Do you think anything will happen to Fr Jenkins or Notre Dame?

[OpusFan]

Fr. Jenkins displays disgusting smug superiority, defiance and haughtiness. This is a priest? Where is our leadership?

OpusFan

 

[KathleenElsie]

I will pray that Fr Jenkins is replaced ASAP and not placed in another public position. I will pray that all involved will actually look and hear what was said today and understand that nothing that was said makes BHO even close to the Catholic teachings on life.

 

[swampfox]

Our bishops have more in common with the terrified disciple before Pentecost than with the courageous post-Pentecost Apostles and defenders of the Faith who led Christ’s Church and fearlessly spread the Gospel.

 

[JReducation]

Why is everyone bashing the bishops and dancing around the core obstacles?

1. The bishops have no authority over a university that does not belong to the Catholic Church.
2. The bishops have no authority over Fr. Jenkins. He is a member of a Congregation of Pontifical Right.
3. The Holy Father has all the authority over Fr. Jenkins, but has appealed to the principle of subsidiarity. Therefore, the major superior has to deal with it.
4. The major superior has a legal contract with the university to keep Fr. Jenkins as President until the term of the contract is up.
5. The local bishop cannot intervene in the affairs of any religious order that does not work for him.

Why are we getting so emotional and not looking at the legal and canonical facts?

We are speaking about the apostles as if they had to deal with this kind of legal and canonical situation in their time. There were no such laws in their time. In fact, they had less control over the Church than the hierarchy of today. The central government of the Church during the first four centuries as a very weak one. Let’s not rewrite history and imagine a Peter coming to the rescue and excommunicating and punishing everyone. The Church tried all these things during the first four centuries and ended up with a schism, because the primacy of Peter’s chair was called into question by other bishops. At least today, that is no longer a question, nor are there questions about Jesus’ natures or the nature of the Church.

We have to look at the situation from our 21st century viewpoint. There are rules and laws that are involved here and they are not easy to implement unless the Holy Father becomes personally involved, which is not going to happen. Pope Benedict XVI does not involve himself in these situations. He deals in theological and global affairs. These situations he leaves to those who are in the place and time, because they know the laws and the rules. He is not privy to every law regarding contracts and education in every country around the world.

This situation is very difficult for the bishops to naviage. Let’s stop questioning their ability to lead and try to understand that their authority is limited by civil and church law, as well as the rules and constitutions that govern religious orders and religious congregations.

To be a bishop is not to be omnipotent. This is not a fair representation of what they can do. Some posts on this thread make them sound as if they are indifferent. I’m wondering if we are knowledgeable about the rules and the civil laws that are involved here and how the bishops must proceed without incurring trouble in the courts or at the Vatican.

The Vatican is not going to allow them to bully a religious who is protected by Pontifical Rights. That would establish a presedent that bishops can go over the head of the pope and have the power to intervene with groups that the papacy has protected by giving them these rights.

We have to let the system work. The Holy Cross Brothers have to solve this problem. If they cannot, then they can apply to the Holy Father who will probably direct them to the Sacred Congregation for Religioius Institutes and Societies of Apostolic Life. If the Congregation cannot solve it, then it goes back to the Holy Father.

That’s the process. We Catholics have to live with that process. The Church is too big for the Holy Father to step into every situation that arises.

At this point, the most that the bishops can do is to strip ND of its Catholic label. But that would come at a price. There is a question whether it is fair to the entire Congregation of the Holy Cross and to the students and faculty who have been faithful to the Church.

Let us not demand of our bishops what is not in their power to do. Their primary duty is to lead the laity and the secular clergy, not to lead religious and their institutions. These do not come under the authority of the bishops. The bishops are not being weak. They are being faithful to the limits that the Church places on them.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[swampfox]

Why is everyone bashing the bishops? Have you been paying attention to the clergy pederasty coverup scandal? Have any bishops resigned in disgrace? Bishops in America have increasingly strayed from Orthodoxy and have used political expediency and Vatican II to justify wreckovations and other forms of watering down doctrine. How many bishops have stood up to pro-“choice” “Catholic” politicians like Kennedy, Pelosi, Biden, McGreevey, Mikulski, Cuomo, Sibelius, etc.?

