"I think he has his political debts to pay, and so he's paying them."

So says Francis Cardinal George about President Obama, as reported by CNS:

In a question-and-answer session that followed his keynote speech to priests on offering compassionate ministry to people who are hurting, Cardinal George offered a candid assessment of his 30-minute meeting with the president at the White House March 18.

"I think on the life issue he's on the wrong side of history," the cardinal said. "I think he has his political debts to pay, and so he's paying them."

Cardinal George said his conversation with the president was polite but substantive.

"It's hard to disagree with him because he'll always tell you he agrees with you," he said. "Maybe that's political. I think he sincerely wants to agree with you. You have to say, again and again, 'No, Mr. President, we don't agree (on abortion).' But we can agree on a lot, and we do, and that's why there is so much hope. I think we have to pray for him every day."

Cardinal George said he told the president he was concerned about his decision to rescind the Mexico City policy, which resulted in providing taxpayer money to fund abortion overseas.

"He said we weren't exporting abortion," the cardinal said. "I said, 'Yes we are.' He would say, 'I know I have to do certain things here. ... But be patient and you'll see the pattern will change.' I said, 'Mr. President, you've given us nothing but the wrong signals on this issue.' So, we'll see, but I'm not as hopeful now as I was when he was first elected."

It seems that President Obama has a way of dashing hope when it comes to life issues. But, then, I'm still not sure why anyone had such hopes in the first place. Perhaps part of the answer is found in Cardinal George's remark, "It's hard to disagree with him because he'll always tell you he agrees with you." Combine that with the appearance of sincerity, which is also vital, and you have the makings of something Josef Pieper warned about in his little classic, Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power:

Gorgias could have said the same thing, as he in fact expressed in a similar idea: What is decisive is not what you say, but how you say it—its composition, its expression, its form. On the surface he is right, of course. It is not the subject matter but the creative form that constitutes the linguistic piece of art. Still, Plato's concern points toward something else, and he insists on it, and he challenges us with it, even challenging himself and his own profound sensitivity for linguistic form: the possibility that something could well be superbly crafted—that it could be perfectly worded; brilliantly formulated; strikingly written, performed, staged, or put on screen—and at the same time, in its entire thrust and essence, be false; and not only false, but outright bad, inferior, contemptible, shameful, destructive, wretched—and still marvelously put together.

And, a few lines later:

[Socrates] forces Gorgias to admit that such sophisticated language, disconnected from the roots of truth, in fact pursues some ulterior motives, that it invariably turns into an instrument of power, something it has been, by its very nature, right from the start. .... The very moment, as I have stated, that someone in full awareness employs words yet explicitly disregards reality, he in fact ceases to communicate anything to the other. ... Whoever speaks to another person—not simply, we presume, in spontaneous conversation but using well-considered words, and whoever in so doing is explicitly not committed to the truth—whoever, in other words, is in this guided by something other than the truth—such a person, from that moment on, no longer considers the other as partner, as equal. In fact, he no longer respects the other as a human person. From that moment on, to be precise, all conversation ceases; all dialogue and all communication comes to an end. (pp 19, 20, 21).

Cardinal George states that Catholics "can agree on a lot, and we do" with President Obama. Perhaps. We certainly agree on the need to pray for President Obama and all political leaders. But I think Cardinal George, for whom I have great admiration, surely appreciates why I and many others are so doubtful about agreements on substantial points. Unfortunately, President Obama has proven to be adept at often using sophisticated rhetorical skills to misdirect and to disrespect. The spin is in and it is ongoing. Yes, the President has political debts to pay and he does seem to be paying them, as evidenced by his many radically pro-abortion nominees. Our debt, as Pieper notes, must be to truth, for it is the basis of all that is good, decent, respectful, and authentic.

Comments

[Brian J. Schuettler]

"It's hard to disagree with him because he'll always tell you he agrees with you," he said. "Maybe that's political. I think he sincerely wants to agree with you. You have to say, again and again, 'No, Mr. President, we don't agree (on abortion).' But we can agree on a lot, and we do, and that's why there is so much hope. I think we have to pray for him every day."

This does not strongly present the teaching of the Church as not being subject to any compromise whatsoever when it comes to the murder of innocents. We DO NOT agree on a lot and this comes close to the classical "seamless garment" approach of the late Cardinal Bernardin. Cardinal George sounds more like a fellow politician than a prince of the Church. Obama must have left that meeting with a smile on his face.

