Nobel Prize… Tarnished!

Throughout the world we are learning that Barack Obama has been awarded the Nobel Prize. According to news reports, even the President himself was, “humbled,” by the news that he was this year’s recipient of the prestigious accolade.

The mission of promoting peace in the world however begins not just on a diplomatic and global scale. It begins with the basic premise that all human life is sacred and is a gift from God. The political and social agenda of Barack Obama’s public service career does not support this basic premise that is the foundational basic for the Nobel Prize.

Of course there are pundits that will maintain that the Catholic Church is once again making to much of a focus on the topic of the unborn. Well, yes indeed, the war over the womb is the the most critical place to start when it means establishing world peace. If our American society cannot unilaterally and unconditionally support the sanctity of human life, global harmony is indeed a non sequitur.

This author finds it of particular interest that the Nobel Prize Committee indicated that President Barack Obama held similar views on peaceful existence as the intelligentsia in Oslo. Of course he does, Oslo is the center of a socialist society. Similar socialization is the same path President Obama wants the American people to walk.

The Catholic Church in America should not be duped by the decision of the Nobel Prize Committee. Peace on earth begins in the fundamental acceptance of the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death. Any social, political or humanitarian body that makes distinctions from this moral absolute truly proclaims a distortion of the sanctity of all human life.

Responsible Catholics need to remember the hair-splitting nuances of the social agenda Barack Obama endorses and advocates. Such nuances are not reflective of the global pursuit of world peace and harmony, but rather are a diplomatic and solipsistic understanding of human life and dignity.

The Nobel Peace Prize is tarnished and very clearly echoes the sentiments of an increasingly materialistic and atheistic world, based on human achievements rather than moral law and divine guidance.

Unless Barack Obama and indeed the global community accept “peace in the womb, “ the pursuit of world harmony is a fleeting dream.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • Joe DeVet

    Obama joins these these luminaries as Peace Prize laureates:

    Yasir Arafat, lifelong professional terrorist

    Jimmy Carter, another one (besides Obama) with a rose-colored “vision”
    and meaningless record

    Al Gore, disingenuous and hypocritical global-warming hoax promoter and
    media impresario

    My theory is that the Nobel committee was concerned whether we had understood that this group is a corrupted ultra-leftwing organization, and have put forth a new nominee which will make that point absolutely clear.

  • noelfitz

    May I congratulate the American people on the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama. Throughout the world there is acknowledgment for his great work for justice, peace and security.

  • Mary Kochan

    This is hysterical, really. The Reuters article announcing the prize started off with an apology: “Barack Obama is not the first Nobel laureate to win mainly for raising hopes of a better world, rather than achieving peace. But rarely, experts say, does a politician win so soon after gaining power and without a major foreign policy accomplishment under his belt.”

    I love that “rarely” — uh, like “never.”

  • Mary Kochan

    Noel, you’ve been aggravating, but you’ve never made me sick before. He hasn’t done anything — don’t you get that? Even the people who gave him the award say so.


    Coincidence or irony, but 30 years ago, in 1979, the Nobel prize for peace was awarded to Mother Theresa. Here was a woman whom had already devoted many years of service to the poorest of the poor. Here was woman whom would continue to toil away at this service for many more years until her death. Her actions were louder than words. She didn’t talk about Hope and Change-no she provided Hope and did Change the lives of all those she encountered. The Nobel Committee deservedly recognzied her work- her vocation with the honor of the Peace Prize and what did she say when accepting her prize: “These are things that break peace, but I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a direct war, a direct killing — direct murder by the mother herself. And today the greatest means — the greatest destroyer of peace is abortion”.