 

[JReducation]

Why is everyone bashing the bishops? Have you been paying attention to the clergy pederasty coverup scandal? Have any bishops resigned in disgrace? Bishops in America have increasingly strayed from Orthodoxy and have used political expediency and Vatican II to justify wreckovations and other forms of watering down doctrine. How many bishops have stood up to pro-“choice” “Catholic” politicians like Kennedy, Pelosi, Biden, McGreevey, Mikulski, Cuomo, Sibelius, etc.?

The issues that you are putting on the table have nothing to do with the title question of this thread. The bishops have done as much as they can do regarding Notre Dame and Fr. Jenkins. That’s the point that I’m making.

If you want to bash them for what they failed to do that was in their power, that’s one thing. Why is this thread bashing them for what they cannot legally do? It sounds like we suddenly want them to do what the Church herself will not allow them to do.

The local bishop would have liked nothing more than to cancel the invitation. But Church law says that he has no jurisdiction over a university run by religious and a lay board. What do you want him to do?

What do you suggest that the rest of the bishops do, if the law is very clear that they may not involve themselves in the internal affairs of institutions that are not owned by the Church?

The most they can do is voice their position. They have done that. Any further suggestions that are in keeping with canon law and the wishes of the Pope?

Fraternally,

JR

 

[John_Higgins]

What really happened was that a bunch of pro-lifers saw the opportunity to get a national stage for their cause. Randall Terry said as much. A minority of the graduates, parents, and alumni were involved in the protests. However valid the cause, the university belongs to its constituent groups, not people who flew or drove in from all over the country to advance their cause (Terry) or add to their 15 minutes of fame (Keyes).

If someone is wrong, dead wrong, demonizing him seldom works. He/she will never talk to you. Very few would say to themselves, “He just called me a baby murderer, maybe I am.” Vilify people, that’s very Christian. How 'bout prayer?

John

 

[bookgirl32]

Why is everyone bashing the bishops and dancing around the core obstacles?

1. The bishops have no authority over a university that does not belong to the Catholic Church.
2. The bishops have no authority over Fr. Jenkins. He is a member of a Congregation of Pontifical Right.
3. The Holy Father has all the authority over Fr. Jenkins, but has appealed to the principle of subsidiarity. Therefore, the major superior has to deal with it.
4. The major superior has a legal contract with the university to keep Fr. Jenkins as President until the term of the contract is up.
5. The local bishop cannot intervene in the affairs of any religious order that does not work for him.

Why are we getting so emotional and not looking at the legal and canonical facts?

We are speaking about the apostles as if they had to deal with this kind of legal and canonical situation in their time. There were no such laws in their time. In fact, they had less control over the Church than the hierarchy of today. The central government of the Church during the first four centuries as a very weak one. Let’s not rewrite history and imagine a Peter coming to the rescue and excommunicating and punishing everyone. The Church tried all these things during the first four centuries and ended up with a schism, because the primacy of Peter’s chair was called into question by other bishops. At least today, that is no longer a question, nor are there questions about Jesus’ natures or the nature of the Church.

We have to look at the situation from our 21st century viewpoint. There are rules and laws that are involved here and they are not easy to implement unless the Holy Father becomes personally involved, which is not going to happen. Pope Benedict XVI does not involve himself in these situations. He deals in theological and global affairs. These situations he leaves to those who are in the place and time, because they know the laws and the rules. He is not privy to every law regarding contracts and education in every country around the world.

This situation is very difficult for the bishops to naviage. Let’s stop questioning their ability to lead and try to understand that their authority is limited by civil and church law, as well as the rules and constitutions that govern religious orders and religious congregations.

To be a bishop is not to be omnipotent. This is not a fair representation of what they can do. Some posts on this thread make them sound as if they are indifferent. I’m wondering if we are knowledgeable about the rules and the civil laws that are involved here and how the bishops must proceed without incurring trouble in the courts or at the Vatican.

The Vatican is not going to allow them to bully a religious who is protected by Pontifical Rights. That would establish a presedent that bishops can go over the head of the pope and have the power to intervene with groups that the papacy has protected by giving them these rights.

We have to let the system work. The Holy Cross Brothers have to solve this problem. If they cannot, then they can apply to the Holy Father who will probably direct them to the Sacred Congregation for Religioius Institutes and Societies of Apostolic Life. If the Congregation cannot solve it, then it goes back to the Holy Father.

That’s the process. We Catholics have to live with that process. The Church is too big for the Holy Father to step into every situation that arises.

At this point, the most that the bishops can do is to strip ND of its Catholic label. But that would come at a price. There is a question whether it is fair to the entire Congregation of the Holy Cross and to the students and faculty who have been faithful to the Church.

Let us not demand of our bishops what is not in their power to do. Their primary duty is to lead the laity and the secular clergy, not to lead religious and their institutions. These do not come under the authority of the bishops. The bishops are not being weak. They are being faithful to the limits that the Church places on them.

Fraternally,

JR

Please keep saying this, I don’t think very many are listening to you. Fr. Jenkins was horribly wrong in his actions, no question about that. But Americans want immediate gratification, and we want drama while we’re at it. God doesn’t necessarily work that way, and neither does His Church.

 

[bookgirl32]

What really happened was that a bunch of pro-lifers saw the opportunity to get a national stage for their cause. Randall Terry said as much. A minority of the graduates, parents, and alumni were involved in the protests. However valid the cause, the university belongs to its constituent groups, not people who flew or drove in from all over the country to advance their cause (Terry) or add to their 15 minutes of fame (Keyes).

If someone is wrong, dead wrong, demonizing him seldom works. He/she will never talk to you. Very few would say to themselves, “He just called me a baby murderer, maybe I am.” Vilify people, that’s very Christian. How 'bout prayer?

John

I’m confused, you make it sound as though Terry and Keyes’ cause is not the same pro-life cause as that of the students in the grotto at Notre Dame. I don’t necessarily agree with how they chose to protest, but at least they’re on the right side. The shining examples in the whole situation are the great kids that respectfully stood up for life, whether it was by going to the grotto during commencement or attending their ceremony with the yellow cross and infant feet somewhere on their cap and gowns.

Fr. Jenkins seems to think that anyone who disapproved of his invitation was “vilifying” the president. The villian here is Jenkins himself.

 

[John_Higgins]

Oh, don’t be confused, Bookgirl. My contention is Terry and Keyes are in there for themselves first. If there were no news coverage, neither would be there.

BTW, I graduated from the University of Illinois. There are signs on all public buildings that the University controls what happens on its campus; you have to have business with the University as a student, faculty/staff member or an alumnus. The rules of the University of Notre Dame are not all that unusual.

My point here, is if Dr. Keyes were protesting at Cornell or Harvard, that’s fine. Notre Dame is not his university, nor is it Randall Terry’s. I agree with the students’ and graduates’ rights to express their dismay however they would without breaking the law. Outsiders don’t belong there. Dr. Keyes got arrested on purpose. Fine. Render to Caesar? Guess not. And what did he porve? His presence, and that of the other outsiders, obscured the protest by some graduates and their families.

This just confirmed in more people’s minds that some prolifers are extremists. No good was done.

John

 

[Caesar517]

Please keep saying this, I don’t think very many are listening to you. Fr. Jenkins was horribly wrong in his actions, no question about that. But Americans want immediate gratification, and we want drama while we’re at it. God doesn’t necessarily work that way, and neither does His Church.

Ditto.

Thank you for explaining all of that JR, now I understand the situation.

 

[bookgirl32]

May be very true. I do wish they’d proceeded without the fake blood and strollers. I also wish that the protesting students – the speakers at their rally, etc. – had gotten far more media coverage than they did.

My only disagreement with you is that ND does, in a way, belong to more than just itself as an institution. It does represent the Catholic Church. And even though it is technically not “owned” by the Church or the order that founded it, if it’s going to claim to be Catholic, it’s accepting a responsibility to the Church and all of it’s members that it’s not living up to.

 

[Holly3278]

I hope so. I hope Fr. Jenkins is disciplined somehow for the sake of his soul and I hope that Notre Dame University gets its Catholic title removed until it can learn to act like a true Catholic university.

 

[Joannm]

Those of you who are advocating disassocation of ND with the Catholic Church, do you also advocate taking away Catholic status from those parishes where the pastor might bring in speakers who do not always agree with Catholic teaching, do you advocate revoking the charter of Catholic hospitals who may bring in a doctor for a consult who disagrees with Catholic teaching even though the consult does not relate to that?

This is an issue with the President of the University and the Board yet many here are advocating punishing the entire University for the actions of a few. The University of Notre Dame is VERY Catholic, one only has to spend a few hours there is see how Catholic it is. Those who advocate taking away the name or association with the Catholic Church are advocating a great disservice to the thousands of students, faculty and associated staff of the University. As was stated at the commencement by the Validictorian, Notre Dame is a family (and until you are a member of that family you have no idea what that actually means) and as with all familes there are those we don’t always agree with and those who break our hearts sometimes, but they are still our family and we do not disown them. To stip the Catholic identity of the University because of the actions of its President and Board would be doing just that.

 

[Catholic20064]

I hope everyone here understands that the bishops have no authority over any university except The Catholic University of America and the Josephenum in Chicago, because these are the property of the Church. All other Catholic universities and colleges are run by boards of trustees or by religious congregations, not by the Church. Even the local bishop cannot place Notre Dame under an interdict, because it’s not part of his diocese. It is not a diocesan university. It is a private university that is Catholic. The Brothers of the Holy Cross are not a diocesan congregation. They do not submit to the bishop’s authority unless they work for him. In this case, they work for the Board of Trustees.

The most the bishops can do is to revoke its Catholic charter. But they cannot stop it from doing whatever the Board allows.

As to Fr. Jenkins, the bishops have no authority over him. He is a Holy Cross Brother. The Holy Cross Brothers are a congregation of Pontifical Right. Pontifical Right means exactly what it says. Only the pope has authority over its members.

Pope Benedict chooses to apply the principle of subsidiarity. That is, to allow the major superior to solve the problem. The only solution that the major superior has is to wait for the contract between the Holy Cross Brothers and the university to run out and not allow Fr. Jenkins to be rehired for the presidency, but propose another candidate.

The issue with that is that the Board can reject any candidate that the Holy Cross Brothers propose. They can choose to put a lay person at the head of the university. You never know what you’re going to get. The Holy Cross Brothers no longer own the university. They are employed by it.

We need to do our research when speaking about Catholic education and Catholic hospitals. Most are not owned by the Church or by religious. The Church never owned them. The religious who founded them could not afford to run them. They had to give them over to lay boards and turn them into non-profit corproations or NGOs to get funding from outside sources and government sources.

This is not an easy situation. Pope Benedict rarely intervenes directly in religious communities or secular institutes. Even in the case of the SSPX, he has turned that over to a Vatican Congregation. He prefers to deal with global issues and allow others to deal with specific problems. There is no way that any pope can deal with every specific situation that comes up, especially in a world as large as is today’s world.

The Bishops’ statement regarding honors to pro-abortion individual is not a law. However, it is a position of the Catholic Church in the USA that every Catholic organization should follow. Even when you do not owe the hierarchy obedience under a vow, you do owe them respect because of their position.

Orthodox religious do pay attention to and comply with these positions. In my own community, we have a different situation because our rule and constitution has it that we must obey the bishops. Not all religious constitutions have this clause. Many founders never thought such a clause was needed. They took it for granted that their spiritual sons and daughters would do so. It goes to prove that life doesn’t always go the way we assume it will go.

Fraternally,

JR

I understand what you are saying, but there could have been more Bishops at the ND Response rally yesterday to oppose what Jenkins did with more than just words. They won’t put their bodies on the line for anything. If the 70 Bishops who opposed the ND invitation would have been at Notre Dame yesterday that would have been a real pro-life statement. That would have increased their moral authority.

And these Bishops opened the door wide open in their 2008 statement on the election by saying a Catholic could support a pro-abortion candidate as long as they weren’t supporting that candidate because they were pro-abortion! Let’s get real. The Bishops are not showing any real leadership in the pro-life movement in the U.S. I don’t know if they are afraid of losing their tax exemption or what. What Jenkins did was permissable because the Bishops have thrown away their moral authority.

 

[Dicerning]

I hope everyone here understands that the bishops have no authority over any university except The Catholic University of America and the Josephenum in Chicago, because these are the property of the Church.
The most the bishops can do is to revoke its Catholic charter. But they cannot stop it from doing whatever the Board allows.

The bishops can suspend the sacraments and remove all of the priests from campus AND possible close down the chapels

As to Fr. Jenkins, the bishops have no authority over him. He is a Holy Cross Brother. The Holy Cross Brothers are a congregation of Pontifical Right. Pontifical Right means exactly what it says. Only the pope has authority over its members.

