An open letter to President-elect Barack Obama
Print Friendly Version| All Things Catholic by John L. Allen, Jr. | |
| Friday, November 7, 2008 - Vol. 8, No. 7 |
For the record, nobody from the Obama transition team has solicited my advice about relations with the Vatican, and I would frankly be surprised if the question were yet on their radar screen. Others, however, are already speculating about how things might shake out; on Wednesday, for example, Reuters moved a story predicting a “tricky” relationship between Rome and the Obama White House because of the abortion issue. As a thought exercise, I decided to pen an open letter to the president-elect about U.S.-Vatican ties over the next four years.
Mr. President-elect:
This letter is a plea to make U.S.-Vatican relations under your administration a priority, because of the enormous good in the world that could be accomplished by exploiting natural areas of common concern.
I’m aware that the stars may not seem especially well-aligned for such collaboration. A small number of Catholic bishops in the United States made statements during the campaign that favored your opponent, which may have left a bitter aftertaste among some of your supporters and advisors. It’s also clear to everyone that, barring a dramatic change of heart on your part, the White House and the Vatican will have deep differences during your term over “life issues” such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research.
I would urge you, however, not to allow those points to obscure four basic political realities.
First, the Vatican and the United States need each other, whatever their differences may be in a given historical moment. What the United States is in the realm of “hard power,” meaning coercive military and economic might, the Vatican is in terms of “soft power,” meaning the capacity to stir action on the basis of ideas. Religion is a powerful motivating force in human affairs, and the pope has the biggest bully pulpit of any religious leader. It’s simply bad for everyone if these two forces are not on good speaking terms.
Second, it’s smart politics for you not to neglect the Vatican. As you know better than anyone, in some ways your reelection campaign in 2012 has already begun. You won the Catholic vote overall this time, but narrowly lost white Catholics; working cooperatively and respectfully with the Vatican could help you and your party with that group.
Third, the Vatican has a centuries-old diplomatic tradition of dealing with governments that, in one way or another, don’t follow the church’s line on certain matters. Despite those disagreements, Vatican diplomacy typically strives to keep lines of communication open and to seek common ground. In other words, they’ll want to do business with you where they can.
Fourth, the Vatican is eager for good relations with the United States in particular, regardless of which party happens to be in power. The Vatican deeply admires the robust religiosity of America, in contrast with the pervasive secularism of much of Europe. The Vatican also believes that the United States is its most natural ally in promoting religious freedom and human dignity around the world.
The potential for collaboration is very real, because there are numerous areas where your policy positions dovetail with the social teaching of the Catholic church and the diplomatic interests of the Vatican. Among the most obvious examples are immigration, economic justice, peace, and environmental protection. In a statement this week congratulating you, Vatican spokesperson Fr. Federico Lombardi also expressed the Vatican’s desire to work together on Iraq, the Holy Land, Christian minorities in the Middle East and Asia, and the fight against poverty and social inequality.
In each area, you will find a clear track record of teaching from recent popes and a strong determination on the part of the Vatican’s diplomatic apparatus to move the ball. In fact, many of these topics represent areas in which the Vatican was at odds with the Bush administration and has longed for new American leadership.
Pope Benedict XVI himself has clearly opened the door to a positive working relationship.
The pope sent a telegram on Wednesday calling your election “a historic occasion,” and offering his prayer that God will “support you and the American people, so that through the good will of all, a world of peace, solidarity and justice can be built.” Lombardi likewise expressed hope that you “will be able to match the expectations and the hopes directed towards the new president, effectively serving justice and rights, finding the best ways to promote peace in the world, favoring the growth and dignity of persons with respect for essential human and spiritual values.”
You’ll notice that neither the pope nor his spokesperson explicitly mentioned abortion or other areas of disagreement, and certainly their tone suggests that concern for the “life issues” will not exclude cooperation in other areas. On the contrary, the Vatican seems to be doing everything it can to invite it.
May I suggest one more possibility for U.S.-Vatican partnership? I believe there is a historic opportunity for your administration and the Holy See to work together to move the international community, at long last, toward serious engagement on behalf of peace and development in Africa.
You are a hero to much of Africa, giving you a degree of political capital on the continent that no other Western leader could rival. At the same time, 2009 is shaping up as a “Year of Africa” in global Catholicism. Over the next 12 months, Pope Benedict XVI will visit Cameroon and Angola; the African bishops will hold their plenary assembly in Rome; and bishops from all over the world will converge on Rome for a “Synod for Africa.” All this suggests the possibility of synergy between the world’s most important political and spiritual leaders -- i.e., you and the pope -- to promote peace and development for Africa, where the world’s most impoverished and abandoned people are today found.
If you’re interested in forging such a partnership, the first important choice to make is who to send to the Vatican as your ambassador. Ideally, you will turn to someone known to have your ear, who will have real political influence in your administration, and who also knows the Catholic world. What you’re looking for, in other words, is a Democratic equivalent of James Nicholson, President Bush’s first Vatican ambassador. Nicholson had served as the chair of the Republican National Committee, and helped to steer the party’s outreach to Catholic voters. Bush sent a clear signal with that nomination that he was interested in the Vatican, and this is one case where it would behoove you to follow his lead.
Finally, one last piece of unsolicited advice: Mr. President-Elect, whatever else you do, please try to avoid repeating the mistakes of the last Democratic administration with regard to the Vatican.
