Should Rev. John Jenkins be fired from Notre Dame

[Rach620]

Considering the glowing review he got from L’Osservatore Romano, and the lack of comment from Pope Benedict, it doesn’t look like it will happen.

It makes me wonder about the criticisms I’ve heard about Pope Pius XII, and his supposed silence during the Holocaust. Here’s Benedict’s opportunity to show otherwise, but it’s not happening. Does he not have any say over Fr. Jenkins? Is he afraid the Obama will increase oppression of Catholics in revenge if he speaks up?

WOW. It’s called the principle of subsidiarity–the Holy Father has had bigger fish to fry than the incident at ND, like, say, a trip to the Holy Land. Plenty of American bishops have spoken for him already on the issue, and the L’Osservatore Romano is no longer viewed as the Vatican’s mouthpiece. All is well. Don’t lose faith in Christ’s Church over this incident!

Unfortunately, Bishop D’Arcy, also celebrated the Commencement Mass alongside Fr. Jenkins. He should have refused Fr. Jenkin’s the priviledge.

No, you are wrong…he did not attend the Graduation ceremony on Sunday, but he did celebrate the commencement Mass on Saturday.

fox28.com/Global/story.asp?S=10374909

The commencement Mass this evening at the Joyce Center was presided over by both university **President Rev. John Jenkins and Bishop John D’Arcy, **who plans to skip tomorrow’s commencement because Of Obama’s presence, but neither mentioned the controversy during the 85-minute service.

As a graduate, let me clarify:

We are talking about two events here, which in every year prior, Bishop D’Arcy has attended:

Saturday evening: Commencement Mass. Graduates and faculty are present in academic attire to celebrate Mass together, as we do often at Notre Dame. Bishop D’Arcy was present this year, and unlike years past, said a few words (a shortened homily) after Communion. Fr. Jenkins was the homilist.

Sunday afternoon: Commencement Exercises. NOT a religious ceremony. President Obama was present. Bishop D’Arcy was not.

I see absolutely nothing worth criticizing in the bishop’s celebrating Mass at Notre Dame. He has often done so in the past, and is always welcome on campus. He understands Notre Dame than any other American prelate, IMO. And he had some beautiful words to offer on faith, reason and the University during Mass on Saturday. Anyone who says that he “didn’t reference the controversy” just wasn’t listening.

 

[Rach620]

As for the OP:

I’m not sure. I’d love to see him gone tomorrow and replaced by someone who would work their hardest to turn ND around. But I’m frightened to think of whom the Board of Trustees might select as Jenkins’ replacement. It’s not going to be Fr. Miscamble or Fr. Russeau, unfortunately, that’s for sure!

 

[bookgirl32]

The Church is losing credibility because they refuse to take a stand on ANYTHING…and those who were in charge are responsible, period.

The Church itself cannot lose credibility in the eyes of God, who is the only being for whom it must retain credibility. People can, yes, but not the Church. And I think the Pope may have somewhat of a heads up on “how to do it best” than we do.

And that’s not what I said…I said that immorality is running rampant in society because NO ONE is willing to make a real stand against it. Few priests are held accountable for their actions or non-actions and way too many won’t even speak up for fear of what? Offending their flock? That’s ridiculous…priests used to be the leaders in society…they were highly respected and society in general looked for their guidance in all matters of life.

There are very very very many who still do. I would go so far as to say that most are in this category. We just happen to hear of the ones who are not far more often.

Today, they are made irrelevant by society, in fact, they are, sadly, make a mockery of…and they say nothing and do nothing.

You’re oversensationalizing here. Yes, there are some who do what you say, but there have always been. The liberal media wants us to react exactly how you’re reacting: everyone panic, the Church is falling apart. It’s not even close to falling apart, it CAN’T fall apart.

In the mean time, Catholics are being mis-informed, misled and mis-guided…creating more sin, causing more immorality and basically causing the downfall of our nation.

I love my country, but Catholicism does not exist to make sure the US stays afloat.

