Why can't Fr. Jenkins be fired?

[Darryl1958]

Not at all. Church law is based on sound theology, tradition and exegesis. There are some realities that can’t be dismissed or undone.

The law does not create the sin. The sin is there due to our own choices. The law cannot change, even when there is sin, because the law stands for truth. You cannot modify truth to solve a problem.

You have to work with the problem within the parameters that are provided for you by truth.

You mentioned pederasts, which really have nothing to do with Fr. Jenkins; but, let’s use that example. First, there is no litmus test for peodophilia. Second, a priest who is a peodophile is a priest forever. The Sacrament of Holy Orders cannot be undone. Third, the role and rights of a bishop have limits that come from sacred tradition and scripture. Fourth, the role and rights of religious and their superiors also have parameters that come from scripture and sacred tradition.

None of what I have mentioned in the above paragraph can be changed to resolve the problem of peodophilia. The problem has to be dealt with, yes. The rules have to be followed as well.

In the case of Fr. Jenkins, the issue has to be dealt with; but the rules have to be followed as they have been handed down to us through the centuries. We cannot undo the rules that are based on the faith of the Church to save the Church. That makes no sense.

That is one of many reasons why people like Fr. Jenkins and others should think very carefully about their choices. Their poor choices have a serious impact on the Church, not just them. Sometimes, these choices can back us into a dead end. This is very sad when this happens, because someone is going to be hurt.

The fault does not rest with the rules, but with those who make wrong choices. There is nothing wrong with the canons, the rules of religious life, or the teachings on the priesthood and religious life that govern people like Fr. Jenkins. The failure is in the individual or the individuals, because there were more people involved in this. Fr. Jenkins did not act alone.

In addition, the Church law says that the Church has to be fair to the Congregation of the Holy Cross. You cannot punish an entire congregation for something that one member did or even several members. ND was founded by the Congregation of the Holy Cross. Their intent was never to defy the Church or teach against the Church. Fr. Jenkins has betrayed the intent of his brothers. Should his brothers be penalized?

My order had an interesting case in its early history. This may or may not help understand the way the rules work. Years after our holy father Francis left the office of Superior General, another Superior General was elected, Brother Elias of Cortona. Br. Elias was a very well educated priest. He was a scholar.

He began a process of change in the order. Despite the Rule of St. Francis, he made some changes that were inconsistent with the mind of Father Francis. Eventually, Br. Elias was excommunicated for not obeying Fr. Francis. This was part of the rule. If you disobeyed Fr. Francis you would be excommunicated.

Even though Br. Elias was excommunicated, the changes that he made remained in place. The Pope and Francis agreed that Br. Elias was the canonical successor to the founder. They agreed that even though the changes that he made were in disobedience to Francis, the rest of the brothers had to obey them because they were not in and of themselves sinful. They could lead to sin, but not sinful.

The conclusion was that sin was not in the changes that Br. Elias made, but sin was in the choices that the brothers made. They could follow Br. Elias’ changes and avoid sin or they could follow them to the extreme and fall into sin. In any event, if they fell into sin, it was not the fault of Br. Elias. It was their choice. Br. Elias created a situation that left some latitude for sin. But he did not mandate sin or preach sin. Also, he was the canonical superior. Therefore, he had to be obeyed.

He was still excommunicated, because he had to obey the founder. His excommunication was due to his disobedience of the founder, not to the latitudes that he gave the friars.

This is a wonderful example of how truth plays out in Church law. The truths here were:

1. Br. Elias is the superior and must be obeyed.
2. Br. Elias is not asking anyone to sin.
3. Fr. Francis is the founder and must be obeyed.
4. Br. Elias disobeyed the founder.
5. Therefore, Br. Elias is excommunicated for disobeying the founder, not because the changes were sinful.

Church law always bases itself on truth. Truth is handed down to us first by Sacred Tradition, second by the scriptures, and third by the Magisterium.

Hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

You are describing an institution where the rules have become too cumbersome to deal effectively with problematic individuals. Like you say the poor decisions made by individuals like a Father Jenkins (or the pederasts) have serious, long-lasting and may I add possibly irreversible consequences for the Church.

There is a world of difference between what ought and what is.

We were not made for the rules after all, but the rules were made to serve us.

But maybe it is not the rules that are the real problem after all. More than likely it is how these rules have come to be interpreted, therebvy making the laws seem like something that they really are not, nor were ever was intended to be.

 

[JReducation]

You are describing an institution where the rules have become too cumbersome to deal effectively with problematic individuals. Like you say the poor decisions made by individuals like a Father Jenkins (or the pederasts) have serious, long-lasting and may I add possibly irreversible consequences for the Church.

There is a world of difference between what ought and what is.

We were not made for the rules after all, but the rules were made to serve us.

But maybe it is not the rules that are the real problem after all. More than likely it is how these rules have come to be interpreted, therebvy making the laws seem like something that they really are not, nor were ever was intended to be.

My friend, as St. Clare of Assisi and our mother taught us. We must learn to be at peace. If we allow our anger toward sin to resonate so loudly within our minds and soul, we lose the gift of interior silence that God and the Church have given to us.

We must never give in to sin, nor must we ever condone it. But we must never give in to anger either. When we become judges, we run the risk of losing sight of Jesus Christ, for a judge must focus his attention on the accused instead of the redeemer of the sinner.

Therefore, our holy mother Clare taught the Franciscan family to respond this way in such cases.

Protect your inner silence, for it is of more use toward the salvation of souls than righteous indignation toward sin.

Acknowledge the sin, but pray for the sinner.

Trust the Church, especially the Lord Pope and his bishops.

Always remember that the Church rules with truth and her laws are based on truth.

Never challenge Church law, for he who challenges the laws of the Church becomes her master, not her child.

Remember what our father Francis said about priests, “Even the most sinful priest is the only person who can show me any proof of the body and blood of Christ. Therefore, if I met an angel and the most sinful priest, I would first bow to the priest.”

Finally, she concludes with, it is not for us to interpret laws and rules within the Church. It is for us to practice humility and obedience to those rules and laws. For unless a law incites us to sin, there is no justification to question it. And if there were such a law, it would not be a law, because law is based on truth.

I think Clare’s advice is very good. At times like this it is probably very wise too. You may want to consider adopting Clare as your mother. It may give you peace and calm during these crises. She certainly helps me keep my calm and inner peace during these situations.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[rlg94086]

My friend, as St. Clare of Assisi and our mother taught us. We must learn to be at peace. If we allow our anger toward sin to resonate so loudly within our minds and soul, we lose the gift of interior silence that God and the Church have given to us.

We must never give in to sin, nor must we ever condone it. But we must never give in to anger either. When we become judges, we run the risk of losing sight of Jesus Christ, for a judge must focus his attention on the accused instead of the redeemer of the sinner.

Therefore, our holy mother Clare taught the Franciscan family to respond this way in such cases.

Protect your inner silence, for it is of more use toward the salvation of souls than righteous indignation toward sin.

Acknowledge the sin, but pray for the sinner.

Trust the Church, especially the Lord Pope and his bishops.

Always remember that the Church rules with truth and her laws are based on truth.

Never challenge Church law, for he who challenges the laws of the Church becomes her master, not her child.

Remember what our father Francis said about priests, “Even the most sinful priest is the only person who can show me any proof of the body and blood of Christ. Therefore, if I met an angel and the most sinful priest, I would first bow to the priest.”

Finally, she concludes with, it is not for us to interpret laws and rules within the Church. It is for us to practice humility and obedience to those rules and laws. For unless a law incites us to sin, there is no justification to question it. And if there were such a law, it would not be a law, because law is based on truth.

