Obama meets the (Catholic) press…
The current president has cited the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin before, most recently in his speech at Notre Dame: ”He was a kind and good and wise man,” Barack Obama said then of Cardinal Joseph Bernardin. “A saintly man.”
And the “Common Ground” approach of Chicago’s Bernardin and Chicago’s Obama have great resonances. At a meeting this morning with eight [mainly] Catholic journalists ahead of his meeting next week with Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican, Obama invoked Bernardin again–and, as the WaPost’s Jackie Salmon writes, he “promised a ‘robust’ federal policy protecting health-care workers who have moral objections to performing some procedures.” (I think that’s the sound of another anti-Obama talking point falling.)
Tim Drake at the National Catholic Register has a write-up (the other NCR was also there, represented by editor Joe Feuerherd) based on a conversation with his publisher, Father Owen Kearns, who attended:
“The most noteworthy thing during the meeting was his dispelling of what you might call the expectation of the worst regarding conscience clauses,” said Father Kearns. “He said that the confusion regarding the issue was due to the timing of everything rather than what he was going to do. His administration saw the previous administration’s 11th-hour change as problematic, and so they undid that. He said that in Illinois he was a supporter of a robust conscience clause, something he reiterated in his Notre Dame speech. He added that the government has received hundreds of thousands of public comments and he promised that there would be a robust conscious clause protection in place, and that it would not be weaker than President Bush’s 11th hour change. Still, he added, it won’t please everybody.”
In addition, Father Kearns noted the president’s analysis of the divide in Catholicism.
“The president said he had fond memories of Cardinal Bernardin and that when he started his neighborhood project, they were funded by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development,” he said. “After the first question, from the National Catholic Reporter‘s Joe Feuerherd, the president jokingly asked, ‘Was there really [a controversy at Notre Dame]?’”
“The president spoke about how during Cardinal Bernardin’s time the U.S. bishops spoke about the nuclear freeze, the sanctuary movement, immigration, and the poor, but that later a decided change took place,” added Father Kearns. “He said that the responses to his administration mirror the tensions in the Church overall, but that Cardinal Bernardin was pro-life and never hesitated to make his views known, but he had a consistent ‘seamless garment’ approach that emphasized the other issues as well. The president said that that part of the Catholic tradition continues to inspire him. Those issues, he said, seemed to have gotten buried by the abortion debate.”
Paul Baumann represented Commonweal and he may have more at some point. Joe Feuerherd also has these bits just in:
Asked whether he sometimes felt he has been “dragged into a largely intra-Catholic family fight” on issues that divide liberal and conservative Catholics, Obama again recalled Bernardin’s example, particularly as it relates to the “seamless garment” of life issues the late cardinal saw as integral to Catholic teaching.
“Cardinal Bernardin was strongly pro-life, never shrank away from talking about that issue, but was very consistent in talking about a seamless garment and a range of issues that were part and parcel of what he considered to be pro-life, that meant that he was concerned about poverty, he was concerned about how children were treated, he was concerned about the death penalty, he was concerned about foreign policy.
“And that part of the Catholic tradition is something that continues to inspire me. And I think that there have been times over the last decade or two where that more holistic tradition feels like it’s gotten buried under the abortion debate.”
The president continued, “Now, as a non-Catholic, it’s not up to me to try to resolve those tensions. As I said, all I can do is to affirm how that other tradition has made me, a non-Catholic, I think reflect on how I can be a better person and has had a powerful influence on my life. And that tells me that it might be a powerful way to move a broader set of values forward in American life generally.”
Meantime, Pat Zapor at CNS was also there and reports in:
Obama said his encounters with the cardinal continue to influence him, particularly his “seamless garment” approach to a multitude of social justice issues. He also told the group of eight reporters to expect a conscience clause protection for health care workers currently under review by the administration that will be no less protective than what existed previously.
In addition to Catholic News Service, the round table included reporters and editors from other Catholic publications: National Catholic Reporter, America magazine, Catholic Digest, National Catholic Register, Commonweal magazine and Vatican Radio. The religion writer from The Washington Post also participated.
SNIP
“>Obama said in some ways he sees his first meeting with the pope as the same as any contact with a head of state, “but obviously this is more than just that. The Catholic Church has such a profound influence worldwide and in our country, and the Holy Father is a thought leader and opinion leader on so many wide-ranging issues. His religious influence is one that extends beyond the Catholic Church.”
He said he considers it a great honor to be meeting with the pope and that he hopes the session will lead to further cooperation between the Vatican and the United States in addressing Middle East peace, worldwide poverty, climate change, immigration and a whole host of other issues.
Several of the questions addressed the sometimes contentious relations between the Obama administration and some U.S. bishops, notably surrounding the president’s commencement address at the University of Notre Dame in May. The university’s decision to invite Obama and present him with an honorary degree led to a wave of protests at the university and a flurry of criticism by more than 70 bishops who said his support for legal abortion made him an inappropriate choice by the university.
Statements by the U.S. bishops also have chastised Obama for administrative actions such as the reversal of the Mexico City policy, which had prohibited the use of federal family planning funds by organizations that provide abortions or counsel women to have abortions.
But Obama said he’s not going to be deterred from continuing to work with the U.S. Catholic hierarchy, in part “because I’m president of all Americans, not just Americans who happen to agree with me.”
“The American bishops have profound influence in their communities, in the church and beyond,” Obama said. “What I would say is that although there have been criticisms leveled at me from some of the bishops, there have been a number of bishops who have been extremely generous and supportive even if they don’t agree with me on every issue.”
He said part of why he wants to establish a good working relationship with the bishops is because he has fond memories of working with Cardinal Bernardin when Obama was a community organizer, working with Catholic parishes on the South Side of Chicago.
“And so I know the potential that the bishops have to speak out forcefully on issues of social justice,” Obama said.
It’s interesting that if Bernardin was something of a prophet without honor in his own country–his common ground initiative met sharp resistance from his fellow cardinals–his ideas and spirit live on elsewhere. Salt of the earth, as Joseph Ratzinger (and someone before him) once put it.
Will Obama’s Bernardinesque approach work for America, or American Catholics?
(Above is White House photo via NCRegister)
Tags: Catholic press, Obama
“Obama said his encounters with the cardinal continue to influence him, particularly his “seamless garment” approach to a multitude of social justice issues.”
It grieves me to see Cardinal Bernardin’s consistent ethic of life folded, spindled and mutilated for the umpteenth time by a public official. But, at least this time not by a Catholic.
Still, some nice words.
Next, let’s see an actual conscience protection order and see if it’s equally nice. Until then, if it’s alright with you guys, we’re going to keep that particular talking point on the board.
Here’s something that Bernardin said in an interview:
Could you elaborate a bit more on how Obama embodies that idea?
That’s funny, fellows–if Bernardin were such a good guy, then why have conservatives and many of his fellow cardinals (good folk like Bernard Law, admittedly) beat up on him so much?
And maybe you guys could explain how, under Bernardin’s reasoning cited above, you could vote for a GOP candidate like McCain or Bush? Or why Obama has to prove himself before he gets any benefit of the doubt? It’s kind of silly. Bush had a conscience caluse for all of ONE DAY in his entire eight years. Obama will have one in place for most of his one or (God forbid) two terms.
I don’t get the major attitude here. Bizarro.
Joe Feurerherd at NCR on line has a lengthy piece on the interview already.
He writes that Obama was deeply impressed by Bernandin and the “seamless gament approach.”
He laid out the areas of agreement and disagreement within that and it’s obvious he’s worked for common ground on the abortion issue within the context of legal but reduced abortions.
He also had nice words for BXVI as a world leader and thinker.
I’m not sure what Jim P. expects of a non-Catholic leader who admires and tries to draw on what he thinks is best from our tradition.
Of course, part of the right to life movement want the total ban, but they live in a society (and a Church,I might add,) where many disagree with their approach.
I don’t see the negative comments here as anything but the usual Obama bashing from some and it would be nice to know that party affiliation or ideology had no place in their discussion of the meeting.
“I’m not sure what Jim P. expects of a non-Catholic leader who admires and tries to draw on what he thinks is best from our tradition.”
So far, my expectations have been decidedly met.
“And maybe you guys could explain how, under Bernardin’s reasoning cited above, you could vote for a GOP candidate like McCain or Bush? ”
Not sure if you really want to rehash it all again, David, but according to the consistent ethic of life, McCain was clearly the better candidate. Offhand, I can’t think of a single issue where McCain was notably worse than the alternative, and on some of the most important issues – from the point of view of a consistent ethic of life – he was, hands down, the best pick.