In his memoirs, former Vatican Ambassador Raymond Flynn tells a depressing story from 1994 illustrating what I mean. During the lead-up to the U.N. conference on population in Cairo in 1994, Pope John Paul II called Flynn to the Vatican on a Saturday morning to personally request a telephone conversation with President Clinton. Flynn relayed the request urgently to the White House that afternoon, and got no response. He called again on Sunday and on Monday, both times with no results. Frustrated, Flynn then got on a plane to Washington on Tuesday. He cooled his heels outside the president’s office that night and most of Wednesday. Finally, he was admitted to the White House’s pre-Cairo war room, where he was told by Assistant Secretary of State Timothy Wirth that “nobody is getting a chance to lobby the president on this one.” Dumbfounded, Flynn explained that the Bishop of Rome is not a lobbyist, and that it would be seen as a profound act of disrespect if the president wouldn’t even get on the phone. After almost a week, Clinton finally agreed to take the pope’s call.
 Read NCR political coverage
|
The episode was symptomatic of a basic disinterest within the Clinton team about the Vatican, which at times shaded off into hostility. The result was that the U.S.-Vatican relationship during the Clinton years was more often defined by predictable differences than by imaginative areas of common purpose.
For what it’s worth, Mr. President-Elect, my advice is to get on the phone if the pope calls. Better yet, initiate the conversation yourself. You might be surprised about where it goes.
* * * *
Editor’s Note: The U.S. bishops will be meeting in Baltimore Nov. 10-13 for their annual fall assembly, and John Allen will be covering the event. Look for daily posting of his stories at johnallen.ncrcafe.org and on NCRonline.org.
| Archives | Signup for Weekly E-mail |
Francis W. Rodgers John
Francis W. Rodgers
John Allen is right that President Obama should communicate with the Pope/Vatican and help to increase useful dialogue. The local Albany, NY diocesan paper :("The Evangelist"?) did little to encourage dialogue with its post election front page headline: "Bishops warn ...Obama." He may not even want to go to communion.
It seems to me that the
It seems to me that the inability of the Vatican to find common ground, that holds all three Biblical religions together for the good of all mankind over more than two thousand years makes you at this point.... inept to be a decent allie here.
Perhaps you could explain to the Muslims, the undeniable right, after such a trama as WWII, and being literally shunned, if not physically prejudized/removed/inhiliated from every land into which it fled for all of factually recorded history of the Jews.
We Infidels, white, black, brown, yellow, red or otherwise have had to welcome the Jewish race into our arms through modern times....Islam must allow them as well!
Thanks for sharing this open
Thanks for sharing this open letter to us. The Vatican should never be neglected in any way. I can say that it is the foundation of every nation. Pres. Obama should realize this.
R. Dennis Porch, MD Dear
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Dear Fin,
The gravitas as you put it is in the misbehavior of our Episcopacy. Until they can come to terms with their own megalomania, the good people of God, those that are educated or curious, will simply ignore them. This is indeed a very sad situation and requires the confession and lamentations of all us Catholics but particularly the Episcopate from Rome on down. Catholic social teaching will not be served by the imprudence of so much misbehavior even if it is from a minority of the Bishops. The Bishops themselves must begin to speak out about this shocking lack of leadership or simply continue down a path of irrelevance.
Peace and understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Mr. Allen, A very well
Mr. Allen,
A very well written letter indeed!
Despite the differences between President-Elect Obama's policy and the Vatican's, I could not agree more that the most obvious solution to moving forward in relations between both parties concerned is to seek common ground. And the way common ground is established is by focusing first and foremost on what unites us, not on what divides us. This is what classifies a balanced approach to the very real issues and concerns of today, and how dialogue can be established between two parties of varying opinions about specific issues.
Both human reason and human experience teach us that we do not create a better society (and ultimately a better humanity) by division, but by seeking a common goal and a common purpose. This was stated very clearly in your letter, as well as during President-Elect Obama's campaign. Do those of us who identify ourselves as Catholics want to foster unity and peace, or division? The choice is ours...
Yours Truly,
Ian P. Saliba
University of Toronto
An earlier comment described
An earlier comment described the Catholic Church as being part of the religious right. The church resides on the right of the political spectrum on many social issues, abortion in particular. But it resides squarely in the center on the religious spectrum, where it is bracketed by extreme secularism on the left and religious fundamentalism on the right. The Church is far from perfect, and Benedict and his predecessors have acknowledged many past sins, but it is a faith of reason. I believe both the president elect and the pope are very good and smart men. If they can agree to disagree on the abortion issue which, in the context of the uproar created by many Bishops during the recent election cycle at least, is really a political issue, there is enormous potential in president/pope cooperation on many problems facing our world, not the least of which, at least in my opinion, are reigning in radical secularism in the West and radical fundamentalism in the East. Very nice letter John.
Obama to Catholics: How many
Obama to Catholics: How many divisions does the Pope have? How many suicide bombers?
Regards,
Doug
It's not about words at
It's not about words at all.
The Obama administration is political and will respond to real power,not perceived power. Real power comes from the citizens in a democracy. If Obama sees the power of Catholics evident from the activities [not the words] of our bishops then being the politician that he is; he has to respond. Talk,talk,talk [and lots of it negative] that's what we get from the bishops and all we need is action,action,action.
Let them sell their mansions, establish centers for pregnant mothers offering an alternative to abortion. Establish adoption centers. Promote good employment practices. Tithe to foreign churches. Talk to other churches.
Obama will come to the church seeking it's support as soon as he sees there is strength there and he needs the support. When was the last time that the congressional medal of honor was awarded to a US bishop? These things are 'sometimes' given to people who achieve great success in the eyes of society.
Talking the talk and walking the walk......We can do the first one well.
Your letter is a positive
Your letter is a positive step, but there is a mountain to climb for the Vatican and the Obama team.
Not only are the USA Catholic Bishops attitudes to be sorted out- did not some say that if Catholics voted for Obama they would imperil their souls? This limited vision has to be broadened.There is also the somewhat equivocal history of the Popes with people of colour. Pius X11 famously hoped that African soldiers would not be stationed in Rome; this may be in the past but suspicions remain that need to be tackled. Let's look forward to the day when skin colour is of no importance and Christ's Peace will reign.
