Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
The pope’s gift to Obama
Barack Obama met with Pope Benedict XVI for the first time today, and as a gift, the pope chose to present the American president with a copy of a Vatican document on bioethics, which outlines the church’s opposition to embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and in-vitro fertilization. Obama told the pope that he would read it on his flight to Ghana.
Prior to the meeting, the pope’s secretary, the Rev. Georg Ganswein, told reporters the document would “help the president better understand the position of the Catholic Church.”
A Vatican statement released after the meeting said:
“In the course of their cordial exchanges, the conversation turned first of all to questions which are in the interest of all and which constitute a great challenge . . . such as the defense and promotion of life and the right to abide by one’s conscience.”
back to top69 Comments to “The pope’s gift to Obama”
Geez, and we thought Obama gave cheap gifts. I can download that!
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Maybe he could have read it and downloaded it on an IPod.
Report comment to moderator
#1: Then why don’t you?
We can pray that President Obama really does read it, and that the HS will work on his heart and mind.
Report comment to moderator
What the Pope gave was perfect. But it was just the first installment. A giant helicopter has to carry the two-story tall crucifix across the Washington sky to the South Lawn of the White House.
What the Obamas wore in Italy was perfect. They looked wittily retro, right out of La Dolce Vita. I loved, as did millions of Catholics, Michelle’s black veil and charming bow. As Huffpost says, “Holy Smokes!” Amidst the news about Evangelical politicians, the pictures of the Obamas at the Vatican were sent from God.
Report comment to moderator
I have little doubt that he will read it. He does, you know.
I would actually read it if anyone has a link. I really would like to seen whence the Catholics derive their doctrines that a fetus=a child and that any kind of birth control other than the rhythm method is sinful.
I know the interpretations are there, but one would think that in matters so important, a god would not be so obscure. With all that mumbo jumbo about the size of altars and types of cloth and wood, and mixing foods, and who may preach and who not, you’d think clear direction on matters of life and death would be worthy of mention…
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Tychicus. As Victoria says, it was the perfect gift, but I, too, hope that something will happen within Obama’s soul when he reads it.
Having read the snarky comments about the Obamas’ clothes, but not having seen the pictures, I get the feeling that they tried to be respectful (I’ll trust Victoria’s assessment on that) and the left finds that funny. Couldn’t ask for more than respect.
Report comment to moderator
http://www.usccb.org/comm/Dignitaspersonae/Dignitas_Personae.pdf
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
I would have thought that the right would be the first one to criticize Michelle’s veil. After all, they criticized Pelosi for wearing a head scarf when she went to Syria (and for going to Syria). But keeping our comments strictly on women and head wear, what is the difference between Michelle Obama showing respect to Catholics at the Vatican and Pelosi showing respect to Syrians when she visited their country?
Report comment to moderator
” really would like to seen whence the Catholics derive their doctrines that a fetus=a child”
Probably from their familiarity with the Latin language in which the word fetus means child.
Report comment to moderator
” . . .the document would “help the president better understand the position of the Catholic Church.”
So that he could then ignore it intelligently.
Report comment to moderator
Does this sound strange to anyone else?
‘Obama told the pope during a picture-taking session after the private part of the audience: “We look forward to a very strong relationship between our two countries.”‘
What would the reaction have been if Bush had said this?
Report comment to moderator
David, Vatican City is a country!
Report comment to moderator
DAVID L.-
As ridiculous as it sounds, the Vatican technically is a country, the smallest in the world. Much more about that below.
It’s only strange if your citizenship is not in heaven. City of God isn’t just a movie about a slum in Brazil, it’s the country to which we journey.
The Pope was afraid that Bush was the anti-Christ. The Pope expected Bush, the most Catholic-minded president ever, to convert to Catholicism. Who knows? Vatican sources told Italian newspapers all kinds of fabulous things, according to Italian newspapers. We do know that as Bush ascended the Tower of St. John in the Vatican gardens for a private chat with the Pope, he was heard to say, “What an honour, what an honour, what an honour!”
After the Nicodemus thingy, Bush stood on a terrace and, typical American, said, “How big is it?” A Vatican aide responded: “Not quite as big as Texas.” Notice the astounding assertion that came next. Bush said, “Yes but more important … this is spectacular.” Our President grasped the truth that size is not as important as the use that it’s devoted to! So, Bush passed that test beautifully. When he looked across the Tiber at the ancient capital of the kingdoms of the earth, Bush acknowledged the sovereignty of Heaven. Vatican aids crossed themselves, and did reverence.
