Is Obama talking to, or talking at Catholics?
TomJoe | Homepage | 07.02.09 - 11:22 am | #

Obama's strategy with regard to Catholics seem to be something like "don't let the right hand know what the let hand is doing". The results have been mixed at best. He banned tortured in his first week, but he also expanded federal funding for abortion. He keeps trying to talk nice to Catholic and maybe even throw them some "social justice" bones, but he had repeatedly acted against Catholic positions on cultural issues. The only reason he has doned more yet-trying to pass FOCA or repeal DOMA(which his justice department currently is in the awkward position of trying to defend), for example- is because those things aren't politically convenient right now. He also recently fired Bush's bioethics council, which was strongly influenced by Catholic teaching on those issues. He is being friendly to Catholics, but not so much to Catholicism.
P | 07.02.09 - 12:34 pm | #

corrected:
Obama's strategy with regard to Catholics seem to be something like "don't let the right hand know what the let hand is doing". The results have been mixed at best. He banned tortured in his first week, but he also expanded federal funding for abortion. He keeps trying to talk nice to Catholic and maybe even throw them some "social justice" bones, but he had repeatedly acted against Catholic positions on cultural issues. The only reason he hasn't done worse things yet-trying to pass FOCA or repeal DOMA(which his justice department currently is in the awkward position of trying to defend), for example- is because those things aren't politically convenient right now. He also recently fired Bush's bioethics council, which was strongly influenced by Catholic teaching on those issues. He is being friendly to Catholics, but not so much to Catholicism.
P | 07.02.09 - 12:36 pm | #

Obama banned torture? I must have missed that.
CEK | 07.02.09 - 1:13 pm | #

A Catholic campaign, yes--but not one that is just started. Isn't this the man who is padding his administration and our government with disloyal Catholics? Who spoke at the commencement of Notre Dame *and* Georgetown? Who was in part elected by a significant Catholic vote?

Obama pays us way too much attention already. I'm inclined to agree with George Weigel ( http:// article.nationalreview.co...GQ5ZWZhOGUzNWI= ): This is a deliberate attempt on the part of the president and his political strategists to court the Catholic Church in America--and to separate it from the hierarchy.
Catholic Rhetor | Homepage | 07.02.09 - 2:26 pm | #

Rhetor has nailed it.

Obama's Catholic campaign has been going on since his inauguration, what with his Notre Dame speech (a gift to Obama) and his appointments of high profile Catholic dissidents like Sibelius, Sotomayor, etc.

It's all deliberate on his part, and pitting Catholics against each other works only to his political benefit.

I suspect this Catholic presser will feature Obama gazing soulfully into the eyes of these reporters to convince him how well he listens and CARES about their concerns and how important MUTUAL RESPECT is for those with differing viewpoints etc etc. etc.

Then he'll proceed to ignore their concerns and do exactly what he wants to do, which will be entirely consistent with his record thus far.

I do think meeting with the Vicar of Christ on earth, who is has extraordinary powers of persuasion himself, has the potential to impact Obama, but even there I'm not too optimistic. Obama is too expedient and lacks a central moral core, so it will likely be a situation in which seeds fall on rocky soil and die.

But we can and should pray, I guess.
CV | 07.02.09 - 2:38 pm | #

Yes, let us pray. As St. Paul says, we have the power to overthrow fortresses. Let's start using it!
Catholic Rhetor | Homepage | 07.02.09 - 3:10 pm | #

This is a deliberate attempt on the part of the president and his political strategists to court the Catholic Church in America--and to separate it from the hierarchy.

Divide and conquer is a really good strategy and, unfortunately, there's a significant number of bad fruits out there in our fellow Catholics who would love to see the separation from the hierarchy.

We'll see what happens. I'm skeptical for lots of reasons that this is little more than more showboating on Obama's part.
Amy P. | Homepage | 07.02.09 - 3:57 pm | #

Not to throw water on this orgy of hoping for the worst, but it's not *immediately* obvious that meeting with the Pope is part of some grand strategy to drive a wedge between the laity and the hierarchy. Could it possibly be that Obama is not a devil in human form and that his every thought, word, and deed is not ordered toward absolute evil?

