Notre Dame Shame

[diggerdomer]

The bishops said it themselves in paragraph 7: it’s not their place to make statements about specific elections in specific contexts, to endorse and oppose candidates. Indeed, it would exceed the competency of an episcopal conference (although it can [and sometimes is] exercised by local ordinaries to say, “No Catholic can vote for this particular man,” or, “No Catholic can support this particular war,” or “No Catholic can support the secondary draft text of section three of House Bill 1701.” Even if they did do such a thing for some crazy reason, the teachings of the bishops in specific contexts are always fallible, and become increasingly fallible as specificity increases.

In short, it was impossible for them to do so, by the nature of the conference and the powers of the Magisterium.

However, the bishops did put into your hands all the tools of universal moral principles taught by the Church in forming a conscience and casting a vote with a clear Catholic conscience. That’s as much as they can do. But it is also all that they need to do. See, once you accept the words of Faithful Citizenship as being even reasonably authoritative, and you understand what it says about “formal cooperation” and “prudential judgement” it is logically impossible (as I believe I demonstrated fairly well earlier) to conclude that a vote for a pro-abortion rights candidate in this country, at this time, in this context (and, honestly, 99% of other contexts) could possibly be anything but obstinate cooperation in evil and a sin.

So, all the (justifiable) emotional outrage and (justifiable) appeals to “inhuman butchery” that have been made in this thread aside, the logic of Catholic principles compels us to either not vote, or vote against pro-abortion candidates in this country in this context at this time.

If you see another path through the principles that comes out at another conclusion, I’d be grateful to hear it.

Your logic and emotion lead you to one conclusion, my prayer and reflection have led me to another. You think you’re acting in accord with what the Church teaches, and so do I. I’m not judging how you’ve formed your conscience even though I disagree that your position is necessary for all Catholics. The path I saw was through my own reading, studying, talking and praying about the Church teaching and current situation as I am sure you did too. I see your position as consistent with Faithful Citizenship, and I see mine that way too. It’s ok to differ, as conscientious Catholics, in this respect imho.

 

[jkarp]

Your previous post stated “The bishops have stated (as was previously posted to this thread) that supporting politicians like Obama is not to be permitted;”

I said that is not true, that “the bishops” did not state what you claim, but “some bishops” did. I’ve referred to the USCCB teaching in Faithful Citizenship (including the other teaching on its website, including the 2004 letter), and I’ve found nowhere that “the bishops” say supporting politicians “like Obama” is not to be permitted.

Ok, “supporting” wasn’t a good word choice; “honoring” would have been better in the statement. However you’re splitting hairs here in what seems to be an attempt to dodge the point I was trying to make: Notre Dame’s behavior is contrary to the position of the Roman Catholic Bishops of the United States.

Also, you keep referring to Faithful Citizenship as if it were relevant to this thread; it is not. This thread is about honoring politicians whose stance is contrary to the teachings of the Church; Faithful Citizenship is about voting.

Please, help me see what I’m missing in those or any teaching from “the bishops” (not individual bishops, I’m well aware that individual bishops have further opinions on the matter than what the entire conference agreed on) as your original statement claimed.

To be clear, the statement is the position of all of the bishops in the United States:

“It was approved for publication by the full body of bishops at their June 2004 General Meeting and has been authorized for publication by the undersigned.”

A statement from the USCCB is a statement by the collective group of bishops in the United States; it isn’t as you seem to believe, the opinion of a couple of bishops.

To me it’s obvious that the bullet point in the 2004 letter is open to interpretation, of whether having the President of the U.S. give a commencement address and receive the typical honorary degree that goes with that is necessarily construed as a statement that the University is supporting all that person’s politics. I think it’s obviously not the case, I can’t believe there’s anyone in the world who thinks ND inviting the President to speak means the Catholic Church is anything but anti-abortion. Eishenhower, Carter, Reagan, and both Bushes gave commencement addresses at ND as President–none of them strike me as having done anything to fight abortion.

This is a thread about Obama, not Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, or either Bush. Obama is very unambiguously anti-life as he has done everything in his power since being sworn in to allow and encourage the destruction of life, from embryonic stem cell research to FOCA. It is so incredibly obvious that even my daughter (who is in first grade) recognizes it; he is not a friend of the Catholic Church.

With regard to the openness of the statement to interpretation, I think your reasoning is severely flawed. The statement:

“They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

is pretty unambiguous and open to very little interpretation. The University of Notre Dame is bestowing an honor upon Obama (an honorary degree) and also giving him a platform to speak (the commencement speaker - no small honor itself). The situation is rather cut and dried; Notre Dame’s administration is exercising extremely poor judgement.

