D
diggerdomer
Guest
ND let thousands of pro-lifers walk around campus too, with unimpeded access. So there is no viewpoint discrimination.
- Status
O
otjm
Guest
We agree.
From that report, it is not possible to say who stood where, and what may have been public property and what may have been ND property. It appears from the report that Karen was standing on ND property, at a Federal Credit Union. whether or not that is actually ND property is not as clear as you would have it. Further, the comments in the report do not place the Obama demonstrators on the same exact location as Karen was on, which further obfuscates the issue of whether or not they were on ND property or simply next to it. You have not resolved the facts clearly enough that anyone can make a reasoned decision.
It should be obvious to anyone looking in that Jenkins does not give as much credence to the pro-life movement as those who are involved in it. That, however, does not rise to the level of proof theat ND is pro-abortion. You are simply making an emotional arguement, not arriving at a logical conclusion. Who made the decision? Jenkins. He is trying to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor. The short of it is that it appears that basking in the limelight of a President who’s popularity is exceptionally high was more important to Jenkins than following the teaching of the Church about pro-life issues. That in and of itself does not make him pro-abortion. Stupid? Yes. A glory hound? Yes. Less than in line with the Magisterium of the Church? Yes. Liberal? Yes. Pro abortion? The facts simply don’t show that. They do show that he is not willing to stand up for what the Catholic Church teaches in a forthright fashion, and they do show that he is interested in being in the company of movers and shakers on the national scene. However, it is simply specious to say that he is pro-abortion.
He had the President of the US there, not becasue the President is por-abortion but because in a worldly fashion, the President is one of the most prestigious persons he could invite. That does not make him pro-abortion. Let’s use a bit of logic instead of emotion.
The whole bit about “dialogue” came about when Jenkins was getting heat about inviting Obama. Jenkins did not invite Obama because Obama was pro-abortion; he invited Obama because Obama was the president. The whole issue about abortion was a side issue as far as Jenkins was concerned, until the bishop and others turned up the heat; then “dialogue” became an excuse. Jenkins got heat because of Obama’s position on abortion; then he tried to “balance” the issue by inviting the past ambassador to the Vatican (who brilliantly and publicly shot him down in flames) and then because he was already committed to the invitation of Obama and couldn’t or wouldn’t back down, he tried the excuse of dialogue. The issue didn’t start with abortion, but the bishop made it the issue, and jenkins had no way that he could see to unring the bell.
None of that makes him pro-abortion.
I have read the quotes. None of them rise to the level of direct evidence. At most they are inferrential.
Let’s try this again. I think Jenkins is a quisling, and doesn’t have the guts to follow the Magisterium. He appears to be a product of the liberal portion of people in the Church, and he seems far more interested in the worldly aspects of being president of ND than he does in being a bold follower of Christ. I cannot judge his soul, but his actions are those of the left wing of those who consider themselves Catholic, but seemed ashamed of what the Church proclaims. He appears much more a child of the 60’s and 70’s than a child of the 90’s and 100’s. I suspect that he follows National Catholic Reporter much more than National Catholic Register.
There are good professors at ND who follow the Magisterium, and there are professors who don’t. There are students at ND whose faith is strong, and there are those whose faith is weak or non-existent. ln terms of working with the poor, the Church tends to follow more closely with the Democratic party than the Republican and in terms of life issues, the Church follws mroe closely to what the Republicans have sttod for,w tih the exception of the death penalty. The Church is neither liberal nor conservative, and neither liberals nor conservatives have a claim on the Church. Jenkins is a liberal who believes and professes what the Church says which agrees with his liberal prospectives, and minimizes or tries to ignore the issues where the liberals and the Church part company. Life issues are absolutely critical, and most particularly to those who come out at the wrong end of the discussion - children, elderly, etc. It is sad, considering that Jenkins could simply have bypassed all the issues by inviting someone else to commencement, that he did not do so. As noted, his predecessor invited several presidents, and he wanted to do likewise, particularly as he was inviting one who is considered by the world to be such a break in history, so unique and popular.
