Why can't Fr. Jenkins be fired?

[BobCatholic]

Where did you read that anyone wrote or suggested that ??? READ the post before responding

Did ND call Obama to conversion or repentance? No, they honored the Pro-Abortionist in Chief.

There was no dialogue. Obama had yet another podium to spew his propaganda to a captive audience, and woe to those who dared to disagree, here’s some nice police to drag them away…

It was a scandal, pure and simple. Did you recognize it as such or are you defending ND’s actions?

Jesus didn’t sit down with sinners, give them an honorary degree, and say nothing about repentance, and have the Roman guards drag away all the protestors.

 

[imperial]

Did ND call Obama to conversion or repentance? No, they honored the Pro-Abortionist in Chief.

There was no dialogue. Obama had yet another podium to spew his propaganda to a captive audience, and woe to those who dared to disagree, here’s some nice police to drag them away…

It was a scandal, pure and simple. Did you recognize it as such or are you defending ND’s actions?

Jesus didn’t sit down with sinners, give them an honorary degree, and say nothing about repentance, and have the Roman guards drag away all the protestors.

100% right Bobcatholic

 

[JReducation]

With all due respect to every poster, I’m beginning to sense that some people are using these threads as a therapeutic venue to vent their anger on one side or another of these issues. I always assumed that these threads were an opportunity for brothers and sisters to share their thoughts and learn from each other’s viewpoints.

I may not agree with the other person’s viewpoint on ND or President Obama, but I find it interesting to listen and learn what others are thinking along these lines. Sometimes reading these positions helps me in my Respect Life Ministry in my order and diocese.

I would encourage everyone to take advantage of the opportunity to ask questions and learn what the other person thinks and why. That information can be very helpful in your ministry in your parish and among your family and friends.

A blamestorming session is best left for the therapist’s office. Just my two cents . . . .

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TMC]

With all due respect to every poster, I’m beginning to sense that some people are using these threads as a therapeutic venue to vent their anger on one side or another of these issues. I always assumed that these threads were an opportunity for brothers and sisters to share their thoughts and learn from each other’s viewpoints.

I may not agree with the other person’s viewpoint on ND or President Obama, but I find it interesting to listen and learn what others are thinking along these lines. Sometimes reading these positions helps me in my Respect Life Ministry in my order and diocese.

I would encourage everyone to take advantage of the opportunity to ask questions and learn what the other person thinks and why. That information can be very helpful in your ministry in your parish and among your family and friends.

A blamestorming session is best left for the therapist’s office. Just my two cents . . . .

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well, here are my two cents. I think that inviting the President is turning out to be a net postive. It has sparked discussion of the issues in the main stream press. It has not confused people about the Church’s teaching, as some suggested it might, quite the opposite, I think. Meanwhile the President has promised to put a conscience clause in place, has put a pro-life Catholic on his faith outreach group, is holding discussions on abortion reduction that the USCCB is participating in, and is sending a respected and orthodox theologian to represent him to the Vatican.

I know that many, many here will call me crazy and worse, but perhaps the President has decided to take his promise to engage the pro-life movement seriously? If engaging this administration moderates its stance on abortion isn’t engagement worthwhile?

 

[SIb4G]

Well, here are my two cents. I think that inviting the President is turning out to be a net postive. It has sparked discussion of the issues in the main stream press. It has not confused people about the Church’s teaching, as some suggested it might, quite the opposite, I think. Meanwhile the President has promised to put a conscience clause in place, has put a pro-life Catholic on his faith outreach group, is holding discussions on abortion reduction that the USCCB is participating in, and is sending a respected and orthodox theologian to represent him to the Vatican.

I know that many, many here will call me crazy and worse, but perhaps the President has decided to take his promise to engage the pro-life movement seriously? If engaging this administration moderates its stance on abortion isn’t engagement worthwhile?

TMC—“With all due respect” you may be getting overly positive with your "net positive’ thinking. (I hope not.)

1. Mainstream press vis a vis abortion. I wouldn’t even go there!
2. Not so much confusion about the Church’s teaching regarding abortion as the scandal of defying the leadership of the U.S. bishops and the sensibilities of hundreds of thousands of pro-life Catholics, many of whom are students and alumni. The standing ovations were the coup de grace.
3. Re: conscience clause. He said “sensible” conscience clause. For a master wordsmith, who knows where that could lead.
4. Discussions on abortion reduction. Who doesn’t want that? I would hope no democratic nation is THAT barbaric. Discussions? Ultimately we still run into the brick wall of “on some level…views…are irreconcilable”.
5. The “respected theologian” was what choice? Three? Four? Don’t think the Vatican was going to accept anyone not pro-life. Obama’s choices here appear to have been limited–by the Vatican.

Thanks for pointing out Alexia Kelley. THAT is good news. Kudos to Obama for that! Hopefully, her voice will be heard!

Sorry to say, I think the scandal of abortion will be with us for a very long time. Obama will be just one more enabler along the way. Positive outcome? Well maybe, just maybe, Notre Dame will learn what it is to be Catholic. Maybe it has learned from this and the next time will put “honor before prestige”.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Will someone please explain to me why Fr. Jenkins cannot be fired? What authority does the Church have over this former Catholic university, anyway? Can’t we remove their Catholic charter or something, if they don’t remove him? Can’t we just clean house? I mean, really! It’s time to stop procrastinating and trying to be “nice guys.” We need to make an example of this clown, and we need to do it sooner rather than later. There needs to be a strong connection in the mind of folks similar to Jenkins that if you conduct yourself like this, you get slapped down…hard.

Because God seems to have the same structures in place for this kind of thing as big business does?

 

[jean8]

My understanding is that Bill Clinton was not invited.

I have heard this old saying for years, ‘Don’t mix religion and politics.’ this still makes sense today.
Obama isn’t a christian. He was a member of Jerimiah Wrights church for years. Wright preached “Liberation Theology” have you read this document?
gotquestions.org/liberation-theology.html

jean

 

[StrawberryJam]

I have heard this old saying for years, ‘Don’t mix religion and politics.’ this still makes sense today.
Obama isn’t a christian. He was a member of Jerimiah Wrights church for years. Wright preached “Liberation Theology” have you read this document?
gotquestions.org/liberation-theology.html

jean

I don’t personally like Obama, but on what basis is he not a christian? I know about his stands on abortion, and how that is not compatible, I know about his appointments and about mr. Wright’s fringe views.

Liberation theology is condemned by the catholic church from what I see in the library here if I am reading in context.

But, Jesuits are out there preaching it. Are they not christian? Maybe I am wrong about Jesuits preaching it, and that they are merely promoting it as their personal theological position. Still, is this a no true scotsman argument?

 

[elts1956]

Or universal health care with hidden regulations that those who are not wanted by the government will be denied or delayed care.
I’m sorry Mr. Limbaugh, Obamacare does not cover lung cancer caused by years of smoking cigars, and your permission to seek care in a foreign country is denied as your passport has been confiscated by DHS for being on the right wing watch list. We’ll wheel you over to the Omega machine, now, where you have the ability to make the right CHOICE - we’re pro-choice, you know.*

You’ve got that right!!

 

[elts1956]

Or universal health care with hidden regulations that those who are not wanted by the government will be denied or delayed care.
I’m sorry Mr. Limbaugh, Obamacare does not cover lung cancer caused by years of smoking cigars, and your permission to seek care in a foreign country is denied as your passport has been confiscated by DHS for being on the right wing watch list. We’ll wheel you over to the Omega machine, now, where you have the ability to make the right CHOICE - we’re pro-choice, you know.*

I don’t personally like Obama, but on what basis is he not a christian? I know about his stands on abortion, and how that is not compatible, I know about his appointments and about mr. Wright’s fringe views.

Liberation theology is condemned by the catholic church from what I see in the library here if I am reading in context.

But, Jesuits are out there preaching it. Are they not christian? Maybe I am wrong about Jesuits preaching it, and that they are merely promoting it as their personal theological position. Still, is this a no true scotsman argument?

Have you read about activities “some” Jesuits are pulling lately? Those guys have “left the building”. Read message 246. That should show you how far to the left this once inspirational and faithful order has gone.

 

[elts1956]

I don’t promote the idea that this forum is the place to propose that a priest be removed from a role that he has. However, generally speaking, the purpose of the law is justice. Abortion is a grave injustice therefore it makes no sense do give an honorary law degree to one who supports grave injustice. Catholics are not “right-wing” and we are not “conservative”. The truth of Jesus Christ is sometimes labeled to fall in these categories but His truth is above these categories. He is the final power and authority in all of creation.

 

[imperial]

I don’t personally like Obama, but on what basis is he not a christian?

Simple you can not be a Christian if you are pro choice.
Thou shall not kill; Judas was one of the first Christians
Yet he did not represent Christianity and so to are those that
Approve abortion

 

[StrawberryJam]

StrawberryJam;5330460:

I don’t personally like Obama, but on what basis is he not a christian?

Simple you can not be a Christian if you are pro choice.
Thou shall not kill; Judas was one of the first Christians
Yet he did not represent Christianity and so to are those that
Approve abortion

I said I realize that view is not compatible with christianity.

