Archbishop Nienstedt calls Obama ‘anti-Catholic,’ vows to pull support from Notre Dame

What a load of baloney. I respect a lot of my Catholic roots, but obedience to a church hierarchy not so much, when the Archbishop defines ‘Catholicism’ as simply issues of fetal politics.

Obama is a very pro-Catholic politician. If you look at the seven points that the US Bishops came up with, he hits home runs on a lot of them. Caring for the poor, being against the war and the death penalty, respect for workers. Catholic social doctrine is very much in line with Obama’s administration. I seem to recall several times where he was taking a position that he was getting grief for from the left and thinking he was being kind of Catholic – can’t remember specifics, though.

I’m sorry, but this is just too far to the right for me. Crazytalk.

How many children has the Archbishop abused?

It would be anti-Catholic to get in the way of the Catholic Church and it’s members. No such thing has happened.

Instead, a United States president who represents majority opinion has shaped public policy consistent with that majority view. He is not serving in a religious capacity in his role. He has done nothing to interfere with Catholics doing their thing.

He, as many, take a different point of view. And public policy reflects that majority, as democracies tend to. That’s all it is.

when a person (the Archbishop) takes a position consistent with his views, how exactly is that newsworthy?

he is what he is.

soon for him it will be the equivalent of ‘if a tree falls in a forest’ …

If Obama’s views are anti-Catholic, that means that Nienstedt is anti-freedom, anti-human, anti-educational, anti-independence, anti-intellectual and anti-Christian

However, his letter has done one thing. It’s made me anti-Catholic — or at least anti stupid Catholic, as am subset of all Catholics.

This is the kind of thinking that disturbs most educated Catholics about the unbending dogma that comes from some in the Church.

Remember Galileo? It only took the “infallible” Papacy 370 years to admit their mistake on that little bit of intolerance.

Thank you, Andy.
You are covering a story that is important.
Archbishop Nienstedt continues down his sad path that is alienating so many people. The Catholic church at one time was a church where they focused their time and energy on helping the poor, reaching out to those in need, educating the young in good schools, being the center of goodness in a community. The new regime in power has turned it into something very different.

Tell us how much the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis has supported the University of Notre Dame in the past…. My guess, none…. Nothing gained, nothing lost….

Here is the contact information for the archdiocese in case those of us who are Catholic wish to educate this particular humble servant of Our Lord:

Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis
226 Summit Avenue
Saint Paul, MN 55102
(651) 291-4400
communications@archspm.org

“[T]he failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community. If we understand the human person as the “temple of the Holy Spirit” – the living house of God – then these latter issues fall logically into place as the crossbeams and walls of that house. All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house’s foundation. These directly and immediately violate the human person’s most fundamental right – the right to life. Neglect of these issues is the equivalent of building our house on sand. Such attacks cannot help but lull the social conscience in ways ultimately destructive of other human rights” (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics” (1998), http://www.usccb.org/prolife/gospel.shtml).

Dear Randi,

Please do not think of Archbishop Nienstedt as the Catholic Church. He is the hiearchy. The church is the people. Not many Catholics look to Nienstedt or his brother bishops for guidance or leadership because they are out of touch with reality. They don’t realize that to be a leader you need to have followers. A look at the number of Catholic’s who voted for Obama clearly shows Nienstedt and his ilk are not leaders in the church.

I’m not sure what’s funnier–the local head of a criminal sexual abuse enterprise dissing Barack Obama or his threat to withdraw support for Notre Dame, which as JC noted, is likely nothing anyway. Go pound sand, Neinstedt

I wonder why Niestedt has not written similar missives to groups hosting George W. Bush who seemed to find glee in presiding over the Texas execution machine while he was governor. I trust the archbishop would want to be consistent in asserting church doctrine. I know that the church’s opposition to capital punishment is not absolute, but not all the Texas cases met the “absolute necessity” standard by any conceivalbe stretch of the archbishops imagination. At least Niestedt has company with the several church leaders who have denied communion privileges to pro-choice politicians and welcome executioners with open arms.

