Notre Dame presses charges against pro life protestors

[imperial]

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.

28 But Jesus turned to them and said, ‘Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep rather for yourselves and for your children. [the future children]
30 Then they will begin to say to the mountains, “Fall on us!”; to the hills, “Cover us!” 31 For if this is what is done to green wood, what will be done when the wood is dry?’

Dear bobcatholic the wood is dry

 

[elts1956]

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.

That is my take on the situation too. The Pro lifers, with whom I agree, knew what was going to happen. Notre Dame’s administration wasn’t going to change the rules for them. If the Pro Life groups had applied for the right to demonstrate, which is what they should have done if they didn’t want to be prosecuted, I am almost 99% positive ND would have turned them down. That is a tragedy. Notre Dame, as far as I am concerned no longer stands as a beacon for Catholicism.

From a faithful Catholic standpoint, the arrest of some of the protesters goes completely against what we believe in. But even in secular law, if one wants to live in a society, one must take responsibility for one’s actions.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

True – but until then, we need to judge ourselves first and show mercy for others.

St. Paul must’ve been the most unloving man in the first century church. He ordered excommunications for all people who turn from the faith and refuse to repent. He even made reference to ‘delivering them to satan for the destruction of the body’.

Ignoring the wolves in sheeps clothing isn’t charity. It’s indifference.

 

[reggieM]

St. Paul must’ve been the most unloving man in the first century church. He ordered excommunications for all people who turn from the faith and refuse to repent. He even made reference to ‘delivering them to satan for the destruction of the body’.

Ignoring the wolves in sheeps clothing isn’t charity. It’s indifference.

St. Paul ministered to a church of perhaps 10 thousand members.

Pope Benedict has 2 billion.

Again, we have to be concerned with our own salvation first – that is not assured. Then that of those under our care. Let’s see the humility and sanctification needed for those tasks to a high degree, then there will be some credibility to complaints about other leaders.

 

[Rach620]

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?

NDRESPONSE. Go, read, look at pictures, watch video. These pro-life protests took place ON-CAMPUS, DURING Commencement. All pro-life protesters in South Bend that day were invited to participate.

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.
I didn’t say that first quote; it came from one of the lifesitenews articles another person posted.

Protesters were asked by ND Response not to bring in signs with graphic images of aborted babies, and to not have any signs that were negative towards Notre Dame and disrespectful of the President. Personally, I did not see any graphic images on campus, but I did see several people with t-shirts that were clearly “anti-Notre Dame”. These people were not bothered as far as I can tell. There were no arrests at the ND Response rally.
BobCatholic;5353829:

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.

Viewpoint discrimination? Again, NO protests are permitted on Notre Dame’s private property that are NOT initiated by students and receive proper permits. Alan Keyes and Randall Terry and their group WERE NOT THE ONLY PRO-LIFE PROTESTERS AT NOTRE DAME. In fact, they were quite a minority of pro-life protesters who turned out that weekend, and even more in the minority in the fact that they were arrested (intentionally). That Notre Dame does not discriminate against pro-lifers is clear to me by the many concessions they made to pro-life protesters that weekend.

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.

Precisely!

That is my take on the situation too. The Pro lifers, with whom I agree, knew what was going to happen. Notre Dame’s administration wasn’t going to change the rules for them. If the Pro Life groups had applied for the right to demonstrate, which is what they should have done if they didn’t want to be prosecuted, I am almost 99% positive ND would have turned them down.

That is a tragedy. Notre Dame, as far as I am concerned no longer stands as a beacon for Catholicism.

Well, you are 100% wrong in your prediction that pro-life protests on campus “would have been turned down”. ***Pro-Life groups DID apply for permission to protest on campus, and DID stage a rather large protest on Commencement weekend, which involved a public Rosary at the Grotto Saturday evening, an all-night Adoration vigil in an on-campus chapel, an open air Mass on South Quad that was attended by 2000+, and a Prayer Vigil for Life DURING Commencement in the Grotto. *** No one at any of these events was bothered; no one was arrested who chose to participate in these permitted protests.

I stand by Notre Dame, my alma mater, and I stand by the theology degree I received there. Bishop D’Arcy, from what I have heard him say at various Notre Dame events, fully stands by the Notre Dame Theology Department. It is full of excellent scholars whose commitment to the Catholic Church is clear both in their teaching and in their personal lives of faith. Again: Notre Dame is not this monolithic institution–it has its struggles and its faults, but there are many, many good parts of the University, and I have every confidence that Catholic students can and do receive a top-notch Catholic education there.

The intense suspicion of and negativity towards Notre Dame that so many people here hold is understandable in some ways, but it seems that any good will towards Notre Dame you might have had is now gone. The anger seems to be clouding many people’s judgment and openness to hearing what actually occurred as opposed to what they believe happened based on various news accounts.

 

[elts1956]

NDRESPONSE. Go, read, look at pictures, watch video. These pro-life protests took place ON-CAMPUS, DURING Commencement. All pro-life protesters in South Bend that day were invited to participate.
BobCatholic;5353829:

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.
I didn’t say that first quote; it came from one of the lifesitenews articles another person posted.

Protesters were asked by ND Response not to bring in signs with graphic images of aborted babies, and to not have any signs that were negative towards Notre Dame and disrespectful of the President. Personally, I did not see any graphic images on campus, but I did see several people with t-shirts that were clearly “anti-Notre Dame”. These people were not bothered as far as I can tell. There were no arrests at the ND Response rally.

Viewpoint discrimination? Again, NO protests are permitted on Notre Dame’s private property that are NOT initiated by students and receive proper permits. Alan Keyes and Randall Terry and their group WERE NOT THE ONLY PRO-LIFE PROTESTERS AT NOTRE DAME. In fact, they were quite a minority of pro-life protesters who turned out that weekend, and even more in the minority in the fact that they were arrested (intentionally). That Notre Dame does not discriminate against pro-lifers is clear to me by the many concessions they made to pro-life protesters that weekend.

Precisely!

Well, you are 100% wrong in your prediction that pro-life protests on campus “would have been turned down”. ***Pro-Life groups DID apply for permission to protest on campus, and DID stage a rather large protest on Commencement weekend, which involved a public Rosary at the Grotto Saturday evening, an all-night Adoration vigil in an on-campus chapel, an open air Mass on South Quad that was attended by 2000+, and a Prayer Vigil for Life DURING Commencement in the Grotto. *** No one at any of these events was bothered; no one was arrested who chose to participate in these permitted protests.

I stand by Notre Dame, my alma mater, and I stand by the theology degree I received there. Bishop D’Arcy, from what I have heard him say at various Notre Dame events, fully stands by the Notre Dame Theology Department. It is full of excellent scholars whose commitment to the Catholic Church is clear both in their teaching and in their personal lives of faith. Again: Notre Dame is not this monolithic institution–it has its struggles and its faults, but there are many, many good parts of the University, and I have every confidence that Catholic students can and do receive a top-notch Catholic education there.

The intense suspicion of and negativity towards Notre Dame that so many people here hold is understandable in some ways, but it seems that any good will towards Notre Dame you might have had is now gone. The anger seems to be clouding many people’s judgment and openness to hearing what actually occurred as opposed to what they believe happened based on various news accounts.

My apologies if I was mistaken about the appearance of pro life groups on ND campus May 17, 2009 during the Commencement address and the vigils the day before.

Exactly which Pro Life groups were on Campus other than ND Response and at what time? Which had permssion to attend and which did not? I’m not trying to put you on the spot, just trying to get my facts straighter. Thanks.

P.S. Are there pictures of the various responses? I think the only ones I saw were the Rosary at the grotto.

 

[reggieM]

The intense suspicion of and negativity towards Notre Dame that so many people here hold is understandable in some ways, but it seems that any good will towards Notre Dame you might have had is now gone. The anger seems to be clouding many people’s judgment and openness to hearing what actually occurred as opposed to what they believe happened based on various news accounts.

This is a good point. We shouldn’t let our judgement get clouded by too much emotion (although the other problem seems more common – Catholics who don’t care at all).

Sadly, any good will I had towards Notre Dame was damaged years ago. This event with Obama was a stab in the back and I think it totally killed any faith I had in the university. I tend to see it as an enemy now – something to fight against.

Can ND even be saved as a Catholic institution at all? Bishop D’Arcy seems to think so but he didn’t give a concrete plan. Personally, I think its lost. The orthodox students attending there are a positive force for good – but their best efforts are smothered by an administration that is working against the Faith. Is that healthy for those students? Do they deserve to be tarnished by the evils that ND has fostered? I’d say “no” in both cases. Why should we want our best Catholic students to go to a school that undermines the faith and leaves them trying to defend their alma mater against the reasonable outrages of their fellow Catholics?

If Notre Dame was stripped of it’s Catholic title … would that be a good thing?

That does depend on whether the school will get better or worse.

I’m very worried about the money aspect. ND is such a huge money-machine. That’s not evil in itself, but almost every time the Church has needed reform it was because too much wealth was amassed and then power, pride and injustice corrupted leadership.

I see the same thing with ND. They are insulated even from threats by alumni to withhold tens of millions of dollars. They don’t care because that’s a drop in the bucket.

What could schools like Christendom, Franciscan University, St. Thomas Aquinas, Magdalen and other small, orthodox Catholic colleges do with that money? Quite a lot of good and far less evil (if any at all).

Of course, with prayer, nothing is hopeless. ND could turn around and become a shining beacon of the Faith once more. But I’ve just been betrayed by them too long. Even our Lord wouldn’t force Judas to convert.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

If the Pro Life groups had applied for the right to demonstrate, which is what they should have done if they didn’t want to be prosecuted, I am almost 99% positive ND would have turned them down. That is a tragedy.

I think a college would be acting responsibly to bar shrill protests during a graduation ceremony, no matter the issue.

 

[katy]

I think a college would be acting responsibly to bar shrill protests during a graduation ceremony, no matter the issue.

Shrill? I didn’t see anything particularly shrill.

 

[Rach620]

My apologies if I was mistaken about the appearance of pro life groups on ND campus May 17, 2009 during the Commencement address and the vigils the day before.

Exactly which Pro Life groups were on Campus other than ND Response and at what time? Which had permssion to attend and which did not? I’m not trying to put you on the spot, just trying to get my facts straighter. Thanks.

P.S. Are there pictures of the various responses? I think the only ones I saw were the Rosary at the grotto.

ND Response extended an invitation to any and all pro-life, Catholic groups who wanted to come participate in the various events of the weekend. Many different groups came, and while I don’t know of an official “register” of groups who came, there were people who traveled from all over. Americans United for Life came from the Chicago area; a group called ND Affirm Life, which was itself a coalition of different pro-life groups, came from the Midwest; a group from the Archdiocese of St. Louis drove up, as did others from Iowa and Minnesota, I’m fairly sure. Fr. Pavone of Priests for Life led the scriptural Rosary; Fr. Corapi was present throughout the weekend.

Individual groups DID NOT need permission to attend the ND Response events. As long as they were peacefully participating in the ND Response events, any and all pro-life protesters were welcomed on campus.

 

[Rach620]

Sadly, any good will I had towards Notre Dame was damaged years ago. This event with Obama was a stab in the back and I think it totally killed any faith I had in the university. I tend to see it as an enemy now – something to fight against.

See, it just doesn’t make sense to me to look at ND as a big bad monolithic institution. It’s not. It’s a huge university with many different aspects–good and bad. As an institution, it is not something to fight against, but instead the forces pulling it down, the specific problems and struggles it has, are what we should fight against.

The simple fact of the matter is that no one would have cared about the Obama invite if Notre Dame had lost its Catholic identity years ago, as you claim. Notre Dame stands as the last high-level Catholic university that still makes serious claims as to its Catholic identity. All the other top-20 universities were secularized long ago, but what is different about Notre Dame is that questions about faith and God and Catholicism are met with serious intellectual inquiry inside the classroom, whereas they would likely be scoffed at in our ‘peer institutions’ in the Ivy League, or at other top universities.

There are many, many different challenges here, but to dismiss Notre Dame outright shows that no one wants to confront what those challenges really are. Somewhere down the line EVERY Catholic university that has aspirations for greatness in academia will encounter the same problems that Notre Dame has; it comes with the territory of striving to be a great university and Catholic at the same time. We want the lessons of Notre Dame to be that these two things are not mutually exclusive, that they belong together, and that one cannot exist without the other.

Can ND even be saved as a Catholic institution at all? Bishop D’Arcy seems to think so but he didn’t give a concrete plan. Personally, I think its lost.

Again, don’t you think that the local bishop, who has been in this diocese for ~25 years, would know the situation at Notre Dame a little better than you? He supports good efforts and denounces those things which bring Notre Dame farther away from its Catholic mission. He doesn’t separate himself from the situation, but works constructively both in the spotlight and behind the scenes to help as he deems appropriate.

Throughout this whole Obama incident I know from friends who work in the diocesan offices that he was in communication with Fr. Jenkins. Bishop D’Arcy’s approach tends towards constructive dialogue rather than punishment, and I think he believes that this is what is most fitting for Notre Dame. He’s been bashed by some for his approach, or it’s been insinuated that he’s not as solid as he should be–but I know that these criticisms only come from people who do not know the bishop at all.

I’d say “no” in both cases. Why should we want our best Catholic students to go to a school that undermines the faith and leaves them trying to defend their alma mater against the reasonable outrages of their fellow Catholics?

Again, not all at Notre Dame is bad. The best Catholic students should continue to come to Notre Dame because they can receive a top-notch education in theology, philosophy, law, and the liberal arts here, not to mention strong programs in business (where ethics are a strong focus and great Catholic business scholars can be found!), science and engineering. My experience at Notre Dame, and the experience of many of my friends, has not been one where “big bad Notre Dame” undermines every ounce of faith we have–rather, we have found many, MANY different opportunities for spiritual growth and a very strong Catholic community of students and faculty.

to be continued…

 

[Rach620]

If Notre Dame was stripped of it’s Catholic title … would that be a good thing?

No, and that’s why the local bishop stands against it. This would constitute an extreme reaction to one event, or perhaps a series of events, that themselves have little effect on day-to-day Catholic life at Notre Dame, and the effect would be to destroy every source of Catholic culture on campus: the daily celebration of the sacraments, the many retreat opportunities, the service programs that serve a variety of Catholic charities and supply teachers in Catholic schools and employees in Catholic parishes, the centers for Catholic studies on campus, the excellent theology and philosophy departments, the on-campus seminary that each year forms men for the priesthood and ordains deacons and priests, etc.

Didn’t God promise he would spare Sodom and Gomorrah if even He could find ten good men? There are many more than ten good men at Notre Dame, and Notre Dame is far from Sodom and Gomorrah.

What could schools like Christendom, Franciscan University, St. Thomas Aquinas, Magdalen and other small, orthodox Catholic colleges do with that money? Quite a lot of good and far less evil (if any at all).

I’m sure they could all use the money and do great things with it. Notre Dame has a lot of resources that it is able to use for good, and I don’t think we should be so quick to deny the opportunities that it has created. (For example, a good Catholic engineer who wants to study nanotechnology isn’t going to have many other Catholic schools to choose from besides Notre Dame.)

Besides, universities are generally built over time. ND has been around since 1842; Christendom and Steubenville have only been around since the 1960s, and I think the others are even younger. It takes awhile to become established as a university, and to be able to uphold high academic standards. When I was looking at Catholic colleges I thought I wanted a small liberal arts school that had the mandatum and everything–I visited Steubenville and decided it definitely wasn’t the place for me. Comparing the resources of Steubenville, the campus and the level of the professors and coursework, to that of Notre Dame was just…apples and oranges. I’m sad to say that I think Catholic students who attend some of these schools and want to pursue something outside of Church-related work might encounter quite a few challenges upon graduation. I’m not trying to bash here, but just saying that we should be honest about what we are talking about.

 

[reggieM]

Hi Rach,

Thanks for your excellent replies – thoughful and argued well.
I was going to snap-back with a reply on the areas where I disagree, but thankfully I asked myself: why? To spread more cynicism and negativity? To kill off youthful enthusiasm for the Faith and hope for the future? Well, doing that would be sinful, as I see it. Sadly, I’ve been around older liberal Catholics for a very long time and I’ve built an attitude that seeks to prove that things are very bad – this is something those kinds of people cannot see or admit. But the same is not true of our younger Catholics. I am no one to judge our younger generations – on the contrary. They seriously put me to shame and humility. There’s not even a good comparison – the quality of the faith among many young Catholics today is something I marvel at – it’s overwhelming when I think about it. To consider the theological, moral, liturgical and spirtual disasters of the era when I was in college, I could never imagine the spread of orthodox Catholicism among youth – but here it is, and I want to support it in every way possible.

With that said, I agree that we need to preserve what is good, wherever we can find it.
So, I do stand corrected here. I don’t know life on the ND campus or the good professors. I would wish that there would be some counter-movement against the prevailing trend in the administration (and among many of the students), but maybe all it will take is a few more good professors and more good students to build a momentum.

I would just pull out one comment, among the many good points you raised:

Notre Dame stands as the last high-level Catholic university that still makes serious claims as to its Catholic identity. All the other top-20 universities were secularized long ago…

I think that’s something to reflect on. Actually, that one paragraph says volumes – it says the volumes that have never been written and speaks of knowledge of an era that is now almost totally lost in the mists of apathy, forgetfulness, cowardice, cover-ups, willful blindness and many evils like that.

It’s not just a question of “who is to blame” for the loss of virtually all of our major Catholic universities (and a large number of colleges) – but a question of how it happened at all.
Those two sentences - that ND is the last one standing and all others have secularized … it’s like saying a neutron bomb hit the United States and nobody paid much attention to it.
Spiritually, the loss of the Catholic heritage and presence really is similar to a huge bomb – there is loss and emptyness in its wake.

I’m just glad you posted that and you can see it clearly for what it is.

You’re quite right again – we have to rebuild. That should be our focus. If there is some rebuilding and restoration happening at ND (and I have nothing but your word to go on), then that’s enough. Where there may be some new buds and growth of life, we cannot pour gasoline on the place and light a match.

God would want us to preserve and foster what is there – and make it grow.

Of course it’s a risk, we could always lose the battle. But why start by proclaiming that we’re going to lose? That is foolish. So again, thanks for your good words.

For me, as long as the students and alumni know what we’re facing, and they’re not deceived about what is at stake, then we’re moving in the right direction and we should just keep going forward.

 

[Rach620]

Thank you for your thoughtful post, reggie. It is very uplifting to hear some optimism!

Some resources for you, moving forward…

Project Sycamore: an alumni-led group fighting to preserve the Catholic identity of Notre Dame. They have lots of good information on recent history and the relevant scandals, as well as data on Catholic faculty hiring.

The Irish Rover: Catholic student-run alternative newspaper that has been reporting on ND events since 2003. Plenty of solid commentary from Catholic students–and a great 501(c)3 worthy of anyone’s donations!

Irish Watchdog: The blog of the Irish Rover newspaper.

Notre Dame Center for Ethics & Culture: on-campus intellectual center that sponsors many student events and academic conferences.

And now I’m off to bed!

 

[RobbyS]

Familiarity with Notre Dame’s campus and with the events of the weekend would probably help to clarify what happened here…I wasn’t in that area of campus when the arrests took place, but I saw photographs and can place it in my mind. It is VERY clear when one enters the ND campus at the main gate, and for the most part ALL protesters, including the pro-life and pro-Obama ones, were gathered outside the gates, along the streets. They would know when they entered campus and when they would be trespassing. As far as I am aware, this man’s report is hearsay–all of the local news outlets focused on reports of women trespassing through security checkpoints or closer to the Stadium and Convocation Center where Commencement was being held. Notre Dame cops weren’t wandering the streets just outside of campus arresting pro-lifers and letting pro-choicers roam free.

Please, I invite you to come to Notre Dame, wander about the campus, sit in on a few theology classes, attend a conference sponsored by the Center for Ethics and Culture, top it off with Mass at the Basilica of the Sacred Heart–and then tell me that Notre Dame “is truly then a secular university, not tied to the Catholic Church in the least.”

I think you are begging the question, at least as I see it. That is why they are pressing charges when the transgressions were so minor? Trespass laws aim to prevent damage to persons or property. Here they are used against peaceful demonstration.

 

[otjm]

I think you are begging the question, at least as I see it. That is why they are pressing charges when the transgressions were so minor? Trespass laws aim to prevent damage to persons or property. Here they are used against peaceful demonstration.

The transgressions were so minor? In whose perspective?

I totally agree with the bishops on this issue. Jenkins is as slimey as they come and as two-faced; he thinks he is another Hesberg and he wants to meet and greet with the powerful, the movers and the shakers; and who is a greater mover and shaker right now than Obama?

I live in Oregon, so I won’t be called; but I guarantee you that if one of those alleged trespassers were brought to trial and the State made its case, I would vote for conviction in a heartbeat. There was no moral justification for breaking the law. The bishop asked that people not react to this. They ignored him, in about the same spirit as Jenkins did; they know better than the bishop, and they wanted their 15 minute of face-time street theater. They are no better than the radical leftist anti war crowed that uses the same tactics. Breaking the law is breaking the law. A process was in place which was used by others peacefully, but they are above the law. ND is not only justified in persuing the issue on its face, but also has justification (because the law is on its side) to persue it so other protesters - anti-war who want to go after ROTC or some professor that might be doing research the military could or would use; PETA who wants to raise animal rights above human rights and go after a professor, or anyone else with an ax to grind about real or perceived wrongs by the university - are on noitice that there is a process, and there are private property rights and they will be acknowledged, or ignored at one’s peril.

Issues don’t need to be raised to the level of Kent State. The school was well within its legal, constitutional and moral rights to tell protesters that they had to be approved through a process and follow certain rules, or don’t come on campus. Those who are at the heart of this controversy - the protesters - decided to take up that challenge and to make themselves into perceived martyrs.

And martyrs they most certainly are not. Some of them may be a bit naive; others are just as cunning and thought out as to what they wanted to accomplish. for them, my heart bleeds peanut butter. They not only are over the top, but they also cause a disservice to those who played by the rules.

 

[elts1956]

ND Response extended an invitation to any and all pro-life, Catholic groups who wanted to come participate in the various events of the weekend. Many different groups came, and while I don’t know of an official “register” of groups who came, there were people who traveled from all over. Americans United for Life came from the Chicago area; a group called ND Affirm Life, which was itself a coalition of different pro-life groups, came from the Midwest; a group from the Archdiocese of St. Louis drove up, as did others from Iowa and Minnesota, I’m fairly sure. Fr. Pavone of Priests for Life led the scriptural Rosary; Fr. Corapi was present throughout the weekend.

Individual groups DID NOT need permission to attend the ND Response events. As long as they were peacefully participating in the ND Response events, any and all pro-life protesters were welcomed on campus.

Ok, dead horse. So ALL pro lifers were welcome to interact with ND Response (ie the student’s response) and their means of protest, but NOT to have their own separate protests, right? I think maybe the muddy waters are getting cleare. ALL protests were under the auspices of ND Response, so this is why when the individual protesters appeared, they were arrested???

 

[Rach620]

I think you are begging the question, at least as I see it. That is why they are pressing charges when the transgressions were so minor? Trespass laws aim to prevent damage to persons or property. Here they are used against peaceful demonstration.

Trespass laws aim broadly to preserve order. As otjm has more eloquently pointed out, Notre Dame as a private university is well within its rights to enforce trespassing laws on its private property with the intention of preserving order on campus. They have in the past responded in the same manner to other “minor” transgressions, so the precedent was already set.

Not to beat the dead horse even more, but please don’t forget that those who were arrested set out to be arrested and announced their intention to do so beforehand.

 

[Rach620]

Ok, dead horse. So ALL pro lifers were welcome to interact with ND Response (ie the student’s response) and their means of protest, but NOT to have their own separate protests, right? I think maybe the muddy waters are getting cleare. ALL protests were under the auspices of ND Response, so this is why when the individual protesters appeared, they were arrested???

Glad things are getting clearer. To clarify a bit more:

Notre Dame’s long-standing policy is that NO protests of ANY kind are permitted on campus unless they are both (a) led by students, and (b) receive the proper permissions. This is why ND Response came about as an independent student-led organization: to ensure that appropriate student-led protests would take place on Commencement weekend on-campus.

Protesters along IN 933 and Angela and Notre Dame Avenues were not bothered by anyone, as they were on public streets. For weeks before Commencement, the Truth Truck sat at the intersection of Angela and Notre Dame Ave., and wasn’t told to move. For weeks before Commencement, members of Randall Terry’s group stood outside of the main gates of Notre Dame at the intersection of Angela and ND Ave. and were not bothered.

It was when they ventured on campus, in their own form of protest (however prayerful and peaceful), that they trespassed on to private property and were consequently arrested.

As for the weekend of Commencement–ND Response worked extensively with outside groups to coordinate efforts and to provide many outlets for prayerful, public, and peaceful demonstration against honoring President Obama at Commencement. Individual protesters as well as those affiliated with any of the groups that made their way to campus that weekend (some of which I mentioned before) were welcome to come to campus to participate in these events. And as I’ve said before, I was frankly astonished by the great lengths to which the ND administration went to accomodate the many ND Response events held that weekend. There was no trouble about obtaining permits, and about 3000 people ended up on campus that Sunday afternoon, on South Quad and in the Grotto. They were able to park in campus lots, use campus restrooms, hang out in campus spaces…and were never bothered.

If a protester felt like the ND Response-led protests were not sufficient to show their disagreement with the President, then that was their prerogative and their risk to take. But I don’t think anyone should really be appalled that they are arrested and prosecuted. I mean, it’s a big old “duh” to me that if you start shouting over the president’s speech during the Commencement ceremonies, as at least two people did, you’re going to get a special escort by the Secret Service. If you go wandering through barricades that clearly say “ticket, ID, and cap and gown required past this point,” as at least two other women did, you’re going to get caught and probably arrested. If you go wandering around the rest of campus, with your own protest signs and everything, you’re going to get noticed and probably arrested. Don’t come crying when you do, and don’t make yourself into a false martyr for having done so.

 

[reggieM]

… I guarantee you that if one of those alleged trespassers were brought to trial and the State made its case, I would vote for conviction in a heartbeat. There was no moral justification for breaking the law …

The same thing was said to Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks.
Actually the same was said by the Roman emperors to the law-breaking Christians who refused to comply with the civil authorities.
I guess it’s clear where you’d stand on any of those issues also.