Call to Action on Father Jenkins

[sonofourlady]

As we all know, President B O is going to speaking at Notre Dame next month. We all know that there is nothing we can do to stop this. Its going to happen. However, the person in charge, Father Jenkins, who should know better, should be punished accordingly for this grave scandal.

We also know that his superior is not going to take any action as well. Perhaps then its time to move up on the chain of command then. Surely the Congregation of the Clergy or some Vatican office has direct authority over this Priest and can punish him accordingly.

If not there is one person for sure that can, and that is His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

I propose that we petition the Vatican and/or the Pope to punish Father Jenkins.

Thoughts, suggestions?

 

[Contarini]

As we all know, President B O is going to speaking at Notre Dame next month. We all know that there is nothing we can do to stop this. Its going to happen. However, the person in charge, Father Jenkins, who should know better, should be punished accordingly for this grave scandal.

We also know that his superior is not going to take any action as well. Perhaps then its time to move up on the chain of command then. Surely the Congregation of the Clergy or some Vatican office has direct authority over this Priest and can punish him accordingly.

If not there is one person for sure that can, and that is His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

I propose that we petition the Vatican and/or the Pope to punish Father Jenkins.

Thoughts, suggestions?

Notre Dame has invited the past seven presidents to speak at commencement, I believe. Given Obama’s horrific record on abortion, I would have cheered Notre Dame for making an exception in his case (or in Bush’s case for that matter, given his policy with regard to torture and his willingness to engage in unnecessary war). I applaud Bishop D’Arcy for respectfully choosing not to attend the ceremony. But when you start clamoring for the ND president to be “punished” because he didn’t choose to insult the sitting President of the country by failing to extend him the same invitation that his predecessors had received, you’re going over the edge of rationality and justice.

Edwin

 

[MrS]

I went over Benedict XVI’s head.

I pray that God will either cause a cancellation, or provide for a real teaching moment. So far, the latter seems to be His choice.

Now, what we all do with that moment is up to us.

As for the continuous invitations of former presidents… bunk. So what.
How many accepted an ND invite in their first term?
How many universities invited Obama?
Why did Obama accept from ND?

This is not just about the scandal of ND. This is about the scandal of BHusseinObama.

and let’s look, with some interest, at what kind of an award Arizona gives this prez who has no accomplishments to be honored for.

Maybe he should go the Univ of Hawaii. Perhaps the award they could bestow would be a birth certificate… that proves something.

.

 

[sonofourlady]

Notre Dame has invited the past seven presidents to speak at commencement, I believe. Given Obama’s horrific record on abortion, I would have cheered Notre Dame for making an exception in his case (or in Bush’s case for that matter, given his policy with regard to torture and his willingness to engage in unnecessary war). I applaud Bishop D’Arcy for respectfully choosing not to attend the ceremony. But when you start clamoring for the ND president to be “punished” because he didn’t choose to insult the sitting President of the country by failing to extend him the same invitation that his predecessors had received, you’re going over the edge of rationality and justice.

Edwin

Oh so it would have been an insult for Notre Dame to NOT invite President B.O.?

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Notre Dame has invited the past seven presidents to speak at commencement, I believe. Given Obama’s horrific record on abortion, I would have cheered Notre Dame for making an exception in his case (or in Bush’s case for that matter, given his policy with regard to torture and his willingness to engage in unnecessary war). I applaud Bishop D’Arcy for respectfully choosing not to attend the ceremony. But when you start clamoring for the ND president to be “punished” because he didn’t choose to insult the sitting President of the country by failing to extend him the same invitation that his predecessors had received, you’re going over the edge of rationality and justice.

Edwin

Are you saying the Iraqis, among them a million Catholics, did not deserve to be liberated from a brutal dictator, one who freely engaged in the TRUE torture of his own people?

Talk about going over the edge…

 

[Carlion]

or in Bush’s case for that matter, given his policy with regard to torture and his willingness to engage in unnecessary war

Whether or not the war was necessary is debatable. I know the Vatican had voiced serious objections to it, but Benedict also stated that faithful can disagree on that point, while they can’t disagree on abortion.

because he didn’t choose to insult the sitting President

So he insults the President by disinviting him, or he insults the Church by inviting Obama in the first place. The head of a Catholic school, if he has to choose one or the other, should go with former rather than the latter, I think.

 

[cerad]

Like MrS says, skip the middle man and go directly to the big guy himself. A couple of lightening bolts should straighten the good father out. Or maybe you could embargo his incense.

 

[MrS]

Like MrS says, skip the middle man and go directly to the big guy himself. A couple of lightening bolts should straighten the good father out. Or maybe you could embargo his incense.

I wonder if this ND decision was approved by Charlie Weiss?

 

[Disciple96]

Our bishop has asked all the local parishes to pray a prayer he wrote for all of our public officials and legislators. We pray this prayer at the end of the intercessions at Mass. Our pro-life group prays it too, with other prayers for our leaders.

But now I’m thinking we need to make an addition to these prayers. We need to add all of our educators to the list. All those in charge of supposedly Catholic institutions. All those charged with teaching Catholic doctrine and upholding the truths of the faith.

Meanwhile I think that praying for lightning bolts to fall on the weeds is a bit of a drastic measure, considering that said weeds grow amongst some mighty fine wheat. I’d hate to see all those grains going up in smoke.

 

[Contarini]

Are you saying the Iraqis, among them a million Catholics, did not deserve to be liberated from a brutal dictator, one who freely engaged in the TRUE torture of his own people?

War by a foreign power designed to “liberate” a nation is almost always counterproductive.The enterprise is intrinsically arrogant and immoral, unless there is a clear mandate for such action issued by the rightful leaders of the country being “liberated.” There are plenty of ways to help liberate people without invading their country and killing thousands of the people you are supposedly “liberating.”

And I note that Pope JPII agreed with me. I am not claiming that Catholics are bound to agree with the Pope’s opinion of the Iraq war. I know that he issued no formal condemnation. But surely you don’t think he was “over the edge” or lacked compassion for the Iraqi people?

Did the bishops of the Catholic Church in Iraq call for the invasion?

For some insight into how those Iraqi Catholics feel about having been liberated, see this story.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Whether or not the war was necessary is debatable. I know the Vatican had voiced serious objections to it, but Benedict also stated that faithful can disagree on that point, while they can’t disagree on abortion.

I agree. I think the torture issue is much clear-cut. And I do not condemn Bishop D’Arcy’s decision to boycott Obama rather than Bush. I can understand why he’d give abortion priority. But I still wish he had boycotted both.

So he insults the President by disinviting him, or he insults the Church by inviting Obama in the first place. The head of a Catholic school, if he has to choose one or the other, should go with former rather than the latter, I think.

But what you are missing is that Obama was invited as the President. Aren’t Catholics supposed to understand about respect for the office even if you have serious issues with the person?

Again, I would have applauded Notre Dame for not inviting Obama given the gravity of the abortion issue. My point is simply that inviting presidents to commencement is apparently something ND routinely does. The remarkable thing would have been *not *to invite him. They did not go out of their way to honor a pro-choice politician. They certainly did not invite him because of his policies regarding abortion.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Oh so it would have been an insult for Notre Dame to NOT invite President B.O.?

Of course. Notre Dame apparently invites the sitting President as a matter of course. Not inviting Obama is singling him out, and that is insulting. Again, I think we need to be willing to insult the powerful when necessary. I’m simply pointing out that that would have been an extreme action, and the degree of vitriol Fr. Jenkins is getting for failing to take such a strong stand seems excessive.

I’d like to see Notre Dame and other Christian institutions question the basis for issuing such invitations in the first place. We ought to be giving honorary degrees to people who have made intrinsically worthy accomplishments, rather than simply people who are famous and powerful.

Edwin

 

[Lycoming]

Oh so it would have been an insult for Notre Dame to NOT invite President B.O.?

“President B.O.” <---- Rude.

 

[AnimalGal]

As we all know, President B O is going to speaking at Notre Dame next month. We all know that there is nothing we can do to stop this. Its going to happen. However, the person in charge, Father Jenkins, who should know better, should be punished accordingly for this grave scandal.

We also know that his superior is not going to take any action as well. Perhaps then its time to move up on the chain of command then. Surely the Congregation of the Clergy or some Vatican office has direct authority over this Priest and can punish him accordingly.

If not there is one person for sure that can, and that is His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

I propose that we petition the Vatican and/or the Pope to punish Father Jenkins.

Thoughts, suggestions?

I will send a thank you card to Father Jenkins for having a spine.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

War by a foreign power designed to “liberate” a nation is almost always counterproductive.The enterprise is intrinsically arrogant and immoral, unless there is a clear mandate for such action issued by the rightful leaders of the country being “liberated.” There are plenty of ways to help liberate people without invading their country and killing thousands of the people you are supposedly “liberating.”

And I note that Pope JPII agreed with me. I am not claiming that Catholics are bound to agree with the Pope’s opinion of the Iraq war. I know that he issued no formal condemnation. But surely you don’t think he was “over the edge” or lacked compassion for the Iraqi people?

Did the bishops of the Catholic Church in Iraq call for the invasion?

For some insight into how those Iraqi Catholics feel about having been liberated, see this story.

Edwin

Is this your way of saying you didn’t care what happened to them?

 

[Contarini]

Is this your way of saying you didn’t care what happened to them?

It’s my way of pointing out that they don’t seem to be as grateful as you say they should be.

The U.S. invasion may be the final blow that finishes off the Christian presence in Iraq. There may not be Christians there by the end of the century, because of this glorious “liberation” you support so blindly.

Now can you provide me with statements by Iraqi Catholic leaders saying that they supported the invasion and are grateful for it? If you can’t, isn’t your use of them disingenuous, arrogant, and even cruel?

Perhaps you ought not to have mentioned the Iraqi Catholics.

Edwin

 

[JKirkLVNV]

We are Christians. No matter how we differ with someone, it is a sin against charity to mock them or hold them up to derision. President Obama is gravely, seriously wrong and misguided. We still owe him the respect and courtesy that is inherently his as a human being and that goes with his office. “B.O.” is inappropriate.

 

[stevegravy]

We are Christians. No matter how we differ with someone, it is a sin against charity to mock them or hold them up to derision. President Obama is gravely, seriously wrong and misguided. We still owe him the respect and courtesy that is inherently his as a human being and that goes with his office. “B.O.” is inappropriate.

No it is quite appropriate!!! He is a public serpent and all public serpents need to be reminded they are no better than the least of us. Besides BO is mild when I think of what this administration is starting to resemble.

Besides this discussion was really about ND and Jenkins need to honor the countries new savior.

 

[MrS]

No it is quite appropriate!!! He is a public serpent and all public serpents need to be reminded they are no better than the least of us. Besides BO is mild when I think of what this administration is starting to resemble.

Besides this discussion was really about ND and Jenkins need to honor the countries new savior.

Agreed. It is no better or worse than Dubbya, or GWB. or JFK, or FDR. in the Oval Office, and now we have BO in the Oval Office.

.

 

[wacreb]

Do not take this as a support of ND’s invitation. However, others have brought up George W. Bush’s support of the death penalty. Any thoughts on why his invitation to speak was not considered a scandal?