Obama and the Apocalypse
Inexplicably, Newsweek has decided to run a short article on those who think Obama is the antichrist (HT: Steve Benen). Here’s a taste:
After years of tribulation—natural disasters, other cataclysms (such as the collapse of financial markets)—God’s armies will vanquish armies led by the Antichrist himself. He will be a sweet-talking world leader who gathers governments and economies under his command to further his own evil agenda. In this world view, “the spread of secular progressive ideas is a prelude to the enslavement of mankind,” explains Richard Landes, former director of the Center for Millennial Studies at Boston University.No wonder, then, that Obama triggers such fear in the hearts of America’s millennialist Christians. Mat Staver, dean of Liberty University’s law school, says he does not believe Obama is the Antichrist, but he can see how others might. Obama’s own use of religious rhetoric belies his liberal positions on abortion and traditional marriage, Staver says, positions that “religious conservatives believe will threaten their freedom.” The people who believe Obama is the Antichrist are perhaps jumping to conclusions, but they’re not nuts: “They are expressing a concern and a fear that is widely shared,” Staver says.
I sure am glad I don’t belong to one of those fringe churches that thinks Obama’s election is a sign of the end-times. I mean, even if they disagree with his views on abortion, who in their right mind would think that Obama’s election has anything to do with the apocalypse? Oops:
His Eminence James Francis Cardinal Stafford criticized President-elect Barack Obama as “aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic,“ and said he campaigned on an “extremist anti-life platform,” Thursday night in Keane Auditorium during his lecture “Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II: Being True in Body and Soul.“
For the past few evenings, I’ve been watching this documentary on Bush’s torture policies. I highly recommend it. But as I watch it, I frequently think to myself that the rhetoric some bishops (and Cardinals) are preemptively unleashing against Obama on abortion would be easier for me to stomach if they had raised an outcry that was even remotely as emphatic about the officially sanctioned use of torture by the outgoing administration. You know, intrinsic evils and all that.
Eduardo, you raise the excellent qiestion of what really is the fringe in Christianity today and how should one characterize it?
Beide the good Cardinal and the Bishop of Lancaster where is the fringe in our Church?
Does the center have a place? In the future envisioned by the JPII “smaller purer” loyalists?
The tone of that Newsweek piece is odd — it seems uncertain whether it’s supposed to be lighthearted and ironic or seriously analytical. I don’t know a lot about apocalyptic prophecy, but isn’t it oversimplifying things to make it sound as though everyone concerned about the Rapture agrees on the relevant details? He will be a sweet-talking world leader who gathers governments and economies under his command to further his own evil agenda. Says who?
Speaking of apocalyptic, here’s Cardinal James Stafford, now a Vatican official, once a U.S. ordinary, speaking at the JPII Institute in DC.
His Eminence James Francis Cardinal Stafford criticized President-elect Barack Obama as “aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic,“ and said he campaigned on an “extremist anti-life platform,” Thursday night in Keane Auditorium during his lecture “Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II: Being True in Body and Soul.“
“Because man is a sacred element of secular life,” Stafford remarked, “man should not be held to a supreme power of state, and a person’s life cannot ultimately be controlled by government.”
The whole story is here:
http://www.cuatower.com/2008/11/14/cardinal-at-cua-obama-is-%e2%80%98aggressive-disruptive-and-apocalyptic%e2%80%99/
I am not surprised by all of this. This topic runs concurrent with many news stories throughout the USA last week that showed people flying Old Glory upside-down, replacing it with a black flag, or spraying a big “X” across the flying flag.
I think the story exaggerates tensions between religious conservatives and Obama. And, in so doing, it conflates the views of religious conservatives with nut cases.
We already know that pro-life Christians are anything from disappointed to appalled by Obama’s views about abortion. I would say those who think he’s the actual Anti-Christ are pretty few and far between. Not even my Baptist or Amish in-laws, who believe in the Rapture, think this.
A story outlining how well Obama will be able to work with various Christian factions would be informative. A story about fringe groups who believe Obama is the Anti-Christ is nothing but a kind of throw-away “man bites dog” story.
It’s the kind of story that many Christians point to when they accuse the press of being anti-religion, liberal and uninformed.
Good liturgical timing, as we are into our “end-times” portion of the liturgical year. If the article causes us to learn and reflect on what our Church teaches about the eschaton, that might be a good thing.
Istm the whole journalistic exercise by Newsweek is to hold millenialists up to scrutiny in much the same way one may watch an episode of Nature to learn the strange ways of Madagascaran lemurs.
Re: the bishops: they have spoken out consistently on torture. Here are partial results of some very quick searches:
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/030508ltrtopresrehr2082.pdf
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/action_alert_on_hr_2082_2-28-08_with_op-ed_on_veto.pdf
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/action_alert_on_hr_2082_2-7-08_with_hdr.pdf
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/wenski_jan30-2008_ltr_on_torture_final.pdf
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/torturemoralissue.shtml
etc.
Torture is horrible. I’m deeply ashamed of my country for engaging in it. I’d like very much for us to occupy the moral high ground on this issue.
Even so – compared to the problem of abortion, it is the proverbial pimple on the elephant’s backside. I’d be extremely disappointed to learn that a voter “weighted” torture more heavily than abortion in the latest election.
I believe that Jean makes a good point.
Selecting an unhinged statement from one’s ideological opposites for attention, with the subtle implication that it is representative of their bizarre point of view, can be…and is regularly…played by both sides.
It is worth noting how rarely we select extreme statements from our side for attention.
“It’s fun to laugh at a hypocrite, and recent years have given Americans a great deal to laugh at…Scandal is great entertainment because it allows people to feel contempt, a moral emotion that gives feelings of moral superiority while asking nothing in return. With contempt you don’t need to right the wrong (as with anger) or flee the scene (as with fear or disgust). And best of all, contempt is made to share…Tell an acquaintance a cynical story that ends with both of your smirking and shaking your heads and voila, you’ve got a bond.”
“Well, stop smirking. One of the most universal pieces of advice from across cultures and eras is that we are all hypocrites, and in our condemnation of others’ hypocrisy we only compound our own. Social psychologists have recently isolated the mechanisms that make us blind to the logs in our own eyes. The moral implications of these findings are disturbing; indeed, they challenge our greatest moral certainties. But the implications can be liberating, too, freeing you from destructive moralism and divisive self-righteousness.”
Jonathan Haidt, The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom, pp. 59-60.
I had heard a story about children in a Catholic school in Michigan whose parents spent the whole of election night praying the rosary and had told their children that Obama was the anti-Christ. The children came to school crying, the morning after the election, thinking the world would end. I pooh-poohed the story. Thought it must be fabricated. Now I’m not so sure!
Btw, for the Roman Catholic view on end-times, check out roman numerals V and VI here:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm#V
Now here is when good cathechesis can prevent myths and intolerance. Glad to agree with Mike M. As Jesus said we don’t see the beam in our own eye.
I fail to see any justification for Staver, Dean of Liberty University school of law, lending any understanding of how people can believe that Obama is the anti-Christ. So now Falwell’s university is quoted on the same par with other scholars. Didn’t Falwell say that a Jewish male will be the anti-christ. How about blaming homosexuals for everything. Made a lot of money doing it.
As Edward suggests Newsweek is wrong here also. The old saying that if you fling things on the wall some will stick. Very sad.
I had 20 minutes to kill. Here are the Catholic blogs I could find with opinions about Obama’s identity as the anti-Christ. Draw your own conclusions.
Obama is not the anti-Christ
http://hancaquam.blogspot.com/2008/11/is-obama-anti-christ.html
http://floscarmeli.stblogs.org/archives/2008/11/two-comments-on.html
http://vox-nova.com/2008/08/15/relax-obama-is-not-the-antichrist/
http://thepublicsquare.blogspot.com/2008/08/follow-up-to-previous-post-on.html
http://www.catholicblogs.com/search/3/obama_antichrist
No, Obama is not the anti-Christ, but readers wrote to Digital Hair Shirt saying Sarah Palin was:
http://digihairshirt.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-hate-o-day.html
No, but Catholic Surfer offers a lugubrious song about how bad an Obama presidency will be in song form (sung to the tune of “Don’t They Know It’s The End of the World”)
http://catholicsurfer.blogspot.com/2008/11/end-of-world-nina-gordon-why-does-sun.html
No, but Bettnet says that if you wanted to make up an anti-Christ to scare the fundies, it would be Obama:
http://www.bettnet.com/blog/index.php/weblog/unto_you_a_child_will_be_born_the_son_of_promise/
Not now, but Obama COULD become the anti-Christ, says Fighting Irish Thomas:
http://www.fightingirishthomas.net/2008/09/lipsticked-pitbull-vs-styrofoam-fooler.html
Apoloblogology reports that 13 percent of his survey respondents think Obama is the anti-Christ, while only 3 percent of McCain supporters do. Apoloetc. offers no opinion himself:
http://apoloblogology.blogspot.com/2008/10/findings-from-our-presidential-poll.html
Possibly Obama is the anti-Christ, the Lair of the Catholic Caveman says, because Obama looks like the anti-christ as depicted in a Father Elijah novel by Michael O’Brien:
http://catholic-caveman.blogspot.com/2008/11/over-course-of-last-several-weeks-i.html
Ditto, says Vultus Christi
http://vultus.stblogs.org/2008/11/thank-you-michael-obrien.html
And ditto again from the Western Confucian
http://orientem.blogspot.com/2008/11/is-obama-anti-christ.html
LaSalette Journey says Obama resembles the anti-Christ in a story by Solviev:
http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2008/10/then-devil-took-him-up-to-very-high.html
The Crescat says Obama is possibly a precursor of the anti-christ:
http://thecrescat.blogspot.com/2008/11/carrier-of-deadly-moral-virus.html
Catholic and Enjoying It! Says not THE anti-christ but AN anti-Christ:
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2008_11_01_archive.html#6916052966040263299
Crossing Ninevah cites an article that says Obama is linked with black racists who say the anti-Christ is white (???):
http://crossingnineveh.blogspot.com/2008/10/americas-first-far-left-marxist.html
Rita,
I run a series of automatic Google searches on Catholic education daily …(it is all automatic) and yes that story went by.
I get the impression from a small but significant number of the people commenting on Catholic blogs that they don’t believe Obama is the Antichrist. However, if the Antichrist runs against Obama on the Republican ticket in 2012 and promises to try to overturn Roe v Wade, they will vote for the Antichrist (as required by Faithful Citizenship and the American bishops).
I get the impression from a small but significant number of the people commenting on a Catholic blog that they regard any expression of opposition to Roe v Wade, in fact, any policy position regarding abortion more stringent than the status quo, to be the source of unending exasperation.
For an interesting perspective on the “Antichrist” read Paul 2 Thess 2:1-12 and then read Augustine On the City of God bk. 20 ch. 19. One of the essential characteristics of the (an) antichrist is that he aspires to replace Christ in the minds of his followers and demands total loyalty and trust from them.
Mike McG,
What is so exasperating is that given a hypothetical choice between overturning Roe v Wade and having more abortions, and letting Roe v Wade stand and having fewer abortions, there are those who would choose the former. Actually, I am not even sure it is necessarily a hypothetical choice.
Perhaps if the Antichrist comes, he will convince people that what the law says is of paramount importance, and what the people do is secondary.
Thanks, John Borst. I heard it second-hand from someone whose sister teaches in that school, but thought it might have been an exaggeration. Then, I think of all the people who flock to see apparitions in somebody’s backyard, or who spend good money to buy weird totemic things on e-Bay, and I say, why am I surprised?
If Barak Obama has even a grain of feeling that his service to his country is part of his call to Christian discipleship, and I suspect he does, he can rejoice at being maligned for it. “Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man. Rejoice on that day, and leap for joy, for surely your reward is great in heaven; for that is what their ancestors did to the prophets.” (Lk 6:22-23)
coverage by Wolf Blitzer on “The Situation Room” on CNN a short time ago – the Cardinal at pains to say he is not being partisan, he is being vociferous in his support of life and he takes no words back.
I guess overheated rhetoric is OK (for some) is OK from a cardinal, but not on this blog.
Interestingly, by the way, Blitzer afterward noted the drift from episcopal authority going back to Humanae Vitae, which, he noted, the Cardinal also supports.
Eduardo, what Cardinal Stafford said was that Preident-elect Obama’s rhetoric marks an agenda and ambition that are aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic, fortelling a great disaster. He compared the violence behind President-elect Obama’s rhetoric, his desire to, “transform the Nation with the freedom of choice act”, to a cultural earthquake.
David:
“What is so exasperating is that given a hypothetical choice between overturning Roe v Wade and having more abortions, and letting Roe v Wade stand and having fewer abortions, there are those who would choose the former. Actually, I am not even sure it is necessarily a hypothetical choice.”
And what is so exasperating to me is the frame you’ve adopted. I submit that a only small number of people frame the issue the way you posit it and that their influence is marginal. If I’m correct, you’ve erected a straw man.
I could as easily reify the rhetoric of the many progressive Catholics I know whose position on abortion is in no way distinguishable from the NARAL party line and who regularly display contempt for those who identify as prolife. (Don’t get me started!) But if I were to do so two things would happen. You would (rightly) respond by saying that my comments are anecdotal, as indeed I assume you’d acknowledge yours are. And you would (probably) say that you don’t know such people, just as I don’t recognize the group you mention as anything other than marginal.
Both straw men are rhetorically useful. In both cases the people cited take extreme positions and, as I mentioned above, flogging them subtly suggests that the other side is composed principally of the unreasonable and the callous.
Actually, I think your final sentence says all. To those for whom reconsideration of the Roe v Wade approach to abortion is very unappetizing, characterization of those who reject the status quo on abortion as extreme is great spin. In like manner, to those for whom reconsideration of the Roe v Wade approach to abortion is essential, equivalently harsh characterization of Roe defenders is the order of the day.
I found it telling that when Cathy Kaveny posted several scholarly papers reframing the issue of abortion regulation at dotCommonweal there were exactly 0 comments. I submit that the one thing that both Roe’s most consistent defenders and opponents agree upon is that a nuanced look at the role of the law regarding abortion must not be permitted.
Before we can have an honest conversation about abortion, we need to have an honest conversation about having a conversation about abortion.
Who is the anti-Christ? ( Matthew 12:30-32 )
“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.”-Christ
As Catholics, we must Believe in Faith, (Canon 750), that the inalienable Right to Life comes from God.
From the disturbing comments at CUA Tower.com, it is clear that the spirit of the anti-Christ is alive and thriving.
Mike McG, perhaps Cathleen Kaveny is the person who should bring the case to the Supreme Court that will challenge them to prove that a Child in their Mother’s Womb is not a person. Can you do it, Cathleen?
Rita: You wonder about Obama having a religious understanding of his political vocation. Two quick observations to indicate that most certainly does. First, I was recently watching a CSPAN video of Obama at a Barnes and Noble book signing in 2004. He is asked by someone how he handles his new rock star status (this is after having been elected Senator and having given his convention speech). His answer includes a discussion of his reponsibilities to the people of Illinois, to his wife, his children, and to himself. On this last one, he elaborates with by saying that he continues to believe that his own salvation depends on his working for the salvation of our nation. No doubt some will take issue with this, but I was impressed.
The second in involves something many at dotComm may already be aware of. Obama visited the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem and, as is custom, left a prayer in the wall. The prayer was taken and published after Obama had left. You can read about it here to find another example of his religious understanding of his political vocation:
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/26/nation/na-prayer26
Before we can have an honest conversation about abortion, we need to have an honest conversation about having a conversation about abortion.
Mike McG: Neither your initial response to David Nickol nor your later, lengthier response is in any way conducive to “honest conversation.” You can’t honestly believe that what he, or anyone here, objects to is any expression of “opposition to Roe vs. Wade,” or any change to “the status quo on abortion.” And if you do decide to characterize it that way, you certainly cannot accuse other people of erecting straw men or framing the discussion inaccurately.
I found it telling that when Cathy Kaveny posted several scholarly papers reframing the issue of abortion regulation at dotCommonweal there were exactly 0 comments. I submit that the one thing that both Roe’s most consistent defenders and opponents agree upon is that a nuanced look at the role of the law regarding abortion must not be permitted.
This is nonsense. There were no comments because comments are (meant to be) a reaction to the content of a post, and that post had no content — it was directing our attention elsewhere, for further information. Nevertheless, if anyone here thought the content of those papers was impermissible, surely they would have said so. In any case, what “Roe’s most consistent defenders” might think is hardly relevant to the discussions on this blog.
Speaking of irrelevant: wasn’t this post about nutty religious paranoia and bad religion journalism?
Had I been able to comment on Cathleen Kaveny’s post, I would have said what I did say at 7:30 today,(or some such). So Cathleen, what do you think?