You and many others construe ND has violating the intent of that bullet point. That’s fine with me.

Our opinion is consistent with the bishops’ position; your opinion is contrary to the official position of the bishops of the United States.

 

[diggerdomer]

Ok, “supporting” wasn’t a good word choice; “honoring” would have been better in the statement. However you’re splitting hairs here in what seems to be an attempt to dodge the point I was trying to make: Notre Dame’s behavior is contrary to the position of the Roman Catholic Bishops of the United States.

Also, you keep referring to Faithful Citizenship as if it were relevant to this thread; it is not. This thread is about honoring politicians whose stance is contrary to the teachings of the Church; Faithful Citizenship is about voting.

To be clear, the statement is the position of all of the bishops in the United States:

A statement from the USCCB is a statement by the collective group of bishops in the United States; it isn’t as you seem to believe, the opinion of a couple of bishops.

This is a thread about Obama, not Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, or either Bush. Obama is very unambiguously anti-life as he has done everything in his power since being sworn in to allow and encourage the destruction of life, from embryonic stem cell research to FOCA. It is so incredibly obvious that even my daughter (who is in first grade) recognizes it; he is not a friend of the Catholic Church.

With regard to the openness of the statement to interpretation, I think your reasoning is severely flawed. The statement:

is pretty unambiguous and open to very little interpretation. The University of Notre Dame is bestowing an honor upon Obama (an honorary degree) and also giving him a platform to speak (the commencement speaker - no small honor itself). The situation is rather cut and dried; Notre Dame’s administration is exercising extremely poor judgement.

Our opinion is consistent with the bishops’ position; your opinion is contrary to the official position of the bishops of the United States.

I’m not trying to split hairs or dodge anything, sorry if I came across that way. Really, I had no such intent.

Also, I think you may misunderstand some of what I said. I am not denying that the 2004 “Catholic in Political Life” is from the entire USCCB. I never said otherwise, and didn’t intend to imply that if what I did type gave anyone that opinion. Sorry for any confusion on this point. I accept all the teachings of the USCCB. My point was that individual bishops have given statements that go beyond what the 2004 statement says.

I still don’t agree that only one of us has legitimate views according to the U.S. Bishops’ Conference statements and teachings, specifically to the issue at hand of the 2004 “Catholic in Political Life” statement or letter or whatever we call it that contains the bullet point we’ve noted.

You think Notre Dame’s action suggests support for the President’s position on abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Is that fair to say? I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, I’m trying to make sure I understand accurately your position in light of the specific bullet point cited.

I do not think Notre Dame’s action suggests support for the President’s position on abortion and embryonic stem cell research.

My understanding is that the 2004 “Catholics in Political Life” allows us each to have these opinions and be in accord with that letter. I think it’s worthwhile to note too that the Bishops prefaced the bullet points listed as “highlights” to “suggest further action” for our (bishops) efforts. The bullet we’re going back and forth about says “should” not “shall” not honor. For these reasons, too, I think this statement allows individual situations to be addressed with prudential judgment, and for individuals to make such judgments in those circumstances. We can differ on whether we think ND’s actions suggest support for certain positions the President holds.

 

[jkarp]

I’m not trying to split hairs or dodge anything, sorry if I came across that way. Really, I had no such intent.

Also, I think you may misunderstand some of what I said. I am not denying that the 2004 “Catholic in Political Life” is from the entire USCCB. I never said otherwise, and didn’t intend to imply that if what I did type gave anyone that opinion. Sorry for any confusion on this point. I accept all the teachings of the USCCB. My point was that individual bishops have given statements that go beyond what the 2004 statement says.

Okay, I also apologize for my misunderstanding of your intended point . Could you by any chance point me toward any of those statements so that I can better understand your point of view?

I still don’t agree that only one of us has legitimate views according to the U.S. Bishops’ Conference statements and teachings, specifically to the issue at hand of the 2004 “Catholic in Political Life” statement or letter or whatever we call it that contains the bullet point we’ve noted.

You think Notre Dame’s action suggests support for the President’s position on abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Is that fair to say? I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, I’m trying to make sure I understand accurately your position in light of the specific bullet point cited.

I do not think Notre Dame’s action suggests support for the President’s position on abortion and embryonic stem cell research.

I don’t necessarily think that it suggests support for his views but it is certainly honors him and is openly defiant of the bishops’ statement regarding honoring those who hold those views.

My understanding is that the 2004 “Catholics in Political Life” allows us each to have these opinions and be in accord with that letter. I think it’s worthwhile to note too that the Bishops prefaced the bullet points listed as “highlights” to “suggest further action” for our (bishops) efforts. The bullet we’re going back and forth about says “should” not “shall” not honor. For these reasons, too, I think this statement allows individual situations to be addressed with prudential judgment, and for individuals to make such judgments in those circumstances. We can differ on whether we think ND’s actions suggest support for certain positions the President holds.

I suppose I can’t argue that you’re not entitled to your own opinion. However, I would like to point out that the definition of “shall” and “should” is quite the opposite of how you are using it. “Shall” (though archaic) is used in law and mandate to express an order or obligation, not a suggestion. For example:

“Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished
by death or by imprisonment for life;”

US Code: Title 18: Section 1111. Murder.
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/51/sections/section_1111.html

This doesn’t mean that one may or may not be punished by death or life imprisonment, it means that one *will *be punished. “Shall” is a verb used to specify that which is binding.

Another example (rather fitting for this thread):

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 16:19
usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew16.htm

Again, “shall” expressing certainty that something will occur (or shall occur ).

 

[Wowbagger]

Your logic and emotion lead you to one conclusion, my prayer and reflection have led me to another. You think you’re acting in accord with what the Church teaches, and so do I. I’m not judging how you’ve formed your conscience even though I disagree that your position is necessary for all Catholics. The path I saw was through my own reading, studying, talking and praying about the Church teaching and current situation as I am sure you did too. I see your position as consistent with Faithful Citizenship, and I see mine that way too. It’s ok to differ, as conscientious Catholics, in this respect imho.

I’m afraid I can’t say the same. Your position, as I understand it, is logically incoherent and incompatible with the principles of Faithful Citizenship, taken in parts or as a whole. It stands in flat opposition to the teaching of the bishops.

Conscientious Catholics can and do indeed differ on many important issues. I enjoy that. Keeps the faith interesting. Unless you can explain some other way to thread the bishops’ deliberately narrow eye of the needle on voting, though, you’re not being a conscientious Catholic; you’re being a conscientious, careful-thinking, obstinate rebel.

Hate to put it in such harsh terms. I’ve enjoyed our conversation. But Church principles are not multiple-choice, and I can’t see a way out of the logic (even if, for some reason, I wanted to vote for mass murder… which, generally speaking, I don’t).

I am, as ever, looking forward your response, as I am y’r obt. serv’t,
Wowbagger

 

[diggerdomer]

Okay, I also apologize for my misunderstanding of your intended point . Could you by any chance point me toward any of those statements so that I can better understand your point of view?

I don’t necessarily think that it suggests support for his views but it is certainly honors him and is openly defiant of the bishops’ statement regarding honoring those who hold those views.

I suppose I can’t argue that you’re not entitled to your own opinion. However, I would like to point out that the definition of “shall” and “should” is quite the opposite of how you are using it. “Shall” (though archaic) is used in law and mandate to express an order or obligation, not a suggestion. For example:

This doesn’t mean that one may or may not be punished by death or life imprisonment, it means that one *will *be punished. “Shall” is a verb used to specify that which is binding.

Another example (rather fitting for this thread):

Again, “shall” expressing certainty that something will occur (or shall occur ).

shall/should…I thought I was making the same point you did? By saying “should” my point is that however one interprets or applies the bulleted point of the 2004 statement, it does say “should” not “shall” meaning (imho) it’s not necessarily/always and everywhere black and white how to apply it. It’s not as binding as it would be, or in the same sense that it would be, had the bishops used “shall” vs. “should.” But I am also not basing my primary reasoning on that difference.

I agree ND is honoring the President. I personally don’t construe this honor is signifying support for his position on all life issues (e.g. abortion, embryonic stem cell research). Therefore, I personally do not consider this openly defiant of the bishops.

The previous misunderstanding I was referring to, was, I think, when I would claim that such-and-such was teaching of individual (not all) bishops. I think you thought I was putting the 2004 letter in that category; I did not mean that. I was referring to individual bishop’s statements that I think were shared earlier in this thread, when I said those statements (of individual bishops) were just that–individual statements, not statements of a Conference or the whole college of bishops.

Not sure if this helps clear things up. Hope so.

 

[diggerdomer]

I’m afraid I can’t say the same. Your position, as I understand it, is logically incoherent and incompatible with the principles of Faithful Citizenship, taken in parts or as a whole. It stands in flat opposition to the teaching of the bishops.

Conscientious Catholics can and do indeed differ on many important issues. I enjoy that. Keeps the faith interesting. Unless you can explain some other way to thread the bishops’ deliberately narrow eye of the needle on voting, though, you’re not being a conscientious Catholic; you’re being a conscientious, careful-thinking, obstinate rebel.

Hate to put it in such harsh terms. I’ve enjoyed our conversation. But Church principles are not multiple-choice, and I can’t see a way out of the logic (even if, for some reason, I wanted to vote for mass murder… which, generally speaking, I don’t).

I am, as ever, looking forward your response, as I am y’r obt. serv’t,
Wowbagger

I thought I’d cited the parts of FC that inform my conscience and lead me to believe that I am not inconsistent with it. Para 29-37 are, I think, most relevant to this conversation.

I may misunderstand you–can you remind me or clarify for me what specifically makes me a rebel? And what specific position I take that is in flat opposition to the bishops? I really don’t see myself either of those ways.

Thank you.

 

[jkarp]

shall/should…I thought I was making the same point you did? By saying “should” my point is that however one interprets or applies the bulleted point of the 2004 statement, it does say “should” not “shall” meaning (imho) it’s not necessarily/always and everywhere black and white how to apply it. It’s not as binding as it would be, or in the same sense that it would be, had the bishops used “shall” vs. “should.” But I am also not basing my primary reasoning on that difference.

“Should” is the past tense of “shall” and is also a synonym of “must.”

should
aux.v. Past tense of shall

1. Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/should

As such, Catholics have a duty or obligation to not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral positions.

I agree ND is honoring the President. I personally don’t construe this honor is signifying support for his position on all life issues (e.g. abortion, embryonic stem cell research). Therefore, I personally do not consider this openly defiant of the bishops.

The bishops’ statement says that we “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles.” It doesn’t say we should not honor the position(s) held by those people, it says we should (must) not honor the people who hold these positions.

This is my argument:

1. 
   *]Our bishops state that we should (must) not honor people who hold positions contrary to our fundamental moral principals
   *]Obama holds certain positions that are contrary to our fundamental moral principles.
   *]The University of Notre Dame is honoring Obama.
   *]Therefore, Notre Dame is acting in opposition to our bishops.
   

   The previous misunderstanding I was referring to, was, I think, when I would claim that such-and-such was teaching of individual (not all) bishops. I think you thought I was putting the 2004 letter in that category; I did not mean that. I was referring to individual bishop’s statements that I think were shared earlier in this thread, when I said those statements (of individual bishops) were just that–individual statements, not statements of a Conference or the whole college of bishops.
   
   Not sure if this helps clear things up. Hope so.

   What I was trying to say is that all of the individual statements I’ve seen seem to be consistent with the statement of the entire body of the USCCB; if any exist to the contrary, I’d really like to read them.

 

[diggerdomer]

“Should” is the past tense of “shall” and is also a synonym of “must.”

Thanks for clarifying. We do disagree here after all.

I interpret “shall” and “must” meaning --no choice given. “Must” and “shall” for me in these contexts are, then, synonymous.

I interpret “should” as a non-absolute. A recommendation, a guidance for what’s normally desired, what’s typical…but not of the same finality as a “must.” I do not mean that makes it simply and purely whimsical and up to anyone’s fancy…but that it does involve more individual/case judgment for application. I think that’s the way the Church uses “must” and “shall”–not as synonyms.

 

[jkarp]

Thanks for clarifying. We do disagree here after all.

I interpret “shall” and “must” meaning --no choice given. “Must” and “shall” for me in these contexts are, then, synonymous.

I interpret “should” as a non-absolute. A recommendation, a guidance for what’s normally desired, what’s typical…but not of the same finality as a “must.” I do not mean that makes it simply and purely whimsical and up to anyone’s fancy…but that it does involve more individual/case judgment for application. I think that’s the way the Church uses “must” and “shall”–not as synonyms.

That doesn’t make any sense; it’s like saying “run” and “ran” have different meanings. “Should” is the past tense of the word “shall” and thus, they have essentially the same meaning; no interpretation is required.