But, is that enough to make him not be a christian? If he believes that Jesus is the Messiah and came in the flesh died and rose again, and will come again to judge the living and the dead, could he simply be misunderstanding the details beyond that?
I am assuming he believes all of the above I admit.
Truly, I don’t know what the bare minimum is to be considered christian.

I just was guessing at what the minimum would be here.

 

[Robert_Calimer]

Originally Posted by JReducation
With all due respect to every poster, I’m beginning to sense that some people are using these threads as a therapeutic venue to vent their anger on one side or another of these issues. I always assumed that these threads were an opportunity for brothers and sisters to share their thoughts and learn from each other’s viewpoints.

I may not agree with the other person’s viewpoint on ND or President Obama, but I find it interesting to listen and learn what others are thinking along these lines. Sometimes reading these positions helps me in my Respect Life Ministry in my order and diocese.

I would encourage everyone to take advantage of the opportunity to ask questions and learn what the other person thinks and why. That information can be very helpful in your ministry in your parish and among your family and friends.

A blamestorming session is best left for the therapist’s office. Just my two cents . . . .

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF​

Well, here are my two cents. I think that inviting the President is turning out to be a net postive. It has sparked discussion of the issues in the main stream press. It has not confused people about the Church’s teaching, as some suggested it might, quite the opposite, I think. Meanwhile the President has promised to put a conscience clause in place, has put a pro-life Catholic on his faith outreach group, is holding discussions on abortion reduction that the USCCB is participating in, and is sending a respected and orthodox theologian to represent him to the Vatican.

I know that many, many here will call me crazy and worse, but perhaps the President has decided to take his promise to engage the pro-life movement seriously? If engaging this administration moderates its stance on abortion isn’t engagement worthwhile?​

Spot on, great thought and well spoken

Brother, himself has inspired some of what he reads, how did that go ?, practice what you preach.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Robert Calimer,

How nice to hear from you… Actually, I was a little confused as to what you actually meant by:

Chilling…

Extending a hand…

CALMING DOWN… but, your post certainly clarified the matter.

TQUALEY----------- Your out of control, gas inducing rage has read far too much into my post as I did not suggest a middle ground for life or death and I did not say that Obama was right on the issue and I did suggest that the speech was a monologue, so chill and stop reading more into it than is. We should try to win over some of the other side by extending a hand, by CALMING DOWN a bit as we’re not getting anywhere like this ! It is straight forward to me. You can maintain your confictions and also be humanistic about it. I see the point that ND should not have extended an honor, but I think they did a honorable thing by the invite, despite the unrest on the issue. You’ll not going to change your opinion and I mind, but we are monologuing - I think — anyway I finished with this.

My opinion is that innocent life should not be murdered… and you are right, I won’t be changing my view. But, I think you have misundestood the actual and practical distinctions between a monlogue and a dialogue. Merely showing up to talk to the NDU graduating class of 2009 is a monologue - no one spoke to the President during his speech. The President was not soliciting other ideas - everyone had been gathered to hear his ideas. Some have been captivated by the President’s gifted speaking abilities - others are actually listening and understanding the words.

Hopefully this, “gas induced rage…” of mine has powered some thinking about the “life question”. The only real issue now, is which side are you are on?

God bless

 

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by JReducation
With all due respect to every poster, I’m beginning to sense that some people are using these threads as a therapeutic venue to vent their anger on one side or another of these issues. I always assumed that these threads were an opportunity for brothers and sisters to share their thoughts and learn from each other’s viewpoints.

I may not agree with the other person’s viewpoint on ND or President Obama, but I find it interesting to listen and learn what others are thinking along these lines. Sometimes reading these positions helps me in my Respect Life Ministry in my order and diocese.

I would encourage everyone to take advantage of the opportunity to ask questions and learn what the other person thinks and why. That information can be very helpful in your ministry in your parish and among your family and friends.

A blamestorming session is best left for the therapist’s office. Just my two cents . . . .

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF​

Well, here are my two cents. I think that inviting the President is turning out to be a net postive. It has sparked discussion of the issues in the main stream press. It has not confused people about the Church’s teaching, as some suggested it might, quite the opposite, I think. Meanwhile the President has promised to put a conscience clause in place, has put a pro-life Catholic on his faith outreach group, is holding discussions on abortion reduction that the USCCB is participating in, and is sending a respected and orthodox theologian to represent him to the Vatican.

I know that many, many here will call me crazy and worse, but perhaps the President has decided to take his promise to engage the pro-life movement seriously? If engaging this administration moderates its stance on abortion isn’t engagement worthwhile?​

Spot on, great thought and well spoken

Brother, himself has inspired some of what he reads, how did that go ?, practice what you preach.

You lost me.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[tqualey]

Hi, TMC,

You are certainly entitled to be optomistic - but, please print your post… and Slg4B’s responses… Time will tell who is the more realistic in assessing the situation.

Well, here are my two cents. I think that inviting the President is turning out to be a net postive. It has sparked discussion of the issues in the main stream press. It has not confused people about the Church’s teaching, as some suggested it might, quite the opposite, I think. Meanwhile the President has promised to put a conscience clause in place, has put a pro-life Catholic on his faith outreach group, is holding discussions on abortion reduction that the USCCB is participating in, and is sending a respected and orthodox theologian to represent him to the Vatican.

I know that many, many here will call me crazy and worse, but perhaps the President has decided to take his promise to engage the pro-life movement seriously? If engaging this administration moderates its stance on abortion isn’t engagement worthwhile?

God bless

 

[elts1956]

I don’t promote the idea that this forum is the place to propose that a priest be removed from a role that he has. However, generally speaking, the purpose of the law is justice. Abortion is a grave injustice therefore it makes no sense do give an honorary law degree to one who supports grave injustice. Catholics are not “right-wing” and we are not “conservative”. The truth of Jesus Christ is sometimes labeled to fall in these categories but His truth is above these categories. He is the final power and authority in all of creation.

I agree with Coder, that although we and that includes me, wish that people like Jenkins could be tossed out of their positions, Coder is right in reminding me (all of us?) in saying the cloth of the man should be respected. Sometimes it is hard to discriminate the mortal from the divine.

 

[JReducation]

I agree with Coder, that although we and that includes me, wish that people like Jenkins could be tossed out of their positions, Coder is right in reminding me (all of us?) in saying the cloth of the man should be respected. Sometimes it is hard to discriminate the mortal from the divine.

I’m going to ditto what you said. As a religious myself, I will also add that religious life and the priesthood is not a call to saints alone. In fact, those of us who become either religious or priests do so because we know that we are sinful and that this is our only means to salvation.

I don’t know how many lay people know this, but most religious communities and most dioceses require that you write, with your own hand, no computer, a statement that says why you want to be ordained or to make perpetual vows. In your statement you must swear that you believe that this journey is necessary for the salvation of your soul. You must make this written statement before you are ordained or make profession of perpetual vows. You must then read your statement in front of your bishop if you’re a secular seminarian or in front of your religious superior, if you’re a religious, and in front of your peers. Then you sign it and two witnesses also sign it. The bishop or the religious superior sign it and affix their seal to it. This is a solemn declaration that you are a sinner and in need of salvation.

That’s the point that I’m making here. People who become priests or who become religious in solemn vows are people who are sinners. They have publicly admitted this before the Church and their peers. No one expects them to conquer holiness over night. It’s a long journey. Very few men and women are already saints before they enter the seminary or the religious life.

This does not justify sin. No one should. It does not justify mistakes. No one should. But what it does help is to put the person into a clearer perspective. The person with whom we’re dealing is a priest or religious because he’s a sinner and he’s on his journey. We must keep this person in our prayers and ask that the grace won by our prayers will help the person along the path to holiness and conversion.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[elts1956]

I’m going to ditto what you said. As a religious myself, I will also add that religious life and the priesthood is not a call to saints alone. In fact, those of us who become either religious or priests do so because we know that we are sinful and that this is our only means to salvation.

I don’t know how many lay people know this, but most religious communities and most dioceses require that you write, with your own hand, no computer, a statement that says why you want to be ordained or to make perpetual vows. In your statement you must swear that you believe that this journey is necessary for the salvation of your soul. You must make this written statement before you are ordained or make profession of perpetual vows. You must then read your statement in front of your bishop if you’re a secular seminarian or in front of your religious superior, if you’re a religious, and in front of your peers. Then you sign it and two witnesses also sign it. The bishop or the religious superior sign it and affix their seal to it. This is a solemn declaration that you are a sinner and in need of salvation.

That’s the point that I’m making here. People who become priests or who become religious in solemn vows are people who are sinners. They have publicly admitted this before the Church and their peers. No one expects them to conquer holiness over night. It’s a long journey. Very few men and women are already saints before they enter the seminary or the religious life.

This does not justify sin. No one should. It does not justify mistakes. No one should. But what it does help is to put the person into a clearer perspective. The person with whom we’re dealing is a priest or religious because he’s a sinner and he’s on his journey. We must keep this person in our prayers and ask that the grace won by our prayers will help the person along the path to holiness and conversion.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Keep us in your prayers JR. You are a blessing to these forums.:getholy: