Pontifications

Pontifications


Notre Dame outrage update: Cardinal George, Archbp Quinn, et al

posted by David Gibson

America magazine, as promised, has the official, redacted version of Fr. Cleary’s letter to President Obama here. It is much more successful, I think, largely thanks to editing.

Better still, from my point of view, FWIW, is a commentary on the whole Notre Dame-Obama controversy  by the retired archbishop of San Francisco, John R. Quinn. It is titled “A Critical Moment: Barack Obama, Notre Dame and the future of the U.S. church.” 

I have always greatly appreciated Archbishop Quinn’s intellect and approach, and they are on display here. Quinn says this is “a critical moment” for the church in the United States, and poses several key question as to how this uproar will affect the future of the faith and the pro-life movement.

He concludes:

We must weigh very seriously the consequences if the American bishops are seen as the agents of publicly embarrassing the newly elected president by forcing him to withdraw from an appearance at a distinguished Catholic University.  The bishops and the president serve the same citizens of the same country. It is in the interests of both the church and the nation if both work together in civility, honesty and friendship for the common good even where there are grave divisions, as there are on abortion.

But it does not improve the likelihood of making progress on this and other issues of common concern if we adopt the clenched fist approach. The president has given ample evidence that he is a man of good will, of keen intelligence, desirous of listening and capable of weighing seriously other views. The Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops, citing Augustine, points out that ” Certain situations cannot be resolved with asperity or hardness” and goes on to say “(B)ecause his daily pastoral concerns give the Bishop greater scope for personal decision-making, his scope for error is also greater, however good his intentions: this thought should encourage him to remain open to dialog with others, always ready to learn, to seek and accept the advice of others.”

Meanwhile, the president of the USCCB, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, has called the invite to Obama “an extreme embarassment” and adds: “Whatever else is clear, it is clear that Notre Dame didn’t understand what it means to be Catholic when they issued this invitation.”

And Archbishop John C. Nienstedt of Saint Paul and Minneapolis released his letter to Jenkins, calling the invitation a “travesty” and adding if Jenkins doesn’t withdraw the invitation “please do not expect me to support your University in the future.”

So there.

PS: (Always a postscript to this story) Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, FL reflects on the controversy on his blog, with a sane take, I thought:

“Early ‘markers’ [of Obama’s record on the life issues] are not encouraging in this regard but hope needs to spring eternal and while Notre Dame may have acted way too early and too generously, I am more alarmed that the rhetoric being employed is so uncivil and venomous that it weakens the case we place  before our fellow citizens, alienates young college-age students who believe the older generation is behaving like an angry child and they do not wish to be any part of that, and ill-serves the cause of life. Notre Dame has in the past and continues to give this local Church fine, professional and very Catholic women and men who both know and live out their faith. Most of them I know are ardently pro-life and like myself are probably disappointed with their alma mater. They and I will choose to convey our sadness to the Board of Trustees and Administration in a calm and dignified manner.”

Hat tip to CWNews.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(48)
post a comment
Gospel Catholic

posted March 31, 2009 at 9:43 pm


We’re getting a flurry of these reports about bishops and archbishops firing off letters/making statements, with every word dissected, but where can I find reaction and commentary of the general Catholic population? No one seems to be interviewing or surveying them (us) on what these extraordinary events of 2009 mean to them personally, in their own parishes, in their daily faith. I’m tired of reading savage online comments from what I hope is a minority of extremists, and trying to discern if they actually represent the future of my church in this country. Just how afraid should I be? Will I no longer be welcome in my own diocese if I have the wrong bumper sticker on my minivan? I want to know how this sturm und drang ultimately will affect me and my family and my Catholic neighbors and the ministries of my Midwestern parish. You know, the “reality-based community.”
I’m also curious as to how the uproar is affecting plans for the 2011 Detroit symposium of the American Catholic Council, which looks from the goals stated on its website (americancatholiccouncil.org) like a pretty serious attempt to unite the progressives (Call to Action, Voice of the Faithful, etc.) and actually attempt to define an “American Catholic Church” outside the universal church.
Interesting times…



