOCA/Roe v. Wade with Heller. That was one point I brought up that hasn't been commented on yet.
Posted by: Evan | Thursday, January 22, 2009 at 04:22 AM
Why are Evan, Carl, and the others so concerned about what President Obama does? He's not a Catholic. Vice-President Biden is. So are Sec. Vilsak and the CIA Director, Mr. Pannetta. Don't the Catholics have obligations?
Posted by: Dan Deeny | Friday, January 23, 2009 at 07:35 AM
how long does it the moderator to decide if the content of my post is productive-are we being subjective or objective in this forum?
If this man that has come from an absolute obscurity to an absolute popularity now embarks on setting new definitions and modes of conduct that will eventually affect negatively every fearing and moral respecting human being of this great country, then we should not question God's judgment when it rubs us smoothly yet shake our lives to the core.
If intelligence should be measured regarding the irresponsible and demeaning perception that contraceptives reduces poverty, then my wonderment is at the peak; is it not proper education that often leads to the improvement of social behavior?
Is it not the teaching of how someone, anyone should adhere to some basic civil social behavior that eventually leads to a healthy society? Why to reverse Bush's decisions in any case, is it to show that this man that has come from God know where from, aims to put most Americans intelligence to shame?
I get the feeling that most Americans get the "high" from anyone, simply anyone that would stir their emotions and later lead them to the slaughter house.
My belief before as it remains now; this president poses great danger to the liberty of those who believe in God, is a moral social code and in a constructive rather destructive interference in people lives. Americans are simply tired, in my view, and probably accepted the one who acted like a big daddy.
Let us all wait and see. Many of us will not be happy. I won't...
Posted by: samuel | Saturday, January 24, 2009 at 01:21 AM