R
reggieM
Guest
Then Fr. Jenkins and his defenders have put themselves in the role of the pagan Roman persecutors.
Scheidler: Jenkins Remains Utterly Immovable on ND 88 Says talking to Jenkins about the issue like talking to a "stone"
- Status
B
Beau_Ouiville
Guest
No. Not unless the protesters were protesting the fact that Notre Dame has rules. Notre Dame is not conducting abortions.
Telemachus seems to have protested about a practice; not about a governing body. So the current protesters objected to a speech – that’s over. They are not protesting anything now except the fact that they are getting the treatment they affirmatively sought.
That’s odd.
C
canadianguy1143
Guest
With all due respect, I don’t think you could understand what the protesters were objecting to and I can base that upon the fact that you would never do what the “lawful protesters” did.
The protesters (illegal and legal) were protesting Obama’s presence at Notre Dame but also Notre Dame which to THIS DAY is unapologetic about having Obama speak there. It was scandalous for them to have invited him and until Father Jenkins apologizes for allowing it to happen it is not over.
B
Beau_Ouiville
Guest
OK, taking what you post as accurate, that has nothing to do with the criminal case. Or are they asking Fr. Jenkins to apologize for having them arrested?
Under your view, I guess it would not be the protesters who had merited an apology from Fr. Jenkins. So why have they not plead out on the court case? They have kept the issue of the criminal charges alive.
A
AnotherVoice
Guest
Fr. Jenkins will not apologize for anything. He gave an interview in which he stated that he felt that the day of commencement was very successful and would do it again. Apparently, the protests, both external and internal, have not altered his stance.
I don’t personally know any of the 88 people arrested but from what I have read about Fr. Weslin, he does not sound like someone who is unwilling to accept jail time. He protests abortion and those who support abortion all over the country. He has served time for protesting on a number of other occasions. Notre Dame is not the first place and I wager will not be the last place to have him arrested, he will be out there until the national support for the killing of unborn babies is stopped or until he is has lost mobility.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
More of a lament than an attack
But I will not attack the 88 as is happening here either, or dismiss them as just a bunch of theatrics. If all they are is rabble-rousers and criminal trespassers only interested in publicity, then maybe those who acquiesce to Father Jenkin’s limits and controls are more interested in a safe education than the the life of the unborn too then?
I don’t even have to research the local ND news to know about the 88.
Certainly not my position to judge either group.
But if it is good for the goose, then it is good for the gander.
We all got our motives, all are all too human. I don’t know why any pro-life would harden their hearts against these people, just on account that they are so fervent in their beliefs. Just because Father Jenkins hardened his, there is no reason that the more well-behaved students at ND ought to follow his lead.
It was him that betrayed the unborn, after all, not the 88.
R
reggieM
Guest
Using your logic, it was right for the Roman authorities to kill Telemachus since he had broken the law.
B
Beau_Ouiville
Guest
I never said all laws are just. There is nothing wrong with the trespassing law, however.
B
Beau_Ouiville
Guest
Good for him! But he is not facing jail time. That is, not unless he’s on probation for committing a criminal offense.
So why is this case still going on? If he’s been arrested before, then I guess he’s not being persecuted.
A
AnotherVoice
Guest
According to your stateemnt once someone has been arrested they can’t be persecuted in a subsequent arrest.
But all of this small talk only attempts to shroud the disservice done by Notre Dame to the Catholic Church in the first place. That damage will linger far longer than these trials.
A
AnotherVoice
Guest
Is the county prosecutor not seeking guilty verdicts with jail time for a penalty? How do you know who is facing jail time and who isn’t?
According to your statement once someone has been arrested they can’t be persecuted in a subsequent arrest.
But all of this small talk only attempts to shroud the disservice done by Notre Dame to the Catholic Church in the first place.
R
RobbyS
Guest
"Uncle Tom " is an obsequious black man, more like the stage character than the character in the book, and no use in a fight. Fr. Jenkins is an obsequious Pro-life Catholic, no good in a fight.