report abuse
 

Gerard Nadal

posted March 31, 2009 at 10:42 pm


Archbishop Quinn:
“But it does not improve the likelihood of making progress on this and other issues of common concern if we adopt the clenched fist approach. The president has given ample evidence that he is a man of good will, of keen intelligence, desirous of listening and capable of weighing seriously other views.”
With the greatest respect for Archbishop Quinn, I wonder what empirical evidence of these claims he may be privy to? “Good will?” Seriously weighing other views?”
Like reversing on embryonic stem cell research, Mexico City, etc..? Opposing a baby born alive protection bill?
The clenched fist is not ours, Archbishop. The clenched fist belongs to the man who stands shoulder to shoulder with the abortion industry. The clenched fist belongs to the man who promised Planned Parenthood, a year ago, the full weight of his Office in support of them if elected, then followed through. The clenched fist belongs to the man who will appoint Judges and Supreme Court Justices who will guarantee no abatement in the ongoing slaughter of innocents, now exceeding 50 million. The clenched fist belongs to the man who has appointed to administrative agencies those who will do the pro-choice bidding.
How dare the Archbishop accuse the faithful of ill will!! Did the Archbishop ordain men FIRST and then attempt to train them for four years? Did he not scrutinize his seminarians during four rigorous years of training and then judge who merited his trust? Why then should we give this most pro-abortion President our highest honors as an inducement to dialogue? We don’t give doctorates to first year graduate students in the hope that maybe in the future they will do something to merit that honor. Honorary doctorates are no different.
Sorry, his Excellency has proven yourself to be yesterday’s man. That crosier he carries is symbolic not only of a shepherd’s staff that is used to rein in wayward sheep, but to beat away the wolves who would tear apart his defenseless flock. The Archbishop ought to think about that in relation to Presidents and clenched fists.



report abuse
 

Stoo

posted April 1, 2009 at 6:55 am


The clenched first belongs to the person who just yells NO I’M RIGHT AND YOU’RE WRONG AND I’M RIGHT over and over.
Which is, er, most people involved in this argument.



report abuse
 

Gerard Nadal

posted April 1, 2009 at 7:42 am


Stoo,
50 million dead babies bear silent witness to the clenched fist, not open to life, that smashed the life out of their frail, developing bodies.



report abuse
 

Cindy

posted April 1, 2009 at 8:40 am


“The clenched first belongs to the person who just yells NO I’M RIGHT AND YOU’RE WRONG AND I’M RIGHT over and over”



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 1, 2009 at 8:47 am


Dear Hypocrites w/clenched minds!
What would Jesus Christ do, circa 2009! Short answer is that He would continue tending to those suffering in body, mind, and spirit because of *Bush* policies based on indifference?
Let us expand definitions of “God is Love”.
Footnote: Notice that Creation’s design of the human body is such that *choice* is a Divine accoutrement; Yes,any *choice* construct!



report abuse
 

DML

posted April 1, 2009 at 9:24 am


Numbers 3:15…Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them.
In the Hebrew Bible, anyone less than one month old had (has?) no value. Of course men were (are?) worth more than women, you also reached maximum value between 20 and 60 years of age, somewhere in Leviticus.
Psalm 136 says it all…”Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!”
“Not one iota of the law shall pass away…” also comes to mind. You have to keep following the tenets of the Good Book completely, of course with guidance from the Magisterium and the bishops.
…or perhaps you could keep an open mind, realize there is no unity of scripture and make up your own mind and leave the bishops to their own dishonest interpretations of scripture and the abortion issue.



report abuse
 

Cindy

posted April 1, 2009 at 9:39 am


Gerard –
Each one of those 50 million babies you cite was human life, and a human soul and connected to a human woman’s body. Each an individual, human life – not some abstract statistic that you get to wave around like a flag or use as a board to batter people with whom you disagree.
Stop exploiting the deaths of the babies, and start working toward a community of love and compassion that can rid the world of abortion.
Your kind of politics is just as dangerous as the radically pro-choice.
With all due respect,
Cindy



report abuse
 

Cindy

posted April 1, 2009 at 9:59 am


In addition:
I am not going to make an argument that President Obama is a Pro-Life president. He is not.
However, many bloggers have said “Where is this evidence that he is not fully, aggressively and actively pursuing destruction of unborn life?”
Well, I’m not a professional lobbyist or anything, but the GIVE act is something I’ve felt strongly about and followed. And here is a pertinent part:
The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act
‘SEC. 132A. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
‘(a) Prohibited Activities- An approved national service position under this subtitle may not be used for the following activities:
‘(1) Attempting to influence legislation.
……
‘(9) Providing abortion services or referrals for receipt of such services.
So, it seems to me that this bill, which is the far-reaching Community Organizing and volunteer services bill that President Obama pushed for includes a prohibition against using any of these resources to support abortion services. This bill has passed both houses and is awaiting signature of the President.
THAT is a step in the right direction. THAT is a small, but real sign that there is a willingness to work with the Pro-Life community.
And this is just the one bill that I actually know something about – so perhaps there are more, where the Pro-Life position is, in fact, part of the law being enacted.
Please understand that I am not saying this is enough. Or that Pro-Life advocates (such as myself) should be satisfied or content…but we can take HOPE from inclusion of language such as this.