I think Clare’s advice is very good. At times like this it is probably very wise too. You may want to consider adopting Clare as your mother. It may give you peace and calm during these crises. She certainly helps me keep my calm and inner peace during these situations.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Those are pretty hard sayings Br. JR! 93.8% of us (98.943% of all statistics are made up, so I may be taking some license here) will fall short of the mark on that advice.

 

[JReducation]

Those are pretty hard sayings Br. JR! 93.8% of us (98.943% of all statistics are made up, so I may be taking some license here) will fall short of the mark on that advice.

They are hard, but not impossible. I have mediated and prayed over the teachings of Clare and Francis of Assisi for years. Trust me, at times like these, I find that I can face the world with a sense of serenity and joy that baffles even me.

Sin is never the last word. It is only the beginning of a conversion.

Br. JR, OSF

 

[djeter]

This Forum has turned into name calling to anyone who disagrees with their point of view and frankly, I do not want any part of it anymore. You can read the viewpoints ranging from the soft spoken to the downright cruel ones who do not seem to care what they say to others. I certainly do not spend my time putting over some 1600 posts to rile any individuals heart for a response. I am not confrontational like some people. I have a life beyond making waves here. Abortion is cruel and most importantly, against not only Catholic teachings - but also against life itself. Today, some quack killed anther human being for what they have done to the unborn. Do you really think this is justice? It is someone’s radical views that did this. And in God’s church. Anti-abortion groups have denounced this violence - yet another life has been taken away. I am sure there are some who are glad one less “killer of the unborn” is no longer able to claim that title.

Pretty much most forums are like that, nycjtcrane. There was a time when TV broadcast civilized discussions and debate where you saw two folks seeking to understand an issue or each other rather than shout down an opponent. Next to reality shows with their “screw the other guy so you can vote him off the island,” political exchanges between folks has pretty much come to this. Although visiting the Amazon religion forum and announcing yourself as a Catholic will give you a better idea of how relatively tame Catholic Answers is.

On the “Why Can’t Fr. Jenkins be fired?” front here, I wrote a blog commentary on Obama at ND today and featured a selection of comments by Joseph Bottum. I thought he had a pretty good perspective: “Opposition to abortion doesn’t belong at the absolute center of Catholic theology. It doesn’t belong at the perfect center of Catholic faith. It exists, however, at the center of Catholic culture in this country.” I think that demonstrates the background against which the ND controversy is playing out.

As a recent convert to the Church and not motivated by any political or cultural concerns when I searched for a Church and an RCIA program, I discovered that for some (and some who run these programs) the polical and cultural overtake the gospel. Certainly Fr. Jenkins is a prime example of that and I’m sure he would take instant offense at such a comment; but I think Joseph Bottum has pretty much captured the essence of this debate.

I hope you really don’t leave nycjtcrane, every forum needs the even keel.

 

[JReducation]

This Forum has turned into name calling to anyone who disagrees with their point of view and frankly, I do not want any part of it anymore. You can read the viewpoints ranging from the soft spoken to the downright cruel ones who do not seem to care what they say to others. I certainly do not spend my time putting over some 1600 posts to rile any individuals heart for a response. I am not confrontational like some people. I have a life beyond making waves here. Abortion is cruel and most importantly, against not only Catholic teachings - but also against life itself. Today, some quack killed anther human being for what they have done to the unborn. Do you really think this is justice? It is someone’s radical views that did this. And in God’s church. Anti-abortion groups have denounced this violence - yet another life has been taken away. I am sure there are some who are glad one less “killer of the unborn” is no longer able to claim that title.

