Vagina Monologues to continue at Notre Dame

[frommi]

buffalo:

He was arguuing that he has no employer/employee relationship, to shield his people from the dollar liability.

So…what you’re saying is that a Bishop can use that when its to his advantage…but when he feels the need…then a priest can be his employee…

Interesting theory…full of holes…but interesting nonetheless.

 

[buffalo]

frommi:

So…what you’re saying is that a Bishop can use that when its to his advantage…but when he feels the need…then a priest can be his employee…

Interesting theory…full of holes…but interesting nonetheless.

The Church hierarchy is not bound by the laws of a country or state. Members of the hierarchy are bound by their local laws.

When a Diocese is being sued for the crimes of one of its members the plaintiff seeks money as retribution. The courts will ask if there exists a legal relationship between them. An employee/employer relationship is one possibilty. Another is a subcontractor arrangement.

I as a parishioner of a Diocese would certainly hope the Bishop protects the assets of my Diocese to which I belong.

In no way do I excuse criminal conduct.

Please refrain from lifting a snippet from its context and then using it as a complete argument. Get the facts.

 

[Brendan]

frommi:

Where does it say it doesn’t?

How much can a Bishop actually regulate Brendan?

I suppose it could become ‘prohibited’ for a priest to hold any secular office…be it univerisity president or dog catcher…

If the bishop prohibited that, all his clergy are required to follow.

But again…

What is the ordinary authority of the president of a university? That authority is not subject to the bishop.

Another example…

The University of St. Thomas is owned and operated by the archdiocese of St. Paul…so the president of that university is under the direct authority of the local ordinary, regardless of who is in that job.

This is different than Notre Dame…which does not have a president that is subservient to the local ordinary by virtue of being a school founded by a religious order.

What we are talking about here is the role of obedience to the Ordinary.

The Bishop is limited only by Canon Law in what he can bind priests in his diocese to.

The fact is that the President of Notre Dame happens to be a priest in the service of the Diocese of Notre Dame.

That means his is obligated, by his oath of obedience to that Bishop and his sucessors.

This obedience is only limited by Canon Law.

 

[frommi]

Brendan:

If the bishop prohibited that, all his clergy are required to follow.

What we are talking about here is the role of obedience to the Ordinary.

The Bishop is limited only by Canon Law in what he can bind priests in his diocese to.

The fact is that the President of Notre Dame happens to be a priest in the service of the Diocese of Notre Dame.

That means his is obligated, by his oath of obedience to that Bishop and his sucessors.

This obedience is only limited by Canon Law.

I could be wrong…but an order priest doesn’t make a vow of obedience to a local bishop.

 

[singerlady]

frommi:

I could be wrong…but an order priest doesn’t make a vow of obedience to a local bishop.

Neither does a secular priest. They make promises.

 

[shs-aod]

ND Mike:

Father Jenkins, like so many priests today, buckled under the pressure of criticism for his comments. I in no way call Fr. Jenkins a coward. I’ve talked to him and he is very geniune and trying, but his decision was cowardice.

Excellent example of fractured, convoluted reasoning.

Who but a “coward” would make decisions marked by
“cowardice”?

Help me out here.

Do they still teach formal logic and critical thinking skills in our Catholic universities?

 

[frommi]

singerlady:

Neither does a secular priest. They make promises.

Right…but order priests take vows

 

[shs-aod]

*"The Bishop is limited only by Canon Law in what he can bind priests in his diocese to.

The fact is that the President of Notre Dame happens to be a priest in the service of the Diocese of Notre Dame."*

Speaking of fractured, convoluted reasoning…

[1.] Fr. Jenkins is not a priest of the diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend. So much for your first point.

[2.] The University of Notre Dame is not a diocesan entity. It is neither owned nor operated by the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend. There goes your second point.

Bishop D’Arcy reacted to Fr Jenkin’s decision by stating it was “unfortunate and disappointing, and that he hoped it would be the last such resolution with regard to the performance of VM at ND”. Assuming he had the authority to do more than merely express his opinion on the matter, I think it’s safe to say he would have done so. If you know anything at all about Bishop D’Arcy, you would readily admit that he is anything but a “shrinking violet” when it comes to exercising his episcopal authority.

Could he realistically rescind Fr Jenkins authority as president of Notre Dame? Could he legally fire Fr Jenkins? Could he close down Notre Dame altogether?

Simple answer: No. At best, he might ask that Notre Dame stop presenting itself as a “Catholic” University, and exerting some public pressure on the Holy Cross Fathers’ governing authority.

He could rescind the name “Catholic”, but I seriously doubt that it would have any lasting derogatory effect on the operation and existence of Notre Dame as a University that happens to be geograpically located within the current boundaries of the Diocese
of Fort Wayne-South Bend.

 

[Lurch104]

shs-aod:

Could he realistically rescind Fr Jenkins authority as president of Notre Dame? Could he legally fire Fr Jenkins? Could he close down Notre Dame altogether?