    So now today, 30 years later, that same Committee has given the same award to President Obama because he provides Hope? I will not take the space here as other have done and I’m sure more will do to address the absurdity of this rationale. I will say though that certainly this tarnishes teh award when compared to Mother Theresa. It is almost schizophrenic when we think of the award going to Obama and we recall her words that the greatest threat to peace then and still today is the murder of innocents. Yet, the award goes to a man who does not just advocate for abortion rights but seeks to expand them and use taxpayer dollars to support abortion in other countries. This award has gone to a man who supports Partial Birth Abortion and whom as a state senator from Illinois would not even vote yes to provide emdical care to babies born alive after a “botched” abortion. How does the Nobel Committee reconcile such a grave differnce in the award recepient in only 30 years. The awarding of teh prize to Obama is actually a slap in the face thirty years later to Mother Theresa whom stood on the very stage Obama will stand upon in a few months when he receives his award. How can one award receipeint say that abortion is the greatest threat to world peace while another is perhaps the world’s greatest promoter of it? What a sad, sad day.

  • goral

    Mary, thanks for your candid remarks. It is hysterical but not entirely unexpected. The committee comprised of Norwegian university professors, in other words Marxist pinheads, are true to their convictions as was Notre Dame and the Boston bishop. The messiah needs to be honored for only one thing – for who he IS and not for what he does. He is one of them and is in a lofty and visible position while his miserable minions are not. They desperately need to keep themselves and their agenda in the limelight.

    This is also very dangerous because it continues the brainwashing and manipulation of the general public. There are impressionable mushy minds out there who only form their opinions by following the popular convention.

    When truth and reality are perverted the consequences are real.

  • Captain Sadler

    As Joe DeVet said, this isn’t that surprising. The Nobel Peace Prize has not been tarnished by being awarded to Obama, it has been tarnished for years, and in it’s tarnished state, I believe Obama actually *does* deserve to stand amongst the likes of Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and Yassar Arafat, united by their reception of this dubious award.

  • Captain,

    You’re making me glad they passed over the late Pope John Paul II. Here was someone who deserved a Nobel Peace Prize, if ever such a one existed. A man who, at great personal risk, devoted his life to ending Communism in Europe and succeeded finally with scarcely a shot fired–isn’t that what the Nobel Peace Prize is supposed to be all about? But he believed in that hoakey religion that fiercely advocates for the dignity of every human person, which is fine if you’re an Albanian nun and your religiosity can be dismissed as a charming quirk; but it’s not so fine when you’re actually the head of the Church that teaches this stuff. The Nobel Committee is blatantly anti-Catholic, if you ask me, and now all the evidence is in. Obama a Nobel laureate? At least Al Gore made a movie!

  • kagnewkid

    I think I’m going to throw up. Should I do it in my sleeve?

  • kagnewkid

    The good news is that if he flies high enough, the wax in his wings will melt…..

  • Kathryn

    NoelFitz: you’ve gotta be kidding. Here’s who should have got the prize: Greg Mortenson.

    Accoring to an online Time magazine article, he was nominated for the prize by few members of Congress. Apparently, those who gamble on such things thought he had a 20 to 1 shot. Pretty good odds I guess.

    But I suppose he wasn’t of the right ilk: He is a son of a missionary, a former member of he military (albeit a medic). He likes moutain climbing (he’s probably destroyed of fragile habititat along the way.) For the past some years he’s been building schools for girls in places where tribal warlords kill people for it. His Central Asia Institute has built more than 130 schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    On the other hand, as noted above, the committee is run by a bunch of dictator afficianadoes. Assuming I ever do build that school for SIDS/ADHD/dyslexic boys, and were nomminated, I would definately want to be spared the honor of winning it. It would tarnish my reputation with my friends and family.

  • SMG 62

    noelfitz said:

    “Throughout the world there is acknowledgment for his great work for justice, peace and security.”

    Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

    Oh man – that’s a good one!

  • goral

    SMG 62 said:

    “Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!”

    Now that’s a good one!

  • jpckcmo

    Thanks, noelfitz, for your kind words. I, too, feel that it is too early to give Obama a Nobel for Peace. I can only hope that this award will spur him on to end the pointless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while trying to find an end to the stalemate between the Palestinians and Israel, which we know is the root cause of all problems in that region. I also hope he will vigorously support health care for all in this country (not health insurance, health care), as that is a basic human right. He has a lot to live up to, and this premature prize may help him achieve his stated goals of working with the rest of the world to eliminate nuclear weapons and have true cooperation between nations.

  • noelfitz

    I read:

    “noelfitz said:

    “Throughout the world there is acknowledgment for his great work for justice, peace and security.”

    Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

    Oh man – that’s a good one!”

    In Catholic Exchange one would hope to read rational sincerely held views. The tone of this discussion seems to depart from Catholic charity.

    Mary, I am sorry that I have made you sick. That obviously was not my intention. I have always considered you my friend. You have disagreed with me sharply. But in our disagreements I considered that neither of us ever departed from loyalty and commitment to the Church. I felt our disagreements were never personal, but based on politics.

    I think you will agree with me that in politics people of good will differ in views. These differences can be discussed with sensitivity, respect and courtesy.

    The Catholic Church in the US has the opportunity to give leadership to the universal Church. The majority of Catholics who voted in the Presidential Election voted for President Obama, so he is the Catholic choice.

    I read that “no other major faith in the U.S. has experienced greater net losses over the last few decades as a result of changes in religious affiliation than the Catholic Church. Nearly one-third (31.4%) of U.S. adults say they were raised Catholic. Today, however, only 23.9% of adults say they are affiliated with the Catholic Church, a net loss of 7.5 percentage points. Overall, roughly one-third of those who were raised Catholic have left the church, and approximately one-in-ten American adults are former Catholics.”

    The Catholic Church in the US is split. Ex-Catholics represent the second largest religious group in the US. A factor in this unfortunate position may be the lack of Christian charity between Catholics. Perhaps if Catholics could realize that what unites them is their religion, not their politics, the Church would be healthier.

    Bishop Martino, formewr bishop of Scranton, who is perhaps best known for his attacks on Vice-President Biden and President Obama, has been removed form office. Thus possibly representing the Catholic Church’s abhorrence with extreme negative views of America’s leadership by some Catholics and the wishes of the Church for less confrontation in civil life.

  • noelfitz

    The Nobel Peace Prize 2009 was awarded to Mr Obama
    “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”.

    Many here have disagreed with what I submitted to CE.

    Perhaps it is of interest to reflect on the wholehearted support given by Mr Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general: “This is great news for President Obama, for the people of the United States, and for the United Nations…President Obama embodies the new spirit of dialogue and engagement on the world’s biggest problems: climate change, nuclear disarmament and a wide range of peace and security challenges.”

    The Irish Times noted:
    “Mr Obama said the prize should be used “as a means to give momentum to a set of causes” and accepted it “as a call to action … to confront the common challenges of the 21st century”.
    Congratulations poured in from around the world, including from Taoiseach (Irish Prime-Minister) Brian Cowen, with the Afghan Taliban and US Republicans alone in criticizing the award”.


    noel- how can there be true peace in the world and achieve all these lofty and noble goals, when the man awarded the peace prize fully supports and actually seeks to advance the murder of the most helpless and inncocent citizens of the world-unborn babies in the wombs of their mothers? Remember, this is the man as an Illinois state senataor would not even vote in favor of providing medical care to babies born after botched abortions. If you support the killing of innocnets in the womb how can you say this same person wants peace? This same Nobel Committee only 30 years ago gave this same award to Mother Theresa and what did she say in her acceptance speech? She said that the single greatest threat to world peace is the act of abortion. And so in 30 years we have come to a point where the Committee actually slaps the face of this saintly woman by giving this years award to a man who somehow they feel will leade the world towards peace yet he seeks to expand the ability to kill defenseless human beings in their first homes-the wombs of their mothers. No, I can’t support this and quite honestly if Catholics support this and voted for him, then I question if they truly are “catholic”. I am not here to condemn these people as I am a sinner, but I object to them and you saying he somehow has Catholic support. No, he has the support of people whom call THEMSELVES Catholic but whom reject the Teaching of the Churcha and whom do not regularly take part in the sacraments. I would submit that the Church has to some degree alreday “split” but is this a surprsie? No, the Lord Himself said it would happen- only a fragment will remain.

    Noel- I hope I do not condemn-it is not my right nor my purpsoe, but I will speak up when I see injustice and duplicity which is what I see in Mr. Obama and the Nobel Committee.

  • Cheryl Dickow

    jpckcmo says…I can only hope that this award will spur him [obama] on…

    People defend this premature award as something that may “motivate” obama to really do great things and yet obama, himself, does not apply this same logic to aborted babies.

    This reminds me of the Scripture story of the man who was forgiven great debt and then turned around and demanded payment from others instead of, in turn, forgiving their debts.

    After all, if someone can see “great potential” in obama and justify giving him this award — and he certainly sees it in himself and thus accepts the award — how does he not see that same potential in the millions of aborted babies?

    Is he that arrogant?

    Never mind that the award committe is currently made up of extreme left-wing liberals or that obama is really being recognized for the ways in which he is undermining (selling out) America’s democracy.

  • Mary Kochan

    Once again Noel, you refuse to acknowledge that our difference with Obama IS NOT political although you have been told so numerous times. It’s Catholics who can’t figure the difference between “politics” and “morality” and who think good intentions and happy feelings count more than results who are destroying this country.

  • MichelleGA

    This is another proof that this “prize” is now a ridiculous joke!

  • Mary Kochan

    BTW he was president for 11 days when nominated. All he had “accomplished” at that time was throw himself and his friends an expensive party. So who nominated him?

  • kagnewkid

    noelfitz says:
    “Many here have disagreed with what I submitted to CE.”

    Yup. And with good reasonS.
    Frankly, I couldn’t care less about what other politicians and other “journalists” from other countries say about this whole joke. Their credibility isn’t any greater than that of our own politicians and “journalists” who are saying exactly the same things.

    Has anyone else heard that England has actually retroactively rejected our Declaration of Independence? Seems that they’ve decided that we are unfit to govern ourselves….

    And that blather about the Catholic Church in America giving leadership to the universal church, or some nonsense like that…what, we’re going to teach the world how to ignore the Church’s teachings? We’re going to teach the world how to be disobedient? We’re going to teach the world how to divorce, contracept and abort at the same rates as everyone else?

    Where’s a good millstone when you need one?


  • Mary Kochan

    Not that the Supreme Law of the Land matters to this administration, but Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution says:

    “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

    Did Congress authorize Obama to receive the prize? Unless they did, the acceptance of the prize and its monetary award is unconstitutional.

  • Captain Sadler

    There shouldn’t *be* a difference between politics and morality to Catholics. Obmama may be the “Catholic choice”, but only because of catholics who believe they can vote for a president based on one issue (the economy) rather than all the issues (abortion, socialism, etc). At least presidents aren’t elected by popular vote of the people anyway…

  • goral

    This episode is exactly what the nobel prize needed to finally drive home the point that it’s an arm and a tool of the leftist globalists to further their manipulative socio-political engineering.

    It’s also likely that a Senator Kennedy slip-up happened and the prize was inadvertently awarded to obama instead of osama. Those university professors routinely mismatch their socks.

    Once again the “uncharitable” – Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!!

    Mary says:
    “No title of nobility shall be granted…..”

    Huh?!!!………. Hmmmmm?!!!

  • Warren Jewell

    My prayers for you, of course, Noelfitz, as for all here and all everywhere. But, gentle sir, you have put your head in the meat grinder all too often . . .

    Permit one more old malingerer’s two-cents, before I am rationed to eternal sidelines . . .