Re the Apocalypse: While I would always defer to Jean Raber’s judgments on culturally conservative Christianity, I do think the apocalyptic references are powerful and resonate with a large and influential group of Americans. If Obama himself is not the anti-Christ, his election remains part of that End Times scenario for many. (Jerry Falwell said the anti-Christ would a Jew–I think that’s one thing Obama has not been “accused” of–and he was alive today.) Recall the Dobson letter from 2012 that was going viral just a couple weeks ago. The Newsweek article was a bit of a “Margaret Mead-in-Samoa” look at a strange group, but I think it was worth doing, as it was an amusing read, but also revealing of a persistent and broad strain in American religious life. (Richard Landes’ work is impeccable.) Also, this sort of thinking–which I grew up with–is so alien to most Catholics, that I don’t think we apprehend it, or its anti-Catholic biases. Consider that the “Left Behind” series was the Harry Potter of evangelicalism, with all the anti-Jewish and anti-Catholic tropes (the Pope gets “left behind” in the raputre, of course) that John Hagee (also a pre-millennialist) spouts.
As for numbers, anywhere from a fifth to a third of Americans believe Christ will return in glory soon, and when things get really bad, and the belief is especially predominant among evangelicals, the driving force in public religion today.
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1084
One in four thought Jesus would return in 2007:
http://prospectinggod.blogspot.com/2007/01/pay-dirt-january-2-2007.html
Bottom line is, Cardinal Stafford and the Newsweek piece reflect a real, significant part of American religious life. We–and Obama’s security detail–ignore it at their peril.
I think the reaction of mainstream religion to depictions of “pro-apocalypse” religious sentiment is usually one of embarrassment or denial. It’s interesting because it’s legitimately hard to draw a line between “rational” and “irrational” religious conviction, and there is a reluctance (quite understandable) to dismiss their beliefs as kooky — and yet, severe discomfort at the tenor and content of those beliefs. It’s along the lines of differentiating social drinking from alcoholism. Not as easy to do as one would think.
I agree with David Gibson’s take on the Newsweek article.
David Gibson’s take on the Newsweek article was much more helpful than the Newsweek article itself. David provided numbers and context.
Thanks, David!
“I think the reaction of mainstream religion to depictions of “pro-apocalypse” religious sentiment is usually one of embarrassment or denial. It’s interesting because it’s legitimately hard to draw a line between “rational” and “irrational” religious conviction, and there is a reluctance (quite understandable) to dismiss their beliefs as kooky — and yet, severe discomfort at the tenor and content of those beliefs. ”
Yep – good observations, Barbara.
Look, as I said before, this is the time of year we’re invited to consider this stuff. It – the end of time – will happen. Could be in five minutes, or five million years. It will come like a thief in the night. Two people will be working in a field, one will be taken, another will be left. Etc.
I mostly slept through my undergraduate philosophy classes, but I recall the way Bertrand Russell illustrated the fallacy of induction, that a chicken sees the farmer come into the farmyard every morning to feed it, and concludes that such will be the way every morning, until the morning the farmer arrives and wrings its neck.
I think the danger for most of us is induction.
But if this has anything to do with Barack Obama, I can’t connect the dots.
Today’s NPR report shows a cwentrist Obama gathering many varied views on the economic criis and how to proceeed; hardly the person the Cardinal excoriates.
His appointment of Mr. Holder to head justice represents lots of hope for more profesionalism(read less politics) in the Federal system and better approaches to torture and Gunatanamo.
As I watched th 60 minutes interview on Sunday night, it streuck me that Mr. and Mrs. Obama set an excellent example of a couple balancing pressures of work, service and family in today’s world – a far cry from the examples set by the nertwork TV staples.
In this world where marriage has moved so much to relaional matters, examples like this strike me as far more useful than the usual outcry about the ‘threat” of gay mariage.
Whilet there are surely value areas to vriticize the President elect about, I agree with Mrs. Steinfels that the Cardinal’s remarks were “ignorant.”
I think we’ve been too kind to fringe religiosity (often stiring up hatred. prejudice or just plain ignorance) and the intemperate remarks here deserve to be justly criticized.
Bob, where did Mrs. Steinfels state that the Cardinal’s remarks were “ignorant”?
Just a thought from an e-mail I received regarding the anti-Christ:
“Woe to those who call evil good and Good evil, who put darkness for Light and light for darkness.” (Is 5:20)- From Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae
Nancy, you’re right -she saidi twas apocolyptic – much more chariable, maybe.
I continue to be amazed at how, before this man takes ofice, we’re ready to pre-demonize.
Often mindlessly.
This much I know for certain is True, if the freedom of choice act is passed and Marriage is redefined, nothing Good will come from it.
David has a new thread at Pontifications on “The Laity For Life” calling for the abolition of the Campaign for Human Development.
The “fair and balanced” Fr. nieuhaus is involved.
As Bill C. pointed out in the thread above, politics is deeply intertwined with many vital questions.
The issue of fringe approaches vis a vis the centrist is part of all of the questions we’re talkin gabout now (except Disney.)
Of course we cannot ignore this aberration of true Christianity. But to condone it is another thing. We should also note that Catholic clergy have been a strong part of depicting Jesus as an angry Messiah rather than the merciful personification of God that he is. So crucial is the fact that Jesus practically equated anger with murder.
Jesus is pure sunshine and love. It is all there in the Sermon on the Mount and Calvary. It is our shame and peril that we show him any other way.
Bill, Jesus may be pure sunshine, but what he has to say about one who calls evil good, and Good, evil, is not “sunny” in the least.
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”-Christ (Matthew 18:6)
I cannot understand Jim’s comment that, as a moral issue, torture is trivial compared to abortion.
In some ways it is even worse. No one could argue about the full humanity or sentience of the torture victim.
Has anyone been refused communion for their support of torture or membership of an organisation which tortures?
Perhaps the question regarding Communion should be rephrased. This question is for anyone:
Should someone present themselves for Holy Communion if they do not believe the Church’s teaching on abortion?
With all due respect Michael, the gruesome act of abortion is torture until death results.
“I cannot understand Jim’s comment that, as a moral issue, torture is trivial compared to abortion. ”
If you took my comment to mean that I trivialize torture, then you misunderstood me, or perhaps I didn’t express myself very well. That’s why I prefaced what I said with a comment intended to illustrate that I do understand the moral gravity of torture: “Torture is horrible. I’m deeply ashamed of my country for engaging in it. I’d like very much for us to occupy the moral high ground on this issue.”
“In some ways it is even worse. No one could argue about the full humanity or sentience of the torture victim.”
Forgive me if this is offensive, but your comment makes me question whether you comprehend the prevalence and gravity of abortion.
Whispers alerts us to the clarification of his remarks that Cardinal Stafford offered to CNN.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0811/18/sitroom.02.html
“He [Stafford] says his take on the word apocalyptic is different from common Western references to the end of the world.. In his understanding, he says, apocalyptic means resistance to what [he] calls the divine and natural laws on reproduction and the preservation of human life.”
This certainly is different from any other understanding of the word “apocalyptic” I’ve ever heard, West, East, North or South.
The Cardinal also said that he does not speak for the Vatican, something most had already guessed.
“Forgive me if this is offensive, but your comment makes me question whether you comprehend the prevalence and gravity of abortion.”
Jim,
This could just as well be reversed and presumed that you may not comprehend the prevalence and gravity of torture. What may be more to the point is that we can do more to stop torture. There is almost zero chance that the abortion laws will be changed.
“What may be more to the point is that we can do more to stop torture. ”
Fair point, Bill.
“Should someone present themselves for Holy Communion if they do not believe the Church’s teaching on abortion?”
Interesting question, but I wonder if most Catholics’ views about abortion are as black-and-white as believing or not believing in Church teaching.
What if you’ve followed the Church’s teaching on abortion in your own life, support clinics that offer alternatives to abortion, but are not persuaded that every woman who has had an abortion is automatically in a state of mortal sin, or that abortion should be made illegal in every instance?
Posted by Jim Pauwels:
“Btw, for the Roman Catholic view on end-times, check out roman numerals V and VI here:
“http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm#V”
Jim, those are great citations from the Catechism, and probably the most important ones that apocalyptically minded Catholics should keep in mind. But the ones directly concerning Antichrist are these:
675 Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.574 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth575 will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.576
676 The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,577 especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism.
While it may be a stretch, at least at this point in time, to anoint Obama as THE Antichrist, it’s not hard to see in some of his statements, and in many of those of his more fervent followers, shades of the characteristic features of the pseudo-messianism described in the Catechism.
I say this not as someone who is a right-wing extremist, but as a Democrat (and former Democratic office-holder) who is something of a centrist on the American political spectrum. And who has perhaps read too much of that apocalyptic Southern Catholic liberal, Walker Percy …
Joe K., I wonder if the Cardinal got to his definition of “apocalyptic” through the “culture of life v. culture of death” dichotomy, read up to be the Last Battle.