Fr. Jenkins of ND - on the board of a pro-abortion group!

[nodito]

You are defending the indefensible.

Where did my logic fail? I clearly don’t think it’s indefensible or I wouldn’t have been defending it. Show me where my reasoning is off.

Their own handbook states a mission to facilitate abortions!

Here is what our government has said with respect to embryonic stem cell research, abortion, and your tax dollars:
President Obama:

Today, with the Executive Order I am about to sign, we will bring the change that so many scientists and researchers; doctors and innovators; patients and loved ones have hoped for, and fought for, these past eight years: we will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research. We will vigorously support scientists who pursue this research. And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield.

President Obama:

The August 1984 announcement by President Reagan of what has become known as the “Mexico City Policy” directed the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to expand this limitation and withhold USAID funds from NGOs that use non-USAID funds to engage in a wide range of activities, including providing advice, counseling, or information regarding abortion, or lobbying a foreign government to legalize or make abortion available. These excessively broad conditions on grants and assistance awards are unwarranted. Moreover, they have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning programs in foreign nations. Accordingly, I hereby revoke the Presidential memorandum of January 22, 2001

Would it be fair to say that the American government’s own memorandums state a mission to faciliate abortion and embryonic stem cell research? If so, how could any Catholic legitimately participate in political life?

As I stated above, what if one of their preferred methods to end hunger and poverty was to advocate extermination of African Jews under the heading of “population control”? Okay or not okay to sit on that board?

No, I wouldn’t think a priest should sit on that board. I think the decision to sit on any board ought to be carefully considered, and that all things demand prudence. I think it’s possible to consider the balance of your efforts and the organization’s goals. If the organization’s primary mission or methods involves promoting abortion or contraception (like, for example, Planned Parenthood or your neo-nazi example), it may be wrong for a person to participate in it, because from the get go, the objectives are so completely out of line with Catholic social teaching. But on the other hand, we have a lot of institutions in the United States that do good and were designed to do good through good means, even though they also participate in evil. Our government is one of them. The CDC, NIH, American Cancer Society, etc. are others. Catholics may never participate in evil, but they can legitimately work for organizations like these, even though the organizations themselves participate in evil.

The analogy of American citizenship and legalized abortion is off the mark. Patriotism is meritorious and obliges the citizen to fight for basic human rights. Volunteering to sit on the board of a (sic) charitable organization that advocates intrinsic evil is indefensible.

How is the analogy “off the mark”? Explain to me why patriotism justifies working with a government that faciliates abortion but a desire for social justice doesn’t justify the decision to work with an organization that does the same?

Since Father Jenkins has not taken advantage of this position to advocate against their mission to facilitate abortions, his silence can only be interpreted as consent.

To be fair, how do you know that Fr. Jenkins has not taken advantage of this position to advocate against their mission to facilitate abortions? How do you know that he is silent on the issue?
God bless.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Where did my logic fail? I clearly don’t think it’s indefensible or I wouldn’t have been defending it. Show me where my reasoning is off.

Here is what our government has said with respect to embryonic stem cell research, abortion, and your tax dollars:

Would it be fair to say that the American government’s own memorandums state a mission to faciliate abortion and embryonic stem cell research? If so, how could any Catholic legitimately participate in political life?

No, I wouldn’t think a priest should sit on that board. I think the decision to sit on any board ought to be carefully considered, and that all things demand prudence. I think it’s possible to consider the balance of your efforts and the organization’s goals. If the organization’s primary mission or methods involves promoting abortion or contraception (like, for example, Planned Parenthood or your neo-nazi example), it may be wrong for a person to participate in it, because from the get go, the objectives are so completely out of line with Catholic social teaching. But on the other hand, we have a lot of institutions in the United States that do good and were designed to do good through good means, even though they also participate in evil. Our government is one of them. The CDC, NIH, American Cancer Society, etc. are others. Catholics may never participate in evil, but they can legitimately work for organizations like these, even though the organizations themselves participate in evil.

How is the analogy “off the mark”? Explain to me why patriotism justifies working with a government that faciliates abortion but a desire for social justice doesn’t justify the decision to work with an organization that does the same?

To be fair, how do you know that Fr. Jenkins has not taken advantage of this position to advocate against their mission to facilitate abortions? How do you know that he is silent on the issue?
God bless.

I believe I’ve accurated conveyed the Church’s position and it is up to you to choose to comply or to continue with your current convictions.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[BillP]

I believe I’ve accurated conveyed the Church’s position and it is up to you to choose to comply or to continue with your current convictions.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

Well, Mike, I think the Church might disagree that you’ve accurately represented her position, but don’t let that stop you from blathering on.

