Fr. Jonathan Morris on ND scandal

[mapleoak]

Yes, I support ND’s decision. Obama is the President and not a Catholic so I don’t think it’s a scandal.

A scandal is that which leads others into error. Notre Dame honoring the president implicitly sanctions his erroneous beliefs before the world. Therefore ND’s invitation to the President is scandalous.

 

[diggerdomer]

A scandal is that which leads others into error. Notre Dame honoring the president implicitly sanctions his erroneous beliefs before the world. Therefore ND’s invitation to the President is scandalous.

Key word: implicitly.

Meaning, that’s your subjective judgment. Which is fine. And which many share.

Others’ subjective judgment is that it doesn’t cause scandal. Also fine.

Alleluia.

 

[estesbob]

Key word: implicitly.

Meaning, that’s your subjective judgment. Which is fine. And which many share.

Others’ subjective judgment is that it doesn’t cause scandal. Also fine.

Alleluia.

Unless one cares abut the tecahings of the catholic Church at which point A CATHOLIC should be concerned about Fr Jenkins rejection of a clear statement from the USCCB about NOT honoring pro-abortion politians AND the slap in the face ot those Catholics who followed the teachings of the Church and did not vote for President Obama. Fr Jenkins has , in effect, tacitly approved of those Catholics who rejected Catholic teaching in favor of their politics.

 

[Corki]

While I agree that the bishops stated their position clearly, I do think they should state it again. It isn’t that they were unclear, but it seems that we always need a constant reminder. I’m guilty of this, but it seems that when the bishops are apparently quiet, many seem to think this means they have no opinion and so it is okay to be on either side of the issue. This speaks more to our (referring to the majority of Catholics) lack of formation than to any ambiguity on their part, but it is precisely because of our lack of formation that a statement should be issued. Just my opinion.

The USCCB as a body meets twice a year. I don’t think you could get anything that was official from the USCCB as a body until thier next meeting, which is, I think, in June. I wouldn’t be at all surprized if they beef up the 2004 statement at that time. Until then, pointing dissedents to the 2004 statement should be sufficient, but some chose not to listen or to care.vv

 

[catharina]

The USCCB as a body meets twice a year. I don’t think you could get anything that was official from the USCCB as a body until thier next meeting, which is, I think, in June. I wouldn’t be at all surprized if they beef up the 2004 statement at that time. Until then, pointing dissedents to the 2004 statement should be sufficient, but some chose not to listen or to care.

Exactly.
The action of Fr. Jenkins is a rejection of the teachings of the Church, via the Bishops.
I doubt that Our Lord or His mother “exempt” ND from obedience in this matter.

Happy Easter to all.
How sad this Obama-event at ND is planned at all.

 

[estesbob]

The USCCB as a body meets twice a year. I don’t think you could get anything that was official from the USCCB as a body until thier next meeting, which is, I think, in June. I wouldn’t be at all surprized if they beef up the 2004 statement at that time. Until then, pointing dissedents to the 2004 statement should be sufficient, but some chose not to listen or to care.vv

Its the same people who chose not listen to the numerous statements from the Bishops and the Pope himslef about not voting for pro-abortion caniodates that are now ignoring the 1994 statement of the USCBB. When politics trumps faith anything goes.

 

[JReducation]

I could be totally wrong on this, so don’t take it to the bank. If ND had asked the President to give the commencement address, the bishops would not have been upset. The fact that they are honoring him with a degree is the hot spot.

You may not honor those who stand in opposition to the faith and morals of the Church.

Man presidents have spoken at ND and not all of them are Catholic or in full communion with Catholic teaching. But they don’t go up to the podium to campaign for their political agendas. They are there to speak to the students on a very special occasion marking another point of transition in their lives. There is nothing wrong in that.

When you honor someone, then you run into trouble. Because an honor such as a degree in some area, is a statement of endorsement. In this case, an honorary degree in law, implies that the university finds President Obabama qualifies to practice law in this country. Any person who promotes the destruction of human life disqualifies himself from practicing law. Law is based on justice and inalienable human right and the protection thereof. Thats’ the glitch here.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[catharina]

I could be totally wrong on this, so don’t take it to the bank. If ND had asked the President to give the commencement address, the bishops would not have been upset. The fact that they are honoring him with a degree is the hot spot.

You may not honor those who stand in opposition to the faith and morals of the Church.

…

When you honor someone, then you run into trouble. Because an honor such as a degree in some area, is a statement of endorsement. In this case, an honorary degree in law, implies that the university finds President Obabama qualifies to practice law in this country. Any person who promotes the destruction of human life disqualifies himself from practicing law. Law is based on justice and inalienable human right and the protection thereof. Thats’ the glitch here.

