Obama, pope to talk 'dignity of all people'

Let us pray Obama, when in Rome, meets with Father Gabriele Amorth as well.

But wait!??! According to the far-right wingCatholics, the latest religious folks to be conned by the Republicans, no Catholic should even listen to Obama, let alone talk to him. How is it possible that The Pope would grant the pro-choice President an audience?? They were just telling us that Obama was a murderer, almost hilter-like in his monstrous crimes and yet ...The Pope and Obama? Together?

Sputter, sputter, sputter!!

Yes David, Fr. Amorth would be very helpful.

David Paul,
Why?

The Pope invited Obama not to sit back and listen to Obama talk, which occurred at N.D. Hopefully Obama will be open to what the Pope has to say.

Obama, pope to talk 'dignity of all people', including the poor Pakistani folks being annihilated in their mud huts by robot airplanes. Love to be a fly on that wall!

Yeah, yeah, let's talk about abortion, gay marriage, celibacy. Those are the really deep moral issues we need to wrestle with. Bombing civilians is okay (I'm sure Christ would approve of that) as long as they have different passports. "Articles of Faith?"

None of my uncomfortable moral questions ever find there way into this blog. Why is that? Curious bit of Pontius Pilatism.

"including their shared belief in the dignity of all people"

LOL

Neither the Vatican nor the Pope promotes the dignity of ALL people.

...and neither does Obama, if the past two weeks is any indication.

That's a pretty insulting response from Gibbs that more than adequately demonstrates the contempt this Administration has for the Church:

"I can assure you, April, we're not joining a church in Italy."

Since Obama can instruct the Muslims on their doctrine, I guess we lucky Catholics can expect the Obamagesterium to instruct us on what we should believe.

Fortunately, the Holy Father is more than up to the task of arranging and conducting an appropriate meeting with duplicitous American politicians. He's done it before. Oh, and "thebob"? The Holy Fater is a head of state as is O'bama.

When requested by a head of state, the Vatican very rarely refuses an audience, baby killer or not. Rest assured, the Pope did not request Øbama's presence, it would be the other way around.

Obama only shares in the belief in the dignity of humans only after passing through the cervix, and that is not safe to assume either. Google these two titles to see the videos of what happens during the murder, oops abortion, of children. Silent Scream
An Eclipse of Reason

Posted by Jim02351 June 25, 09 10:52 AM

And you know this...how, Jim? Do you actually think that Ratzinger wouldn't refuse an audience that he did not want? And, Jim, abortion doesn't kill babies. War does. Do you, like your bishops, support GOP warmongers?

Posted by Celtic Fan June 25, 09 10:17 AM

Another martyr. Yeah, everyone who doesn't worship your church must, by definition, be contemptuous of it. Of course, you then proceed to heap that very contempt onto the President, right? But that, of course, is completely different, because you do have that conservative Republican moral superiority. Just ask Mark Sanford. Or John Ensign. Or Larry Craig.

So when has Obama ever tried to instruct you on what you can believe? He gets to make policy - an overwhelming electoral majority has asked that he do so - and he gets to make that policy irrespective of Catholic doctrine. He also gets to try to change minds. And he need not bow and scrape to your little king in Rome. None of those things make you a martyr.

I'm certain the Pope would meet with the original King Herod himself if he believed he might be convinced to stop the slaughter of the innocents. This will not be a "dialogue," there is no purpose served in debating the merits of an intrinsic evil. The Pope will simply do his duty by stating God's will, identifying evil
and teaching against it. If Obama remains commited to this evil, the Pope will have tried. Interesting to note that to date, in a very troubled world, Obama's only war won was against the unborn, near-born and just born.

"Celtic fan" do you realise what you are naming Pope Benedict XVI? you're naming him "The Holy Father". the ONLY Holy Father is God.. what you named the pope becomes blasphemy to God..

with the topic of the dignity of all people: sure Obama and the pope can have their beliefs on that.. but will something be done? or are they just discussing that topic to exchange their beliefs? just a short topic to get them off the topic of "issues" for a little while?

