|
||
Obama at the Vatican: A Meeting of Symbolism, Not Substance
Earlier this week, in his social encyclical Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict claimed that the church does not "interfere in any way in the politics of States." These words are especially pertinent for today's meeting between President Obama and the pope.
While both men are world leaders, the pope and the president maintain distinctly different roles as a religious leader and a political leader, respectively. We must be clear that the pope does not command the same type of global responsibility as a member of the Group of Eight, such as the United States, and to expect G8-type political outcomes from this meeting would be unrealistic and wrong.
Although Pope Benedict and President Obama play different roles in the world, there are undoubtedly valuable issues that the two men can and should discuss. Taking even a quick look at this week's encyclical, one will find many examples of the similar outlooks the two leaders share on issues pertaining to poverty, the rights of immigrants and the benefits of scientific progress. Both men strive for an end to both war and hunger. Both aim to safeguard the environment and protect religious freedoms. The pope may have the moral stature to promote these causes but the president has the political power to effect change at a policy level.
The common views the pope and president share affect the lives of people in the U.S. and around the world, especially those living in poverty. As such, it would be beneficial for them to discuss these issues. With wars abounding and financial crises overwhelming us, it is always positive when people of good will and good intent can agree, discuss and inspire one another to work even harder to better our world.
At their meeting, President Obama certainly need not lecture the pope about the inner workings of the Catholic church. It is a widely known fact that Catholics the world over disagree with the dictates of the Vatican on issues pertaining to sexual and reproductive health and rights. Catholics must let the pope and other members of the church hierarchy know that the Vatican is out of touch, the teachings flawed and people suffer as a result. That message need not come from President Obama; rather, it is up to Catholics to raise these concerns.
In the same vein, Pope Benedict should not lecture the president about the needs of people in the U.S. This nation was founded by those who suffered from religious persecution and fled to America to be free to practice religion as they saw fit. It is therefore no surprise that the separation of church and state was and continues to be a cornerstone of U.S. democracy. Politics should not interfere with religion nor should religion interfere with politics. People of every religion and no religion should be equally represented; freedom of religion and freedom from religion must be guaranteed. With this in mind, the pope should not feel the need to lecture President Obama on matters of internal U.S. policy.
However, recent evidence suggests that the pope's claims that church does not "interfere in any way in the politics of States" are more than a little disingenuous.
In the United States alone, we have several examples. Take, for instance, when the U.S. bishops successfully lobbied to strip life-saving family planning measures from the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) bill. Moreover, the bishops continue to lobby for conscience clauses (or, more correctly, refusal clauses) that protect entire institutions-not individuals-and exclude abortion and contraception from healthcare reform. Both measures could limit access to vital reproductive healthcare services. These are all classic examples of how the pope, through the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, interferes in U.S. politics.
When Pope Benedict and President Obama meet, the president should not tell the pope how to run his church nor should the pope tell the president how to run his country. In reality, this meeting is more about symbolism and respect for each other and the institutions they represent than anything else. As Pope Benedict is a religious leader and does not take on the responsibilities that President Obama has as a political leader, we cannot and should not expect any substantial outcomes. However, the two men can definitely discuss what they agree on and inspire one another to move forward doing good work.
Follow Jon O'Brien on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Catholic4Choice
Landon Ross: Don't, Please: An Atheist's Defense
Charlotte Allen tries to trivialize the Atheist movement on the basis that we are boring, even if angry, fanatics who whine about being oppressed. Allen is wrong about everything; except this: I'm an Atheist, and I'm angry.
Chris Korzen: At the Vatican, a Democrat Who Gets It
Had their disagreements precluded a meeting, the fertile common ground that the pope and the president share on values like economic justice, health care and workers' rights would lie fallow.
Bob Ostertag: A Tough Call for Conservative Anglicans: Openly Gay Clergy, or Closeted Pedophiles?
Now all those disgruntled Episcopalians have a choice to make: stay on the team that accepts openly gay priests, or bolt for another team run by closeted homosexual pedophiles. It's a tough call.
Vicky Shorr: The Catholic Church Vs. The Women of Brazil
The Church in Brazil is manned by the likes of the Archbishop of Recife, whose latest idea of social activism was to ex-communicate the mother of a nine-year-old rape victim, who got the child an abortion.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The Church has been saying what it believes since I was a kid in Catholic grammar and high schools. All right, so some of those teachings didn't take with me.
