Biretta tip to the one the only His Hermeneuticalness o{]:¬)
This was in L’Osservatore Romano.
After they consumed some of their excellent coffee, we also got this:
On President Obama’s Nobel
A demanding prizeLucetta Scaraffia
The decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama took everyone more or less by surprise, first and foremost the President of the United States himself. [Asusming, of course, that he didn’t consider himself entitled to it.]
In fact in the past 90 years the Prize has never been awarded to an American President in office, fatally involved in political affairs, hence liable to take decisions contrary to peace. When Jimmy Carter won it in 2002, he had completed his mandate some years earlier.
For this very reason commentators have been almost unanimous in describing the award as a way of pressuring Obama to favour pacifist decisions for the rest of his mandate.
Moreover, on the basis of the decisions he has made so far, it would be difficult to describe the President as an outright pacifist. His provisions regarding American military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to fall between fidelity to the pacifist principles proclaimed during his electoral campaign and a more realistic policy, which some have even defined as a continuation of the "warmongering" Bush. [In other words, we don’t know where he stands.]
The American President’s is an oscillating policy, similar to his policy for the important bioethical issues and in the first place, abortion, which has sparked so many disputes among Catholics in the U.S. [Since when has POTUS policy on abortion been "oscillating"? It is as straight as the forceps abortionists use on the skull of a baby.]
In receiving the sought-after recognition, Obama must remember that in 1979 he was preceded by Mother Teresa of Calcutta, who, in her official declaration on the occasion of the presentation of the Prize, had the courage to recall that the most destructive war, with the greatest number of "fallen", is the practice of abortion, legalized and facilitated even in international structures.
Yet with the prospect of influencing the future of Obama’s presidential mandate, all the perplexities that invalidated the most authoritative nominations melted away.
An example is the nomination of John Paul ii, proposed for years and a candidate since 1999 (when the Nobel Prize was awarded instead to Médecins sans Frontières) and especially in 2003, when he was considered a top favourite after his condemnation of the war in Iraq. In that year, many initiatives and a large part of the world seemed to be in favour of choosing him as the natural winner of the coveted Prize, and he was even considered the favourite by the bookmakers.
However, the Committee appointed by the Norwegian Parliament established by Alfred Nobel to select the meritorious candidates did not choose him but preferred the Iranian jurist Shirin Ebadi.
Pope Wojtyla was considered by the members of the jury to be too conservative in other areas and it was feared that by rewarding, with him, the Catholic Church, it would show favouritism to an important religious denomination at the expense of others.
Such fears have apparently been surmounted in the much more controversial case of the award given to Obama.
The Nobel Peace Prize has once again given rise to perplexity and criticism, since the criteria for its designation often seem to have been influenced by politically correct thinking. [I would say.] Yet at the same time, as the Director of the Holy See Press Office declared, we cannot but rejoice at seeing President Obama’s efforts for nuclear disarmament recognized, along with his indisputable personal propensity for a policy oriented to obtaining peace rather than to affirming American power in the world. [Which is what they are probably most concerned about.]
Loading ...
What L’OSSROM and seemingly the Church in Rome (and certainly in the USA) doesn’t understand is that with Obama you cannot praise him on the one hand expecting you will soften his views on the other. That is not the way this man operates. Any congratulations or praise for him by anyone, including the Church, accomplishes only two things both of them being bad. One it strokes his already out of control ego/power trip. Two, he will use that praise against the institution offering praise at some point. Oh sure the Church praises his efforts (minimal at best) at nuclear disarmament while noting his less than praiseworthy stance on abortion. He will hear and use the former and completely ignore the latter. Finally, any praise, congratulations or recognition from the official Church will only reinforce the stance of those CINO’s who voted for this advocate of infant murder and who continue to support his flawed policies today. The Church needs to abandon its decades old politically correct approach and go back to the across the board insistance on moral behavior that served it well for 2000 years.
Pope Wojtyla was considered by the members of the jury to be too conservative in other areas and it was feared that by rewarding, with him, the Catholic Church, it would show favouritism to an important religious denomination at the expense of others.
A consideration they didn’t think was too important when they awarded the prize to Yassir Freaking Arafat.
Huh???
Am I missing something?
Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta said that the reason there is a threat of nuclear war/annihilation is because the unborn child in the womb is threatened.
Get rid of abortion on demand; solve the nuclear war threat. Too simple?
Yeah, I’m afraid it is. To the “powers of this world”.
Since when has POTUS policy on abortion been “oscillating”? It is as straight as the forceps abortionists use on the skull of a baby.
One of your best lines EVER, Father Z!
Spot on. Leaves no room for speculation where you stand on the issue!
Jack in KC
L’Osservatore Romano is starting to sound schizophrenic. The only thing “oscillating” is this poor excuse for a Vatican newspaper.
Since when has POTUS policy on abortion been “oscillating”?
It seems L’Osservatore Romano does not, or can not, make the distinction between rhetoric and actions. When BO tells pro-abortion groups that he will protect the ‘right to choose’, then turns around and tells pro-life groups that they can work towards a ‘common ground’, to an outside observer it would seem like oscillation.
But make no mistake, BO is the most pro-abort president ever elected.
Is it just me, or did the L’O seem to be whining about the whole JPII thing?
Brian Day: Yep.
Some factual errors. The Prize has been awarded twice before to sitting US Presidents. The very first Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to THeodore Roosevelt for brokering the Treaty of Portsmouth which ended the Russ-Japanese War. Woodrow Wilson received the Prize for founding the League of Nations.
Note, that each of these recipients had actually done something concrete. President Obama’s Prize appears to be in the nature of encouraging certain policies and official acts in the future, which is also know as a ‘bribe’.
President Obama has done nothing to deserve this prize. This was solely a political stunt by the nominating committe. In a way it cheapens the prize to a point that it is worthless.
The fact that Obama doesn not champion America as a great nation that has done much to help the rest of the world, also shows what a poor president he is. Would any country be happy with a leader that did nothing but bash and denigrate his own country.
Obama is a as culturally bankrupt as he is morally bankrupt.
Ed the Roman – Note the first sentence, second paragraph, which says it has been 90 years SINCE a sitting president received the Peace Prize. That was Wilson in 1919. No factual error there.
Anyone who views Obama as a pacifist, and one who wants to rein-in American power abroad, need only look to little Honduras where he and Hillary have allied themselves with the Socialist International to reinstate Zelaya who had been deposed by the Honduran Supreme Court for violations of the country’s constitution. The Honduran constitution allows every president to serve for only one term, no exceptions. He wanted to emulate his friend Hugo Chavez, and with the latter’s help, had commenced efforts to be perpetually elected.
I’m afraid our Mr. Obama is International Socialism’s “best friend”: perhaps that’s why they do show him so much “love”?