"homelsseus" mentions the issue of the poor people from pakistan. "bombing civilians" is murder. since when is murder not a crime? does someone have to be a bomber to be "allowed to murder"? i say allowed to murder because these bombers aren't getting what they really deserve! a man received the death penalty for organising a murder which never took place. what happens to those who actually murder (bombers)? they get respect! this world is twisted.. it's so wrong.... I pray to God that something good will come of this.

You know, it's amusing that both the GW Bush and Obama White Houses refer to the Pope as the "Holy Father". It's supposed to be "His Holiness", which is the correct diplomatic term for him as the head of state of the Vatican City. "Holy Father"? Really, only Catholics use that!

It's nice to see that Obama granted the Pope an audience.

More on Gabriel Amorth here:
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriele_Amorth"

Catholics are never against having an audience with those we disagree with.
I'm assuming thebobbob is referring to what occurred at ND. What caused the controversy is that the President received an Honorary Doctorate from a Catholic Institution. Wouldn't Planned Parenthood or a LGBT community be furious if their organization honored Saint Peter's successor by giving him a "Man of the Year" award?

As everyone should know:

1. The Catholic Church holds that there is such a thing as a Just War, and teaches (prudentially) some hallmarks required for it.

The Pope, in talking with any head-of-state, is not in a position to lecture him about acts of war approved in the conduct of his office per se. For of couse prosecuting a war may be a sin, or it may be a sad reality, or it may be a moral obligation (example: the U.S. intervention in Europe during World War II).

The Pope may try to persuade World Leader X that *this* war or *that* war is not just: And then they can debate about the application of the Just War Doctrine. Or the Pope may argue that the *tactics* employed in this-or-that war are don't discriminate adequately between combatants and non-combatants.

2. The Catholic Church teaches that (a.) abortion is a grave moral evil, a form of murder of innocents; and, (b.) it is the chief duty and chief job description of government to defend the inalienable human rights of all those under its governance; and that therefore, (c.) legal abortion in the United States represents the greatest civil rights abuse in United States history, and the greatest abandonment of its highest duty by the national government, in our history; and that therefore, (d.) a private citizen who supports the legality of abortion is morally equivalent to a private citizen supporting legal slavery; and (e.) a public official who openly supports and defends the legality of slavery is committing a moral evil on the level of advocating legal slavery.

How odd, then, that the first black president in the history of the United States should be, from the official perspective of the Catholic Church, the most pro-abortion president in the history of legal abortion! How odd, to have a black slave master in the White House, treating the most helpess of human beings as sub-human, the personal property of their mothers, to be disposed of when convenient!

Why then, does the Pope meet with the President of the United States, knowing as he does the extreme moral evil advocated by this man, which far outweighs in culpability any of the acts of his predecessor (who while far from imperfect was nevertheless the most pro-Catholic and pro-life president since Roe v. Wade)?

Simple.

(1.) He's the President of the United States. It makes sense for the head-of-state of the world's oldest state to be on as good terms as possible with the head-of-state of the most powerful nation on the planet, even if he is a slavery-proponent, or an abortion proponent, or both.

(2.) One draws more flies with honey, than with vinegar. Would a harsh word convince Obama not to change the U.S. policy on the Mexico City policy? No. Could friendly relations possibly lead to influence, which might lead to a more moderate stance? Not likely, but possibly. The Pope is not likely to gain much from a meeting, then, but he has nothing to lose.

ontheleft:
"And he need not bow and scrape to your little king in Rome.."

No ontheleft, he only bows to Muslim Kings who intimidate him.... and those to whom he thinks he should on his apology tour. He is weak, the laughing stock of the world, shows profound weakness, and on pace to pass Carter as the worst President in this country's history... No one has recognized that the action in Iraq is influening the people of Iran, on its way to freedom as in Iraq and Afganistan... thank you USA.. ontheleft wanted all of those countries to remain in the slavery of dictatorship, and wants to hold unborn babies in the cross-hairs of their mothers. You are not for life and freedom, ontheleft, you are for slavery, terror and death.

If I were the Obamas, I'd watch out for thunderstorms while in Rome...

"The dignity of ALL people"...
You either consider *ALL* beings of human origin to be PEOPLE, worthy of rights and enhancement under the law.
Or you only consider *SOME* beings of human origin to be PEOPLE, worthy of rights and enhancement under the law.
---ONE CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS---

It all depends on the word PERSON.
Inadequate definitions of the word PERSON lead to every kind of social marginalization, injustice, abuse, oppression, and genocide.
The Achilles heal of every democracy is tyranny of the majority due to a weak cultural definition of the personhood of the minority.
http://www.lifeprinciples.net/MessagePersonhood.html

http://www.lifeprinciples.net/happinesschart.html
the culture of death is stuck on level2 happiness

Posted by KJR June 25, 09 07:11 PM

Actually, KJR, you confuse Bush's grandstanding and his faux cowboy talk with strength. How has that worked out? It's worked well for the oil companies that will now get to profit handsomely on Iraqi oil. Apology tour? Listening a little bit to Rush Limbaugh these days, KJR? Getting your news from Fox News? You right wingers really believe Obama is subject to intimidation from anyone? Consider this - if he were, do you think he'd have put his own life in perpetual danger by staging a serious run for president as a black man named Barack Hussein Obama? Are you aware of the volume of death threats that have come his way over the past couple of years? The sheer hatred from the slimy racist underbelly of this country? And you think he's intimidated? Why is that? Because he's not a bloviating coward like Bush, Cheney, and the rest of your warmongering cabal? Or is it because he actually approaches problems and situations by thinking? Rational thought - the great enemy of the the know-nothings. The reason no one has recognized Iraq as an action contributing to the cause of freedom anywhere is that it has contributed to no such thing. The slavery of dictatorship? You can't honestly believe that this war was about democraticization - you can't be that utterly misinformed. And while we're discussing support for dictators, your boy Reagan supported Pinochet in Chile, apartheid in South Africa, Saddam in Iraq, Marcos in the Philippines, dictators all over the world - did you agree with him? Of course you did. Jimmy Carter, a good and decent man, was an infinitely better president than either Bush (the worst, period) or your Saint Ronnie, who was one lousy excuse for a president, and one whose policies have wrought wreckage that will require years to repair.

And here's a new one from you -"babies in the crosshairs of their mothers". Nice try, coming from one immoral enough to blindly support war and torture, but I'd refer you back to Maureen's comments earlier in this post. I'd say she pretty much nailed the gist of anti-choicers like you. In fact, KJR, unlike you, I am indeed in favor of life, and the freedom of people to live their lives free of coercion from anyone, including those like you, the terrified. Terrified of women, gays, and anyone who doesn't worship you and your corrupt prelates. You remain virtually identical to the Taliban and the mullahs, all of you demanding a return to the Dark Ages. You inhabit a culture that reeks of death. It is those like you who cheer the mass murder of innocent civilians who have babies in your crosshairs. And, were Jesus of Nazareth alive today, you'd have him in your crosshairs as well.

ontheleft

"And while we're discussing support for dictators, your boy Reagan supported Pinochet in Chile, apartheid in South Africa, Saddam in Iraq, Marcos in the Philippines, dictators all over the world - did you agree with him? Of course you did. Jimmy Carter, a good and decent man, was an infinitely better president than either Bush (the worst, period) or your Saint Ronnie, who was one lousy excuse for a president, and one whose policies have wrought wreckage that will require years to repair. ... I am indeed in favor of life, and the freedom of people to live their lives free of coercion from anyone ....,

Your posts are a comedy show...

Who are the two people credited with taking down the evil empire? Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II . Even the libs see that left... I know that would be tough to admit ontheleft. The two great leaders who confronted evil and won...

