The Pope Meets Obama: God's Law Trumps Harvard Law

Only three people have I ever met in person and felt small. Humility is not my greatest strength, but three people each had something about them that reminded me of my many inadequacies. And that is a good thing.

Coach Owenby, my school days basketball coach, had that intimidating testosterone physical presence and demeanor. He simply commanded respect. The ever-present chew of tobacco in his cheek heightened the intimidation. I felt very small in his presence every day.

Professor Meeks, my dissertation advisor, had a similar effect on me but for different reasons. His breadth of reading and his mind simply left me feeling inadequate each time I met with him, not because he tried to but because I realized how woefully ill-prepared I was for the work at hand. He also was incredibly quiet and mild-mannered, traits which only made me more nervous as I struggled to fill the air with words and conversation. Intimidation rained down on me.

Cardinal Ratzinger was the third. Our group of students got a rare privilege of a private audience with the Cardinal when we visited Rome in 1994. He and his staff hosted us for an hourlong reception in a parlor adjacent to his office. His presence could be summed up in one word: gravitas. The man's intellect, his experience, and his devotion to the Church made me feel small in comparison. His gravitas, saturated with an oddly soft grace, left a lasting impression on me.

I wonder how President Obama felt on Friday when he met Pope Benedict XVI (formerly Cardinal Ratzinger) in person. The President does not strike me as one who feels small very often. Frankly, he comes across as one who resists recognizing his own inadequacies as evidenced by the multiplicity of mammoth initiatives he is putting forth all at the same time (from nationalized universal health care, to “re-setting” America's international image, to reforming financial markets, to “saving” the automobile industry, to borrowing and spending at a record level in the name of “stimulus,” just for starters). The breadth and urgent pace of his agenda has led some of his most passionate supporters, like Colin Powell, to caution him about the dangers of trying to do too many large things at once. A feeling of inadequacy seems to be the least of our President's interests.

So, my hope is that Obama's meeting with the Pope accomplished at least one thing: to make our President feel small, if only for a moment. An occasional dose of our own mortal inadequacy is healthy for us all. It keeps things in perspective.

Now, the meeting probably started with some pleasantries and maybe even some humor. Perhaps with the President's telling the Pope: “Man, after watching Angels and Demons, I thought you might not make it to the office today.” And the Pope's responding with “I'll trade you some red shoes for those $600 sneakers your wife likes to wear.” Clearly the meeting eventually progressed to something more along the lines of, “I'm troubled by your positions on embryonic stem cell research and abortion. What part of 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' do you not understand?”

Whether he wants to hear it or not, President Obama needs some basic formation in reason and the moral law. And Pope Benedict is just the man for the job. Obama has stated often his appreciation for the social justice legacy of the late Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago. However, the President clearly has spent little time understanding the moral reasoning behind that social justice agenda. He understands the what but not the why .

The why of social justice begins with the dignity and value of the individual. With the conviction that each person's life has meaning because each person is made in the image of God. That principle undergirds the very Western society in which we live and take for granted. That principle explains why America fails to limit its compassion to its own citizens but rather extends compassion and aid to people all over the world. A human being is a human being, regardless of race or location.

So it did my heart good to witness the Pope's handing the President a pamphlet explaining the Vatican's moral reasoning behind its opposition to embryonic stem cell research and abortion. For these two issues are no more separated from other issues of social justice than Chrysler is now separated from Fiat. They all emerge from the fundamental why: the dignity and value of each individual.

The White House staff anticipated that the two men would have “frank” conversation in their meeting. President Obama, of course, recited his usual mantra about seeking to “reduce” the number of abortions in America. A cynic would ask why he then seeks to increase funding for such procedures while simultaneously removing any restrictions on them whatsoever. However, the key point about Obama's mantra is its inconsistent moral reasoning. Why would one want to “reduce” the number of abortions if they are morally acceptable? On the one hand, he insists on the morality of abortion; on the other hand, he issues empty, warmed-over sentiments about wanting to reduce them. The two positions cannot co-exist. It is one or the other.

Pope Benedict has now explained in person the moral reasoning that President Obama is lacking. He has followed it up with written teaching for the President to read on the plane trip home. Since the Obamas have chosen to make Evergreen Chapel at Camp David their official church home, where the chaplain has little or no interaction with the President (and did not with President Bush before him), perhaps the Pope can take on the role of occasional spiritual director for Mr. Obama. The President is clearly a bright man, but we all need a dose of “smallness” now and then. And in the end, it will serve him well to remember that God's Law trumps Harvard Law every time.

Along the lines of Obama’s moral reasoning concerning abortion, here’s a letter written by yours truly on this subject:

“President Obama spoke at the University of Notre Dame on May 17th, saying that all he wanted in the debate about abortion was that the words used in the discussion be “fair minded”. Fair minded sounds like such a nice phrase. But how does one speak of an unspeakable evil in a fair minded way?

Can we speak of slavery in a fair minded way? Shall we talk about child abuse in a fair minded way? Can we discuss the Jewish Holocaust in fair minded words? Can we discuss segregation and racial discrimination in a fair minded way?

Only a simpleton or a charlatan would try to discuss evil in a fair minded way. Because evil is wrong, it must be opposed, not coddled, not accepted, not minimized.

President Obama already has a track record on abortion. His actions show that, through his support of partial birth abortion, abortion on demand, taxpayer funding of abortion, and infanticide, he has dismissed any fair minded discussion out of hand. He has overturned the Mexico City policy so that every American taxpayer now pays for abortion on demand around the world, regardless of whether a person is opposed to abortion. He has stated and promised to Planned Parenthood that he will pass the Freedom of Choice Act, which would overturn all State abortion laws and allow abortions with no restrictions whatsoever, and paid for by their fellow citizens. Sound fair minded to you?

He says abortion should be made “more rare”. Why? If something is good, why would he want less of it? If something must be lessened, then obviously it is not desirable. The words sound fair minded, but they mask the disingenuous meaning of the idea. And his actions to date will only increase the number of abortions, not make them rarer.

He also supports embryonic stem cell research. This research kills a unique human being, a unique combination of human DNA. Thirty years of private research has shown that there is not one cure that results from embryonic stem cells, because these cells are so unstable. Adult stem cells are stable, and have been used in cures for over 70 diseases. Adult stem cell use does not result in the killing of a human embryo, which biologically is a human being.

So, how many embryonic children are to be killed in order to supposedly cure another child with juvenile diabetes, as the President suggested at Notre Dame? What number is appropriate, Mr. President? Especially for a cure that is a lie, Mr. President?

Abortion is evil. It kills an unborn child, by the most violent and painful means imaginable. We would not allow a dog or a cat to be killed in such a barbaric, inhumane manner. Shall we be fair minded and be all upset by the alleged “torture” of enemies, but remain silent about the torture visited on innocent babies over one million times a year in our own country?

With over sixty million abortions since 1973, have we yet sacrificed enough of our future, ignored enough the suffering of women who have aborted their children, or impoverished our nation enough from the loss of the beauty and uniqueness of those murdered children, or of their possible contributions to our nation?

Both Catholic and Christian teaching from the Bible is clear. Innocent blood is never to be shed. There is no compromise with such evil. We cannot decry the Jewish Holocaust, damn the institution of slavery, cry out against the abuse of children, or march in defiance of racial discrimination, and then ignore the murder of innocent children in our own land. Fair minded people understand why.”

"Whether he wants to hear it or not, President Obama needs some basic formation in reason and the moral law. And Pope Benedict is just the man for the job. Obama has stated often his appreciation for the social justice legacy of the late Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago. However, the President clearly has spent little time understanding the moral reasoning behind that social justice agenda. He understands the what but not the why . The why of social justice begins with the dignity and value of the individual. With the conviction that each person's life has meaning because each person is made in the image of God. That principle undergirds the very Western society in which we live and take for granted."

This is a good point. Obama has been braiwashed by left-wing ideology. He believes in population control, abortion, and embryonic stem cell research. Moral relativism. He doesn't want his daughters "punished" with a pregnancy. He talks about Bernardin and social justice but he only means the economic part, redistribution of wealth. No social justice for the unborn or Terri Schiavo.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.