F
fix
Guest
Are only Catholics bound by the truth?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
L
Luis_Santiago
Guest
Still, judging by some of the posts here, people seem to think Obama has some sort of bloodlust for fetuses. This isn’t true at all. He just doesn’t believe human rights begin until birth.Of course he is not a demon/Satan, but rather a human being who is seriously misguided regarding the sanctity of human life.
Take, for example, a person who believes killing animals is the same as murder. He might argue to you that a dog’s capacity for thinking and feeling and suffering is the same as that of a human child. I’m not saying this is the same thing, but you would disagree with him, but it would be a matter of faith, not of universally-accepted principles. It is the same sort of disagreement you would have with Obama.
I’ve heard this, but it doesn’t seem to have any basis in facts.Note that he would like to appoint a nominee to the supreme court who intends to read the Freedom of Choice Act into the Constitution.
Well, if you define truth as that which comes from the Church, then yes.Are only Catholics bound by the truth?
F
fix
Guest
That unborn babies are human and worthy of life is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of reason and truth.Still, judging by some of the posts here, people seem to think Obama has some sort of bloodlust for fetuses. This isn’t true at all. He just doesn’t believe human rights begin until birth.
Take, for example, a person who believes killing animals is the same as murder. He might argue to you that a dog’s capacity for thinking and feeling and suffering is the same as that of a human child. I’m not saying this is the same thing, but you would disagree with him, but it would be a matter of faith, not of universally-accepted principles. It is the same sort of disagreement you would have with Obama.
Truth is a person, I do not define Him.Well, if you define truth as that which comes from the Church, then yes.
I guess if you view reality as man-centered, rather than Christ-centered, you get the hedonism and relativism that is reported in this thread.
L
Luis_Santiago
Guest
But it is the matter of faith that is most important to us. The United States is a secular government though. We are not a theocracy, the constitution forbids this. In order to make laws, they must be based in secular principles. It is not enough to say that abortion is always wrong, or even that ending a human life is always wrong. We must say why it is wrong, using reasoning accessible to people of any faith, if we are to change the law.That unborn babies are human and worthy of life is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of reason and truth.
But the government must view reality as being man-centered, or at least natural-law-centered, rather than Christ-centered. That is a central tenet of our Constitution.I guess if you view reality as man-centered, rather than Christ-centered, you get the hedonism and relativism that is reported in this thread.
R
redrosetea
Guest
Something being legal doesn’t make it right, or mora,l or just
At one time slaves were viewed just as the unborn are viewed today
Murder is a crime, if you tried it on anyone else you would go to prison
It used to be a crime in this country as well as most of the civilized nations in the world
At one time slaves were viewed just as the unborn are viewed today
Murder is a crime, if you tried it on anyone else you would go to prison
It used to be a crime in this country as well as most of the civilized nations in the world
R
RobbyS
Guest
You forget one important principle: the Constitution of the United States aims to empower the central government of a federal republic. The United States is a unionBut it is the matter of faith that is most important to us. The United States is a secular government though. We are not a theocracy, the constitution forbids this. In order to make laws, they must be based in secular principles. It is not enough to say that abortion is always wrong, or even that ending a human life is always wrong. We must say why it is wrong, using reasoning accessible to people of any faith, if we are to change the law.
But the government must view reality as being man-centered, or at least natural-law-centered, rather than Christ-centered. That is a central tenet of our Constitution.
of several republics, most of whose constitutions acknowledge their dependence on God. It is right there in their preambles. One purpose of the First Amendment was to
resrve to the states the right to an Establishment of religion.
So it is wrong to say that
the Constitution looks upon secularism as a positive principle. It is secular in the ***negative ***sense that it forbids a national Establishment and a religious test for office. But it leaves to the states the right to set voting standards, which meant that any state
could have restricted the right to vote to Protestants in choosing members of the national House of Representatives, and since the state legislature chose U.S. Senators, could have denied a Catholic the right to sit in the Senate. Some in New York State, including John Jay, even attempted this. But another orinciple won out, and it was not secularism but nondenomiationalism. Nondenominationalism is based on the principle of voluntarism, that a man is free to choose his associates in worshiping God, or not.
