D
- Status
B
BobCatholic
Guest
Links please.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
I base it on how he is behaving.
Yeah the pro-abortionist in chief invite is one big one, but it is not the only reason I think he’s not really pro-life.
You forget the other details:
- He honored the pro-abortionist in chief with an honorary degree in contravention of Church rules.
- Requiring the pro-lifers to jump through hoops for a permitting process while not requiring the same of the Pro-Obama types
- Having police arrest ZERO pro-Obama types while pro-lifers were arrested
- Once the pro-lifers were arrested, he took zero action to show mercy.
- Making viewpoint discrimination a ND official policy.
So go ahead and listen to his words. That’s good enough for you to defend him?
Does this mean you’ll also defend Obama because he SAYS that he wants to reduce abortion and that he SAYS he is not pro-abortion? Do you believe Obama? If no, why do you believe Jenkins?
R
Rach620
Guest
Historical Listing of Honorary Degrees, 1844-present
Past presidents who received honorary degrees at Notre Dame:
George Walker Bush - 2001
George Herbert Walker Bush - 1992
Ronald Wilson Reagan - 1981
Jimmy Carter - 1977
Gerald R Ford - 1975
Dwight David Eisenhower - 1960
John F Kennedy - 1950
In posting this I am just trying to clarify the facts. I am NOT making excuses for ND having awarded Obama the honorary degree as a matter of tradition, as others have. The honorary doctor of laws degree is the most outrageous and scandalous aspect of the whole Obama saga. It should not have been done. Personally, I don’t think ND should award honorary degrees to politicians any more.
But to draw from this event the conclusion that Notre Dame ONLY honors pro-abortion individuals is absurd. From the history of Notre Dame, it is clear that this is not the case. My sincere hope is that Notre Dame would return to the days in which it honored men and women of integrity, character and virtue. People like Cardinal Arinze (2005), GE Anscombe (1986), Robert Bork (1982), William F Buckley (1978), Archbishop Elias Chacour (2007), GK Chesterton (1930), Fr. Yves Congar, OP (1966), Bishop John D’Arcy (1988), Fr. Henri de Lubac, SJ (1966), Avery Cardinal Dulles (2001), Mary Ann Glendon (1996), Coretta Scott King (1987), Harper Lee (2006), Cardinal McCarrick (2008), Eugenio Pacelli / Pope Pius XII (1936), Condoleezza Rice (1995), Antonin Scalia (1997), Eric Voegelin (1974), Lech Walesa (1982), and plenty of others.
No one here is “defending Jenkins” for Fr. Jenkins’ sake. My main issue is that you are assuming that because of Fr. Jenkins’ rubber-stamping the honorary degree award submitted by the Boards of Fellows and Trustees that Notre Dame is in some way pro-abortion. It is not. Notre Dame remains a Catholic institution, though one whose Catholic identity has been gravely wounded in recent years. I have hope that good students and faculty there can still turn the place around, but it takes not only the same hope from others but also their good will, prayerful support, and confidence that it can be done FOR it to be done.
The problems at Notre Dame are much deeper than this one incident, and the most pressing evidence is not who was arrested (and why) on that one weekend in May. To move forward from here, yes, it would be great if ND would drop charges against pro-lifers. But pro-lifers and Catholics of good will should also drop all of the emotionally charged bad-mouthing of Notre Dame if they actually sincerely hope to do some good for the premier Catholic institution of higher learning in America.
O
otjm
Guest
The contravention of Church rules is just that - a contravention - which I have never denied. But the contravention is not proof that Jenkins is not pro life or neutral on the issue; it is only proof that he was following a long tradition publicly known of inviting sitting presidents to commencement exrercises.
You ahve been told repeatedly what was required of pro-life groups; it was hardly “jumping through hoops”. You ahve yet to show that anyone favoring Obama for any reason at all was not subject to the same rules; your only showing is a non-event of not being arrested; and non-events are not proof of your position.
ND was not quiet before the commencement as to what behavior would be allowed and what was prohibited. Some appear to have shown up knowing the rules and intending to defy them. You have yet to show that the supporters also violated the rules; you seem to be making the presumption that they did, and that then nothing was done.
Having mercy has nothing to do with his position for, against, or neutral about abortion. He is head of a private college, which not only has a right to limit the public on its grounds and the legal right to determine what type of conduct may not be acceptible, but also, because of the issue of precedent, has the duty to carry through prosecution to its normal consequences. You obviously have no experience dealing with legal issues, especially criminal issues on private property by the uninvited public.
*
You have failed absolutely to establish that there is any policy that is discriminatory, as you have failed to show that there was any activity by supporters that violated the rules of conduct during commencment which applied to either students, non-students, or both who were protesting Obama’s presence. The fact that hundreds of people protested him peacefully shows that you are not able to distinguish between those who followed the rules and those who didn’t. As a result, you are drawing conclusions which are unsupported by the evidence.
Because I can use reason to distinguish what is evidence of a fact, and what is not evidence of a fact.
Do I believe Obama? Obama has made it very plain he supports unlimited abortions - and I believe him. I do not support him; there is a very minor difference that may escape your notice.
Do I believe Jenkins? I see Jenkins actions in the light of ND history, and in the context of a President who is a) black - making him an instant darling of the liberals; b) liberal, making him the instant antithesis of the last administration and again, the darling of the liberals; c) very intelligent, which makes him a darling of higher learning; and I have experienced the visceral hatred of the last administration by acquaintences who are liberal.
Given my experiences it is easy to see that there are a number of reasons that Jenkins would invite him to ND. I have yet to see Jenkins leading the way to require the mandatum, which puts Jenkins in the liberal camp further. So it comes as no surprise to me that Jenkins invited Obama in spite of the requests of the local bishop; I have been observing the results of the Land o’ Lakes agreement since it was signed years ago.
And I learned long ago that because A happens and then B happens, that the sequence is not in itself proof that A caused B, or that A influenced B, or that A had anything to do with B other than that A occured first.
Jenkins would have failed in his responsiblities to the University and to the Board of Directors had he not set down rules by which protesters had to follow. He futher would have failed his duties had he not had those who freely chose to violate the rules arrested; and he would violate his duties by not prosecuting them. None of that is any indication whatsoever of what he may or may not think about abortion. It simply has to do with rules and responsiblities.
I think that as a Catholic, as a priest, and as head of ND he also had a duty to not invite Obama. But his failure in that area is not proof of why he did it, most particularly when there are far more logical and obvious reasons to invite Obama that have nothing to do with abortion.
E
elts1956
Guest
In what way. For, or against bo?
B
BobCatholic
Guest
You’ve done a good job of refuting that assertion (which I haven’t made) but I did make the assertion that they’re honoring “The One” who is pro-abortion as they come. And you do admit it is scandalous, which I agree.
R
Rach620
Guest
I just received this email from the ND Alumni Association…It should be interesting to see what results from this. ND Alumni are typically more conservative than the current students and the faculty, so we will see how ND chooses to interpret the results and “move forward”.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
Compared to what the pro-Obama types had to go through (namely nothing) it is “jumping through hoops” You have yet to refute this.
Actually, I assert that ND does not apply any rules to pro-Obama types. They had free reign. No permission required. There was no way for a pro-Obama type to get charged with trespassing because: pro-Obama types represent what the leftist dominated brass of ND are like, and the police were directed not to arrest them.
What I see here is a bias against the pro-lifers, by ND. Which you are repeating. You assign guilty intentions, and an negative uncharitable reading of their souls and minds, on the part of the pro-lifers. Some showed up not knowing the rules and not intending to trespass but were arrested anyway. Some tried to comply with officer’s orders to leave and were arrested anyway.
However, you assign NO guilty intentions and NO such negative uncharitable reading of their souls and minds to the pro-Obama types. This shows your bias in the situation. Are you willing to defend ND to the point of ignoring the facts that make it look bad?
Officers didn’t arrest pro-Obama types mainly because ND didn’t want them to. Viewpoint discrimination.
Then he should have had pro-Obama types arrested for trespassing too. But he didn’t. That’s because ND practices viewpoint discrimination.
Imagine if this was 1941 and ND had a president come by for a speech. However, zero whites were arrested while a bunch of blacks were arrested. Would you then defend ND and tell me they were not practicing discrimination?
Right now, he’s leaving ND vulnerable to lawsuits for violating people’s civil rights.
With leftists (I won’t call them liberals - they’re not.) dissenting on Church teachings and rules, you really have no proof that Jenkins is not dissenting on the abortion teaching.
He’s obviously a dissenter. You haven’t proven he hasn’t dissented on the abortion teaching yet. All you have is his words. I have his actions.
His actions speak louder than words.
Again, I say: ND practices viewpoint discrimination. You have not refuted this yet.
R
Rach620
Guest
BobCatholic, the problem is that you have yet to show, conclusively, that (a) pro-Obama types were protesting on campus, undisturbed, and (b) that it was Fr. Jenkins who was directing NDSP to arrest pro-lifers and not pro-Obama people.
I have heard NO news reports of pro-Obama demonstrators on campus. None. Only if pro-Obama types were planning to demonstrate on campus would they have needed to seek the same sorts of permissions that ND Response did in order to host the large-scale demonstration that it did. Besides, ND Response chose to seek those permissions, and the administration never once to my knowledge attempted to stop their activities (I was involved in ND Response and close friends of mine led the efforts).
You are assuming that it is Fr. Jenkins who directs the actions of NDSP as well, and making quite a few claims based on this assumption. There is absolutely no evidence that the president of Notre Dame sent the police force on the prowl for pro-lifers loitering on campus. None.
Fr. Jenkins is a weak-willed intellectual (rather than the philosopher king ND needs
), but a pro-abortion zealot he is not. To suggest that he is shows not only great unfamiliarity with Fr. Jenkins and Notre Dame in general, but also a great deal of ill will towards Notre Dame that colors your perspective.Every report I read, besides that one lifesitenews article, stated clearly that the NDSP warned pro-life trespassers clearly and gave them opportunities to avoid arrest before arrests were made. I do not believe that ANYONE was arrested who did not clearly intend to put themselves in a situation where they knew an arrest could be warranted.
There is no evidence that these pro-Obama types who were doing the exact same things as pro-lifers even existed. Yes, there were some gathered on the public streets south of campus. They were not bothered, nor were pro-life demonstrators gathered there bothered. Again, there is no evidence that there were any pro-Obama demonstrators anywhere on campus that day.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
D
diggerdomer
Guest
I have. You’ve apparently chosen to ignore that though.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Hello?
Are you blind?
I’ve told you again and again. I am pro-life. I was there. I had no problem entering campus. I did not have to jump through any hoops. I had free access to and from campus. No one asked me if I was pro-Obama or not. No one asked me if I was pro-life or not.
Again, I am sorry if my experience of being there conflicts with what you’ve read from some sources as you were not there…and in the end you are of course free to form your opinions based on whatever selective and subjective (name removed by moderator)ut you choose.
E
elts1956
Guest
Digger, did you carry a sign, go quietly to the grotto and pray, go to the Mass, join with the approved groups? There are pictures of unapproved pro life demonstrators being hustled away by the police. Why weren’t you confronted?
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Because I obeyed the civil laws, I guess? Which were of course just that…applied equally to all present. I don’t know. I really didn’t ask any law enforcement people why they didn’t bother me…I actually didn’t see any except those directing traffic. Hope this helps.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
And you have not proven conclusively that (a) Police enforced the law evenly and equally. (b) that Fr. Jenkins has no influence over the NDSP.
With the exception of lifesitenews. Which you ignored.
Except to how he looooooooves ObamaFr. Jenkins is a weak-willed intellectual (rather than the philosopher king ND needs
Like the woman who was heading to the sidewalk (which is off of ND property) to comply with a police order to leave was STILL arrested? And then people were on the sidewalk later on (pro-Obama types) without any one of them arrested?
ND practices viewpoint discrimination.
The law was enforced in an unjust manner by ND.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
If you’re talking about the honorary degrees, yes.
Not really. Unless you were able to cover the entire ND campus. It is possible for you to have missed things while there.
So you were the exception to what was going on there. That does not mean that ND was treating people with equality. Just because you dodged a bullet does not mean that bullets were not flying.
Number of pro-Obama types arrested: Zero
Number of pro-Lifers arrested: Lots
Wrong opinion, wrong location = wrong treatment by ND.
ND practices viewpoint discrimination, and they enforced the law unjustly.
R
Rach620
Guest
It is clear to me that there is a HUGE misconception here as to what happened at ND that weekend, especially re: the number of arrests made. News stories have been provided as to how many people were arrested, and you continue to misconstrue or misinterpret the numbers.
“Unapproved” demonstrators were arrested, yes, but not all of them. And again, it wasn’t that each demonstrator *individually *had to seek permission to join the ND Response protest. Simply by stating that they were walking on to campus to participate in ND Response activities people were allowed free passage. For example, I know that Jill Stanek came to campus that weekend and was given no trouble, even though she had pretty much just hopped off the Truth Truck when she came over AND was following around people who were intentionally getting themselves arrested that day.
Two thousand pro-life demonstrators converged on campus on May 17 to join in the ND Response protest. None of those who were affiliated with this protest were arrested. Only those, who for some reason or another, trespassed on to other parts of campus were arrested. And their numbers were few, especially when compared with the total number of pro-lifers in and around campus that weekend. Reports vary, from “more than three dozen,” to “at least 27,” “23,” and “nearly 40”.
As these stories note, ALL of the arrests were made for trespassing or resisting arrest. And from every report I have read (with the exception of the lifesitenews one, which I don’t find to be too credible), the vast majority of those who were arrested sought arrest.
