Fr. Jonathan Morris on ND scandal

[MDK]

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.

Yes, all Catholics must pray. The clergy need our prayers too. The first time I met Cardinal DiNardo, he asked me and my wife to pray for him. This is part of our duty as lay Catholics, to pray for our Bishops and priests. They need our prayers to effectively do their duties in the service of God and His Church.

 

[elts1956]

Of course you already know, but the president of the USCCB (Cardinal Francis George) said:

“That conversation will continue … whether or not it will have some kind of consequence that will bring, I think, the University of Notre Dame to its [the USCCB’s] understanding of what it means to be Catholic,” said the Cardinal. "That is, when you’re Catholic, everything you do changes the life of everybody else who calls himself a personal Catholic - it’s a network of relationships.

“So quite apart from the president’s own positions, which are well known, the problem is in that you have a Catholic university - the flagship Catholic university - do something that brought extreme embarrassment to many, many people who are Catholic,” said the cardinal.

“So whatever else is clear, it is clear that Notre Dame didn’t understand what it means to be Catholic when they issued this invitation, and didn’t anticipate the kind of uproar that would be consequent to the decision, at least not to the extent that it has happened,” said George.

I, personally, would be happier if our Bishops replaced “embarrassment/ed” with the description SCANDAL. “Embarrassed, golly gee” that’s a really strong description.

 

[elts1956]

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.

Ahh, tolerance. Makes the world go round, a bit off center, but around. What about saying explicitly instead of implicitly? Does that make the statement less subjective, but then I don’t know if I trust what you are saying.

 

[elts1956]

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.

Sadly, he isn’t the only one, either. The Land O’ Lakes Statement was signed by presidents and other executive administrators from Georgetown, Seton Hall, Boston College, Catholic University of America, Fordham, and Saint Louis University.

Two guesses as to who will be speaking at the Georgetown 2009 commencement.

 

[elts1956]

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.

I agree. The USCCB statement, especially of 2008, leads anyone who is without a SOLID Catholic understanding of absolutes in dealing with the hierarchy of values, down a very complex path. So much misunderstanding of that document and what it “supposedly” said.

 

[elts1956]

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.

Agreed.

Inviting “that man” to a Catholic campus for “any” reason makes me want to puke, (regurgitate) Sorry to be so graphic. :blushing:

 

[JReducation]

Everyone wants a response from the USCCB, but does everyone realize that the USCCB and the local bishop have no jurisdiction over any religious order, religious congregation or secular order?

All of these institutes respond directly to the Holy Father. Their only tie to the bishops is when they work for them in diocesan ministries. The best that the bishops can do is to make a statement, which they have and to ask the university and the Religious of the Holy Cross to take a look at this problem.

Even the Religious of the Holy Cross have no jurisdiction over Notre Dame. They do not own it. They are employed by the university. One of the conditions for private univerities receiving federal student aid and federal research grants wass that the they be owned by private non-profit organizations. This forced religious communities to surrender legal ownership of their universities to boards of trustees. In many case the religious still own the property, but not the instituion. It’s like owning a mall. You own the mall, but not the businesses on your property.

Even if the bishop used words like scandal instead of embarrassment, that would not give them more authority over the university. Since the decision was made by Fr. Jenkins and the university administration, we can’t hold the entire congregation of the Religious of the Holy Cross hostage for this. The best they can do is to transfer Fr. Jenkins when his contract is ended. They do have the authority to refuse to renew the contract or allow him to renew the contract. They do not have the authority to appoint another president to the university. The president is appointed by the board of trustees. The next one can be a lay man rather than a Religioius of the Holy Cross, who have traditionally run the university.

Legally, this is a complicated situation where everyone who has any authority has to think very carefully of the consequences of their choices. They must respond to the immediate crisis, but also protect the future of the university and the Religious of the Holy Cross and their affiliation with the university. I doubt that it will happen, but the Board has the authority to ask them to leave. That would not help things. That would create another issue.

I feel sorry for those in positions of authority here, because there are too many fragile eggs in this basket. I just wish that Fr. Jenkins had thought about these things before he acted or agree with those around him to issue this invitation. We have only heard from Fr. Jenkins, because he is the sitting president of the university. But it is interesting that no one on the Board of Trustees has stepped up to the plate and taken responsibility for a decision that is an administrative one, not a unilateral one of the president of the university. These decisions never are unilateral. I’ve work in several universities and have never seen it work that way. There are other voices and votes involved in the planning of graduations and invitation of speakers. Those around Fr. Jenkins are sitting quietly letting him take the heat. That’s not fair either.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[diggerdomer]

But it is interesting that no one on the Board of Trustees has stepped up to the plate and taken responsibility for a decision that is an administrative one, not a unilateral one of the president of the university.

