A very thoughtful post that covers the territory well, I think, esp. the part about the Pope being dismissed as meddling “foreign potentate” if he came out strongly on this one. The American bishops were much more on the scene and more forceful. That is what bishops are for. I can only hope some good comes of all this.I think the world know full well what Pope Benedict thinks about abortion, about pro-abortion politicians, and about Catholic individuals and institutions that fail to criticize pro-abortion politicians for their pro-abortion positions.
I think it was more impressive for so many American bishops to condemn Notre Dame’s inviting President Obama. And even more impressive that hundreds of thousands of lay Catholics voiced their protest. If the Pope had made a statement on this controversy of the expected kind, it would have been easier for many Americans to dismiss him as some sort of distant “foreign potentate” meddling in American affairs.
In any case, while the Pope has indeed been preoccupied with weightier matters, especially with the Holy Land visit (where arguably there is immediately more at stake or more accolpmishable), the Vatican has hardly remained silent – Archbishop Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, the Church’s highest judicial authority after the Pope himself, has explicitly condemned Notre Dame inviting President Obama.
Notre Dame should not have invited President Obama in the first place, and once it had it could have refrained from giving him the particular honor (and endorsement) of a degree. While he was going on about a university being a place for dialogue and the exchange of ideas, Jenkins could have in a polite, gracious way walked the president through the arguments against abortion – if the president wanted to walk us all through a rebuttal in favor of abortion rights, then that’d be fine (then we could see whether he thinks differently from what’s implicit in his words equating his daughter hypothetically finding herself pregnant to being a “punishment he would not want her to have to suffer”).
To be frank, I can see why it is so hard to convert people away from supporting the “right to abortion” – people resist the idea that the unborn are among the least of our brethren that Jesus asks us to love, to love as He has loved us, love as we love ourselves. We have let ourselves be seduced into seeing sex as primarily or exclusively a vehicle for the ego’s self-assertion and not for the ego’s self-emptying, its uniting with another human being and with God’s will to create. We forget that the life we have is a gift from God, and we, ungrateful, no longer see ourselves as having a duty to accept the part that God gifts us in passing on His gift.
The media do not seem to make much out of what is being said on this issue by the Bishops in the USA.What I think is that one million babies a year should get EVERYONE’S attention. What I think is the most powerful man in the world going around promising to give Planned Parenthood and the pro-choice people his full support should get EVERYONE’S attention. What I think is Obama’s appointments of all these pro-choice people to his government (esp. Sebilious in health care, no less) should get EVERONE’S attention. What I think is that sin and evil should stop being ignored in the Sunday sermons. What I think is that there is too much FEAR out there—and it is fear of the wrong things.
Wasn’t there something in the bible regarding Jesus’ opinion of “lukewarmness”?
And how much time and effort does it take a bishop on the west coast or the southwest part of this country to ADDRESS the Notre Dame issue? It’s not too much of a stretch to assume they’re OK with it. Then it comes back to: why? Two answers immediately come to mind: fear and indifference. If it is either of these, I hope it’s FEAR.
Maybe he’s putting out fires in the other 95% of the Catholic Church.If the Vatican is abivalent, or simply could not care less, does this mean I should I not care? Where is our German Shepard? If the vatican does not take a stand on this I will hearby assume this matter (abortion) to be an overblown issue of the overly pious.
It is either the strong issue we make it to be, or I’ve been a fool.
Yes, this is “Time”, but regardless this issue is well taken here. The vatican, our vatican of which we so strongly profess and submit ourselve to before our brothers and sisters in Christ is SILENT. If they remain so, I see no reason to continue in my fight.
time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1898756,00.html?cnn=yes
How did they come up with this? Some wierd combination of sola scriptura but leave out the Old Testament and insert “tolerant new age college professor” as the gaurdian of personal interpretation?The Old Testament harsh harsh laws governing male and female sexuality, designed for the survival of a tribe threatened with extinction. But what rules did Jesus give us about our big issues of sexual morality- prostitution, abortion, homosexuality? Actually none.
It almost seems as though these were not important to him. But he did talk a lot about judgemental attitudesand the crime of failing to love our neighbours.Jesus was well schooled in Jewish law, and what he always did was to fill the gap between the ideal and the reality, with love and compassion.’
God Bless. Maurice Mulliga.
Jesus affirmed the validity of the “Law” in the New Testament. He also, through action, defied it. So where does that leave poor us? First with the recognition that there is a pre and post Resurrection message from Christ. Part of the post Resurrection message was to give the Apostles the authority to make judgements on just such matters. (And controversial some of them were.) In any case, when the subject was addressed by the Church fathers they affirmed the traditional Law prohibiting an intentional inducement of abortion. In this regard, they were hardly following an ancient custom. Prohibition of abortion was included in the original Hippocratic oath. It is true that the matter of “ensoulment” was disputed for a very long time but that was of importance for matters such as infant baptism - the Church never treated abortion as anything other than a sin. Among pagans, abortionists were classed as practioners of black magic. On this issue, it seems, the great civilizations of antiquity were in full agreement.How did they come up with this? Some wierd combination of sola scriptura but leave out the Old Testament and insert “tolerant new age college professor” as the gaurdian of personal interpretation?
I was talking about Maurice’s quote from an article claiming that Jesus had nothing to say about issues of sexual morality. ??Jesus affirmed the validity of the “Law” in the New Testament. He also, through action, defied it. So where does that leave poor us? First with the recognition that there is a pre and post Resurrection message from Christ. Part of the post Resurrection message was to give the Apostles the authority to make judgements on just such matters. (And controversial some of them were.) In any case, when the subject was addressed by the Church fathers they affirmed the traditional Law prohibiting an intentional inducement of abortion. In this regard, they were hardly following an ancient custom. Prohibition of abortion was included in the original Hippocratic oath. It is true that the matter of “ensoulment” was disputed for a very long time but that was of importance for matters such as infant baptism - the Church never treated abortion as anything other than a sin. Among pagans, abortionists were classed as practioners of black magic. On this issue, it seems, the great civilizations of antiquity were in full agreement.
Response to Ebergerud Posting #49
I am almost nauseated at this posting. It is a perfect examply of the “political correctness” imperative under which the Vatican is operating.
I do hope Archie suffers no physical distress from any of my humble opinions - I exchange views with believers and make no pretense to speaking with any kind of authority.
As far as Henry VIII goes, we will never know whether Pope Clement was a free actor in the matter or was influenced by his imprisonment by Emperor Charles V who was related to Cathrine and thus had no love for Henry. Either way, Clement’s decision was a catastrophe. A cursory knowledge of Vatican history during the Middle Ages illustrates that the Holy See routinely treated matters of high politics as exactly that - matters of high politics. Indeed, the rocky relations between the Popes and the kings and princes who held secular power (and had armies) ultimately forced the Popes, or so they believed, into shaping the Vatican into a secular power itself. (One does wonder what St. Peter would have made of his successors playing power politics ruthless but badly with the likes of the Kings of France or the Holy Roman Emperors.) The pitfalls of this direction were illustrated nicely. Clement, like Leo, was a Medici: they had good taste in art but brought the Church close to ruin. Leo’s gross corruption made a hero of Martin Luther to monks, parish priests and common believers across Germany. (It was a sign something was wrong, when, unlike other heresies, Luther’s was led by an army of former Catholic clergy and solidly supported by a very broad cross-section of 16th century German society. It was really sign of something wrong that Leo ignored it. As did Clement.) Clement’s Medici cunning left him despised by both the French and Imperial forces and allowed two sacks of Rome. It is true that canon law justified a refusal of Henry’s request for annulment. It’s also true the Church recognized perfectly well that marriage among monarchs was a political act that had ramifications of tremendous importance. If a war of succession broke out (like the War of the Roses - a prospect that justly frightened Henry VIII) those that would suffer would be the common people, the parish priests and the monestaries: exactly the people to be protected by the Church. It is possible under Church doctrine (see in particular theories of “just war”) for the Church to follow a policy that is the “lesser of evils.” All I can say is that when Henry requested annulment his government led by Thomas More was moving with ruthless efficiency against the Protestant heresy. When Clement stuck to the letter of the law, Thomas More lost his head and the Church lost England. We don’t live anymore in a world where others are consigned to hell for not following Mother Church and I think we can be glad for that. But I think Archie shows little empathy in suggesting that millions of Englishmen who were lost to the Church over the past five hundred years did not lose something also by being denied the wisdom and comfort afforded by Mother Church at her best.
For good or ill, it was exactly this message that the Papacy took to heart in the centuries that followed. As it stands, the Vatican’s authority is spiritual, not secular. This situation has helped the faith, not hurt it. There are more Catholics practicing today than at any time in the past. The Popes have found it much more fruitful to tend to the flock than engage in bare knuckle politics. Archie seems to suggest that the Pope himself insert the Vatican’s spiritual authority directly into domestic politics. I can see two obvious reasons to avoid this road to catastrophe. First, it would be counter-productive. Anti-clerical secularists would like nothing better than to turn matters of faith and morality into matters of national sovereignty. Practically speaking, where would the Church start or stop this crusade? Abortion and ESCR are legal in industrial countries across the world. Should the Pope himself start excommunicating Catholic political leaders if they do not follow the Vatican’s lead? Second, should not the Church show an element of humility when approaching matters that can have huge impact of the lives of believers? I find infantcide a black and white issue and am saddened that others do not. But if one is to turn Church militant into Church suicidal why not also begin a crusade over divorce? Why not put political structure into warnings against the excesses of capitalism? The Vatican urged the US not to invade Iraq: should John Paul have ordered American bishops to take action against Catholics that supported Bush? This list is endless and that’s the point.
As noted earlier the Church is the only institution in existence that plans in terms of generations or centuries. If the past is any guide, the only way to do this is to make clear its teachings but to show wisdom and caution when dealing with matters that deal with the immediate and with the secular. Faith is something asked by the Church of believers and I think the request reasonable. If the Church teaches truth, this will triumph in the end. Patience too is a virtue.
Can they not take away the Catholic standing of this university? Can they not proclaim that Notre Dame is no longer a Catholic university?The one true church that is divided amongst itself!.
There are divisions amongst the Orthodox, but it’s not in regards to the faith, mainly just jurisdictions. Speaking of just Eastern Orthodox, not Oriental.
On the other hand the one true church is divided in regards to it’s faith. And allows certain priests to get away with it, thanks to the laws brought about by Vatican 2. Those 70 Bishops who opposed the honor for Obama can’t touch Fr Jenkins. thanks to “Canon” laws, brought about after 1967.
The Vatican has spoken, before the elections in November. It is forbidden to honor anyone who opposes the Catholic Church teachings. Why did the Pope and the Vatican have to repeat their words. Remember the story Jesus told about Lazarus? Lazarus asked if he could come back and warn his friends and families of the punishment. God told him that if they didn’t listen to His prophets, they wouldn’t listen to him. Well, the words were already spoken, and they were brought to the attention of Father Jenkins. He would not listen.It is true that the Church has many other battles in other parts of the world. And we do have the freedom in America to protest, which we all need to thank God for–because we know in other parts of the world we would have lost our lives protesting this.
BUT abortion is the issue of our time. It is the number one moral issue facing America where there are over 60 million Catholics. So I do think there should be some sort of response from the Vatican on this issue. I don’t understand why Pope Benedict could have released a statement–how long would that take? Really, he wouldn’t even write it, he would just need to approve it. It wouldn’t have to even mention Barack Obama by name, it could just be generic such as, “in general it is morally irresponsible for Catholic institutions/univerisities to promote grave evil by bringing in speakers who do not support our religious beliefs.”
I mean think about it, what has Barack Obama said? He wants “dialogue.” (not true but let’s assume for a minute it is). What is the “dialgoue” about? It is whether abortion (a mortal sin) should be legal or not. Suppose this “dialogue” causes some of our Catholic brothers and sisters to accept abortion and even worse, promote abortion. What has Barack Obama and Fr. Jenkins accomplished by their dialogue? They have, in fact, caused Catholics to reject the truth, to turn away from God.
So should the Church ever promote “dialogue” that would could lead its breathern into sin and rejecting the truth of God? The answer should always be NO. A Catholic University should promote Catholic values. Now if Barack Obama gave a speech about how prostitution or drugs should be made legal–what would the majority of Catholics say–they would think that is crazy and they would say, “prositution is wrong or drugs are wrong”–but when it comes to flat out murder you get this “oh we need to dialogue” bit.
It’s not being focused on America, either. Abortion is a global problem. Look what has happened in Russia, abortions out number live births. Is this what the Blessed Mother meant when she asked us to pray for the conversion of Russia?