Scheidler: Jenkins Remains Utterly Immovable on ND 88 Says talking to Jenkins about the issue like talking to a "stone"

[unafraid]

How can anyone see Father Jenkins behavior as anything other than that worldly capitulation to modern precepts which brought the Church to her knees with the sex scandals. There is no room for compromise regarding the issue of abortion. If you wish to remain a Roman Catholic…you must affirm a position which is ABSOLUTELY Pro-Life!! What could possibly be a position contrary to this which could remain within the bounds of ANY Roman Catholic Ethos? You define it…if you can. I define a position that speaks a contrary view to this to be a grave sin. If a person wear’s a collar and is not anti-abortion to the point of martydom, then perhaps these people are false-prophets, and should not be respected. The unborn are dying…regardless of our regard for protocol. Personally, I do not consider Jenkins as a Christian man of honor. To me… he is the Enemy. He is a man who wear’s a collar…and he is a disgrace. He should step down.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Doesn’t this speak volumes about the sincerity of his beliefs on abortion?

Nope. Maybe you could extrapolate his views on illegal trespassing.

Look folks, some protesters stated ahead of time they were going to ND to get arrested. Which they did. They are NOT facing jail time. The Thomas More Society is drawing this out for publicity – they could have pled this out long ago.

Sure, the protesters had a good intention in their views, but on this mortal coil we have to judge their actions. They are not candidates for canonization.

If you can’t do the time …

 

[redrosetea]

Christ said you can’t serve God and Mamon…and guess who Fr Jenkins decided to serve? It does speak volumes

 

[RobbyS]

I think that Fr. Jenkins honestly believes that on this issue (as well as others relating to the Catholic identity of Notre Dame) his positions amount to a mere difference of opinion on administrative issues. From what he has said, he clearly does not think that his own pro-life beliefs nor the Catholicity of the University are or have been compromised by his decisions.

It is NOT that he is an evil, liberal, pro-choicer intent on eliminating every facet of orthodox Catholicism from ND. It is NOT that he is a bad priest. The real problem is that he has some misguided ideas about what it means to be a Catholic university, and what it means to lead a Catholic university.

As for the peaceful protest having no effect…well, what you have there is the classic debate on whether contemplation or action is more effective. ND Response’s protests were just as prayerful and MORE visible than the protests in which most of the ND 88 were involved. It’s unfortunate that more people “remember the ND 88” than remember the massive ND Response events of commencement weekend–events which involved Eucharistic Adoration, Mass on the quad, a rally for life, the Rosary. Events at which Bishop D’Arcy himself personally attended. It is a warped understanding of what actually took place that causes people to think that the ND 88 protests MUST have been SO much more effective at making the pro-life message known, since they resulted in arrests.

Fr. Jenkins unfortunately made this a political event by choosing to honor a president whose views on abortion are diametrically opposed to those of the Catholic Church.
I surmise that he did this because the President is a member of the African-American community, and Fr, Jenkins was caught up in the historic moment, and so to him,
the symbolism of racial harmony was more important than an issue that puts the President on one side of a divided nation, and I must add, a divided American Church. Fr. Jenkins tried to straddle that divide and the President did not, although some may think otherwise. To give Mr. Obama credit, he knows where he stands, Father Jenkins does not.
Neither do the trustees or regents of Notre Dame. They stand on the side of social justice, they think. They think that the issue of abortion can be separated from the issues of poverty, disease, and war. But abortion on demand is unjust, as the Holy Father–preaching to the deaf ears of the leaders of Catholic Colleges and universities–told them clearly. It compromises our country as surely as slavery once compromised it. No civil war will ensue, but rivers of blood are flowing, and life is held cheaper by our layleaders than civil war generals did on the battlefield. Even now Planned Parenthood is gearing up to increase the number of abortions, but the leaders of Notre Dame look on complacently.

 

[AnotherVoice]

Notre Dame is controlled by the 12 Fellows of the University of which 6 of the 12 must AT ALL TIMES be priests of the Congregation of Holy Cross. So, yes, Notre Dame is still controlled and directed by Holy Cross.

ND88 should not have been demonstrating, period… They should have listened to D’Arcy’s request and obeyed university rules to protest with the NDResonse protestors who held a beautiful protest of President Obama.

“On April 8, 1967, at a meeting of the Fellows, the Statutes were ratified and new Bylaws were approved which delegate the general power of governance of the University to a Board of Trustees. These Bylaws are likewise set forth as amended in this document.”

That is a quote of the entire third paragraph from the school’s Charter and Statutes as posted on the Notre Dame web site. Later in the document reference is made to the lay composition of the Board. I hope you can appreciate how I would come to the belief that ND is governed by a Board of Trustees.

You state “the ND88 should have listened to Bishop D’Arcy’s request”. That is positively the most hypocritical statement made regarding a Notre Dame mess caused by not listening to the requests of Bishops, hundreds of them. Bishop D’Arcy offered advice and objected to the decisions being made by Notre Dame; his requests were dismissed by the administration. After attending commencement exercises for 24 consecutives years, the bishop felt compelled to boycott his 25th year; which all knew would be his last. Notre Dame could have obeyed the bishop of the dioceses.

Actually, Notre Dame could have made his attendance at his year 25 commencement a source of celebration and honor to a retiring churchman. But the secular decision won out. Fr. Jenkins is inside grinning with the presidential entourage and the bishop was outside praying in protest.

If you wish to defend Notre Dame in the handling of that situation go for it.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Notre Dame also banned the play “The Vagina Monologues”. If protesters of that ban had been arrested at ND I don’t think we would see the righteous indignation about prosecution that we see in the present case.
**
Folks should drop the entire abortion issue – this is a case about trespassing.**

 

[Domer1997]

“On April 8, 1967, at a meeting of the Fellows, the Statutes were ratified and new Bylaws were approved which delegate the general power of governance of the University to a Board of Trustees. These Bylaws are likewise set forth as amended in this document.”

That is a quote of the entire third paragraph from the school’s Charter and Statutes as posted on the Notre Dame web site. Later in the document reference is made to the lay composition of the Board. I hope you can appreciate how I would come to the belief that ND is governed by a Board of Trustees.

You state “the ND88 should have listened to Bishop D’Arcy’s request”. That is positively the most hypocritical statement made regarding a Notre Dame mess caused by not listening to the requests of Bishops, hundreds of them. Bishop D’Arcy offered advice and objected to the decisions being made by Notre Dame; his requests were dismissed by the administration. After attending commencement exercises for 24 consecutives years, the bishop felt compelled to boycott his 25th year; which all knew would be his last. Notre Dame could have obeyed the bishop of the dioceses.

Actually, Notre Dame could have made his attendance at his year 25 commencement a source of celebration and honor to a retiring churchman. But the secular decision won out. Fr. Jenkins is inside grinning with the presidential entourage and the bishop was outside praying in protest.

If you wish to defend Notre Dame in the handling of that situation go for it.

Another Voice: Guess who selects the Board of Trustees and OVERSEES their actions…yes, the FELLOWS OF THE UNIVERSITY, whom 6 of the 12 must always be priests of the Congregation of Holy Cross. You failed to mention that in your last post.

And if some are stubborn enough to not realize the amazing things going on at Notre Dame, and to only focus on the negative, then I’m sorry. I will focus on the positive that HIGHLY outweighs the negative. I’m sure most alums can and will back me on this one.

God Bless…

 

[canadianguy1143]

And if some are stubborn enough to not realize the amazing things going on at Notre Dame, and to only focus on the negative, then I’m sorry. I will focus on the positive that HIGHLY outweighs the negative. I’m sure most alums can and will back me on this one.

God Bless…

The Positive eh? Well lets see what history has actually said about Notre Dame.

It was forty years ago when the leaders of the major Catholic universities agreed to the Land O’Lakes rebellion of 1967. Notre Dame’s Fr. Hesburgh was the rebels’ alpha male who ceremoniously announced that Catholic colleges and universities should be independent of, and no longer submissive to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church in their teaching and research functions, if they wanted to be “effective.” Evidently, the Notre Dame trustees, and the bulk of its faculty wanted the school to be “effective”—that is, well thought of in the editorial pages of the New York Times. They accepted the terms of rebellion. The ties to the Church were kept in name only.

This was all clearly and piously set forth in the second sentence in the Land O’Lakes declaration:

To perform its teaching and research functions effectively the Catholic university must have a true autonomy and academic freedom in the face of authority of whatever kind, lay or clerical, external to the academic community itself.

The statement has become mere fine print over time after it was buried in the marketing flourishes of the university public relations machinery. It is, nevertheless, the academic version of Non serviam. At the very least, it leaves aside Catholic teaching on artificial contraception, embryonic research and abortion—the flash points for the current outrage. But beyond the hot button moral teachings of the Church, this declaration positions the entire corpus of Catholic doctrine as negotiable elements within the “academic community itself.”

Unless the academic community itself determines to accept the truth that God is “… the Father, the Almighty,…” the assertion has no claim over the intellectual life of the school. The entire Nicene Creed and the corpus of Church doctrine is simply irrelevant to the intellectual life of the school unless, until, or as long as the academic community itself makes it relevant. The academic community itself is no longer a disciple, it is the magisterium.

If Church teaching on abortion becomes a problem, the academic community itself can decide to minimize it. If the doctrine on the Incarnation, or the eternal paternity of God the Father is a problem, well, here today, gone tomorrow.

According to the Notre Dame administration, the academic community itself contains all teaching authority within the confines of the school. The Pope and the bishop have no teaching authority inside the school except that granted to them by the academic community itself. Arguably, God has no authority at Notre Dame—unless the academic community itself sees fit. To claim otherwise would be a violation of “true autonomy.” God forbid!

The Notre Dame administration has never repudiated the Land O’Lakes rebellion. Naturally, Notre Dame does not require its theology faculty to submit to the Mandatum set forth in the encyclical Ex Corde Ecclesia. Indeed, its current president has rendered the Mandatum a shell game.

Want more?

Fr. John Jenkins, President of Notre Dame University, sits on the board of directors of Millennium Promise, an organization dedicated to fighting poverty in Africa that promotes contraceptives and abortion, it has been revealed.

Fr. Jenkins’ involvement on the board of the Millennium Promise was first reported by the Drew Mariani Show and PewSitter.com. (See the list of board members here: millenniumpromise.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_bod) Patrick Reilly, president of the Cardinal Newman Society, a Catholic education watchdog organization, responded to the news of Fr. Jenkins’ involvement in Millennium Promise, saying in an interview with LSN, “One has to wonder what Fr. Jenkins’ opinion is of the Church’s teaching on contraception.”

Millennium Promise’s mission is to enact the eight so-called Millennium Development Goals by 2015. However, the Millennium Development Goals have been widely promoted by pro-contraception and pro-abortion organizations, such as Millennium Promise, as including the goal of increasing access to contraception and abortion globally.

Someone mentioned about the Vagina Monologues. For the first time in eight years, Notre Dame students will not perform “The Vagina Monologues” at an on- or off-campus location. The fact that they even played it in the first speaks really well of their Catholicism doesn’t it?

Yeah Notre Dame is a real good University. Gimme a break!

 

[Rach620]

Fr. Jenkins unfortunately made this a political event by choosing to honor a president whose views on abortion are diametrically opposed to those of the Catholic Church.
I surmise that he did this because the President is a member of the African-American community…

As was reported last spring, Notre Dame traditionally extends an invitation to the president during the first year of his term to come and give the commencement address. ND is very big on tradition, and my suspicion is that the invitation was traditionally extended–without due reflection on the consequences of its potential acceptance by the President. They [the administration] probably did not even think it likely that Obama would accept, and when he did, well, they lacked the moral courage to rescind the invitation.

From my perspective it was not a calculated pro-abortion move, but an action which was wrong because it caused grave scandal to the faithful by presenting a confusing stance on a fundamental teaching of the Church. All I ask is that we be careful about what we are accusing people of doing, as we cannot know their motives except by what they tell us. All that Fr. Jenkins has told us indicates that he is pro-life; his actions demonstrate that he does not always carry out that belief into action.

 

[Contarini]

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10012505.html

Doesn’t this speak volumes about the sincerity of his beliefs on abortion?

No, it doesn’t. One can be strongly opposed to abortion and also disapprove of the tactics of others who oppose it.

I have mixed feelings about the whole Obama at ND incident, but I think on the whole it was a bad idea for Fr. Jenkins to invite him. I support Bishop D’Arcy’s approach. But Randall Terry found even Bishop D’Arcy’s approach inadequate. I can see how Fr. Jenkins could see the prolife radicals as a nuisance while still being genuinely opposed to abortion.

The same kinds of debates happen within every social reform movement. The antislavery abolitionists fought among each other too. And while it’s easy to applaud the abolitionist radicals now in retrospect, it’s also true that many of them found it easy to justify violence (John Brown is the most obvious example, but abolitionists’ support for the carnage of the Civil War is just as troubling to me).

Edwin

 

[Rach620]

You state “the ND88 should have listened to Bishop D’Arcy’s request”. That is positively the most hypocritical statement made regarding a Notre Dame mess caused by not listening to the requests of Bishops, hundreds of them. Bishop D’Arcy offered advice and objected to the decisions being made by Notre Dame; his requests were dismissed by the administration. After attending commencement exercises for 24 consecutives years, the bishop felt compelled to boycott his 25th year; which all knew would be his last. Notre Dame could have obeyed the bishop of the dioceses.
…
If you wish to defend Notre Dame in the handling of that situation go for it.

It’s not that Bishop D’Arcy’s advice was rejected by the administration; it is that they did not even ask for it. They informed him of the decision to invite Obama, to give him an honorary doctorate of laws, and of Obama’s acceptance of the invitation, only after these events had taken place. Huge problem, huge disconnect.

At the same time, Bishop D’Arcy made his position on appropriate protests at ND abundantly clear.

I released a statement on Good Friday, asking the Catholic people and others of good will not to attend demonstrations by those who had come avowedly to “create a circus.” I referred to appropriate and acceptable responses within the Notre Dame community led by students. Titled “ND Response,” and drawing a significant number of professors, these responses were marked by prayer and church teaching, and they were orderly.

This journal and others in the media, Catholic and secular, reporting from afar, failed to make a distinction between the extremists on the one hand, and students and those who joined them in the last 48 hours before graduation. This latter group responded with prayer and substantive disagreement. They cooperated with university authorities.

In this time of crisis at the university, these students and professors, with the instinct of faith, turned to the bishop for guidance, encouragement and prayer.
Source: A Pastoral Reflection on the Controversy at Notre Dame

Randall Terry’s response (representative of the group “Stop Obama at Notre Dame” with which Alan Keyes, Fr. Weslin, and others were involved) can be found here: The Cock Crows for Bishop D’Arcy. An excerpt:

It is ironic that Bishop D’Arcy chose Good Friday to issue a statement urging Catholics to remain silent in the face of this treachery. Sadly, it appears that he is following in the most regretful steps of St. Peter.

Peter boldly swore that he would not deny Christ; Bishop D’Arcy boldly declared he would not deny the value of innocent lives for the sake of prestige.

But now Bishop D’Arcy wavers before Pilate (don’t protest President Obama), confirms Judas (don’t protest Father Jenkins), and abandons Christ in the babies (don’t show pictures of dead babies, don’t cry out against their murder.)

As a 2009 ND graduate who participated in ND Response, I am not here trying to give excuses for Notre Dame. I am as grieved by what has taken place there as anyone, if not more so because I truly love Our Lady’s University and am grateful for the formative educational experience I had there. I wouldn’t be who I am today without Notre Dame; there are many who feel the same.

What I am trying to do, again as someone who was actually in South Bend during spring 2009, is make the distinction between the orderly, prayerful, pro-life protests of ND Response, which took place throughout commencement weekend with the blessing of Bishop D’Arcy, and the disorderly, law-breaking protests of other outsiders who came to campus with the intention of doing what they could to get arrested. Especially with the attitude which Randall Terry’s group took towards Bishop D’Arcy, it is astonishing to me that he and members of his group–as confused and angry as they are–are somehow seen as the victims of an angry pro-abortion ND administration, and those who refuse to support them are somehow not Catholic nor pro-life enough.

The Positive eh? Well lets see what history has actually said about Notre Dame.
…
Yeah Notre Dame is a real good University. Gimme a break!

Notre Dame is not what it could (or should) be, but it is not a horrible place. It’s very easy to vilify Notre Dame and to think it is impossible for anything truly Catholic to exist there. It’s much harder to accept that there are many orthodox Catholic students and professors who together form a community of life and learning whose source is in the sacraments and the teachings of the Church.

The theology and philosophy departments at ND cannot be beat. In other classes, the influence of Christianity, Church teaching, history, etc. are discussed with more understanding than in most other places in our society, and Catholic teaching receives pride of place. Some 25+ single-sex dorms each have a unique community based upon a shared sacramental life. More Masses are said on campus at Notre Dame each week than any other place in the country. Confession is offered several times a day in several places on campus; there are always lines. Students organize and support daily Eucharistic Adoration. Campus Ministry retreats are always booked, usually to capacity. Notre Dame Right to Life has always been one of the most popular campus organizations, and numerous other Catholic groups exist because of student initiative. You get the idea…

If anyone truly cares about Catholic higher education, they won’t abandon Notre Dame; they will call her to be what she should be in the best way that they see fit.

 

[unafraid]

Thank you to the above poster who pointed out that Fr. Jenkins involvement with the Millennium Promise clearly reveals his ideals as being contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. For this man to sit on a board with Prof. Jeffrey Sachs, whose Earth Institute has as its core principle the concept of population control, and thereby lend tacit approval by his very presence is appalling. However, it sheds light on his inclinations regarding abortion (and contraception) and links seemlessly with his prior actions. I see the proverbial wolf in sheeps clothing here.

 

[Rach620]

Fr. Jenkins no longer sits on the Millennium Promise Board of Trustees.

Source. And the Millennium Promise website.

I remember when Fr. Jenkins began supporting the Millennium Development Goals of the UN in 2005. He was careful then to tell the Committee that his support would be “in all those areas that do not contradict Catholic social and moral teaching, especially in regard to artificial contraception and abortion.” In a letter to Project Sycamore (the first source link I provided), Fr. Jenkins stated that he was re-evaluating his commitments to see that they are in keeping with Catholic teaching. Evidently this one did not make the cut.

I did not support ND’s involvement in the Millennium Development Goals program when it first was announced, and I am pleased to hear that Fr. Jenkins has separated himself from the organization. Notre Dame does much in Uganda and other developing countries (Haiti and Bangladesh come to mind), and it is unfortunate that there are no suitable larger organizations with which Notre Dame can ally itself in these endeavors without compromising its Catholic identity.

 

[RobbyS]

Notre Dame also banned the play “The Vagina Monologues”. If protesters of that ban had been arrested at ND I don’t think we would see the righteous indignation about prosecution that we see in the present case.
**
Folks should drop the entire abortion issue – this is a case about trespassing.**

Er, no.

 

[RobbyS]

As was reported last spring, Notre Dame traditionally extends an invitation to the president during the first year of his term to come and give the commencement address. ND is very big on tradition, and my suspicion is that the invitation was traditionally extended–without due reflection on the consequences of its potential acceptance by the President. They [the administration] probably did not even think it likely that Obama would accept, and when he did, well, they lacked the moral courage to rescind the invitation.

From my perspective it was not a calculated pro-abortion move, but an action which was wrong because it caused grave scandal to the faithful by presenting a confusing stance on a fundamental teaching of the Church. All I ask is that we be careful about what we are accusing people of doing, as we cannot know their motives except by what they tell us. All that Fr. Jenkins has told us indicates that he is pro-life; his actions demonstrate that he does not always carry out that belief into action.

ND got into dutch for conferring honors on the President, not just by inviting him to speak. Obama --a politician–went to Notre Dame for the same reason he just went to the Republican
conference in Baltimore, which was the create an image of reasonableness by venturing into an opposing camp. Fr. Jenkins was --whatever his motivation–giddy during the ceremony as he proved HIS reasonableness and distanced himself from those praying at the Grotto as well as the uncouth people who were arrested.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Er, no.

An argument which can’t be refuted!

Consider that you may be wrong.

Or, explain how I may be wrong, in your opinion.

 

[RobbyS]

An argument which can’t be refuted!

Consider that you may be wrong.

Or, explain how I may be wrong, in your opinion.

If it were only about trespassing, then it would be strictly a legal matter. But it is much more than that, and in the first instance it is a political matter and in the second, an ecclesiastical one. Fr. Jenkins conjured up a storm and finds himself up to his neck in the result. He has to choose sides but thinks he doesn’t.

 

[bkovacs]

Maybe we should all sign a petition and send it to the Pope of Rome with the facts. And have that order completely removed from ND. He has the authority to make it so.

 

[AnotherVoice]

Another Voice: Guess who selects the Board of Trustees and OVERSEES their actions…yes, the FELLOWS OF THE UNIVERSITY, whom 6 of the 12 must always be priests of the Congregation of Holy Cross. You failed to mention that in your last post.

And if some are stubborn enough to not realize the amazing things going on at Notre Dame, and to only focus on the negative, then I’m sorry. I will focus on the positive that HIGHLY outweighs the negative. I’m sure most alums can and will back me on this one.

God Bless…

So they amended the charter but didn’t really mean it. They are Catholic but have separated themselves from the teaching authority of the church. Starting to see a pattern?

I notice you didn’t comment on the insult delivered to Bishop D’Arcy or the rebuke of the hundreds of other bishops that spoke out against Notre Dame’s decision.

Please do focus on the positive things happening; avoid topics like abortion and the Catholic Church.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

If it were only about trespassing, then it would be strictly a legal matter. But it is much more than that, and in the first instance it is a political matter and in the second, an ecclesiastical one.

How so? The protesters were not arrested based on politics or religion. They were arrested for trespassing. And, despite some claims to the contrary, they were treated the same as everyone else.

If there is to be criticism of Fr. Jenkins on political or ecclesiastical grounds, then address them to him directly as to him actions or statements on the subjects. But this whole question of dropping charges is irrelevant and a non-issue.

So you have some folks who went on private property* intending* to cause trouble. They went intending to be arrested (as some stated ahead of time), were arrested and prosecuted. Now, there should be some requirement to drop the charges against them? There’s no reason to.

Those charged are not going to be jailed or persecuted. They got what they intended.