Simple answer: No. At best, he might ask that Notre Dame stop presenting itself as a “Catholic” University, and exerting some public pressure on the Holy Cross Fathers’ governing authority.

Maybe not, but I do believe that he could forbid Fr. Jenkins from exercising his faculties in his diocese. While not stopping the immoral action, it would be a public example and notification that he was not a reliable teacher of the Catholic faith.

 

[ND_Mike]

shs-aod:

Excellent example of fractured, convoluted reasoning.

Who but a “coward” would make decisions marked by
“cowardice”?

Help me out here.

Do they still teach formal logic and critical thinking skills in our Catholic universities?

A coward is one who consistently avoids confrontation on an issue
and gives in timidly to cries of criticism. Fr. Jenkins doesn’t do this on a consistent basis so I can’t call him a coward. Just because he committed one cowardly act while committing some solid Catholic acts in the presence of criticism, like increasing adoration hours and our first Eucharistic procession on campus in 42 years makes it difficult to consider him a coward.

Who can forget how Fr. Jenkins picked Charlie as the head coach and everybody, including ESPN was blatantly critical of the University? That didn’t stop Fr. Jenkins then.

So next time know the context of the situation and the individual in discussion before you go chastising someone. Your criticism chould have been charitable, but instead you chose a sharp tone. May God have mercy on us.

 

[shs-aod]

“Who can forget how Fr. Jenkins picked Charlie as the head coach and everybody, including ESPN was blatantly critical of the University? That didn’t stop Fr. Jenkins then.”

C’mon… do you honestly believe that the choice of a football coach is some memorable, heroic event in the history of Catholic higher education? If Fr Jenkins is typical of most university presidents, he probably did no more than “rubber-stamp” a decision made by the Athletic Director and his staff. Personally, I don’t remember that much criticism of this choice from anyone, including the Trey Wingos and Dan Patricks of this world. (I say that as someone who has watched and listened to ESPN far more than ETWN). Most of the criticism of Notre Dame by the sports media was directed toward their collective handling of the entire affair of Ty Willingham’s forced “resignation”.

Who can forget? I’d venture to say 99.5% of the fans of college football. Most of them couldn’t even tell you the name of the ND president. You’d have much success asking them about that interior lineman prospect/recruit from Kankakee High School.

I daresay that Fr Jenkins himself can point to dozens of administrative decisions that have had more impact and significance than the choice of Charlie Weis as football coach. So could his most staunch supporters, as well as his harshest critics.

Personally I’d place myself in the former camp, and Charlie Weis (or the lack thereof) never came to mind one time. I can certainly appreciate your effort to support the administration of Notre Dame under Fr Jenkins, but surely you can do better than this.

Mellow enough for you?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

In Fr. Jenkins own words

“the repeated performance of the play

and the publicity surrounding it suggest that the university endorses certain themes in the play, or at least finds them compatible with its values.”

I’ll take him at his word - these are his values.

 

[Angels_Watchin]

smartblkchick:

I really wish they would hurry up and open Ave Maria University and Ave Maria Town so all of you who are so offended by a play can move there and leave the rest of us alone!

Who, exactly, are “the rest of us”?

Oh, those would be the people NOT offended.

I would bet that God IS offended, and, …Satan is delighted.

for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

---

Be very careful who you’re standing with on this one.

God have mercy,
Angel

---

 

[frommi]

Angels Watchin:

Who, exactly, are “the rest of us”?

Oh, those would be the people NOT offended.

I would bet that God IS offended, and, …Satan is delighted.

for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Be very careful who you’re standing with on this one.

God have mercy,
Angel

Damn…yet another reason some self-righteously declares that people are going to hell over

 

[geezerbob]

Living according to God’s commands tends to make one righteous, not self-righteous. Please do not attack posters with whom you disagree.

 

[Brendan]

shs-aod:

Speaking of fractured, convoluted reasoning…

[1.] Fr. Jenkins is not a priest of the diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend. So much for your first point.

[2.] The University of Notre Dame is not a diocesan entity. It is neither owned nor operated by the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend. There goes your second point.

If actually read my posts you would have seen that I fully acknowledged both points.

In fact, the issue Frommi and I were discussing was the level of obedience that religious order priest owe the Ordinary. So you just restated the obvious

Could he realistically rescind Fr Jenkins authority as president of Notre Dame? Could he legally fire Fr Jenkins? Could he close down Notre Dame altogether?

He could fire Fr. Jekins, in the sense that he could remove Fr. Jekins from his diocese, in fact, he could remove the entire Holy Cross Order from his diocese.

He could also re-establish Notre Dame’s charter as a diocesan University.

So under Canon Law, it would then be a diocesan establishment that he could appoint a diocesan priest to.

Now that might make for some interesting Civil Law vs. Canon Law conflicts, depending on how much the Holy Cross Order fought that in civil court, it might end up in the closing of Notre Dame. Most likely it would be taken to the Rota first.

 

[shs-aod]

“If (you) actually read my posts you would have seen that I fully acknowledged both points. In fact, the issue Frommi and I were discussing was the level of obedience that religious order priest owe the Ordinary. So you just restated the obvious He could fire Fr. Jekins, in the sense that he could remove Fr. Jekins from his diocese.”

Wait a minute… you have just “fully acknowledged” that Fr Jenkins is not a priest of the diocese, and now you’re saying Bishop D’Arcy can remove him from the diocese?

There’s a logical disconnect here that I’m not buying.

"In fact, he could remove the entire Holy Cross Order from his diocese.’

Highly unlikely, if not legally impossible. The Congregation of the Holy Cross is an autonomous religious order and is not a diocesan entity. Now the Vatican dicastery responsible for the various religious orders and perhaps the Pope himself might have something to say to Bishop D’Arcy about such an issue. That’s another whole story which I don’t anticipate ensuing over this matter.

"He could also re-establish Notre Dame’s charter as a diocesan University.

How does one re-establish as a diocesan entity something that has never been a diocesan entity? Another logical disconnect.

Are you now purporting that the Bishop of Ft Wayne-South Bend can now exercise some sort of “eminent domain” authority over every “Catholic entity” that happens to be located withing the geographical boundaries of his diocese? Would you also grant him “eminent domain” over the Eastern Rite eparchy(ies) that may have parishes or other properties located within his diocese?

“So under Canon Law, it would then be a diocesan establishment that he could appoint a diocesan priest to. Now that might make for some interesting Civil Law vs. Canon Law conflicts, depending on how much the Holy Cross Order fought that in civil court. It might end up in the closing of Notre Dame. Most likely it would be taken to the Rota first.”

Once again you’re trying to attribute temporal, even secular, authority to a Bishop that just not exist. In effect, NDU exists as a separate, independent enclave of the diocese. It’s still owned and operated by an autonomous religious order of the Church. If Bishop D’Arcy had the authority over Notre Dame which you attribute to him, I’m sure he would have exercised it by now, if for no other reason, the physical and financial asets it could provide him and the diocese.

Wouldn’t Cardinal McCarrick just love to exercise “eminent domain” over Georgetown and Catholic University? How about Cardinal O’Malley doing so with Boston College? Cardinal Maida with University of Detroit-Mercy? Bishop Lennon with John Carroll?
And let’s not forget the Bishop of Steubenville… obvious?

 

[oldfogey]

The worst thing about the course of action at Notre Dame is that it actually provides a blueprint for any Catholic university to allow this offensive and immoral play.

This is not academic freedom for ideas. This is allowing the performance of specific acts which are sinful to be done under the auspices of a Church entity.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

shs-aod:

Once again you’re trying to attribute temporal, even secular, authority to a Bishop that just not exist.

I am afraid you are wrong. The Bishop has complete authority in his Diocese. In fact Canon Law expressly addresses this:

Can. 805 In his own diocese, the local Ordinary has the right to appoint or to approve teachers of religion and, if religious or moral considerations require it, the right to remove them or to demand that they be removed.

Can. 806 ß1 The diocesan Bishop has the right to watch over and inspect the catholic schools situated in his territory, even those established or directed by members of religious institutes. He has also the right to issue directives concerning the general regulation of catholic schools these directives apply also to schools conducted by members of a religious institute, although they retain their autonomy in the internal management of their schools.

Can. 807 The Church has the right to establish and to govern universi-ties, which serve to promote the deeper culture and fuller development of the human person, and to complement the Church’s own teaching office.

Can. 808 No university, even if it is in fact catholic, may bear the title ‘catholic university’ except by the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority.

Can. 809 If it is possible and appropriate, Episcopal Conferences are to take care to have within their territories suitably located universities or at least faculties, in which the various disciplines, while retaining their own scientific autonomy, may be researched and taught in the light of catholic doctrine.

Can. 810 ß1 In catholic universities it is the duty of the competent statutory authority to ensure that there be appointed teachers who are not only qualified in scientific and pedagogical expertise, but are also outstanding in their integrity of doctrine and uprightness of life. If these requirements are found to be lacking, it is also that authority’s duty to see to it that these teachers are removed from office, in accordance with the procedure determined in the statutes.

ß2 The Episcopal Conference and the diocesan Bishops concerned have the duty and the right of seeing to it that, in these universities, the principles of catholic doctrine are faithfully observed.

PF

 

[Kirane]

oldfogey:

This is allowing the performance of specific acts which are sinful to be done under the auspices of a Church entity.

I don’t know why this is allowed at Catholic colleges, but not at the local Baptist college. As I understand it to be, the theme is that a young girl may attain her fulfillment and salvation by having lewd lesbian relations with an older lesbian lady. I don’t see where this is such a worthy theme that Catholic students have to spend a whole lot of time discussing it and going back and forth on this theme, not to mention the lewdness of the play. Why is it that at the local Baptist college they are able to find decent plays to spend their time on and to sit around discussing, whereas they are unable to do this at a Catholic college named in honor of “Our Lady.”?