That does not make him pro-abortion.
R
Rach620
Guest
Thank you for posting those links. However, again, their reporting doesn’t square with a) what I and anyone I know witnessed on campus that weekend, and b) what is reported on every other major news source I’ve read on the issue. I’ve been involved in journalism, and using the old “witnesses reported” that pro-Obama types were given the run of the place is shoddy reporting at best, patently false or intentionally misleading at worst. I’m not accusing lifesitenews of being intentionally misleading, but I think asking for other impartial corroborating reports isn’t too much to ask.
Yes, and what otjm was suggesting was that perhaps permission was obtained by the pro-Obama demonstrators along that route. I doubt that it was (as there had to have been students involved if that were the case), but it is an open question.
Not true. If I could post a map here, I would, but the NDFCU is located in the middle of Notre Dame property on the far north end of campus. There are public streets which run through this area, but the parking lot in question was Notre Dame property.
Well, here’s a link to the official campus map. I think it would be helpful for this conversation. Building 1181 in the top left portion, at the intersection of Douglas and Juniper Roads, is the Notre Dame Credit Union in question. All the land in that area is Notre Dame property; the surrounding buildings are Notre Dame property. Protesters in that area were certainly on ND Property. However the bulk of the protests–including pro-life and pro-Obama demonstrations–took place at the Main Gate of the University, located along Angela Rd at the very bottom of the map. That area is public property and those are public roads.
Again, I do not believe that report constitutes sufficient evidence. The “witness reports” are sketchy at best.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
They were required to have permission.
The pro-Obama types, did they also have to obtain permission? Well? Let’s see how many didn’t - show me the arrest reports of pro-Obama types.
Oh wait. There are none. ND let them not have to deal with the annoying “permitting” process
D
diggerdomer
Guest
I did not need permission to enter campus. No one I was with did, either.They were required to have permission.
The pro-Obama types, did they also have to obtain permission? Well? Let’s see how many didn’t - show me the arrest reports of pro-Obama types.
Oh wait. There are none. ND let them not have to deal with the annoying “permitting” process
Sorry again if my (and so many others’) experience from actually being there contradicts what your reading from other sources. I’d question the objectivity of the sources.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
However, she was asked to leave the property, so even going to the sidewalk was not enough according to the report. The ND police behaved as if the sidewalk was ND property.
As I said before, if her car was parked illegally (on ND property without permission), a parking ticket is the correct procedure, not arrest.
The pro-Obama demonstrators were along the route of the Motorcade. On sidewalks and possibly even the street.
If they could be on the sidewalks, so could the pro-lifers. But we live in the Obamanation so freedom of speech no longer applies to those who disagree with The One.
Follow in the footsteps of a predecessor who did what? Inviting other pro-aborts?
OK - simple questions: Did ND invite President Reagan? Bush I? GW Bush? Or is it only for those with a D next to their name?
And he didn’t do any dialogue. He just let Obama speak and didn’t do any dialogue. It was a flat out lie he told.
Did he bother telling the Pro-Abortionist in Chief that he disagrees with his views? Or was he just too distracted with stars in his eyes?
So, let’s see what we have here.
Invites pro-abortion politician, namely “The One” Check.
When the issue of abortion comes up, he flat out lies using the “dialogue” excuse. Check.
He does not even do any sort of dialogue. Check.
Arrests people who disagree with pro-abortion “The One”. Check.
Does not even show any mercy to those who disagree with pro-abortion “The One” by offering to drop the charges. Check.
Ordering the police to arrest those who disagree with “The One” while supporters of “The One” were not arrested. Check.
I even brought up the following argument: Replace “pro-life demonstrator” with “black person” and “pro-Obama demonstrator” with “white person” in what ND did and tell me it doesn’t sound bad to ND?
ND practices viewpoint discrimination. At Jenkin’s dictates.
If Jenkins not pro-abortion he’s doing a LOUSY job of having his actions confirm his alleged pro-life stance.
In the meantime, his actions scream louder than his words.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
And what about the missing details? The route of the Motorcade? Where the other pro-Obama demonstrators were on the route of the Motorcade?
According to Google Maps, Douglas is a public road, as is Juniper road in that part. So it is a stretch to say those two roads are ND property.
The claim that pro-Obama demonstrators did not tresspass is sketchy at best.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
OK, so you and those with you were exempt from the rules
I
imperial
Guest
Just goes to SHOW the damage ND has done. 
Shame on Jenkins I can’t understand why ND has support by trying to make all sorts of silly excuses saying protesters were free to roam around. It is clear they did Not.
If they did there would be no trespassing charges.
The Pro lifers should have been honored @ Nd. for it is those souls that are trying to SAVE babies. :banghead:
The media did show Obama supporters yelling and carrying on :hypno:
They disturbed the peace where charges laid on them?
Clearly there are two sides to this story one is for the word of GOD and the other for the word of a politician.
Shame on Jenkins I can’t understand why ND has support by trying to make all sorts of silly excuses saying protesters were free to roam around. It is clear they did Not.
If they did there would be no trespassing charges.
The Pro lifers should have been honored @ Nd. for it is those souls that are trying to SAVE babies. :banghead:
The media did show Obama supporters yelling and carrying on :hypno:
They disturbed the peace where charges laid on them?
Clearly there are two sides to this story one is for the word of GOD and the other for the word of a politician.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
No, we obeyed the rules.OK, so you and those with you were exempt from the rules
D
diggerdomer
Guest
R
Rach620
Guest
None of those details have been released to my knowledge. The Motorcade route was not public information (for security reasons I’m sure)–most protesters gathered along Angela Blvd. because they believed that that was where Obama would pass. I’ll bet he did take the “back way” in, along Douglas to Juniper and the north campus entrance, but there is no way for us to know.
And we can’t know where these pro-Obama demonstrators were, if they were on the north side of campus at all, because there are no reports that document their being there besides the LifeSiteNews “witnesses” you have cited.
First of all–the woman in those articles was arrested for being in the parking lot of the ND FCU. That is certainly private property. She wasn’t standing in the middle of the street, she was on private property and was asked by police to leave, and there is NO clear, objective evidence that others were not treated the same way.
And again, I am trying to explain the geography at ND based on my experience of having lived in the area for four years. That familiarity is what leads me to tell you that those roads go right through ND property. For anyone who’s ever driven on those roads, it is clear that the entire area is owned by the university–regardless of what you might see on Google Maps. Those roads are public ROADS, and cars are able to pass through unimpeded, but the entire area is Notre Dame property. The sidewalks alongside the roads are Notre Dame property, and I believe that ND jointly manages those streets with the city of South Bend.
The sidewalk in that area IS ND property. Again, she was in the parking lot of the NDFCU, which is private property. It’s not just that her car was there, but that she was there with protest signs, on ND property, and was refusing to leave. I’m assuming she was asked to leave by policemen who were hoping to secure the area in advance of the president’s arrival. Proper punishment for someone who refuses police orders while trespassing isn’t a parking ticket, but is at the very least a citation and possibly arrest.
There is no clear-cut evidence of this. No media source and no *actual * (ie, not anonymous “witnesses”) observers have been cited on the record as having witnessed this.
Yes, each of those was invited and each came. It is ND’s tradition to invite the President in the first year of his term. A recent exception: Bill Clinton.
Look, I understand your overwhelming frustration at this scandal. I found the Catholic life–intellectual, spiritual, and communal–at Notre Dame to be incredibly enriching and unlike anything I had experienced before. Notre Dame does its best, especially by its students, when it follows its Catholic mission with orthodoxy, and that is why it is so frustrating to see her stray from the truth.
But ND as a whole isn’t bad; Fr. Jenkins as a person isn’t evil, un-Catholic, or pro-abortion. This incident was the culmination of a struggle many of us have been witnessing at Notre Dame for years, and which Bishop D’Arcy aptly described as choosing prestige over truth. In all of the recent issues, the debate is staged in the context of how we can be a “great, modern Catholic research university”–and this is where the “dialogue” issue has come in. Universities are arguably the best setting for dialogue on the most pressing cultural issues of our day–but where ND has run into trouble is in accepting the secular definition of ‘dialogue’ rather than the Catholic one.
E
elts1956
Guest
Imagine all those rosaries being said and banners depicting Our Lady carried by the pro-bo folks. Hard to imagine.
E
elts1956
Guest
Were you protesting in any form??
D
diggerdomer
Guest
yes
B
BobCatholic
Guest
And how many of them got an honorary degree?
B
BobCatholic
Guest
Actually the article indicates she was trying to head toward the sidewalk - in effect complying with the police order to leave. The sidewalk is public property. If it was not, then the pro-Obama demonstrators who were there later SHOULD have gotten arrested. Oh wait, they had the “correct opinion”, so they would not have gotten arrested
Yes, she left the car behind, so a parking ticket is warranted - not arrest. Heck, they could have towed her car too, would they not have those signs posted saying unauthorized vehicles would be towed.
The more you defend ND on this, the more you prove my point that ND is practicing viewpoint discrimination.
And the fact that ND has not asked the local government to drop the charges or show clemency on the pro-lifers also speaks volumes.
Is it also ND tradition to give them an honorary degree? Or is it only for the Pro-Abortionist in Chief?
Father Jenkins may say the right words by claiming to be pro-life. His words are nice, but his actions speak too loud for me to hear his words clearly.
I
imperial
Guest
Ha Ha :extrahappy: good one bobcatholic :dancing:
They will get their honorary degree but not in this life. :angel1:
B
BobCatholic
Guest
I agree. The Pro-Obama types were not praying rosaries or holding pictures of Our Lady.
They were not peacefully praying for Obama’s conversion away from the culture of death.
They also had free reign on campus while the “anti” folks had to get permits, and were arrested if they didn’t have them. Number of pro-Obama types arrested = zero.
Pro-Obama types could be on the sidewalks along the motorcade route, but pro-lifers were arrested on the sidewalks. Nice.
O
otjm
Guest
That is because you have selective hearing. You have made up your mind after reading a couple of articles, that you know more about the situation than do people who were actually there. Over one incident, you feel that you have the ability to determine what attitude Father Jenkins has about a matter that he has discussed very little, publicly, and his comments are in opposition to your judgement. And you are basing that entirely, it appears, on the fact that he invited the POTUS as a commencement speaker.
I hate to break the news to you, but Obama has responsibility for more than just matters about abortion; he has responsiblities for the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan (and the Church by and large has an anti-war stance); he has responsiblities for the economy, and he has responsiblites for issues such as health care, all of which the Church has an interest, and in fact some issues of which the Church aligns at least partially with Obama.
While I agree whole-heartedly with the bishop, and with the statement the bishops made together concerning politicians who support abortion, and I would whole-heartedly support a freeze on any contributions to ND by alumni and alumnae who are disturbed by Jenkins outright ignoring the bishops’ statment and inviting Obama, I find that you are far beyond what the bishop himself had to say - before and subsequently, and you tipify the individual who wants to make broad sweeping accusations on minimal evidence. In short, you typify the individual who’s attitude is “Please don’t confuse me with the facts; I already have my mind made up”. In other words, you are simply stone cold tone deaf; you just think you hear the tune. You know next to nothing about law, and don’t want to know about it if it conflicts with your profound opinions.
You are not the only one in this thread who is pro-life.
- Status