This will be my last forum response. I have a life outside of this forum. And I live it well. You can respond many times to what I have written and please do enjoy yourselves. Yes I am Catholic, yes I am a Christian…yes I am a genuine person.
The only title of “genuine” in my eyes is my heart in God. No human can ever tell me to the contrary and I do respect “her” opinion. I wish “him” well to keep posting till “he” reaches the 2000 mark. Of course since this does take a lot of “his” time to feel that “he” needs to respond. Sense a bit of sarcasm here or is it just the truth? To the people who wish to only do a healthy debate and unfortunately get a lengthy response, more power to you. Ah, me can only imagine fingers going to type a response. Congratulations! Enjoy yourselves without me.

If you are reading this . . .

With all due respect, please understand that many people who come to post on CAF are bored. For many, especially those who are either very busy or are homebound, this is a way of connecting with people. They do not take these debates to heart or are offended or intend to offend. The excitement of the hunt gets the adrenalin going, that’s all and it’s a distraction from the dull-drums of everyday life.

There are other people who come here to learn and to share what they have learned. Those people will not offend you or attack you. They are interested and interesting. If you want to, you simply respond to them and not to those who do this as a form of entertainment. You do not have to respond to every poster.

On these forums there is a great temptation to let our spiritual silence be disturbed. We have to come to them with the intention of sharing and the awareness that when our silence is being disturbed, it’s time to go to another thread or take a break. That’s what I do and I keep my sanity and my calm.

Hope this helps someone.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[djeter]

If you are reading this . . .

With all due respect, please understand that many people who come to post on CAF are bored. For many, especially those who are either very busy or are homebound, this is a way of connecting with people. They do not take these debates to heart or are offended or intend to offend. The excitement of the hunt gets the adrenalin going, that’s all and it’s a distraction from the dull-drums of everyday life.

There are other people who come here to learn and to share what they have learned. Those people will not offend you or attack you. They are interested and interesting. If you want to, you simply respond to them and not to those who do this as a form of entertainment. You do not have to respond to every poster.

On these forums there is a great temptation to let our spiritual silence be disturbed. We have to come to them with the intention of sharing and the awareness that when our silence is being disturbed, it’s time to go to another thread or take a break. That’s what I do and I keep my sanity and my calm.

Hope this helps someone.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

You’re absolutely right JR. When the heat is going up, it’s time to take a break.

I have a Caravaggio painting that I use on my blog, payingattentiontothesky and it shows Jesus in discussion with three disciples over a meal at an Inn at Emmaus. Is he going to celebrate creation commonality and turn the other cheek to these two men who are gesticulating with their arms outspread? His eyes are downturned, He’s obviously not trying to provoke them in any way. The man who stands to his right seems to be more thoughtful, listening to what he says. But the other two are in full throated full bore mode here. The Lord is hearing it, no doubt, and these two guys are dishing it. Yet there is resoluteness in his demeanor. He is uncompromising. And I feel I have to be that way, too.

Particularly in matters of faith and belief what’s under discussion cannot be compromised (an immortal soul for example) or the opponent is so malicious that you can’t step aside because someone else is being trodden over after you – think of the issue of abortion for example. The President with his appeal against extremism, can’t we all just compromise? Short answer, uh, no.

So debates tend to get heated and the A type personalities go into lecture mode, dictating to others what is or isn’t, what they said or didn’t say, what is right or wrong. And as you said, their first line of offense tends to the ad hominem. These forums can be wonderful opportunities to explore issues and to understand others. Or they can be self advertisements for those who want to explain why they’re right and you’re wrong. How you choose to participate is always up to you.

 

[BullDogBishop]

Greetings,
For such tragic action that this fellow Jenkins has brought on Notre Dame and The Catholic Church is unforgivable.
The Satanic rebellion needs to be stopped immediately.
The Vatican needs to step in as it should have by now by sending in a Visatation Team after it has replaced Jenkins and The Board of Trustees.
For his actions in being constantly rebellious, Jenkins should be defrocked and expelled permanently from the Christian Church. What he has done is unforgivable.
-BullDog Bishop

 

[JReducation]

Greetings,
For such tragic action that this fellow Jenkins has brought on Notre Dame and The Catholic Church is unforgivable.
The Satanic rebellion needs to be stopped immediately.
The Vatican needs to step in as it should have by now by sending in a Visatation Team after it has replaced Jenkins and The Board of Trustees.
For his actions in being constantly rebellious, Jenkins should be defrocked and expelled permanently from the Christian Church. What he has done is unforgivable.
-BullDog Bishop

I suggest that you scroll back and read some of my previous posts as to why this is not possible. The Vatican has no jurisdiction in the matter. If that were the case, the local bishop and the superior general would have had jurisdiction in the matter. They do not, because the Church does not own the university. The board owns the university. You can’t fire the owners.

The Holy Father is not going to step in and discipline Fr. Jenkins for something that the Church does not consider an excommunicable offense. Even though Fr. Jenkins was wrong in allowing President Obama to speak at the university, he has not committed an abortion, which would be an excommunicable offense. He has not spoken out in favor of abortion.

At best, the provincial superior of the Holy Cross Brothers can wait until Fr. Jenkins term as president is up, next year, and transfer him. There are legal contracts involved here. To pull Fr. Jenkins now would cause a legal probelm that would go on longer than the year left in his term. The congregation would be sued by the Board for Breach of Contract. They would lose and Fr. Jenkins would be back at his post tomorrow. And the congregation would be paying out a great deal of money at the expense of its benefactors for nothing. It makes no sense to go to court when you know that you’re going to lose.

There are other canonical reasons why the Holy Father will protect Fr. Jenkins, even though he did do something wrong. Look back and you’ll understand it.

It’s a very sad situation that the administration at the university and the White House could have avoided. Unfoertunately, we do dumb things in this life. This is one of those examples.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[mdgspencer]

It is true that there is not much the Pope can do. However, he can do some things, He can order a visitation. After this the report could be published, which would have a definite effect on the situation. They are just investigating womens’ orders in the U.S, though these are not directly under the authoiity of the Vatican. The Vatican also could have a frank talk with the head of Fr. Jenkin’s order, and ask that he be reassigned, which then would be likely.

 

[JReducation]

It is true that there is not much the Pope can do. However, he can do some things, He can order a visitation. After this the report could be published, which would have a definite effect on the situation. They are just investigating womens’ orders in the U.S, though these are not directly under the authoiity of the Vatican. The Vatican also could have a frank talk with the head of Fr. Jenkin’s order, and ask that he be reassigned, which then would be likely.

The Holy Father cannot order a visitation of an institution that does not belong to the Church. The Church is not the rightful owner of Notre Dame, neither is the Congregation of the Holy Cross. Notre Dame is a lay Catholic university. It was founded by the Holy Cross Brothers, but they do not own it. They are on the faculty. There are only two Catholic colleges in the USA that are owned by the Catholic Church: The Catholic University of America and the Josephenum College of Theology. All the others are privately owned or owned by a diocese.

In the case of the religious communities of women, the communities that are being investigated are those that are of Pontifical Right. A community of Pontifical Right responds directly to the Holy Father and is protected by him. It can also be investigated by him. There are religious communities of women that are of Diocesan Right. These can only be investigated by the local bishop. The Vatican has no authority over them. The reason that the sisters are being investigated is for failure to live in community, for making pro abortion statements, for making pro women’s ordination statements, for being pro feminism, for defying the Holy Father, for making pro gay marriage statements in public, and for failing to respond to the Holy Father’s mandate that they return to ther convents.

When a religious community, a bishop or a diocese DIRECTLY disobeys the Holy Father, they incur canonical consequences and sanctions. What is being investigated about the sisters is whether they did in fact do all these things or were these isolated events. If they did these things as entire communities, 68,000 American sisters are at risk for canocial consequences.

