Obama, Pope Benedict To Find Common Ground [NPR]

  • Thread starter Thread starter diggerdomer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What is the difference between Notre Dame & the Vatican? Notre Dame gave Barack Obama an express platform to air his beliefs which are directly opposed to the Roman Catholic Church. If even one Catholic fell away from the Church because Notre Dame allowed him, as a person of authority, to express his opinions on abortion, then it has caused harm to the Church. Notre Dame is supposed to teach & uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church–that is the goal of a Roman Catholic University–not the promotion of “tolerance”. Tolerance is not a Christian value when it allows the promotion and spread of sin.

The Pope did not give President Obama the opportunity to make a speech from the Vatican about his religious or political beliefs. Instead, the Pope made it clear what the Church’s position on abortion was. As the head of the Vatican, he is obligated to meet with world leaders.

To sum up, Notre Dame promoted Barack Obama and his anti-Catholic policies.
If I’m understanding you correctly, the relationship between Notre Dame University and the White Hourse is very different from the relationship between the Vatican and the White House. This is very true.

Notre Dame University is not a sovereign state. It is a center of learning that should be grounded in the Catholic faith and should not honor those who openly attack the basic moral principals of the faith and the basic principles of natural law.

The Vatican, while it is the center of the Christian faith, is also a sovereign nation. As a nation it has a diplomatic relationship with many world leaders. It is perfectly appropriate for the Vatican to host these leaders, without agreeing with them or providing them a platform to spread their beliefs. It is the appropriate place for world leaders and the leader of the Vatican to discuss the issues that they have in common and those on which they disagree.

One reason that the Vatican is the appropriate place to do this, is because the Vatican has the authority to represent all Catholics, Notre Dame University has not been given that authority.

This is what I am understanding from your post. Did I understand you correctly?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
First, what Michael is doing violates CAF rules. A non Catholic poster may not post against the Catholic Church on these forums. You may ask questions or even debate a specific point of faith, but not try to dissuade someone from the Catholic faith.

That being said, let us with charity and truth, as the Holy Father’s encyclical suggests, clear up some points in Michael’s post.
Notice brother you are soon to be Catholic…think very carefully before you do so, it claims to be the ‘One True Church’, a very big claim to make……
 
What happened at Notre Dame was completely different than the meeting with the Holy Father. Notre Dame “honored” Obama.

Our Holy Father, probably used part of this opportunity to educate Obama about the dignity of all life. And there isn’t a better catechist than our Holy Father anyway. I heard that our Pope gave Obama a rosary. I hope Obama will learn how to pray with it. He also gave him his new encyclical. This could be a chance for Obama to convert!
 
What happened at Notre Dame was completely different than the meeting with the Holy Father. Notre Dame “honored” Obama.

Our Holy Father, probably used part of this opportunity to educate Obama about the dignity of all life. And there isn’t a better catechist than our Holy Father anyway. I heard that our Pope gave Obama a rosary. I hope Obama will learn how to pray with it. He also gave him his new encyclical. This could be a chance for Obama to convert!
He didn’t give him a copy of the encyclical. He gave him a copy of a thesis on the dignity of human life and fetal stem cell research. I believe that it is written by a Jesuit theologian. The Holy Father has great admiration for the Jesuit and Capuchin theologians. But he did give him a small box. I’m not sure if that is a rosary or a medal.

It does not matter. The message was delivered by the book. It’s a short book. I have a copy of it somewhere. It’s not new. It’s about 140 pages. I wish I could remember the author, I would post it so people can buy it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I see far more similarities than differences.

I don’t see it or any other Catholic university/college in the U.S. as either secularist nor parading around in churchly garb.
“I see far more similarities than differences.” I assume, then, that you DO see a difference. If not, I refer you to the several good posts above, especially JReducation’s post #14.