[Gunnar Gundersen]

I agree. President Obama has not given any indication he is interested in human life, dignity or truth during his political career. Indeed, he stated that he was incapable of deciding when human beings get human rights. Additionally, he has been proven to be a disciple of avowed communists who hate truth and want power.

Quite frankly, at this point, with so much evidence available, I think that the presumption is we cannot work with Obama and trust him. He offers to feed the poor and allow us, through faith based initiatives and government programs to offer medical services, etc. But Satan made much the same offer in the desert to Jesus Christ, just so long as Jesus would "compromise" and worship him. Sound familiar? We should follow the Master's example and reject such offers of "goodwill."

The President of the United States is not King, we do not need to "work with him" to participate in the political process of America! If people are really hungry to participate, start getting involved in local and state government, run for office, but please don't compromise with evil!

[Joe]

This is spot on. I teach at an HBCU, and see this all the time with the generation gap between older African-Americans who have the black Church heritage in their veins, and the newer generation that has much less of that and much more of modern secular education in their veins. They all essentially "agree" on parroted goals, but they do not share the same values. Obama is the walking personification of this transition fully accomplished, which is why his victory as a minority candidate is such a tragedy. It many ways I think there are parallels with much of the liberal biblical scholarship that triumphed after Vatican II, all the while claiming the same fidelity to scripture. It is far more damning than someone who honestly knows and says they are at cross purposes with you.

[Linus]

Time to read Lord of the World again.

[Mary H.]

"It seems that President Obama has a way of dashing hope when it comes to life issues. But, then, I'm still not sure why anyone had such hopes in the first place."
DITTO. I've lived in Illinois my entire life and I can NOT understand why voters in Chicago keep voting for empty suits who are all-sizzle-no-steak. To the politicians created by the Democratic machine there, government is a game. Their only interests are in winning the game, grabbing power, and retaining it. Against this backdrop, life isn't sacred -- it's useful.

[joanne ciocys]

Great post! What timing! The more I write to reps., etc., the more odd letters I receive saying "Thank you for agreeing with me" which then state the very policies I had just written against. I was beginning to feel a little crazy.
Plus, the words employed to justify what is not justifiable are becoming more and more disconnected from truth and reality. At the same time, we are "reassured" (ie, threatened) during "friendly" public discussions that WE will "evolve" to the point where what we object to will no longer disturb us.
Linguists beware! You are being edged out of significance by persuasive and deceptive advertisers. Language is becoming the "black art" of politics.
Here is a sad example:
http://www.projo.com/opinion/columnists/content/CL_harrop19_04-19-09_9TE20AM_v9.3e64ecc.html

If you haven't surrendered to "evolution" yet, maybe some of you might pen a letter to the Providence Journal.

And Linus, I happen to be reading Lord of the World for the first time currently. :)
Yes, it's a timely read.

[Dan Deeny]

It sounds like Cardinal George has been schmoozed. Pres. Obama seems to use classic French persuasive essay methods. I suppose these come from the Rhetoric section of the Trivium and Quadrivium. Start by agreeing with your partner (or finding points of agreement), then begin inserting your ideas in a calm, reasonable manner. The partner will be, theoretically at least, delighted with how you and he agree and will begin to go along with your program.
An interesting article and interesting comments.

[Gail F]

Well, it sounds to me like Cardinal George is doing diplomacy, in which case he is not going to say anything downright critical of the president. That's not how diplomacy works. But it's there if you read between the lines. How "hopeful" was he really? I don't know, but it certainly behooved the bishops to at least profess hopefulness, once the man was actually elected. That way they could start out politely and be shocked when their "hopes" did not pan out.

This quote really says it all: "I think on the life issue he's on the wrong side of history," the cardinal said. "I think he has his political debts to pay, and so he's paying them." That's pretty damning.

[Gabriel Austin]

I think Cardinal George represents the error that we need one bishop to speak for all the U.S. bishops; that we should have a "top" U.S. bishop.
We have a top bishop: he of Rome. We do not need intermediaries.
Alas, the bishops in the U.S. are badly represented by the bureaucratic USCCB. It is an unnecessary and an uncanonical organization. What each bishop does in his own diocese is that bishop's business and that bishop's responsibility.