Every definition I could find says the same thing:

should
*auxiliary verb *

1. pt. of shall.
2. (used to express condition): Were he to arrive, I should be pleased.
3. must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that.
4. would (used to make a statement less direct or blunt): I should think you would apologize

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

should
aux.v. Past tense of shall

1. Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.
2. Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon.
3. Used to express conditionality or contingency: If she should fall, then so would I.
4. Used to moderate the directness or bluntness of a statement: I should think he would like to go.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

should
Should, imp. of Shall. [OE. sholde, shulde, scholde, schulde, AS. scolde, sceolde. See Shall.] Used as an auxiliary verb, to express a conditional or contingent act or state, or as a supposition of an actual fact; also, to express moral obligation (see Shall); e. g.: they should have come last week; if I should go; I should think you could go. “You have done that you should be sorry for.” --Shak.

Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

should
past of shall
1—used in auxiliary function to express condition <if he should leave his father, his father would die — Genesis 44:22(Revised Standard Version)>
2—used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency <'tis commanded I should do so — Shakespeare><this is as it should be — H. L. Savage>
3—used in auxiliary function to express futurity from a point of view in the past <realized that she should have to do most of her farm work before sunrise — Ellen Glasgow>
4—used in auxiliary function to express what is probable or expected <with an early start, they should be here by noon>
5—used in auxiliary function to express a request in a polite manner or to soften direct statement <I should suggest that a guide…is the first essential — L. D. Reddick>

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2009

This one even says the exact opposite of what you do:

should
c.1200, from O.E. sceolde, past tense of sceal (see shall). Preserves the original notion of “obligation” that has all but dropped from shall.

*Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper *

In every definition the word “should” is defined as the past tense of “shall” and as being used to express obligation (as in the context of the bishops’ statement). There is not a single defintion that I could find that says that it is used to express a suggestion; if you have one that says otherwise, I would like to read it.

I appreciate your effort to defend the University of Notre Dame’s actions but the statement by the bishops is very unambiguous and requires no interpretation.

 

[diggerdomer]

That doesn’t make any sense; it’s like saying “run” and “ran” have different meanings. “Should” is the past tense of the word “shall” and thus, they have essentially the same meaning; no interpretation is required.

We can likely find dictionaries to support either interpretation. I found Merriam Webster online as well, and from the same definition you cite I find support for my approach.

Note the words like:

condition, propriety, expediency, probable, expected

All of those meanings, to me at least, are not the same as “must” in the sense of an absolute requirement.

So, I beg to differ, but I think my initial interpretation is not completely devoid of sense. I don’t think yours is either. Going by M-W I could see either one of us claiming our interpretation is correct.

It would be more helpful to know how the Church routinely uses the word, not how a given secular dictionary does. I doubt we can resolve this ourselves, either.

I am sure I can find examples where the Church uses “should” to clearly indicate something not synonymous with “must.” I’m also sure they would not be the only way the Church uses the word, and I’m fairly confident any number of examples would not change the various ways the word could be interpreted, accurately, by different people.

 

[Waldron]

There will be protesters. There will be Obama supporters too. A few bishops will speak out here and there --not a peep from the others. The president of ND won’t be held accountable and this all will pass further weakening the Church’s resolve. The death of outrage? Well, the majority of Catholic America still gets outraged – outraged by global warming, steroid use among baseball players and Brittney Spears’ latest tryst, but not something like this. Never is the majority of Catholic Americans outraged by the continuous lack of action by its fearful Bishops. Take note --it’s always the renegade Catholics who become the media darlings. Sad times.

 

[jkarp]

We can likely find dictionaries to support either interpretation. I found Merriam Webster online as well, and from the same definition you cite I find support for my approach.

Note the words like:

All of those meanings, to me at least, are not the same as “must” in the sense of an absolute requirement.

So, I beg to differ, but I think my initial interpretation is not completely devoid of sense. I don’t think yours is either. Going by M-W I could see either one of us claiming our interpretation is correct.

It would be more helpful to know how the Church routinely uses the word, not how a given secular dictionary does. I doubt we can resolve this ourselves, either.

I am sure I can find examples where the Church uses “should” to clearly indicate something not synonymous with “must.” I’m also sure they would not be the only way the Church uses the word, and I’m fairly confident any number of examples would not change the various ways the word could be interpreted, accurately, by different people.

Again your response makes little sense. Several of the words you cite don’t make any sense in the context of the bishops’ statement: condition & probable? Are you able to replace “should” with either of those and still have a statement that makes sense? Also, I would again suggest that you consult a dictionary regarding the definition of words.

**propriety **= rightness or justness
expediency = fit, proper, or advisable
expected = To consider likely or certain or To consider reasonable or due or To consider obligatory; require

The fact that you are unwilling to accept the reasonable dictionary definition as evidence to prove the proper usage of a word makes it quite obvious that your judgement is clouded by your love for the University of Notre Dame. Further, I realize that trying to convince you of the obvious disobedience of its actions is an exercise in futility.