Except to a few admirers of French principles, secularism was foreign to the American system. Secularism has grown in favor among our eliters as the power of the central government has grown and the powers of the states have declined. We can expect more of it now that the party of secularism has seized control of the reins of government.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
of course not. I don’t know of any Catholic university that does have such a rule. Does anyone else here know of one?Is there a guideline at Notre Dame that all students MUST be Catholic to attend?
L
Luis_Santiago
Guest
Not quite. It was usually a criminal offense to severely mistreat or kill a slave.Something being legal doesn’t make it right, or mora,l or just
At one time slaves were viewed just as the unborn are viewed today
But the founding fathers understood that when this country was founded, making slavery illegal would be impossible even though they knew that it was contrary to the Constitution in principle. Thus, they kept it legal until there was enough abolitionist support to make it illegal, or at least cause the south to secede.
Initially, this may have been the case. But over time, the central government has become more dominant, especially during WW1, WW2, and the Cold War. This was necessary to combat the global threats of that time period.You forget one important principle: the Constitution of the United States aims to empower the central government of a federal republic. The United States is a union
of several republics, most of whose constitutions acknowledge their dependence on God. It is right there in their preambles. One purpose of the First Amendment was to
resrve to the states the right to an Establishment of religion.
So what is the difference between secularism and nondenominationalism? Does nondenominationalism assume some shared Judeo-Christian faith? Even if this were the case, denominations have different beliefs and values.So it is wrong to say that the Constitution looks upon secularism as a positive principle. It is secular in the ***negative ***sense that it forbids a national Establishment and a religious test for office. But it leaves to the states the right to set voting standards, which meant that any state could have restricted the right to vote to Protestants in choosing members of the national House of Representatives, and since the state legislature chose U.S. Senators, could have denied a Catholic the right to sit in the Senate. Some in New York State, including John Jay, even attempted this. But another orinciple won out, and it was not secularism but nondenomiationalism. Nondenominationalism is based on the principle of voluntarism, that a man is free to choose his associates in worshiping God, or not.
Except to a few admirers of French principles, secularism was foreign to the American system. Secularism has grown in favor among our eliters as the power of the central government has grown and the powers of the states have declined. We can expect more of it now that the party of secularism has seized control of the reins of government.
Adultery is also evil and sinful, but making it illegal will not solve the problem or even make it much less common. That doesn’t mean Obama supports adultery just because he’s not in favor of making it illegal.
R
RobbyS
Guest
.
So what is the difference between secularism and nondenominationalism? Does nondenominationalism assume some shared Judeo-Christian faith? Even if this were the case, denominations have different beliefs and values.
Adultery is also evil and sinful, but making it illegal will not solve the problem or even make it much less common. That doesn’t mean Obama supports adultery just because he’s not in favor of making it illegal.
First, again, the United States Government was the creation of delegates of the several states, and if one reads the Federalist Papers, James Madison, who was a principal author of the Constitution, explains that the document creates a government of limited and deliniated powers, not an American Parliament. That framework constrains if it does not contain expansion of the power of the central government. Despite the erosion of state powers, each of our state governments exercise more independent power than
the subdivisions of the European nations or even some of those nations within the European Union. It seems one of the goals of the Obama administration to reduce the states to administrative subdivisions of the central government. Much of the so-called stimulous packed will go to prop up states such as California and new York which have been spending far beyond their means.
Nondenominationalism, as it developed during the firstpart of the 19th Century, was a result of the so-called “Great Awakening,” and was in fact a new resurgance of the evangelicalism that preceded the Revolution and which was one of the causes of revolutionary ardor among the people. The clergy were among the strongest supporters of the Revolution. Prominent leaders of the Revolution tended to be more liberal, and Jefferson was initially a supporter of the French revolution. But as France fell into anti-religion and what was calloed atheism, elite opinion pulled away from such support. But because of divisions among the churches, a renewed fervor for Christianity was spread
by preachers whose sermons minimized the old theological and cultural differences and
emphasized Christian morallity and personal renewal. Americans had not for sometime been church-going people, but by th middle of the century it became unusual for an American, especially among the elite, not to belong to a church. Methodists, the main leaders of the revival, but also Baptists and Presbyerians enrolled members by the millions, although it seemed more like a matter of personal taste which church one belonged to rather than any preference for theological opinion. Sects multiplied by the thousands, more or less like small businesses, each providing a “service” for a certain segment of the people. Tocqueville provides an interesting picture of the situation during the time of Jackson. This peculiar form of religiosity was a principal support of th new American democracy. In Europe by contrast, democracy was anti-religious in character.
It is this anti-religious sentiment that I call secularism.
So what is the difference between secularism and nondenominationalism? Does nondenominationalism assume some shared Judeo-Christian faith? Even if this were the case, denominations have different beliefs and values.
Adultery is also evil and sinful, but making it illegal will not solve the problem or even make it much less common. That doesn’t mean Obama supports adultery just because he’s not in favor of making it illegal.
First, again, the United States Government was the creation of delegates of the several states, and if one reads the Federalist Papers, James Madison, who was a principal author of the Constitution, explains that the document creates a government of limited and deliniated powers, not an American Parliament. That framework constrains if it does not contain expansion of the power of the central government. Despite the erosion of state powers, each of our state governments exercise more independent power than
the subdivisions of the European nations or even some of those nations within the European Union. It seems one of the goals of the Obama administration to reduce the states to administrative subdivisions of the central government. Much of the so-called stimulous packed will go to prop up states such as California and new York which have been spending far beyond their means.
Nondenominationalism, as it developed during the firstpart of the 19th Century, was a result of the so-called “Great Awakening,” and was in fact a new resurgance of the evangelicalism that preceded the Revolution and which was one of the causes of revolutionary ardor among the people. The clergy were among the strongest supporters of the Revolution. Prominent leaders of the Revolution tended to be more liberal, and Jefferson was initially a supporter of the French revolution. But as France fell into anti-religion and what was calloed atheism, elite opinion pulled away from such support. But because of divisions among the churches, a renewed fervor for Christianity was spread
by preachers whose sermons minimized the old theological and cultural differences and
emphasized Christian morallity and personal renewal. Americans had not for sometime been church-going people, but by th middle of the century it became unusual for an American, especially among the elite, not to belong to a church. Methodists, the main leaders of the revival, but also Baptists and Presbyerians enrolled members by the millions, although it seemed more like a matter of personal taste which church one belonged to rather than any preference for theological opinion. Sects multiplied by the thousands, more or less like small businesses, each providing a “service” for a certain segment of the people. Tocqueville provides an interesting picture of the situation during the time of Jackson. This peculiar form of religiosity was a principal support of th new American democracy. In Europe by contrast, democracy was anti-religious in character.
It is this anti-religious sentiment that I call secularism.
R
RobbyS
Guest
.
So what is the difference between secularism and nondenominationalism? Does nondenominationalism assume some shared Judeo-Christian faith? Even if this were the case, denominations have different beliefs and values.
First, again, the United States Government was the creation of delegates of the several states, and if one reads the Federalist Papers, James Madison, who was a principal author of the Constitution, explains that the document creates a government of limited and deliniated powers, not an American Parliament. That framework constrains if it does not contain expansion of the power of the central government. Despite the erosion of state powers, each of our state governments exercise more independent power than
the subdivisions of the European nations or even some of those nations within the European Union. It seems one of the goals of the Obama administration to reduce the states to administrative subdivisions of the central government. Much of the so-called stimulous packed will go to prop up states such as California and new York which have been spending far beyond their means.
Nondenominationalism, as it developed during the firstpart of the 19th Century, was a result of the so-called “Great Awakening,” and was in fact a new resurgance of the evangelicalism that preceded the Revolution and which was one of the causes of revolutionary ardor among the people. The clergy were among the strongest supporters of the Revolution. Prominent leaders of the Revolution tended to be more liberal, and Jefferson was initially a supporter of the French revolution. But as France fell into anti-religion and what was calloed atheism, elite opinion pulled away from such support. But because of divisions among the churches, a renewed fervor for Christianity was spread
by preachers whose sermons minimized the old theological and cultural differences and
emphasized Christian morallity and personal renewal. Americans had not for sometime been church-going people, but by th middle of the century it became unusual for an American, especially among the elite, not to belong to a church. Methodists, the main leaders of the revival, but also Baptists and Presbyerians enrolled members by the millions, although it seemed more like a matter of personal taste which church one belonged to rather than any preference for theological opinion. Sects multiplied by the thousands, more or less like small businesses, each providing a “service” for a certain segment of the people. Tocqueville provides an interesting picture of the situation during the time of Jackson. This peculiar form of religiosity was a principal support of th new American democracy. In Europe by contrast, democracy was anti-religious in character.
It is this anti-religious sentiment that I call secularism.
So what is the difference between secularism and nondenominationalism? Does nondenominationalism assume some shared Judeo-Christian faith? Even if this were the case, denominations have different beliefs and values.
First, again, the United States Government was the creation of delegates of the several states, and if one reads the Federalist Papers, James Madison, who was a principal author of the Constitution, explains that the document creates a government of limited and deliniated powers, not an American Parliament. That framework constrains if it does not contain expansion of the power of the central government. Despite the erosion of state powers, each of our state governments exercise more independent power than
the subdivisions of the European nations or even some of those nations within the European Union. It seems one of the goals of the Obama administration to reduce the states to administrative subdivisions of the central government. Much of the so-called stimulous packed will go to prop up states such as California and new York which have been spending far beyond their means.
Nondenominationalism, as it developed during the firstpart of the 19th Century, was a result of the so-called “Great Awakening,” and was in fact a new resurgance of the evangelicalism that preceded the Revolution and which was one of the causes of revolutionary ardor among the people. The clergy were among the strongest supporters of the Revolution. Prominent leaders of the Revolution tended to be more liberal, and Jefferson was initially a supporter of the French revolution. But as France fell into anti-religion and what was calloed atheism, elite opinion pulled away from such support. But because of divisions among the churches, a renewed fervor for Christianity was spread
by preachers whose sermons minimized the old theological and cultural differences and
emphasized Christian morallity and personal renewal. Americans had not for sometime been church-going people, but by th middle of the century it became unusual for an American, especially among the elite, not to belong to a church. Methodists, the main leaders of the revival, but also Baptists and Presbyerians enrolled members by the millions, although it seemed more like a matter of personal taste which church one belonged to rather than any preference for theological opinion. Sects multiplied by the thousands, more or less like small businesses, each providing a “service” for a certain segment of the people. Tocqueville provides an interesting picture of the situation during the time of Jackson. This peculiar form of religiosity was a principal support of th new American democracy. In Europe by contrast, democracy was anti-religious in character.
It is this anti-religious sentiment that I call secularism.
L
Luis_Santiago
Guest
Oh, I get now. Non-denominationalism is an American PROTESTANT RELIGIOUS movement and has practically nothing to do with POLITICS or CATHOLICISM. Why you started talking about this is beyond me.First, again, the United States Government was the creation of delegates of the several states, and if one reads the Federalist Papers, James Madison, who was a principal author of the Constitution, explains that the document creates a government of limited and deliniated powers, not an American Parliament. That framework constrains if it does not contain expansion of the power of the central government. Despite the erosion of state powers, each of our state governments exercise more independent power than
the subdivisions of the European nations or even some of those nations within the European Union. It seems one of the goals of the Obama administration to reduce the states to administrative subdivisions of the central government. Much of the so-called stimulous packed will go to prop up states such as California and new York which have been spending far beyond their means.
