Why can't Fr. Jenkins be fired?

[mdgspencer]

I wonder though–could you back up the things you say? The things you say differ from what I have heard elsewhere. Perhaps you could quote canon law for example? I was not going to ask, since what we think will have no effect on the views of the Vatican about what it could do, but, still, I have been wondering about what you say, below and before this.

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

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Olabntrpr,

Let me congratualte you on your second post!

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!

I know that I did not have a real clue as to why Fr. Jenkins coud not be fired - and, I must complement Bro RJ for his wisdom and insights into the actual workings of Canon Law in this matter. Sort of like asking why we can not take a wrench to repair this Swiss Watch… So, while the mechanical aspects of the question have been answered, we as focused US Catholics feel rather frustrated as to what can we do to ensure that this type of mischief does not happen again.

Finding ways of denying funds looks pretty good to me and is virtually guaranteed to get the attention of Fr. Jenkins’ bosses. For me personally… this really will not amount to much because I have never donated to Notre Dame before, never attended a ND football game and have never been there. So, I am guessing that asking ND donors to express their negative sentiments about this by either withholding their voluntary funds or sending their voluntary funds to the US Catolic Bishops for support of charities is at least a possibility.

Best wishes,

 

[JReducation]

I wonder though–could you back up the things you say? The things you say differ from what I have heard elsewhere. Perhaps you could quote canon law for example? I was not going to ask, since what we think will have no effect on the views of the Vatican about what it could do, but, still, I have been wondering about what you say, below and before this.

The laws are many and very complex to break down in the limited space given on the threads. But I am happy to refer you to them.

If you go to the www.vatican.va site and go into resources, then click canon law, then go into Book II, part III, you will find all the laws that govern both autonomous and diocesan institutes of religious life. When you read them, the ones that apply to the Holy Cross Brothers and Priests are the ones that speak of autonomous institutes and houses. They are not a diocesan institute. They are an autonomous community of Pontifical Right. If you look under priests you will find the distinctions between secular and religious. That section will answer the question on faculties.

You may also want to read the Holy Cross website. You will notice that their constitutions were given to them by the Holy See. Only religious institutes of Pontifical Right or what canon law calls “autonomous” receive their constitutions from the Holy See. Diocesan religious receive their constitutions and their approval from the bishop. Here is the address to their site. There is some other interesting stuff on that site too. But it has nothing to do with Fr. Jenkins, other than it is about his community.

holycrosscongregation.org/english/history-flash.htm

I hope the readings are helpful. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions about the canons and how they connect with the constitutions. That’s always a confusing point for the average man in the pew, because they do not deal with canons and religious constitutions or particular law on a daily basis. I mean this in the most fraternal sense, not in a condescending one. It’s like I don’t deal with mortgages and home owner’s insurance. I understand some of what I read in said documents, but I understand canons and constitutions much better.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[tcm22]

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

I sincerely appreciate your educated and patient discussion on this topic. I’ve learned quite a bit reading this thread these past few weeks.

I think your post above, however, begs the question a bit. Clearly Fr Jenkins is not accountable to the local bishop. As you point out, he answers to the Brother Provincial of the Holy Cross. I assume the Brother Provincial could remove Fr Jenkins’ faculties, or somehow direct him to act accordingly. Why didn’t that happen?

As for the role of the Holy Father and the US Bishops, there is always the famous “bully pulpit.” The Pope neither owns nor controls Notre Dame, however his moral authority, as well as that of the UCCB, could have been used to weigh in quite heavily on this issue.

As for the discussion of the legal implications, that too is very interesting, but also begs the question. On issues of such stark moral clarity as abortion and the very clear teaching of the Bishops regarding bestowing honors on pro-abortion individuals, shouldn’t that override contractual issues? Allowing a Catholic Priest to act in direct conflict with Church teaching seems to be a pretty serious issue, especially in light of the national attention Fr Jenkins’ actions received. To defer action because his contract as President is with the privately run University board strikes me as a cop out.

The Congregation of the Holy Cross put the perceived good of the University above that of the Church. Seems like they missed a great opportunity to promote the faith.