A reading of 1 Corinthians 13 might be in order.
Mark P. Shea | Homepage | 07.02.09 - 4:09 pm | #

I didn't mean to imply that everything Obama does is evil--I don't believe this. All I was trying to do was suggest there was a pattern to his behavior.

I also was unclear, as my comment about his alleged attempt to split the Church in America was directed at his press conference with Catholics, not his visit with the Pope. I do hope, and have reason to hope, that good will come from the papal-presidential encounter.

Mea culpa.
Catholic Rhetor | Homepage | 07.02.09 - 5:10 pm | #

And Kmiec gets the ambassadorship to Malta:

http://www.lifenews.com/int1254.html
James | 07.02.09 - 6:29 pm | #

I didn't say he was evil, I said he was expedient, particularly when it comes to courting (make that manipulating) Catholics in the U.S. The meeting with the Catholic press is a classic example.

I presume he has many good reasons for meeting with the head of a sovereign nation who also happens to command great moral authority, and I did not imply that meeting the Pope is part of a grand strategy for driving wedge between the laity and the hierarchy.

But if you can't see the clear pattern in Obama's behavior regarding the American Catholics who helped elect him, sorry, that just doesn't make sense to me.

But hey, maybe if I skim 1 Corinthians 13 I'll stop thinking Obama is a devil in human form.
CV | 07.02.09 - 8:00 pm | #

From the talks I've heard the Pres give, I have to say at least he recognizes that we all have disagreements about things and that we are not necessarily going to just make nice. I think that he is as sincere as W was in pursuing the actions that he is taking (by which I think that he really believes that his policies are just and right and not acting out of some hidden malice). I do NOT believe that it is fair to suggest that he is somehow trying to drive a wedge between the laity and the hierarchy...how could he really even do such a thing?

I think that the biggest problem that "conservative" Catholics have is this idea that someone who voted for Obama (or say Kerry or Gore) is that they are voting for those people solely based on the issue of abortion. I do believe that this is a VERY BIG issue, but I gotta say that it can't be the only one (even if the Pope were to say that it is, I'd have to add myself to the "dissident" list).

As for the judge being part of the dissident group....how can that really be said? Is she likely to be pro-choice? Well, she may very well be, but until we really have some proof, that isn't a very fair stmt (remember the guy Bush Senior picked who turned out to be pro-choice?)

Of course, at the end of the day, he is JUST a politician and just like all the rest of them, his number one goal is to get re-elected and leave his mark on the country. Part of being re-elected is to attract a group whose core values (aside from the abortion issue) are largely of a Democratic, or more liberal, make-up. If he would just become pro-life, I think he would have captured a whole lot more of the Catholic vote and maybe even made some roads among others who only vote for the GOP because of the abortion issue. So, that is the reason that I believe he has got to be at least sincere in his pro-choice position.

anyway, my one and half cents worth..

pax
Dale | 07.02.09 - 8:58 pm | #

C'mon, Mark. Don't you know that every pagan king at least gives the Christians a chance to bow before him before they're skinned alive.
victor | Homepage | 07.02.09 - 9:34 pm | #

Hey, if you think Obama wants anything good for the Catholic Church, well that's optomism gone awry. Prudence is the queen of the virtues, not optimism. Pridence is conforming your reason to reality and reality seems to suggest that at the very least he think Catholics are not all that bad if the are pro-choice, pro-big government, etc. It seems to be the kind of optimism that says, 'Hey, I wont get hit by that train, I can make it, I'm an optimist!'
Blake Helgoth | 07.02.09 - 10:27 pm | #

I wonder if anyone actually read or listened to what he said at Notre Dame or if you'll were just too busy condemning the university for doing so?

btw--isn't it a little bit weird that Notre Dame is basically a school with Irish background but uses the french title for its identity?
Dale | 07.02.09 - 10:30 pm | #

This is one of those "wise as serpents and innocent as doves" moments. So conduct yourself according to the teaching in 1 Corinthians 13, as Mark says.