Wow. Thank you for your thoughtful and well-informed post. I appreciate it (and not only because such postings are so rare on this topic).

Regarding the part I quoted above, I wonder if it might be fair to conclude that the Trustees agree with the decision? So many people are horribly singling out Fr. Jenkins and calling him such terrible names. Whatever faults he may have he does not deserve that, and I think your post alerts us to the fact that there are many who agree with him, so it’s completely unfair (not to mention uncharitable) to vilify him the way many have.

Thank you, again, for a rare example of wisdom and intelligence.

 

[JReducation]

Wow. Thank you for your thoughtful and well-informed post. I appreciate it (and not only because such postings are so rare on this topic).

Regarding the part I quoted above, I wonder if it might be fair to conclude that the Trustees agree with the decision? So many people are horribly singling out Fr. Jenkins and calling him such terrible names. Whatever faults he may have he does not deserve that, and I think your post alerts us to the fact that there are many who agree with him, so it’s completely unfair (not to mention uncharitable) to vilify him the way many have.

Thank you, again, for a rare example of wisdom and intelligence.

I was a dean at a university. The usual protocol is that the Office of the President reports to the Board of Trustees. Events such as graduation are planned by a graduation committee. The plans and selection of speakers is submitted to the Office of the President and to the Provost. Once they receive it and approve, they must submit it to the Board of Trustees. Keep in mind that the Board of Trustees controls policies and finances. They are not just advisors. The Board has a President as well. When the Board approves the events go forward.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the Board knew this and approved. Where is the President of the Board? Who is the President of the Board? His or her name is not even mentioned on these threads.

The reason is simple. University Presidents are the public representatives of the university that they lead. When something goes wrong, they take the heat and they have to face the music for decisons and policies that are corporate.

You board members who are usually the president of Corporation X, Bank X, or Dr. X or such and such a lawyer or business person, can live very secure without having to take the heat. Yet, they hold the reigns over the president of the university when it comes to funding and policies. But they are not held accountable.

I am not exhonorating Fr. Jenkins. I’m simply saying that he has become the whipping boy for the sins of many, including his own. For once, I would like to see someone call these boards to accountability.

It is true that they have been given the administration and ownership of our Catholic universities, to ensure that our young people get the federal tax monies that their parents have paid, because the Supreme Court said that they could not get federal tax monies because of their religious afiliation. But when they were given control over our Catholic universities, they made an agreement with the religious who founded these universities. That was to preserve the charism of the religious community and the faith of the Church. It seems that they have abdicated these duties which were entrusted to them.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Havard]

Okay, take this with a healthy dose of salt…

A few alumni I keep up with have heard that Father Jenkins was in fact hesitant to extend the invitation, but several members of the Board of Trustees pushed it…

 

[diggerdomer]

Okay, take this with a healthy dose of salt…

A few alumni I keep up with have heard that Father Jenkins was in fact hesitant to extend the invitation, but several members of the Board of Trustees pushed it…

INteresting. I haven’t heard that, but who knows what goes on in the “back rooms.” I’m sure it couldn’t be any more controversial than the football coach hirings/firings over the past few years…(sorry, off topic, won’t bring that up again).

 

[TracyJ]

Your support of the most pro-Abortion president we’ve had speaking on a Catholic platform was fairly obvious from your other posts. It’s a huge scandal. Please go pray and learn about this. It comes down to a matter of legitimately forming our consciences. Those whom Christ sent, disagree with you. Why do you oppose them? By doing so, you also oppose Christ.

Obama is pro-choice, not pro abortion.
He leaves the decision up to the woman and he has been very honest about his position.Most Americans agree with him.
He’s still the president and he will speak at ND and the students will be very happy about it.
The majority of citizens in the US hate abortion but feel that it’s a personal decision between a woman and her doctor.
I don’t want women going to back alley abortionists and sooner or later men will start to
realize that when their woman gets pregnant that he’s fifty percent responsible to the child and when that happens women won’t feel so terrified, alone and desperate.
Why do YOU think that the Church has been SO unsuccessful with their pro=life stance?
Maybe their approach needs to be looked at.

 

[jenkiedad]

Everyone wants a response from the USCCB, but does everyone realize that the USCCB and the local bishop have no jurisdiction over any religious order, religious congregation or secular order?