Nevertheless, the Church is the Church.
And, there are many things the Church advocates that I agree with. But the Church and I part company, for example, on abortion and birth control. I abhor abortion so much that I would advocate birth control, The Church, not so much. It's not a big deal we don't agree. But where we part company is the Church advocacy of laws that would enforce their dogma. I think it's fair to assume the Church dislikes abortion more than it dislikes birth control. Much more. That being the case, it's logical to me that it advocate birth control as a reluctant alternative to abortion. It doesn't. I respect that, even though it doesn't make sense to me.
But the Church is the Church.
It won't compromise. But it seems to me that the pro- and anti-abortion folks need to work out a deal. Abortion won't go away, even if Roe is overturned. The Blue States will handle the abortions from the Red States. In the unlikely event that abortion is banned in all 50 states, Mexico, Canada and the Islands will be fulfilling the demand. So, how do you stop abortion? Persuasion and making the alternative to abortion more compelling.
Do you just throw up your hands? Are you arguing thatthe church should advocate based o popularity of ideas? The foundation of the anti-birthcontrol and anti-choice stands is flawed, and it is this that Catholics need to stand up for. If I believed birth control was morally wrong, I would not be able to accept it under any conitions. I don't ask the Vatican o changebecause it is "out f step" but because it is hopelessly wrong.
"Are you arguing that the church should advocate based o popularity of ideas? "
Is there something I said that would make you think that's what I mean?
You think the Church is "wrong." The Church thinks you're "wrong." Next thing both sides we'll be saying they know the "truth." I'll let you guys work that out. I'm mainly interested in getting a compromise going.
Jon O'Brien is right on target. It should be mentioned that he is president of the excellent organization Catholics for Choice. Obama could not say it, but it needs to be said that widespread poverty and hunger, global warming, resource depletion, etc, cannot be dealt with without universal access to family planning information and wherewithal, universal legalization of abortion, and universal equal rights for women. Pope Benedict could help enormously if he could find a way to reverse the Vatican's 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, which ran counter to the strong recommendations of Pope Paul VI's own advisers. Incidentally, Catholics overwhelmingly approved of President Obama's appearance and receiving of an honorary doctorate at Motre Dame University in May. --- Edd Doerr, President, Americans for Religious Liberty
Catholics in particular have failed to both educate and be educated accurately about their own Church's teachings on sexual ethics (not to mention basic catechesis), which leads to hearsay, misunderstanding, and blind rejection of the Church's centuries of wisdom.
Finally, the issues placed forth here are NOT internal United States issues. They are universal issues that directly affect every human life around the world. If Roe V. Wade's outcome was reversed, there would be over 40 million more Americans today (most in the work-force paying taxes for healthcare, social security, and a greater budget that would equal a lower deficit). More awareness would be brought to the adoption process, giving deserving, loving families the option to adopt. There would be a greater awareness of the need for a comprehensive response to sex-education, not one that inadequately addresses the genital act itself. We would not be seeing widespread devastation among women who have had abortion procedures performed on them and their unborn children - the studies of which are revealing the tragic reality of the post-effects of abortion. Violence against women has increased dramatically since adopting these laws in our country - and it is to no one's surprise!
When we objectify the reproductive act, we objectify the person participating in that act, viewing them not as autonomous individuals, but as playthings to be used, manipulated, persuaded, and abused.
read previous post first - thanks!
centuries of wisdom???? like what for instance?
Women just weren't allowed to discuss their abuse before the late 60's/early 70's. I love how you provide these statistics with no links because there ARE none. Maybe you want us to be like Ireland where there have to be multiple male witnesses to a woman being beaten by her husband before she will be granted a divorce.
There would be hundreds of thousands of dead girls and women if it weren't for Roe having passed. If you think the world is lacking in bodies then you are the very small minority.
When we reduce "making love" to "having sex" by denying birth control, we do far worse than "objectify" the participants; we reduce tham to sub-human animals. Anti-choice reduces all women to second class status, and reduces those who are already born to expendible status. Humanae Vitae is a load of self-seving justification for cruel policies.