Fraternally,

JR

Agree that the honor is the failing point.
One (in the Church) does not honor another whose values are anti-life.
This presentation of an honorary law degree should never have been considered.
How horribly sad that ND is dishonoring itself and the Church by honring this other.

JR, Good to see you. A very holy Easter to you! Feel well!

 

[estesbob]

I could be totally wrong on this, so don’t take it to the bank. If ND had asked the President to give the commencement address, the bishops would not have been upset. The fact that they are honoring him with a degree is the hot spot.

The honor is the problem. in fact inviting him top speak but not giving him an honorary degree would havesent the message that the University respects his right to speak BUT does not respect his views.

 

[catharina]

The honor is the problem. in fact inviting him top speak but not giving him an honorary degree would havesent the message that the University respects his right to speak BUT does not respect his views.

Inviting him to speak in the name of academic freedom? Yes, ND could sell that.
To HONOR him with a degree? Horribly offensive to ND itself and to the Church at lage.

 

[estesbob]

Inviting him to speak in the name of academic freedom? Yes, ND could sell that.
To HONOR him with a degree? Horribly offensive to ND itself and to the Church at lage.

Agreed.

 

[JReducation]

Agreed.

I stand with everyone else. The honoring is the glitch, not the speaking to the graduating class. At my graduation, many many years ago, from a Catholic university, Helen Keller spoke. It was the year before she died. She was not a Catholic nor was she there to promote Catholic education. She spoke about the rights of all human beings to an education and she encouraged the graduates to continue the struggle for that right.

It was inspiring and very consistent with her life’s work and the reason that the university was founded, to give Catholics the opportunity to higher education. But we did not give her an honorary degree in theology or any other honorary degree. She was also very pro birth control and socialism and other isms. But her work in the field of human right to education was inspiring and that was consistent with the existence of the university. The focus was on what we had in common, the right to be educated.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[MDK]

I stand with everyone else. The honoring is the glitch, not the speaking to the graduating class. At my graduation, many many years ago, from a Catholic university, Helen Keller spoke. It was the year before she died. She was not a Catholic nor was she there to promote Catholic education. She spoke about the rights of all human beings to an education and she encouraged the graduates to continue the struggle for that right.

It was inspiring and very consistent with her life’s work and the reason that the university was founded, to give Catholics the opportunity to higher education. But we did not give her an honorary degree in theology or any other honorary degree. She was also very pro birth control and socialism and other isms. But her work in the field of human right to education was inspiring and that was consistent with the existence of the university. The focus was on what we had in common, the right to be educated.

Fraternally,

JR

It is both, giving an ardent and committed pro-Abortion politician the platform, and giving him an honorary degree. They are both a problem. Let’s please hoose to stand with and respect the Bishops’ guidance on this kind of thing.

 

[jenkiedad]

I noticed that nobody seems to have mentioned that Father Jenkins has replied to this controversy and said that the USCCB 2004 document only applied to Catholics, based on the heading of the paragraph where the prohibition occured. Since President Obama is NOT a Catholic, then it is OK to give him an honor. Father Jenkins has also said that he had consulted with canon lawyers who had confirmed this interpreetation.

So, once again the USCCB has shown how ponderous it can be. Even the USCCB voter guide provides so much cover in the form of “gray area” that any Catholic could, in good conscience, completely defend their support for a pro-abortionist, pro embryonic stem cell research, pro “let the botched abortion babies die” presidential candidate. They do this by pointing out the “social justice” provisions of that candidate; and one cancels the other. . .

My honest (and personal) opinion is that the Bishop’s Organization (aka USCCB) needs to get some backbone and issue clear guidance and quick responses to these issues, not a multi-page statement that requires a post doctoral degree to fully understand. Say it in 2 or 3 sentences, and DO IT NOW!. The news media LIVES by the SOUND BITE.

• If Fr Jenkins points out some technicality, then the USCCB should come out and state that Fr. Jenkins is WRONG now and not wait until after the event takes place.
• If Nancy Pelosi speaks as an expert on Catholic Teaching on a Sunday morning (Meet the Press), then the USCCB should have a solid, unequivocal response within 4 hours, and not the 48 hours that it took to provide any kind of response.

The issuance of a statement from an individual bishop, a bishop including a response in a sermon, etc. doesn’t count. The mainstream media won’t cover that.

The USCCB needs to hold a press conference and state their position! What is their response for the ND controversy and Fr Jenkins’s response? I’m STILL WAITING.

 

[MDK]

I noticed that nobody seems to have mentioned that Father Jenkins has replied to this controversy and said that the USCCB 2004 document only applied to Catholics, based on the heading of the paragraph where the prohibition occured. Since President Obama is NOT a Catholic, then it is OK to give him an honor. Father Jenkins has also said that he had consulted with canon lawyers who had confirmed this interpreetation.

So, once again the USCCB has shown how ponderous it can be. Even the USCCB voter guide provides so much cover in the form of “gray area” that any Catholic could, in good conscience, completely defend their support for a pro-abortionist, pro embryonic stem cell research, pro “let the botched abortion babies die” presidential candidate. They do this by pointing out the “social justice” provisions of that candidate; and one cancels the other. . .

My honest (and personal) opinion is that the Bishop’s Organization (aka USCCB) needs to get some backbone and issue clear guidance and quick responses to these issues, not a multi-page statement that requires a post doctoral degree to fully understand. Say it in 2 or 3 sentences, and DO IT NOW!. The news media LIVES by the SOUND BITE.

• If Fr Jenkins points out some technicality, then the USCCB should come out and state that Fr. Jenkins is WRONG now and not wait until after the event takes place.
• If Nancy Pelosi speaks as an expert on Catholic Teaching on a Sunday morning (Meet the Press), then the USCCB should have a solid, unequivocal response within 4 hours, and not the 48 hours that it took to provide any kind of response.

The issuance of a statement from an individual bishop, a bishop including a response in a sermon, etc. doesn’t count. The mainstream media won’t cover that.

The USCCB needs to hold a press conference and state their position! What is their response for the ND controversy and Fr Jenkins’s response? I’m STILL WAITING.

Fr. Jenkins is certainly using a weasel tactic. Yes, the Bishops should clarify the intent here and do it sooner than later, and do it publicly. The Bishops who have spoken out about this issue, have not allowed for this weasel-like interpretation. Cardinal DiNardo pointed directly to the Bishops’ guidelines against letting someone like 0bama speak at a Catholic platform like Notre Dame, and his message was clear in that the intent was to stop just this sort of thing from occurring.

 

[jenkiedad]

The issuance of a statement from an individual bishop, a bishop including a response in a sermon, etc. doesn’t count. The mainstream media won’t cover that.

The USCCB needs to hold a press conference and state their position! What is their response for the ND controversy and Fr Jenkins’s response? I’m STILL WAITING.

MDK: Thanks for the “reassurance”, but my original quoted statement above still stands. Oh by the way, and not to rub your face in it, what mainstream media covered these individual statements?

 

[MDK]

MDK: Thanks for the “reassurance”, but my original quoted statement above still stands. Oh by the way, and not to rub your face in it, what mainstream media covered these individual statements?

That Cardinal DiNardo said what he did was intended for us Catholics to understand that he believed the intent was that it applied to 0bama… no weasel room. Although he is a good faithful shepherd, it wasn’t meant as a replacement for a public and forceful statement from the USCCB addressing Fr. Jenkins’ impersonation of a weasel by using a loophole. That is needed, and much desired. I’d appreciate seeing them stand up collectively and showing some backbone in the face of this.

My statement “the Bishops should clarify the intent here and do it sooner than later, and do it publicly” provides a good synopsis of my post. How would that imply that I thought your post was wrong or “didn’t stand”?

 

[jenkiedad]

How would that imply that I thought your post was wrong or “didn’t stand”?

MDK: Your post is fine, and yes, it does provide some comfort to Catholics (that pay attention to these things), but it doesn’t meet my sincere hope that the USCCB gets up enough gumption to respond to these issues in a forceful and clear (and timely) manner.

 

[MDK]

MDK: Your post is fine, and yes, it does provide some comfort to Catholics (that pay attention to these things), but it doesn’t meet my sincere hope that the USCCB gets up enough gumption to respond to these issues in a forceful and clear manner.

Those who are reading this thread, are more likely to be among Catholics paying attention to these things. Obviously, we want more Catholics being faithful to the teachings and paying attention. I appreciate Cardinal DiNardo very much, and his statement should provide a peek behind what a Cardinal thinks of the intent of the USCCB guidance, and that Fr. Jenkins is not in compliance with the intent. Many of us would also like to see the USCCB stand up and firmly state opposition. Our prayers for the USCCB may help.

 

[jenkiedad]

Unfortunately, none of our posts could meet the hope for the USCCB displaying some backbone on this. Our prayers for them may help, though.

MDK: I pray as well, but I’m just a poor lay person. I also realize the bishops don’t have a monopoly on prayer, but they’re the ones the Holy Father picked because of their moral clarity and leadership. (I was hoping that they would be some of the ones to pray for me!)

I guess another side of me is realistic about this and I can appreciate how the Church bureaucracy and various diplomatic nuances of their positions can affect any little decision or call to action. But this should not be so when truly important issues like this come up.