A clarification from L'OR about its favorable Obama coverage?

Maybe, but not enough yet:

The Vatican newspaper has once again emphasized that when it comes to the Obama administration and pro-life issues, the Vatican and the U.S. bishops are in full agreement and that no compromise is possible on the right to life.

The newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, said it was a mistake to view its press coverage of Obama — which has been positive on many issues — as evidence that the Vatican is following a “different strategy” than the U.S. bishops in dealing with the new administration.

The comments came in the newspaper’s June 5 edition, in an article criticizing the Obama administration’s restoration of federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research.

The newspaper appeared to be defending itself against accusations by some U.S. Catholic commentators that its editorial line was too soft on Obama. (CNS Blog)

I wouldn't say "too soft". I'd say "out of touch with reality." But here is L'OR's clarification:

"It is appropriate to underline that in reporting on recent statements and initiatives of the president of the United States, L’Osservatore Romano has certainly not intended to express appreciation for his positions on questions of ethical importance.

... Obviously the Holy See and L’Osservatore Romano have been, are and will be fully at the side of the U.S. bishops in their commitment in favor of the inviolability of human life in whatever stage of its existence. Other interpretations have no foundation, especially those that have wanted to use the newspaper’s articles to make it appear that the teachings of the U.S. episcopate on the inherent evil of abortion were an exercise in partisan politics, supposedly in contrast with a different strategy of the Holy See.

... President Obama has shown himself to be open to dialogue and the U.S. bishops have welcomed this possibility in a positive manner. But in doing so, they have reaffirmed, and quite rightly, that in dialogue no compromise is ever possible on the fundamental question of the right to life."

Three replies, one for each of the paragraphs quoted above:

1) What L'OR has said certainly leaves it open to exactly that question. What could it have been praising except questions of ethical importance?

2) L'OR expressly denies the claim made by some (mostly pro-Obama liberal Catholics) that "the teachings of the U.S. episcopate on the inherent evil of abortion were an exercise in partisan politics". I'm waiting for pro-Obama liberal Catholics to apologize for continually making this charge. Now is a time for them to prove that they themselves weren't engaging in partisan politics. I'm not holding my breath.

3) Again we are confronted with the problem of dialogue. President Obama has "shown himself to be open to dialogue", L'OR claims. Well, no he hasn't. Because he has shown no openness to re-examining his position that abortion is a fundamental right of women. The technical description for this state of affairs is a dead-lock. It will continue as long as the bishops maintain their position (i.e., forever), and as long as Obama maintains his (forever, barring our vigorous activity to promote a culture of life at every level of our society and also ... well, prayer and fasting).

I'll limit myself to these thoughts at present. But I am happy to see some clarification come from L'OR. Their statement creates the possibility for charitable correction as well as honestly assessing the facts.