SECULAR. “of or pertaining to the world, or to things not religious, sacred, or spititual; temporal; worldly.” The American College Dictionary

“For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?” (Mk 8:36)

“…each tree is known by its own fruit.” (Lk 6:44)

Points to consider:
  1. If you have time (and are so inclined), do some research on Fr. Hesburgh’s association with various secular foundations, starting in the early 1960s, especially the Rockefeller Foundation. The payout was CASH, the price was direct oppostion and conflict with the Church of Rome.
  2. The Land O’ Lakes statement in 1967. Notre Dame was the unquestioned leader of this conference which lead to a real break with the teaching authority of the Magisterium. (Notre Dame’s unabashed goal was to become “the Harvard of the Midwest”, not the Catholic University of the Midwest, or the Vatican University of the Midwest, the “Harvard” of the Midwest.)
  3. Mid 1960s. Governing and control of the University turned over to a LAY Board of Trustees —from the Congregation of the Holy Cross.
To my mind, these developments were profound in determining the course of the University on a clear path to secularism.

Other points to consider:

The other key ingredient of University leadership, the faculty, has been reduced to only 53% Catholic. Marking a steady erosion. Notre Dame used to REQIURE that all its students take either a Philosophy or a Theology course each semester. That requirement has been dropped. Now they put a very strong emphasis on social service as a requirement for acceptance into the University. And encourage its continuation. (Granted Christ said we should serve…;but, frankly, social workers and community organizers serve. And they are secular.) Over the years, since Land O’ Lakes, there have been numerous occasions of honors and events to people and matters that were in direct opposition to the Church and her teachings. To me, the coup de grace to “things sacred” was the enthusiastic standing ovations given to Obama by the graduates and their friends, standing ovations in the face of the Bishops and their statement of 2004. “Each tree is known by its own fruit.”

Some of the reasons I stand by my statement: Notre Dame is a secularist parading around in churchly garb.
 
I’m confused. Why were so many U.S. Bishops upset about Notre Dame giving an honorary degree to President Obama as has been their custom for decades, yet no U.S. Bishop has criticized the Pope for going out of His way to meet and talk with Obama, and in effect honor him by this unusual and unprecedented (unlike Notre Dame) protocol?
I was ‘unprecidented’ in that the Pope does not normally hold Head of State visits at that time, but it was the available time

And lets look at the differences in how the Pope allowed Obama to speak, and how Fr, Jenkins did

Fr. Jenkins gave Obama the podium and allowed him to give an unanswered monlogue. Pope Benedict engaged in private conversation.

Fr. Jenkins gave Obama an honorary degree in Law, Pope Benedict gave him an Encyclical on the nature of the human person ( now Obama can no longer claim that such matters are “above his pay grade”

If Fr. Jenkins hand handled Obama in the same way, having a private meeting in his office and then giving him, say a copy of Evanglicum Vitae, not a single bishop would have complained, in fact, Fr. probably would have gotten some kind notes.

So yes, Pope Benedict handled it correctly, Fr. Jenkins blew it.
 
Brother2;5459539:
First, what Michael is doing violates CAF rules. A non Catholic poster may not post against the Catholic Church on these forums. You may ask questions or even debate a specific point of faith, but not try to dissuade someone from the Catholic faith.

That being said, let us with charity and truth, as the Holy Father’s encyclical suggests, clear up some points in Michael’s post.

The actual belief that has been handed down through the ages is that the fullness of truth subsists within the Catholic Church; however, other Christian traditions share in that truth to some degree. Because every Christian tradition still has truths that are found in the Catholic Church that the Protestant reformers took with them and handed down to their disciples through generations.

This is a biblical impossibility. There cannot be one church that includes many churches.

**The Church is one because of her source: **
In fact the Church has encouraged praying with the scriptures since the first generation of Christians. Look at the Liturgy of the Hours. It is all scripture. It is made up of psalms, canticles from the bible and readings from different books of the bible, including the Gospel and the writings of Paul. These are used as the official prayer of the Catholic Church.

The bible did not create or start the Church. The bible was put together by the early Church to reflect what she believed. The early Church chose from the many writings available and gathered those books and letters that reflected what the Apostles had taught the faithful and left the rest behind. The bible is a collection of sacred writings that reflect the faith that was handed down by the Apostles to the first generation Christians.