But also remember, and never forget, that Obama is not the Mr. Tumnus of American politics. He is a Chicago Democrat. Chicago Democrats believe in two things: acquiring power and doing whatever they have to do to hold onto it. I'm not just wallowing in hyperbole here. I live in Illinois. I get to watch Chicago Democrats in their natural habitat all the time. And nothing matters more to them than power. They are ruthless.

And speaking of natural habitats, in cutting his milk teeth in Chicago politics, Obama has already spent a lot of time with Catholics in their natural habitat(s). Admittedly, yes, these are liberal Illinois Catholics, like Sen. Dick Durbin. So rubbing elbows with Catholics who actually take Church teaching seriously may do Obama some good.

But let's not fool ourselves. To Obama, the Catholic Church is just one more chumbolone he has to play in order to hold on to and acquire more power.
Sean P. Dailey | Homepage | 07.02.09 - 11:35 pm | #

Blake:

So "prudence" means assuming the absolute worst about Obama, while making excuses for torture policies when its Cheney calling the shots.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

From Tribal Politics, O Lord, deliver us.
Mark P. Shea | Homepage | 07.02.09 - 11:42 pm | #

Obama did make an interesting point about being made a pawn in our struggles within the Church.

http://www.osvdailytake.com/2009...stion- 5_02.html
Clayton | Homepage | 07.03.09 - 11:21 am | #

I am quite willing for the President to reverse himself on evil campaign promises that have been part of his party's platform for decades and are overwhelmingly supported by the leadership of his party and his other principal allies.

I trust, ladies and gentlemen, that you'll pardon my continuing to breathe until he does.

But given the rate at which he has reversed himself on other things, perhaps I should be more hopeful.
Ed the Roman | 07.03.09 - 1:10 pm | #

"So "prudence" means assuming the absolute worst about Obama, while making excuses for torture policies when its Cheney calling the shots."

Actually, its not about assuming Obama is evil incarnate. It's more of a recognition that, deep down, Cheney's and Obama's differences are skin-deep. They operate by some similar hard-to-reconfigure logic. That's prudence. Undue optimism is assuming that Obama is in love with the Church, and that Cheney is all righteous when it comes to torture.
JonathanR. | 07.03.09 - 8:46 pm | #

Which would be a sensible thing to say if anybody had remotely suggested that Obama is in love with the Church.

Numerous readers here *have* however, suggested that Cheney is the epitome of righteousness.

So I continue to think that the comment made no sense.
Mark P. Shea | Homepage | 07.03.09 - 9:26 pm | #

Mark, it's plain to see by his declared intentions and pattern of behavior that without a serious change of heart Obama means to promote things intrinsically evil.

When Cheney does the same you rightly call attention to this. However, I don't see the kind of open trust to Cheney's motives that you are advocating for Obama.

It's a lot wiser to keep tabs on those who have time and time again proven their dedication to evil causes and fight against them, while praying for their conversion of heart.

I think though, why some of your readers do not feel Cheney as performing as much evil as Obama is the differences of the victims. Even though it may not be right, it is far easier to understand someone being overzealous in defending a country and performing horrible acts against supposed enemies than it is to understand someone overzealous in reducing the "surplus population" and performing horrible acts to the most innocent of human beings.

Not saying this makes Cheney any more right, because it doesn't, but I can comprehend people having more sympathy for being wrong with one motive over another in this case.
Jarnor | 07.04.09 - 4:44 am | #

This is a deliberate attempt on the part of the president and his political strategists to court the Catholic Church in America--and to separate it from the hierarchy.

Seems a large portion of the Catholic Church in America has been doing a pretty bang up job in separating itself from the hierarchy without O's help.
c matt | 07.06.09 - 11:35 am | #

I wonder, when people write that many in America are trying to separate themselves from Rome, just what does that mean exactly? Are we talking doctrine or something else?

btw--haven't a whole bunch of people over the years been able to argue and vehemently disagree with a Pope and still be Catholic? Hell, Dante put a Pope or two in hell, yet he is still Catholic right?
Dale | 07.06.09 - 7:36 pm | #