President Obama to receive honorary degree from Notre Dame

[magdelaine]

“And despite their protestations to the contrary, the administrators of the university have made themselves complicit in the culture of comfort and convenience over and against the culture of sacrifice and self-giving; they have made themselves complicit in the culture of fearfulness and quiet despair over and against the culture of gratitude to and hope in the Father … they have made themselves complicit in the culture of individual autonomy and individual self-creation over and against the culture of faithful and enduring commitment and of shared dependency within a rich communal life—and, sad to say, they have done it under the mantle of the Catholic Faith which they profess with their lips. This would be sobering even if we didn’t find ourselves at the beginning of Holy Week.”

This describes Luis perfectly.

Luis, you completely miss the self-giving, sacrificial, and obedient nature of being Christian. You miss the lessons that God teaches us by telling us “You must defend those who cannot defend themselves”. You and folks like you are a cancer in the Church, quite frankly, forever eating away at its edges and corrupting each other with your self-satisfied opinions and nuanced arguments. But, that is all you will ever do. As Jesus said, “even the gates of Hell will not prevail against it”.

 

[Ronald_E]

Gandhi preached non-violence.
Obama preaches violence against the un-born.

Jesus preached too.

"Matthew
Chapter 18
1 At that time the disciples approached Jesus and said, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
2 He called a child over, placed it in their midst,
3 and said, "Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5 And whoever receives one child such as this in my name receives me.

6 "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
7 Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!

Scandal does occur. Woe to those who cause it.
Do you understand that parents are struggling to “explain” ND’s actions to their children?

There is only a struggle because there is confusion and the confusion is the result of not understanding that our faith begins with the Cross. Scandal is a word used to describe a feeling of being personally attacked. There is no attack against our faith at ND. Look at your verse in #6. Who are the little ones? When we limit our description of Obama to him being a baby killer then are we causing innocent people in our faith to sin by our restricted understanding of him? Do we then create a hostile relationship with those who we want to convert? Paul became all things to all people in order to convert them.

John Paul II said “…in the profound and magnificent mystery of the ‘Communion of Saints’…every soul that rises above itself raises up the world. To this ‘law of ascent’ there unfortunately corresponds the ‘law of descent’. Consequently on can speak of a ‘communion of sin’, whereby a soul that lowers itself through sin drags down with itself the Church and, in some way, the whole world. In other words there is no sin, not even the most intimate and secret one, that exclusively concerns the person committing it. With greater or lesser violence, with greater or lesser harm, every sin has repercussions on the entire ecclesial body and on the whole human family.”–Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 2 December '84
The human response at ND is to cry scandal and this does nothing to help the unborn. It only causes the innocent to be angry and then it is labeled righteous anger. I do not think so.

 

[Ronald_E]

This describes Luis perfectly.

Luis, you completely miss the self-giving, sacrificial, and obedient nature of being Christian. You miss the lessons that God teaches us by telling us “You must defend those who cannot defend themselves”. You and folks like you are a cancer in the Church, quite frankly, forever eating away at its edges and corrupting each other with your self-satisfied opinions and nuanced arguments. But, that is all you will ever do. As Jesus said, “even the gates of Hell will not prevail against it”.

Look what you just wrote. How does God teach us to ‘defend’. He certainly does not teach us through the words you have written. Those words also corrupt our faith. I am greatly disappointed in your response.

 

[catharina]

There is only a struggle because there is confusion and the confusion is the result of not understanding that our faith begins with the Cross. Scandal is a word used to describe a feeling of being personally attacked. There is no attack against our faith at ND. Look at your verse in #6. Who are the little ones? When we limit our description of Obama to him being a baby killer then are we causing innocent people in our faith to sin by our restricted understanding of him? Do we then create a hostile relationship with those who we want to convert? Paul became all things to all people in order to convert them.

John Paul II said “…in the profound and magnificent mystery of the ‘Communion of Saints’…every soul that rises above itself raises up the world. To this ‘law of ascent’ there unfortunately corresponds the ‘law of descent’. Consequently on can speak of a ‘communion of sin’, whereby a soul that lowers itself through sin drags down with itself the Church and, in some way, the whole world. In other words there is no sin, not even the most intimate and secret one, that exclusively concerns the person committing it. With greater or lesser violence, with greater or lesser harm, every sin has repercussions on the entire ecclesial body and on the whole human family.”–Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 2 December '84
The human response at ND is to cry scandal and this does nothing to help the unborn. It only causes the innocent to be angry and then it is labeled righteous anger. I do not think so.

It’s likely you could use a refresher course in Christian Doctrine.

from the Catechism:

II. RESPECT FOR THE DIGNITY OF PERSONS

Respect for the souls of others: scandal

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."85 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.86

2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."87 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,88 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. “Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!”

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache...ch,+scandal&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

Notre Dame is promoting Obama as a role model AND
awarding his actions as a lawyer and politician.

Reprehensible AND
SCANDALOUS.

 

[Ronald_E]

It’s likely you could use a refresher course in Christian Doctrine.

from the Catechism:

II. RESPECT FOR THE DIGNITY OF PERSONS

Respect for the souls of others: scandal

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."85 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.86

2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."87 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,88 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. “Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!”

74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:1yMmC9i-onAJ:www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm+catechism+of+the+catholic+church,+scandal&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

Notre Dame is promoting Obama as a role model AND
awarding his actions as a lawyer and politician.

Reprehensible AND
SCANDALOUS.

I expected this response. I read what you reference yesterday. I knew you would presume that I am not educated in the catechism. You will justify your anger no matter what I present for your consideration. It is a purely human response.
It is easy to cry scandal and it is much more difficult to seek God working in all of this. I would rather search for God’s working through Fr. Jenkins and President Obama than crying scandal.

 

[catharina]

I expected this response. I read what you reference yesterday. I knew you would presume that I am not educated in the catechism. You will justify your anger no matter what I present for your consideration. It is a purely human response.
It is easy to cry scandal and it is much more difficult to seek God working in all of this. I would rather search for God’s working through Fr. Jenkins and President Obama than crying scandal.

Ronald, you’re being disingenuous.
Several posts ago YOU referred to Obama as a baby-killer, claiming others have done so.
You earned yourself an F in substituting rhetoric (emotion) for reason in dialectics.
You insist upon my anger but YOU have scraped the bottom of the emotional barrel.

You have defeated yourself.
(No surprise to me.)

If my quoting Jesus and the Catechism upsets you, that’s YOUR problem.

 

[Ronald_E]

Ronald, you’re being disingenuous.
Several posts ago YOU referred to Obama as a baby-killer, claiming others have done so.
You earned yourself an F in substituting rhetoric (emotion) for reason in dialectics.
You insist upon my anger but YOU have scraped the bottom of the emotional barrel.

You have defeated yourself.
(No surprise to me.)

If my quoting Jesus and the Catechism upsets you, that’s YOUR problem.

Please show me where I called him a baby killer. I offer solutions and alternative perceptions of what may be taking place and I get the above response. I will not indulge anymore in this discussion because I am left with a deep feeling of sadness due to a lack of consideration of how God may be moving through all of this.
I prefer a mutual search for God and prefer discussion with those who also want to search for God in everything He permits to happen in our lives as a means of a deeper understanding of His Love and a deepening understanding of His desire that everyone be converted to His Love.
Good-bye. The weight and resistance of anger here is too heavy and oppressive.

 

[magdelaine]

Look what you just wrote. How does God teach us to ‘defend’. He certainly does not teach us through the words you have written. Those words also corrupt our faith. I am greatly disappointed in your response.

I don’t think that it is a corruption to call it like I see it. Do you have a problem with what was said about Notre Dame? Or do you have a problem with attaching it to a particular person? I’m so tired of the the faithful not standing up for the Church and defending against the heresy of the “pro-choice Catholic”.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Ghandi would not have been invited to speak at ND in1920s through the 1940s. He was a Hindu, he had two wives, and he stated that a society should be judged on how well it threated its animals while, simultaneously, he, did little for the untouchables in his own country. It was a different era and it would not have been done because ND was adhereing to its mission statement.

Ok, so Ghandi’s out. The Dalai Lama is out too I guess, since he denies the divinity of Jesus.

Today, we have Obama who did not hear the hate speech in his own Christian Church, can’t judge abortion because it is above his pay level, maybe will cause Catholic hospitals to close because of his abortion stand, opened funding to international abortion centers, and is up for an honorary degree from ND because it has forgotten its mission statement thanks to the priests whose lack of judgement re. this invitation is shocking.

All the purported “hate speech” in his Church was pretty much confined to one sermon, the one that happened the first Sunday after 9/11. Obama was not there, since like other politicians he had a lot of work to do at the time. I bet you’ve only ever seen two parts of Rev. Wrights sermons, one that seems to have him damning America and the other one that talks about chickens coming home to roost. I’m pretty sure these clips aren’t why Obama was going to that church.