Its pretty sad when 74 Bishops speak out against ONE priest…and his decision…yet NONE of them have the authority to actually do anything about it!

If they do not have the authority, maybe there’s a reason for that? 74 bishops coming together and speaking out against one man is actually pretty impressive, and I’m glad they did it, they could have said nothing.

When not ONE of them as ANY bit of influence over him…and all for the sake of the almighty $$$$

Of course that’s what it’s for, and power. But we also have to trust that God appointed this Pope, and this Pope and the one before him appointed others, and that they’re all doing their job. Some may not, but most will, and God will take care of the Church. It would serve the Church much better to stay calm, trust the authorities, and pray for all of them, than to cooperate with sensationalizing issues that the liberal media is intent on manipulating.

 

[Havard]

No, you are wrong…he did not attend the Graduation ceremony on Sunday, but he did celebrate the commencement Mass on Saturday.

fox28.com/Global/story.asp?S=10374909

The commencement Mass this evening at the Joyce Center was presided over by both university **President Rev. John Jenkins and Bishop John D’Arcy, **who plans to skip tomorrow’s commencement because Of Obama’s presence, but neither mentioned the controversy during the 85-minute service.

I misread your post, I didn’t see the “Mass”. But what’s wrong with His Excellency celebrating Mass with the graduates? Should he punish them for the sins of Father Jenkins?

 

[John_Higgins]

Father Jenkins cannot be fired and should not be.

BTW, this was all a plot by Ron Howard to divert attention from the opening of Angels and Demons.

John

 

[JReducation]

Its pretty sad when 74 Bishops speak out against ONE priest…and his decision…yet NONE of them have the authority to actually do anything about it! When not ONE of them as ANY bit of influence over him…and all for the sake of the almighty $$$$

You are insulting and speaking an untruth against your own Church. Bishops have never had authority over religious congregations and religious orders in the 2,000 year history of the Church.

Pontifical religious congregations and pontifical religious orders have always been independent of the bishops. They answer only to the Holy Father. This has been the rule since Albert, Benedict and Basil founded the first monasteries and hermitages. The religious superiors have always had the power of the bishop over their men.

In female communities that power has been invested on the abbess of a contemplative order or on the superior general of a congregation.

The only religious under the authority of bishops are diocesan congregations. The Brothers of the Holy Cross, Jesuits, Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, Augustinians, Basilians, Trinitarians, Dominicans, Missionaries of Charity and others are Institutes of Pontifical Right.

The reason for this is because it allows them the freedom to move freely around the world without the control of the bishops. It allows them to run institutions without depending on funding from the bishops. It allows them to be free of all control from the laity. It allows them to be free to follow their founders withoiut the bishops interfering in their charism and mission to meet the needs of the diocese. It also allows them to own or not own property without the interference of the laity or the local clergy. They can celebrate the liturgy of the Eucharist and the Liturgy of the Hours according to their traditions.

In addition, religious are consecrated men or women. Most bishops are seculars. They have very little understanding of religious life and the spiritual life. It’s not a required part of their training in order to be priests. This separation avoids many conflicts of interest. That’s why the Church eventually created these rules. They have served religious life and the Church well to this day.

However, they must have the consent of the bishop to engage in any diocesan ministry and are subject to him as long as they work for him.

Money never had anything to do with this separation of powers. It was meant to promote the free development of religious life and the free development of the local diocese without one group having control over the other.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Havard]

JR, when you say that bishops are seculars, can you elaborate a little? What kind of training do they go through?

 

[John_Higgins]

Most bishops are secular. By this JR means what many call diocesan. For instance, my pastor is a diocesan priest incardinated to the Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago, Francis George. Ironically, Cardinal George is a religious–OMI, Oblates of Mary Immaculate.

The two major differences (let me know JR if I’m off base…) is religious usually take vows of poverty, and religious don’t “work for” a bishop. Also, secular (diocesan) priests are bound to a see (Chicago, South Bend, etc).

