Thread by me.
KANSAS CITY, Missouri, May 21, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Although the University of Notre Dame has defended its invitation of President Obama for the sake of dialogue on abortion, Obama's own remark Sunday that the opposing views were "irreconcilable" brought dialogue to a "screeching halt," said Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-St. Joseph, MO.
"I think the message of the day was this - that the President of Notre Dame said that they had invited the President of the United States and decided to honor him for the sake of dialogue," said Bishop Finn in an interview with the diocesan newspaper the Catholic Key earlier this week.
"The President got up and said that the differences that we have on abortion - namely the Catholic Church's staunch opposition to abortion and his staunch support of abortion were 'irreconcilable,'" he continued. "And at that moment, it would seem to me that the dialogue came to a screeching halt.
"Father Jenkins' expressed desire for dialogue, whether it was well-founded or justified, at that point got thrown back in his face. The President shut the door on dialogue by saying that there was not going to be any change in his position on abortion and he understood that there was not going to be any change in the Church's position on abortion.
"I am glad that Mr. Obama was so clear."
Asked whether the Church could join with the Obama administration "in common effort," Finn replied that while the two share many goals, "We're fighting for our lives - literally. We are attempting to protect real unborn children by the thousands. We're fighting for the right to exercise a rightly-formed conscientious difference with public policy."
Bishop Finn warned against "taking a 'wait and see' approach" to advancing the pro-life and pro-family cause. "I think the rug is already being pulled out from under us," he said. "If we sit back and allow ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of peace and cooperation in regards to these things, then we will lose these battles and, later, wonder why."
. . .
Threads by NYer and xzins.
Expect this video clip of Sonia Sotomayor describing the importance of the circuit court of appeals in policy-making to get a lot of play in the coming weeks.
One thing the Supreme Court Sotomayor pick tells us is that Obama’s recent talk promising to find common ground was just talk.
The Puerto Rican from the Bronx who went to Catholic schools is Obama’s pick to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court.
As Americans United for Life (AUL)‘s president Charmaine Yoest points out:
“For all the President’s talk of finding ‘common ground,’ this appointment completely contradicts that hollow promise. Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy undermines common ground. She is a radical pick that divides America. She believes the role of the Court is to set policy, which is exactly the philosophy that led to the Supreme Court turning into the ‘National Abortion Control Board,’ denying the American people the right to be heard on this critical issue. This appointment would provide a pedestal for an avowed judicial activist to impose her personal policy and beliefs onto others from the bench, at a time when the Courts are at a crossroad and critical abortion regulations supported by the vast majority of Americans like partial-birth abortion and informed consent laws lie in the balance.”
Or, as Father Frank Pavone put it:
“Does justice include the right to tear the arms and legs off of babies, crush their skulls, and treat them as medical waste?
“We all draw the line somewhere. An avowed racist or anti-Semite is not acceptable on the Supreme Court. Why should we give a pass to the violence of abortion?”
. . .
______________________________________________________________
Thinking that a liberal judge would certainly support refugees from foreign lands seeking freedom in America will get you no place with Sotomayor when abortion is on the line.
Chinese refugees from their forced-abortion laws are attempting to save a life, father and mother both.
Not so, says Sotomayor. Fathers fleeing with mothers because of abortion aren't really "refugees." What??? Who does she hate more: babies or males?
. . .