As you see, the Church existed before the bible. It was always the case that men and women of faith went to the Apostles to clarify the faith for them. After the bible was collated, several hundred years after the death of the last apostle, people were still going to the successors of the Apostles to clarify the meaning of scripture and to settle disputes. It was always understood that the Holy Spirit spoke to them “where two or three were gathered in [His] name.

They don’t have to visit the pope. They visit him because he is the head of a nation of over 2.1 billion people. Every Catholic around the world is also a citizen of Vatican City. So, in territory it is the smallest nation on earth. Yer, in numbers it competes among the largest nations of the world.

This is an excellent question. The person who occupies that chair of Peter is no more special than anyone else. They can be the most godly or the most sinful. Think of it like the person who occupies the chair of the President of the USA. He can be the most honest or the most corrupt.

But just as we respect the Presidents and Prime Ministers of nations, the world respects the Pope. He is the leader of a nation, as I have pointed out above. He is the direct successor of Peter, which historians accept. He has been elected to occupy the most important position in the Christian world, the Chair of Peter. The leaders of other Christian communities also understand this and are always very respectful to the Holy Father.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂

Hi Br JR, OSF. I take your point about the rules of the Forum I am always sorry when I offend people and in this case maybe broke Forum rules.

However I have to say that you are certainly clever with words to explain away the errors in the Roman Church. But as i have said many times I still respect you for your beliefs even though I disagree with some, though I agree with some also, the Truth the Roman Church has retained from the early Church of Scripture.

Protestants have also retained some errors from Rome and that is why there are so many Protestant Churches, still trying to purge these errors…

Well I like to be kind and say the whole Christian Church which is fragmented due to the Devil’s work of sowing tares…I still ask why this fallen archangel is never mentioned in the Forum…he is the arch enemy of our Lord and his Church and do you think he has left it alone this past 2000 years??? Look at the damage he had wrought on the Jewish ‘Church’, loaded down with so many rules and regulations the people could hardly move for breaking them. The Jews were God’s Church on earth charged with preaching the Gospel to the world, yet the devil soon stopped that by making them so insular and proud of being God’s chosen people!! Therefore God had to reject His chosen people when our Lord was crucified and the Christian Church took over the task of taking God’s good news to the world.

But of course Lucifer could not have that he soon got in on the act and spoiled the Church, surely the apostles warned of heresy, and wicked men coming into the Church even in their day!!! So I feel I have the right to point out his work of sowing error in the Christian Church. It has been splintered into hundreds of pieces as a result, making it very hard for people to know what is true and what is false!!

But I apreciate the rules of the Forum and will try and remember you chastisement on that issue.

I respect you sir, and every Roman Catholic!

Do you not see his work…and don’t day in the Seventh-day Adventist Church ha ha ho ho…so greeting brother and I take your point, but I feel obligated to warn people about the devil’s work within God’s Church on earth, the Christian Church as I call it!!

Shalom. May God bless all here. Michael.👍
 
I was ‘unprecidented’ in that the Pope does not normally hold Head of State visits at that time, but it was the available time
Available based on Obama’s schedule, not the Pope’s
Fr. Jenkins gave Obama the podium and allowed him to give an unanswered monlogue. Pope Benedict engaged in private conversation.
That’s what a commencement speech is, and that’s what an audience with the Pope is. It would be unrealistic to expect anything different in those two settings. Obama and Jenkins did have a private conversation, albeit brief.
Fr. Jenkins gave Obama an honorary degree in Law,
Again, that’s routine for the occasion, just like the Pope giving gifts to heads of state.

I
 
He didn’t give him a copy of the encyclical. He gave him a copy of a thesis on the dignity of human life and fetal stem cell research. I believe that it is written by a Jesuit theologian. The Holy Father has great admiration for the Jesuit and Capuchin theologians. But he did give him a small box. I’m not sure if that is a rosary or a medal.

It does not matter. The message was delivered by the book. It’s a short book. I have a copy of it somewhere. It’s not new. It’s about 140 pages. I wish I could remember the author, I would post it so people can buy it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
The Pope gave Obama 2 documents: 1) a copy of his new encyclical AND 2) a copy of the CDF document on bioethics, Dignitas Personae which you can read online:

usccb.org/comm/Dignitaspersonae/Dignitas_Personae.pdf
 
I’d probably laugh for a good five minutes as I am affliated with another party (Socialist Democrats yes it is a different party) although I support the current administration (even though it is in no way Socialist Democratic or even close by the longest of shots).

An as long as many here go as far as to attack others FOR SUPPORTING THIRD PARTIES on the grounds it helps the Democrats, or attack those that deviat from the GOP party line in any way shape or form, I’ll continue to use the term good little Republican soldiers
I can’t speak for every Catholic, but from my point of view, if you think we object to Obama out of our deep loyalty to the Republican party, you don’t understand us at all.
 
I can’t speak for every Catholic, but from my point of view, if you think we object to Obama out of our deep loyalty to the Republican party, you don’t understand us at all.
Well said, Janet. There are lot’s of books out there and our diocese hands out pamphlet guides but here is a condenced version of how I as a Catholic vote:

catholicity.com/vote/guide.html

Pax†

Paul
 
I agree with JR…its just business as usual…doesnt the Pope meet every President?? The thing that kills me is how the media spins everything…like

“Obama, Pope Benedict To Find Common Ground?”

To those who might not fully read the article, just the name of it might give them the impression that they came to some sort of agreement, or the Pope condones Obama in some way shape or form…but dude, they just stepped foot on ‘common grounds’ lol…they met, took pictures, I’m sure had a word or two…I heard the Pope gave him something to read on the plane home, but I do not believe they came to ‘common grounds’ about abortion or stem cell research…

or…

“Many American Catholics have strongly criticized Obama’s positions on abortion and stem cell research, but the Vatican has been much more benevolent in its assessment of the new president.”

Are you kidding me??? Just because they accepted him as a guest does not mean they are ‘accessing the new president more benevolently’…What’s the Pope gonna do?? Slam the door on his face? lol…of course hes gonna be civil and courteous…hes the POPE!

Or the article the other day…I forgot what website it was but someone posted a thread about it…and the article read “Obama more Catholic than the Pope”

siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh media media media…tsk tsk tsk…:tsktsk:
 
“Many American Catholics have strongly criticized Obama’s positions on abortion and stem cell research, but the Vatican has been much more benevolent in its assessment of the new president.”

Are you kidding me??? Just because they accepted him as a guest does not mean they are ‘accessing the new president more benevolently’…What’s the Pope gonna do?? Slam the door on his face? lol…of course hes gonna be civil and courteous…hes the POPE!:
Exactly the point. Many American Bishops have been vastly more critical of Obama than the Vatican has. Not a case of one slamming a door and another not. Simply a case of some being vastly more critical (some American Bishops) and others (the Pope and the Vatican) not.
 
Dont you think, though, that the Pope is held to a higher standard??? I’ve never heard of an american bishop making world wide news when one of them brakes their wrist…🤷

I mean, we ALL should be held to a high standard…but I’m just saying…

has the Pope ever outloud publicly denounced a president, has he?? or …has he?? I think (if a Pope hasnt) he’s following a set precendence…

But then, just writing that got me to thinking…ok so…you know how, were supposed to be like, a ‘witness’…and by that I dont mean jehovahs witness…but like, a witness as in, if we see wrong, or…like, if your sister was living with a man and they werent married, you would still love her of course, but maybe you would tell her the problem/sin of it…and then not go over there anymore…you know, be a ‘witness’…

sooo…like, with the Pope, hes supposed to be this ideal of love, compassion, etc…so, I understand him being cordial with obama…inviting him in, loving him regardless…BUT…as the Pope, as the person with the probably the most knowledge and understanding of our religion…shouldnt even he be, at some point, a witness??? When would he finally draw the line?
 
Exactly the point. Many American Bishops have been vastly more critical of Obama than the Vatican has. Not a case of one slamming a door and another not. Simply a case of some being vastly more critical (some American Bishops) and others (the Pope and the Vatican) not.
What you’re describing is the principle of subsidiarity. It is not the pope’s job to deal with the President of any nation on his ineternal policies. That is up to the local conference of bishops for a number of reasons.
  1. The pope deals world issues, not local issues, unless they spill over.
  2. The bishop’s conference is made up of citizens of that nation. They know the local terrain. The pope does not.
  3. It is not the role of one head of state to tell another head of state how to run his country (though no one has told the US Govt that).
  4. It is the role of the local authority to deal with the local issues and to report to the Vatican, not the other way around.
Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
What you’re describing is the principle of subsidiarity. It is not the pope’s job to deal with the President of any nation on his ineternal policies. That is up to the local conference of bishops for a number of reasons.
  1. The pope deals world issues, not local issues, unless they spill over.
  2. The bishop’s conference is made up of citizens of that nation. They know the local terrain. The pope does not.
  3. It is not the role of one head of state to tell another head of state how to run his country (though no one has told the US Govt that).
  4. It is the role of the local authority to deal with the local issues and to report to the Vatican, not the other way around.
Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Interesting…and very good…thoughts. Thank you. I value and respect your informed opinions. Let me offer my continuing thoughts, which are just that.

In #1 you say “unless they spill over.” I think this begs the question of how well and adequately the Vatican (Pope) has responded to “spill over” issues regarding clergy sexual abuse.

In #2 you note that “local” bishops know the “terrain” better–I wholeheartedly agree with this! I think I am in a minority in our Church today. Let me ask, though, what the common understanding of the local terrain is in the U.S. regarding this issue. Is it the picture portrayed in the media by the minority of the USCCB Bishops who have spoken out publicly? Or is it the position of the (silent) majority? The only logical reference imho to figure out what the latter might think is, of course, what the ENTIRE USCCB approved with their most recent Faithful Citizenship document faithfulcitizenship.org/

I think that’s a much more substantial reference, for those in the U.S. to evaluate Notre Dame’s and the Pope’s decisions…as opposed to a seemingly random “interim report” from FIVE YEARS AGO that has no juridical status, and, apparently, was something that was never completed. Please, if anyone knows differently, I would love to know. The INTERIM report that many refer to is just that…interim…from 2004…so…what followed? If it’s not contained in the authoritative Conference teaching of Faithful Citizenship then I really can’t understand it.

Your #4 I agree with again, in principle. So: to my knowledge no one with appropriate authority from the U.S. has petitioned the Vatican to derogate from the supposition and intervene…so we can agree that the Pope and the Vatican have no problem with Notre Dame’s action?
 
Digger raises some good questions. Before I being, I have to make sure that everyone understands that I’m speculating on some responses and I’ll let you know. Some things I know for a fact. Some I have to speculate, as do the rest of us. OK? Let’s go. . . .
In #1 you say “unless they spill over.” I think this begs the question of how well and adequately the Vatican (Pope) has responded to “spill over” issues regarding clergy sexual abuse.
Unfortunately, what happened here was that Cardinal Ratzinger rejected the original reports of sexual abuse in the USA. His response was that the media sensationalizes and takes isolated events out of context. He brushed it off for a long time. He did not take the issue to the Holy Father until much much later. This is a fact that was made public by Ratzinger himself. We have to agree with him that the media does sensationalize and does pick on the Catholics more than any other group. He was wrong in his underestimation of the problem; but he’s human. When John Paul II realized the gravity of the matter he called Cardinal Law to Rome and then the whole thing got the Vatican’s serious attention. That’s when Cardinal O’Malley, then Bishop O’Malley was sent into action, first to the Diocese of West Palm Beach and later to the Archdiocese of Boston.
In #2 you note that “local” bishops know the “terrain” better–I wholeheartedly agree with this! I think I am in a minority in our Church today. Let me ask, though, what the common understanding of the local terrain is in the U.S. regarding this issue.
I would speculate here and say that the document reflects the bishops’ understanding of the American situation. However, we have to exercise caution here too. The American situation, regarding abortion is very complex. The moral question about abortion is clear and the answer is clear. However, the implementation of the answer is not as easy.

Unfortunately, the laity and some dissenting clerics and religious, have made the implementation of a national Catholic campaign against abortion very difficult. They seem to undo every effort that the rest of us make. They undo the efforst by placing themselves in public positions where the impression is given that the Catholic Church does not have a unified position on the matter and therefore should not be taken too seriously. The fact is that the Catholic Church does have a unified position and good science and logic to support it. The truth is that these individuals do not represent the Church and have no authority to do so. The fact is that the media and many legislators find it convenient to use the positions of these isolated individuals. The fact is that these isolated individuals present themselves as being humane and concerned citizens.
I think that’s a much more substantial reference, for those in the U.S. to evaluate Notre Dame’s and the Pope’s decisions…as opposed to a seemingly random “interim report” from FIVE YEARS AGO that has no juridical status, and, apparently, was something that was never completed. Please, if anyone knows differently, I would love to know. The INTERIM report that many refer to is just that…interim…from 2004…so…what followed? If it’s not contained in the authoritative Conference teaching of Faithful Citizenship then I really can’t understand it.
You have two things going on here. The statement of 2004 and the document on faithful citizenship. Let’s do one at a time.

DECLARATION OF 2004: The declaration was not issued as binding statement. It sounded like an idea, rather than a law. The bishops now realize that they have to reword it.

FAITHFUL CITIZENSHP: Was not promulgated as a law either. It was promulgated as a guide for the development of informed conscience. In reality, it is a catechetical too and an excellent one at that.

Bishops cannot issue moral laws unless they are part of the Church’s moral code. They can issue rules of engagement based on moral laws. I would dare to say that these documents are good rules of engagement and have the backing of moral law. But the language has to be tightened up to reflect the US situation and to include not only Catholics, but all Americans.
Your #4 I agree with again, in principle. So: to my knowledge no one with appropriate authority from the U.S. has petitioned the Vatican to derogate from the supposition and intervene…so we can agree that the Pope and the Vatican have no problem with Notre Dame’s action?
Here again, the Holy Father and the Curia will not get involved in Notre Dame’s situation or comment on it. There are too many layers of subsidiary authorities below. The Holy Father and the Curia do not make it a habit of stepping over the heads of others.

The issue with Notre Dame involves several subsidiary bodies:
  1. The University and the Bishops
  2. The Congregation of the Holy Cross and the Bishops
  3. The Congregation of the Holy Cross and the Congregation for Religious in Rome
  4. The Congregation of the Holy Cross anf Fr. Jenkins
  5. The Congregation of Bishops and the Congregation for Religious Institutes and Societies of Apostolic Life
  6. The Congregation onf Education and Notre Dame University
  7. The Bishops’ committee on education and the university
  8. The local bishop and the university
  9. Fr. Jenkins the the Provincial Superior
Can you see why the Holy Father and the Curia are not going to get involved and are going to keep quiet? All of these bodies have to answer a fundamental question. What are the obligations, rights and freedoms of a private Catholic university that is not owned and operated by the Catholic Church, but is administered by a religiosu congregation?

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Digger raises some good questions. Before I being, I have to make sure that everyone understands that I’m speculating on some responses and I’ll let you know. Some things I know for a fact. Some I have to speculate, as do the rest of us. OK? Let’s go. . . .

Unfortunately, what happened here was that Cardinal Ratzinger rejected the original reports of sexual abuse in the USA. His response was that the media sensationalizes and takes isolated events out of context. He brushed it off for a long time. He did not take the issue to the Holy Father until much much later. This is a fact that was made public by Ratzinger himself. We have to agree with him that the media does sensationalize and does pick on the Catholics more than any other group. He was wrong in his underestimation of the problem; but he’s human. When John Paul II realized the gravity of the matter he called Cardinal Law to Rome and then the whole thing got the Vatican’s serious attention. That’s when Cardinal O’Malley, then Bishop O’Malley was sent into action, first to the Diocese of West Palm Beach and later to the Archdiocese of Boston.