Under your world, the soviet union would still exist, the Taliban would rule Afganistan, and Iraq would still enthrown a despot. The Kurds would still be threatened/ You are blind as a bat.

Jimmy Carter was a clown show. History has judged him correctly as incompetent. He almost ruined the economy and
showed utter incompetence (and still does) on foreign affairs.

left - you need to stop drinking the coolaid... you are living in a world of make-believe.

KJR
While we are busy getting sidetracked I would argue that RWR did not defeat the "evil empire." The USSR was falling apart due to its own internal contradictions. In the West, at the time, we couldn't see that. In time it was scheduled to self destruct.
What Reagan did was similar to what (and I mean this only in the economic sense) Hitler did. In the 30s Hitler rebuilt the German military, spending on the military to rebuild the industrial base and revive the economy. Reagan accelerated the arms race and spent the USSR into oblivion. He accelerated the process by which the USSR died. He did not win the Cold War by standing up to ethe Evil Empire.
On a further, less related note, isn't it lovely to see the Yankees struggling? Another Evil Empire falling, crumbling by the wayside.

Kai - on the other "evil empire", agree! (And yes, that certainly is due to "spending and internal contradiction....)

Reagan smelled blood. He stood up with his language ("evil empire", "tear down this wall") and inspired and empowered the people. JPII did the same on a spiritual level, and the synergies were remarkable. Thatcher was also a key person. Google cold war, Reagan, Pope and Thatcher and see what comes up. The arms race was a way to accomplish that - but it would hard to deny that RWR and JPII were the biggest catalysts, (as well as Lech Walesa) and history does recognize them at least as that.

I was responding to ontheleft's drivel regarding RWR, in the context and contrast of Obama 's bowing the middle eastern kings and pandering to despots. It is quite a contrast. One showed uncompromising strength, and the other looks (and is) weak and goes around apologizing. Biden knew that when he warned was trying to get cover for Obama before the election.

ontheleft loves the oppression of women. He supported Hussein, the Taliban, and now Ahmadinejad whose policies were and are to oppressand abuse women. He oppresses women by fighting for the right to abuse themselves and an being exploited by the abortion industry. He supports the killing of millions of young girls in their mother's wombs. He could probably write a book to rival "Brave New World". Anyway, that was the context and response in my post.

KJR,
That is what I studied in school... no need to look it up. I will agree that Reagan, Thatcher and PJPII all stood up to the Soviets. People, I think, are mistaken when they credit Reagan with "winning the Cold War." It was good timing and he spent us and them into oblivion to do it. This is part of the reason the business cycle soared during the 80s and flopped in time for GHWB in 88.
Re Obama ... We have come off of 8 years where it was "Our way or the highway" under Dubya. The world resents the arrogance our leadership has shown this decade. The Cold War is over. Post WWII we rebuilt Europe and Japan and became the strength in opposition to Soviet Communism and the threat of its spread. We poured resources into this quest and with that as leverage we were able to exert our influence in a lot of places, whether the people there wanted us to or not.
However, with that threat, we were often considered friends. Iran is one example where that didn’t work… Germany, etc are places where it did. However, that era is over. It isn’t us against the massive Soviet threat anymore. Countries no longer welcome our leadership by fiat (nor by ford or Toyota). Now, in the new world, we have to work with countries, convince them we are right, not just plow through and do what we wish. The Shrub didn’t get that.
Ultimately, I do not believe that Obama showing some humility as the Leader of the Free World is a sign of weakness. We are America. We have to work with other countries, not bully them to our way. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Showing respect to a foreign leader is not weakness, particular in their country. Bowing might be a little much, but… we were overdue to show some humility. He is working to repair relations with foreign countries that Dubya alienated. He is working to show an America willing to work with other countries for our mutual interest. This is not a bad thing. He is working to undo the arrogance of the previous 8 years.
I do not recall OTL supporting Ahmadinejedad, though you claim(ed) it. He simply argued that Obama should not be stepping up and getting actively involved in the internal workings of Iran. If he said too much, the crackdown would have been more brutal and the protesters would have been labeled as “agents of America.” He handled that situation well. Unlike you, OTL does not believe life begins at conception. His opinion is based in science, yours in faith, and never the twain shall meet. To label him as supporting the murder of millions, etc, is truly unfair, as an objective reading of his posts would show.
Ultimately, however, I am very distressed by having to write this post. For too many paragraphs, based on tradition, I agreed with you, this time. This concerns me, and I may have to come up with something utterly off the wall and obnoxious to restore balance to the universe and prevent Armaggedon. I really need to take that under advisement.

Kai: "I do not recall OTL supporting Ahmadinejedad, though you claim(ed) it. He simply argued that Obama should not be stepping up and getting actively involved in the internal workings of Iran."

My post about OTL mirrors his ridiculous postings about those who us who oppose abortion from conception and his labeling is a pro-death with his Iraq rantings. I was mirroring his ridiculousness in his posts, ie, that because he opposed Iraq and Bush that means he loves the Taliban and Saddam and hates women. That is how he blogs, and I was pointing that out through my post.

When you negotiate and pander to despots, you legitimize and enable them. Iran and N. Korea will continue on this road toward nuclear arms, and no amount of kissing-up from O will change that. His policy is destabilizing the middle east and the Korean peninsula. Oil will pass $100 by the end of the year.

Posted by KJR June 28, 09 02:24 AM

Just out of curiosity, as you were a big supporter of your boy Bush's carnage in Iraq, did you ever volunteer to serve there, KJR? Or were you happy being one more right wing member of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists, Chicken Hawk Division? Your boy Reagan pandered to a lot of dictators, another point I made to which (as usual) you had no response. And it was Gorbachev who ended the Soviet Union> A labor union began the process, Reagan had little or nothing to do with it, and the old guard in the USSR did not help their cause with an assassination attempt against a Polish pope. When it didn't work, it made it much harder to crush a Polish labor union. You need to come off of Limbaugh's hallucinations.

ontheleft:: "Just out of curiosity, as you were a big supporter of your boy Bush's carnage in Iraq, did you ever volunteer to serve there, KJR?"

Well no, since I am too old for that, rather, we dedicated some resources for Iraq's people - how about you? Have you been seeking out women to counsel them out of their choice to kill their innocent unborn child, and encourage adoption, shelter and support? Would you like to join us to do that? The babies need your help. Are you going to look the other way?

Posted by KJR June 29, 09 12:39 AM

No, KJR, I'm one to help support women in whatever decision they make, and to respect their choices, no matter the choice. They are not killing an unborn child. They are dealing with a decision that can be easy or difficult, calming or wrenching, but ultimately, a decision that is rightfully theirs and theirs alone.

Are they killing an unborn child after 6 months? You have refused to answer proudtobe's question repeatedly.

Its a pretty mute point about abortion, really. The American Medical Association has classified human life as starting at conception, more than once, in their medical journals. This is a documented science not in any way affected by The Catholic Church. So, using logic, and trying our best to keep emotion/pride/confusion/hurt out of the scenario (which is not easy): according to the AMA, 60 million 'human persons' have been legally stopped from existing in the United States and has been supported by a great number of people for a significant period of time. Fine, though, don't agree with me, the Catholic Church, the AMA, whoever; but what if? What if whoever is wrong and America, the land of the free, is guilty of probably the worst thing to ever happen. I mean Hitler was right there, but he was opposed by a healthy majority and only killed possibly 6 million. Stalin did a job keeping it silent but some swear he killed more than that.

Be right, fine. That is your choice; you're right, I can kick and scream, and get a broken heart all I want, but what if? Heck a fetus doesn't seem like a human person, besides playing mozart and seeing a newborn react to a mother's voice, I don't communicate much with one; but what if? 60 million? I am not taking the chance.