Vatican reminds Obama of differences on healthcare, abortion


Here is what the Vatican Information Service reported:

Benedict XVI, through the apostolic nunciature in Washington, U.S.A., has sent a message to Barack Obama, congratulating him on his re-election as president of the United States of America.

In his message the Holy Father expresses his best wishes to the president on his new mandate, and gives assurances of his prayers to God to help him carry out his serious responsibilities, both in his own country and within the international community. The Pope also speaks of his hope that the ideals of freedom and justice, which guided the founding fathers of the Unites States of America, may continue to shine out as the nation progresses.

Holy See Press Office Director Fr. Federico Lombardi S.J. also made a brief comment on the re-election of President Obama. “As we all know”, he said, “the U.S. president has an immense responsibility, not only in his own country but also towards the rest of the world, given the role the U.S.A. plays at an international level”.

“For this reason we hope that President Obama will respond to his fellow citizens’ expectations, serving law and justice for the good and development of all people, and respecting essential human and spiritual values while promoting a culture of life and religious freedom”.

Mr. Obama has no reason to care anymore what anyone, anywhere, at whatever level in his or any other country says about him, chides him, tries to influence him, or in any way offers him a suggestion or states a hope.

I wish Our Holy Father took over!!

We are blessed to have such a wonderful Pope!!


So true…

Oh, that’s a very nice message from The Pope to the President!
The two Big P’s.

Ok, let’s clarify a few things. To begin with, he’s President Obama. Second, that’s your opinion, but as President he has the DUTY to care. Whether he does or not, or to what extent, it’s a whole other issue.

CCC 1900 The duty of obedience requires all to give due honor to authority and to treat those who are charged to exercise it with respect, and, insofar as it is deserved, with gratitude and good-will.

OK, let’s clarify a few more things. Not every reference to the individual in question need to refer to him as “president.” The newspapers of today and commentaries of last night are replete with references to “Mr.Obama.” There is no inherent disrespect in that usage.

As someone who cheerfully supports not just abortion but the horror of partial-birth abortion, our president I suspect is not unduly concerned with or burdened by what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about duty or much of anything else.

Please don’t be upset, I apologize if I sounded harsh, and I admit that I lacked charity in assuming the Mr. was being used in the negative sense :blush: I just don’t like to be too harsh on the President. That’s the point of the election: not everyone voted for him…not everyone voted period :smiley: And, sad as it will sound, a majority of Catholic voters, according to the CNN-published data, voted for Obama :frowning: I just think that, since he’s not Antichrist, after all, he will be open, to some degree, to what others say, especially to what his people say, and that he’ll take into considerations the words of the Holy Father.

Being the President, he must be held accountable with the lives and safety of all Americans first and foremost, especially those within its borders. That’s why he’s given the Armed Forces, the Coast Guard, the National Guard, etc. at his disposal.

The president is not the anti christ, and despite his healthcare law it seems there have been compromises made on the part of the democratic party to provide religious extemption. I voted for romney but i wou;dn’t expect him to be able to repeal roe v wade

You cannot ultimately impose from above what is a matter of faith and morals. If people want abortions, they’ll have abortions even if we forbid it under pain of death penalty. While we should try to stop the legislation that promotes these immoral, intrinsic evils, we should keep in mind that ultimately it is through evangelization that we can bring forth God’s kingdom, not through legislation :wink:

I agree with the evangelization part. There are still laws on the books against fornication and adultery but they have essentially been “forgotten.”

Despite strict laws against murder, murders still occur. Despite strict laws against rape, rape still occurs.

And abortion is not a “matter of faith and morals.” It is either the intended death of an innocent human being (murder), or it is a medical procedure. Neither is an object of faith, but rather a statement of fact.

So yeah, we do “impose from above” when it comes to many moral matters, including murder, rape, theft, etc. Abortion should be no exception.

I agree that evangelization is important. But it is only part of the solution. We need both spiritual and legal remedies.

I totally agree, never meant to say we don’t need legal remedies :slight_smile: But the legal remedies by themselves won’t solve anything, matter of fact they can even make things worse :sad_yes:

Because, unlike the other examples, abortion is specifically a matter of faith and morals: it is extremely difficult to explain to others what the issue is when we have to justify that life begins at conception. To say otherwise, for them, is to impose a religious viewpoint :shrug: I tried to explain that from the secular standpoint we prefer not to draw an arbitrary line as to when is the unborn child a human being whose killing would qualify as cold-blooded murder, so we simply draw the line at the very beginning :slight_smile: But still, pride blinds the secular world to extents that break my heart.

People always tell me that "it’s a matter of choice, that I/the Church/the Government should not force things down their throat, et cetera…always the same old “apple” deception they’ve fallen onto :crying:

If people understand why in the world we’re saying what we say, and that we’re doing it out of pure agape love (not out of some disordered pride rooted on rebelliousness) then maybe they’ll think twice. I have been amazed at how a bit of teaching can truly surprise those who had never seen what we see.

I completely disagree. Abortion is not a matter of faith and morals. It is a matter of morals, yes, but the same morals we use for other issues like murder, rape, and theft. And it is a matter of fact, not faith (at least not faith as used by the secular world).

Peter Kreeft has some wonderful discussions about abortion that take an explicitly rational approach, ignoring any “faith” based reasons.

True, “for them.” Which is why I never use a religious argument when discussing abortion with secularists. Until “they” get that it isn’t about “faith and morals”, but about rational application of even secular morals, they’ll continue to make that argument.

But I don’t think evangelization will make a difference with the secular world. At least not directly. The secularists are keen on rational belief. We keep presenting rational arguments against abortion (just as Dr. Kreeft does above), they have 3 choices (well, 4 if you listen to his talk): accept the conclusion, deny the premises, or refute the structure of the argument. Unfortunately, too many even refuse to listen to the argument, which makes me think their support for abortion is subjective, not objective; emotional, not rational.

Which is why I think we must push the rational argument. Don’t let the discussion go off into emotional territory. Don’t let it get into an argument about “faith and morals”, but be one of objective facts.

“For this reason we hope that President Obama will respond to his fellow citizens’ expectations, serving law and justice for the good and development of all people, and respecting essential human and spiritual values while promoting a culture of life and religious freedom”.

Religious freedom? Makes you wonder how many non-catholic Vatican citizens there are.

That’s such an amusing argument :smiley: Citizenship in the Vatican City State used to be ius officii, namely on the grounds of appointment to work in a certain capacity in the service of the Holy See… now it has four categories: (1) the Holy Father, (2) cardinals residing in Vatican City, (3) active members of the Holy See’s diplomatic corps, and (4) other directors of Vatican offices and services. Hardly any of these would be non-Catholic, don’t you think?

Back to the main topic: thank you, Suudy, I think I did not quite express myself clearly on what I meant, but I agree with you entirely.

The Pope gets an A+ for effort, but I fear he’s wasting his breath on the President and the Catholics that voted for him.

I agree 100%. Obama hasn’t listened to the American hierarchy of the Catholic Church. He certainly will not respond to the Pope in any better fashion. The HHS mandate will remain the same.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit