Notre Dame presses charges against pro life protestors

[BobCatholic]

For instance bancruptcy law can be ignored so that payback can be given to political supporters by moving them ahead of secured bondholders who agreed to lending to a troubled entity at a lower rate in return for being first in line should the entity fail. Or an (name removed by moderator)ector General could get fired if he starts investigating the illegal activities of someone who has a friend in a very high position of power.

Agreed. The law can be enforced or not enforced depending on politics. This is what happens when we stop being a nation of laws and are a nation of politics instead.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Agreed. The law can be enforced or not enforced depending on politics. This is what happens when we stop being a nation of laws and are a nation of politics instead.

Actually, I disagree with the characterization of the particular legal issues, but to go into them would take this thread off on a tangent, which the moderator has been very clear as opposing.

God’s law says “thou shalt not murder” - if they’re trying to murder people, it is obvious they’re not representing God but his opponent.

But terrorists use that excuse all the time. So saying that trespassers were obeying “God’s law” is just not so. And I am not, once again, calling the trespassers terrorists or implying any such thing.

 

[Red_Wolf]

The issue before congress is not whether a woman has a right to elect to have an abortion, but whether a Christian has a right to elect not to participate in performing an abortion. This is about the only issue Candidate Obama did not hedge on; removing the Christian’s alleged right.

Without ND was miss-representing Catholicism, as a “Catholic University”, there would have been no need for those 40 people charged to have gone there. ND misuses the status of “Catholic University” to miss-represent Catholicism, then hides behind the status of “private institution” to avoid being called on it. The answer seems obvious, unavoidable, and simple. Remove the title of “Catholic University” from ND.

Those who have defended ND have used tactics recognizable to anyone who has been exposed to principles of socialist disinformation, possibly coincidental, but it does color others’ perceptions of the institution. They have pointed out that mass is celebrated daily at ND, the attendance at ND Response, if only the demonstrators had attended ND Response, the demonstrations were not approved, perhaps Father Weslin was arrested for yelling obscenities, etc. and that ND is private property. Let me answer these.

Mass is celebrated daily at ND. It is also celebrated daily at most state universities in my experience.

The attendance at ND Response. 1+% of the graduating class attended ND Response; not much of an offset to the 98+% who cheered the face of death.

The demonstrations were not approved. Neither were the counter demonstrations, but those weren’t arrested. From others in this thread, it would seem that one had to be displaying a cross or image of the Virgin Mary to be arrested at this “Catholic University”.

Perhaps Father Weslin was arrested for yelling obscenities. At the end of the video, it shows the beginning, what transpired before the arrest. This is just a bald faced lie, masquerading as a “perhaps”.

If only the demonstrators had attended ND Response; ND is private property. ND has shops, restaurants, chapels, etc.; any number of reasons one may want to go onto this “private property”, which is open to the public. McDonalds is also private property. Ambassador Keyes, and others, were informed before the events that if they set foot on ND “private property” FOR ANY REASON, they would be promptly arrested. I doubt that McDonalds could have gotten away with that. These people could not have attended ND Response.

As to trespassing: when one is not allowed on premises open to the public, because of their religion, I think that is a civil rights felony AGAINST those coming on to the property, not a trespassing misdemeanor BY those coming on to the property. I am not a lawyer but suspect if Father Weslin wished to press it, he may have a better case against ND than they have against him. But that would be un-Christian; a limitation the ND administration doesn’t seem to share with those charged.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

The issue before congress is not whether a woman has a right to elect to have an abortion, but whether a Christian has a right to elect not to participate in performing an abortion. This is about the only issue Candidate Obama did not hedge on; removing the Christian’s alleged right.

The only issue which got a straight answer? That’s a stretch.

Without ND was miss-representing Catholicism, as a “Catholic University”, there would have been no need for those 40 people charged to have gone there. ND misuses the status of “Catholic University” to miss-represent Catholicism, then hides behind the status of “private institution” to avoid being called on it.

Couldn’t it be a Catholic institution which disagrees with some Catholics?

Mass is celebrated daily at ND. It is also celebrated daily at most state universities in my experience.

Maybe at some prisons, on special occasions, too.