So it wasn’t as if cops were milling about the campus attempting to find pro-lifers stepping out of line so that they could be arrested. Talk to anyone who was there at the ND Response events (or probably even most people gathered at the main gate) and they will tell you that there was minimal police interference with any of the major pro-life demonstrations that day. The arrests that were made seemed to be made for trespassing, particularly in areas where security was a concern (ie, closer to the JACC where Commencement was being held, or, according to lifesitenews, along the motorcade route).
MOST pro-lifers entered and exited campus without issue on that Sunday, and were not bothered even while participating in the demonstrations. I apologize if that doesn’t square with your own idea of what happened that weekend, but these are the facts.
R
Red_Wolf
Guest
I have been following this thread hoping to find news of how the trials are turning out. I was also wondering whether Father Weslin had been injured in what seemed the brutality of his arrest. It didn’t seem as though his arms would bend as the ND “security” people forced them to, after wrestling him to the ground for no apparent reason. (Granted, ND “security” were the only amateurs involved; but they were amateurish enough to make up for the rest.)
Here are some things I found:
aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=4651&posts=2
“Father Weslin has been arrested numerous times for blocking abortion clinics all over the country. He has had both arms ripped out of socket, beaten beyond recognition, handcuffed and dragged downstairs with the skin peeled off his face from the steps and sprayed with tainted urine, all done by civil authorities. Read his book, “The Gathering of the Lambs”, published by Queen of Angels, it’s very interesting.”
[So I guess I was right about his limited arm motion.]
And from Father Weslin:
THANK YOU ALL FOR WHAT YOU HAVE TRIED TO PREVENT:
freerepublic.com/focus/news/2256247/posts
[This is too long, I think, to post the text in this thread; but I highly recommend reading it.]
Here are some things I found:
aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=4651&posts=2
“Father Weslin has been arrested numerous times for blocking abortion clinics all over the country. He has had both arms ripped out of socket, beaten beyond recognition, handcuffed and dragged downstairs with the skin peeled off his face from the steps and sprayed with tainted urine, all done by civil authorities. Read his book, “The Gathering of the Lambs”, published by Queen of Angels, it’s very interesting.”
[So I guess I was right about his limited arm motion.]
And from Father Weslin:
THANK YOU ALL FOR WHAT YOU HAVE TRIED TO PREVENT:
freerepublic.com/focus/news/2256247/posts
[This is too long, I think, to post the text in this thread; but I highly recommend reading it.]
R
Red_Wolf
Guest
We seem to be repeating ourselves here, so I’d like to suggest a new thought. Assuming you are aware of our Holy Father’s Mission Intention for this month, I’d like to share part of the comment on it.
apostleshipofprayer.org/ (Pope’s Prayer Intentions)
“…But we know from the parable that scattering the seed is not enough. The seed on dry ground never sprouts, rocky ground can’t nourish it, and thorny ground chokes it out. What’s needed is rich soil. Then the seed bears much fruit.
What is the rich soil that bears fruit? The Pope makes it clear: rich soil is the unity of believers. At the last supper, Jesus told his disciples: “This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35). And he went on to pray that his followers would be one as he and the Father are one. The purpose for their unity is missionary: “that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me” (John 17:20-23).
If Christians are divided and in conflict, how will the world ever believe that reconciliation is possible? Are there divisions in the Catholic Church? Are there divisions in your diocese or in your parish?
If we cannot show the world our loving unity, we are scattering seed to little purpose. To the extent we can unite in love will we be fruitful in our missionary efforts.
How do we accomplish the unity Jesus requires? We begin by loving each other, washing one another’s feet, and respecting every single person as a person for whom Christ died….”
apostleshipofprayer.org/ (Pope’s Prayer Intentions)
“…But we know from the parable that scattering the seed is not enough. The seed on dry ground never sprouts, rocky ground can’t nourish it, and thorny ground chokes it out. What’s needed is rich soil. Then the seed bears much fruit.
What is the rich soil that bears fruit? The Pope makes it clear: rich soil is the unity of believers. At the last supper, Jesus told his disciples: “This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35). And he went on to pray that his followers would be one as he and the Father are one. The purpose for their unity is missionary: “that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me” (John 17:20-23).
If Christians are divided and in conflict, how will the world ever believe that reconciliation is possible? Are there divisions in the Catholic Church? Are there divisions in your diocese or in your parish?
If we cannot show the world our loving unity, we are scattering seed to little purpose. To the extent we can unite in love will we be fruitful in our missionary efforts.
How do we accomplish the unity Jesus requires? We begin by loving each other, washing one another’s feet, and respecting every single person as a person for whom Christ died….”
- Status