Pope Benedict, while he was the cardinal in charge of educating bishops, sent a letter to U.S. bishops in 2004 to make sure they knew the church’s position on voting for politicians who did not actively oppose abortion.

To vote for a politician only because he or she supported abortion, said the cardinal, would be a sin because the voter would be “cooperating with evil.” To vote for a politician IN SPITE OF his/her support for abortion for reasons exactly mirroring Catholic social policy (care for the poor, anti-war, et cetera) was no sin.

Archbishop Neinstedt, unfortunately, seems to be among a very few American bishops who erroneously insist that all politicians oppose abortion or risk losing Catholic votes. As Catholic writer Garry Wills points out, we cannot prove scientifically the official Catholic position that considers a fertilized egg a person with an immortal soul provided by God at the moment of conception. As long as we cannot prove it, how can we justify punishing others for not believing it?

Robb, I agree with you. Therefore, it is essential for thinking Catholics to respond with their own protest in the public forum, rejecting Nienstedt’s extremism. The national media is having a field day with the Notre Dame story and yet I don’t see a single online poll that counters Nienstedt’s efforts to organize a boycott of President Obama.

Minnesota is developing a nationwide reputation for being a hotbed of intolerant right-wing kooks. Isn’t it time to speak out against them?

It’s a pity the Church doesn’t care as much about life when it comes to politicians who support wars of choice or the death penalty. I’m sure Neinstadt would have had no problem with George Bush was the speaker.

The Archbishop’s letter indicates that, by standing for principles of individual choice and equality for all Americans, the Pres. Obama is “anti-Catholic”; using the same argument, by opposing individual freedom, equality for all and separation of Church and State, the Archbishop is anti-American.

Perhaps Archbishop Nienstedt is wishing for a return to the good old days of Torquemada and the Inquisition, were dissent from Church dogma would have you, at the very least, banned from public life and, at worst, turned into kindling. Of course, as a true freedom-loving American, I do defend the Archbishop’s right to live in the 15th century; I only ask in return that he respects my right to live in the 21st.

Obama’s first organizer job was with Gamaliel in Chicago.

It’s a social change organization that (still) has deep Catholic roots and parish membership.

Much of his current policies seem to be informed by his time there.

How strange that a voice for many Catholics rejects him now.

Bryan,

I do not think Nienstedt is the voice for many Catholics. I think many Catholics think he is “wacky” — at least most of those I know, worship with, and respect. Granted there are some sheep he is pastoring but certainly not many and certainly not enough to consider him the voice for ‘the many.”. Most polls on religious and social justice issues show the majority of Catholics are at the left of center, unlike the Archbishop. He is just doing what he think will please Rome until he get get bumped up in the hierarchy (and hopefully away from here). We would do well to have an Archbishop here who lives the Catholic Faith as well a President Obama.

Its precisely because of these concflicting messages from pastors, bishops, archbishops and Catholics in general that I left the Catholic Church and organised religion. Frankly I don’t know what the Church believes and teaches or who to believe in that regard. In spite of the unity and communion the Catholic Church loves to proclaim, its more than obvious to me its hardly that. You may be able to sit happily in the Church pew/chair with all these inconsistencies of thought around you on these important social and spiritual issues, but I in good conscience cannot. Long since I have decided to defer to science on these questions, and sadly or not that equation doesn’t include Church.

There’s a website where you may sign a petition to defend Notre Dame against Nienstedt’s intolerant attacks and you can also thank Notre Dame President Fr. John Jenkins for inviting the President to speak. Visit http://www.wesupportnotredame.org/ and sign the petition now.

Sadly, many well meaning Catholics do not understand their faith and quickly strike at the Church because they do not understand how it operates. Catholics believe that the Church was established by Christ and is protected by the Holy Spirit when teaching on faith and morals ONLY. The moral issue of protecting the unborn is a teaching of the church that is without error, or infallible. A Pope’s judgement on an unjust war, social welfare, environmental issues are not infallible teachings and therefore faithful catholics may disagree with the Church in regard to these matters. Abortion is always wrong but in the eyes of the Church there may be a difference of oppinion on war, captial punishment, etc… because those situations are not intrinsically evil, every time, in the eyes of the Church.
Again the faith and morals of the Catholic Church are believed to be protected from error by the Holy Spirit. The men and women in the Church are simply men and women and are not afforded this same protection. Therefore, you must understand that the “people’ of the Church really do not define the church. It is the teachings that define it and that is why the Notre Dame act is so unacceptable. It strikes at an infallible teaching of the Church. I pray that Catholics take this opportunity to learn their faith more fully.

Erin,

Hope you enjoyed the Kool-aid.

Believe what you want but that is the teaching of the church.

Dear Robb,

I was listening to the speeches on the floor of the Vermont House as they were preparing to vote on marriage equality a couple of nights ago. One of the representatives identified himself as a Catholic. His voice was filled with emotion. He said he could not vote for marriage equality because his church would not let him. His speech was in a sense an apology.

I think you are right that most people want to think “the people are the church” and should be the church … but unfortunately, in reality the Archbishops and priests give voice to people like that representative….even when in his heart, I believe, he wanted to vote for marriage equality.

It would have been wonderful if the news carried a story about a large group of the “people who are the church” going over to Nienstedt’s office and telling him they were not happy with his letter to Notre Dame. I think there have many times when “the people who are the church” could have spoken out loudly. We have friends who are Catholic and they have left the church because of the recent hiearchy of the church. It was a terribly painful decision. They would have stayed if there was hope that their voices “were the church” …. right now the Catholic Church is directed heavily by the Archbishop.

I am not Catholic but we feel his voice as parents of a beloved gay son. We felt it when we were asked to come to the University of St. Thomas a couple of weeks ago with our film. We heard the morning of the event that “the Archbishop was not pleased” …. it made us feel uneasy and worried for the students attending. I know families in California who have gay children also felt the power of the Catholic Church during the Prop 8 campaign. I truly wish “the people” were the church. I don’t think the money would have poured in against the gay community without the hierarchy asking for it.

Randi

Please, understand that the Catholic Church does not operate based on majority vote, or the will of the people. (imagine if the constitution was continually altered by a majority vote…it would not resemble what it is today) The Church operates on a set of truths that are unchanging. Much in the same way that the US operates according to the constitution, the church operates according to doctrine and that doctrine is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Careful though, it is easy to think that a “practice” of the Catholic church is “doctrine” when in fact it is just a “practice”. It is the duty of a faithful Catholic to study and learn their faith and to know what the church proclaims as truth. Obviously, not everyone will want to submit to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church and accordingly there are over 33,000 Christian denominations to date. People are free to believe in the strict teachings of the catholic church or not. These teachings aren’t something that have magically appeared in the last few years and can magically disappear or change. Many of these truths have been around for nearly 2000 years.

Please, investigate how the church operates before you throw barbs about the church needing to change and become more inclusive. If you are a bible reading Christian you will know there were occasions when Christ called the pharisees hypocrites for they were not teaching the truth. On those occasions, Christ did not change his teachings to be more inclusive or to meet the needs of the times. If there are issues within the Catholic church at this moment, it is likely a result of there not being a firm line drawn in the sand for fear that followers would leave. I believe that line is finally being drawn.

Someone earlier said there were no online polls supporting the Archbishops thoughts on this issue. There are hundreds of thousands of catholics who do not support Notre Dame’s decision on http://www.notredamescandal.com

Dear Randi,

I agree with your concerns. I think many Catholics get discouraged with their inability to be heard by the hierarchy, despite the obligation of the hierarchy to listen to the flock [Citations I have included are for the benefit of Erin] as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church s.896. I am aware of groups bearing petitions who were turned away from the local chancery with a comment similar to “that’s not the way we operate.” I am sure you have seen in the press how the Archbishop has dealt with the Faith Community at St. Stephens in Minneapolis as another example of the people being “dissed” by their bishop. On a positive note, St. Thomas had striven to limit the Archbishop’s ability to interfere by not having him on the Board of Directors, but I understand that has now changed somewhat. I regret actions of this bishop as do many other local Roman Catholics because he should be leading by example and “not domineering over those in [his] charge” s. 893

Regarding money that poured into California, I know for a fact that much of it came from some organizations such as the Knights of Columbus, but here again, despite the leadership of that group being homophobic, I know many rank and file members who are anything but that. It is unfortunate that people get into the leadership of these groups and by the silence of members, can put forth their own very un-Christlike agendas. The current head of the K of C is a former Reagan appointee — need I say more. As you well know, however, to counteract some of these leaders is like spitting in the wind. We must be vigilant in doing so however, in speaking truth to power. The fact that we have authority over us doesn’t get us off the hook in being obligated to use our God-given ability to reason. s. 1951

I still am very hopeful in the long term that God’s people will win out over the all too human failings of some of its bishops and ministers. “The presence of Christ in [them] is not understood as if the latter were preserved from all human weaknesses, the spirit of domination, error, even sin.” s.1550

The people are the church. The laity are the animating principle of human society s. 899 for this we must thankful and active as God calls us to be.

Freedom of speech is for everyone remember.

The Archbishop has certainly availed himself of it.

So will Obama when he speaks.

For clarification, Robb, you need to include the whole text of the Catechism regarding the Hierarcical Constitution of the Church (see Catechism 874-896). To pick and choose portions without the full context can distort the message. A Bishops defense of the right to life can hardly be described as “domineering over those in his charge.”

Mary, Speaking of picking and choosing, President Obama isn’t an abortionist — in fact he is opposed to it. Thus he shouldn’t be treated like one by the Archbishop. Also, in citing 896, am I so unlike the Archbishop himself relative to picking and choosing — the man does not have “compassion’ nor does he appear to “listen”. Can you honestly say that the Archbishop is acting in accord with the entire citation that you provide?

To treat our President as an abortionist and calling him anti-Catholic is not in keeping with any part of the Hierarchical Constitution of the Church. In your heart you know I’m right.

anti-abortion? One who spends tax dollars on overseas abortions. One who kills embryos for scientific measures. What is it that keeps you in the faith if it is so full of errors?

Robb,
I will grant you this: the archbishop’s wording may indeed have been harsh and improperly chosen but I see his intent as defending the sanctity of life.

So the President has been performing abortion for scientific measures? He is paying for abortion overseas with tax dollars? I wouldn’t think he would have the time, or inclination to do that since he is personally opposed to abortion and has so many other responsibilities. And if tax dollars are spent overseas for abortions what are the circumstance for tha?. Is it abortion for abortion’s sake? Are we engaging in ethnic cleansing? Did he start doing this right away after January 20, 2009? I’m sure you have a better source of information on this than I do. Please fill me in.

You know, I believe you have the right to think and espouse what you do —- but I don’t agree with what you have posted.

The President, who is subject to the Constitution and the people of this country, believes the people have the right to think, engage in, and espouse things that are Constitutional. But he doesn’t have to agree with it either. Do you think God loves him less for that?

Mary, my Faith doesn’t have errors. Many of my friends and associates who are not Roman Catholic like myself (in fact some not even Christian if you can believe that) also have Faith that I do not think has errors. The Lord knows, though that I, Robb M. Morin, can and do make errors. I am so thankful that (S)He is forgiving and merciful. My friends and associates also are very forgiving, just like God is. That would also be a great atribute for his ministers and bishops don’t you think? Like you, I also believe in the sanctity of life. In fact, I believe all life is sacred. I also believe in a loving God. I also believe that God loves the entirety of His/Her creation. Do you believe that Mary? Or do you believe that God created things that (S)He hates and deplores? Mary, do you believe that God gave us a free will so that will do what is wrong or what we think might be wrong? Or did (S)He give us this gift so that we can discern what is right, regardless of what others might say — others who might be in positions of power that can be abused? Mary, do you recall scripture and how receptive the religious powers were to the message of Jesus in his day? This is a good week to think about that. Mary, I love my Faith, and I thank God for the gift of it daily. Our God is a loving God. I know we agree on that.

Erin it is you who do not understand the papal infallibility. You are correct that an ex cathedra declaration must concern a matter of faith or morals but it does not apply to every utterance the pope makes on these matters. In fact it has only been used once since the Vatican cooked it up in 1870 and that was in 1950 with Pius XII declared the Assumption of Mary as an article of faith. (I knew that old Baltimare Catechism would come in handy someday.)

So, the Church’s views that the Iraq War and the death penalty are immoral are on the same level as its views about abortion.

Robb, I do not choose to engage you on this level even though you intially insulted my stance by telling Erin she was drinking the kool-aid. It is obvious that your opinion is formed and not open to challenge so I will withdraw from this debate. No offense, but your first paragraph is so outrageous that it needs no retort.

Nancy,
Perhaps my note was note written with complete clarity. See the catechism s. 2271. The pope need not speak infallibly on the evils of abortion because it has been a teaching of the church from the first century. Thank you for pointing out that error. The war in Iraq and the death penalty are not on the same moral level. You cannot argue that the church has always viewed these as immoral such as abortion.
Sorry you feel the Vatican cooked up this teaching. Very sad.

Oh, I’ll leave you with one last note from the Holy Father to the US bishops last spring:

POPE BENEDICT ON WAR, DEATH PENALTY, ABORTION AND AUTHANASIA

BENEDICT AT THE BASILICA

The Pope speaks to Catholic bishops in Washington, D.C.

by John McCormack

04/17/2008

“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion, even among Catholics, about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not, however, with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” H.H. Benedict XVI.

I wrote a paper about this in college which was a long time ago so I may not be remembering the all dates correctly.

Yes and no about the Church having the same teaching about abortion since the first century.

Yes, there were church philosophers who held that abortion was murder in that time frame.

No, there were others who later disagreed with the 1st Century writers. St. Jerome said it wasn’t a sin until the fetus actually looked human.

St. Augustine said an early abortion could not be murder because a soul could not inhabit an unformed body, no soul, no murder. For a time, this was made part of Canon Law.

St. Thomas Aquinas said abortion was only wrong after the fetus became animated and in the 16th Century Pope Gregory incorporated this into Church law and determined that “quickening” was at 16 weeks and after that point abortion was wrong.

It wasn’t until the 19th century (around 1868 I think) that Puix X dropped the the “quickening” requirement and in the late 1880s that Pope Leo decided that abortion was wrong even to save the mother’s life. (The exception to this would be something like an ectopic pregnancy where there is no hope that the fetus can survive.)

The Church’s attitude that the fetus is more valuable than the mother puts it in direct conflict with Jewish law which says the well being of the mother must come first – which is one reason that Catholic law makers – who are elected to represent all their constiuents – shouldn’t be expected to make Catholic doctrine law.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

Sorry Nancy, I was merely quoting the Catechism which states in s.2271, “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of evey procured abortion. this teaching has not changed and remain unchangeable…”
May I ask how Jewish law affects a catholic conscience?

The Catechism is glossing over changes in the Church’s attitude about abortion. Apparently there were times when it did not consider “every procured abortion” to be morally evil.

I noted Jewish law because it illustrates that people of good conscience can disagree on the issue and elected officials need to respect that and not be expected to shove their religious beliefs down the throats of constiuents who may hold other beliefs. Catholics of good conscience can disagree about what the law should be on this issue.

I can remember people who thought JFK shouldn’t be president because he’d take his orders from Rome. I would certainly hate to think that 50 years later, we can’t trust Catholic politicians to uphold the Constitution.

I also recall John Paul II telling Bush that if he invaded Iraq he would be “going without God” – that sounds pretty serious to me and I still don’t understand why it is permissible for Catholics to support killing as part of an illegal war.

Nancy,
It is permissible because the legality of the war is debatable within the teachings of the church. Abortion is not debatable.

Robb, here is a scripture verse for you to ponder: Matthew 10: 34-39. Certainly we can disagree without you being so condescending to those who embrace the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

For condescension to Erin, Mary, John and others “mea culpa”.

Erin, Mary, and John,

A few honest questions:

When Church tradition on faith and morals can be shown to contradict scripture, which takes precedence?

When tradition itself can be shown to have multiple and contradictory strands, which of the strands takes precedence?

What makes one issue “debatable” and another not open to debate? (By way of example: why is abortion a moral matter, and thus not open to debate, while execution is not a matter of morality?)

When the Pope speaks, is he always speaking “ex-cathedra”?

Good honest questions. I will try to answer but I suggest the Catechism of the Catholic Church might provide a more thorough response (see sections74- 95) than what I can offer. First, it is assumed that the Gospel (before the new testament was written) was transmitted by oral traditions of the apostles. This holy tradition “has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.” “As a result the Chruch, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone.” “Both Scriptrue and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.” Now, to take a stab at your questions:

1) Sacred Tradition (oral revelations) and sacred scripture inherently should not contradict each other as they are both inspired by the Holy Spirit.
2) The Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, must determine which traditions are truthful. I suppose much in the same way that the Church discerned which writings would be included in the canon of the Bible.
3) This is where people will disagree, but the church teaches, without reservation, that abortion is an intrinsic evil, always. Although it is the taking of life as well, the Catechism in 2266-2267 leaves a teeny bit of wiggle room for the use of capital punishment. I could never partake in that.
4) No, as Nancy correctly mentioned, the Pope very rarely speaks “ex-cathedra” thus most of his prudential judgements are not strict doctrine and up for debate among the faithful. Having said that, we should listen faithfully to the holy father and open our hearts to his opinions.
I tried my best.

Speaking as a non-catholic graduate of Notre Dame, it seems to me that because Catholics are obligated to follow their church doctrine and not their conscious (per the comments from Mary above on the 5th), then they should not be in politics representing those of us who are not catholic. John Kennedy made it clear that Rome would not dictate his decisions when he ran for president, but now those arguing that Church doctrine should guide how Catholics vote, including the representative in Vermont on the gay issue, then perhaps they should refrain from attempting to represent any but other Catholics.

Carl, good point. I would add the following: if a catholic politician takes his faith seriously then the moral issues that govern his life should be part of his platform. If he doesn’t get elected for that reason, then so be it. However, to see a “catholic” politician claim to be pro-choice doesn’t make much sense to me. It seems as though they are taking polls and voting according to popularity rather than their set of beliefs. To reverse your reasoning, a self proclaimed gay politician should only represent other gay constituents.

The Irony! Obama carried the Catholic vote big time.

Speaking as a neophyte…

I’m not sure that I have a problem with doctrine taking precedence over individual conscience…given the spectrum of activities that individual conscience seems to allow.

At least with Canon Law – which is really what we’re talking about – there is necessarily a call for interpretation and debate. It’s demonstrable that Catholic doctrine has evolved on a significant number of issues. There is no reason to think that it will not continue to do so.

Finally as regards politics, it seems to me that the Social Justice teaching of the Church is pretty clear as to the Church’s priorities. Abortion is not the sole, or even the most significant piece of that teaching. If anything the Church’s teaching on abortion, defending those incapable of defending themselves, is part of a fabric that includes the destitute, the oppressed, the disenfranchised, and so forth.

I suspect that we’ll see play out momentariy as the economy continues to turn to shit… and our Minnesota Nice xenophobes start going after our immigrants. Once this happens, I anticipate then that the Church will suddenly become very unpopular with the Right.

Let me know if I’m wrong.

As far as abortion is concerned. I’m against it.

Hence, as a man of deep and abiding conscience, I’ve committed to not having one.

Therein lies the entirety of my concern and response.

Erin, the difference between a Catholic politician shoving their anti-abortion beliefs down others throats and those who are prochoice or suuport GLBT rights is this; an anti-abotion Catholic wants to pass laws that force all people to live by their beliefs about abortion even if they belong to faith with a different attitude about it. People who are pro-choice are just that – pro-choice. If you don’t want to have an abortion don’t have one. We trust women to make their own medical decisions. (The other thing I notice is that pro-choice people are more apt to support the programs that may help a women bring a difficult pregnancy to term while most the “pro-life” types wail and gnash their teeth over every tax dollar that goes to social programs).

I’ve never heard that Gay marriage will mean that you’ll be forced to marry someone of the same sex or that a Church that does not believe in it will be forced to perform marriages between same sex couples. Divorce is legal – but no one forces the Catholic church to marry those who have obtained a civil divorce.

“Urb,”
Your comments have been pulled for being in violation of our comment policy. If you’d like to continue commenting, stick with a single username (not four).

In his letter, Archbishop Neinstedt wrote, “He has indicated, especially since he took office, his deliberate disregard of the unborn by …… and by his open support for gay rights throught this country.” Why does supporting gay rights show disregard for the unborn? What does his dislike of gay people have to do with this issue? President Obama is President of all, including gay people and I commend his stand against discrimination and prejudice against gay Americans. Surely many gay people, including many in the clergy, live in his Archdiocese. It would be good if Archbishop Neinstedt could have a little respect for those he sees as inferior and has disdain for. We are all God’s children.

The bishops and laity have a right and a duty to speak clearly on matters of morals. The fact that the Church is populated only with sinners doesn’t change that duty.

If You believe the obvious -that elective abortion is the deliberate killing of innocent human life- then it’s not enough simply to refrain from having an abortion. Any decent person who believes this self-evident truth will see clearly that a just society can not passively permit people to kill their children as if they were doing no more than pulling weeds from their lawn.

Elective abortion violates the most basic human right -the right to life- and those who defend the practice are guilty of defending an evil more egregious than human slavery.

Defenders of slavery in the U.S. in the 1800’s often used the same logic and arguments that defenders of abortion today. In both cases they’re on the wrong side of history, and the wrong side of the truth.

Bishop Nienstedt, thanks for having the guts to speak the truth!

I left a comment here a few hours ago expressing a polite, serious, minority viewpoint supportive of Bishop Nienstedt. The comment appeared shortly after posting, but since then has been removed. Why?

So much for fairness, free speech, and tolerance in the Minnesota Independent.

(corrected website)

Hi John,
I just emailed you directly, but for the record: I moderate comments and, while I’m late in moderating comments from Friday due to Easter travel, I haven’t deleted your comment. If something’s missing, please re-submit. Thanks.

Paul

Paul, I’m embarrassed that I did You and the Minnesota Independent an injustice by rashly assuming that my comment was removed for philosophical or political reasons. I offer You my sincere apology, and will try to avoid the error of assuming the worst in future.

Thank You for posting my original comment. A happy Easter to You.

Thank You to all the Bishops and Cardinals that are sticking by the cathoic churches teaching’s,logic and nature defending Life and speaking out against Notre Dame inviting the President to speak. It is more than sad that the commencment speech, a time to inspire students supposedly educated in the catholic teachings, to move forwad into the world as catholics, to hear a speech from a strongly Pro-Abortion president is simply WRONG and DAMAGING to the WORLD.

Thank You,

Colleen Elizabeth Barry
Proudly Pro-Life

[...] The Most Reverend John Nienstedt, Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis(Minnesota) [...]