Report comment to moderator
What makes you think David L, doesn’t know that the Vatican is a country? – David’s comment was directed to something else? –
Obama and the Pope have little in common – Obama plays games – the Pope obviously gave the gift to make a direct statement that could not be MISSED by anyone – then Obama countered with his remark saying “We look forward to a very strong relationship between our two countries.” ——– in other words, it isn’t a strong relationship because they have nothing in common.
Report comment to moderator
Moth – 14
You do weave a story -
Report comment to moderator
This particular statement can be found on many hysterical blogs.
Report comment to moderator
It is not in my memory that I made a nasty comment about Pelosi wearing a headscarf in Syria. I’m not fond of Pelosi, that’s for sure, but I don’t remember commenting on her head scarf. If she wore it in a mosque, I’d have no problem. That would be a sign of respect to the religion, which is what Michelle Obama seems to have done. I don’ know that Western women should indulge that sort of thing in an official capacity because it sends a message that women are subservient.
But don’t deflect. The left here, in picking on Michelle Obama, is really mocking the RCC — a distinct lack of respect, not to mention that it is intolerant. But that’s what the left is at its core.
Victoria, lots of things seem to be “missed.” I, for one, hope GWB is enjoying his retirement, although some don’t seem to comprehend that he did retire.
Report comment to moderator
NJL –
I believe that Michelle Obama’s dress, and her head covering were lovely, she looked like a President’s wife should. Often times I am critical of Michelle’s clothes, but this time she got it right.
I don’t remember your making any negative remarks regarding Pelosi and a scarf –
Would you check over at Whirled Views for today? – I posted a piece I would like your opinion on.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
I’m sorry, I didn’t mention Pat Nixon and Bess Truman are pictured near the bottom -
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia post 6,
a link to “Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions” may be found at:
Dignitas Personae
It may also be helpful to also read Donum Vitae “INSTRUCTION ON RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE IN ITS ORIGIN AND ON THE DIGNITY OF PROCREATION REPLIES TO CERTAIN QUESTIONS OF THE DAY”:
Donum Vitae
as well as Humanae Vitae:
Humanae Vitae
as well.
Now there is an intersting comment early on in Dignitas Personae:
“If Donum vitae, in order to avoid a statement of an explicitly philosophical nature, did not define the embryo as a person,”
which appears to admit that the earlier material did not explicitly define an embryo as a human being. It does not appear that Dignatas Humane does either, but rather tries to argue that such a definition is unneccessary.
And for extra credit, what is the “Congreagation for Doctrine of the Faith”?
Report comment to moderator
Such a definition SHOULD be unnecessary! Human beings don’t give birth to anything but human beings — at least so far.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 23,
but of course such a defiition is necessary, or we would not be discussing it and the congregation of the faith would have seen no reason to raise it.
Human beings may be born, but is the embryo a human being? It isn’t born yet. I suggest your formulation is flawed and should probably be restated.
Report comment to moderator
NJLAWYER – I’m not picking on Michelle, I’m not The Left, and The Left isn’t picking on Michelle. I truly thought Michelle looked fabulous arriving in Italy in a yellow sack dress with a green ceramic brooch, and Barack so sleek in high-buttoned yet loose-for-summer suit. If only I could look that classy in Italy, slurping spaghetti at a white table when the chill night air comes through the stone arches. At the Vatican, the First Lady’s black veil made her a figure from verismo opera, while the black bow was pious and friendly at the same time. Can you believe her lipstick was exactly the same color as the Pope’s cape? Frederico Fellini would have fallen to his knees and put them in a movie. Berlusconi, throw yourself off the Lungotevere. You have not lived for art.
Report comment to moderator
Moth,
The yellow dress you are referring to was very smart, but it it isn’t called a ’sack dress’ it’s is a semi-fitted dress which has been very popular for some time – a very nice look for Michelle.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, thanks. I’ll get to those this weekend.
The Congregation as I recall is sort of an Inquisitional type operation, only without the pincers and stretchers.
Or maybe it’s the Vatican softball team?
Report comment to moderator
For those who want to see photos of Michelle :
http://mrs-o.org/
The dress with the pope is nice. But a bit short. Is Michelle bow legged?
The second dress makes her look like a pregnant prostitute by the way it is worn It is too short and the horizontal pleats reminds one of a dying Jelly Fish. Just the type that you see in the bad sections of west hollywood.
