USCCB: Statement on Obama, politics, abortion

Today, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, today issued a statement in the name of the bishops regarding relations with the incoming administration of President-elect Barak Obama, focusing in particular on the bishops' concern with abortion. The following is the full text of that statement, which is the result of a three days of discussions by the bishops during their Nov. 10-13 meeting in Baltimore.

STATEMENT of the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

"If the Lord does not build the house, in vain do its builders labor; if the Lord does not watch over the city, in vain does the watchman keep vigil." (Psalm 127, vs. 1)

The Bishops of the Catholic Church in the United States welcome this moment of historic transition and look forward to working with President-elect Obama and the members of the new Congress for the common good of all. Because of the Church's history and the scope of her ministries in this country, we want to continue our work for economic justice and opportunity for all; our efforts to reform laws around immigration and the situation of the undocumented; our provision of better education and adequate health care for all, especially for women and children; our desire to safeguard religious freedom and foster peace at home and abroad. The Church is intent on doing good and will continue to cooperate gladly with the government and all others working for these goods.

The fundamental good is life itself, a gift from God and our parents. A good state protects the lives of all. Legal protection for those members of the human family waiting to be born in this country was removed when the Supreme Court decided Roe vs. Wade in 1973. This was bad law. The danger the Bishops see at this moment is that a bad court decision will be enshrined in bad legislation that is more radical than the 1973 Supreme Court decision itself.

In the last Congress, a Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) was introduced that would, if brought forward in the same form today, outlaw any "interference" in providing abortion at will. It would deprive the American people in all fifty states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry. FOCA would coerce all Americans into subsidizing and promoting abortion with their tax dollars. It would counteract any and all sincere efforts by government and others of good will to reduce the number of abortions in our country.

Parental notification and informed consent precautions would be outlawed, as would be laws banning procedures such as partial-birth abortion and protecting infants born alive after a failed abortion. Abortion clinics would be deregulated. The Hyde Amendment restricting the federal funding of abortions would be abrogated. FOCA would have lethal consequences for prenatal human life.
FOCA would have an equally destructive effect on the freedom of conscience of doctors, nurses and health care workers whose personal convictions do not permit them to cooperate in the private killing of unborn children. It would threaten Catholic health care institutions and Catholic Charities. It would be an evil law that would further divide our country, and the Church should be intent on opposing evil.

On this issue, the legal protection of the unborn, the bishops are of one mind with Catholics and others of good will. They are also pastors who have listened to women whose lives have been diminished because they believed they had no choice but to abort a baby. Abortion is a medical procedure that kills, and the psychological and spiritual consequences are written in the sorrow and depression of many women and men. The bishops are single-minded because they are, first of all, single-hearted.

The recent election was principally decided out of concern for the economy, for the loss of jobs and homes and financial security for families, here and around the world. If the election is misinterpreted ideologically as a referendum on abortion, the unity desired by President-elect Obama and all Americans at this moment of crisis will be impossible to achieve. Abortion kills not only unborn children; it destroys constitutional order and the common good, which is assured only when the life of every human being is legally protected. Aggressively pro-abortion policies, legislation and executive orders will permanently alienate tens of millions of Americans, and would be seen by many as an attack on the free exercise of their religion.

This statement is written at the request and direction of all the Bishops, who also want to thank all those in politics who work with good will to protect the lives of the most vulnerable among us. Those in public life do so, sometimes, at the cost of great sacrifice to themselves and their families; and we are grateful. We express again our great desire to work with all those who cherish the common good of our nation. The common good is not the sum total of individual desires and interests; it is achieved in the working out of a common life based upon good reason and good will for all.

Our prayers accompany President-elect Obama and his family and those who are cooperating with him to assure a smooth transition in government. Many issues demand immediate attention on the part of our elected "watchman." (Psalm 127) May God bless him and our country.