As to Fr. Jenkins and the superior, the superior cannot transfer Fr. Jenkins and the Vatican knows this. As I said above, there is a contractual obligation between the congregation and the university. There is one more year to Fr. Jenkins’ term. It is easier to wait the year than spend it in court. As far as the Holy Father is concerned, Fr. Jenkin’s actions are serious, but not a direct disobedience to him. They are in disobedience to the USCCB. But religious do not make a vow of obedience to the bishops. They are expected to cooperate with them, because they are Catholic. Fr. Jenkins failed to act as a Catholic should have done.

This is a very different situation, because no canon law was violated. No vows were violated. There is no materially evil act committed. The action here is one of BAD prudential judgment.

Hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF.

 

[BullDogBishop]

You deny the validity of canon law, you deny the supremacy of The Holy Father. The Pope does have absolute authority over all the Church and The Vatican. He is an absolute monarch which makes every one and every institution subject to his rule and authority as it comes from God.
Your refutation sounds like that of a liberal Episcopal clergy.
+Stonewall

 

[tqualey]

Dear Brother JR,

Thank you for your very thoughtful and reasoned response.

I think part of the problem is we see the Pope as being able to command all things … maybe we see the US President like that, too. In reality, there are limits (this has a beneifical effect on those who are concerned about, “absolute power…”!

About the best we can do is pray for Fr. Jenkins and the Board - and, hopefully, Obama will not be invited back next year for another degree!

God bless

The Holy Father cannot order a visitation of an institution that does not belong to the Church. The Church is not the rightful owner of Notre Dame, neither is the Congregation of the Holy Cross. Notre Dame is a lay Catholic university. It was founded by the Holy Cross Brothers, but they do not own it. They are on the faculty. There are only two Catholic colleges in the USA that are owned by the Catholic Church: The Catholic University of America and the Josephenum College of Theology. All the others are privately owned or owned by a diocese.

In the case of the religious communities of women, the communities that are being investigated are those that are of Pontifical Right. A community of Pontifical Right responds directly to the Holy Father and is protected by him. It can also be investigated by him. There are religious communities of women that are of Diocesan Right. These can only be investigated by the local bishop. The Vatican has no authority over them. The reason that the sisters are being investigated is for failure to live in community, for making pro abortion statements, for making pro women’s ordination statements, for being pro feminism, for defying the Holy Father, for making pro gay marriage statements in public, and for failing to respond to the Holy Father’s mandate that they return to ther convents.

When a religious community, a bishop or a diocese DIRECTLY disobeys the Holy Father, they incur canonical consequences and sanctions. What is being investigated about the sisters is whether they did in fact do all these things or were these isolated events. If they did these things as entire communities, 68,000 American sisters are at risk for canocial consequences.

As to Fr. Jenkins and the superior, the superior cannot transfer Fr. Jenkins and the Vatican knows this. As I said above, there is a contractual obligation between the congregation and the university. There is one more year to Fr. Jenkins’ term. It is easier to wait the year than spend it in court. As far as the Holy Father is concerned, Fr. Jenkin’s actions are serious, but not a direct disobedience to him. They are in disobedience to the USCCB. But religious do not make a vow of obedience to the bishops. They are expected to cooperate with them, because they are Catholic. Fr. Jenkins failed to act as a Catholic should have done.

This is a very different situation, because no canon law was violated. No vows were violated. There is no materially evil act committed. The action here is one of BAD prudential judgment.

Hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF.

 

[JReducation]

You deny the validity of canon law, you deny the supremacy of The Holy Father. The Pope does have absolute authority over all the Church and The Vatican. He is an absolute monarch which makes every one and every institution subject to his rule and authority as it comes from God.
Your refutation sounds like that of a liberal Episcopal clergy.
+Stonewall

If you’re speaking to me, I think that I may have been misunderstood. I do not deny the authority of Peter. The point is that there are canons and traditions in the Church that cannot be violated, even for this issue.

In addition, there are issues of justice involved here. The Holy Father is not going to violate justice, because one person commits an error.