Well, yes, now that you mention it, Bush and McCain are (were) inconsistent with Bernardin too, but then I never claimed that they embodied the spirit of Bernardin. It’s rather a red herring to refute something I didn’t say, while neglecting to defend something you did say.
Bob — if merely quoting Bernardin without commentary is “Obama-bashing,” then perhaps Obama isn’t doing quite so well at embodying the spirit and ideas of Bernardin after all.
For the record, Stuart is quoting from this interview, published in the National Catholic Register. In which Bernardin also said:
The whole point of the “seamless garment” concept, it seems to me, is that it makes mindless partisan allegiances untenable. And, yes, Obama’s invocations of the late, saintly Cardinal are largely lip service, since like pretty much all politicians, he sees that garment as full of seams. But he’s not bringing up Bernardin to say “I agree” — he’s saying “I understand how you see things, and what your concerns are, although I disagree.” And it seems to me it’s an invitation to “hold his feet to the fire,” as the Cardinal advised — to say, Yes, Cardinal Bernardin’s leadership inspired us too, and what do you think of the connection he sees between the dignity of the unborn and these other “life issues”? A place to start the conversation from, in other words.
“That’s funny, fellows–if Bernardin were such a good guy, then why have conservatives and many of his fellow cardinals (good folk like Bernard Law, admittedly) beat up on him so much? ”
FWIW, I happen to think that Cardinal Bernardin gets a raw deal from conservatives. Although, in my experience, it is not Bernardin but rather liberal politicians who twist the consistent ethic of life for their own purposes that draw the major share of conservative fire. But here’s one explanation for why Bernardin isn’t a conservative hero:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/02/how-we-got-to-where-we-are-16
Yeah. Care to summarize, Jim?
They think he went soft on abortion at some point.
He complains about that in the NC Register interview, too!
Mollie Wilson O’Reilly: I do not think that link works for the interview. Can you paste the URL?
Thanks, MAT. I fixed the link above. It’s here:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily/bernardin_put_life_first/
David
I don’t “beat up” on Cardinal B, I simply note that his seamless garment is repeatedly used as a justification for things for which it was never intended – as this post clearly shows.
Offhand, I can’t think of a single issue where McCain was notably worse than the alternative, and on some of the most important issues – from the point of view of a consistent ethic of life – he was, hands down, the best pick.
Jim,
My understanding is that the consistent ethic of life encompasses more than abortion, stem-cell research, capital punishment, and euthanasia. It Has things to say about racism, poverty, social justice, and any other issue that affects the well being of people after they are born and before they are near death. So although people may disagree on issues like the minimum wage, or universal health care, or the distribution of income, they are all matters to take into account when it comes to the consistent ethic of life. And let’s not forget war.
Hi, David N.,
Abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, capital punishment, and euthanasia are central concerns of the church’s teaching on the consistent ethic of life – and they are all issues on which, from the point of view of the consistent ethic of life, a politician or public figure can, quite simply, be right or wrong.
You’re quite right that war is also a central concern, and there are many aspects of modern warfare that violate a consistent ethic of life. However, Catholic moral teaching also insists that some wars, at least in theory, are just, and so the consistent ethic of life does not absolutely condemn all war in principle. Circumstances may and must be taken into account.
The consistent ethic of life is not co-extensive with Catholic social teaching, although it provides one useful prism for viewing an important subset of Catholic social teaching.
I should amend what I wrote in the first paragraph above. Capital punishment, at least in my view, is not a “simply right or wrong” issue; it’s an issue in which specific circumstances need to be considered.
“My understanding is that the consistent ethic of life encompasses more than abortion, stem-cell research, capital punishment, and euthanasia. It Has things to say about racism, poverty, social justice…”
So what? Was McCain or Bush racists? Did McCain or Bush want to increase poverty? Or did they promote social injustice? (mind you, social justice is a very ambiguous term, viz.: is it just that people should surrender half of their hard-earned money to pay for the upkeep of people who are too lazy to work – and no I don’t believe that’s the case for all unemployed people, but it is for some).
Is this the conservative crack-up? Or is it that conservatives are a crack up?
No, not so funny. Unfortunately.
David,
I would actually enjoy an honest response to Stuart’s original question. Before you return to your typical “tu quoque” nonsense, let me state upfront that I am hardly a Republican stooge. I did not vote for either Obama or McCain. I opposed the Iraq war on my radio programs. I also publicly criticized both during the election, again, on the air. I support a raft of social justice initiatives. Frankly, were it not for people like you and your fellow Commonweal Catholics who were so eager to throw traditional marriage and life issues under the bus, I’d probably be a much happier Democrat than anything else. As it stands, to coin a scriptural phrase, I’m a wandering independent who dwells in a tent with aliens.
All that said, I agree with Stuart and Jim that Bernadin’s seamless garment approach has been misappropriated by progressives who use it to dilute the primacy of life issues. It has been co-opted by progressive politicians who want to cozy up to Catholics without getting too much of that nasty stink of incense on their $6000 suits. Citing Bernadin is the progressive political equivalent of Bush’s incessant Culture of Death sloganeering. You guys never ceased to (mostly correctly) bash Bush for attempting to co-opt that phrase (but at least he gave us pro-life Justices) but you appear to suck up Obama’s empty pandering like frat-boys at a kegger.
So, back to the original question. How does Obama’s adminstration embody Bernadin’s Seamless Garment approach qua Bernadin as opposed to the progressive bastardization of Bernadin’s Seamless Garment approach?
Greg
I’m so glad to hear about “Comonweal Catholics” again (by one of the”usual suspects?)
In the aftermath of Bernadin, the National Pastoral Life Center through Common Ground and the Roundtable of Social Justice folk tries to unite the seamless garment for many.
My view is that they could not deal with “toxic” issues because there were too many lines drawn in the sand.
Son (Tuesday) the new papal encyclical will be released on social matters and if John Allen’s take on it is right, there will be a kind of seamless garment blending of life and justrice issues.
Some will criticize BXVI’s internal appications (e.g.condoms/AIDS in Africa) but in the big picture , on the world stage, his message will have impact.
Soon after. the President will meet with the Pope and operate (with their particular disagreements) within a framework of life and justice issues.
Coopertation and real work together, not the continued b and m about lines in the sand will move forward.
As I read this thread and the health care thread among others, it strikes me that the line in the sand folk are the obstructionists.
Call me a Commonweal Catholic or worse and a bastradizer of Catholic thought, but all you’re doing is enhancing the divide, not solving the problem and stewing in self righteous juices.
Why would anyone reply to your insults, Greg? I don’t recommend anyone take this bait.
Just out at NCR on line is John Allen citing an article by Cardinal Cottier (former theologian
to JPII) highly praiseworthy of our President and his approach.
I wonder if someone could provide a link to the entire article?
I wonder if someone could provide a link to the entire article?
Bob,
I have not read it yet, but here’s a link.
http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=21193
Thanks, David. I commend it to the reading and reflection of all here.
Abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, capital punishment, and euthanasia are central concerns of the church’s teaching on the consistent ethic of life – and they are all issues on which, from the point of view of the consistent ethic of life, a politician or public figure can, quite simply, be right or wrong.
Jim,
You seem to want to limit the seamless-garment approach to beginning-of-life and end-of-life issues, and claim that McCain was superior to Obama on all of them. However, the seamless-garment approach as outlined by Cardinal Bernardin was not limited in this way:
I understand Cardinal Bernardin to be making, very explicitly, the point that a consistent ethic of life cannot pretend to concern itself with how government approaches abortion without also concerning itself with how government approaches prenatal care, infant mortality, child welfare, health care, nutrition, “illegal immigrants,” tax policy, unemployment, and a whole host of other issues. His last sentence seems to me to be about as clear as one would expect him to get in criticizing the approach of a great many Republicans/conservatives who want to criminalize abortion but who claim the role of government should be nonexistent or extremely limited when it comes to making sure all citizens are guaranteed things like housing, health care, education, and employment opportunities.
Taking the true meaning of the consistent ethic of life, I do not think it was a “slam dunk” for McCain and against Obama.
Over at the America blog, Michael Sean Winters’s take on this meeting is worth reading:
Another opiniom from inside one side of American Catholicism, but not apparently the mood at the heart of rome. We’ll see next week.
I do wonder how Mr. Winters grasps pluralism and bringing about change.
And for another view at NCR on line, see the coments of Sr. Joan Chittister from the other side.