 

[JReducation]

Your post below is very thoughtful and your questions are very valid ones. As a religious myself, I’ll have to begin by warning you that I can answer some questions based on common law and traditions. But on other questions, I’m going to have to speculate. I’ll try to let you know when I’m speculating. OK . . . let’s begin.

I sincerely appreciate your educated and patient discussion on this topic. I’ve learned quite a bit reading this thread these past few weeks.

Thank you.

I assume the Brother Provincial could remove Fr Jenkins’ faculties, or somehow direct him to act accordingly. Why didn’t that happen?

Let’s begin with the second question first. We don’t know if the Provincial Superior tried to redirect Fr. Jenkins. Usually this kind of communication is always kept between the superior and his subject. This is a requirement of canon law. Superiors may not discuss their disciplinary actions with the laity.

Now to the first question . . . why didn’t the superior suspend his faculties? There has to be canonical cause to suspend the faculties of any priest. Because you are the superior or the bishop, you cannot suspend a priest’s faculties unless you can prove that canon law has been violated. Fr. Jenkins acted incorrectly, but did not violate any canon law.

As for the role of the Holy Father and the US Bishops, there is always the famous “bully pulpit.” The Pope neither owns nor controls Notre Dame, however his moral authority, as well as that of the UCCB, could have been used to weigh in quite heavily on this issue.

Let’s break this down in two also. The Holy Father does not have jurisdiction at the university. He does have moral authority over all Catholics. However, this was a case that the Holy See clearly chose not to engage in. That’s a fact. The Holy Father could certainly have made a statement, though not a legally binding one, but a moral one nonetheless. Now I’m going to speculate. We know for a fact that the Holy Father is very concerned about unity in the Church, especially unity among the clergy and male religious. I would venture to speculate that he may have felt that to intervene with a heavy hand would do some harm to the unity between the individual priest and his congregation as well as the unity between the congregation and the Church. It would be best to allow the Superior General deal with his own subjects. Another guess here is that because Fr. Jenkins did not violate canon law, the Holy Father may have felt that this was an internal matter of the congregation not a matter of the universal Church, because universal law was not violate. Finally, I’m going to guess that the Holy Father wanted to avoid a media frenzy that would interpret any action on his part as Pope vs. President Obama.

As for the bishops, they did weigh in with their condemnation of the invitation and the honor given to the President.

As for the discussion of the legal implications, that too is very interesting, but also begs the question. On issues of such stark moral clarity as abortion and the very clear teaching of the Bishops regarding bestowing honors on pro-abortion individuals, shouldn’t that override contractual issues?

Morally it does. However, the case was not one where Fr. Jenkins actually said that he supports abortion. Fr. Jenkins has made it clear that he does not. This raises another issue, is it prudent for the superior of the Holy Cross to end up in a court battle where he would lose, because it could be proven that Fr. Jenkins and no one on the board ever said that they supported abortion. You have to pick battles that you can win.

Allowing a Catholic Priest to act in direct conflict with Church teaching seems to be a pretty serious issue,

But Fr. Jenkins did not act in direct conflict with the Church’s teaching on abortion. He acted in conflict with the Bishops’ statement denying honors for abortion supporters. The Church makes very clear distinctions. This is a different action. This is a priest in conflict with a statement of the bishops, not a teaching of the Catholic faith. In an ecclesial tribunal, any canon lawyer would have won the case for Fr. Jenkins. The action is not the same as acting in support of abortion, even though the action lends itself to misinterpretation, which is the bishops’ genuine concern. And I for one agree with their concern.

The Congregation of the Holy Cross put the perceived good of the University above that of the Church. Seems like they missed a great opportunity to promote the faith.

It’s not really fair to judge the Holy Cross Congregation so harshly. The Superior General did try to communicate with President Obama and probably with Fr. Jenkins. Obviously he got nowhere. The next step that he can take is to apply the principal of subsidiarity. He has to wait and see what the Provincial Superior is going to do. Religious superiors must follow a chain of command like anyone else. A Superior General can step over a Provincial Superior, if there is a situation of sin or illegal and the Provincial Superior is not handling it or needs assistance.

This was an unfortunate decision that the University administration made, but there is very little that the Church can do without violating canon law and creating a major media frenzy that would do more harm than good. You always have to choose the higher good. In this case, my guess is that the Vatican felt that the higher good was to avoid a public battle with the university and hurt the other members of the Congregation of the Holy Cross who have put a great deal into their beloved university and avoid hurting the students who may not be supportive of abortion, even though they felt honored having the President at their graduation . . . just because it’s the President.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[olabntrpr]

Hi, Olabntrpr,

Let me congratualte you on your second post!

I know that I did not have a real clue as to why Fr. Jenkins coud not be fired - and, I must complement Bro RJ for his wisdom and insights into the actual workings of Canon Law in this matter. Sort of like asking why we can not take a wrench to repair this Swiss Watch… So, while the mechanical aspects of the question have been answered, we as focused US Catholics feel rather frustrated as to what can we do to ensure that this type of mischief does not happen again.

Finding ways of denying funds looks pretty good to me and is virtually guaranteed to get the attention of Fr. Jenkins’ bosses. For me personally… this really will not amount to much because I have never donated to Notre Dame before, never attended a ND football game and have never been there. So, I am guessing that asking ND donors to express their negative sentiments about this by either withholding their voluntary funds or sending their voluntary funds to the US Catolic Bishops for support of charities is at least a possibility.

Best wishes,

 

[olabntrpr]

Dear Tom,

Thanks for thinking that my idea was worthy of consideration. I was hoping to get the attention of those that do contribute or support ND (like alumni, etc) monitarily. Unfortunately, my support of ND is more of a spiritual nature, but I understand that many large corperations and wealthy individuals contribute millions to ND, and those are the ones I was hoping to reach.

Frankly, I don’t understand the politics of ND and with SO many contradictory posts as to what is right, legal, ethical or whatever, my head is spinning.

But I do feel very strongly that Fr. Jenkins and/or the board of directors should at least be publicly reprimanded if not replaced.

But, as I always say, “God’s Will be done!”

 

[E.E.N.S]

There is no common ground on abortion in the Catholic Faith. Nor is it a subject that is up for debate. If a Catholic University is going to hold itself out as “Catholic”, then it must teach the Truth. Chosing who it has for teachers, professors, lecturers must also teach the Truth and Catholic Doctrine. The Truth is immutable – Christ is not changable nor is He up for discussion. The Ten Commandments cannot be changed.

It’s pretty simple.

You can’t reduce the number of abortions by abandoning the Mexico City Policy and funding the UN Population Fund which supports forced abortion in China.

Filling your staff with hard-core, pro-abortion advocates from the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood is NOT the way to find common ground with those who respect life.

Supporting FOCA, which would wipe out any law that protects unborn children and their mothers—such as parental consent, partial-birth abortion or tax funding of abortion-on-demand—leaves NO room for even the SMALLEST compromise.

It’s perfectly clear that reducing the number of abortions is NOT Obama’s plan…in fact it should be quite obvious to anyone paying attention that everything he has done up until now is just the opposite.

Also it should be quite clear that a University that invites and honors the most pro-abortion President EVER to give a speech, (while at the same time having a Catholic priest arrested for peacefully protesting the killing of the unborn), is ANYTHING BUT a Catholic University. The title of that place does a disservice to Our Lady, Our Lord and the Church.

 

[tcm22]

Your post below is very thoughtful and your questions are very valid ones. As a religious myself, I’ll have to begin by warning you that I can answer some questions based on common law and traditions. But on other questions, I’m going to have to speculate. I’ll try to let you know when I’m speculating. OK . . . let’s begin.

Thank you.

Let’s begin with the second question first. We don’t know if the Provincial Superior tried to redirect Fr. Jenkins. Usually this kind of communication is always kept between the superior and his subject. This is a requirement of canon law. Superiors may not discuss their disciplinary actions with the laity.

Now to the first question . . . why didn’t the superior suspend his faculties? There has to be canonical cause to suspend the faculties of any priest. Because you are the superior or the bishop, you cannot suspend a priest’s faculties unless you can prove that canon law has been violated. Fr. Jenkins acted incorrectly, but did not violate any canon law.

Let’s break this down in two also. The Holy Father does not have jurisdiction at the university. He does have moral authority over all Catholics. However, this was a case that the Holy See clearly chose not to engage in. That’s a fact. The Holy Father could certainly have made a statement, though not a legally binding one, but a moral one nonetheless. Now I’m going to speculate. We know for a fact that the Holy Father is very concerned about unity in the Church, especially unity among the clergy and male religious. I would venture to speculate that he may have felt that to intervene with a heavy hand would do some harm to the unity between the individual priest and his congregation as well as the unity between the congregation and the Church. It would be best to allow the Superior General deal with his own subjects. Another guess here is that because Fr. Jenkins did not violate canon law, the Holy Father may have felt that this was an internal matter of the congregation not a matter of the universal Church, because universal law was not violate. Finally, I’m going to guess that the Holy Father wanted to avoid a media frenzy that would interpret any action on his part as Pope vs. President Obama.

As for the bishops, they did weigh in with their condemnation of the invitation and the honor given to the President.

Morally it does. However, the case was not one where Fr. Jenkins actually said that he supports abortion. Fr. Jenkins has made it clear that he does not. This raises another issue, is it prudent for the superior of the Holy Cross to end up in a court battle where he would lose, because it could be proven that Fr. Jenkins and no one on the board ever said that they supported abortion. You have to pick battles that you can win.

But Fr. Jenkins did not act in direct conflict with the Church’s teaching on abortion. He acted in conflict with the Bishops’ statement denying honors for abortion supporters. The Church makes very clear distinctions. This is a different action. This is a priest in conflict with a statement of the bishops, not a teaching of the Catholic faith. In an ecclesial tribunal, any canon lawyer would have won the case for Fr. Jenkins. The action is not the same as acting in support of abortion, even though the action lends itself to misinterpretation, which is the bishops’ genuine concern. And I for one agree with their concern.

It’s not really fair to judge the Holy Cross Congregation so harshly. The Superior General did try to communicate with President Obama and probably with Fr. Jenkins. Obviously he got nowhere. The next step that he can take is to apply the principal of subsidiarity. He has to wait and see what the Provincial Superior is going to do. Religious superiors must follow a chain of command like anyone else. A Superior General can step over a Provincial Superior, if there is a situation of sin or illegal and the Provincial Superior is not handling it or needs assistance.

This was an unfortunate decision that the University administration made, but there is very little that the Church can do without violating canon law and creating a major media frenzy that would do more harm than good. You always have to choose the higher good. In this case, my guess is that the Vatican felt that the higher good was to avoid a public battle with the university and hurt the other members of the Congregation of the Holy Cross who have put a great deal into their beloved university and avoid hurting the students who may not be supportive of abortion, even though they felt honored having the President at their graduation . . . just because it’s the President.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks JR. I do appreciate your command of the facts in this situation. It certainly helps me to understand the situation.

I guess we’ll never know what sort of private communication occurred between Fr Jenkins and his superiors in the order, or with anyone in the Vatican. That’s too bad since, this clearly could have been a watershed event if someone had the courage to stand up and put a stop to these so-called “honors.”

 

[JReducation]

Thanks JR. I do appreciate your command of the facts in this situation. It certainly helps me to understand the situation.

I guess we’ll never know what sort of private communication occurred between Fr Jenkins and his superiors in the order, or with anyone in the Vatican. That’s too bad since, this clearly could have been a watershed event if someone had the courage to stand up and put a stop to these so-called “honors.”

In all of this, I feel genuine sorrow for the students of Notre Dame. I too love my two alma maters. I would be very sad if either of them were dragged through the mud, called names by the laity, threatened that they would lose their Catholic name or became the target of a media feeding frenzy.

When you’re young and you choose a university you want to feel that you made a good choice. When you’re old as I am, you want to look back and be proud of your alma mater. It says something about your achievement. None of us wants to walk down the street and have people point the finger at you and say, “Oh, you graduated from that university that was in the paper for ___________”

I realize that it’s pure emotion, because the student is not guilty. Nonetheless, we all have a sense of connectedness to our schools, our home town, and our place of employment. It’s almost as strong as our bonds with our family. Even if you’re not guilty, even if you were a good student and earned your degree and honors, you still feel that you have lost something when this kind of nonsense happens.

Therefore, I believe that the university administration did a great injustice to their students more than they did to the bishops. In the end, the bishops made a statement and the university failed to comply. But how many of the bishops have an emotinal tie to the university?

After a year the bishops will either revoke the university’s Catholic title or move along. But the students whose graduation was marred by this scandal will remember this special day as a day of conflict and anger in the community. No one should remember his or her college graduation in a negative light.

Notre Dame’s administration should have thought of the harm to their graduates, both the class of 2009 and other classes.

Let’s pray for the young people that they will not be misled by their feelings and for all Catholic colleges that they will never again place their students in the middle of such a conflict.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[tcm22]

In all of this, I feel genuine sorrow for the students of Notre Dame. I too love my two alma maters. I would be very sad if either of them were dragged through the mud, called names by the laity, threatened that they would lose their Catholic name or became the target of a media feeding frenzy.

When you’re young and you choose a university you want to feel that you made a good choice. When you’re old as I am, you want to look back and be proud of your alma mater. It says something about your achievement. None of us wants to walk down the street and have people point the finger at you and say, “Oh, you graduated from that university that was in the paper for ___________”

I realize that it’s pure emotion, because the student is not guilty. Nonetheless, we all have a sense of connectedness to our schools, our home town, and our place of employment. It’s almost as strong as our bonds with our family. Even if you’re not guilty, even if you were a good student and earned your degree and honors, you still feel that you have lost something when this kind of nonsense happens.

Therefore, I believe that the university administration did a great injustice to their students more than they did to the bishops. In the end, the bishops made a statement and the university failed to comply. But how many of the bishops have an emotinal tie to the university?

After a year the bishops will either revoke the university’s Catholic title or move along. But the students whose graduation was marred by this scandal will remember this special day as a day of conflict and anger in the community. No one should remember his or her college graduation in a negative light.

Notre Dame’s administration should have thought of the harm to their graduates, both the class of 2009 and other classes.

Let’s pray for the young people that they will not be misled by their feelings and for all Catholic colleges that they will never again place their students in the middle of such a conflict.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well put! If I were a moderator here, I’d lock the thread with that as the final post.

 

[Darryl1958]

In the end, Father Jenkins decison was a good one politically speaking. The numbers of Catholics passionate about abortion are just not there anymore, and Obama’s presence thre gives prestige to the kind of student that now attends Catholic universities.

The bottom line is well served with the decision, and that being the case, Father Jenkins is no doubt quite secure in his tenure.

The abortion issue is no longer a Catholic issue, politically speaking. Father Jenkins merely sees that writing on the wall and went with it.

 

[JReducation]

In the end, Father Jenkins decison was a good one politically speaking. The numbers of Catholics passionate about abortion are just not there anymore, and Obama’s presence thre gives prestige to the kind of student that now attends Catholic universities.

The bottom line is well served with the decision, and that being the case, Father Jenkins is no doubt quite secure in his tenure.

The abortion issue is no longer a Catholic issue, politically speaking. Father Jenkins merely sees that writing on the wall and went with it.

Bold is mine.

Why would you say this?

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Darryl1958]

Bold is mine.

Why would you say this?

Br. JR, OSF

Why wouldn’t I say it.
It is obvious.

 

[JReducation]

Why wouldn’t I say it.
It is obvious.

I’m not understanding why you believe this. Can you elaborate?

Fr. Jenkins has not said that he supports abortion. He committed a serious error of judgment by inviting the President to ND. We agree on this and so do the bishops.

His position is not secure, simply because he’s under contract. The contract runs out next year. We don’t know if the Provincial Superior will allow Fr. Jenkins to be accept the nomination for the office again.

The Holy Cross Congregation has already said that they do not support the move made by the administration at ND.

The students are not to blame for the administration’s choice.

Am I missing something that you are seeing?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Darryl1958]

I’m not understanding why you believe this. Can you elaborate?

Fr. Jenkins has not said that he supports abortion. He committed a serious error of judgment by inviting the President to ND. We agree on this and so do the bishops.

His position is not secure, simply because he’s under contract. The contract runs out next year. We don’t know if the Provincial Superior will allow Fr. Jenkins to be accept the nomination for the office again.

The Holy Cross Congregation has already said that they do not support the move made by the administration at ND.

The students are not to blame for the administration’s choice.

Am I missing something that you are seeing?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

When it comes to numbers, Father Jenkins has served the university well. The honors he bestowed upon Obama is nothing like the prestige that Obama’s presence bringst to the university. The Catholic students overwhelmingly felt honored, and Obama’s stance on abortion had little bearing on anything.

Politically speaking then , abortion is a dead issue for Catholics. By the time the contract for president comes up, this will no longer even be news.

To the extent that people follow the story at all, they will see cheering crowds of students, and a few Catholic pro-life ‘crazies’ being arrested for trespassing. This is the message that people will come away with when it comes to the Catholic Church in America and the issue of abortion.

 

[JReducation]

When it comes to numbers, Father Jenkins has served the university well. The honors he bestowed upon Obama is nothing like the prestige that Obama’s presence bringst to the university. The Catholic students overwhelmingly felt honored, and Obama’s stance on abortion had little bearing on anything.

Politically speaking then , abortion is a dead issue for Catholics. By the time the contract for president comes up, this will no longer even be news.

To the extent that people follow the story at all, they will see cheering crowds of students, and a few Catholic pro-life ‘crazies’ being arrested for trespassing. This is the message that people will come away with when it comes to the Catholic Church in America and the issue of abortion.

Don’t be such a pessimist. This is one situation, not the entire issue. The bishops and the laity are not going to let the abortion issue die.

The ND situation will pass into history and it should, for the sake of the kids who go to school there and those who have graduated from there and have ties to ND. They shouldn’t suffer for the stupidity of the current administration and the President of the USA, who could have bowed out graciously.

But the abortion issue will not go away. President Obama frightens me more than ND. Mr. Obama has made it his mission to divide Catholic against Catholic. We can’t let him do this to us.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Darryl1958]

Don’t be such a pessimist. This is one situation, not the entire issue. The bishops and the laity are not going to let the abortion issue die.

 

[BobCatholic]

Fr. Jenkins cannot be fired for the 1960’s are still in force. Resistance is futile, report to the commune for your mandatory joint-smoking. The mandatory dropping out of morality is still being done.

ND official policy is that human rights is only for the chosen, not for all.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, BobCatholic,

I must admit, when I first read Darryl1958’s responses, I thought he had become quite cynical over the matter. No doubt about it, ND certainly got more newsprint because of this decision to invite the winner of the last Presidential contest - then it did from inviting President Bush. While the context was not necessarily favorable - in its own way it was appreciated, I seem to remember one celebrity simply saying to spell the name right!

Fr. Jenkins cannot be fired for the 1960’s are still in force. Resistance is futile, report to the commune for your mandatory joint-smoking. The mandatory dropping out of morality is still being done.

ND official policy is that human rights is only for the chosen, not for all.

As I read your posted reponse to Darryl, I got the impression that you were being dismissive of his position. And, while his assessment of Obama being shrewd is right on the money - I too think Darryl is in error about abortion not remaining an important issue. If nothing else, this throws the ball back into the court of the Bishops. Honestly now… 88 got involved in opposing Obama … this is a pretty small number to actually make some kind of movement to support a position that they themselves took.

No easy answers here - but, from my view, abortion is murder of the innocent and as Catholics we either are focused on protecting them or we are just out to lunch in the ‘Cafeteria Catholic’ area.

God Bless,