The example you refer to
The example you refer to isn't a simple matter of skin color as you describe it. There's a lot to the story that you may not be aware of or that you are intentionally leaving out. Pope Pius XII requested that the French Expediency Corps, which included people of colour from Morocco and Algeria, not be allowed into the city of Rome at its liberation. The Pope's reason for this request wasn't based on the color of their skin; it was based on the fact that these troops had engaged in raping and killing innocent villagers as the allies captured Italy. When Montecassino was captured by the allies, members of the French Expediency Corps, over 2000 women were raped and around 800 men trying to protect their women were murdered.
John, I believe you
John, I believe you overestimate the influence of the Catholic hierarchy outside the walls of the Vatican.Clearly, the one-issue agenda of the American Bishops did not control the vote of the majority of American Catholics. How impressed do you expect a non-Catholic head of state to be with someone wearing red slippers, white stockings, a gold lame cloak and carrying a shepherd's crook?
I am horrified by some of
I am horrified by some of the vitriolic letters against the Pope, the bishops and the Catholic Church in reaction to John Allen’s “Open Letter to President-elect Barack Obama.” These letters are dripping with blind rage and merciless hatred against Holy Mother Church. I presume most of these hateful letters come from my fellow Catholics. I say to them: Whether we like it or not, Holy Mother Church is our “Mother,” and one doesn’t vilify, humiliate and mortify one’s mother, no matter how immoral and degenerate she may be. I’ve known children who “adored” their alcoholic father, despite his weakness and frailty. The letter writers had no right to write the way they did. A little humility wouldn’t have hurt them.
This 2000-year-old Church, built on a Rock, has had its good moments and its bad moments. Don’t we say: “Ecclesia semper reformanda”? [The Church is always in need of reform]. But some of the letter writers will rejoin: “We love the Church but not the Pope” [“Mater sì, Pope no].” I don’t buy it. Jesus told vacillating Peter and his fellow apostles: “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me" (Luke 10:16). Frankly, I don’t think it’s the Pope or the bishops that’s really bothering some of the letter writers. There’s something much, much deeper than that....
It is amazing that although
It is amazing that although the Church is given out as a female institution, the real character that dominates our religion is based on cruel and dehumanized male-run exploitation of the women. Below is an excerpt from a paper I recently read for a study.
In my humble opinion, Catholic Women should file a global class action law suit against the Vatican and its cronies, for what they have inflicted against women in the last two thousand years.
---
In the
patriarchal Catholic culture-where God was the father and only men could become
priests-the Virgin Mary stood as the most prominent image of what an ideal woman
should be. The Virgin Mary was so important to gender education that in Latin America
the church often supported distinct images of her to accommodate racial diversity. For
example, in Mexico the Virgen de los Remedios was revered by the Europeans, the
Virgen de Guadalupe by the mestizo and Indian populations. How well a woman lived up
to the example of feminine virtue embodied by the Virgin Mary determined her
reputation. While the cult of the Virgin influenced attitudes about women's sexuality, the
image of the mater dolorosa-the mother Mary grieving for her son- likewise shaped
women's attitudes toward their lives. The Virgin of the Seven Sorrows idealized women's
sadness and encouraged them to accept sorrow in their lives. If the chief
characteristics of machismo, the cult of virility, are exaggerated aggressiveness and
intransigence in male-to-male interpersonal relationships and arrogance and sexual
aggression in male-to-female relationships, then marianismo is the cult of feminine
spiritual superiority, which teaches that women are morally superior to and spiritually
stronger than men.
---
Latin American mestizo cultures-from the Rio Grande to the Tierra del Fuego-exhibit
a well-defined pattern of beliefs and behavior centered on popular acceptance of a
stereotype of the ideal woman. This stereotype, like its macho counterpart, is ubiquitous
in every social class. There is near universal agreement on what a "real woman" is like
and how she should act. Among the characteristics of this ideal are semi-divinity, moral
superiority, and spiritual strength. This spiritual strength engenders abnegation, that is,
an infinite capacity for humility and sacrifice. No self-denial is too great for the Latin
American woman, no limit can be divined to her vast store of patience with the men of
her world. 16 Although she may be sharp with her daughters-and even cruel to her
daughters-in-law-she is and must be complaisant toward her own mother and her
mother-in-law for they, too, are reincarnations of the great mother. She is also
submissive to the demands of the men: husbands, sons, fathers, brothers.
...
Beneath the submissiveness, however, lies the strength of her conviction-shared by
the entire society-that men must be humored, for, after all, everyone knows that they are
como niños (like little boys) whose intemperance, foolishness, and obstinacy must be
forgiven because "they can't help the way they are." These attitudes are expressed with
admirable clarity by the editor of a fashionable women's magazine in Chile. When asked,
"Is there any Chilean woman whom you particularly admire?" she answered, "Sincerely,
I would mention a humble woman from the slums who did our laundry. She had ten
children, and her husband spent his time drunk and out of work. She took in washing
and ironing, and gave her children a good start in life. She is the typical Chilean woman
of a [certain] sector of our society. She struggles valiantly until the end."18
But to the unalterable imperfection of men is attributable another characteristic of
Latin American women: their sadness. They know that male sinfulness dooms the entire
sex to a prolonged stay in purgatory after death, and even the most diligent
prayerfulness of loving female relatives can succeed in sparing them only a few
millennia of torture.
Your argument withholds
Your argument withholds elements of suppression; as it carries the danger of you seeking to manipulate the discussion. The fact that you call something "Holy" doesn't make it holy. You only spread an assumption that is personally yours. However, you could the same way understand that your opinion has the same validity like the opinion of the other Catholic human being who comes here with genuine concerns about the unholiness of our leaders.