Perhaps Notre Dame doesn’t require students to take courses in logic or the English language.

A helpful link for future reference:
wikihow.com/Use-a-Dictionary

 

[jkarp]

An update: catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15519

 

[diggerdomer]

Again your response makes little sense. Several of the words you cite don’t make any sense in the context of the bishops’ statement: condition & probable? Are you able to replace “should” with either of those and still have a statement that makes sense? Also, I would again suggest that you consult a dictionary regarding the definition of words.

**propriety **= rightness or justness
expediency = fit, proper, or advisable
expected = To consider likely or certain or To consider reasonable or due or To consider obligatory; require

The fact that you are unwilling to accept the reasonable dictionary definition as evidence to prove the proper usage of a word makes it quite obvious that your judgement is clouded by your love for the University of Notre Dame. Further, I realize that trying to convince you of the obvious disobedience of its actions is an exercise in futility.

Perhaps Notre Dame doesn’t require students to take courses in logic or the English language.

A helpful link for future reference:
wikihow.com/Use-a-Dictionary

If you think my judgment is clouded, or I make little or no sense, or imply that I am simply illogical or ignorant of the English language, then obviously there’s no point in my continuing what I thought was a sincere and respectful dialogue.

Best wishes.

 

[jkarp]

If you think my judgment is clouded, or I make little or no sense, or imply that I am simply illogical or ignorant of the English language, then obviously there’s no point in my continuing what I thought was a sincere and respectful dialogue.

Best wishes.

I do feel feel that your judgement is clouded. It is unreasonable to attempt to create a new definition for a word and then apply it to someone else’s usage. It is very simple: “should” = “shall” and “shall” = “must” therefore "should = “must.”

Again though, you’re back to splitting hairs and ignoring the issue. I’ve asked you to provide statement contrary to the 2004 USCCB by individual bishops and you have failed to do so (I’ve tried to find one and couldn’t). Here are some links to statements that are consistent with it:

diocesefwsb.org/COMMUNICATIONS/statements.htm?loc=interstitialskip

texascatholicherald.org/columnists.html

azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2009/03/29/20090329phx-olmsted0329.html?&wired

chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-perspec0329weigelmar29,0,1658251.story (Not by a bishop but states the problem very clearly)

Also, there is a very nice collection of quotations and statments on the News & Resources page at this address:
notredamescandal.com/NewsResources/tabid/461/Default.aspx

Again, I’ll reiterate, if you can provide a link to a bishop saying anything to the contrary, I would really like to read it.

 

[Fundamentalist]

Over 16 Bishops have now made a statement. Why nothing from Bishop Jenky of Peoria who is a trustee.

 

[YourAverageJoe]

All the prolife work done in the last 10 years by Catholics, all the prayers, all the fasting, all the crying, swett and tears, down the drain, at least for now. No wonder people leave the Church. I have been so frustrated I could not even sleep at all last night do to this, so today I offer up the surffering of my sleepless mind and body to Christ for this matter. Satan says thank you Jenkins for causing this scandal.

Very Sad!

 

[ricko]

As Catholics, we have a duty to uphold the teachings of the Church. There is probably (I hope) not a single Catholic who is for abortion and they should not be as it is the murder of thousands of innocent souls.

The President signed into law two items that conflict with basic Catholic teaching. It does not matter if he is African American or not. It does not matter that you may like him or dislike him.

We must not honor any man who has violated the basic principals of life in any way. To do so would dishonor ourselves and send a message to the world that Catholics can not back up their beliefs.

It does not matter what you believe a document says or does not say. You know what the teachings of the Church are and you should stand by those beliefs publicly.

 

[YourAverageJoe]

Father Jenkins, read this! I believe Paul was ticked off at the poor leadership at the Church at Corinth.

1 Cor 8-10

10 If someone sees you, with your knowledge, reclining at table in the temple of an idol, may not his conscience too, weak as it is, be “built up” **to eat the meat sacrificed to idols? **
11 Thus through your knowledge, the weak person is brought to destruction, the brother for whom **Christ died. **
12 When you sin in this way against your brothers and wound their consciences, weak as they are, you are sinning against Christ.
13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I may not cause my brother to sin.

The fact that Obama will be honored at ND, will cause much confusion in the conscience of many Catholics in regards to all the prolife work that has been done.

God, we pray this invite is rescinded!!