Fr. Jonathan Morris on ND scandal

[diggerdomer]

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.

That’s your opinion based on how you understand and use these labels. Personally, I think it’s more appropriate to call the President “pro-choice” rather than “pro-abortion.” I’ve never heard him say abortion is a good thing, or should be encouraged. We can differ on how we use these arbitrary, subjective labels.

I strongly object, though to your labeling the person you’re responding to as either ignorant or immoral. I guess you’re choosing to call him/her ignorant as you add to your post that you’re not assuming he/she is immoral. How charitable of you.

Please, try to avoid personal attacks and name-calling. Even if you think some of us are ignorant, I don’t see how calling people that contributes to rational, charitable discussion. Thanks.

 

[jenkiedad]

Personally, I think it’s more appropriate to call the President “pro-choice” rather than “pro-abortion.”

Using the term “pro-choice” implies informed consent, i.e., knowing all the risks, options and realities behind making such an important decision. However, when the “pro-choice” crowd repeatedly:

• Does not want a woman to know the physical and emotional risks of abortion.
• Does not want to offer the woman the options of adoption or of keeping the child, and providing information on sources of assistance.
• Does not want a woman to be able to hear the heartbeat of her unborn child.
• Does not want a woman to be able to view the sonogram of her unborn child.
• Does not want to have an honest talk to confirm that the boy friend (or others) are not pressuring the woman into an abortion.
• Does not want a parent involved if the case involves a minor.

Is that really and truly informed consent or is it pressuring towards one option only; i.e., “pro-abortion”?

 

[JReducation]

Not quite true,

The local bishop can expell them from his diocese.

The Vatican does not allow bishops to expel religious or secular orders that are canonically erected in a diocese that do not work for the diocese. Orders that have their own institutions or their own autonomous houses are not part of the infrastructure of a diocese and are protected by the Vatican. This has been tried before and failed. The Vatican had to abitrate to make everyone happy. This is done through the Sacred Congregation for Religious Institutes and Societies of Apotolic Life. That’s why these are called Institutes of Pontifical Right. Once they have been canonically erected in a local Church, that right can only be rescinded by their own Ordinary or by the Vatican. The local bishop is not their Ordinary.

A community that is brought in to serve the diocese is erected at the bishop’s pleasure and can be asked by the bishop to leave the diocese.

In this case, the Religious of the Holy Cross were never invited by the diocese to found the university for the diocese. They acquired the property with their own funds. They get their faculties from their major superior. And they are protected by the Pope.

The Pope will not involve himself in this affair because it involves a Head of State. This would turn the entire problem into a diplomatic conflict between the Vatican City State and the United States.

This entire situation has placed many people in very uncomfortable positions. The best solution would be for the White House to back out of the invitation. Personally, I doubt that will happen by this late date.

Originally Posted by TracyJ
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.

As to whether or not most Americans agree with President Obama or want to protect women from back alley abortions, that is not the issue here. The issue here is one of morality. One cannot viiolate moral law to avoid danger. Just look at the number of Catholic martyrs who have given their lives in concentration camps, Communist countries, fascist third world countries, war and many other situations.

The moral right to be born can never be trumped by safety. There is a safe choice, avoid an abortion. To be pro choice is to be pro abortion. The State does not have the moral right to citizens murder as a choice, unless the State believes that it is a valid choice. In such a case, then the State is pro murder.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[elts1956]

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

Hi JR. Seems we have been riding Fr. Jenkins out on a rail and ignored several other folk responsible for this fiasco. Thanks.

 

[catharina]

To be pro choice is to be pro abortion.
Fraternally,

JR

Yes, JR, I agree. That’s the essential fact.
Abortion is always the deliberate killing of the innocent.
To “allow” the act of abortion in ANY circumstance is to be pro-abortion.

Some posters seem unable to grasp that many CA members came to adulthood while
abortion was strictly and fully outlawed in this country and in most western nations.

 

[JReducation]

Hi JR. Seems we have been riding Fr. Jenkins out on a rail and ignored several other folk responsible for this fiasco. Thanks.

When FAFSA, the GI-Bill, and other federal research grants became available to students attending Catholic universities there was an uproar from many people, probably anti-Catholic. The young men and women did not have the funds to pay the rising cost of private education or do post-graduate research without federal funds that were readily available to students at state schools. The problem was that this money was being managed by different federal and state government agencies and departments. But the money did not grow on trees. The states and the federal government had raised this money from taxes they collected. Suddenlty, these young people were not entitled to use money that belonged to their parents or them (if they paid taxes). The money was not available because their schools had a religious affiliation.

Religious who ran these schools wanted to give their students the same opportunities that students in state colleges and universities had. To do so, they voluntarilly agreed to retain ownership of the property, but relinquish ownership of the universities and colleges to private non-profit corporations run by boards of trustees. At first the arrangement was simple enough. It was like owning a mall, but not the businesses in the mall. The religious owned the property, but not the school. The school became an independent non-profit run by a board of trutees. This way, the ownership of the schools was secular and the government’s fear that the money would be used for religious purposes was laid to rest. The Supreme Court was happy and the case was closed.

The boards agreed to two things: 1) The religious would remain in the schools and they would have representation on the board. This way that had a vote on policies and financial issues. 2) The boards would promote the spirit of the religous congregation and uphold the teachings of the Church.

The religious agreed to not to use federal monies for religioius purposes and to allow professors academic freedom, assuming that any opinion that differed with the teachings of the Church would be taught as anothe opinion, not another option. This way the students were guarranteed the opportunity to learn what the other side was saying. There was no intent to teaching the other opinion as part of the Catholic faith.

Today, those early board members and religious who reached these agreements are no longer at these posts. They grew older and have been replaced. There is a new generation of boards and religious who have forgotten the original reason for the creation of these non-profit secular boards, which was to end the discrimination that the federal government had against students in Catholic universities and graduate schools, especially medical and other schools of science.

Suddenly, when a fiasco happens, such as the one at Notre Dame, the rest of the cast disappears into the shadows and the president of the university is left holding the lid to the cookie jar.

Because of this arrangement, which was meant to help students who needed the funds, religious superiors and bishops have no control over many Catholic schools.

The tax laws have changed and they keep changing every time we turn around, but this was how this whole surrender of control began. Once the legal contracts were made, it is very difficult to undo them, even if they are no longer necessary.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[MDK]

That’s your opinion based on how you understand and use these labels. Personally, I think it’s more appropriate to call the President “pro-choice” rather than “pro-abortion.” I’ve never heard him say abortion is a good thing, or should be encouraged. We can differ on how we use these arbitrary, subjective labels.

I strongly object, though to your labeling the person you’re responding to as either ignorant or immoral. I guess you’re choosing to call him/her ignorant as you add to your post that you’re not assuming he/she is immoral. How charitable of you.

Please, try to avoid personal attacks and name-calling. Even if you think some of us are ignorant, I don’t see how calling people that contributes to rational, charitable discussion. Thanks.

The term 'pro-choice" is simply a nice sounding word for the ignorant (willfully or innocently), or those who want some kind of cover to make it sound more pleasant… like “gay” instead of “homosexual.”

That you object to me is a compliment, because you object to the truth anyway.

Charity must be at the service of the truth. Being ignorant is not a sin in and of itself. We all start out that way. It’s the willful clinging to ignorance that’s a problem, along with the arrogance or fear that keeps the ignorance in place in favor of the truth.

0bama has never met an abortion that he didn’t like. He approves of them all, as a valid and licit option for anyone who wants to kill another to solve their perceived inconvenience. He also said he would want this for his daughter if needed so she would not be “burdened by a baby.” Call it as you will, because you have no apparent respect for the truth. When one looks to an abortion as the solution to an unwanted pregnancy, they are indeed pro-abortion.
**
0bama is indeed pro-abortion.** He is unfortunately very immoral, on this and other issues as well. I am offended by his desire to see innocent children killed because someone feels inconvenienced. I am offended that he would want this for his daughters. I am offended by those who call themselves Catholic and who are not, in that they support the culture of death, and try to give it cover as a “Catholic” in name only. 0bama has no right to refer to himself as anything other than pro-abortion. Additionally, being Catholic means something. If you don’t want to be one, then please be honest and go be a Protestant where you can define your own religion.

 

[elts1956]

That’s your opinion based on how you understand and use these labels. Personally, I think it’s more appropriate to call the President “pro-choice” rather than “pro-abortion.” I’ve never heard him say abortion is a good thing, or should be encouraged. We can differ on how we use these arbitrary, subjective labels.

I strongly object, though to your labeling the person you’re responding to as either ignorant or immoral. I guess you’re choosing to call him/her ignorant as you add to your post that you’re not assuming he/she is immoral. How charitable of you.

Please, try to avoid personal attacks and name-calling. Even if you think some of us are ignorant, I don’t see how calling people that contributes to rational, charitable discussion. Thanks.

bo doesn’t have to SAY anything about abortion. His actions are proof of the pudding. Look at his voting record in the Senate and his record of nullifying pro life laws since he has been in office. Don’t ask me for a source either. You get busy and look.

 

[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.

im·plic·it (m-plst) KEY

ADJECTIVE:

Implied or understood though not directly expressed: an implicit agreement not to raise the touchy subject.
Contained in the nature of something though not readily apparent: “Frustration is implicit in any attempt to express the deepest self” (Patricia Hampl).
Having no doubts or reservations; unquestioning: implicit trust.

Has nothing to do with “subjective”.

 

[mapleoak]

im·plic·it (m-plst) KEY

ADJECTIVE:

Implied or understood though not directly expressed: an implicit agreement not to raise the touchy subject.
Contained in the nature of something though not readily apparent: “Frustration is implicit in any attempt to express the deepest self” (Patricia Hampl).
Having no doubts or reservations; unquestioning: implicit trust.

Has nothing to do with “subjective”.

And because it is implicit (only implicit because Notre Dame isn’t explicity giving approval to the president’s pro-abortion stance) it is all the more dangerous, because of its subtle nature. Many indeed will infer error due to the actions of this institution. I am still puzzled as to how digger decides it is not scandalous when ones actions are the source of leading others into error. That is the very basic definition of scandal. Neither do I understand what my or others subjective judgment has to do with it.

 

[elts1956]

And because it is implicit (only implicit because Notre Dame isn’t explicity giving approval to the president’s pro-abortion stance) it is all the more dangerous, because of its subtle nature. Many indeed will infer error due to the actions of this institution. I am still puzzled as to how digger decides it is not scandalous when ones actions are the source of leading others into error. That is the very basic definition of scandal. Neither do I understand what my or others subjective judgment has to do with it.

I don’t either subjectively. When I read her answers and try to find logic or absolutes I come up with air, or its like trying to nail a stick of butter to the wall.