Over the years, Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett have given tens of millions of dollars to various groups that perform abortions, push for and/or proselytize for abortion abroad and here in America. For details you can visit the Web pages of the American Life League, the Population Research Institute and Human Life International…"

I suppose that means Bill Gates won’t be able to receive any honors from Notre Dame either, along with Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, and probably most non-Catholics.

Luis, I have no plans to respond to your “list” of statements.
It’s clear that you like to have things neatly assigned to categories -
and yet, then you add the exceptions to the rules. Forget it.

So I guess relying on logic is out?

Ronald, you’re being disingenuous.
Several posts ago YOU referred to Obama as a baby-killer, claiming others have done so.
You earned yourself an F in substituting rhetoric (emotion) for reason in dialectics.
You insist upon my anger but YOU have scraped the bottom of the emotional barrel.

Hmm, and apparently there’s fallacy in relying on emotion as well. So if all my logic is useless and all Ronald’s emotion is useless, what is useful?

 

[Sean_Boyle]

I suppose that means Bill Gates won’t be able to receive any honors from Notre Dame either, along with Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, and probably most non-Catholics.

The people that you listed above aren’t opposed to the diginity of human beings nor are they opposed to the rights of human beings as given to us by God. So maybe they could be welcomed candidates at N.D.

Pres. Obama has singled out, by his actions and words, a segment of our population and said that it should be a God given “right” to kill those people.

Tell me how or why the person with the ideals that Pres. Obama holds dear regarding abortion should be presented with an honorary degree in LAW?

No amount of “good” a person does or a cause that he represents can over ride the fact that he and his administration increased the death and destruction that we know as abortion.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

The people that you listed above aren’t opposed to the diginity of human beings nor are they opposed to the rights of human beings as given to us by God. So maybe they could be welcomed candidates at N.D.

Pres. Obama has singled out, by his actions and words, a segment of our population and said that it should be a God given “right” to kill those people.

Tell me how or why the person with the ideals that Pres. Obama holds dear regarding abortion should be presented with an honorary degree in LAW?

No amount of “good” a person does or a cause that he represents can over ride the fact that he and his administration increased the death and destruction that we know as abortion.

But the divinity of Jesus Christ is a much more central part of our belief system than that personhood begins at the moment of biological conception. The latter hasn’t even been prominent in Church teaching until the 20th century, even though abortion itself has occurred in various forms since well before Christ.

Although it’s unrelated to my previous comment, I just read an interesting quote by Galileo, which is worthy of contemplation:
In the long run my observations have convinced me that some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion in their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of their having received it from some person who has their entire confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set forth by others, no matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain their instant acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with disdain or with hot rage–if indeed it does not make them ill. Beside themselves with passion, some of them would not be backward even about scheming to suppress and silence their adversaries.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Surely, ND could find a devout Catholic to present the speach. Maybe even find someone whose lost their job, or had a rough time but kept their chin up and stayed faithful through it all. I’d have more respect for that person than I would Obama.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

But the divinity of Jesus Christ is a much more central part of our belief system than that personhood begins at the moment of biological conception. The latter hasn’t even been prominent in Church teaching until the 20th century, even though abortion itself has occurred in various forms since well before Christ.

Although it’s unrelated to my previous comment, I just read an interesting quote by Galileo, which is worthy of contemplation:
In the long run my observations have convinced me that some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion in their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of their having received it from some person who has their entire confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set forth by others, no matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain their instant acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with disdain or with hot rage–if indeed it does not make them ill. Beside themselves with passion, some of them would not be backward even about scheming to suppress and silence their adversaries.

…that quote you gave, gives me a better understanding of where people are coming from when they defend Pres. Obama’s presents at N.D.

So in your opinion it’s fine to kill babies as long as you believe in the divinity of Christ? That will never qualify as Truth but your entitled to that opinion with free will and all.

 

[aicirt]

Ok, so Ghandi’s out. The Dalai Lama is out too I guess, since he denies the divinity of Jesus.

All the purported “hate speech” in his Church was pretty much confined to one sermon, the one that happened the first Sunday after 9/11. Obama was not there, since like other politicians he had a lot of work to do at the time. I bet you’ve only ever seen two parts of Rev. Wrights sermons, one that seems to have him damning America and the other one that talks about chickens coming home to roost. I’m pretty sure these clips aren’t why Obama was going to that church.

I suppose that means Bill Gates won’t be able to receive any honors from Notre Dame either, along with Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, and probably most non-Catholics.

If Wright was my priest and I heard him speak hate, I’d only need one time. I wouldn’t be sitting there for 20 years. And if he wasn’t there, he certainly heard about it.

If they promote abortion or anything else against the teachings of the Church, they shouldn’t be receiving awards from a Catholic institution. Nor was I impressed that Obama was invited to the Al Smith dinner in NYC sponsored by the Church and hosted by Cardinal Egan.

Want logic? Do not ask the laity to talk the talk and walk the walk, including going to prison in some cases, if the Church, through all its priests, isn’t willing to do the same. If the Church wants to take a stand against abortion, then make sure the priests do the same. You cannot praise a person who pickets Planned Parenthood and then make excuses for the rather innocuous chore of writing a letter to President Obama telling him ND made a mistake and it is canceling the invitation. It take a few minutes and a stamp. And no one will be jailed.

So I guess relying on logic is out?

Hmm, and apparently there’s fallacy in relying on emotion as well. So if all my logic is useless and all Ronald’s emotion is useless, what is useful?

 

[Ronald_E]

…that quote you gave, gives me a better understanding of where people are coming from when they defend Pres. Obama’s presents at N.D.

So in your opinion it’s fine to kill babies as long as you believe in the divinity of Christ? That will never qualify as Truth but your entitled to that opinion with free will and all.

I believe that you have misrepresented Luis with your accusatory and slanderous question. It appears that if I see Obama coming to ND and receiving a meaningless award as a great opportunity to express how deeply we as Catholics view the sanctity of life then I would be opposed to you.

We should be thankful that he is in Our Lady’s backyard. We should thank God for this opportunity. We should be joyful as the saints when they were tortured to death. Instead, I hear the barrage of scandal filling the airwaves and I am extremely disappointed with the emotional reaction that moves them away from God and into their own human perception of being wronged.

“Come Holy Spirit and fill our hearts with the fire of your love. Send forth your Spirit so that we may be created and You may renew the face of the earth.”

God and our faith do not need to be defended. God and our faith have done quite well without being defended. We need to reveal the glory of God that resides in us instead of our human weakness that gets offended so easily.

Mother Theresa said, “One filled with joy preaches without preaching.”

I want to see a little joy in the midst of this ‘scandal’.

 

[Trader]

Bishop D’Arcy gave an interview shown on local television last night:

indianasnewscenter.com/news/local/42591207.html

 

[Sean_Boyle]

I am extremely disappointed with the emotional reaction that moves them away from God and into their own human perception of being wronged.

God and our faith do not need to be defended. God and our faith have done quite well without being defended. We need to reveal the glory of God that resides in us instead of our human weakness that gets offended so easily.

Excellent advise, do I need to repeat it?

A question can’t be slanderous.

Was N.D. wrong to recend it’s invitation to then Gov. Joe Kernan of Indiana for his view on abortion? Why is Pres. Obama the exception to N.D.'s thinking from a few years ago?

 

[Ronald_E]

Bishop D’Arcy gave an interview shown on local television last night:

indianasnewscenter.com/news/local/42591207.html

I am disappointed that he does not see this as an opportunity. There is so much he can do that would be positive and be an example to show that God can be present and found anywhere.
John Paul II found God in a rock quarry trying to live on 800 calories a day during the Nazi evil. Gorbachev met with JP II in the Vatican. Instead of all these Bishops writing letters of objection why don’t they go to ND and request a meeting with Obama.
Not attending is weak. Christ went to sinners regardless of where they were. John Paul II went to places where he was not welcomed and his life was threatened.
God is not limited to any occasion or ceremony to create conversion. Their avoidance and lack of spiritual sight in this matter overwhelms me with disappointment.

 

[Ronald_E]

Excellent advise, do I need to repeat it?

A question can’t be slanderous.

Was N.D. wrong to recend it’s invitation to then Gov. Joe Kernan of Indiana for his view on abortion? Why is Pres. Obama the exception to N.D.'s thinking from a few years ago?

I am not aware of the governor situation.

 

[JimG]

Bishop D’Arcy gave an interview shown on local television last night:

indianasnewscenter.com/news/local/42591207.html

A most thoughtful interview. Thanks for the link.