April 13, 2015

U.S. Catholic bishops back Obama on Iran, warn Congress against meddling

Print More
Bishop Oscar Cantu of Las Cruces, N.M., prays over the Eucharist during Mass on Feb. 9, 2015 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington. Bishop Cantu is chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on International Justice and Peace. Photo by Tyler Orsburn, courtesy of Catholic News Service

Bishop Oscar Cantu of Las Cruces, N.M., prays over the Eucharist during Mass on Feb. 9, 2015 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington. Bishop Cantu is chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on International Justice and Peace. Photo by Tyler Orsburn, courtesy of Catholic News Service

Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content by logging-in here.

(RNS) Support from U.S. Catholic bishops and an alliance of mainline and evangelical leaders are more fodder for the White House as it wages a political battle for approval of a nuclear agreement with Iran.

  • Pingback: U.S. Catholic bishops back Obama on Iran, warn Congress against meddling - by Father Ron Gronowski - Rev Ron Gronowski - The Reverend()

  • Larry

    So even the vatican knows Iran is bluffing. No country announces its uranium enrichment program like Iran has done. Its too easy to hide and too slow, expensive and critical to announce prior to the nuke building process.

    Of the cash strapped North Koreans could hide their enrichment process before their first test, the oil rich Iranians could do it more easily. The only reason we know of Iran’s efforts are they are announcing them for effect. Bluffing.

  • Pingback: U.S. Catholic bishops back Obama on Iran, warn Congress against meddling | Jews & Muslims()

  • Richard
  • Diogenes

    The Catholic Church is entitled to offer an opinion on foreign policy; but it manifestly not their place to ‘warn’ Congress against opposing the agreement. That said, this so called ‘agreement;’ is it a treaty or what? If a treaty Congress definitely has a right to weigh in. If not a treaty, what is its classification and where does its legal basis lie?

  • Chaplain Martin

    The United States and six other world powers have unveiled a plan for peace with Iran. A framework for inspection of Iran’s growing nuclear program. In my opinion this is a really hopeful sign that we will not be sending thousands and thousands more of our young men and women to die or be severely injured on foreign soil like our nation has done for over ten years.
    What have these wars achieved for peace in the Middle East?

    A side note: Maybe a miracle has already happened, in the article I see, for the first time, the words “liberal” and “evangelical” used next to each other in the same sentence.

  • 4whirledpeas

    Amen!

  • Richard

    David,

    Over at The Federalist, First Things deputy editor Matthew Schmitz has a long piece that suggests that you have been fabricating anonymous sources in your reporting. He lists several passages from your work as evidence. Any comment?

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/13/when-critics-a-reporter-cites-are-the-reporter/

  • Debbo

    Richard, your links are all righties known for their bias. Do you have anything from the center?

    In addition, I read all your sources, except the Washington Times because that one is just too laughable, and it looks like Mr. Gibson’s characterization of the bishop in question is accurate.

  • samuel Johnston

    “The U.S. Catholic bishops have welcomed the Obama administration’s tentative agreement aimed at limiting Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and their top spokesman on international affairs bluntly warned Congress against doing anything to undermine it.”
    The learned Bishops appear not to concur concur with Article II, Sec.2 Sub 2. of the Constitution, which requires the Senate to participate and vote.
    ” He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; …”

  • Richard

    Well Debbo.

    Schwartz’s essay lays out the evidence for the fabrication of anonymous sources from Gibson’s so-called “reporting.” If you read it, you can discover the truth about Gibson basically quotes himself in disguise. If you want to attack the sources without specifically countering the evidence they contain, perhaps you can indicate what foundation is paying all of these various sources to run advocacy pieces masquerading as journalism. That way you could let all your alleged “righties” know that RNS is not the only venue where advocacy foundations can pay-to-play. If you can’t put up, then it appears that the bias is in your own eye.

  • Janet

    Crux is owned by the Boston Globe, and John Allen (formerly of the National Catholic Reporter) is its associate editor. The Washington Times is on the right, but certainly not the Globe.

  • Larry

    Except according to the article it is pure innuendo and unconfirmed rumor. The primary source being LifeSiteNews, a source not known for veracity,

  • Pingback: Bishops, Nuns Voice Support For Iran Deal | All-len-All()

  • David Gibson

    Richard (et al) I’d been meaning to respond but work got in the way, and my response wound up (way) too long for our comments box. So I made it a blog post here, if you’re interested:

    http://davidgibson.religionnews.com/2015/04/16/terrible-david-gibson-anyway/

    Many thanks, David

  • Pingback: This Week in God, 4.18.15 - Bridge Notes()