 

[lizaanne]

Well, Mike, I think the Church might disagree that you’ve accurately represented her position, but don’t let that stop you from blathering on.

Where exactly do you feel that he has been less than accurate? I think he has done a very good job of stating the Church’s position.

~Liza

 

[wanner47]

If Fr. Jenkins wishes to be part of an organization that fights poverty, then he should join a faithful Catholic one or start his own. At the VERY least he should insist that the organization ad a disclaimer to the problematic portions of the site stating his opposition.

But really, by giving his time and talent to an organization that supports abortion and contraception, he is helping to promote them, even if unintentionally or indirectly.

 

[nodito]

I believe I’ve accurated conveyed the Church’s position and it is up to you to choose to comply or to continue with your current convictions.

With all due respect, Mike, you’ve told me that abortion is wrong (I agree), that Catholics must never support abortion (I agree), and that the life issues must never be subordinate to other issues (I agree). What you have failed to demonstrate is whether a Catholic may hold a position of importance in an organization that also promotes contraception or abortion and whether this would constitute formal cooperation with evil. I believe that it can but that it doesn’t neccessarily, and I’ve used the US government as an analogy. Show me that being on the board of directors constitutes formal cooperation with evil and I’ll believe you.

 

[lizaanne]

What you have failed to demonstrate is whether a Catholic may hold a position of importance in an organization that also promotes contraception or abortion and whether this would constitute formal cooperation with evil.

I can’t believe that you even have to entertain such a consideration and think it could ever remotely be ok!!!

Honestly - read your sentence again. How could that EVER be ok for ANY Catholic???



~Liza

 

[nodito]

I can’t believe that you even have to entertain such a consideration and think it could ever remotely be ok!!!

Honestly - read your sentence again. How could that EVER be ok for ANY Catholic???

~Liza

Liza, would it be okay for a Catholic to run for president or hold a public office in the United States? Could a Catholic morally accept a job at the Centers for Disease Control or at the American Cancer Society? Could a Catholic sit on the board of trustees at a public university?

These are organizations that do formally support abortion and/or contraception. But I maintain that working with or for these organizations does not necessarily indicate support for abortion or contraception or suggest formal cooperation with evil.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Well, Mike, I think the Church might disagree that you’ve accurately represented her position, but don’t let that stop you from blathering on.

Hey Bill thanks for the comment. I notice that you offered nothing more than an unsubstantiated criticism, I guess I might ask you, “where’s the beef”?

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Liza, would it be okay for a Catholic to run for president or hold a public office in the United States? Could a Catholic morally accept a job at the Centers for Disease Control or at the American Cancer Society? Could a Catholic sit on the board of trustees at a public university?

These are organizations that do formally support abortion and/or contraception. But I maintain that working with or for these organizations does not necessarily indicate support for abortion or contraception or suggest formal cooperation with evil.

Take a breath…it isn’t working for these organizations that is the problem it is supporting their policies that is the problem.

Please don’t compare Joe Dokes that works as a computer analyst at the CDC with Fr. Jenkins who is a high profile Catholic priest because that dog don’t hunt. Fr. Jenkins presence in an organization like Millennium Promise is a scandle all by itself.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

With all due respect, Mike, you’ve told me that abortion is wrong (I agree), that Catholics must never support abortion (I agree), and that the life issues must never be subordinate to other issues (I agree). What you have failed to demonstrate is whether a Catholic may hold a position of importance in an organization that also promotes contraception or abortion and whether this would constitute formal cooperation with evil. I believe that it can but that it doesn’t neccessarily, and I’ve used the US government as an analogy. Show me that being on the board of directors constitutes formal cooperation with evil and I’ll believe you.

No one can convice you because you don’t have the basic understanding of Catholic theology in this regard. You should try and do some research before you make these kind of statements. You don’t have to square you views with me…you need to square them with the Church.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[TheresaLS]

Unfortunately there are many clergy and religious that belong, sit on boards, or support this type of group. Many of these groups, on the surface, promote social justice issues, but give voice to issues such as woman ordination, optional celibacy, the questioning of papal infallibility. Very little is done to curb these groups because many are “quietly” supported and protected by our bishops.

 

[nodito]

Take a breath…it isn’t working for these organizations that is the problem it is supporting their policies that is the problem.

Again, what I’m unconvinced of, and what you’ve failed to demonstrate, is how being on the board of directors (or holding any important position in an organization) necessarily shows support for all of the organization’s policies.

Please don’t compare Joe Dokes that works as a computer analyst at the CDC with Fr. Jenkins who is a high profile Catholic priest because that dog don’t hunt. Fr. Jenkins presence in an organization like Millennium Promise is a scandle all by itself.

Okay, so let’s not compare Joe Dokes and Fr. Jenkins. Let’s only consider high-profile Catholics in high-profile positions. Could a faithful Catholic run for president? Direct the National Center of Birth Defects (in the CDC)? Be on the board of directors for a large public university? Why or why not?

 

[nodito]

"nodito:

Show me that being on the board of directors constitutes formal cooperation with evil and I’ll believe you.

No one can convice you because you don’t have the basic understanding of Catholic theology in this regard.

No one has tried to convince me. I’ve seen a lot of knee jerk reactions (“that seems wrong, so it must be”) and a lot of basic statements regarding the importance of life issues. So far no one has explained to me why being on the board of directors demonstrates support for all of the organization’s policies or even why it’s okay for Catholics to hold public office but not okay for Jenkins to hold an office in the Millenium Promise. I think the two are comparable. If you don’t, explain to me why.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Again, what I’m unconvinced of, and what you’ve failed to demonstrate, is how being on the board of directors (or holding any important position in an organization) necessarily shows support for all of the organization’s policies.

Okay, so let’s not compare Joe Dokes and Fr. Jenkins. Let’s only consider high-profile Catholics in high-profile positions. Could a faithful Catholic run for president? Direct the National Center of Birth Defects (in the CDC)? Be on the board of directors for a large public university? Why or why not?/QUOTE

We are going in circles…you should talk about this with a priest to help you understand this issue.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[lizaanne]

Unfortunately there are many clergy and religious that belong, sit on boards, or support this type of group. Many of these groups, on the surface, promote social justice issues, but give voice to issues such as woman ordination, optional celibacy, the questioning of papal infallibility. Very little is done to curb these groups because many are “quietly” supported and protected by our bishops.

So are you trying to say that this is ok? Just because it is “quietly supported and protected by our bishops” as you claim (I don’t believe they are all doing this), does this make it acceptable?

I think not.

~Liza

 

[Iowa_Mike]

So are you trying to say that this is ok? Just because it is “quietly supported and protected by our bishops” as you claim (I don’t believe they are all doing this), does this make it acceptable?

I think not.

~Liza

Stick to tour guns because you are right! The road to help is paved with the heads of bishops.

God bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[TheresaLS]

lizanne,
Of couse it is not right and the fact that Father Jenkins is doing what is doing is proof. There is a group of priests in my area that are very vocal, openly support many issues such as woman celibacy, optional celibacy and the bishop has accepted their presence. No, it is not right but when laity attempts to bring these things to light they are told to “settle” by not only the heirarcy but by their fellow laity.

 

[RobbyS]

Mike, you keep restating that which I agree with. I agree that Catholic politicians must not vote in favor of abortion, embryonic stem cell research and the like. I agree that ending poverty and racism are not more important than ending abortion, and must not be subordinate to them. What I’m arguing is that a Catholic who acts on the board of directors of an organization is not personally responsible for all the decisions that the organization makes.

You have said that Catholics can engage in politics, hold office, etc. so long as they always act in conformance with Church teaching. I agree. Furthermore, I’d argue that a Catholic engaging in politics is not responsible for decisions that his government makes when he himself opposes them and votes against them. Herein lies the crux of our dispute.

Consider this. The United States Senate is responsible for reviewing bills and providing oversight for the executive office. It is comprised of two senators from each state, each person represents different views, goals, ideology, etc. Let’s say a bill comes up for vote: Should the US use federal money to pay for condoms to be distributed in public schools? The Senators debate. A vote is taken. 99 to 1. The vote in overwhelmingly in favor of using money to promote condom usage. The one Catholic politician, however, voted according to his informed conscience. He voted no. He even tried to dissuade his colleagues, though unsuccessful. Is he responsible when the bill is passed and federal money is spent promoting condom use to teenagers? No. Would it be better if he were to resign from the body, an organization that now formally supports contraception? No. On the contrary, I think we need more faithful Catholic politicians in the Senate. How else will things change?

The Board of Directors is a body of individuals charged with ensuring the financial health of an organization and advising on key issues. As a board member, Jenkins has one voice and one vote. The other twenty six board members, likewise. If the board members were to convene and vote on an issue such as “should we promote condom usage in India?” then Jenkins would only be responsible for the organization’s decision to do so if he himself voted in favor of or showed support for the proposition in any way. Now I have no idea how Jenkins votes or debates in these board meetings, but I think it’s reasonable, and certainly more charitable, to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he’s being faithful to Catholic teaching.

God bless.

One must give the benefit of the doubt if all we knew was what you have laid out. But his decision to invite a notoriously pro abortion President to speak at Notre Dame and to honor him suggests that he has been more influenced than influencing. In other words, he has been morally compromised. That he is a priest makes his membership problematical unless he is there as a delegate appointed by the Church.