JR: Thanks for the informative perspective on this issue, but that still doesn’t excuse the USCCB from coming out with a definitive statement. And since you mentioned it (that the Order reports to the Holy Father), why hasn’t the Vatican also come out with a statement? Answer: I presume it wouldn’t look good for the Vatican to be quicker to the draw than the US Catholic Bishops.

 

[TracyJ]

Inviting “that man” to a Catholic campus for “any” reason makes me want to puke, (regurgitate) Sorry to be so graphic. :blushing:

Would you be okay with Karl Rove or George Bush or Cheney?

 

[TracyJ]

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.

I have a friend who is anti-Religion but he has always admired the Pope for not “bending (deleted) and giving in” on difficult issues like abortion.
I have an opinion on this issue, I think it’s okay for Obama to speak and to be given
an honorary degree, HOWEVER, I don’t have a child at the University and I’m not paying
those humongous tuition fees. I think that the decision should be made jointly by the
parents, the students, the bishops and the school.
But I agree, the Bishops have an obligation to clearly state their position because this
is troubling to so many Catholics and they are waiting to be told what to do.

 

[Brendan]

Everyone wants a response from the USCCB, but does everyone realize that the USCCB and the local bishop have no jurisdiction over any religious order, religious congregation or secular order?)

Not quite true,

The local bishop can expell them from his diocese.

 

[Lizziebel]

Obama is pro-choice, not pro abortion.
He leaves the decision up to the woman and he has been very honest about his position.Most Americans agree with him.
He’s still the president and he will speak at ND and the students will be very happy about it.
The majority of citizens in the US hate abortion but feel that it’s a personal decision between a woman and her doctor.
I don’t want women going to back alley abortionists and sooner or later men will start to
realize that when their woman gets pregnant that he’s fifty percent responsible to the child and when that happens women won’t feel so terrified, alone and desperate.
Why do YOU think that the Church has been SO unsuccessful with their pro=life stance?
Maybe their approach needs to be looked at.

Obama’s actions have shown his support for abortion.

My heart goes out to the students at Notre Dame over this, particularly all of those who have expressed concerns about Obama speaking there and the position it puts them in. The University has put them in a position of being conflicted about even going to their own commencement! It’s not fair to put students in this bind, where standing up for their faith and expressing their disapproval of Obama’s stance on killing the precious unborn means not attending their own graduation.

I’m not sure that the Church’s pro-life stance has been SO unsuccessful, or that it has anything to do with the approach used. It’s incredibly difficult to combat a mentality that…while recognizing the painful and desperate situations that would lead someone to even think of abortion…sees precious babies as disposable, as “mistakes” that need to be eradicated rather than making the emotional and physical sacrifice of bringing the child into the world to go to a loving home.

 

[MDK]

Obama is pro-choice, not pro abortion.
He leaves the decision up to the woman and he has been very honest about his position.Most Americans agree with him.
He’s still the president and he will speak at ND and the students will be very happy about it.
The majority of citizens in the US hate abortion but feel that it’s a personal decision between a woman and her doctor.
I don’t want women going to back alley abortionists and sooner or later men will start to
realize that when their woman gets pregnant that he’s fifty percent responsible to the child and when that happens women won’t feel so terrified, alone and desperate.
Why do YOU think that the Church has been SO unsuccessful with their pro=life stance?
Maybe their approach needs to be looked at.

Tracy,
You’re unfortunately dead wrong. 0bama is indeed pro-abortion. If you understood the issue, and what it means, you probably wouldn’t write as you do, unless committed to immorality, which I don’t assume you are.

Please spare us the stuff about hating it, but a necessary evil! It is absolutely not necessary. You simply repeat the same lies that the pro-abortion side has used for years. It is literally from the father of lies… “he was a liar and murderer from the start.” Satan must be very pleased with those like 0bama who support both lying and the murdering of innocents… and with anyone who defends this as though it were in the least legitimate. It is not in any way legitimate, and is intrinsically evil. If you understand intrinsically evil, there is no equivocating.

 

[Corki]

Obama is pro-choice, not pro abortion.

Obama is NOT pro-choice. His attack on conscience rights has shown that. If you don’t like the term pro-abortion, use abortion advocate. Anyone who wants to expand access to an activity, reduce restrictions on that activity and increase funding for that activity can’t be anything but an advocate for that activity.

 

[MDK]

Would you be okay with Karl Rove or George Bush or Cheney?

Are they committed to promoting the killing of innocent children in the womb, like 0bama is committed to supporting?

Abortion is intrinsically evil…, and in case you’re wondering, means not acceptable or up for discussion.

War, on the other hand is debatable, and there is a “just war doctrine.” There is no “just abortion doctrine.”