C
Chris_LaRock
Guest
What kind of back lash could take place if every pro-abort ‘catholic’ political leader on earth were excommunicated? And, should Christians avoid doing what is right just to avoid offending the secular world?
- Status
D
Darryl1958
Guest
There is a third of the bishops that spoke out against the ND decision.Nope, the Pope will not involve himself in the decisions that belong to the Bishops. And unfortunately, not ALL the Bishops agree that ND was wrong in their decision. Only about 1/3 of them. Hmmm…I guess there is only a small minority of “Catholics” who actually believe and follow Catholic teaching.Never really believed that Catholics who adhere to Catholic doctrine are a minortity, but…that’s what it’s starting to look like…and it starts with the Bishops.
I am unaware that 2/3 of the biships actually supported it.
There is a lot to agree with in what you say otherwise.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
Arresting an elderly priest while carrying a cross, praying th erosary and singing Ave Maria may well be according to the rules of ND.
To be unaware of the optics of doing this, having such videos played internationally even, is inexcusable. Anybody watching will be given the distinct impression that ND is not particularly Catholic when it comes to the issue of abortion.
I think that impression would be the correct one.
B
Beau_Ouiville
Guest
Which is why the protesters set up their little theater on the campus. I think most people understand this. Which is also why arresting an elderly priest is not a travesty – it is a culmination of what the protesters actually sought.
R
reggieM
Guest
Well, we’re still suffering from the effects of the Inquisition (or the response to it). One of the bad effects of the plan you propose (a plan which I’d like to see enacted) is that some innocent person, let’s say, was excommunicated. Then it took 25 years through a court-of-appeals to be re-instated to communion (with the necessary apologies). The backlash would be endless. I agree, “so what”? But it does cause problems in presenting the Church as a beacon of life and light – we can’t afford too many misjudgements.
I think we have to face the fact that Pope John Paul II spent a considerable time apologizing for various things the Church did. Even in justly carrying out a reasonable and necessary discipline of erring Catholics, there is fear of going too far, or giving the impression that Catholicism is more interested in punishing people then in healing and reconciling them.
That’s one reason why we don’t see justice being carried out the way it should be (as I see it). Administering punishment is difficult. I think its necessary but we have some many centuries of well-intentioned abuse of punishments. I sadly think about holy St. Joan of Arc who was punished unjustly by Catholic bishops who were motivated by political sinfulness.
But basically, I do agree. If we didn’t have so many political interests and had more confidence in the truth of the faith, then a fair system of ecclesiastical trial and excommunication could be put in place. Some situations are so blatantly obvious that we could at least start there (just have the bishop question Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi on their beliefs and it would result either in individuals who want to repent or two people who should be excommunicated – it’s not that difficult).
Unfortunately, even in something like the court of annulments, there is a lot of abuse and misjudgement. I believe Pope Benedict complained about that.
The solution is not more sloppyness in administering justice or just turning a blind eye to violators (that’s the current policy, as it seems) - but improving the sytsem to mandate Catholic university professors and administrators take the oath of fidelity and then promptly questioning them when they appear to violate it.
Fr. Jenkins, for example, claimed that he was justified by his interpretation of the Bishops’ guidelines. Why not take him in and question him about his views – and then prove decisively that he was wrong (and do that well before Obama arrived)?
That would have been simple, and required no intervention from Rome.
But the Land of Lakes decision made that impossible so there’s no oversight of a place like ND. So now Rome is the only hope for stopping that – and Rome won’t do it because they don’t want to look like things are so out of control that they have to step into the United States and clean up the mess with decisions from the papal office.
I agree that they shouldn’t care about the backlash, but we can see that the Holy Father had to apologize to Muslims after making a very mild statement about their religion. He was attacked for not apologizing to the Jewish people recently.
I’m not defending it as such, but just putting it in context.
C
Chris_LaRock
Guest
I’m not suggesting the burning of heritics, or any other form of capital punishment like that. I’d like to see the Pope rebuke the pro-abort catholics and apostate catholics publically, and inform them they are no longer welcome.
They don’t want to create othe impression things have gotten out of control? But haven’t things gotten out of control? It’s a reality now.
It would be like me telling you I don’t want to create the impression my name is Chris.
R
reggieM
Guest
I know what you mean and I fully agree. Again, I’m not defending anything with those comments really, just trying to give some reasons why things are as they are. They should be better than they are. But also, we did burn heretics at one time. That’s obviously a major problem. True, it was centuries ago, but the memories persist and our enemies don’t like to show any mercy or sympathy. I would actually like to see the Pope go beyond just a rebuke (but that would be very welcome itself) and insist that pro-abortion public figures be excommunicated by their bishops. I wouldn’t think that would be too dangerous or difficult. Archbishop Burke gave some very strong words, so that was good also.I’m not suggesting the burning of heritics, or any other form of capital punishment like that. I’d like to see the Pope rebuke the pro-abort catholics and apostate catholics publically, and inform them they are no longer welcome.
They don’t want to create othe impression things have gotten out of control? But haven’t things gotten out of control? It’s a reality now.
It would be like me telling you I don’t want to create the impression my name is Chris.
You and I (and many others) may easily agree that this situation (and many others with universities) are out of control. I do see it that way and have for a while. But it’s very difficult for our shepherds to see it – since they’re working and praying and hoping that everything in the Church is good. That’s their job. Standing up one day and saying that things are out of control is a massively difficult thing to admit, since the blame falls heavily on them. Plus, people are always optimistic about the Church – hoping that bad things will get better and God will not let it get worse.
I’m not making excuses for anyone. I think a steady, fair and charitable discipline should have been placed on all of our Catholic educational institutions years ago. We should not have harbored the heretical professors who have caused damage to students for years. There’s no excuse for that as I see it.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
No, arresting an elderly priest is a travesty. This is not how Catholics ought to be treating each other, even when they are being egged on.
Notre Dame has egg on their face now because of it. They have come off as being anti-Catholic and soft on the issue of abortion-which of course they would have to be to even consider arresting a Catholic priest for something so minor, and for defying the council of bishops decree by honoring Obama with a degree in the first place.
The video of the event just supplied the proper sound bite and the relevant graphics to bring that home. It amply demonstrated how deep the schism is between people of the Catholic Church.
Sure the priest tricked them, but in the process, Notre Dame was tricked into revealing their true face on the manner of life.
Soft as the raw egg now running down their face.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
Giving an honorary degree to the Pro-Abortionist in Chief, and allowing him the honor of speaking at the graduation does that.
Treating those who believe in the Catholic ethics against abortion, like dirt and second class citizens does that.
“pro lifers to the back of the bus” - ND official policy.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
Perhaps. That’s why I avoid going there.Don’t bother going bobcatholic they may arrest you,
What are you saying here?
Then why haven’t they stood up and protested the honoring of the Pro-Abortionist in Chief? Oh wait. The police would have arrested them for that. Sorry, only one way of thinking is allowed on ND. Politically correct only. C’mon, show me the parts of ND that stood up to the politically correct dictatorship in ND?
Hold on. I see a contradiction here. First you say:
Pro lifers are told "“We could not go in with any signs or any t-shirts or anything that spoke badly of Notre Dame or Obama,” he said. "
But then you say:
There were plenty of people wandering around campus at the ND Response events who had t-shirts and signs that were anti-ND and anti-Obama.
But thanks for proving my point still, that ND practices viewpoint discrimination, which is a violation of civil rights. I think section 18 USC 1983 should be used by pro-lifers whose civil rights were violated in their lawsuits.
E
elts1956
Guest
Were these two ladies, Laura Rohling and Jane Brennan, part of the Notre Dame Pro Life protest of May 17th, or were they invited to give a lecture to students in class?
If they were part of the Pro Life groups (and I am VERY pro life) of May 17th, I don’t think they would be able to dialogue with students very well. If they were part of the demonstrations, they were there to “represent” their beliefs, not to “teach”.
If they were part of the demonstration of May 17th., then it appears that even a Catholic website can misrepresent what is happening. Can we trust no one to stay on, talk on, the straight and narrow?
NOTRE DAME (Christian Newswire) - Thomas More Society attorneys appeared in St. Joseph County Criminal Court to defend two prominent pro-life advocates against trespass charges brought this morning by local prosecutors in the wake of protests at the University of Notre Dame.
Laura Rohling and Jane Brennan went onto the Notre Dame campus to educate students about the after-effects of abortion, based on their own personal experiences with abortion.
E
elts1956
Guest
:banghead: FIRST, I think we have to know with certainty whether, or not, NDU had the RIGHT to have the protestors prosecuted. Is it, or is it not, an open campus? Does ND, or does ND NOT have the RIGHT to say who comes on their campus and when? They say , in their bylaws, anyone holding a rally, demonstration etc. on campus, MUST FIRST have that rally/demonstration APPROVED. If so, and the Pro Life advocates were not approved, then I would think ND has the RIGHT to prosecute. WHAT is the law? ???
Their law is secular and has NOTHING to do with Catholic identity. That is the short and the very sad of it.
NDU has lost its Catholic identity. She began the process with the Land o Lakes statement of 1967. She herself says she is no longer under the domain of ANY bishop, Church etc. She is a separate entity who is justified (they think) in making their own laws and statutes. The Catholic order, I have forgotten the name, ? Christian Brothers? teach at the university, but, they have little say in how it is run, unless there are a couple of representatives on the board, which I don’t know.
The protestors knew they were going against secular law. I am not saying they were wrong in doing so. Their ideals are much higher than the secular administration of ND. BUT with that said, I think we also have to understand that the “trespassers” will be punished, under secular law. Isn’t this what happens many times during Civil or religious demonstrations? Look at the sit ins in the South during Martin Luther King’s time and the Civil rights movement. How many blacks and whoever was with them were thrown out of eating establishments because the “law” said “No Blacks”. How many were hosed with fire hoses, had dogs sicced on to them? Were these the way to treat human beings? No, of course not, but it was a way of controlling those who were feared, those who were breaking out of the common mold. Until we have more demonstrations, until we can change the laws on life issues, I think results such as are happening because of the demonstration at NDU will happen many, many more times and we should be prepared for them.
Secular law doesn’t care a fig about how old, young, infirm or frail, a demonstrator is. All it is concerned about is that the letter of the law be followed. This is secular justice. Without it, the country could not be held together.
It is up to us to change, not the trespassing law, but the way people perceive the groups who demonstrate on land protected by secular law.
E
elts1956
Guest
Quote: Why not take him in and question him about his views – and then prove decisively that he was wrong (and do that well before Obama arrived)? Quote
It is my understanding that Jenkins, first of all, did not consult with Bishop D’‘Arcy and secondly, Bishop D’ Archy was not told bo was coming until a very short time before it took place. I think D’Arcy did talk to Jenkins after the fact???
But then, when did the students find out about the situation and begin demonstrating?
I remember now. The invitation had already been sent before Bishop D’Arcy was told about it.
C
Chris_LaRock
Guest
God will hold the church leadership responsible for their lack of leadership in this area. The book of Revelation starts with Jesus judging the churches.
O
otjm
Guest
No, it is not every Catholic’s property, nor is it the property of those who donated it (that in and of itself should be self-evident - to donate is to give to another, as in, to give up possesion of). It is owned by a legal entity, which happens to be the corporation, and in civil and in criminal law, corporations have rights just as persons do.
You further mis-state the question, because it is not a question of whether trespassing is more or less valuable than life; the two are distinctly different issues. One can protect life without trespassing, and trespassing is in almost all circumstances not an act which saves lives. Essentially you are saying that there is a question of moral values - which is more or less moral; however, the trespassing case is not about moral values, it is about criminal law, which may or may not have a moral component. Further, there was a process by which protesters could get permission to be on ND property, and it would appear that some of the protesters chose to not avail themselves of the process.
O
otjm
Guest
It is whose property? It - the campus - is owned by a non-profit corporation. It is not owned by the Catholic Church. The corporation had a process by which it legally could control who came onto the property and who did not; reportedly they had a process by which people who wished to protest could register and receive permission to be on campus, and allegedly those who may be prosecuted did not avail themselve to the process; that is, they allegedly trespassed on private property.
Whether it is an elderly priest saying the rosary while a pro- abortion individual gives a speech and receives an honor, or whether it was one of the famous Berrigan brothers (they were both priests at one point) trespassing with a quart of blood - human or animal - or paint looking like blood to protest ROTC, the results would be the same - both may be trespassing on private property if they have not received permission to be on campus. For that matter, it could be the local wing of PETA protesting the use of animal cadavers in Bilology 101.
O
otjm
Guest
Nothing was done that has anything to do with an offense in Canon Law that would lead to excommunication. This is a civil matter as to the alleged trespass; and Canon law does not apply to Boards of Trustees of private institutions. The Church no longer runs or owns ND if it ever did.
O
otjm
Guest
Unless you have a poll or statements from bishops specifically showing that some bishops disagree with the bishops who spoke publicly, I don’'t see that there is any evidence whatsoever that 2/3s of the bishops, or for that matter, any bishops thought that ND was not wrong. Silence may be nothing more than any individual bishop choosing to not play “Me too!”. Further, a bishop could well feel very strongly that ND was wrong, but choose for any number of valid reasons not to speak publicly about the matter. Silence is not assent.Nope, the Pope will not involve himself in the decisions that belong to the Bishops. And unfortunately, not ALL the Bishops agree that ND was wrong in their decision. Only about 1/3 of them. Hmmm…I guess there is only a small minority of “Catholics” who actually believe and follow Catholic teaching.
R
reggieM
Guest
True – but until then, we need to judge ourselves first and show mercy for others.
O
otjm
Guest
I have yet to see anyone treated like “dirt”. If they trespassed, then they broke the law, and I have been around long enough to know that some people will intentionally do just that - break the law - to get their 15 minutes of face time in the news. It appears that they think they will not be noticed if they do theings lawfully; they have to break the law to accomplish their perceived mission.
And they may well be correct that the news would not pay as much attention to them if they did not break the law and did not get arrested. However, underneath all of this is a presumption: the presumption is that one must violate laws in order to make clear that abortion is murder. I disagree with their position; and so does the majority of the pro life movement, and so, with the exception of literally 2 or 3 bishiops, so do the bishops of the US.
Street theater has been around far longer than the abortion controversy. And there have been a few radical individuals, who hold themselves out as Catholics, who have engaged in street theater over the last 40 to 50+ years or so, starting with Viet Nam protests. I say “hold themselves out” as some of them appear to pick and choose what they will protest and wht they won’t.
ND official policy is a bit more slippery than you would have it. But that Jenkins sees himself as following in the footsteps of Hesberg is not doubt.
Notre Dame also has a group, if I recall correctly, that does Adoration; things are not as crystal clear as you would make it to be. But Jenkins has his world view, and it is obvious that it does not coincide with the bishops; we will see if the results come in as hoped. The surest way to get the Board of Trustees’ and Jenkins’ attention is to cut off funding. It is entirely possible that this may be a turning point; we will see where the Holy Spirit leads alumni and alumnae.
- Status