I fail to understand the constant push for "separation of church and state." It was intended to keep the church out of direct appointments within government, not blanket restriction and censure of everything religious or spiritual. The Supreme Court decisions in 1947 and 1963 declared that government may not MANDATE religious practices in schools (this has always been understood to include lawmaking).
Every system of thought necessarily carries with it opinions about life. The very nature of a democratic republic leaves room for pluralism in ALL it's forms, not simply a few that change as the decades go by. As a Catholic, a thinker, and an advocate for "true change," where lie my rights to freedom of expression? These beliefs admittedly stem from a system of faith, of theology and dogma, but their REASON for being is imminently practical. Sadly, my views are dismissed "a priori" because of their origin, not their practical merit or philosophical depth. It is equally sad to note that those who preach tolerance the loudest in this country are blinded by their own intolerance of differing viewpoints.
The Church's teachings on ethical issues such as contraception, birth control, human rights, etc., flow from her very to instructs the faithful - following in the example of her founder, Jesus Christ. The confusion is precisely because society does not know these issues intimately. Disagreement with the Church is not inherently wrong. Being willfully misinformed or ignorant on any of these issues is inexcusable.
Jesus would be appaled at the Vatican. He would point out that they are the Pharisees of their day.
As a 'used to be Catholic," I believe catholics are speaking out about their disagreements with this Pope and his attempts to drag them back to the past. Participation is down, their cash flow into the collection baskets is down, they're not attending services or going to confession to confess what they no longer believe is sinful and they're marching off to other religious denominations in steady streams. The pope and his bishops and priests who are becoming even more dictatorial and naive haven't figured out what is going on, because they're narrowmindedly blinded by their own importance and power. I hope they do disappear and that the people will take back their churches and become real communities again where it is the people who own the church property, NOT ARCHDIOCESES OR THE POPE.
The Church isn't backing down, even though it's affecting their viability. Isn't that to be admired? Standing for her beliefs even though the Church's future is at stake.
"The Church isn't backing down, even though it's affecting their viability. Isn't that to be admired? Standing for her beliefs even though the Church's future is at stake."
Uh, no it isn't admirable especially when people have suffered and continue to suffer under the church's policies.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely ... Lord Acton
have long been disappointed in fellow Catholics who selfishly voted for the ill prepared and ultimately evil GWB over an issue that is not relevant. Church and state are separate.
Where were the tenets of Catholic Social Teaching which would have done much more good for our country and the world than wasting time on a single issue.
But go ahead, stick to your guns (heh) continue to vote against the best interests of the country and let the free market take care of everything. And see that abortion will still be legal and the country will be in an even bigger mess. Hey, it also makes making money on the backs of the poor and middle class much more palatable too, eh?
You can save lives in so many ways - why not DO it?
Whenever I share with thoughtful Catholics my views about how out of date the church is with the modern world, they tend to agree, but indicate that progress is slow. Whenever I share my views with more dogmatic Catholics they invite me not let the door hit me in the butt on my way out the door. Fortunately the only time I go into Catholic churches anymore is to accompany my 89 year old mother on visits home. I see people I grew up with and they feel sorry for me and I them. The church has always been afraid of new ideas, which is why they end up losing members and credibility. No wonder the Protestants used to make so much fun of us. However, now they are trying to out dogmatize us. I still consider myself a Catholic, but my fellow members consider me as heretical as my namesake. They have yet to burn me at the stake, but who knows. Giordy
When you say "the church" lets be clear we are speaking of those who uphold the immutable teaching of faith passed on through the centuries. Today that means the Pope and most of the bishops. In past ages the true teachings have been safeguarded and passed on by others. In England George VI finally beheaded Sir Thomas Moore for his "disloyalty" to the king. All the other catholic bishops caved to the king. Who was really afraid of the truth? Moore or the bishops? Giordano you have it backwards. Those who uphold the dogma have conquered the fear of what the world can do to them. Ridicule,curses, and worse are willingly borne as the price of defending the truth. Fear loses its sting when its squarely faced. True individuality and human freedom is only possible when fear is conquered. Those who reject the dogma do so out of fear...fear of having to live by rules they find burdensome,fear of being under the power of another or fear of the ridicule of others.
Excellent post. My thoughts exactly!!!!
Some do reject dogma for the fear you posit, but an awful lot of use reject it because we think is is wrong. I find it particularly revolting to use "Natural Law" to uphold the very un-natural dogma of limiting family size!
I am grateful to have Obama as our President. I know he would not hesitate to politely tell the Pope or anyone else the truth. How the Catholic Church and its interference affects the lives of people who are not even Catholic. How women in war zones who have been raped cannot get abortion services funded by WHO. How men and women in abject poverty cannot access cheap condoms or other contraceptive services that could keep their families small and pull them out of their misery. The Catholic Church basically tries to keep people in poverty and then with their charities tries to draw people to their church. Instead of empowering the people to help themselves.
Catholics have always stuck to their core beliefs.
And what would their core principles be other than whoring their integrity to a corrupt authority?
"Catholics have always stuck to their core beliefs."
Catholics are a very diverse group, particularly when it is in regard to church teachings. It isn't really correct nor appropriate to paint them all with the same brush.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely ... Lord Acton
the arrogance of the author to presume that he can tell the pope and obama what to discuss at their meeting is amazing
The author is expressing what he knows and hears from people all over this country, and that is NOT arrogance, but public knowledge as well as experience.
Why is expressing his thoughts arrogance?
Ha. Lovely sentiments. Which are not borne out by history....
"It is a widely known fact that Catholics the world over disagree with the dictates of the Vatican .... Catholics must let the pope and other members of the church hierarchy know that the Vatican is out of touch, the teachings flawed and people suffer as a result.... it is up to Catholics to raise these concerns."
YES! It IS up to us...now please tell us how to go about doing so.
but if your vote is based on abortion, it covers a whole mess of other sins - like how our "free market" screws the average Joe in America and around the world.
The republican party works to salve the conscience of many wealthy Catholics I know.
The Vatican is not a democracy where the believers can "let the Pope know that he is out of touch".
It is a dictatorship with a leader who has it in writing that his decisions are infallible, and with bishops who had to swear an oath to enforce his commands, or else lose their job.
If you don't like the faith go somewhere else. I like my Catholic faith as is.
You're probably one of the uninformed who listen to and believe Limbaugh.
To do so, begin by NOT ATTENDING catholic church services and NOT PAYING SUPPORT.
Jon:
Before you purport to espouse expertise about the First Amendment, please read it and study its history. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a doctrine of separation of Church and State. The "wall" metaphor was espoused years later by Thomas Jeffeson in Conn.
This is utter nonsense. The First Amendment sprung from Jefferson and Madison; Jefferson's use of the wall metaphor reflected the intent of the founders.
Do you then oppose the separation of church and state?
"Pope Benedict claimed that the church does not 'interfere in any way in the politics of States.'
Never ever, not to increase its parishoners in its churches faced with closing in Calfiornia by encouraging and fostering mass illegal immigration? Never ever, nope.
Not to topple governments, or march in the streets never-ever, not the Catholic Church its not a political organization, not at all. Nope
The temptation to control the speech and behavior of others cannot be resisted by any religious institution. After all, that's what its all about, isn't it? To make you "better"?
More appropriately to make us want to be better so that we can control ourselves. To their disgust, Catholic teaching did work on me, and it wasn't long before I saw that what they wanted me to do was not to be "better" but to conform to patriarchical notions. I rejected the easy path of "the Pope said" for the much harder path of "What WOULD Jesus do?" I am much happier because of it.
An interesting and sober account.
"freedom of religion and freedom from religion must be guaranteed"
Thank you.
Each time this is spoken and written,
it advances the cause of liberty round the world.
"Catholics must let the pope and other members of the church hierarchy know that the Vatican is out of touch, the teachings flawed and people suffer as a result."
This is demonstrated over and over again, and the vatican need only look at all the empty churches.
And from Jon O'Brien's comment:
"It is also very refreshing to hear that the pope acknowledged the importance of conscience in making decisions that have ethical and moral consequences."
This conscience has more to do with preventing increased suffering than with passing some litmus test that gets one iinto heaven.
The Pope is way ahead of Obama in recognizing the terrible oppression the Palestinians in the West Bank suffer at the fhands of their Israeli occupiers. The Pope is also well aware the Israeli occupation has been a catastrophe for the Christians in the West Bank.
Then that is all the pope is aware of.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