Read more of John Allen's coverage of the U.S. bishops fall meeting 2008:

· 'Freedom of Choice Act' nightmare for bishops, pro-lifers (Nov. 13)

· USCCB Statement on Obama, politics, abortion (Nov. 12)

· Mixed results for hardliners in committee elections (Nov. 11)

· No retreat on abortion, but no new communion ban (Nov. 11)

· Church should oppose FOCA 'early and often,' Niederauer says (Nov. 11)

· Solidarity at a Time of Economic Crisis (Nov. 11)

· Bishops vote for new 'Blessing of a Child in the Womb' (Nov. 11)

· Murry elected secretary (again) (Nov. 11)

· End may be in sight for great gibbet debate (Nov. 11)

· Show of support for embattled anti-poverty program (Nov. 11)

· Catholic charities shouldn't go secular, Vatican official warns (Nov. 10)

· We'll both help Obama and challenge him, George says (Nov. 10)

· George issues blunt challenge to Obama on abortion (Nov. 10)

· It ain't easy being a bishop, especially after the '08 elections (Nov. 9)

(Editor's Note: Some stories are double posted, on NCRonline.org and on NCRcafe.org.)

(John Allen is NCR senior correspondent. His e-mail address is jallen@ncronline.org.)

Madrid, Nov 12, 2008 / 09:21 pm (CNA).- The Spanish daily "La Razon" has published an article on the pro-life conversion of a former "champion of abortion." Stojan Adasevic, who performed 48,000 abortions, sometimes up to 35 per day, is now the most important pro-life leader in Serbia, after 26 years as the most renowned abortion doctor in the country.

"The medical textbooks of the Communist regime said abortion was simply the removal of a blob of tissue," the newspaper reported. "Ultrasounds allowing the fetus to be seen did not arrive until the 80s, but they did not change his opinion. Nevertheless, he began to have nightmares."

In describing his conversion, Adasevic "dreamed about a beautiful field full of children and young people who were playing and laughing, from 4 to 24 years of age, but who ran away from him in fear. A man dressed in a black and white habit stared at him in silence. The dream was repeated each night and he would wake up in a cold sweat. One night he asked the man in black and white who he was. 'My name is Thomas Aquinas,' the man in his dream responded. Adasevic, educated in communist schools, had never heard of the Dominican genius saint. He didn't recognize the name"

"Why don't you ask me who these children are?" St. Thomas asked Adasevic in his dream.

"They are the ones you killed with your abortions,' St. Thomas told him.

"Adasevic awoke in amazement and decided not to perform any more abortions," the article stated.

"That same day a cousin came to the hospital with his four months-pregnant girlfriend, who wanted to get her ninth abortion-something quite frequent in the countries of the Soviet bloc. The doctor agreed. Instead of removing the fetus piece by piece, he decided to chop it up and remove it as a mass. However, the baby's heart came out still beating. Adasevic realized then that he had killed a human being,"

After this experience, Adasevic "told the hospital he would no longer perform abortions. Never before had a doctor in Communist Yugoslavia refused to do so. They cut his salary in half, fired his daughter from her job, and did not allow his son to enter the university."

After years of pressure and on the verge of giving up, he had another dream about St. Thomas.

"You are my good friend, keep going,' the man in black and white told him. Adasevic became involved in the pro-life movement and was able to get Yugoslav television to air the film 'The Silent Scream,' by Doctor Bernard Nathanson, two times."

Adasevic has told his story in magazines and newspapers throughout Eastern Europe. He has returned to the Orthodox faith of his childhood and has studied the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas.

"Influenced by Aristotle, Thomas wrote that human life begins forty days after fertilization," Adasevic wrote in one article. La Razon commented that Adasevic "suggests that perhaps the saint wanted to make amends for that error." Today the Serbian doctor continues to fight for the lives of the unborn.

For the record, nobody from the Obama transition team has solicited my advice about relations with the Vatican, and I would frankly be surprised if the question were yet on their radar screen. Others, however, are already speculating about how things might shake out; on Wednesday, for example, Reuters moved a story predicting a "tricky" relationship between Rome and the Obama White House because of the abortion issue. As a thought exercise, I decided to pen an open letter to the president-elect about U.S.-Vatican ties over the next four years.

Mr. President-elect:

This letter is a plea to make U.S.-Vatican relations under your administration a priority, because of the enormous good in the world that could be accomplished by exploiting natural areas of common concern.

I'm aware that the stars may not seem especially well-aligned for such collaboration. A small number of Catholic bishops in the United States made statements during the campaign that favored your opponent, which may have left a bitter aftertaste among some of your supporters and advisors. It's also clear to everyone that, barring a dramatic change of heart on your part, the White House and the Vatican will have deep differences during your term over "life issues" such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research.

I would urge you, however, not to allow those points to obscure four basic political realities.