The third dress, the yellow sheath, with the dish plate italian brooch is considerably wrinkled.
The white cotton dress just barely shows off her paunch.
The red dress which you can only see from behind is the best of the bunch.
The dress with the nurses in Moscow is an interesting pattern but the pattern is not interesting enough to detract from her obvious paunch.
Her eyes are probably the worst part of her look. Just looking at her eyes you can see that she has a lot of hate in her heart.
Michelle reminds me of the campaign comments about putting lipstick on a pig. You can drape a heifer in silk and she remains a heifer for heifer and heifer.
Report comment to moderator
As far as the gift that Barack got. Considering how cheap and thoughtless and couldn’t care less Barack’s gifts were I hope he gets nothing but down loadable files and crud from now on. I hope Ghana gives him dried cow patties.
Report comment to moderator
28. Malia has gotten tall.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia post 27,
actually it is the inquisition with a new name. They do seem to have dropped using pincers and stretchers.
And in this statement is something that is deeply troubling to me: it appears that the Roman Catholic Church feels the need to maintain an organization which, if you look at its responsibilities, is intended to provide disciplinary action to those who disagree with its beliefs.
Report comment to moderator
Scroopy writes: “If only I could look that classy in Italy,….
I have to take a bath now and wash my hair and get ready to go out. This will be better for me than giving in to the temptation to have fun with the above…
Report comment to moderator
Michelle reminds me of the campaign comments about putting lipstick on a pig.
Yes, but the mind rejects the association as soon as you propose it, FISH. Mrs. Obama didn’t tell Americans to think of her as an animal with lipstick, as Sarah was dumb enough to do.
You seem to have an aversion to the public exhibition of sexuality. Mrs. Obama is hot. Also. On the other hand, Sarah is what Letterman plainly say she be (which I won’t repeat) and what elite conservative commentators say she is (which I will repeat because they have literary cred to say the same crud in better words), to wit: a pseudo-sly purveyor of concupiscence, masquerading as stylistic pageantry. Also, dumb.
For every comparison, there’s a contrast.
Report comment to moderator
hmmm, based on the present news materials, it would not see m that:
- the Family will remain secret much longer
- the Family will maintain their reputation in the upcoming media frenzy
A typical response would be to come clean (or at least reasonably clean) to forestall the rumors.
Nah, will never happen.
And you think scroop is being a conspiracy theorist???
Report comment to moderator
my apologies for post 34: wrong thread.
Report comment to moderator
Monty #28:
That’s crass and uncalled for.
Report comment to moderator
I agree — it was a good gift.
Obama received it gracefully, and I believe that he will actually read it. I highly doubt it will change his position on the issue, but he has already shown in his rhetoric a respect for “the other side” on this issue. This will probably lead to more rhetoric of respect, but not much changed policy.
Not that that’s entirely a bad thing. Of course I would prefer changed policy, but a rhetoric of respect is enormously important — foundational, even, for civilized debate in a free society.
Report comment to moderator
JJF #36 — If he doesn’t want something dreadful to happen to him, crass FISH must do penances to Michelle Kallipygos at such places as her beauty is revealed – the Musée du Louvre and the Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, Scroopy, but Sarah looks better in clothes than Michelle. There is NO doubt about that. Sarah is proportioned better and walks better than Michelle. And that’s what sticks in the craw of leftys and people like you.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, Michelle is much more intelligent and has a heart, and that’s what really matters. I think she is a lovely lady.
Report comment to moderator
And we are drawing policy conclusions based on how women look????
You truly have to be kidding.
Report comment to moderator
42. No. Just on how much the clothes cost.
Report comment to moderator
kbells post 42,
hmm, I loved this aspect of the problem initially (thousands of dollars for Palin’s outfit during the campaign, in one classic cae $140 for Michelle).
And you are right, it is a reasonable argument that one’s perspective on the importance of frugality might indeed be demonstrated in how one buys clothes.
As it continued, however, since it was the same argument over and over, I found it boring.
I do note, that if this interest you, there appears to be a book devoted to Michelle’s clothes:
Michelle Obama: First Lady of Fashion and Stykle
My wife looked through this as we were doing our standard weekend bookstore foray this weekend.
It would appear that this is a reasonably coplete source if one is fascinated by these types of topics.
Report comment to moderator
“I do note, that if this interest you, there appears to be a book devoted to Michelle’s clothes:”
No thank you. Though I don’t have a problem with the way she dresses. They suit her fine, but she and I are different types. Personally I prefer the classy look of Laura Bush.
Report comment to moderator
kbells post 45,
ah but I provided the reference because it does examine the cost issues you appeared to have raised.
But you are correct, everyone’s type and taste is different.
Whch is why I try not to comment on taste and style.
Report comment to moderator
Women are judge more harshly on their clothes. My guess is that McCain was trying to avoid the Wasilla Hillbilly remarks. Obama spent much more on staging.
Report comment to moderator
kbe4lls post 47,
I can say only the following:
a) I certainly dont judge women by their clothes
b) the jedgments during the campaign seemed to eventually settle in on, as I believe you suggested, the economics of the clothes: a frugal approach to clothes might perhaps be extended to a frugality in general, and there are many who argue that we need frugality in Washington
Report comment to moderator
kbells,
perhaps I am confused. I believe one of these two women was a beauty pageant winner and one was a corporate lawyer.
Now my sense is beauty pageant winners are generally knowledgeable about clothes: indeed how one looks would appear to be part of the effort.
I have never thought of corporate lawyerdom as being an environment which drives one to master the intericacies of fashion.
Report comment to moderator
Musing and you fail to demonstrate how the Obamas are more frugal. They simply choice a different extravagance.
Report comment to moderator
kbells post 50,
no I merely did srare, and hoave provided posts, that during the election Michelle’s wardrobe was in the main less expensive than Palins.
The only reaosn why clothes were deemed plausible to discuss appears to have been your post 43:
“42. No. Just on how much the clothes cost.”
If cost is important, a point which I find puzzling but will accept from you if you insist, then:
- women’s clothes costs during the campaign would seem to be fair game
- I provided a reference, which you seem to have declined to review, which documents the clothing costs for Michelle’s wardrobes
Do note, I thought it was a silly topic and you provided the impetus that this discussion had value.
We have claerly shown that much of Michelle’s wardrobe is relaitively frugal and I have provided a reference, again noting that you declined to review, which would allow you to explore Michelle’s clothing frugality in detail.
It seems inappropriate then when I follow up on your stated rationale for the conversation that you apparenlty claim it does not generalize to overall frugality.
Report comment to moderator
kbells post 50,
I tried to close this discusison down as not germane in post 42.
You kept it alive as being an issue of costs in post 43.
The only reasons costs would seem appropriate for discussion is if the costs are an exemplar for other expense issues: the cost of the clothes themselves are the business of only the purchaser, and possibly those who supplied the money.
If you insist on clothes being valid for discussion, and cost is the issue as you raised it, then the discussion is now free to go where it will go down the cost of clothes, and simple thought on this issue suggests that this is not a favoable path for the ocnversation to go from the conservatvie’s perspectives.
I suggest that we would have been best to shut this down based on my coments in post 42.
Report comment to moderator
“I have never thought of corporate lawyerdom as being an environment which drives one to master the intericacies of fashion.”
First of all, women who go to law school have the same ability to understand fashion as any other woman and they have more money to buy the better clothes, especially if they are corporate lawyers. So, please, this was one idiotic statement. It’s really a matter of taste when you come down to it, money and time to shop, and what is important to you — but no, being a lawyer doesn’t mean you can’t do fashion. Moreover, Michelle Obama now has designer after designer after designer after her. She ultimately chooses what she wears, what she likes, and she has plenty of people around her to critique her choices.
And for those of you who think you haven’t judged Sarah Palin on her clothes, you should reread all the threads about her clothes and all your nasty comments about the woman.
And for good measure, to really tick you off, Sarah Palin has always been proud of her country, which makes her more than a lovely woman — it makes her a patriot.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 53,
I never said they don’t have the ability to learn fashion.
What I said, as your quote notes, that it does not appear to be a driving imperiative they way it would seem to be in beauty shows.
I personally have not judged Palin (or Laura, or Michelle, or Barrack, or GW) on their clothes except as their clothing expenditures, as justifeid by Kbells in post 43, reflect on potential misuse of money not their own.
We can see, however, in certain conservative posters here an explicit judgement based on the looks of clothes AND more interestingly explicit judgements based on ones beauty the look of one’s legs.
You really have to be kidding me if you consider any of these germane to policy and the direction of our country.
Report comment to moderator
#39, Victoria.,
I apologize to you if the critique of Michelle sounded a bit crude. It however offends me greatly when people tell me how great she looks when 1) she really doesn’t and 2) I can see the hate in her eyes. Her dresses are paid for with moneys that I send in for taxes. And since Michelle is part of the package that is supposed to represent the US I certainly have every right to voice an honest assessment.