I would speculate here and say that the document reflects the bishops’ understanding of the American situation. However, we have to exercise caution here too. The American situation, regarding abortion is very complex. The moral question about abortion is clear and the answer is clear. However, the implementation of the answer is not as easy.

Unfortunately, the laity and some dissenting clerics and religious, have made the implementation of a national Catholic campaign against abortion very difficult. They seem to undo every effort that the rest of us make. They undo the efforst by placing themselves in public positions where the impression is given that the Catholic Church does not have a unified position on the matter and therefore should not be taken too seriously. The fact is that the Catholic Church does have a unified position and good science and logic to support it. The truth is that these individuals do not represent the Church and have no authority to do so. The fact is that the media and many legislators find it convenient to use the positions of these isolated individuals. The fact is that these isolated individuals present themselves as being humane and concerned citizens.

You have two things going on here. The statement of 2004 and the document on faithful citizenship. Let’s do one at a time.

DECLARATION OF 2004: The declaration was not issued as binding statement. It sounded like an idea, rather than a law. The bishops now realize that they have to reword it.

FAITHFUL CITIZENSHP: Was not promulgated as a law either. It was promulgated as a guide for the development of informed conscience. In reality, it is a catechetical too and an excellent one at that.

Bishops cannot issue moral laws unless they are part of the Church’s moral code. They can issue rules of engagement based on moral laws. I would dare to say that these documents are good rules of engagement and have the backing of moral law. But the language has to be tightened up to reflect the US situation and to include not only Catholics, but all Americans.

Here again, the Holy Father and the Curia will not get involved in Notre Dame’s situation or comment on it. There are too many layers of subsidiary authorities below. The Holy Father and the Curia do not make it a habit of stepping over the heads of others.

The issue with Notre Dame involves several subsidiary bodies:
  1. The University and the Bishops
  2. The Congregation of the Holy Cross and the Bishops
  3. The Congregation of the Holy Cross and the Congregation for Religious in Rome
  4. The Congregation of the Holy Cross anf Fr. Jenkins
  5. The Congregation of Bishops and the Congregation for Religious Institutes and Societies of Apostolic Life
  6. The Congregation onf Education and Notre Dame University
  7. The Bishops’ committee on education and the university
  8. The local bishop and the university
  9. Fr. Jenkins the the Provincial Superior
Can you see why the Holy Father and the Curia are not going to get involved and are going to keep quiet? All of these bodies have to answer a fundamental question. What are the obligations, rights and freedoms of a private Catholic university that is not owned and operated by the Catholic Church, but is administered by a religiosu congregation?

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Thank you for your (as always) reasonable and respectful contributions. You make excellent points imho. The only lingering question I would have is whether or not the Pope and Curia are “not getting involved” due to the reason you cite (as I understand it)–subsidiarity – which is a distinct and credible possibility…or whether it’s simply because they don’t share the same perspective as some of the more vocal U.S. bishops.
 
Thank you for your (as always) reasonable and respectful contributions. You make excellent points imho. The only lingering question I would have is whether or not the Pope and Curia are “not getting involved” due to the reason you cite (as I understand it)–subsidiarity – which is a distinct and credible possibility…or whether it’s simply because they don’t share the same perspective as some of the more vocal U.S. bishops.
There are two important observations that need to be made here. The first is the principle of subsidiarity. If the pope becomes involved in the American fight against abortion, he must get involved in the fight against abortion in every nation that has legal abortion. This is humanly impossible. The pope and the curia must work on this issue by giving guidance to the universal Church and allow the Catholics in each nation to act.

The second observation that’s equally important is that the pope does not agree with the way that Americans are handling the situation. The Holy Father sent the nuncio to the Bishops’ conference to order the bishops to tone it down. They are to preach the truth, but they are not to be rude or confrontational. The prevailing attitude of the Holy Fathers, from John XXIII to Benedict XVI is to ensure that every Catholic behaves in a saintly manner, while standing for the truth. We are to be holy and holy men and women treat others with respect. You can’t be a holy person and shout “Murderer!” in their face, when it is unnecessary. The Holy Father proved that when President Obama visited him.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top