Perhaps Father Weslin was arrested for yelling obscenities.

To my knowledge, the protesters were arrested for and charged with trespassing.

If only the demonstrators had attended ND Response; ND is private property. ND has shops, restaurants, chapels, etc.; any number of reasons one may want to go onto this “private property”, which is open to the public. McDonalds is also private property.

You ever see the signs at malls about demonstrating? They have public access to the private property, but no picketing is allowed.

As to trespassing: when one is not allowed on premises open to the public, because of their religion, I think that is a civil rights felony AGAINST those coming on to the property, not a trespassing misdemeanor BY those coming on to the property.

Well, you are wrong there. There is no civil right to enter private property; even property open to the public. Violation of civil rights involves state action. We are talking about folks directed to leave who did not. They stated previously they were coming to get arrested while disrupting a ceremony at a college. Nothing happened to them due to their religion.

I am not a lawyer but suspect if Father Weslin wished to press it, he may have a better case against ND than they have against him.

I suspect not and I am a lawyer.

 

[HappyRevert]

Couldn’t it be a Catholic institution which disagrees with some Catholics?

Actually it can’t. Since by definition to be a Roman Catholic is to follow the teachings of the Church and the teachings clearly state that abortion is murder. They can’t disagree with people who say abortion is murder - or they aren’t Roman Catholic. They may *think *that they are, but if they don’t buy into the teachings of the Church they aren’t. Don’t ask me exactly what they are, but it is not Roman Catholic.

Therefore, since ND is publicly stating they don’t follow the teachings of the church (by openly giving a doctorate to a person who fully supports 9 month abortions), they are no longer Catholic and should not be allowed to use that term to refer to themselves.

 

[BobCatholic]

Actually it can’t. Since by definition to be a Roman Catholic is to follow the teachings of the Church and the teachings clearly state that abortion is murder. They can’t disagree with people who say abortion is murder - or they aren’t Roman Catholic. They may *think *that they are, but if they don’t buy into the teachings of the Church they aren’t. Don’t ask me exactly what they are, but it is not Roman Catholic.

Therefore, since ND is publicly stating they don’t follow the teachings of the church (by openly giving a doctorate to a person who fully supports 9 month abortions), they are no longer Catholic and should not be allowed to use that term to refer to themselves.

Agreed. The fact that ND claims publicly that they are a Catholic institution should be met with criminal and civil charges of false advertising.

A nice class action lawsuit should work too.

 

[Teelynn]

Agreed. The fact that ND claims publicly that they are a Catholic institution should be met with criminal and civil charges of false advertising.

A nice class action lawsuit should work too.

At least the Bishops should formally strip them of their Catholic identity. That would work for me. Actually, I’m not sure how it works for Catholic institutions or Catholic Universities, but when an individual Catholic publicly goes against the teachings of the Church, they automatically excommunicate themselves. These people that are running around proclaiming to be “staunch Catholics” and at the same time are pro choice activists or politicians, they have automatically divorced themselves from the Roman Catholic Church. It’s really cut and dried.

I have a feeling the class action lawsuit would be tricky, but hey, that would work for me too.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

I have a feeling the class action lawsuit would be tricky, but hey, that would work for me too.

Class actions are for a multitude of people who have been similarly harmed. Who would sue? There’s the Roman Catholic Church, the Old Holy Roman Catholic Church and the Polish Catholic Church, all different religions. You’d have to show that the college falsely palmed itself off as being connected to one of those. I should warn you: There are a plethora of schools around here which call themselves “In the Catholic tradition” so it would be hard to establish that ND was falsely fooling anyone.

Actually it can’t.

That’s where the leap comes in. By awarding an honorary doctorate to the president you assume that Notre Dame is thumbing its nose at Church teachings. It ain’t necessarily so.