report abuse
 

Bob Insull

posted April 1, 2009 at 11:02 am


Are the bishops so unsure of the educational powers of a premier Catholic university that they think a single exposure to a different point of view (in a people they’ve had four years in which to assist in the formation of conscience) would lead to a radical or widespread change of view? If so they’d perhaps be wiser to cancel graduation altogether an close up the shop.



report abuse
 

Jennifer Eva.

posted April 1, 2009 at 12:12 pm


I am understanding that you are disagreeing with the tome of Cardinal George’s comment on the situation. His is the most appropriate response. It is not harsh to call it like it is and he also added that you cannot take back the invitation to the President. I don’t understand how voicing opinions about a situation could be vitriolic. Why censor the fact that killing happens. This is not opinion. If someone came and said your elderly mother is not worth keeping alive because things are just to hard to care for her so lets put her down you would simply say I am sad with your opinion!?! You know that the President is forcing our tax dollars to kill babies. This is not opinion. This is true and it isn’t vile to just say it. Perhaps the offense isn’t in the obvious mention but in the fact that personally we can say we are prolife but we don’t really understand the gravity of what is happening.
FWIW



report abuse
 

Steve

posted April 1, 2009 at 12:55 pm


This Obama invitation is part of a slow progression away from Christ. I admit that we should not react violently but we must react. The world needs to know how strongly the Church stands against the murder of the unborn. If we do not make a stand as a community then we are simply allowing this cancer to grow. The larger it grows, the more healthy tissue will have to be cut out in order to remove it. For those that propose that we quietly protest, I ask when do we shout from the mountaintops and proclaim Truth? What evil needs to happen for you to be passionate about your beliefs? We are talking about the murder of our babies and a president that sees no problem with that. I am not suggesting that we shout hate and venom but Truth with love and respect but we must collectively shout.
Steve



report abuse
 

Dan

posted April 1, 2009 at 1:16 pm


You know they say it was money and politics that got the Catholic church in trouble 500 years ago when it lost so many of its faithful. A bishop first responsibility is to Christ, protecting his teachings and his church. It is time to excommunicate those politicians of either party that has so much blood on their hands with abortion. Yes we are all sinners and are only saved by the grace of God. However when politicians lie and manipulate truth to justify their stance; it is time to let them go. It is time for the Bishops priests and laity to stop making excuses for them and let these people go from the church. They have already left by their actions. You might as well make it official and excommunicate them. Show the faithful there is real truth to the Church’s teachings, back it up by action.
As for our President; this just shows how many at Notre Dame live in the modern world and have been influenced by it. I pray for the President, but this is not the place of the Church to support him. It only waters down their moral authority, and credibility.



report abuse
 

Tom Doyle

posted April 1, 2009 at 1:19 pm


From the gospel perspective, I don’t think Christ cares anything about a political/social/psychological/mumbo-jumbo approach to the issue. What is true; what do we stand for? When even first truths are at stake, many of us Catholics immediatly get into the codependency mode so that we can talk more, and shake our heads more, and displace the accountability more, and gently encourage more, and really stand for nothing that identifies what is actually true. Will more killing and more talking really convey a ‘more-perfect’ truth? Stand for truth, you great leaders of the Catholic Church. Be an example of how to believe, rather than being an example of how to get a better seat.



report abuse
 

Marlin

posted April 1, 2009 at 1:39 pm


I don’t think he should have been invited to speak in the first place. This is as bad as when priest that about young boys were not dismissed from the pulpit and turned over to the police. You can’t be a buffet catholic. Either you belive in the teaching of the church or you don’t. If I am wrong I only wasted my life he Obama is wrong he has wasted his eternity. We went after Hitler in world war 2 for killing people and now it is ok to do it in the USA as long as they are left in the womb when they are killed. WOW sounds like great people who believe in this.