Finally, these laws were put into place and approved by the Holy See itself. And no, the Holy Father is not all powerful. He is an absolute ruler when it comes to matters of faith and morals. He is not an absolute ruler in matters of institutional rights and traditions. He is the first to acknowledge this.

When he meets with the superiors general of religious communities he always reminds them of the principal of subsidiarity. The Church has operated on the principal of subsidiarity since the 10th century when the Cluny foundations began and the pope decreed that no one, including bishops or the Holy See would interfere in the internal affairs of religious men. The only person who could do so was himself, not even the curia. Then he delegated his authority to the superiors general.

As to institutions, the Holy See only has authority over the institutions that the Church owns. As we have said over and over again, Notre Dame is not owned by the Catholic Church or by a religious order. It is owned by a lay board. It is a private institution. This is in canon law.

I can give you a good example. This forum on which we are communicating uses the name Catholic. However, it is not an official Catholic organization. Catholic Answers is a private non profit corporation. It has nothing to do with the bishops, the Vatican or the Pope. It is owned and run by a lay corporation. It remains faithful to the Church to the extent that it can. However, were it to deviate, there is nothing that the Church can do to it. The Church cannot shut it down or investigate it. At best, the Church can demand that they no longer use the name Catholic. However, there is no legal way that the Church can impose such a demand.

In the case of the university, the best that the Church can do is to take away its Catholic title. However, that is a final act, not the place to begin. It would be very unfair to the Brothers of the Holy Cross, who have been faithful to the Church and who founded the university with the hope of serving the Church. You should never punish an entire religious community for the sins of one of its members.

The best that we can do is ride out the storm until next year when Fr. Jenkins contract runs out. Then the Brothers of the Holy Cross can take his name off the list of possible candidates for university president.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[peduzzi89]

Could someone explain to me why it is such a huge deal to the extent that everyone wants this guy fired? He even made it clear in his speech that he is not in agreement with Obama’s anti-life policies, and that he and the university follows the church’s teachings on abortion. So fire him because he invited him to speak at commencement even though his extreme disagreement is clear? Really?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Peduzz189.

The basic issues, at least as I appreciate them are as follows:

Could someone explain to me why it is such a huge deal to the extent that everyone wants this guy fired? He even made it clear in his speech that he is not in agreement with Obama’s anti-life policies, and that he and the university follows the church’s teachings on abortion. So fire him because he invited him to speak at commencement even though his extreme disagreement is clear? Really?

1.) The US Cathoilic Bishops stated that because the sanctity of human life is central to the CC’s teachings - Catholic schools of higher education were not to put those who advocate abortion in positions where they would be favorably acknowledge.

2.) Fr. Jenkins, President of Notre Dame Univeristy violated this directed in two ways:
a.) he requested President Obama - the most pro-abortion advocating President to ever hold office - to be the commencement speaker and,
b.) he awarded President Obama an honorary doctorate of law degree

Many felt that Fr. Jenkins acted in a wreckless manner in his disregard for the teachings of the US Catholic Bishops. And, in so doing caused a grave scandal to Catholics and non-Cathlics alike.

This should get you started … hope it helps.

Tom

 

[olabntrpr]

Well, after reading many of the almost 200 replies to this question, it appears that there is only one way to let ND know that their board and President did something that most REAL Catholics objected to, and that is to withhold any and all future monitary donations to ND. It seems that maybe then (and only then) will our united voice against this action will be fully understood by ND. I for one will no longer support ND. Sorry!

 

[taxing]

I don’t think there should be any question of the enthusiasm Fr. Jenkins had for bringing and “honoring” Obama. Jenkins appears fully in support of it as Fr. Jenkins’ address was a convoluted attempt to support the convoluted reasoning for doing so.

The BIG QUESTION is why Bishop D’Arcy did not say to Fr. Jenkins, “Adios Padre”! What I mean is, for ANY priest to be in a diocese, the priest is there, particularly one from a religious order, at THE PLEASURE of the bishop. A priest coming to Notre Dame would need permission to act as a priest from the bishop there. That approval comes from a request, reference check and a letter from the Chancellory office. By the same means, the Bishop should REVOKE those priveledges and direct the priest to leave the diocese. Never mind whether Jenkins should be fired or not, he can’t act as president for long working outside the diocese. In effect, the Bishop could block Jenkins from attending the graduation, etc. WHY WASN’T that invoked?

 

[JReducation]

I don’t think there should be any question of the enthusiasm Fr. Jenkins had for bringing and “honoring” Obama. Jenkins appears fully in support of it as Fr. Jenkins’ address was a convoluted attempt to support the convoluted reasoning for doing so.

The BIG QUESTION is why Bishop D’Arcy did not say to Fr. Jenkins, “Adios Padre”! What I mean is, for ANY priest to be in a diocese, the priest is there, particularly one from a religious order, at THE PLEASURE of the bishop. A priest coming to Notre Dame would need permission to act as a priest from the bishop there. That approval comes from a request, reference check and a letter from the Chancellory office. By the same means, the Bishop should REVOKE those priveledges and direct the priest to leave the diocese. Never mind whether Jenkins should be fired or not, he can’t act as president for long working outside the diocese. In effect, the Bishop could block Jenkins from attending the graduation, etc. WHY WASN’T that invoked?

A bishop only has authority over priests who work for him. Religious who work for non diocesan institutions do not receive their faculties from the local bishop. They receive their faculties from their major superior.

If the bishop attempts to take the faculties from Fr. Jenkins, he will end up in a conflict of power with the Brother Provincial of the Holy Cross. He runs the risk of getting to major trouble with the Holy Father. The Brothers of the Holy Cross are a congegation of Pontifical Right. They are protected by the Pope.

In the 10th century a law was passed in the Church that forbids bishops and laity from intervening and interfering in the affairs of religious men and women. Religious men and women of Pontifical Right answer only to the Holy Father, not to the local bishop.

The local bishop can ask a community to leave or an individual religious to leave, if they work for him, but the priests and brothers of Notre Dame do not work for the diocese. They work for Notre Dame.

The major superior cannot take away the faculties of a priest unless there is just cause to do so. Just cause has to be in conformity to canon law. Canon law has very specific rules about suspensions.

Fr. Jenkins’ actions were inappropriate, but do not fall into the parameters for suspension defined by canon law. Unless Fr. Jenkins violates one of those rules, he is safe from a suspension. His superior can call him on the carpet, but that’s about all he can do.

He has to wait until the term of president is over to transfer him out of there.

I hope this answers the question.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[djeter]

I thought Joseph Bottum had some interesting comments to make on the Fr. Jenkins/Obama affair:

“The role of culture — American Catholic culture, in particular — is what Fr. Jenkins at Notre Dame, and John DeGioia at Georgetown, and many other presidents of Catholic colleges seem not to understand. Indeed, their lack of Catholic culture is what makes them appear so un-Catholic to the people they antagonize, and it is what so befuddles these college presidents when the charge is made. They know they are Catholics: They go to Mass, and they pray, and their faith is real, and their theology is sophisticated, and what right has a bunch of other Catholics to run around accusing them of failing to be Catholic?

But, in fact, they live in a distant world, attenuated and alone. Opposition to abortion doesn’t belong at the absolute center of Catholic theology. It doesn’t belong at the perfect center of Catholic faith. It exists, however, at the center of Catholic culture in this country. Yes, that culture is thinner than many that Catholics have known before, and yes, it seems in some ways an unpromising foundation for establishing a broad Catholic identity. For that matter, the pro-life core has only in the past twenty years begun to spread to the more distant reaches of the Church in America."

A larger selection is on my blog and the full article is available (with subcription perhaps) at First Things.

DJ