 

[elts1956]

the Democrat/Republican split of the Catholic vote in elections
50/47 – 2000 Al Gore
52/47 – 2004 George W. Bush
54/45 – 2008 Barack Obama
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism_and_American_politics

For what the Vatican teaches on how Catholics should vote in a democratic society, see:

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
DOCTRINAL NOTE
on some questions regarding
The Participation of Catholics in Political Life
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html
*
…fundamental teaching of the Second Vatican Council is that «the lay faithful are never to relinquish their participation in ‘public life’, t Yes, they have an obligation to vote.that is, in the many different economic, social, legislative, administrative and cultural areas, which are intended to promote organically and institutionally the common good».[10]* This would include the promotion and defence of goods such as public order and peace, freedom and equality, respect for human life and for the environment, justice and solidarity**.
…
relativism, of course, has nothing to do with the legitimate freedom of Catholic citizens to choose among the various political opinions that are compatible with faith and the natural moral law, and to select, according to their own criteria, what best corresponds to the needs of the common good. Political freedom is not – and cannot be – based upon the relativistic idea that all conceptions of the human person’s good have the same value and truth, but rather, on the fact that politics are concerned with very concrete realizations of the true human and social good in given historical, geographic, economic, technological and cultural contexts. From the specificity of the task at hand and the variety of circumstances, a plurality of morally acceptable policies and solutions arises. It is not the Church’s task to set forth specific political solutions – and even less to propose a single solution as the acceptable one So are you agreeing that “other issues” such as economics, war, environment, topped the very grave issue of abortion? The issue of abortion was the most volatile, important, over riding issues of this past Presidential election…
.
The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good.

… Abortion was Not an isolated issue as bo supporters say to salve their conscience. It was the FOUNDATION and UNDER RIDING issue of all issues to be considered in the recent Presidential election

When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate). Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death. In the same way, it is necessary to recall the duty to respect and protect the rights of the human embryo. Analogously, the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such. The same is true for the freedom of parents regarding the education of their children; it is an inalienable right recognized also by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. In the same way, one must consider society’s** protection of minors and freedom from modern forms of slavery** (drug abuse and prostitution, for example). In addition, there is** the right to religious freedom **and the development of an economy that is at the service of the human person and of the common good, with respect for social justice, the principles of human solidarity and subsidiarity, according to which «the rights of all individuals, families, and organizations and their practical implementation must be acknowledged».[21] Finally, the question of **peace **must be mentioned. Certain pacifistic and ideological visions tend at times to secularize the value of peace, while, in other cases, there is the problem of summary ethical judgments which forget the complexity of the issues involved. Peace is always «the work of justice and the effect of charity».[22] It demands the absolute and radical rejection of violence and terrorism and requires a constant and vigilant commitment on the part of all political leaders.
…

See my post continued below.

 

[elts1956]

QUOTE=Palm Tree;5323708]the Democrat/Republican split of the Catholic vote in elections

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH DOCTRINAL NOTE As clear as looking in a mirror. Whatever you wanted to see bounced right back at you. You could make your own interpretation.

Quote:It is not the Church’s task …etc. I am assuming this is where you would quote the “single issue” factor

But then we have Quote: When political activity comes up against **moral principles…etc. …essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia

So what were those who voted for bo thinking? They weren’t reading clearly, certainly. Abortion and the Life issues included with this issue was the ONLY INTRINSIC EVIL to be dealt with in THIS past electionof 2008… Yes, there are other Intrinsic Evils, but they were not being voted on in 2008.**

 

[imperial]

Easily said. For instance?

Easily said. For instance?

That’s what bombers and terroristic killers believe, and I’m not calling the protesters terrorists. The fact is, when you get some folks wrapped up into thinking they are representing 'God’s law" its a prescription for disaster. It is not their place to break the laws. God represents God’s laws.

My goodness you have got it wrong.
I said life against death, NOT death against life.
Terrorist support death against life, please don’t confuse yourself.
The protesters where supporting life.
God’s law the God of love,

 

[BobCatholic]

By awarding an honorary doctorate to the president you assume that Notre Dame is thumbing its nose at Church teachings. It ain’t necessarily so.

[usccb.org/bishops/catholics(name removed by moderator)oliticallife.shtml](http://www.usccb.org/bishops/catholics(name removed by moderator)oliticallife.shtml)

The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.

So they gave the Pro-Abortionist in Chief an honorary degree…it means they hate what he stands for and want to rebuke him…yeah, that’s the ticket…they had no intention of honoring someone who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles…yeah, that’s the ticket.

And those 90 bishops objecting to Obama? They…wanted to throw a surprise party honoring him and were upset that ND would not let them…yeah, that’s the ticket. ND was actually standing up for the Catholic teaching against abortion…yeah, that’s the ticket.

What do you think? I think I did a great impersonation of Jon Lovitz there

 

[HappyRevert]

That’s where the leap comes in. By awarding an honorary doctorate to the president you assume that Notre Dame is thumbing its nose at Church teachings. It ain’t necessarily so.

What is it then? They were told not to do it because it publicly honored someone who has single-handedly set back pro-life decades. For all of us paying US taxes, our tax dollars now pay for overseas abortions whether we want to or not.

Since pro-life is one of our most worrisome issues right now, it is important that those intent on killing the innocent understand the deep moral and ethical objections that we have. Notre Dame’s actions basically said that pro-life isn’t important. What do you think they were trying to do? Did they just think that no one noticed that Obama was living up to his campaign promises that a woman can get an abortion at ANY TIME? That means that an 8 month viable fetus, who with today’s medical science would live - can be killed. If the mother is ill, they can deliver the fetus early (it’s done all the time for medical reasons with parents who want the baby), but instead because the child is not wanted, they kill it during delivery. All the while knowing if it comes out of the birth canal without a death blow. It will probably live. All because it is not “WANTED”. That’s the only criteria for life or death, whether someone “WANTS” you or not.

Do you truly believe that Notre Dame did not understand this when they invited the president to receive his degree? If so, what do you think is their position? I can’t believe that any rigorous logic would show their line of thinking valid.

 

[reggieM]

Since pro-life is one of our most worrisome issues right now, it is important that those intent on killing the innocent understand the deep moral and ethical objections that we have. Notre Dame’s actions basically said that pro-life isn’t important.

Excellent point. For Obama, abortion is clearly very important, that’s why he changed laws so quickly and radically already. Notre Dame gave the message that pro-life is not important to them at all. This is a set-back to the pro-life movement and it does serious damage to Notre Dame University itself.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Excellent point. For Obama, abortion is clearly very important, that’s why he changed laws so quickly and radically already.

As I understand it, the president does not get to change laws. Further, the abortion question has never been a major issue for the president, for his entire political career. He is no radical supporter of abortion, despite the unverified statements and slurs one may see on this forum.

I am amazed that the only issue, among many facing our nation, that comes to mind in many when they consider the president is the issue of abortion. No matter how important that issue is, it is certainly not the only issue with which he has to deal.

 

[Rach620]

I hesitate to post at all on this thread, as it got a little hostile around here for a bit…But I’ll try to keep my cool.

Those who have defended ND have used tactics recognizable to anyone who has been exposed to principles of socialist disinformation, possibly coincidental, but it does color others’ perceptions of the institution. They have pointed out that mass is celebrated daily at ND, the attendance at ND Response, if only the demonstrators had attended ND Response, the demonstrations were not approved, perhaps Father Weslin was arrested for yelling obscenities, etc. and that ND is private property. Let me answer these.

“Socialist disinformation” tactics? I would say, instead, that defense of Notre Dame against “Notre Dame haters” who have been apt to come out of the woodwork for many different reasons in past years whenever “bad” things happen yet who are so reluctant to actually recognize the great good that has happened there comes out of love for the university and hope for its future.

Mass is celebrated daily at ND. It is also celebrated daily at most state universities in my experience.

It’s not just that Mass is celebrated once daily at ND–it’s celebrated many, many times a day in the Basilica of the Sacred Heart, and in each of the chapels on campus (25+ different chapels). The Sacrament of Confession is offered multiple times a day and there are always lines. Eucharistic adoration is available daily during the school year. There are just a lot of opportunities for spiritual growth through the celebration of the sacraments and other traditional Catholic devotions, and in many cases I’d say there is peer pressure to participate in these, rather than to skip out on them. I understand that this doesn’t “save” ND in anyone’s eyes, but it does go a long way to show that Catholic culture is far from dead on campus.

The attendance at ND Response. 1+% of the graduating class attended ND Response; not much of an offset to the 98+% who cheered the face of death.