report abuse
 

Gospel Catholic

posted April 1, 2009 at 1:54 pm


Beth Dahlman has an interesting blog entry on the distortions being thrown around about Obama’s record by the anti-Notre Dame crowd: http://blog.faithinpubliclife.org/2009/03/defending_catholic_valueswith.html
One major distortion she notes is the claim, as stated here by “Jennifer Eva” that Obama is “forcing our tax dollars to kill babies.” As Beth points out: “Well, no. As we’ve noted before, legislation (such as the Helms and Hyde amendments) currently block federal funding for abortion. Only Congress, not the President, can allow any funding, much less an increase.”
So please, please quit trying to smear our president with these ridiculously caricatured remarks. He is not an evil baby-murdering monster, folks, and the more you toss around these exaggerations the more you actually HURT the pro-life movement you claim to champion. There are ways to protest specific actions by Obama and other elected officials without this childish rhetoric.



report abuse
 

Joe Six Pack

posted April 1, 2009 at 2:00 pm


I’m not a catholic but am interested in joining this religion(currently atheist) but am having some doubts when leaders of this religion can say these kinds of things in trying to get more people or keep the people that are already in the religion. I’m sorry, but if this religion cares too much about the numbers and not enough about the values they teach and preach, then I will have to seriously reconsider my joining. I’m conservative, so I believe in the core principles that this church/religion teaches but not if it is willing to sacrifice those values it holds so dear in an effort to recruit more members or expand then I will have to look elsewhere.



report abuse
 

Joe Six Pack

posted April 1, 2009 at 2:11 pm


Gospel Catholic
April 1, 2009 1:54 PM
Beth Dahlman has an interesting blog entry on the distortions being thrown around about Obama’s record by the anti-Notre Dame crowd: http://blog.faithinpubliclife.org/2009/03/defending_catholic_valueswith.html
One major distortion she notes is the claim, as stated here by “Jennifer Eva” that Obama is “forcing our tax dollars to kill babies.” As Beth points out: “Well, no. As we’ve noted before, legislation (such as the Helms and Hyde amendments) currently block federal funding for abortion. Only Congress, not the President, can allow any funding, much less an increase.”
So please, please quit trying to smear our president with these ridiculously caricatured remarks. He is not an evil baby-murdering monster, folks, and the more you toss around these exaggerations the more you actually HURT the pro-life movement you claim to champion. There are ways to protest specific actions by Obama and other elected officials without this childish rhetoric.
———
Wow, as far as my knowledge of Obama and his record, it shows that he clearly sides with abortion so I would say that “Jennifer Eva” isn’t really “smearing” the president at all. If you think that that sacrificing the values of this movement, you are helping it, I would have to think that you’re a little naive. But I do think people who voted for and are still supporting this administration is more than just a little naive and it shows in their un-“childish rhetoric”.



report abuse
 

Judy

posted April 1, 2009 at 2:20 pm


I am strongly pro-life and definitey do not want Obama, who is an abortionist, to speak at the Notre Dame commencement. This goes against Catholic principles and Catholic teachings. It does not matter if Obama is President of the United States. Because of his view on abortion which is totally against the teachings of the Catholic Church, he should not have been invited to speak at the Notre Dame commencement and he SHOULD BE DISINVITED NOW. If Obama’s speech goes forward, it is my hope there will be many, many protesters present at Notre Dame to protest allowing an abortionist to speak at a Catholic commencement.



report abuse
 

Peter913

posted April 1, 2009 at 2:28 pm


I think the best way to protest the President’s stand on Abortion and Embryonic Stem Cell usages is for each graduate to send a letter to Notre Dame’s Admin. Office saying: “mail my diploma home because I wont be attending the graduation exercise.”



report abuse
 

tomindesmoines

posted April 1, 2009 at 2:43 pm


“It is time to excommunicate those politicians of either party that has so much blood on their hands with abortion.”
Could you please handle the unrepentant pedophiles and their enablers who are STILL in your midst first before you begin this new purge? Maybe if folks saw that you were cleaning your own house they might be more willing to listen to you when you suggest that there is dirt in theirs.



report abuse
 

Athanasius

posted April 1, 2009 at 3:03 pm


Quinn has a long history of residing outside the parameters that constitute ‘orthodoxy’. This latest drama is no different! What is needed is clarity. I would add that any Metropolitan who wishes to resist secular humanism needs two things: Fidelity to Rome & political independence.



report abuse
 

Gerard Nadal

posted April 1, 2009 at 3:14 pm


Cindy,
“Each one of those 50 million babies you cite was human life, and a human soul and connected to a human woman’s body. Each an individual, human life – not some abstract statistic that you get to wave around like a flag or use as a board to batter people with whom you disagree.”
As I’ve said to you before Cindy, you need to lay off that third cup of coffee. You don’t need to impress upon me the singularity, the uniqueness of each individual child murdered by those who took the Hypocratic Oath. That uniqueness, multiplied by fifty million is a true horror and one I believe you are incapable of grasping.
Your brand of Sweet Suzy Sunshine makes you useful to the likes of Obama. If you have no stomach for standing up and engaging in tough love, fine. But don’t prattle on to me with the Doris Day routine. Catholic honors are for those who have EARNED them. Barak Obama is no friend of the unborn. His actions in office are several orders of magnitude more destructive than the little crumb he threw to people like you. Wake up sweetie, 3,000 babies a day are being slaughtered. Stop with the cheerleader routine for the abortionist-in chief, all thinly veiled as Christian charity. It’s nauseating.



report abuse
 

chuck

posted April 1, 2009 at 3:48 pm


I believe that that hypocrisy is mind boggling.



report abuse
 

Donna Maria

posted April 1, 2009 at 4:19 pm


NOT COOL! Inviting BO to speak at this citadel of Catholicism in the USA is an insult to all Catholics. BO’s abortion policy is 100% opposed to the teachings in our universal church. This invitation is not progressive; it reflects moral weakness that apparently is eroding the fabric of ND. Incredulous that this institution dedicated to the Holy Mother Mary, the mother of our saviour Jesus Christ, has given a forum to a proud pro abortionist! As a Catholic I am stunned, offended and pained by this commencement invitation. This could only be equaled by the Jewish leaders in the USA inviting the president of Iran to speak at The Holocaust Memorial in D.C.



report abuse
 

Reality Check

posted April 1, 2009 at 4:25 pm


If you really are so against abortion as you all claim to be, why don’t you run for political office. Blogging all day, signing online petitions and marching is all well and good, but it doesn’t change the standing law of the land. If you really want abortion to end, run for political office and attempt to change the minds of those who think abortion should stay legal. If not, shut up. Plain and simple. It’s the standing law of the land. Run for political office so it can be changed.



report abuse
 

Re: Donna Maria

posted April 1, 2009 at 4:32 pm


LOL! You aren’t stunned enough to run for national office are you? Because that is the ONLY way abortion will end in our country. Until enough people have had enough with abortion and run for a political office, then just expect to be blogging about it until the end of time.



report abuse
 

Re: Gerard Nadal

posted April 1, 2009 at 4:35 pm


If it is truly nauseating to you, run for public office and make a real change instead of beating up on a fellow Catholic.



report abuse
 

Will

posted April 1, 2009 at 4:58 pm


May I remind all that our Lord works in mysterious ways. He converted Tony Blair. Have Faith.



report abuse
 

pete a. sclafani

posted April 1, 2009 at 5:17 pm


The problem with Quinn and what he fails to realize is LIFE. Doctors performing the abortion is committing murder under God. Obama although not in the surgical room as the doctor but if you give the ok to kill then you are just as guilty. Obama is the one giving the ok to kill. So, Archbishop Quinn and others in the order better get there act together real fast. What Quinn is doing is siding with the devil.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 1, 2009 at 5:48 pm


I thought that the letters by Archbishop Quinn and Father Cleary were excellent. Archbishop Neinstedt’s letter was short but not sweet. Is it widely recognized that President Obama is anti-Catholic or is it just Archbishop Neinstedt’s opinion? Many Catholics do not have this opinion. Also why did he have to mention Obama’s support for gay rights? Doesn’t Archbishop Neinstedt realize that there are many gay Catholics, including many in the clergy? If Archbishop Neinstedt feels disdain for gay people and feels discrimination against them is justified perhaps it is better that he keep it to himself.



report abuse
 

PAUL R HOURIGAN

posted April 1, 2009 at 5:56 pm


THERE IS NO OTHER WAY EXCEPT TO ASK OBAMA TO RECEND THE INVITE. WE AS CATHOLICS CAN’T SAY WE BELIEVE IN LIFE AT CONCEPTION THEN GO ABOUT ASKING A PERSON WHO DOESN’T BELIEVE THAT LIFE STARTES THEN. WE ARE MAKING A COMPLETE A** OF OUR SELVES AND THE CHURCH. GET SOME BACK BONE



report abuse
 

Gerard Nadal

posted April 1, 2009 at 6:33 pm


Re: Gerard Nadal
I’ve voted plenty of pro-life candidates into office. Not every pro-life Catholic needs to run for office. I’m more effective in the pro-life arena doing public speaking and writing (non-blogging), as a Ph.D. Molecular Biologist. That’s where I’m called to be.
Far from beating up on a fellow Catholic, Sweet Cindy is one who comes on these threads with her imperious brand of charity for all (More for Obama than fellow Catholics). If she wishes to be treated with greater cordiality and collegiality, then she should present her alternative approaches with the degree of collegiality that she wishes to receive in return. Coming here and questioning my charity and Christianity as she has on this and other threads gets the same in return.
BTW, why don’t you get yourself a name, instead of using everyone else’s?



report abuse
 

Re: Gerard Nadal

posted April 1, 2009 at 7:36 pm


Then how about you tell those that you have voted in to actually make a change. If they are unable to do so, I suggest you take their seat. Unless anyone has a plan to actually deal with this situation, there is no point of any of this. Either make change happen, or shut up and get out of the way of those who will.



report abuse
 

Re: PAUL R HOURIGAN

posted April 1, 2009 at 7:41 pm


Why don’t you just ask Norte Dame to take the invite back? He’s only the President of the United States.



report abuse
 

Father Joseph

posted April 1, 2009 at 8:06 pm


We can not manipulate the teachings of the church to fix our own political agenda or likings. They are what they are. If you can’t accept the various teachings of the church, and now just its stance on abortion, divorce, stem cell research, the funding of abortions throughout the world in the reversal of the Mexico policy; and the “conscience clause” that would affect our hospitals,, then, possibly one should find a faith or church that fits their needs and can lead them to God also. This is no condemnation of those who don’t accept the teaching, it is just a matter of fact.
So, in my own humble opinion, I do feel that Father Jenkins, the Fellows and Board of Governors really didn’t think this out. It was something of prestige; and may I add “government funding” that may have helped in coming to such a decision.
As a graduate of many years ago, it would have never happened. We were truly Catholic at Notre Dame; and not Sometimes.
More than likely if you gave an examination on the Catechism of the Catholic Church to Notre Dame Students, Georgetown Students, Fordham Students, over half would fail and the rest would come in the C and D level.
Thanks for the time and blessings everyone. This too shall pass; so stay joyful and be at peace with yourself



report abuse
 

Malcolm B. Coate

posted April 1, 2009 at 8:21 pm


How about a compromise. The President speaks, but is not honored with a degree. Seems like the best that can be done to bring us all together.
And if Notre Dame goes ahead as planned, why shouldn’t someone (everyone associated with the invitation) do the honorable thing and resign. That would be change I can believe in.



report abuse
 

Gerard Nadal

posted April 1, 2009 at 9:20 pm


Re: Gerard Nadal
April 1, 2009 7:36 PM
“Then how about you tell those that you have voted in to actually make a change. If they are unable to do so, I suggest you take their seat. Unless anyone has a plan to actually deal with this situation, there is no point of any of this. Either make change happen, or shut up and get out of the way of those who will.”
Are you naive or just angry? Yes there is a point in all of this. This is how representative government works. Where have you been all of your life, in a Siberian Gulag? Don’t tell me to shut up, comrade. Your KGB days are behind you now. Get a copy of The Federalist Papers and read them.
BTW still not using a name? Try getting an identity of your own, before attacking people over theirs.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 2, 2009 at 12:11 am


Most Reverend Quinn,
We as americans and catholic are where we are today because the lay faithful have not stood up, bishops have not protected the teachings of the church and have allowed Theologian and their reforms to run over and minimize the faithful. We probably should have been their when bush was at Notre Dame, shame on us, but now we are talking about the lives of millions of God’s Children. We as lay faithful are sick of Christ message being tossed aside. Christ had a problem turning his temple into a market place, truly there is no difference here. ND is our modern day temple being used as a marketplace and it is Christ we are defending. Perhaps we have not been as civil as we oaught to be but this is just a very real sign of what is going on in Catholic Higher Education where theologians are hijacking generations of faithful young people with their twisted theology. The President can speak at any other secular college he wants, and these scribes wants to market in this temple and Pres. Obama is looking to profit and we need to be like Christ and protest.
If the US Bishops stand up for once, some Catholic may leave the Church but so did some of Christ’s disciples when he told them that he wanted them to eat of his body and drink of his blood. Christ did not weaver and simply stated the fact.
US Bishops find the Courage that Christ did, we, your flock, need you now!