If you say that someone's message is "vitriolic", just because that person's opinion is not an identical kit to your own, then what you are doing is playing with the language, creating fear, tension and uncertainty; so that others cannot say what they see as wrongly developing inside our Catholic culture. The difference between now and then is, today's people have started to articulate the fact that the Church is not "Holy", but it is an institution led by men who have kept hiding their mistakes behind a halo of holiness for much longer than reasonably sustainable. And that hypocrisy has to stop.
This Church is not more "His" Church than anyone else's church would be, if we consider that all humans serve the same God and that all decently practiced faiths have the same weight in front of human law. What makes an institution "holy" is the integrity of its leadership; and our leadership has accumulated too many skeletons in their closets, as to claim any rights over the "Holiness" label.
You cannot talk of one Catholic Church, because the Church is at this very moment split by the deceitful makings of its leaders: While the Vatican kept irrationally excommunicating priests who have done nothing but acting according to principle, the developments that those ex-communicated priests have brought up to the world are so undeniably excellent and unifying, that we can certainly say that there are at least two streams of Catholicism going on, one in Rome inside the Vatican, which is a feudal model serving its own materialistic interests, and one with the world, the poor, science and reason, which is the true Jesuit model. You must decide whom do you serve... God, or Mammon...?
And ultimately: I would like people to stop giving a gender to the Church. It is enough that women have been dehumanized for so long by the makers of our conflicting dogmas. There is no female in the institution you know as Catholic Church, but it is and it has systemically and historically been a patriarchy invented by men, serving the interests of men, and manipulating the minds, lives and options of women on behalf of the same men who hated them, for very unholy reasons.
Gino! Your horror is to be
Gino!
Your horror is to be honored and respected! However we have a different view of the issues at hand. I see not the rage and and merciless hatred of anti Catholicism. I see the pain and angst, frustration, and confusion of children, abused and abandoned in the wilderness! I hear the cries of children, longing, reaching out, petulantly begging for it's mothers attention! But mother has neither time nor inclination to hear! The "child" who "adores" an abusive, alcoholic father, is sickened also by his fathers weakness. "Today is a good day, he only hit me twice!"
The letter writers have a God given right to write, whatever they feel is right to write! And they also have the right to give voice to those feelings! I think it's called "Free Will!" I also think it's called GRIEF for a dying "mother!" The right to write is might in spite of the terrible loss they feel! Right?
I do agree that a large dose of humility is called for here! When I begin to think in terms paralleling those you've stated as your own, I go to my mirror! And I take a real good look at what I've got to think with!
I suggest you give it a try, it's very humbling! I hope it helps to abate the horror.
I can only pray, that the Holy Spirit, gift us all, with the light to see with our hearts and not our heads.
In Jesus' Name, I pray for us all to see the light of RIGHT! Deo Gratias, Eta Missa Est.
James Edward
Gino: I cant speak for the
Gino:
I cant speak for the others, but I am simply following the example that the Bishops have set and are setting for us by their actions.
The bishops are the example of Catholic principles in action, they lead by example. Since they are infallible, and since they are the authority on what is right and proper, the true guardians of the deposit of faith, it must follow that their actions are the examples of right and proper behavior that we are expected to follow as well.
I am simply doing what the bishops instruct me to do through their example.
Actually, my problem isnt really all that deep. It is really simple. I have a BIG problem with ecclesiastical authorities who dont tell the truth, then get in my face when I dont toe THEIR line. I also have a BIG problem with people who make excuses and rationalize the unethical and criminal behavior of ecclesiastical authorities.
As I have said many times, one of the basic tenets of Catholicism and Christianity is honesty and integrity. We have bishops who do not seem to have those two words in their vocabulary.
My dear fin, You are most
My dear fin,
You are most absolutely, precisely, and definitively correct! Anti-Catholicism is alive and well! And resides not in my heart or my home, yet in the seat of Catholicism! An Olive Branch? You challenge my cynical pride, in that I do fathom the gesture! And in doing so, question my credentials as a realpolitik power-broker!
The patient, healing, daily transformative power of Christ is a gift to each of us. Had Papa Benedetto been cognizant and respectful of that power, there would be no need for an olive branch. That power is a gift, not a commodity to be bartered in international trade or politics!
I am duly chastized, mea culpa, mea culpa!
Rancour? No my friend! Sadness! Grief! For a friend I am losing in an agonal death!
God loves you fin! And HIS church!
I love you also! And will again HIS church! Should it be wrestled from the tortuous, terminal, grasp of the Scowling Howlies!
James Edward
Well, well... Now the
Well, well... Now the religious right is trying to convince the President Elect of the United States, that he should better listen to the Vatican in some international decision-making to protect so much wisdom as in the ban on condoms... But wait... Actually, now when the people finally got a sane President, they should really take over the next step: Send to jail all of the pedophiles and crooks who are protected inside the Peter's Bunker, pretending to talk in the incontestable God's language. They are still misleading people in the name of some religious authority that actually they have given away, by their own shameful activities...
Did you say that the Vatican has a "centuries old diplomatic tradition"...? Well, excuse me... but that was a centuries old series of abuse of authority, interfering with world's government, persecuting the poor, exterminating the non-believers, war-mongering, oppressing women, abusing children, controlling people's minds and condemning those who are different, funding governments to ban moral decisions and choices that should be left to the free election of the laity, covering-up for pedophiles and other manipulators dressed up in cassocks... Mr. Allen, the priests in Nicaragua - for example - have obstructed people's access to mental health decisions in cases of little girls who went pregnant by rape, whose parents asked for abortion while the governments, boosted by the Vatican and its cronies, successfully imposed their own interpretation of people's freedoms. It is not for the Catholic curia to decide instead of the parents, if the little girl should or not continue with the rape-based pregnancy. The curia does not have any experience in family matters (according to some more accurate academic definition, they are theological eunuchs living in misogyny and misanthropy), therefore they should not be allowed to interfere with the parents' choices in favor or against therapeutical rape-based abortion practiced on a minor.
Why do you seem so reluctant from calling things by name?
Only a few days ago, the hierarchy was after U.S. Senators Obama and Biden, charging all sorts of demonizations, evil interpretations, charges of lack of decency and hate against the motives and intentions of the Elected President and the Vice President of the United States of America... Now you are coming with the shameless mantra of "let's be friends again" as any justification to the divisionist behavior that the hierarchy tried to maliciously put on against the interests of the people in the delicate choice of making an informed decision in such an important matter as of what government shall be elected for Catholics and non-Catholics, theists and atheists, peoples of all colors and of all paths of life?
In your opinion, what authority do you think the Vatican still has in front of the people, that it should be considered worth of the necessary trust to rely on their one-sidedness and conspiracy style of secrecy, cover-ups and deceit as an important decision-maker in the shape of a world that is gone as wrong, precisely because the Vatican has kept interfering in world politics through their blatant non-separation of church and government?
Who do you think is responsible of the innumerable deaths in countries where the condom has been banned by the Vatican and its sexually obsessed intelligentsia? Who do you think is responsible of the abortions that are being practiced illicitly in unsanitary premises, while physicians and the public agree that the abortion ban is not applicable in cultures where the poverty rates are driving more and more children to live in the street, while the Vatican and its curia - who precisely intervene in those countries creating the prohibitions - live in the riches and wealth that only Rome has learned well how to confiscate in exchange for the peoples' freedom? Who do you think is responsible for the deaths of people infected with AIDS that could have been prevented, if the Vatican would not be telling such lies to the masses as not to use condoms, because AIDS does not happen really to those who practice unprotected sex?
How do you think the curia is still an authority in matters of other peoples' sexuality, if the curia itself is sick with pedophiles who are still protected by the Pope and his cronies by successfully escaping justice? Who do you think is responsible for the silencing of priests in the world, who spoke in favor of the poor, or who speak in the language of science and bioethics, advising the Pope to consider updating his moral and ethical databases?
And you have the nerve to come back with such an inappropriate letter, advising the Elected President of the United States to deal with those men for the shape of a better world? Shouldn't you be first asking all the questions stated above, and some hundreds of more, to the very Papal Anarchy that you want to present as a respectable authority for the world to follow? Are you out of your mind?
Amen! Tom Dolan coined the
Amen! Tom Dolan coined the perfect way to describe our hierarch. . ."robed anachronisms!"
Obama is going to have plenty on his plate without trying to have a meeting of minds with
bishops who put more emphasis on Canon Law than the Ten Commandments.
When the hierarchy rethinks their priorities. . ."What would Christ do?" then there'll be
something to discuss. In St. Louis, the Archdiocese has as their first priority taking
over our Polish Church. The latest is trying to put Catholic Charities under their
umbrella. . .God Forbid!!!!
I couldn't have said it
I couldn't have said it better myself. COME HOLY SPIRIT and enlighten those members of our hierarchy Tom Doyle so aptly labeled
the "robed anachronisms." They prefer Canon Law to the 10 Commandments as they bury the pedophile issues under the rectory rug.
John's comments are
John's comments are consistent with his presentation in Hartford Wednesday, Nov 5, 2008. We can only pray the Obama team responds in a way John suggests.
John: An excellent letter
John:
An excellent letter and statement of purpose. Only hope the new Administration listens!
Thank you for all your work to report and promote a better unity of Catholics in America.
God bless you!
Father Frank Ivey, O.F.M., MSW, A.C.S.W.
I do think this is a great
I do think this is a great letter, John.
The pope's telegram seems to say a lot about how political relationships work. Even though Benedict XVI (Catholic teaching) is in complete disagreement with Obama's stance on abortion, relations would NEVER be cut off or have a refusal to cooperate on other issues. This is a very different perspective than what some people have said or are saying about voting for Obama. For example, saying that there is no other choice for Catholics but voting against Obama. If the pope can "put aside differences" to work on the other issues that are important, it seems that "the flock" can do so as well.
Thanks, and God bless.
R. Dennis Porch, MD I agree
R. Dennis Porch, MD
I agree with Mr. Allen that you have composed a nice letter for the Obama administration, and I think an open relationship would be of benefit to all. However, I think that you should compose an equally polite letter to the Benedict administration in the Vatican about the uneven handedness that was shown to Senator Obama in the campaign. Particularly Arch Bishop Burke's remarks about Obama and the Democratic party in the United States. I think it also important to mention that there were a vocal minority of the Bishops in the United States that acted extremely imprudently politicizing the Eucharist and threatening people with hell if they did not vote against Obama. The Vatican should be asked to reconcile all of this misbehavior on the part of its Bishops.
Also I think it time that journalists such as yourself begin to ask the Vatican to clamp down on the criminal behavior, although it was negated by statures of limitations in the United States, of several of the Bishops in the United States. You might write and additional letter asking for the Vatican to retire these men and reform the way they are appointed. The People of God deserve no less. The Vatican must realize and do something about these mistakes before there can be any good reconciliation with a growing number of catholics, particularly those that have kept up on the facts. The more educated and curious in society will not forgive non lamented misbehavior in this crisis of Episcopal leadership. It should also be pointed out in this letter that there have been many financial frauds beginning with Banko Ambosia and many diocesan problems that need to be cleaned up. This should trigger further resignations in the Episcopacy. Finally it would be important to point out that most Bishops are not very qualified to be teachers of theology or science and that many of their statements are megalomanic in that they do not come from observation or resume. There are a highly vocal minority of Bishops and laity that believe that memorization of the catechism gibes them omnipotent knowledge. This is misbehavior and must be corrected. The Vatican Academy of Science itself should be faulted because the appointment process requires scientists to agree beforehand with what the Bishops of the Church are saying. That is why the majority view of science is poorly represented and virtually no one who works in the important field of stem cells is on this academy. Lastly, the Bishops simply function as administrators, they have no right to license theologians or anyone else- to do this causes Catholic Centers of higher Education to become centers of catechesis and not centers teaching theology.
To be fair Mr. Allen, you should write two or three open letters to the Vatican to ask them to heal the breaches in the Church caused by an Episcopacy with a lack of prudence in their leadership.
Peace and understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
In short, Dr Porch, *you*
In short, Dr Porch, *you* want to write a letter to the Vatican airing all of your grievances, but do not have the credibility or gravitas that Mr. Allen does. That gravitas, Dr Porch, comes from having a non-partisan, thorough-going Catholic perspective. What John Allen recognises, and what so few Obama supporters do, is that while President-elect Obama grasps a lot of the issues of Catholic Social Teaching, he's missing the proverbial elephant in the corner. I would argue that the bishops should be turning up the volume on the abortion issue now more than before 04 Nov 08 to remind people that abortion is not an issue that we are called to address only once every election cycle. The souls of the aborted unborn, and good people of the world at large, are watching. Peace, Fin.
It is sad fin to see you so
It is sad fin to see you so passionate about "abortion" and yet to hear you be so insensitive to the real problem, specifically the degree of hate that has come to characterize the "faithful orthodox" and the Magisterial Leadership of the Catholic Church.
You support the hate-mongering tactics the Bishops employed before the election and now you are encouraging them to be even more hateful. (turn up the volume) I read your statement as saying that hate and violence are acceptable ways to protect the unborn, right?
You support the Bishops in their lies and deceit, and now you encourage them to continue to lie and be deceitful. I read your statement as saying that anything goes to protect the unborn is acceptable, right?
Yes Fin, good people are watching, but they are also saying "NO MORE HATE".
Fin, you are correct, there is an elephant in the corner, but it is not the abortion issue. The real elephant is the hate that festers in the hearts of some of the "faithful". Hate that wears the disguise of righteousness. Hate that justifies violence because the "cause" is so important.
Abortion is the symptom. Hate is the disease.
It is so much easier to ignore the real issue. If one faces the real issue then one would have to take responsibility for their actions.
It is so much easier to point fingers than to actually do something productive to heal the source of the problem.
It is so much easier to wave a sign in someones face, than to help those in need find solutions.
It is so much easier to shout hate rhetoric than to speak words of comfort and support to those in need.
It is so much easier to be hateful, than to express love.
If Jesus Christ was here He
If Jesus Christ was here He would tell the people what they already know in their hearts is the TRUTH! The Truth about bringing a baby into the world is a truth that we as Christians do know. If God wants a baby to be brought into the world it means that HE wants a certain baby to be brought into the world. Why ask the question if you already KNOW the answer? The reason why President GWB and Barack Housein OBAMA and the Vice President are so HAPPY that BHO is becoming the next president of the United States is because they are related!
After hearing our NEW President of the united states talk about killing his little grandson or granddaughter, I just refused to vote for him. His hatred for humanity begins at home. Senator McCain is human. He has made mistakes and he owns up to them. Mr. OBAMA has refused to admit mistakes. We American People have been duped again. Jesus said what was right. He told us to Love God with thy whole mind, heart, and soul, and to Love they neighbor as thyself. He would have stood up against President Bush's charge for war with Saddam Housein, as Pope John Paul II did. If Pope John Paul II, hadn't have lived through that gunshot, then how would we have seen the forgiveness of Jesus Christ? I can tell by the weight on John Paul II's shoulders he did not like to go out and call his fellow man names and laugh at them, like many of the people like to do with the Pope as they did to my Lord Jesus. Many Christians have said why didn't the pope give up his chair? But I say to you that Jesus Christ gave HIS life for everybody so that we could go to heaven. Pope John Paul II made many visits all around the world. During his life he got to go and forgive that person who had shot him.
I think that if our new president wants to meet with the pope it might require a lot of talk, which my friend Barack seems to know how to do very well. If one thinks about the littlest Lamb the way that God feels about us, then they would not require a girl, or a woman, to get an abortion and just pretend that it never happened! It is hard to love a daughter who has given herself away to a meager boyfriend, but the wonderful little baby that she brought into this world and the beautiful person that she became during the nine months it was a miracle!
If Jesus Christ was here...
If Jesus Christ was here...
--- He would come around as a humble young man who grew up with an adopted father, much older than his mom...
--- No one in the establishment would want him for President of the United States...
--- He would be hated, for favoring the poor...
--- He would be hated, for not forcing women to relinquish their right to equality.
--- He would definitively not be a gynophobe.
--- He would think those men who waste their lives in the monasteries while bothering little boys are nut cakes...
--- He would tell the women in the convents to go back to normal, because he is not their husband and he is not behind their ecstasies... He would be honest and tell them that they are only being very horny...
--- His worst enemy would be a Republican, claiming that he is a Communist, because he would keep trying to raise taxes against the rich to help the poor.
--- He would be accused of being on the side of the poor and the low-income, thus circumventing "Freedom."
--- He would be defamed for not supporting the elite.
--- The Pope would call him a Sect Leader, because he would not fit in the Vatican's high income profile.
--- Definitively, the Vatican would never invite such a poor man talking of his Father's Kingdom for lunch or dinner...
--- All those who have hated women by theological systemic, would be angry at him for being the perfect womanizer...
--- He would get himself in a conflict of interests, because he would not speak a word favoring the existence of hell or purgatory.
--- He would never tell us that his mother was still a virgin after he was born...
--- The hierarchy would try to jail him, for whatever invented reasons.
--- He would face criminal charges, for trying to kick the money-worshippers out of the temples.
--- The hierarchy would not listen to him, because he would not show up dressed in expensive golden cloaks.
--- He would not endorse anyone telling that the Pope is God on Earth.
--- He would not bow at Cardinal Ratzinger's arrogance, triviality and hateful manners...
--- The Cosa Nostra would try send him to jail to stop his free speech.
--- No human rights organizations would be on his side, because he would be irrelevant for class-action suits.
--- He would wonder how the ten commandments of the Catholics today are not the same given by God to Moses in Mount Sinai.
--- He would refuse becoming a "Christian."
--- He would clearly tell us all that he never institutionalized the practice of 'professional priesthood."
--- He would wonder from where did they all get the magical drive about Mary's apparitions.
--- He would be called "The Anti-Christ."
--- He would have to go underground to escape retaliation.
--- The hierarchy would threaten with his excommunication for supporting women's priesthood efforts.
--- He would surely find women cute, for trying to become priests, after the men have excluded them from priesthood for so long, although Jesus would not endorse anyone as professional priests anyway...
--- Maybe he would choose to get married and be a father, since he never spoke against it and he never evaded women.
and so on...
You should start a religion.
You should start a religion.
John Allen Jr. performs a
John Allen Jr. performs a valuable function in informing us all of Vatican news and views. I would suggest however that his column should be renamed "All Things Vatican". That is not meant to be pejorative, just subtly accurate. He knows that he must protect his access to the vatican insiders and thus seems to veer to the institutional representation end of the scale.
Even a "non-American" can leap to the presumption that Obama will seek effective relations with the Vatican, at least if his words hold any credibility. The plea is redundant. So what is the real point of Allen's column? As someone else, Col55 I think, noted the real issue is not even the "Clinton lesson" but an attempt to minimize and even obfuscate the stance and methods of the Vatican's underlings to undermine Obama's campaign and (re)turn of the church into a political instrument. It is my impression that Obama will listen, it is my impression that he won't be bullied, especially when the vatican had demonstrated that "iron fist" in the velvet glove is really made of clay
Obama seems to have kept his campaigners in line with his decency approach, the Vatican did not.
I couldn't agree more with
I couldn't agree more with everything that GregY said. In addition, why put quotation marks around "life issues"? How about using the phrase _human life issues_, and then go on to name them, as you did in your letter?
Jacqueline Y.
Mr. Allen, With all due
Mr. Allen,
With all due respect, I think you have misstated a few things in this letter.
The fact that Pope Benedict sent a note of congratulations to Senator Obama, calling it a "historic occasion" is absolutely correct. But this does not, in any way, indicate that the Pope approves of or supports Mr. Obama's already-expressed vision or policies. Clearly, the Pope will work with Mr. Obama insofar as he can, perhaps especially on Africa, but I'll be very "surprised" if his relationship with Mr. Obama is either warm or enduring. If you think that the Pope will allow himself to be used to shore up Obama's base with Catholics, you yourself are off-base. Doctrine does count, after all.
Second, the "robust religiosity" of America that you cite is more apparent than real. Aside from the collapse of the mainline Protestant bodies and the erosion in the Catholic Church, I think what you're referring to, without being explicit, is the oft-cited strength of evangelical Protestantism. Well, if their strength was in evidence during this election cycle, I didn't see it. Either they sat on their hands or their "principles" were as up-for-grabs as anyone else's. Religiosity requires more than putting on a good show.
I agree with a lot of what
I agree with a lot of what John Allen has written, especially two points.
Our policy with regards to Africa has been a disaster for Africa and a boon to China. An alliance between the White House and the Vatican would be a formidable balance for China's economic influence, and a big boost for fragile democracies.
I also hope that the person President-elect Obama chooses for his ambassador will be able to articulate the thinking of the progressive wing in the Church. Perhaps someone like Douglas Kmiec. It's time Benedict XVI heard from the other Catholic Church in America, the one not led by Archbishop Burke et al.
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
The first time I read this I
The first time I read this I missed that it was not the Pope writing the letter. Oh well, there goes my humanity showing up again. Now that said:
The letter brings up some good points, although, the threat for the 2012 was in my opinion unnecessary and inappropriate.
I have a few suggestions for actions the Pope could take that would go a long way to smoothing over relations between the Vatican and the current administration:
--- issue a papal apology to Obama for the inappropriate actions of the bishops
--- speaking out is one thing, attempted blackmail and coercion of the voters
--- character assassination, distortions of facts are criminal behaviors
--- defrock and excommunicate Chaput, Martino, Finn and the other bishops
--- who spoke out so hatefully during the campaign and violated numerous laws
--- in the process
--- even better, turn over evidence of their criminal activities to the appropriate
--- authorities and surrender them for prosecution
--- issue a papal apology to the laity for the actions of these bishops
--- disclose all of the details of the Vatican/ Bishopric involvement in
--- the campaign, regardless of how embarrassing it might be
--- disclose how much money was spent and who it went to in the campaign
--- against Obama
COL55! To god in heaven
COL55!
To god in heaven above, let praises be!!! I sat here in the depths of hopelessness until I read your post and that of Santa Chingata! I am now hopeful that there may be two live brain cells left in this bald old head! You guys actually get It! You really understand!
God loves you all! And so do I! But i don't count like God!
James Edward
Dear Mr. Allen, Overall I
Dear Mr. Allen,
Overall I think you have composed a nice letter on the opportunities of collaboration and "making the best" out of a less than ideal situation to accomplish good. I would take exception of one thing: your letter's tone seems to almost apologize for the Church's unwavering stance to protect the lives of unborn babies. For example, you refer to the bishops who spoke out on this as a "small number." I believe that this is inaccurate--the last I heard there were over 80, which is about one-third of all U.S. bishops. But even if it were a "small number," why try to dismiss the importance of their voices? Must we abandon our principles to collaborate? Why not instead take a tone of, say, "Yes, we are in resolute disagreement over the life issue, but we can still work with you on issues x, y, and z"?
The pro-life community must be ready as never before to make our voices heard during the next 4 years of the Obama administration if we hope to have any chance of stopping disasterous things like the Freedom of Choice Act, expanded destruction of human embryos for stem cell research, etc. Now is hardly the time to be apologizing for being resolutely pro-life. But I agree with the rest of the letter that there is no reason that the Church should not work with Obama on other issues of common concern to promote justice, peace, and freedom.
Thanks for considering my thoughts.
-GregY
Dear GregY, Overall, I
Dear GregY,
Overall, I think you missed a very salient point of the events of the past few days. Of course Mr. Allens piece seemed apologetic, as I for one, would deem proper. Considering the character asassination perpetrated on our now President-elect, as a candidate, and the electorate body as a whole, apologies are embarrassingly in order! Most embarrassingly!
I would remind you that 545 men in seats of a government, OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE, were responsible for the placement of Roe v. Wade "on the books" and it's preservation therein! Those 545 men represent the will of 301,000,000 people! I am given to understand that the catholic population of the United States is approximately 30%. Not a majority my friend. And no amount of public wielding of a sword, crafted from the "souls of aborted innocents," will make it so!
Not an inkling of doubt resides in my mind, that upon awakening Nov.5,2008, the very first thought on the collective Vatican mind was, "UH-OH!"
If you are interested in such things, "jus' hide in them bushes and watch!" You are about to witness the time honored "Tap dance of The Holy See!"
The Vatican is not in the business of SAVING souls, so much as COLLECTING souls! For trade as voting blocks, consumer demographics, and collective outraged voices to the current corporate line!
I disagree that the tone should be, "Yes, we are in resolute disagreement over the life issue, but we can still work with you on issues x,y, and z." I highly suspect that the tone will be, "Yes we said some things about you, but no worse than your opponent! That's politics. And you, now President of the United States of America, are a,(very astute) Politician! So! We'll let all of that slide, because we still have a collection of souls to be directed to your use and vision! Oh! and we still have money and influence in some countries that may be of interest to you! And you can't ignore this developing "Catholic" thing in Africa! That's a whole continent you know!" I think it's known as "power brokering!" Ain't it?
Suffice it to say that I, and others like me, (power brokering 'lil devil that I am) are not hopeful!
Thanks for listening, should that be the case!
James Edward
James Edward writes:
James Edward writes: >>I would remind you that 545 men in seats of a government, OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE, were responsible for the placement of Roe v. Wade "on the books" and it's preservation therein! Those 545 men represent the will of 301,000,000 people! I am given to understand that the catholic population of the United States is approximately 30%. Not a majority my friend. And no amount of public wielding of a sword, crafted from the "souls of aborted innocents," will make it so!<<
However, Roe v. Wade did not reflect the will of the people, but of a few Supreme Court Justices. It hasn't been codified by the 545 legislators, although this is Obama's plan. The Gallup polls for 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 consistently show that a little over 70% of the American people either think abortion should be illegal or should be restricted to certain times or certain types of cases. If Obama has his way, the will of the people (still reflected, e.g., in laws of individual states) will no longer be respected by their representatives.
Kainzh, your cited
Kainzh, your cited statistics are correct, but there is one big fly in the ointment. The real question is how many Americans follow the bishops line that a full person is present at conception. The returns from South Dakota would suggest that the majority of Americans (75%)don't follow the bishops line. Apparently pro life doesn't necessarily mean pro life from conception, and when given the chance to vote on it, many pro lifers will reject it.
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
American bishops (or
American bishops (or European or African, etc.) do not believe that a full person is present at conception. They believe that human life is present from conception. The Catholic bishops of Colorado, for instance, publicly opposed a referendum that would have defined the fetus as a person. The difference between life and personhood is subtle, yet important.
Dear Mr. Edward, Rancour,
Dear Mr. Edward,
Rancour, rancour, rancour! Here I was going to spend a few paragraphs explaining how anti-Catholicism is alive and well, but you proved my point for me. For that I (sort of) owe you a debt of thanks. What cynics fail to realise is that the Pope has reached out an olive branch of peace and understanding, a gesture which realpolitik power-brokers like yourself cannot fathom. He has done the same to leaders in other countries that do not share, in toto, a Catholic worldview. Such is the patient, healing, and daily transformative power of Christ alive in His Church at work in the world! Viva il Papa! Viva Papa Benedetto! Viva la chiesa Cattolica per tutto il mundo! - Fin
John, I’m glad you wrote
John, I’m glad you wrote this letter—I hope Obama reads it and carefully considers what you said. I wouldn’t spend too much time apologizing for the American bishops who opposed Obama since they were just doing their jobs. What else could they have done given Obama’s pro-abortion voting record and campaign promises? He achieved a 100% approval rating by both NARAL and Planned Parenthood. He promised to pass FOCA as soon as he took office. He voted against the Illinois Born Alive Act. There is every indication that he looks on abortion as a necessary means to solve the world’s problems. How does anyone square that with the notion that abortion is intrinsically evil; that it kills innocent children; that it wounds parents forever; that it is devastating to women and families; and that it turns healthcare workers into killers? Is there ever a justifiable reason to promote an intrinsically evil act as public policy? You brought up the example given in Ray Flynn’s book, John Paul II—A Portrait of the Pope and the Man, of the conflict between JPII and President Clinton over the UN conference on population in 1994. Abortion was the main issue then, too, when the Pope opposed the UN’s policy of forcing abortion and birth control on poor, developing nations as a condition for public assistance. The Pope felt then that it wasn’t right for the rich countries to try to solve the world’s problems by placing all the burdens on poor countries; especially burdens that severely limited people’s freedom. From all indications, the Obama administration will probably continue where the Clinton administration left off. And, if this is the case, there will be conflict between the Vatican and the Obama administration, and I predict an unwelcomed reception of the Pope by the new administration as well.