Nondenominationalism, as it developed during the firstpart of the 19th Century, was a result of the so-called “Great Awakening,” and was in fact a new resurgance of the evangelicalism that preceded the Revolution and which was one of the causes of revolutionary ardor among the people. The clergy were among the strongest supporters of the Revolution. Prominent leaders of the Revolution tended to be more liberal, and Jefferson was initially a supporter of the French revolution. But as France fell into anti-religion and what was calloed atheism, elite opinion pulled away from such support. But because of divisions among the churches, a renewed fervor for Christianity was spread
by preachers whose sermons minimized the old theological and cultural differences and
emphasized Christian morallity and personal renewal. Americans had not for sometime been church-going people, but by th middle of the century it became unusual for an American, especially among the elite, not to belong to a church. Methodists, the main leaders of the revival, but also Baptists and Presbyerians enrolled members by the millions, although it seemed more like a matter of personal taste which church one belonged to rather than any preference for theological opinion. Sects multiplied by the thousands, more or less like small businesses, each providing a “service” for a certain segment of the people. Tocqueville provides an interesting picture of the situation during the time of Jackson. This peculiar form of religiosity was a principal support of th new American democracy. In Europe by contrast, democracy was anti-religious in character.
It is this anti-religious sentiment that I call secularism.
By “secular” I only meant “not associated with a religion”. In that sense, our government is indeed secular.
J
JimG
Guest
President Obama will use this occasion to further encourage schism within the Catholic Church. He seems intent on splitting the Church into pro-Obama, pro-abortion Catholics, and pro-life Catholics, using the former to marginalize the latter. Pro-life Catholics can then be pointed to as fringe extremists while Obama claims the “American” Catholic Church as his own.
Universities such as Notre Dame will assist him in this effort.
Universities such as Notre Dame will assist him in this effort.
S
Sean_Boyle
Guest
The bottom line is that Notre Dame and its governing body went willfully against the USCCB by ignoring the letter on such invitations to speaker who professes views contrary to the dignity of human persons.
I believe the number of bishops that have publicly affirmed the statement that Pres. Obama shouldn’t be invited to speak and to recieve a honorary degree is now past 50 bishops. The USCCB aren’t confused. The governing body at Notre Dame and the Obama Catholics are wrong on this. They can dance around the issue all they want, they’re still misguided.
Notre Dame and the 54% of the Catholic voting population that voted for “the most pro-abortion president” are now faced with the simple fact that they did something that was contrary to the will of God. Most can’t accept that they were wrong. Hence the back and forth discussion. There is only one side to this discussion folks!
I believe the number of bishops that have publicly affirmed the statement that Pres. Obama shouldn’t be invited to speak and to recieve a honorary degree is now past 50 bishops. The USCCB aren’t confused. The governing body at Notre Dame and the Obama Catholics are wrong on this. They can dance around the issue all they want, they’re still misguided.
Notre Dame and the 54% of the Catholic voting population that voted for “the most pro-abortion president” are now faced with the simple fact that they did something that was contrary to the will of God. Most can’t accept that they were wrong. Hence the back and forth discussion. There is only one side to this discussion folks!
F
fix
Guest
The truth matters. Our faith confirms that.But it is the matter of faith that is most important to us.
It is not a matter of sectarian concern to know killing is wrong.The United States is a secular government though. We are not a theocracy, the constitution forbids this. In order to make laws, they must be based in secular principles. It is not enough to say that abortion is always wrong, or even that ending a human life is always wrong. We must say why it is wrong, using reasoning accessible to people of any faith, if we are to change the law.
The natural law and Christ are not in conflict. If man is the center than we are back to relativism which leads to tyranny which is why we have abortion as legal. You are going in circles.But the government must view reality as being man-centered, or at least natural-law-centered, rather than Christ-centered. That is a central tenet of our Constitution.