    As fatherjo pointed out elsewhere, the Nobel Prize for Peace was never given to Pope John Paul II, who every year of his pontificate more deserved it than the likes of any of Presidents Carter and Obama, and blowhard Al Gore, not to mention several others given since Mother Teresa righteously earned her prize directly speaking against abortion; so single-issue of her; and, no arrogant rhetoric of ‘common ground’ (that ain’t) for her.

    I need not even think as a Catholic, which under Barack Obama is being made more hazardous to be and do, to note that his oath of office has him owe greater allegiance to any one American, unborn, disabled, elderly, etc., than to all the population of Europe, and even the world, in total.

    When any leader here dehumanizes any innocent American, to any ‘global’ – i.e., non-American – purpose, to me he is subject to impeachment and removal from his office for abject failure of his oath. And, any foreign committee is free to have him and give him any cash and tin badges they want.

    I am reminded of a conversation between a few admittedly ‘sodden’ World War II vets, when I was but a watchful, listening teenager. This handful of warriors noted that they had had to go back to lands their forefathers had so forsworn as to never return, even as the ancestors had been born to one or another European nation. However, my father’s cohorts had lived up to their oath of armed service to America and freedom, and obeyed even to watching buddies be buried in Europe. To them, regard for their oaths had led to tearful regrets to have bothered: even one American life was too much to give to the tin-horn warlords of Europe and Asia.

    The Nobel committee members apparently do not even make for good Norwegians; and, ‘progressive’-ly more irrelevant. Why should I have them tell any of the rest of us who makes for a good ‘leader of peace’, of any nationality? They are like some mini-microcosm of the United Nations, which has increasingly become a curse on and threat to our American Declaration and Constitution, and growing danger to persons of good will worldwide.

    Thus, do I think, believe – feel, know – our Wash.D.C. ‘leadership’ and political ‘leadership’ in too much of the main are helping lead America into being a thug-ocratically-run arm of our very enemies, more numerous as these latter are decade by decade. And, these ‘leaders’, in violation of their oaths, seem gladly to surrender unborn American souls to some new ‘global’ holocaust. The sole award I would have for them is handing them over to finding civilian jobs. Or, if they prefer, emigration.

  • Mary Kochan

    Hear, hear!!

  • jpckcmo

    You hang in there, noelfitz. You handle criticism, some of it very uncivil, with dignity and grace.

  • goral

    Warren Jewell, superb!!!

  • noelfitz,
    I have to agree with jpckcmo. You do handle criticism really well, no matter how fast and furious it’s slung at you. You are able to be far more charitable than I usually am in your situation.

    But you also seem to be unable to accept that any of it might be legitimate, or anything besides what you have previously conceived it to be.

    The problem is that you consistently defend politicians who support and defend abortion. Abortion is consistently, utterly, and without exception — EVIL. It cannot be good, under any circumstances, and helping people to do it is likewise evil. In fact, abortion is so evil, that merely removing barriers that might prevent people from obtaining an abortion is gravely sinful.

    Less than five years ago, I would have joined you. Less than five years ago, I did not equate abortion with murder.

    Less than five years ago, I made a defense of our veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which I later posted on my blog:

    I urge you to read that defense. You see, when I made that defense, I came to the full, complete, and irrefutable understanding that abortion is murder.

    I can no more support or defend a politician who supports and/or defends abortion, than I could support one who excused lynchings, or Auschwitz, or the mass murders of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. And I cannot because all of those things are the intentional, deliberate, wholesale slaying of human people.

  • SMG 62


    I am sorry that you took my post as uncharitable. It just expressed my reaction to the news that Obama received the Nobel prize. It is a ridiculous, laughable choice, no matter how many misguided Europeans approve of it.

    Can you read articles like this one on CE and really think that Obama’s actions could be directed toward peace?

    Have you really given long thought to what Obama really does, and what he really stands for? Read up on his actions, his speeches, on the backgrounds of those he surrounds himself with. Either he is a horribly misguided ideologue, or he is intentionally siding with despots. Whatever his motivation, neither he nor those in his administration are capable of leading us to world peace.