True, 25 or so graduates attended ND Response’s rally, but more graduates were involved in ND Response who chose to attend the Commencement ceremonies. A major aspect of our prayer service (I am a member of the class of 2009) was that we were united in prayer as a class–both those of us in the Grotto and those of us in the JACC for Commencement. Our local bishop, Bishop D’Arcy, himself told us–because we really wanted to know, as we all grappled with our own personal decision whether or not to attend our own graduation–that of course it is not morally wrong to attend one’s own Commencement! Yes, unfortunately the number of students in our class who supported President Obama’s honorary degree at Commencement outnumbered those who opposed it. But just because someone was at Commencement doesn’t mean that they “cheered the face of death”.

The demonstrations were not approved.

ND Response’s demonstration was most certainly approved. Otherwise, it would not have taken place. I know this as a member of ND Response. As I’ve said multiple times before, I’m actually quite astonished at the great latitude which the University granted ND response in approving its Commencement weekend plans.

Neither were the counter demonstrations, but those weren’t arrested. From others in this thread, it would seem that one had to be displaying a cross or image of the Virgin Mary to be arrested at this “Catholic University”.

ND Response asked that graphic abortion images be put away during the Mass, rally, and prayer vigil on the quad, but plenty of people had images of Our Lady of Guadalupe, “Respect Life” signs, rosaries, and even signs that were critical of ND. No one at the ND Response rally with these signs was bothered.

If only the demonstrators had attended ND Response; ND is private property. ND has shops, restaurants, chapels, etc.; any number of reasons one may want to go onto this “private property”, which is open to the public. McDonalds is also private property. Ambassador Keyes, and others, were informed before the events that if they set foot on ND “private property” FOR ANY REASON, they would be promptly arrested. I doubt that McDonalds could have gotten away with that. These people could not have attended ND Response.

This is because Alan Keyes had already been on campus and arrested once. After the first arrest and his announcement that he intended to get arrested again, he was told that if he set foot on campus for any reason he would be arrested–that’s probably because they assumed his only intention for entering campus would be to stage his own protest. You can’t express your intention to protest on private property and then complain when they take pre-emptive action against your protest…

As to trespassing: when one is not allowed on premises open to the public, because of their religion, I think that is a civil rights felony AGAINST those coming on to the property, not a trespassing misdemeanor BY those coming on to the property.

The things is, Notre Dame is private property. They have the right to enforce trespassing regulations as they wish, in order to keep the peace on their little piece of land. It’s not a civil rights violation, it seems rather to be a matter of property rights (but a lawyer would probably be able to explain this better…).

We’re not really talking about the fact that these protesters were merely arrested any longer, though. We’re talking about ND’s continuing to press charges full-throttle, something which I think they shouldn’t do (but which I’m not surprised that they are).

 

[Rach620]

Agreed. The fact that ND claims publicly that they are a Catholic institution should be met with criminal and civil charges of false advertising.

A nice class action lawsuit should work too.

Is someone going to bring a class action lawsuit against ALL Catholic Universities that don’t measure up?

I’m sure that will have the intended effect of encouraging the growth of Catholic culture and orthodoxy on campus right quick!

 

[imperial]

Good point, so has the Chinese government, because he has MORE important things to do, rather than worrying about protecting life, That is why obama changed the law immediately so he may continue with more important issues.

 

[reggieM]

As I understand it, the president does not get to change laws. Further, the abortion question has never been a major issue for the president, for his entire political career. He is no radical supporter of abortion, despite the unverified statements and slurs one may see on this forum.

Obama is one of the most pro-abortion politicians in America. He is certainly the most pro-abortion president we have ever had. Abortion is clearly a major issue for him.

“The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act,” Obama said in his July speech to abortion advocates worried about the increase of pro-life legislation at the state level.

I am amazed that the only issue, among many facing our nation, that comes to mind in many when they consider the president is the issue of abortion. No matter how important that issue is, it is certainly not the only issue with which he has to deal.

For Obama, even in spite of the many major issues he could have focused on – he overturned the Mexico City policy that prevented U.S. funds from being used to support abortion. He did that, one week into his new presidency.

 

[reggieM]

Sic Transit Gloria: Good Bye Notre Dame