Each October we begin our annual Friends of NCR appeal. NCR plays a critical role in today's church and in Catholic journalism. Your support helps us continue our work as an independent Catholic news source. Please consider making a donation.

Donate Online

Print a Form

Contributions are tax-deductible. We appreciate your help. You make a difference!

First, the Vatican and the United States need each other, whatever their differences may be in a given historical moment. What the United States is in the realm of "hard power," meaning coercive military and economic might, the Vatican is in terms of "soft power," meaning the capacity to stir action on the basis of ideas. Religion is a powerful motivating force in human affairs, and the pope has the biggest bully pulpit of any religious leader. It's simply bad for everyone if these two forces are not on good speaking terms.

Second, it's smart politics for you not to neglect the Vatican. As you know better than anyone, in some ways your reelection campaign in 2012 has already begun. You won the Catholic vote overall this time, but narrowly lost white Catholics; working cooperatively and respectfully with the Vatican could help you and your party with that group.

Third, the Vatican has a centuries-old diplomatic tradition of dealing with governments that, in one way or another, don't follow the church's line on certain matters. Despite those disagreements, Vatican diplomacy typically strives to keep lines of communication open and to seek common ground. In other words, they'll want to do business with you where they can.

Fourth, the Vatican is eager for good relations with the United States in particular, regardless of which party happens to be in power. The Vatican deeply admires the robust religiosity of America, in contrast with the pervasive secularism of much of Europe. The Vatican also believes that the United States is its most natural ally in promoting religious freedom and human dignity around the world.

The potential for collaboration is very real, because there are numerous areas where your policy positions dovetail with the social teaching of the Catholic church and the diplomatic interests of the Vatican. Among the most obvious examples are immigration, economic justice, peace, and environmental protection. In a statement this week congratulating you, Vatican spokesperson Fr. Federico Lombardi also expressed the Vatican's desire to work together on Iraq, the Holy Land, Christian minorities in the Middle East and Asia, and the fight against poverty and social inequality.

In each area, you will find a clear track record of teaching from recent popes and a strong determination on the part of the Vatican's diplomatic apparatus to move the ball. In fact, many of these topics represent areas in which the Vatican was at odds with the Bush administration and has longed for new American leadership.

Pope Benedict XVI himself has clearly opened the door to a positive working relationship.

The pope sent a telegram on Wednesday calling your election "a historic occasion," and offering his prayer that God will "support you and the American people, so that through the good will of all, a world of peace, solidarity and justice can be built." Lombardi likewise expressed hope that you "will be able to match the expectations and the hopes directed towards the new president, effectively serving justice and rights, finding the best ways to promote peace in the world, favoring the growth and dignity of persons with respect for essential human and spiritual values."

You'll notice that neither the pope nor his spokesperson explicitly mentioned abortion or other areas of disagreement, and certainly their tone suggests that concern for the "life issues" will not exclude cooperation in other areas. On the contrary, the Vatican seems to be doing everything it can to invite it.

May I suggest one more possibility for U.S.-Vatican partnership? I believe there is a historic opportunity for your administration and the Holy See to work together to move the international community, at long last, toward serious engagement on behalf of peace and development in Africa.

You are a hero to much of Africa, giving you a degree of political capital on the continent that no other Western leader could rival. At the same time, 2009 is shaping up as a "Year of Africa" in global Catholicism. Over the next 12 months, Pope Benedict XVI will visit Cameroon and Angola; the African bishops will hold their plenary assembly in Rome; and bishops from all over the world will converge on Rome for a "Synod for Africa." All this suggests the possibility of synergy between the world's most important political and spiritual leaders -- i.e., you and the pope -- to promote peace and development for Africa, where the world's most impoverished and abandoned people are today found.

If you're interested in forging such a partnership, the first important choice to make is who to send to the Vatican as your ambassador. Ideally, you will turn to someone known to have your ear, who will have real political influence in your administration, and who also knows the Catholic world. What you're looking for, in other words, is a Democratic equivalent of James Nicholson, President Bush's first Vatican ambassador. Nicholson had served as the chair of the Republican National Committee, and helped to steer the party's outreach to Catholic voters. Bush sent a clear signal with that nomination that he was interested in the Vatican, and this is one case where it would behoove you to follow his lead.

Finally, one last piece of unsolicited advice: Mr. President-Elect, whatever else you do, please try to avoid repeating the mistakes of the last Democratic administration with regard to the Vatican.

In his memoirs, former Vatican Ambassador Raymond Flynn tells a depressing story from 1994 illustrating what I mean. During the lead-up to the U.N. conference on population in Cairo in 1994, Pope John Paul II called Flynn to the Vatican on a Saturday morning to personally request a telephone conversation with President Clinton. Flynn relayed the request urgently to the White House that afternoon, and got no response. He called again on Sunday and on Monday, both times with no results. Frustrated, Flynn then got on a plane to Washington on Tuesday. He cooled his heels outside the president's office that night and most of Wednesday. Finally, he was admitted to the White House's pre-Cairo war room, where he was told by Assistant Secretary of State Timothy Wirth that "nobody is getting a chance to lobby the president on this one." Dumbfounded, Flynn explained that the Bishop of Rome is not a lobbyist, and that it would be seen as a profound act of disrespect if the president wouldn't even get on the phone. After almost a week, Clinton finally agreed to take the pope's call.

The episode was symptomatic of a basic disinterest within the Clinton team about the Vatican, which at times shaded off into hostility. The result was that the U.S.-Vatican relationship during the Clinton years was more often defined by predictable differences than by imaginative areas of common purpose.

For what it's worth, Mr. President-Elect, my advice is to get on the phone if the pope calls. Better yet, initiate the conversation yourself. You might be surprised about where it goes.

* * * *

Editor's Note: The U.S. bishops will be meeting in Baltimore Nov. 10-13 for their annual fall assembly, and John Allen will be covering the event. Look for daily posting of his stories at johnallen.ncrcafe.org and on NCRonline.org.

Scripture:

On this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

-- Matthew 16:18

Reflection:

When we read this verse, we usually think that the Lord is promising that the church, which is His Body, will withstand all the attacks launched against it. Of course, that is true. But when we think about it more carefully, we realize that in a battle, the gates do not run out into the battlefield to attack the enemy. Rather, they stand still to defend the city from the enemy attacking it. So when the Lord says that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church, who is doing the attacking? It is the church storming the gates!

The church, all of God's people in Christ, is called to take the offensive, to run into enemy territory, and to gain ground for Jesus Christ. We do not wait for an invitation; we already have a command. We prepare, but we do not wait for circumstances to be perfect; we already have one who has gone before us.

During these 40 days, we have stormed the gates. We have taken the offensive. We have pushed forward the boundaries of the kingdom. And we must keep doing so, in numerous ways. Indeed, the gates of hell will not prevail. The gates of falsehood will flee in the presence of truth. The gates of sin will melt in the presence of grace. The gates of death will fall in the presence of the church, the People of Life!

Prayer:

Father, we praise you. We have heard the voice of your Son, and therefore we can make our voices heard. We have done battle with the power of evil, and therefore we can have compassion on those still within its grip. We have been freed from the kingdom of darkness, and therefore we can bear witness to your Kingdom of Light. May the witness of all your people through these 40 Days for Life bear abundant fruit, and may we begin again each day to storm the gates of hell until You welcome us into the gates of heaven. We pray in the victorious name of Jesus Christ our Lord, amen.

Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life and President, National Pro-life Religious Council

Reflection:

This meditation, based on a sermon I once heard, is adapted for pro-life concerns.

It's Friday. Jesus is on the cross. He has been killed by his enemies; he is off the scene. But that's because it's Friday. Sunday's comin'!

It's Friday. Abortionists continue their work 3,300 times a day, tearing off the arms and legs of little babies and crushing their heads. But that's because it's Friday. Sunday's comin'! It's Friday. Pro-abortion groups receive blood money from billionaires who are as deceived as they are. But that's because it's Friday. Sunday's comin'!

It's Friday. Liars attempt to speak for all women and hide the pain of abortion, and ignore the evidence of how it harms women, and call abortion a blessing. But that's because it's Friday. Sunday's comin'! It's Friday. People of hardened hearts guard the clinics and usher desperate women in to have their abortions, while keeping them from the pro-life people who want to give them hope. But that's because it's Friday. Sunday's comin'!

Hope does not mean that we ignore or minimize the evils around us. It means, rather, that we see the whole picture, which is that evil is conquered because of what happened one Sunday morning. The power of sin and death has been broken by the Resurrection of Christ. We are called to proclaim, celebrate, and serve that victory, waiting in joyful hope for Christ's return and the full flowering of the Culture of Life! Indeed, Sunday's comin'!

source

Kansas City, Oct 31, 2008 / 06:01 am (CNA).- Bishop of Kansas City-St. Joseph Robert Finn has reminded the faithful that their salvation is at stake in the battle for holiness. Decrying the "casual manner" in which many Christians live within the "culture of death," he urged Catholics to "stand up fearlessly against the agents of death."

Writing in his October 29 column for the Catholic Key, Bishop Finn began by recounting his recent celebration of a Traditional Latin High Mass, saying it highlights our participation with the Communion of Saints and its elements give us a "striking image of the Heavenly Jerusalem" which is our "ultimate home."

"The ultimate goal of everything we do is to get ourselves to heaven and bring with us as many as we can," he continued, focusing his remarks on the "Church militant," the Church on earth.

The Church militant's purpose, the bishop explained, is to "'fight' against the enemies of Christ's justice and truth and light and life." This fight requires our attentions in a "peaceable but serious manner."

Lamenting the "casual manner" of some Christians, he said St. Paul's letter to the Ephesians reminds us that we are in a battle "not with flesh and blood, but with the principalities and powers, with the rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in heaven."

"What is at stake in this battle is our immortal soul, our salvation," Bishop Finn insisted. "My responsibility as bishop is with the eternal destiny of those entrusted to my care. My total energies must be directed to the well being of those who otherwise may come under the spell of a radically flawed and fundamentally distorted moral sense, at odds with what our Mother the Church teaches."

"The direct willful destruction of human life can never be justified; it can never be supported. Do you believe this firm teaching of the Church?" he asked.

Bishop Finn noted that priests and ministers in Canada had been brought before government tribunals for preaching and teaching in support of marriage, being charged with "hate speech" against homosexuality.

"In light of the tyranny of choice growing each day in our own beloved country, we ought to be ready for similar attacks on religious freedom," he warned.

"We must not fail to preach the Gospel. We can not withhold the truth of our faith. That is why I will never be silent about human life," Bishop Finn insisted.

"What about you?" he asked.

Noting that Christ told the apostles they would be hated by the world, just as He was, the bishop said Christians must never resort to violence but "we must stand up fearlessly against the agents of death, the enemies of human life."

People can come under Satan's spell, the bishop warned, describing such people as "willing agents of death, numbed and poisoned in this culture of death."

"What about you?" he asked again.

He concluded his column with an exhortation, saying "let us call upon the Saints to inspire us, befriend us, and pray for us," and adding counsel to pray for those in Purgatory.

"And let us resolve to be warriors of the Church militant; warriors with our eyes fixed on heaven," Bishop Finn closed. "Let us ask God's mercy and strength to persevere in our call - individual and collective - to holiness. Mary, Mother of the Church, Pray for us!"

Just Look

October 23, 2008

The picture on this page is an untouched photograph of a being that has been within its mother for 20 weeks. Please do me the favor of looking at it carefully.

Have you any doubt that it is a human being?

If you do not have any such doubt, have you any doubt that it is an innocent human being?

If you have no doubt about this either, have you any doubt that the authorities in a civilized society are duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if anyone were to wish to kill it?

If your answer to this last query is negative, that is, if you have no doubt that the authorities in a civilized society would be duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if someone were to wish to kill it, I would suggest-even insist-that there is not a lot more to be said about the issue of abortion in our society. It is wrong, and it cannot-must not-be tolerated.

* * *

But you might protest that all of this is too easy. Why, you might inquire, have I not delved into the opinion of philosophers and theologians about the matter? And even worse: Why have I not raised the usual questions about what a "human being" is, what a "person" is, what it means to be "living," and such? People who write books and articles about abortion always concern themselves with these kinds of things. Even the justices of the Supreme Court who gave us "Roe v. Wade" address them. Why do I neglect philosophers and theologians? Why do I not get into defining "human being," "person," "living," and the rest? Because, I respond, I am sound of mind and endowed with a fine set of eyes, into which I do not believe it is well to cast sand. I looked at the photograph, and I have no doubt about what I saw and what are the duties of a civilized society if what I saw is in danger of being killed by someone who wishes to kill it or, if you prefer, someone who "chooses" to kill it. In brief: I looked, and I know what I saw.

* * *

But what about the being that has been in its mother for only 15 weeks or only 10? Have you photographs of that too? Yes, I do. However, I hardly think it necessary to show them. For if we agree that the being in the photograph printed on this page is an innocent human being, you have no choice but to admit that it may not be legitimately killed even before 20 weeks unless you can indicate with scientific proof the point in the development of the being before which it was other than an innocent human being and, therefore, available to be legitimately killed. Nor have Aristotle, Aquinas or even the most brilliant embryologists of our era or any other era been able to do so. If there is a time when something less than a human being in a mother morphs into a human being, it is not a time that anyone has ever been able to identify, though many have made guesses. However, guesses are of no help. A man with a shotgun who decides to shoot a being that he believes may be a human being is properly hauled before a judge. And hopefully, the judge in question knows what a "human being" is and what the implications of someone's wishing to kill it are. The word "incarceration" comes to mind.

* * *

However, we must not stop here. The matter becomes even clearer and simpler if you obtain from the National Geographic Society two extraordinary DVDs. One is entitled "In the Womb" and illustrates in color and in motion the development of one innocent human being within its mother. The other is entitled "In the Womb-Multiples" and illustrates in color and in motion the development of two innocent human beings-twin boys-within their mother. If you have ever allowed yourself to wonder, for example, what "living" means, these two DVDs will be a great help. The one innocent human being squirms about, waves its arms, sucks its thumb, smiles broadly and even yawns; and the two innocent human beings do all of that and more: They fight each other. One gives his brother a kick, and the other responds with a sock to the jaw. If you can convince yourself that these beings are something other than innocent and living human beings (perhaps "mere clusters of tissues," as one national newsmagazine suggests), you have a problem far more basic than merely not appreciating the wrongness of abortion. And that problem is-forgive me-self-deceit in a most extreme form.

* * *

Adolf Hitler convinced himself and his subjects that Jews and homosexuals were other than human beings. Joseph Stalin did the same as regards Cossacks and Russian aristocrats. And this despite the fact that Hitler and his subjects had seen both Jews and homosexuals with their own eyes, and Stalin and his subjects had seen both Cossacks and Russian aristocrats with theirs. Happily, there are few today who would hesitate to condemn in the roundest terms the self-deceit of Hitler Stalin or even their subjects to the extent that their subjects could have done something to end the madness and protect living, innocent human beings.

It is high time to stop pretending that we do not know what this nation of ours is allowing-and approving-with the killing each year of more than 1,600,000 innocent human beings within their mothers. We know full well that to kill what is clearly seen to be an innocent human being or what cannot be proved to be other than an innocent human being is as wrong as wrong gets. Nor can we honorably cover our shame (1) by appealing to the thoughts of Aristotle or Aquinas on the subject, inasmuch as we are all well aware that their understanding of matters embryological was hopelessly mistaken, (2) by suggesting that "killing" and "choosing to kill" are somehow distinct ethically, morally or criminally, (3) by feigning ignorance of the meaning of "human being," "person," "living," and such, (4) by maintaining that among the acts covered by the right to privacy is the act of killing an innocent human being, and (5) by claiming that the being within the mother is "part" of the mother, so as to sustain the oft-repeated slogan that a mother may kill or authorize the killing of the being within her "because she is free to do as she wishes with her own body."

* * *

One day, please God, when the stranglehold on public opinion in the United States has been released by the extremists for whom abortion is the center of their political and moral life, our nation will, in my judgment, look back on what we have been doing to innocent human beings within their mothers as a crime no less heinous than what was approved by the Supreme Court in the "Dred Scott Decision" in the 19th century, and no less heinous than what was perpetrated by Hitler and Stalin in the 20th. There is nothing at all complicated about the utter wrongness of abortion, and making it all seem complicated mitigates that wrongness not at all. On the contrary, it intensifies it.

Do me a favor. Look at the photograph again. Look and decide with honesty and decency what the Lord expects of you and me as the horror of "legalized" abortion continues to erode the honor of our nation. Look, and do not absolve yourself if you refuse to act.

New York, Oct 28, 2008 / 09:37 am (CNA).- In a strongly worded article published next to a moving photo of an unborn baby in the womb, Cardinal Edward Egan, Archbishop of New York, compared tolerating abortions to the reasoning used by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin to commit mass murders.

The cardinal begins his column for the latest edition of the archdiocesan newspaper "Catholic New York" by explaining that "the picture on this page is an untouched photograph of a being that has been within its mother for 20 weeks. Please do me the favor of looking at it carefully."

"Have you any doubt that it is a human being?" Cardinal Egan asks.

"If your answer to this last query is negative, that is, if you have no doubt that the authorities in a civilized society would be duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if someone were to wish to kill it, I would suggest-even insist-that there is not a lot more to be said about the issue of abortion in our society. It is wrong, and it cannot-must not-be tolerated."

The Archbishop of New York continues by asking: "Why do I not get into defining 'human being,' defining 'person,' defining 'living,' and the rest?"

"Because, I respond, I am sound of mind and endowed with a fine set of eyes, into which I do not believe it is well to cast sand. I looked at the photograph, and I have no doubt about what I saw and what are the duties of a civilized society if what I saw is in danger of being killed by someone who wishes to kill it or, if you prefer, someone who 'chooses' to kill it."

After describing a recent video depicting the humanity of babies in their mothers' wombs, the Archbishop of New York says that "if you can convince yourself that these beings are something other than living and innocent human beings, something, for example, such as 'mere clusters of tissues,' you have a problem far more basic than merely not appreciating the wrongness of abortion. And that problem is-forgive me-self-deceit in a most extreme form."

Cardinal Egan continues: "Adolf Hitler convinced himself and his subjects that Jews and homosexuals were other than human beings. Joseph Stalin did the same as regards Cossacks and Russian aristocrats. And this despite the fact that Hitler and his subjects had seen both Jews and homosexuals with their own eyes, and Stalin and his subjects had seen both Cossacks and Russian aristocrats with theirs."

"It is high time to stop pretending that we do not know what this nation of ours is allowing-and approving-with the killing each year of more than 1,600,000 innocent human beings within their mothers. We know full well that to kill what is clearly seen to be an innocent human being or what cannot be proved to be other than an innocent human being is as wrong as wrong gets," he adds.

"Do me a favor," Cardinal Egan writes, "Look at the photograph again. Look and decide with honesty and decency what the Lord expects of you and me as the horror of 'legalized' abortion continues to erode the honor of our nation. Look, and do not absolve yourself if you refuse to act."

Read Cardinal Egan's full column: http://www.archny.org/news-events/columns-and-blogs/cardinals-monthly-column/index.cfm?i=9314

By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
Rome

For anyone with a spare dollar looking to make a wager about the Synod of Bishops, here's the safest bet in the world, in the wake of this morning's session: There will be a proposition on the relationship between exegesis and theology among the final recommendations presented to Pope Benedict XVI.

Truth to be told, the relationship between Biblical interpretation and other areas of Catholic theology had already emerged as a major concern. This morning, however, Pope Benedict himself took the unusual - indeed, quite possibly unprecedented - step of explicitly recommending that the bishops adopt a proposition on how exegetes and theologians can better inform each other's work.

The recommendation was delivered viva voce, as Benedict XVI took the microphone at the synod for the first time. He spoke immediately after the customary 10:30 am coffee break; Archbishop Nikola Eterovich, secretary of the synod, informed the group that they would have to interrupt their normal program "because our president wishes to address us."

Technically, the pope is also president of the Synod of Bishops.

The Vatican is expected to release a transcript of the pope's remarks either later today or tomorrow. For now, the official Vatican bulletin has simply reported: "Starting from the consideration of the work for his book Jesus of Nazareth, the Holy Father dwelt upon the fundamental criteria of Biblical exegesis, upon the dangers of a secularized and positivistic approach to the Sacred Scriptures and upon the need for a closer relationship between exegesis and theology."

Synod sources said that he spoke for a little less than ten minutes, drawing upon notes that he had apparently made in a small notebook.

In broad terms, those sources said, his topic was the need for historical-critical interpretation of the Bible to take Christian faith as its point of departure, because otherwise its risks treating the Bible as simply a "book of the past." In that regard, the pope apparently suggested that exegesis needs to be better integrated into theology, so that it is seen less as a self-standing enterprise, and more as part of a broad effort to combine reason and faith.

As part of his reflection, Benedict reportedly suggested to the bishops that a proposition on the relationship between exegesis and theology would be helpful - making it all but a foregone conclusion that at least one such proposition will be offered.

Since the propositions are addressed to the pope in any event, as suggestions for whatever document he may eventually issue on the topic of the synod, it's also a safe bet that Benedict XVI will discuss the need to treat scripture as "the soul of theology" in that text.

Sources said that the pope was greeted by a hearty round of applause at the close of his remarks.

This is the second Synod of Bishops under Benedict XVI, and the second time the pope has chosen to address the bishops towards the end of the initial round of speech-making, as the agenda for the synod's final documents is beginning to take shape. In each case, Benedict has reflected briefly on what had emerged as a central concern during those opening speeches. During the Synod on the Eucharist in 2005, Benedict spoke about the relationship between the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the Mass, meaning the twin images of the Mass as a meal and as a sacrifice - suggesting they need to held together rather than put in tension.

The pope appears to have struck a similar note this time around about the relationship between exegesis and theology - suggesting that offering both/and solutions to seemingly either/or problems may be emerging as what one might call the "synodal specialty" of Benedict XVI.

Benedict has been present for most of the synod's deliberations thus far, including the hour set aside for "free discussion" at the end of each day. That hour was set aside at Benedict's request for the 2005 synod, and has now become a part of the event's formal structure.

Fr. Bryan Massingale of Marquette University, President-elect of the Catholic Theological Society of America, acknowledged that sometimes exegetes and theologians struggle to stay on the same page -- not, for the most part, because of ill will or intellectual disagreements, but rather the compartmentalized nature of the academy these days.

"As theology becomes more and more specialized, we need to create opportunities in which theologians and exegetes can pursue collaborative projects," Massingale said in a telephone interview this afternoon.

Massingale said one such initiative is already underway at Marquette: a new inter-disciplinary seminar titled "Theological Interpretation of Scripture."

"We may still run into disagreements over what constitutes theological interpretation of the Bible," Massingale said, "but at least there's the beginnings of a conversation."

------------------------------------------------

Here are links to the stories John Allen has filed from Rome about the Synod of Bishops:

· Synod Coming to praise Bible scholarship, not just bury it (Oct 19)

· Official text of pope's reflection (Oct 19)

· Interview with Cardinal William Levada (Oct 16)

· Anglican bishop is a star of the show (Oct 16)

· Interview with Cardinal Francis George (Oct 15)

· Bishops hear the voices of women (Oct 15)

· Iraqi patriarch issues plea for his 'tortured and bloodied country' (Oct 15)

· Interview with Chris Schenk of FutureChurch (Oct 15)

· Poll: Practicing, non-practicing Catholics in America are worlds apart (Oct 14)

· 'For the first time, the pope speaks (Oct 14)

· 'Fraternal delegates' add distinctive voices to the mix (Oct 14)

· As speech-making winds down, key themes emerge (Oct 14)

· Interview with Bishop Gerald Kicanas (Oct 13)

· Around the synod edges, Catholic stars come out to shine (Oct 13)

· Interview with Cardinal Daniel DiNardo (Oct 12)

· Anti-Christian violence emerges as key concern (Oct 12)

· An African bishop for Obama (Oct 11)

· Interview with Archbishop John Onaiyekan of Abuja, Nigeria (Oct 11)

· Religious orders as the 'hearing aid' of the Church (Oct 11)

· Priest shortages highlight role of Bible (Oct 11)

· Interview with Archbishop Donald Wuerl (Oct 10)

· Interview with Cardinal George Pell (Oct 10)

· Shaping the imaginations of 1.2 billion Catholics (Oct 10)

· In first important vote, a moderate line prevails (Oct 10)

· Ambivalence about modern Bible scholarship continues to swirl (Oct 9)

· Debate over inerrancy bubbles up around the edges of synod (Oct 8)

· Christianity not a 'Religion of the Book' (Oct 8)

· Pope urges 'brotherly love to the full' for immigrants (Oct 8)

· Synod: 2009 as a 'Year of Preaching'? (Oct 7)

· An ecumenical splash as special Bible is presented to pope (Oct 7)

· Synod: 'It's the culture, stupid!' (Oct 7)

· Rabbi says Jews cannot 'forgive and forget' Pius XII (Oct 6)

· The Bible beyond empty piety and parsing to death (Oct 6)

· Benedict urges bishops to think big (Oct 5)

· Ten 'firsts' at the Synod of Bishops (Oct 5)

· A Rabbi, a Jesuit and the Pope walk into a bar ... (Oct 5)

• Cardinal: Bible study needs to be grounded in doctrine (Oct 3)