John

 

[JReducation]

Most bishops are secular. By this JR means what many call diocesan. For instance, my pastor is a diocesan priest incardinated to the Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago, Francis George. Ironically, Cardinal George is a religious–OMI, Oblates of Mary Immaculate.

The two major differences (let me know JR if I’m off base…) is religious usually take vows of poverty, and religious don’t “work for” a bishop. Also, secular (diocesan) priests are bound to a see (Chicago, South Bend, etc).

John

Religious: make vows of obedience to their founder, his successors, their constitution, their brothers, their general chapter and to the Holy See.

Secular: make a PROMISE of obedience to the local bishop

Religious: make a vow of consecrated chastity to be lived in communion with brothers of the same religious family. They give up their biological family and become part of their religious family. They have not parens, siblings or other relatives. They see their relatives once a year and some never again.

Secular: make a PROMISE of celibacy, not to marry. Live independently, remain part of their biological families. Can live with their families or a rectory or their own home.

Religious: make vow of poverty. Cannot own property. Cannot inherit property. Cannot be paid a salary. Cannot have retirement plans. Some don’t have medical insurance. Some communities do not own property in common either. Must ask for everything they need.

Secular: make no vow poverty. Can own property. Can inherit property. Get paid a salary for everything they do. Get paid extra for extra masses, extra confessions, extra duty hours at the hospital, etc. Own their own cars, may own their own homes. May inherit money. Pay taxes. Have retirement plans. Have medical insurance. Can spend their money as they wish. Get pay raises as they move up the ladder and get cost of living raises. Some dioceses pay them mileage for use of their cars.

Religious: live in community. Must get permission for everything, even to go on a trip. Must pray, eat, play, work, and rest with the community. May not stay out of the community house without permission. May not sacrifice community activities for the sake of the ministry. Community is their first ministry. Must do everything together. May be alone only with permission of the superior or the community chapter (meeting).

Secular: do not live in community. Many share a rectory. They come and go as housemates would. They each have their own TV, entertainment system in their rooms, private telephones, their own clothing. Do not have to pray together, eat together, play together, go on retreat together or do anything together.

For example: Fr. Jenkins is a religious. I’m a religious. I cannot go out of town without permission. I can only spend up to $20 w/o permission.

Hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pigtown]

My two cents worth - Any leader of a Catholic institution who goes against Catholic teachings should be relieved of his duties. Fr. Jenkins is not helping the students of ND when he invites an anti-life person to speak and be honored. Or is ND going secular? Either it’s a Catholic institution with Catholic teachings or it isn’t. Right now it seems as though anything goes.

 

[bookgirl32]

Of course that’s what it’s for, and power. But we also have to trust that God appointed this Pope, and this Pope and the one before him appointed others, and that they’re all doing their job. Some may not, but most will, and God will take care of the Church. It would serve the Church much better to stay calm, trust the authorities, and pray for all of them, than to cooperate with sensationalizing issues that the liberal media is intent on manipulating.

I just want to clarify my own words here. I’m speaking of Fr. Jenkins and what appear to be his very misguided actions, not the bishops.

 

[JReducation]

My two cents worth - Any leader of a Catholic institution who goes against Catholic teachings should be relieved of his duties. Fr. Jenkins is not helping the students of ND when he invites an anti-life person to speak and be honored. Or is ND going secular? Either it’s a Catholic institution with Catholic teachings or it isn’t. Right now it seems as though anything goes.

This has already been discussed in previous posts. Scroll back and you’ll see the status of Notre Dame. It is a privately owned lay institution that is Catholic and staffed by a religious congregation. But not run by them. It is like CAF. This is Catholic, but not part of the Catholic Church.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[canadianguy1143]

There are so many threads here at CAF about Father Jenkins that I think I understand what people are trying to say.

Father Jenkins invited President Obama to give the Commencement address and to confer on him an Honorary Doctorate of Laws.

It was the latter that has most people riled up. Catholic teaching on abortion and life issues are very clear and Obama’s policies and his previous voting record as a Senator are in direct opposition to these.

Father Jenkins, while he may be a Brother of an Order that has Pontifical Rights, is also a Priest who is bound by the same 10 Commandments as you or I. He is causing GRAVE SCANDAL by conferring on Obama the Honorary Doctorate of Laws.

There is no moral justification for this whatsoever.

Naturally people are justifiably offended and scandalized. While the Church has legal laws they **should **never take precedent over its moral code.

In this case they have.

This is more than just a simple case of a superior correcting a subordinate. Especially when the Superior who has the authority (even JR says that) says that he is fulfilling his duties. Well any Priest whether Religious or Secular has a DUTY to not cause scandal.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09032708.html

Now maybe scandal isn’t enough legal reason to punish Father Jenkins but it should.
This is why some people here bring up Bishop Williamson and the SSPX. If Rome can intervene in there, then it should here.

Finally, as for what is on the Pope’s plate, lets remember that Mideast Peace is not an overnight action that can be corrected. It wouldn’t take long for Rome to correct this problem. Rome has a greater obligation to its Catholics than for outside religions and Countries.

 

[Aramis]

Religious communities were removed from the purview of Bishops in the 6th century. One regional council in the east, and one in brittain. Both said the same thing: Bishops may establish abbots and abbottesses, and discipline them, but may not discipline those under their care. For the most part, that has been upheld over the years.

 

[JReducation]

There are so many threads here at CAF about Father Jenkins that I think I understand what people are trying to say.

Father Jenkins invited President Obama to give the Commencement address and to confer on him an Honorary Doctorate of Laws.

It was the latter that has most people riled up. Catholic teaching on abortion and life issues are very clear and Obama’s policies and his previous voting record as a Senator are in direct opposition to these.

Father Jenkins, while he may be a Brother of an Order that has Pontifical Rights, is also a Priest who is bound by the same 10 Commandments as you or I. He is causing GRAVE SCANDAL by conferring on Obama the Honorary Doctorate of Laws.

There is no moral justification for this whatsoever.

Naturally people are justifiably offended and scandalized. While the Church has legal laws they **should **never take precedent over its moral code.

In this case they have.

This is more than just a simple case of a superior correcting a subordinate. Especially when the Superior who has the authority (even JR says that) says that he is fulfilling his duties. Well any Priest whether Religious or Secular has a DUTY to not cause scandal.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09032708.html

Now maybe scandal isn’t enough legal reason to punish Father Jenkins but it should.
This is why some people here bring up Bishop Williamson and the SSPX. If Rome can intervene in there, then it should here.

Finally, as for what is on the Pope’s plate, lets remember that Mideast Peace is not an overnight action that can be corrected. It wouldn’t take long for Rome to correct this problem. Rome has a greater obligation to its Catholics than for outside religions and Countries.

No one is agreeing with Fr. Jenkins actions. But the Church cannot correct a wrong by doing another wrong. Violating canon law, rules and constitutions of religious orders, by-passing the Ordinary of a religious order is seriously sinful. You must always choose the good, not the lesser of two evils.

In this case, the good is to allow the system to do its job. The ultimate authority is the Holy Father. His position regarding religious was made very clear at the last general congress of religious superiors in Rome. Pontifical communities and their rules are under his jurisdiction. He places his trust on the superiors to run their communities according to the spirit of their founders and the decree of Vatican II, Perfectae Caritatis.

He has also said that his primary focus is on unity, within the Church and with other faiths. He’s not trying to resolve the Mid-East conflict. He’s working very hard on keeping the dialogue open between Muslims and Catholics and Jews and Catholics. He’s also working very hard on his theological research and the new missal for the Ordinary Form.

These other issues can be handled by people who have the authority to do so. As to the scandal, no one is denying that. The question is the consequences. That is to be determined by the Ordinary of the Congregation. In this case it is the Provincial Superior.

You can’t allow the bishops to become involved, even if the man is a priest, because he already has an Ordinary. You cannot subject a priest to two Ordinaries. The major superior (even a lay brother) is an Ordinary of equal authority to a bishop. To have two Ordinaries is a conflict of interest. It is also a conflict in the vow of obedience. Religioius do not make vows of obedience to bishops, only to their superiors and the Holy Father. The bishop would have no moral or legal authority, because there is no commitment to him.

Again, that takes us back to waiting and seeing what the Provincial Superior will do when the contract with Notre Dame expires next year. As of now, he can’t do anything. The entire congregation would be sued and lose in a court of law for violating the contract. The civil issue is the delay here, not the ecclesial one.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Tigg]

Want to know how the “world” is viewing all of this? I’m copying this comment from a poster on another political forum. Even the Protestants are asking WHY???"

Why doesn’t the Catholic church purge priests like the President of Notre Dame from their ranks? I’m not a Catholic, but I think it’s called excommunication. People like Nancy Pelosi who claim to be a strong Catholic yet support abortion should be given a strong warning by the Pope, Cardinal, Bishop, or whoever, and then excommunicated when they continue in the error of their ways. That would include Ted Kennedy and all other Catholics in Congress who legislate against the Church’s teachings on abortion.

When I was growing up I remember how strong the Catholic church was in insisting that their members follow church doctrine. Since the 1960s they seem to have become more wishy-washy by allowing people who talk against church doctrine to remain in the church. That didn’t happen before the 1960s. Catholics feared excommunication then. Now some of them don’t seem to fear any punishment from the church.

the Holy Father has had bigger fish to fry than the incident at ND

This incident has been labeled a scandal. Scandal in the church is a grave offense according to the CCC. It is no small event, the eyes of the world have been focused on this.

The Church is losing credibility because they refuse to take a stand on ANYTHING…and those who were in charge are responsible, period.

And that’s not what I said…I said that immorality is running rampant in society because NO ONE is willing to make a real stand against it. Few priests are held accountable for their actions or non-actions and way too many won’t even speak up for fear of what? Offending their flock? That’s ridiculous…priests used to be the leaders in society…they were highly respected and society in general looked for their guidance in all matters of life. Today, they are made irrelevant by society, in fact, they are, sadly, make a mockery of…and they say nothing and do nothing. In the mean time, Catholics are being mis-informed, misled and mis-guided…creating more sin, causing more immorality and basically causing the downfall of our nation.

Its pretty sad when 74 Bishops speak out against ONE priest…and his decision…yet NONE of them have the authority to actually do anything about it! When not ONE of them as ANY bit of influence over him…and all for the sake of the almighty $$$$

Your sentiments echo my own. I’m sure the previous posts have adequately explained why Fr Jenkins cannot be fired. But the truth of the matter is this. In the name of academic freedom, we are now compromising our image and sending ambiguous messages around the world. The voice of our Shepherds, whose job is to lend guidance, direction and correction has been silenced. This incident has caused great harm to the faithful and much confusion as to why it was even allowed to take place.

I’m sorry, but what a tremendously sad day for our Church and those struggling to be good Catholics when all we hear is a deafening “silence” from the Chair of Peter.

 

[canadianguy1143]

No one is agreeing with Fr. Jenkins actions. But the Church cannot correct a wrong by doing another wrong. Violating canon law, rules and constitutions of religious orders, by-passing the Ordinary of a religious order is seriously sinful. You must always choose the good, not the lesser of two evils.

I hardly think that removing a Priest causing scandal is wrong. I doubt that Canon Law has a provision that would allow scandal to take place.

In this case, the good is to allow the system to do its job. The ultimate authority is the Holy Father. His position regarding religious was made very clear at the last general congress of religious superiors in Rome. Pontifical communities and their rules are under his jurisdiction. He places his trust on the superiors to run their communities according to the spirit of their founders and the decree of Vatican II, Perfectae Caritatis.

A good system also seeks to perfect itself. When scandal erupts then the system has to change.

These other issues can be handled by people who have the authority to do so. As to the scandal, no one is denying that. The question is the consequences. That is to be determined by the Ordinary of the Congregation. In this case it is the Provincial Superior.

You can’t allow the bishops to become involved, even if the man is a priest, because he already has an Ordinary. You cannot subject a priest to two Ordinaries. The major superior (even a lay brother) is an Ordinary of equal authority to a bishop.

Okay we know that the Ordinary Bishop has no authority over the Father Jenkins.

To have two Ordinaries is a conflict of interest. It is also a conflict in the vow of obedience. Religioius do not make vows of obedience to bishops, only to their superiors and the Holy Father. The bishop would have no moral or legal authority, because there is no commitment to him.

Again, that takes us back to waiting and seeing what the Provincial Superior will do when the contract with Notre Dame expires next year. As of now, he can’t do anything. The entire congregation would be sued and lose in a court of law for violating the contract. The civil issue is the delay here, not the ecclesial one.

The Vatican could take a lot of steps to prevent or minimize the damages of a lawsuit against the Congregation. A lawsuit is only effective if there is monies to be collected.

Let me ask you this question: If the Vatican plays a prudent game of waiting till next year before his contract is up and does nothing but Father Jenkins is reinstated, then how will you feel?

 

[Steeltemplar]

I would like to reframe the issue which is bothering a lot of people about incidents like this. Not just this, but a variety of cases where Priests, Religious, and even Bishops act against the Church’s values and/or teachings.

These people are meant to be loyal to the Church’s values and teachings. The laity are supposed to be able to trust that loyalty. So when one of these people violate their responsibility, then the laity justly feel betrayed. Further, we love the Church and see that Church which we love being assaulted by evil. And we want to know that justice will be done, that the Church’s integrity will be protected, and that heresy will be corrected.

It is understandable if things are done in a specific way according to canon law and such. However, what is difficult and frustrating to deal with is when nothing substantive is done.

 

[JReducation]

I hardly think that removing a Priest causing scandal is wrong. I doubt that Canon Law has a provision that would allow scandal to take place.

There is nothing wrong with removing a priest who causes scandal. The issue is not scandal. We all agree that this was a wrong thing to do. The issue is rights. The Congregation has Pontifical Rights. Only the Holy Father can exercise them. That’s why they’re Pontifical.

A good system also seeks to perfect itself. When scandal erupts then the system has to change.

Some systems are based on theology and sacred tradition. The separation between religious and seculars is a tradition that dates back to the eighth century. The reason is a theological one. Religious are consecrated people, regardless of their sinfulness. You cannot overlook their consecration… Solemn vows are thus called because they bind a man or woman to Christ and the Church in a manner that can only be dispensed by the Chair of Peter and no one in the Church has the moral or sacramental authority to unbind, except Peter.

Okay we know that the Ordinary Bishop has no authority over the Father Jenkins.

Nor over any religious or secular order of Pontifical Right.

The Vatican could take a lot of steps to prevent or minimize the damages of a lawsuit against the Congregation. A lawsuit is only effective if there is monies to be collected.

I’m not a lawyer. I can’t speak to that.

Let me ask you this question: If the Vatican plays a prudent game of waiting till next year before his contract is up and does nothing but Father Jenkins is reinstated, then how will you feel?

As a religious in solemn vows, I’m bound to obey and not question the decisions of the Holy Father or the Holy See. Our rule is very clear on this. We do not have the right to express opinions on matters that the Pope or the Holy See determine, unless they command us to commit a sin. I would pray that God’s will be done and that I will have the grace and humility to trust the Holy Father’s actions, or in this case, non action.

We have to remember, that it is dangerous to act in a punitive mode. One can commit many injustices. History has proven this time and again. Remember the Inquisition. We have to act with fraternal correction. Fraternal correction requires prudence, patience, charity, justice and mercy. Just as we hope that God will act mercifully toward us, rather than justly, we must also do for others. Let’s remember what St. Faustina, St. Francis, Bl. Mother Teresa and John Paul II taught us.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF