The usual suspects are gleefully accusing Michael Novak, Deal Hudson, George Weigel (and, presumably, Fr. Euteneuer, Judie Brown, etc.) of “dissent” because suddenly we pro-lifers are chaffing with the editorial policy of L’Osservatore Romano regarding Barack “Heaven is tucking my two children into bed” Obama. The extremely unbalanced NCR is calling L’Osservatore Romano’s coverage “balanced“.
Between the Cherie Blair invitation, the opposition to the Brazilian excommunications and the glowing endorsements of a President whose rhetoric is the very thing the Church condemns in Catechism 676, we really do have to wonder what’s going on at the Vatican?
Meanwhile, Giovanni Maria Vian, the editor of L’Osservatore Romano, insists that the paper’s editorial policy is that of the U.S. Bishops towards Obama.
At the same time, Vian has said that, despite obvious differences with the new administration on pro-life issues, he does not consider Obama a “pro-abortion president,” and his newspaper has emphasized Obama’s declared commitment to reducing the number of abortions.
He wants to “reduce abortions” with contraception and “sex education”.
Secondly, administration officials have already emphasized that Obama does not want to “reduce abortions” but “reduce the need for abortions.”
Obama believes that abortion is sometimes necessary. If something is necessary it is a good. To say abortion is necessary is to be pro-abortion.
Plus, Vian is apparently ignorant of the core issue in why we say Obama is the most pro-abortion president ever: born alive protection.