I have ‘read’ many photographs in my work. And in these photos from a pro Obama website, which I analyzed it is obvious that Michelle is filled with hate. Compare Michelle’s eyes in the photo with the nurses. The nurses show much more real joy than Michelle does.
Michelle is not taking good care of her body. Her paunch, her posture, her extremely plastic smile, the semi varicose veins in her arms and hands all indicate a hate oriented personality. I despise that some people are putting her up as a role model for young children to emulate. There are much better role models available.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Please consider that my assessment of her may have been harsh, I would not want to be crude.
Report comment to moderator
#53, NjLawyer,
I agree with you. I have several female attorney friends who look absolutely lovely. They and their families are exquisitely dressed and groomed.
Report comment to moderator
montyfisherwoof post 59,
when you say:
“And since Michelle is part of the package that is supposed to represent the US I certainly have every right to voice an honest assessment.”
with respect to your observations on Michelle’s beauty/style/etc. I have to say I am truly amazed at the superficiality your are expressing.
And when you say:
“2) I can see the hate in her eyes.”
I merely suggest we often see in others what is perhaps mostly in us?
I certainly can’t see the possible hate in your eyes, but how would you characterize your comments?
Report comment to moderator
#12 David L.,
I recall seeing a peel off-a-day calendar with various Bush malapropisms, gaffes etc.
But you won’t see that with OBama. It would not be PC and it would seem racist to belittle him.
We are how many days into this presidency? and I’m sure BHO and Blowhard Joe have generated more than 365 days of stupid statemts.
Report comment to moderator
Musing 58-
I’m afraid you may be assuming a capacity for self awareness and introspection that likely does not exist in this person.
Report comment to moderator
SAWGUNNER — theres plenty of people who love to thumb their nose at PC. The calendar will come out at a much higher suggested retail price. Soak the rich! The delay is, they don’t have 365 stupid statements yet, and they might have to make stuff up, or fill it with drawings of Obama eating bananas.
Report comment to moderator
In Africa.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s a funny quote by the author of 28, 29, and 55.
Monty: “true conservatives do not go in for “class envy” nor for the politics of ‘identity’. We stick by principles and not personalities.”
LOL!
Report comment to moderator
“We are how many days into this presidency?”
Not sure, but not as many as Bush had before 9/11.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, you obviously know nothing about women, and certainly nothing about women with law degrees! And with lawyers you are talking about highly competitive women who have been taught new and exciting means of cutting each other up. To imply, as you seem to do, that women lawyers are thinking high-minded thoughts about the law and not normal, everyday catty nonsense that other women think about, is naive at the least.
Never said any of this is germane to governing the country, but the left has, and leftys here have, otherwise Palin’s clothes would never have been an issue, nor would Michelle’s. Leftys here (or anywhere for that matter) have no problem with cutting Palin based on her clothes, they attack her children, but for some reason, Michelle and the Obama girls are off limits. If the left can pick on a baby with Downs, they can’t complain if the Obama girls come under fire. This is the left’s standard, and it’s going to come back and bite and bite hard.
Report comment to moderator
NJL- 65
This is not the first time I’ve asked. Please show us where “leftys” (sic) have attacked “a baby with Downs” (sic).
Report comment to moderator
#58 Musing,
My assessment of Michelle is anything but superficial. My assessment is accurate. I know many on the left worship Michelle. whether that be because of their own racism, or their own leftism or whatever ism. I look at Michelle as someone with a lot of problems that are highly visible but glossed over by many.
When Scroop says that Michelle is hot, I have to roll on the floor and laugh. Michelle is repugnant.
As I posted before I would hope someday the Obamas will repent. If they did you would see a whole different Michelle than the one you see now. Maybe then you could see the true difference.
Report comment to moderator
When I say the Michelle is repugnant, I am referring to the hatred and the deception that is plainly evident in the photos. As a person my heart goes out to her. She is in a bad way. And with the pressures of the position I can’t see her getting any better. The best thing for Barack to do would be to resign. And take the pressures off of his family. But Barack’s history has not been one of caring one whit.
I know there are those who worship Barack. By feeding his massive Narcissism they are not helping him.
Report comment to moderator
wow woof-boy. such hostility. what are you on? whatever it is don’t pass it around. you might wanna go to bed for a day or 2 until the worst of it is gone. drink plenty of fluids and if your not better in 3 days do yourself a favor and call a shrink man.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!