R
RobbyS
Guest
The authorities know that this is a political issue and they really don’t know which way to jump.
R
RobbyS
Guest
By simple fact of being in custody they are protesting ND. By treating the president as they did,by honoring him, Fr. Jenkins invited this kind of protest.
S
SunnaB16
Guest
Sounds like what Pharaoh did to Moses!
Actually, it`s a bit chilling…
R
Rach620
Guest
You’ve highlighted my whole point here.
The ND 88, led by the illustrious Randall Terry who promised to “make this a circus,” brought their theatrics to ND’s campus long before Commencement Day. Yes, all they are interested in is rabble-rousing and publicity; this fact has been clear in the statements that have come right from Randall Terry’s mouth since the beginning of the Notre Dame scandal.
As ND Response, with the blessing and consultation of the local bishop, planned a large, visible, and prayerful protest for Commencement weekend as well as a demonstration on Palm Sunday, Randall Terry et al flew planes above ND’s campus trailing images of aborted babies, sent ‘truth trucks’ through the streets of South Bend, and pushed strollers holding dolls covered in stage blood on campus. There were plenty of media present at all of the ND Response events–but who do you think is going to receive the most media attention? The calm, orderly, prayerful protesters there with their families, holding babies and wearing ND regalia, or the circus clowns?
ND Response did not work within the “limits and controls of Fr. Jenkins”. We met in secret, planned in secret, working only with friendly faculty and Bishop D’Arcy. We knew we needed to and wanted to do something big on Commencement weekend, and we knew that in order to get our message across properly, we would need to seek the appropriate permissions from the administration for our demonstration. The guidelines for demonstrations on Notre Dame’s campus are pretty much that they must be orderly, not disruptive to the University community, and must be student-led. Since the focus of our demonstrations was prayer, we knew that they would be all of these things. We received approval for them for meeting the requirements set forth in duLac (nothing Fr. Jenkins himself promulgated there!) and by pleading our case before the administrative higher-ups whom we knew were friendly to our case. ND is not one big scandalous monolith; there are good people there, and the massive effort it took to effectively carry out the ND Response activities demonstrates the concerted effort of many good people.
What the ND 88 did, as laudable as their intentions were, was entirely unnecessary and went against what the local bishop requested. (Yes, I know that Fr. Jenkins did this plenty himself; but does that free everyone else to respond to Fr. Jenkins’ violation however they want to, bishop’s blessing or not? I’ve posted here already what Randall Terry posted on his website about Bishop D’Arcy–likening him to Peter in his betrayal of Christ.) They could have come to Eucharistic Adoration, Mass, and have prayed the Rosary with us, but for some reason, they chose not to. The could have come to the loud open-air rallies for life, on Palm Sunday and on Commencement Day, to join together to make a positive witness for life on Notre Dame’s campus that the outside world could see as a powerful one. But instead they, for one reason or another, thought it would be more constructive to push baby strollers, heckle graduates, enter restricted areas, and gather in other parts of campus to protest the President’s motorcade. In doing so, they distracted from the positive work of many others.
And you have to acknowledge that their intention, as much as it was to protest Fr. Jenkins scandal-causing actions, was to draw attention to themselves. And they did. Well-meaning outsiders who know little of the situation on Notre Dame’s campus pass judgment on what took place there using the information given to them by sources such as LifeSiteNews and EWTN. In reality, when one knows the details of what actually happened, it is not so clear that the ND 88 are victims being persecuted by a heterodox Catholic institution. Instead, they really are circus clowns (their terms, not mine) who got what they asked for.
This is not a hardening of anyone’s heart against the pro-life cause. It is outrage at the fact that the real matter here has been clouded by the self-imposed plight of a group of people whose circumstances are clearly the outcome of their own actions. Much more worthy of attention are those within the Notre Dame family who have and who continue to work to support the Catholic identity of the university. They do exist. It seems that most people assume that they do not, thinking “How could they? At a university that persecutes pro-lifers?!”
R
Rach620
Guest
The question here is not whether a protest against Fr. Jenkins’ actions is warranted, but rather a question of which type of protest is laudable, appropriate, and deserves the support of pro-life Catholics in general.
From what I’ve heard, Fr. Jenkins and ND Marchers for Life in general were harassed by others carrying “Free the ND 88” banners on the March for Life. In that hostile environment, it is no wonder to me that Fr. Jenkins was “like a stone”. How would you act if you felt that those strangers who approached you were likely hostile to you as a person? That they didn’t think you were worthy of the priesthood? That they thought you were pro-abortion? I’ve done my fair share of criticizing Fr. Jenkins, on this issue and many others, but have we all forgotten that we are to share the truth in love, rather than in angry words?
H
Havard
Guest
For those of you who don’t know me, I’m a Domer: BA '99, JD '02. I’m pro-life and faithful to the Church. This whole ordeal pulls at my heartstrings, as I’m sure it does to everyone here, especially the other Domers. But I’m going to try to be as objective and fair as possible.
In Charlie Rice’s letter, he states:
“Those 88 persons, 82 of whom are represented by Tom Dixon, ND ’84, ND Law School ’93, were arrested not because they were there, but because of who they were, why they were there and what they were saying. Other persons with pro-Obama signs were there but were not arrested and not disturbed. Serious legal and constitutional questions are involved, arising especially from the symbiotic relationship between the Notre Dame Security Police, who made the arrests, and the County Police. This letter is not a legal brief. Rather I merely note that it is disingenuous for Notre Dame to pretend that this is merely a routine trespass case.”
I wish Dr. Rice would have gone into greater detail on this, but since I personally know and greatly respect Dr. Rice, I fully trust that he has basis for these remarks. I encourage all to read the rest of the letter, but unfortunately there isn’t a better extrapolation of the point I’ve quoted.
Like Dr. Rice, I share in the mutual concern for Notre Dame and her university. I also will pray for Father Jenkins, and wish him success in the performance of his obligations to the University.
In Charlie Rice’s letter, he states:
“Those 88 persons, 82 of whom are represented by Tom Dixon, ND ’84, ND Law School ’93, were arrested not because they were there, but because of who they were, why they were there and what they were saying. Other persons with pro-Obama signs were there but were not arrested and not disturbed. Serious legal and constitutional questions are involved, arising especially from the symbiotic relationship between the Notre Dame Security Police, who made the arrests, and the County Police. This letter is not a legal brief. Rather I merely note that it is disingenuous for Notre Dame to pretend that this is merely a routine trespass case.”
I wish Dr. Rice would have gone into greater detail on this, but since I personally know and greatly respect Dr. Rice, I fully trust that he has basis for these remarks. I encourage all to read the rest of the letter, but unfortunately there isn’t a better extrapolation of the point I’ve quoted.
Like Dr. Rice, I share in the mutual concern for Notre Dame and her university. I also will pray for Father Jenkins, and wish him success in the performance of his obligations to the University.
A
AnotherVoice
Guest
Thank you for posting this. My son also earned his JD at Notre Dame. He has great respect for Dr. Rice and is saddened over ND’s handling of this. He is not supportive of Fr. Jenkins but is 4X4 behind Notre Dame. I, on the other hand, feel betrayed after watching the film of Fr. Weslin’s arrest and learning some of the things that have surfaced as a result of this controversy and to see the arrogance of the administration.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
That video was one of the more disgusting things that I have seen dividing Catholics on the issue. The idea that other Catholics do not feel the same disgust, but continue to blame Weslin for brining on his own humiliation brought me ot the realization that being Catholic is not something that we share with each other.
There is no common Catholic cause here. Teh differences are jsut too great.
- Status