T
ted1132
Guest
From a family that has been involved with ND since 1860,s
this is a watershed moment. I believe OL will spare her good name there since Mercy supercedes(sp) Justice. But the Issue is only going to accelerate and the Church’s Shepherds may indeed abandon South Bend. Example of mercy-- OL Guadalupe intervened and the Aztecs were visibly sacrificing Humans(for 100 years?). There are great Catholics on Campus and to remove, like daily mass, etc. would be tragic if not uncharitable. The Almighty can and does create good out of evil all the time. Tough witness right now… Let us pray to OL!
this is a watershed moment. I believe OL will spare her good name there since Mercy supercedes(sp) Justice. But the Issue is only going to accelerate and the Church’s Shepherds may indeed abandon South Bend. Example of mercy-- OL Guadalupe intervened and the Aztecs were visibly sacrificing Humans(for 100 years?). There are great Catholics on Campus and to remove, like daily mass, etc. would be tragic if not uncharitable. The Almighty can and does create good out of evil all the time. Tough witness right now… Let us pray to OL!
T
Trader
Guest
The one bishop with actual authority in this matter is John Michael D’Arcy. According to ND Response, Bishop D’Arcy has confirmed his attendence at the officially approved demonstration and prayer vigil on the ND campus.
ndresponse.com/commencement.html
I am sure a large part of his motivation in attending is to keep the demonstration prayerful and respectful of the office of the President. It is also because because he takes his office as teacher in our diocese very seriously. After hearing him preach for more than 24 years there is no doubt in my mind how important life issues are to him. It is unfortunate that Notre Dame leadership has been listening to someone else.
ndresponse.com/commencement.html
I am sure a large part of his motivation in attending is to keep the demonstration prayerful and respectful of the office of the President. It is also because because he takes his office as teacher in our diocese very seriously. After hearing him preach for more than 24 years there is no doubt in my mind how important life issues are to him. It is unfortunate that Notre Dame leadership has been listening to someone else.
L
Luis_Santiago
Guest
I’m pretty sure Obama’s not trying to position himself as the leader of the American Catholic Church. You just sound ridiculous now.President Obama will use this occasion to further encourage schism within the Catholic Church. He seems intent on splitting the Church into pro-Obama, pro-abortion Catholics, and pro-life Catholics, using the former to marginalize the latter. Pro-life Catholics can then be pointed to as fringe extremists while Obama claims the “American” Catholic Church as his own.
Universities such as Notre Dame will assist him in this effort.
It is a matter of sectarian concern to know when killing is wrong. The Catholic Church was strongly opposed to the war in Iraq because of the inevitable killing, but many American Protestant churches strongly supported it.The truth matters. Our faith confirms that.
It is not a matter of sectarian concern to know killing is wrong.
Natural law is grounded in human nature, and therefore man. Why do you think human nature is necessarily based on relativism? And for that matter, why does relativism lead to tyranny? Christianity has led to tyranny in the past, notably in the Spanish Inquisition and the reign of “Bloody Mary” in England. But that doesn’t mean it’s inevitable.The natural law and Christ are not in conflict. If man is the center than we are back to relativism which leads to tyranny which is why we have abortion as legal. You are going in circles.
On the contrary, I think that tyranny is most often imposed when people pursue an ideology to the extent that they contradict natural law, and that ideology can be based on logic or religion.
C
CKNICKERBOCKER
Guest
THIS IS A WONDERFUL WITNESS TO BEING TRULY CATHOLIC AND STANDING UP
FOR OUR PRINCIPLES OF SOUND DOCTRINE:
Mary Ann Glendon is a former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican.
Declining Notre Dame: A Letter from Mary Ann Glendon
By Mary Ann Glendon
Monday, April 27, 2009, 9:32 AM
April 27, 2009
The Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
President
University of Notre Dame
Dear Father Jenkins,
When you informed me in December 2008 that I had been selected to receive Notre Dame’s Laetare Medal, I was profoundly moved. I treasure the memory of receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame in 1996, and I have always felt honored that the commencement speech I gave that year was included in the anthology of Notre Dame’s most memorable commencement speeches. So I immediately began working on an acceptance speech that I hoped would be worthy of the occasion, of the honor of the medal, and of your students and faculty.
Last month, when you called to tell me that the commencement speech was to be given by President Obama, I mentioned to you that I would have to rewrite my speech. Over the ensuing weeks, the task that once seemed so delightful has been complicated by a number of factors.
First, as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.
Then I learned that “talking points” issued by Notre Dame in response to widespread criticism of its decision included two statements implying that my acceptance speech would somehow balance the event:
• “President Obama won’t be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican , will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal.”
• “We think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about.”
A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.
Finally, with recent news reports that other Catholic schools are similarly choosing to disregard the bishops’ guidelines, I am concerned that Notre Dame’s example could have an unfortunate ripple effect.
It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.
In order to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision, I will release this letter to the press, but I do not plan to make any further comment on the matter at this time.
Yours Very Truly,
Mary Ann Glendon
Mary Ann Glendon is Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. A member of the editorial and advisory board of First Things , she served as the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican from 2007 to 2009.
FOR OUR PRINCIPLES OF SOUND DOCTRINE:
Mary Ann Glendon is a former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican.
Declining Notre Dame: A Letter from Mary Ann Glendon
By Mary Ann Glendon
Monday, April 27, 2009, 9:32 AM
April 27, 2009
The Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
President
University of Notre Dame
Dear Father Jenkins,
When you informed me in December 2008 that I had been selected to receive Notre Dame’s Laetare Medal, I was profoundly moved. I treasure the memory of receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame in 1996, and I have always felt honored that the commencement speech I gave that year was included in the anthology of Notre Dame’s most memorable commencement speeches. So I immediately began working on an acceptance speech that I hoped would be worthy of the occasion, of the honor of the medal, and of your students and faculty.
Last month, when you called to tell me that the commencement speech was to be given by President Obama, I mentioned to you that I would have to rewrite my speech. Over the ensuing weeks, the task that once seemed so delightful has been complicated by a number of factors.
First, as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.
Then I learned that “talking points” issued by Notre Dame in response to widespread criticism of its decision included two statements implying that my acceptance speech would somehow balance the event:
• “President Obama won’t be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican , will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal.”
• “We think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about.”
A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.
Finally, with recent news reports that other Catholic schools are similarly choosing to disregard the bishops’ guidelines, I am concerned that Notre Dame’s example could have an unfortunate ripple effect.
It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.
In order to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision, I will release this letter to the press, but I do not plan to make any further comment on the matter at this time.
Yours Very Truly,
Mary Ann Glendon
Mary Ann Glendon is Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. A member of the editorial and advisory board of First Things , she served as the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican from 2007 to 2009.
E
elts1956
Guest
look, i’ve never once claimed obama is taking a pro-life stance. I asked for a list of his pro life measures. Clearly there are none. He’s clearly pro-choice. But he has done plenty to indicate that he’s willing to make concessions to the pro-life position. BULLFEATHERS!! the guidelines he released for embryonic stem cell research were a lot stricter than democrats wanted. He hasn’t tried to pursue getting foca passed. He made reducing abortions part of the democrat platform. Even the vatican said that although they were initially worried about obama, that so far what they were the most concerned would happen hasn’t played outor"HASN’T PLAYED OUT YET…YET…YET.
E
elts1956
Guest
Look, I’ve never once claimed Obama is taking a pro-life stance. He’s clearly pro-choice. But he has done plenty to indicate that he’s willing to make concessions to the pro-life position. The guidelines he released for embryonic stem cell research were a lot stricter than Democrats wanted. He hasn’t tried to pursue getting FOCA passed. He made reducing abortions part of the Democrat platform. Even the Vatican said that although they were initially worried about Obama, that so far what they were the most concerned would happen hasn’t played out.
Doesn’t balance a thing for me. bo has started the ball rolling and it will keep on rolling. Now he doesn’t need to say a thing but start seducing people in thinking he is a moderate.The CNS article may have a bit more info: catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0901955.htm
I agree with Luis, the point (for many of us) is not that the Vatican is endorsing him – I would never expect that – but that he’s not the demon/Satan that many seem to think he is, at least by reading comments about him that some people post on forums like CAF. I would hope this news article from the Vatican could lend some balance to modify some of the more extreme opinions from Catholics.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.