Last time I checked the pope was a bishop. he can be defrocked by rome at the request of the local bishops.

Pope Benedict chooses to apply the principle of subsidiarity. That is, to allow the major superior to solve the problem. The only solution that the major superior has is to wait for the contract between the Holy Cross Brothers and the university to run out and not allow Fr. Jenkins to be rehired for the presidency, but propose another candidate.

The USCCB has LOTS of power over the University. They can request that letters be read to congregations across the country stating the university is no longer Catholic. They can have these letters read until the people in the pews hear it week in and out. Around my area Notre Dame is considered a “bad” place to send you kids. Not nearly as safe as “public” universities. The negative pub Notre Dame gets is very damaging.

This is not an easy situation. Pope Benedict rarely intervenes directly in religious communities or secular institutes. Even in the case of the SSPX, he has turned that over to a Vatican Congregation.

And what if he dicideds to delegate the enforcing power over the Holy Cross Brothers to the USCCB?JR

 

[bkovacs]

You know it’s funny, not really, only an expression. But when I watched the CNN broadcast of the speech. There was two commentators, one was Raymond Arroyo, of EWTN. and the other was a Jesuit priest. It seemed to me that although the Jesuit priest said he was pro-life and all that, he didn’t seem to care to much for the views of what Raymond Arroyo was putting forth. Sure I agreed with one of the things that the Jesuit priest said, that there is more to the problems in the world than just the abortion issue. But this priest seemed to be more in agreement with CNN than EWTN, and the Pope. It was like he thought that every issue we have in the church is still up for debate. Just my observation. Did any else get this feeling if you watched the CNN broadcast?.

As for Fr Jenkins. Well I guess he just got a “get out of jail free card” according to JR. Not much can be done to him!.

I would also like to say that if this priest can get away with what happened, because of “church” law, than I implore everyone to stop attacking the SSPX, and their views. Look at the facts. While Fr Jenkins cares more about his own reputation, with the President of the USA, and Notre Dame. He did seem to be enjoying the spotlight!. There in jail somewhere, while Fr Jenkins enjoys the spotlight, is a 80 some year old Catholic priest, who was doing nothing more than defending a Catholic position on life. And look at the SSPX, with their rosary crusades. Where they thrown into jail for walking on Vatican property. No!!. Ponder all this!!.

 

[idrum677]

It seemed to me that although the Jesuit priest said he was pro-life and all that, he didn’t seem to care to much for the views of what Raymond Arroyo was putting forth. Sure I agreed with one of the things that the Jesuit priest said, that there is more to the problems in the world than just the abortion issue. But this priest seemed to be more in agreement with CNN than EWTN, and the Pope. It was like he thought that every issue we have in the church is still up for debate. Just my observation. Did any else get this feeling if you watched the CNN broadcast?.

I didn’t see CNN but if anyone saw the priest that Sean Hannity had on Fox last night, you might of thought he was part of Obama’s PR staff the way he was talking about him.

Also, I saw Fr Jenkins remarks and how he was gushing about how wonderful Obama is. It was sickening.

 

[Fitz]

I didn’t see CNN but if anyone saw the priest that Sean Hannity had on Fox last night, you might of thought he was part of Obama’s PR staff the way he was talking about him.

Also, I saw Fr Jenkins remarks and how he was gushing about how wonderful Obama is. It was sickening.

I don’t remember the priests name with Sean, but Sean came off as the more conservative one in this and that is not usually the case. Sean is often the liberal Catholic! The priest was an apologist for Obama for sure. It was embarrassing.

 

[irishpatrick]

The bishops can suspend the sacraments and remove all of the priests from campus AND possible close down the chapels

Last time I checked the pope was a bishop. he can be defrocked by rome at the request of the local bishops.
The USCCB has LOTS of power over the University. They can request that letters be read to congregations across the country stating the university is no longer Catholic. They can have these letters read until the people in the pews hear it week in and out. Around my area Notre Dame is considered a “bad” place to send you kids. Not nearly as safe as “public” universities. The negative pub Notre Dame gets is very damaging.

And what if he dicideds to delegate the enforcing power over the Holy Cross Brothers to the USCCB?JR

What message does it send to Catholic laity that these sorts of things continue to go at so-called Catholics institutions without there seeming to any consequence whatsoever?