report abuse
 

Bernard Lechowick

posted April 2, 2009 at 1:49 am


I’m a Notre Dame alumnus, neither more nor less holy than other alumnni. I’m embarrassed by the myopic, single-issue, self-righteous critics who claim that the president’s value system as divined from his political stances makes him unworthy to speak at ND’s commencement. What an embarrassment your noise is to the university. And, just in passing, where the hell was your “moral outrage” hiding when George W. Bush, responsible for a war the head of the UN called “illegal,” responsible for the deaths of untold thousands of viable human beings, responsible for human torture, responsible for threats to our Constitution, responsible for the de-professionalization of FEMA which led to more deaths — where was your moral outrage when he spoke? Are you benighted or dishonest or willfully ignorant?



report abuse
 

Gerard Nadal

posted April 2, 2009 at 7:36 am


Bernard,
” Are you benighted or dishonest or willfully ignorant?”
The war which so many on the left claim was illegal, was anything but. The Gulf War of 1992 was a legally prosecuted war. It had the requisite Congressional approval, as well as the added mandate of the UN.
That war did not end. The Iraqis signed a cease-fire agreement. The stipulations of that agreement were full cooperation with UN weapons inspectors, as well as full compliance by the military to stand down as directed by US and UN forces. Sny violation of the ceasefire would return the war to hot status. This was and is a legally binding document under international law.
What ensued was twelve years of thwarting the efforts of Hans Blix and the UN WMD team through bugging their hotel rooms, delays of up to a week in gaining access to WMD sites, and throwing the inspectors out of country repeatedly.
The Iraqi military locked up allied aircraft with their SAM radar as a matter of routine during allied patrols over the no-fly zones established after the slaughter of Shia and Kurds, also in violation of the ceasefire agreement,
After twelve years of repeated violations of the ceasefire, after seventeen UN Resolutions threatening, not a new declaration of war, but a resumption of hostilities in the twelve year old war, Pres. Bush acted decisively. The WMD list he had was the same one the UN had, compiled by its chief WMD Inspector, Hans Blix. Post 9/11, Bush resumed hostilities in a war that had legal approval under international law and had only been suspended because the Iraqi military pleaded for their lives with promises of full cooperation at dismantling their WMD program and handing over all WMD. Their repeated violations of the ceasefire opened them to the eventual resumption of hostilities.
In resuming hostilities, Bush restored credibility to UN Resolutions by giving them teeth. That so many civilians have died in Iraq is because of Iranian mendacity in training, supplying and promoting war on muslims by fellow muslims. Those aren’t US troops conducting suicide bombings.
Did you forget all of this Bernard? Allow me to pose your question to you in light of the hisotrical facts. Are you benighted or dishonest or willfully ignorant?



report abuse
 

Re:Gerard Nadal

posted April 2, 2009 at 11:10 am


I tell you what Gerard, if you don’t like how I’m posting (as far as the name I am under), don’t respond to me. Simple as that. What I told you was simple. Blogging all day and sniping at people like you always do doesn’t change anything. It doesn’t change the laws of this nation. Over 40 years later, abortion is still legal. Those so called “conservatives” you voted in didn’t do the trick. So why not take the bolder approach and run yourself? Calling people names isn’t going to change anything. You think commenting on every single blog about abortion is doing God’s work? You always seem upset when someone points this out to you. Maybe you should take their advice because let me tell you, you aren’t doing anything worthwhile to fix the problem that’s for sure. If you have nothing useful to offer to the cause (besides moaning and griping on Belief Net), then SHUT UP and move out the way and let the adults handle it.



report abuse
 

Gerard Nadal

posted April 2, 2009 at 11:31 am


Your Name,
What makes telling people with an alternative points of view to SHUT UP “adult”? I realize that dullards and cowards can’t take opposing points of view and prefer echo chambers so as to hear their own point of view repeatedly.
I never said that posting here was doing God’s work. My other work qualifies as such. Dealing with you is penance.
You seem to do more than your fair share of commenting, and all of it reactive in nature. What is your proactive solution? Telling others to run for office? Telling others to get out of your way? Suggesting that others are not as adult as you?



report abuse
 

Cindy

posted April 2, 2009 at 12:46 pm


Gerard –
As you are well aware, all of us are free to post on this board and in so doing we either expect to, or are certainly not surprised by, the answers we get from others.
So, I’m not sure where your hostility and animosity is coming from.
Do you post here with the intention of receiving back a “Yes, sir” from the reading populace?
How disappointing for you, if that’s the case.
I could match you snark for snark, and point out that you’ve now mentioned three times (that I’ve read) during this one discussion about President Obaama and Notre Dame that you have a PhD. So it must really bother you that he is getting an honorary one.
But what purpose would it serve?
We have differing views on Notre Dame’s invitation. We have differing views on how best to convert Pro-Choice Americans to Pro-Life Americans.
Fine. Then like one other poster said – don’t respond to me. Take the higher ground that you claim and simply leave me to my ramblings. You are the one who claims the best education, the best Catholicism, and the best understanding of exactly what God, the Pope and the magesterium wants — so just do it.
You really have nothing to fear from me. I vote Pro-Life. I work for Pro-Life causes. I tithe at my parish and in my Diocese. So really, I am not the enemy. Hard as that may be for you to believe.



report abuse
 

DML

posted April 2, 2009 at 3:06 pm


For those on the right, here is a modest proposal.
Impose a litmus test on all faculty and students at ND. If you approve of abortion (even in the Brazilian case), then no degree. Be willing to sign the anti-modernist pledge. We really should bring that one back.



report abuse
 

BAM

posted April 2, 2009 at 9:25 pm


Just a minor point: should the Bishops get their wish and make abortion illegal…the number of abortions will go up, not down. That’s what happens when a good or service is prohibited and the black market takes over. Mississippi has eliminated virtually all legal abortions, but has the number of women reporting having had an abortion changed? Nope.
The Bishops say they support life, but they push policies on condoms in Africa that have contributed to the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands. The pedophile supporting Bishops have no moral standing which may explain why they have ratcheted up the rhetoric and vitriol. I don’t recall any complaints when Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton were invited.
Ever since my priest announced from the pulpit that it was every good Catholic’s responsibility to vote Republican shortly before the 2004 election, I left the Church and have not returned. I will not vote for the minions of Satan and it is sad statement that the Bishops have chosen his side.



report abuse
 

kami

posted April 3, 2009 at 1:47 am


Unbielievable that the church would even have considered this invite.
What are they thinking??? A radical pro abotionist? Please reconsider this invite, it would only make his head larger.



report abuse
 

Jim Ashcraft

posted April 3, 2009 at 8:39 am


The invitation should not be withdrawn, however Fr. Jenkins and board should resign or be removed for this travesty!



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Pontifications. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Faith, Media and Culture Prayer, Plain and Simple Happy Blogging!!!  

posted 2:38:01pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

Moving on, and many, many thanks...
So...my recent vacation and related absences also coincided with an offer from PoliticsDaily.com to cover religion for them, as editor Melinda Henneberger announces here in her roundup on the site's very successful first 100 days. That means, in short, that I'll have to sign off from blogging h

posted 8:29:24pm Aug. 02, 2009 | read full post »

Calvin at 500, Calvinism 2.0
If you thought you knew John Calvin--who turned 500 last week--you probably don't know enough. For example, that he was French, born Jean Cauvin. And if he was in fact scandalized by dancing, he was also a lot more complex than that. I explored the new look Calvin in an essay at PoliticsDaily, "Patr

posted 11:53:35am Jul. 16, 2009 | read full post »

Apologia pro vita sua...Kinda
 In my defense, I've had computer outages and family reunions and a few days of single-parenthood, which is always a bracing reminder of what many parents go through all the time. And this weekend it's off for a week's vacation. Anyway, hence the long absence. Apologies to those who have chec

posted 10:51:36am Jul. 16, 2009 | read full post »

When Benny met Barry: "I'll pray for you!"
The first word via Vatican Radio and first image (that I saw) via Rocco: Speaking to Vatican Radio, Press Office Director Fr. Federico Lombardi said "moral values in international politics, immigration and the Catholic Church's contribution in developing countries" were key topics of discussio

posted 12:54:28pm Jul. 10, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.