Call to Action on Father Jenkins

[Contarini]

Someone else pointed out that Bush was invited before 9/11/01-- before the Iraq War and before the 3 incidents of waterboarding at GITMO. So, war and torture were not issues at the time.

That’s a fair point.

The more basic question is: What is Obama being honored for? He was elected president, but what else has he done to deserve an honorary doctorate in law from a Catholic University? The crux of the argument of those supporting Notre Dame’s decision seems to be “well, what about Bush?” But I’ve not heard the solid reasons for why a Catholic institution should honor Obama in the first place. Bush was not perfect, but does that mean since there was not widespread criticism of his invitation to speak at Notre Dame, there should be no widespread criticism of Obama, or anyone else?

I don’t support Notre Dame’s decision exactly. I don’t support inviting someone just because he is president. I’m simply pointing out that Notre Dame is inviting Obama because he is president, not because they support his policies. Much of the outrage by conservative Catholics seems to presuppose that inviting Obama constitutes approval of his abortion policy. That is illogical. However, your question is a good one. I think there are many better choices Notre Dame could have made.

I come to this from the standpoint of a debate we had last year at my institution over the invitation of Jerry Jenkins, the co-author of the Left Behind books. I and a number of other faculty argued that this was a very poor choice, because we were essentially honoring Jenkins for being a very successful author of trashy fiction with a dubious theological message. (I say “dubious” in terms of my institution’s theological stance as a whole, which is broadly evangelical but not dispensationalist or fundamentalist. From my point of view, the theological message of Left Behind is much, much worse than dubious. But I recognize that many of my colleagues would disagree with me.)

At the same time, I thought that the reactions of some students and faculty were excessive–they saw our invitation of Jenkins as some kind of slide into fundamentalism. Clearly that was over-interpreting the invitation. And I think a similar caution is in order here.

Edwin

 

[myfavoritmartin]

My point is that MyFavoriteMartin is happy because the American invasion has opened up possibilities for evangelical Protestantism to spread in Iraq, even as the ancient Christian churches of Iraq crumble. Catholics who support the war ought to be sobered by this.

Edwin

Interestingly enough a spokemen for the missionary alliance there commented that the persecution toward the evangelical churches is coming mostly via the ancient churches.

 

[Janet_S]

Anyone with a little common sense, a rudimentary knowledge of Catholic teaching on “the unspeakable crime” of abortion, and some familiarity with Obama’s record on life issues (pro FOCA, pro government funding of abortions and embryonic stem cell research) would be scratching their heads about why in the world a Catholic institution would honor him.

The thing that bothers me most about the Notre Dame scandal is the sense of betrayal by other Catholics. It is the realization that one of the biggest obstacles we face in the pro-life movement are Catholics who are either indifferent to the evil of abortion or who are actively promoting it as a “fundamental right.” I’m not sure Fr Jenkins approves of Obama’s abortion policies, but the fact that he has chosen to honor Obama indicates he’s not that concerned about it either. The Notre Dame defenders pretend like “all voices are welcomed here,” but we know that’s not true. Would they honor a racist or an anti-Semite with an honorary degree? I hope not, and I doubt they would. But doesn’t abortion deserve at least the same consideration as racism? Especially considering that as far as moral evils, abortion stands at the top of the list? Since Obama has been elected, we Catholics have been busy raising money to send our kids to the March for Life in Washington. We have been writing our legislators imploring them not to advance FOCA which was one of Obama’s campaign promises to PP. We have been writing to the HHS opposing the rescission of the conscience protection rules for health care workers. Then, after our vigilance and effort, we see the preeminent US Catholic institution bestowing honors on the man responsible. Is it any wonder that we’re outraged?

I think a lot of Catholics don’t see abortion for the horribly violent, destructive act that it is. John Paul II said this in Evangelium Vitae (58):

Among all the crimes which can be committed against life, procured abortion has characteristics making it particularly serious and deplorable. The Second Vatican Council defines abortion, together with infanticide, as an “unspeakable crime”.

But today, in many people’s consciences, the perception of its gravity has become progressively obscured. The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind, in behaviour and even in law itself, is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of the moral sense, which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake. Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception.

I pray Catholics carefully consider what abortion really is—about its bloody and violent nature; about what it does to the child, to the parents, to the healthcare system, and to the communities that tolerate it. Abortion destroys everything it touches. We need to look at abortion in graphic detail. If a politician promotes abortion rights as “fundamental,” there is something radically wrong with his or her thinking, and we should pray fervently for his or her conversion and try to do all we can to oppose these unjust laws. The last thing we should do is to honor them.

 

[Contarini]

Interestingly enough a spokemen for the missionary alliance there commented that the persecution toward the evangelical churches is coming mostly via the ancient churches.

Makes sense. When you charge into a country thinking you are bringing Christianity there, even though Christians have been there long before your particular sect was more than a regretful footnote in the permissive foreknowledge of God, you are going to be resented.

Just as, when you charge into a country with bombs and guns claiming to “liberate” it, you shouldn’t be surprised if people don’t welcome you too warmly (or perhaps do welcome you too warmly, i.e., fight back with bombs and guns of their own).

Edwin

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I was responding to SailorKenshin, who unwisely brought up the Iraqi Catholics’ need for “liberation” as a justification for the invasion.

That religious imperialism follows political imperialism is too trivial to be worth noting, and I wish that the implications of what you are jubilantly describing were not so totally lost on Catholic supporters of the war.

Edwin

I wasn’t aware that you were a military expert.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Old does not mean false.

In this case it does.

 

[NM2]

Anyone with a little common sense, a rudimentary knowledge of Catholic teaching on “the unspeakable crime” of abortion, and some familiarity with Obama’s record on life issues (pro FOCA, pro government funding of abortions and embryonic stem cell research) would be scratching their heads about why in the world a Catholic institution would honor him.

The thing that bothers me most about the Notre Dame scandal is the sense of betrayal by other Catholics. It is the realization that one of the biggest obstacles we face in the pro-life movement are Catholics who are either indifferent to the evil of abortion or who are actively promoting it as a “fundamental right.” I’m not sure Fr Jenkins approves of Obama’s abortion policies, but the fact that he has chosen to honor Obama indicates he’s not that concerned about it either. The Notre Dame defenders pretend like “all voices are welcomed here,” but we know that’s not true. Would they honor a racist or an anti-Semite with an honorary degree? I hope not, and I doubt they would. But doesn’t abortion deserve at least the same consideration as racism? Especially considering that as far as moral evils, abortion stands at the top of the list? Since Obama has been elected, we Catholics have been busy raising money to send our kids to the March for Life in Washington. We have been writing our legislators imploring them not to advance FOCA which was one of Obama’s campaign promises to PP. We have been writing to the HHS opposing the rescission of the conscience protection rules for health care workers. Then, after our vigilance and effort, we see the preeminent US Catholic institution bestowing honors on the man responsible. Is it any wonder that we’re outraged?

I think a lot of Catholics don’t see abortion for the horribly violent, destructive act that it is. John Paul II said this in Evangelium Vitae (58):

I pray Catholics carefully consider what abortion really is—about its bloody and violent nature; about what it does to the child, to the parents, to the healthcare system, and to the communities that tolerate it. Abortion destroys everything it touches. We need to look at abortion in graphic detail. If a politician promotes abortion rights as “fundamental,” there is something radically wrong with his or her thinking, and we should pray fervently for his or her conversion and try to do all we can to oppose these unjust laws. The last thing we should do is to honor them.

Well said!

 

[BartBurk]

Makes sense. When you charge into a country thinking you are bringing Christianity there, even though Christians have been there long before your particular sect was more than a regretful footnote in the permissive foreknowledge of God, you are going to be resented.

Just as, when you charge into a country with bombs and guns claiming to “liberate” it, you shouldn’t be surprised if people don’t welcome you too warmly (or perhaps do welcome you too warmly, i.e., fight back with bombs and guns of their own).

Edwin

Face the facts folks. Iraq was liberated by the military might of the United States. Iraq now has the opportunity to choose their future (and their religious identity) without the torture of Saddam Hussein and his two sons. Without military intervention Sadam would still be in total control of that country and people would be dying at his hands. Ask the Kurds what they think about the U.S. intervention. The Bush intervention was pro-freedom and pro-life. Liberation almost always comes with the price of blood.

As for Notre Dame it does seem they always do invite the President. Unless they decide to end the custom of inviting the President (and they probably should) it would be hard for them to only invite Republicans and not Democrats without looking partisan. I think the answer would be for them to quit inviting Presidents altogether.

 

[PaulineOsinachi]

I dont like the acceptance of defeat that seems to lie behind the posts of pro-lifers on this forum. It is better to try and fail than to already throw in the towel. So any Pro-lifer here (cos pity even some catholics are not pro-life) who wants to do something should visit this url: notredamescandal.com/SignthePetitiontoFrJenkins/tabid/454/Default.aspx and sign this petition. We cant fold our hands and expect a miracle.

 

[Contarini]

In this case it does.

Then show that it is false, instead of using silly and irrelevant slurs.

Edwin

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I dont like the acceptance of defeat that seems to lie behind the posts of pro-lifers on this forum. It is better to try and fail than to already throw in the towel. So any Pro-lifer here (cos pity even some catholics are not pro-life) who wants to do something should visit this url: notredamescandal.com/SignthePetitiontoFrJenkins/tabid/454/Default.aspx and sign this petition. We cant fold our hands and expect a miracle.

I signed; thanks.

 

[Contarini]

Face the facts folks. Iraq was liberated by the military might of the United States. Iraq now has the opportunity to choose their future (and their religious identity) without the torture of Saddam Hussein and his two sons. Without military intervention Sadam would still be in total control of that country and people would be dying at his hands. Ask the Kurds what they think about the U.S. intervention.

In fact, I had a conversation with some Kurds about the invasion while it was going on, as I was traveling in a train across France. But why ask the Kurds what they think about invading what they would consider essentially a different country? We are not talking about intervention in favor of the Kurds. We could have done that without invading the “Sunni triangle” or enmeshing ourselves with the complex religious politics of the Shiite south.

The Bush intervention was pro-freedom and pro-life.

Easy slogans. But as you say, face the facts. You can’t get away from the fact that the Iraqi Catholics, whom Sailor Kenshin called as witness, are in fact hostile witnesses.

Liberation almost always comes with the price of blood.

Which is why uninvited liberation is arrogant and evil. We can of course pay with our own blood to liberate other people–that’s a noble thing to do. But we can’t morally ask people to pay with their blood for our unilateral decision to liberate them. That’s wrong. And the fact that some (relatively few) of our own are dying in the process doesn’t make it right. It just underlines the folly and arrogance of the whole enterprise.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I wasn’t aware that you were a military expert.

I wasn’t aware that you were.

But in fact nothing I said required military expertise.

This is a discussion board based on common knowledge available to everyone.

Edwin

 

[brigid12]

Since I am the creator of the BO acronym I will address my reasons for this. While W, JFK, FDR are initials for different Presidents, I doubt any of them were as agressive for abortion on demand as Obama.

You have a President, who supports the wholesale slaughter of unborn by vote and speech. You have a President, who supports the killing of newborns who survived abortion by vote and speech. That is evil. That is pure evil and you are critical of him being called B.O.?

Not only does Obama support the wholesale slaughter of the unborn and also support the removal of the conscience clause that protects those medical personnel from having to participate in this evil act - he voted, while he was still a senator, as being opposed to the partial-birth abortion ban and the born alive treatment act,saying that he thought that parents should have a week after the baby is born to decide whether to let the baby live or not.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm#Abortion That’s infanticide! We are talking about a person who has so lost his moral compass that comparing him to Hitler is getting easier and easier for me. The most charitable that I can feel about him is to pray fervently for his soul.

 

[BartBurk]

Not only does Obama support the wholesale slaughter of the unborn and also support the removal of the conscience clause that protects those medical personnel from having to participate in this evil act - he voted, while he was still a senator, as being opposed to the partial-birth abortion ban and the born alive treatment act,saying that he thought that parents should have a week after the baby is born to decide whether to let the baby live or not.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm#Abortion That’s infanticide! We are talking about a person who has so lost his moral compass that comparing him to Hitler is getting easier and easier for me. The most charitable that I can feel about him is to pray fervently for his soul.

I wish abortion was the only problem Obama had. He coddles left wing dictators, is spending us into oblivion even worse than Bush did – he’s killing the future of my children and my grandchildren. So what he can’t kill by encouraging abortion, he’s killing through his socialist economic policies. We are going to become a fully owned subsidiary of China in the near future if we aren’t already.

 

[brigid12]

I wish abortion was the only problem Obama had. He coddles left wing dictators, is spending us into oblivion even worse than Bush did – he’s killing the future of my children and my grandchildren. So what he can’t kill by encouraging abortion, he’s killing through his socialist economic policies. We are going to become a fully owned subsidiary of China in the near future if we aren’t already.

I agree that his other policies are mostly not what I would prefer, however infanticide is downright terrible.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Contarini,

I think I see your poiint…

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

But, the issue, at least as I appreciate it, deals with the two-pronged approach of Fr. Jenkins in that he chose to invite Candidate Obama and then after winning the election, the President was offered an honorary degree. Both actions have been preceived by multiple bishops as a direct disregard for the position taken by the US Council of Catholic Bishops. At the very least, it certainly seems like disobedience to the legitimate and recognized authority of the CC. Considering the highly public nature of this entire matter, I do not see how this could not be seen as a public scandal. I think the only one who has gone over the edge rationality and justice has been Fr. Jenkins.

God bless,

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I wish abortion was the only problem Obama had. He coddles left wing dictators, is spending us into oblivion even worse than Bush did – he’s killing the future of my children and my grandchildren. So what he can’t kill by encouraging abortion, he’s killing through his socialist economic policies.

The US auto industry is an early casualty, along with countless unborn babies.

 

[trailblazer]

Sad that a “Catholic” institution chooses secular values to Catholic values by turning its back on the US Bishop’s directive against giving platform & honor to public figures who promote abortion. I am pleased to see so many bishops taking strong stands, and I wish the Church would be more forceful and less wimpy about it, but do not see it happening.

I believe its up to the Catholic laypeople. We should look to our authority figures, but lets not forget that we have a personal charge to bring Christ into the world and we are very powerful as a unified group. Many of us have signed the petition at www.catholicscandal.com , talked to our pastors and congretations, and wrote letters. I wrote Fr Jenkins and The Congregation for Education in Rome.

Since Notre Dame does not seem to care about promoting Catholic values and faithfulness to Church authority, **I recommend that we use the way they can relate to – the secular way. All we need to do is stop supporting Notre Dame by sending our children to more Catholic institutions, turning off any Notre Dame sporting event that plays on TV, and cancelling any financial support we might have given. That will get their attention! **

 

[brigid12]

Since Notre Dame does not seem to care about promoting Catholic values and faithfulness to Church authority, **I recommend that we use the way they can relate to – the secular way. All we need to do is stop supporting Notre Dame by sending our children to more Catholic institutions, turning off any Notre Dame sporting event that plays on TV, and cancelling any financial support we might have given. That will get their attention! **

:yup: