Notre Dame presses charges against pro life protestors

[reggieM]

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.

My conciliatory words notwithstanding … it might be good to review the life of Saint Telemachus. He also went through barricades that were forbidden to cross through.
The crowd was upset since he disrupted things and broke the law.
Fortunately (for those who think this way), justice was done and he was killed.

I guess he was just a false martyr for breaking the civil law in order to try to stop a social evil – right?

Also, I’d like to know what criteria you use to judge whether a person is a true martyr or not – perhaps you judge their sincerity? or possibly their spiritual status before God?

I didn’t think it was permitted to do such things.

 

[RobbyS]

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.

Indeed, issues do not have to be raised to the level of Kent State (revoluitionary), but why have POLITICAL demonstrations that have so little impact? Notre Dame by honoring Obama was engaged in a POLITICAL act, and in such cases, the rules you cite do not apply. The peaceful demonstrators were supine in the face of POLITICAL provocation. The small intrusions were treated as potentially violent acts. You sneer at the few t for courting martyrdom, but it appears to me that the peaceful demonstrators were not willing to risk anything.

 

[imperial]

My conciliatory words notwithstanding … it might be good to review the life of Saint Telemachus. He also went through barricades that were forbidden to cross through.
The crowd was upset since he disrupted things and broke the law.
Fortunately (for those who think this way), justice was done and he was killed.

I guess he was just a false martyr for breaking the civil law in order to try to stop a social evil – right?

Also, I’d like to know what criteria you use to judge whether a person is a true martyr or not – perhaps you judge their sincerity? or possibly their spiritual status before God?

I didn’t think it was permitted to do such things.

Oh so well said reggiem & robbys
May I also mention that mosses acted against pharaohs laws; it was the Egyptians law to have Jews as slaves.
Then the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh, and tell him, Thus saith the LORD God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me.

 

[elts1956]

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.

Okay, just to walk the “tension” line a little longer. I don’t think those folks who got arrested were trying to make themselves into “false” martyrs. Perhaps we who were protesting the way they were treated are the ones who made them into martyrs, but not false ones.

Agreed, the folks who were arrested broke the civil law and guidelines set by NDU. I believe they knew what they were getting into. As you said, that is the risk they took.

I wish somehow your explanation had come sooner. It is very clear and concise to me. Thanks.

 

[BobCatholic]

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.

If they were, then those who were arrested were falsely charged with trespassing.

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

So what I see is that there was a contradictory standard at ND.

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.

So help me figure something out here. If ND Response invited pro-lifers to come, and they came, and got arrested, that is screwed up on the part of the police and ND.

 

[BobCatholic]

I have yet to see anyone treated like “dirt”. If they trespassed, then they broke the law,

They routinely ignored trespassers if they were pro-Obama. That was clearly documented in my post.

A just law CAN be unjustly enforced, and it was definitely done so here. Hiding behind the law is just an excuse to give ND the “go ahead” to hurt pro-lifers.

Dear bobcatholic the wood is dry

Amen. Not only that, don’t forget verse 29:

“For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the breasts which never gave suck.”

This is happening now.

 

[elts1956]

If they were, then those who were arrested were falsely charged with trespassing.

So what I see is that there was a contradictory standard at ND.

So help me figure something out here. If ND Response invited pro-lifers to come, and they came, and got arrested, that is screwed up on the part of the police and ND.

Hi there. Rach. has an explanation in another post which was quite clear to me. I will try to find the #. Pro Lifers were invited by NdResponse, which was a student group, to come and take part WITH THEM at their peaceful demonstrations, the rosary, Mass etc. They did not welcome nor invite Pro Lifers to give their own demonstrations. Legal schmeegal, but that is the way it was.

See my post #220 to Rach.

 

[elts1956]

If they were, then those who were arrested were falsely charged with trespassing.

So what I see is that there was a contradictory standard at ND.

So help me figure something out here. If ND Response invited pro-lifers to come, and they came, and got arrested, that is screwed up on the part of the police and ND.

They routinely ignored trespassers if they were pro-Obama. That was clearly documented in my post. Do you know of any videos showing this? If they exist couldn’t this force ND to bring pressure on them also?
A just law CAN be unjustly enforced, and it was definitely done so here. Hiding behind the law is just an excuse to give ND the “go ahead” to hurt pro-lifers. Sure sounds like it to me.

Amen. Not only that, don’t forget verse 29:

“For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the breasts which never gave suck.”

This is happening now.

 

[BobCatholic]

Do you know of any videos showing this? If they exist couldn’t this force ND to bring pressure on them also?

Unfortunately, no. I was citing a news report which said this.

 

[BobCatholic]

Hi there. Rach. has an explanation in another post which was quite clear to me. I will try to find the #. Pro Lifers were invited by NdResponse, which was a student group, to come and take part WITH THEM at their peaceful demonstrations, the rosary, Mass etc. They did not welcome nor invite Pro Lifers to give their own demonstrations. Legal schmeegal, but that is the way it was.

See my post #220 to Rach.

I re-read #220 and saw some contradictions.

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.

Suppose new people came by and were protesting. They wanted to join in on permitted protests. What did ND Response do to accommodate this? Did they stay in their area and not send people over once in a while to make sure things were going OK? Not all people who got arrested were trying to do a publicity stunt as some imply. I’m not going to judge the interior motives of those who were arrested, for I have insufficient information.

If I were a student at ND and was part of ND Response, I’d be over there talking to other protesters and seeing if they could join us. 3,000 is nice. More is better. I’m sure other ND Response members were trying to do this, right?

A couple of question I have are :

Now that the bru-ha-ha is over, why not have ND simply drop the cases? There’s no point in prosecuting now, and it only adds fuel to the fire. The best way to eliminate the “martyr” thingy is not to feed them to the proverbial lions. After all, I’m reading that the Rach “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,” - trying to paint the administration as flexible when they’re inflexible here. I’m seeing a contradiction between the administration’s actions now and Rach’s words. (not accusing Rach of lying, but I think the administration is very inconsistent)

Also, how many pro-Obama demonstrators were arrested?

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Now that the bru-ha-ha is over, why not have ND simply drop the cases? There’s no point in prosecuting now, and it only adds fuel to the fire.

Personally, I think that would be inconsistent. Come on now, people. You think the protesters are facing serious jail time? For a first-offender misdemeanor?

Also, how many pro-Obama demonstrators were arrested?

Well, to compare apples to apples, you’d have to find out first how many Obama demonstrators said ahead of time they were coming to the college to protest and how many refused police repeated orders to leave.

 

[elts1956]

I re-read #220 and saw some contradictions.

Suppose new people came by and were protesting. They wanted to join in on permitted protests. What did ND Response do to accommodate this? Did they stay in their area and not send people over once in a while to make sure things were going OK? Not all people who got arrested were trying to do a publicity stunt as some imply. I’m not going to judge the interior motives of those who were arrested, for I have insufficient information.

If I were a student at ND and was part of ND Response, I’d be over there talking to other protesters and seeing if they could join us. 3,000 is nice. More is better. I’m sure other ND Response members were trying to do this, right?

A couple of question I have are :

Now that the bru-ha-ha is over, why not have ND simply drop the cases? There’s no point in prosecuting now, and it only adds fuel to the fire. The best way to eliminate the “martyr” thingy is not to feed them to the proverbial lions. After all, I’m reading that the Rach “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,” - trying to paint the administration as flexible when they’re inflexible here. I’m seeing a contradiction between the administration’s actions now and Rach’s words. (not accusing Rach of lying, but I think the administration is very inconsistent)

From what I understand, all Pro Life supporters, groups, were invited to JOIN NDResponse in THEIR demonstrations. The rules for anyone JOINING in the student protest was NO signs, unruly behavior etc. They were welcome to join the students in the Rosary, Mass and whatever demonstrations the “Students” had and had been approve by ND. As I see it, the protestors who were arrested were NOT involved in the responses of the students, but came on campus to do their own protest.

Also, how many pro-Obama demonstrators were arrested?

Haven’t heard of any. I wonder where we could find that info. Oh, to be an investigative reporter.

 

[peary]

What’s with this University? I really don’t get it.

catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=33681

This tells you who’s driving the ‘car’. So much for compassion…

 

[BobCatholic]

Personally, I think that would be inconsistent. Come on now, people. You think the protesters are facing serious jail time? For a first-offender misdemeanor?

The other protesters are facing no charges. Yes, that’s inconsistent.

Well, to compare apples to apples, you’d have to find out first how many Obama demonstrators said ahead of time they were coming to the college to protest and how many refused police repeated orders to leave.

The MSM are notorious for not reporting this information.

 

[peary]

I think that Catholics should not send their children to Notre Dame and see if that sends them a message.

Arresting a priest - I was unable to comprehend it, and an elderly one at that.
I mean it was down right disgusting that they awarded a pro abortionist an award - and then arrested a priest.

May Notre Dame see the failings of the fruits they are producing.

Adding the fruits are not from the Holy Spirit.

Notre Dame already sees the fruits of their decision to have Obama speak at commencement and receive an honorary law degree - most of the 1.5 BILLION dollars raised came AFTER bama appeared there. If that sends any message to those who run ND, it’s “Let us do it again!” How sad for everyone. How sad for the Church in the U.S.

 

[imperial]

Notre Dame already sees the fruits of their decision to have Obama speak at commencement and receive an honorary law degree - most of the 1.5 BILLION dollars raised came AFTER bama appeared there. If that sends any message to those who run ND, it’s “Let us do it again!” How sad for everyone. How sad for the Church in the U.S.

How true,
How sad for those babies.
How sad for heaven,
How sad it is that it has become so divided.
How sad to know that defending the life of innocent babies by walking onto catholic grounds is evil and warrants arrest. uch:
How sad to know ND reaped their reward just like Judas reaped his reward in silver coins.
Sad to know the excuse will continue, for ND’s behavior. :ehh:

 

[otjm]

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.

No, what is clear is that you have no knowledge of or perspective on law in general, and the specific laws as they relate to the issues. You are trying to compare two different scenarios and presuming they are identical, but they are not.

Rosa Parks disobeyed a law that was specifically discriminatory based on the color of her skin; based on skin color she had to sit in the back of the bus.

The protestors who refused to use the policy at ND to obtain a permit, or to join in with a permitted group. chose to break a law that had nothing to do with their protest (they were protesting about abortion, not about the laws of private property and trespass). Further, no one was discriminating against them on the basis of the color of their skin or anything else. Rosa parks had no means of protesting except to sit in the whites only area. There were no permists for her to obtain, but there were for those arrested at ND; they chose to ignore them. They were no m ore discriminated against than Father Corapi, who followed the rules in his protest agains abortion and Obama’s stand thereon.

And as to Martin Luther King, the same applies; where he could, he specifically obeyed the law in making his protests; and where he violated laws, again there was no legitimate means of protesting otherwise.

The essence of what you are saying by the comparison is that there was no viable means of protesting legally about Obamam and abortion; the people who followed to proper proceedures show that to not be the truth.

 

[otjm]

Indeed, issues do not have to be raised to the level of Kent State (revoluitionary), but why have POLITICAL demonstrations that have so little impact? Notre Dame by honoring Obama was engaged in a POLITICAL act, and in such cases, the rules you cite do not apply. The peaceful demonstrators were supine in the face of POLITICAL provocation. The small intrusions were treated as potentially violent acts. You sneer at the few t for courting martyrdom, but it appears to me that the peaceful demonstrators were not willing to risk anything.

And you equate violations of law, where there is an alternative, as being supine. A tad bit to the hyperbolic, don’t you think? Or just impetuous…

Kids were killed at Kent State during a peaceful demonstration. No one is being killed at ND; and in fact ND made available the means of a peaceful demonstration. Kent State was not revolutionary; a major portion of the United States did not support our involvment in Viet Nam and specifically did not support or bombing the North. That the kids showed a serious lack of wisdom when the National Guard was brought on campus needs no showing.

So you think that peaceful demonstraters are supine? Then you do not agree witht he mind of the Church, that if we are truly going to show respect for life, that the operative term is respect. That includes not violating trespass laws. Tell your local bishop, since he and I agree on the issue. and he leads the Church in his diocese, I don’t.

Further, by what means do you say that peaceful demonstrations have little or no impact? How involved are you in the pro-life movement? Anyone who has been watching the issue since Roe vs. Wade can understand that this issue is not going to be won by political acts but rather by a change of heart of each individual touched.

 

[otjm]

They routinely ignored trespassers if they were pro-Obama. That was clearly documented in my post.

A just law CAN be unjustly enforced, and it was definitely done so here. Hiding behind the law is just an excuse to give ND the “go ahead” to hurt pro-lifers.

You need to get your facts a little more clear. You are confusing the several thousand legitimate protesters with the few who refused to be part of the legitimate protest, and purposely came on campus with the intent to not go through normal proceedures to protest. The law was not unjustly enforced. You are letting your emotions get in the way of facts. ND isn’t out to hurt abortion protestors, as is amply shown by the legitimate protests which took place during graduation time.

 

[peary]

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.

For legitimate reasons of protest, one is obligated in good Catholic conscience to “break the law”. It has nothing to do with getting “15 minutes of face time in the news.” But it has a lot to do with standing as a witness to the Truth.

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.

Sometimes standing on the sidewalk holding hands and signs is the weakest of positions to take. Taking it a step forward brings to awareness that this is a very serious social matter. What would have done during WW2? Stand on the corner holding hands and signs against Holocaust victims and concentration camps?

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.

If it wasn’t for “street theatre” in the 60s and early 70s, we’d still be in Vietnam today.

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.

**ND raised the most money AFTER Obama spoke there, with a total of 1.5 BILLION DOLLARS. Obama seems to be the breast that feeds colleges and universities. **