Cardinal DiNardo ups the ante

posted at 11:15 am on March 29, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The protest over Notre Dame’s invitation to Barack Obama as a commencement speaker has grown to include four bishops and now a cardinal.  Andrew Malcolm reports that Cardinal Daniel DiNardo has added his considerable voice to the effort to convince Rev. John Jenkins, president of Notre Dame, to withdraw the invitation, or failing that, the honorary degree:

I find the invitation very disappointing. Though I can understand the desire by a university to have the prestige of a commencement address by the President of the United States, the fundamental moral issue of the inestimable worth of the human person from conception to natural death is a principle that soaks all our lives as Catholics, and all our efforts at formation, especially education at Catholic places of higher learning.”

The President has made clear by word and deed that he will promote abortion and will remove even those limited sanctions that control this act of violence against the human person.

The Bishops of the United States published a document a few years ago asking all Catholic universities to avoid giving a platform or an award to those politicians or public figures who promote the taking of unborn human life.

Even given the dignity of Office of the President, this offer is still providing a platform and an award for a public figure who has been candid on his pro-abortion views.

Particularly troubling is the Honorary Law Degree since it recognizes that the person is a ‘Teacher,’ in this case of the Law. I think that this decision requires charitable but vigorous critique.

The speaking gig could be rationalized as keeping with an open debate policy.  The university will also have Mary Ann Glendon speak at the same commencement.  Langdon served as US Ambassador to the Vatican and who just received the Laetare Award from Notre Dame for her tireless effort on pro-life causes.  The commencement could serve as a teaching moment, although it’s probably more accurate to say that it will send a very mixed message from the university about its view of the Catholic mission in public life.

Notre Dame has no ground on which to stand over the award of the honorary degree, however.  Barack Obama used his influence in law to pursue a path that allowed the maximum latitude in destroying innocent life, which is anathema to the Catholic Church and should be to Notre Dame as a part of it.  Giving him an award in recognition of his service to the law honors actions like blocking the Illinois Born Alive Protection Act on multiple occasions, which allowed abortion clinics to continue their practice of infanticide.  How can a part of the Catholic Church honor that?

More than 120,000 people agree, and have signed the petition demanding that Notre Dame withdraw the invitation or at least revoke the honorary degree.  The bishop of that diocese has already declared that he will boycott Notre Dame’s commencement activities.  Hopefully, the alumni will impress on Fr. Jenkins that the damage may go much further than just a truckload of petitions and a severe loss of prestige among the nation’s Catholic faithful.

Update: Divine intervention, via hockey?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5

Another Cardinal is attacking Michael Steele and refusing to go to a GOP meeting because of his Abortion stance.

At least the Church does stand for what it believes in.

William Amos on March 29, 2009 at 11:18 AM

What would be nice would be to see the entire student body walk out en masse as a protect against the “lightworker” and his policies. Prolly won’t happen, but it would be a grand thing if those students had the courage of their alleged convictions.

AW1 Tim on March 29, 2009 at 11:19 AM

But Andrew Sullivan said Obama banned torture (even though Bush abandoned aggressive interrogation years before he left office and McCain was equally against it as Obama). Doesn’t that make up for a bunch of fetuses?

Mr. Joe on March 29, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Pride geoth before the fall….

Fr. Jenkins… it’s a long way down.

katy on March 29, 2009 at 11:20 AM

I think that this decision requires charitable but vigorous critique.

Look out Barry! Here comes Sister Ann with that ruler again!

Good on the bishops and the cardinal. The lad needs a few doors slammed in his face.

Limerick on March 29, 2009 at 11:23 AM

Guess it depends on how many students chose ND for religious reasons or the quality of the education/cachet of the university. I graduated from a small Catholic college and I’m not even remotely Catholic, much less a die-hard Believer.

Bishop on March 29, 2009 at 11:23 AM

AW1 Tim on March 29, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Or silently stand up and turn their backs on him. They do want to stick around to get their diplomas.

Wethal on March 29, 2009 at 11:24 AM

There is still time for Obama to quietly declare that he has to clip his toe-nails on commencement day.

Baring that, the Church had better play hardball with the University.

Or risk looking foolish and weak.

artist on March 29, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Kinda funny…. I’m agnostic at best… yet I’m rooting for the Catholic church on this one…

If you believe in somthing, live by it… IMO its the lack of moral clarity acting upon your stated morals that is destroying this country…

We no longer celebrate those who live by their convictions, and in fact our media (TV) show just the opposite…

When you have a game show, Survivor, which is based on lieing and cheating, and then the best liar wins a million dollars? Wow… great messege…

Go Catholics… stand up for what you believe…

Romeo13 on March 29, 2009 at 11:26 AM

The speaking gig could be rationalized as keeping with an open debate policy.

……..

We will find out if they are Catholic first or a Univ first.

Catholic doctrine as far as I know (I’m no longer Catholic), does not allow for debate on abhor-tion.

If they want to be a secular Univ, I suggest they go that route.

artist on March 29, 2009 at 11:27 AM

Father Jenkins=Father Phleger?

artist on March 29, 2009 at 11:31 AM

Where were these Catholics before the campaign? Didn’t they know they were voting for the most radical abortionist President in history?

promachus on March 29, 2009 at 11:32 AM

At least the Church does stand for what it believes in.

William Amos on March 29, 2009 at 11:18 AM

You are soooo right. The Church protects the unborn while covered up for years the rape of childern by priests. I guess you are procted while the in mother’s womb; but once you leave it: watch out for the priests!!!!!!

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Or silently stand up and turn their backs on him. They do want to stick around to get their diplomas.

Wethal on March 29, 2009 at 11:24 AM

That’s what I was thinking. I suspect if just one student did it, many many would follow suit. Watching the press try to protect their leader would be just precious as well.

Patrick S on March 29, 2009 at 11:35 AM

The Catholic Church also opposes the death penalty. Why was it okay to invite Bush and not Obama? More hypocrisy from the Catholic Church.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 11:34 AM

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…

Limerick on March 29, 2009 at 11:35 AM

The speaking gig could be rationalized as keeping with an open debate policy.

If it is open debate, then Obama should NOT be allowed to have a teleprompter. Under those conditions, he might decline the invitation.

Right_of_Attila on March 29, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Could obama step down gracefully? I think he should, but do not know how he could go about it without offending someone somewhere. The College probably has much to lose either way. Whatever caused such a short sighted decision! Caught up in the charisma? Beginning to look that way.

jeanie on March 29, 2009 at 11:38 AM

How did Tiller the baby killer in Kansas get acquitted. Did Soros bribe the jury?

eaglesdontflock on March 29, 2009 at 11:39 AM

The Catholic Church also opposes the death penalty. Why was it okay to invite Bush and not Obama? More hypocrisy from the Catholic Church.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Not as a matter of doctrine, as it does with abortion. In fact, the church specifically does not reject it entirely, as explained in paragraph 2267 of the Catechism. Maybe if you didn’t get your anti-Catholic talking points from Jack Chick tracts, you’d know that.

Ed Morrissey on March 29, 2009 at 11:39 AM

What is hilarious is the that the Catholic hierachy still thinks is has moral authority when it come to “protecting” innocent children. Not even Catholics listen to what the Church has to say. The majority voted for Obama. I just wish the Bishops would spend their time regaining the trust of Catholics instead of these phony controversies. It is a tradition to invite POTUS regardless of the politics. STOP THE HYPOCRISY!!!!!

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 11:35 AM

You do have a point, though I might get schooled by someone for saying that. Maybe a Catholic can explain if there is some sort of reasoning about humans being fallible or inherent sinners or whatever.

Bishop on March 29, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Could obama step down gracefully? I think he should, but do not know how he could go about it without offending someone somewhere. The College probably has much to lose either way. Whatever caused such a short sighted decision! Caught up in the charisma? Beginning to look that way.

jeanie on March 29, 2009 at 11:38 AM

I’m starting to think we’ll hear some “Due to Secret Service concerns for his security, President Obama will not be…”.

Patrick S on March 29, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Ed Morrissey on March 29, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Well there ya go, I’ve been sent to school.

Bishop on March 29, 2009 at 11:40 AM

This is going to go down the same way having Dinnerjacket speak at that university last year….open exchange of ideas yada yada yada. Like I really need to listen to Charlie Manson explain the reasons for his butchery.

Limerick on March 29, 2009 at 11:41 AM

The Catholic Church also opposes the death penalty. Why was it okay to invite Bush and not Obama? More hypocrisy from the Catholic Church.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Look up the definition of mortal sin. The Church’s stance on abortion is more than just opposing it.

katiejane on March 29, 2009 at 11:41 AM

I think you need the ‘Mr. Irrelevant’ tagline here.

Catholic attitude toward abortion rights won’t change until Catholics in power start advocating for life. It is ridiculously disingenuous for the Catholic Church to start claiming righteous indignance when they voted for Obama WHOLESALE.

Catholic doctrine might say one thing. . . but they must not be teaching Catholic doctrine in Catholic Church if there are so many Catholics coming out of church in support of abortion rights. . . (Rudy, Steele, Pelosi, Kerry, Biden. . . etc. etc. etc).

Obama is NOT Catholic. Again, I’m sure you wish he were because then you’d be able to ex-communicate him.

The bigger issue is why do the Catholics support and vote for Obama in HUGE NUMBERS? However, it’s easier for Catholics to feign outrage in this instance because they get more press this way than say. . . merely voting against the people on principle in the first place.

ThackerAgency on March 29, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Romeo13 on March 29, 2009 at 11:26 AM

+a jillion

Sekhmet on March 29, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

This justifies self-defense. Not the death penalty. Take a look at the next sentence.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

You got that? If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend [life]….. authority WILL LIMIT itself to such means. You are the one who needs to get schooled in Catholic doctrine.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 11:44 AM

An enterprising Computer Science major could hack the Teleprompter…..

Sekhmet on March 29, 2009 at 11:47 AM

The invitation is to the office of the presidency, not to Obama as a political figure. This is a silly controversy.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 11:47 AM

However, it’s easier for Catholics to feign outrage in this instance because they get more press this way than say. . . merely voting against the people on principle in the first place.

ThackerAgency on March 29, 2009 at 11:44 AM

The conspiracy theorist in me assumes that Catholics don’t much care what the officials believe if they are actually Catholic. It is more important for Catholics to get Catholic leaders in place regardless of their views.

If abortion were an important tenant of the Catholic dogma, there wouldn’t be such resistance to a culture of life that is created by non-Catholics. But it seems worse for a person to be non-Catholic than to be a Catholic supporting abortion. When that dichotomy changes, come to me with righteous indignation.

Until then your complaints fall on deaf (Catholic) ears like Pelosi, Notre Dame, Rudy, Steele.

ThackerAgency on March 29, 2009 at 11:48 AM

Let’s see… in 2007 there were 47 judicial executions in the US, and approximately 1.2 million abortions. While I deplore both, it’s clear where the greater evil lies.

MilesfromKansas on March 29, 2009 at 11:48 AM

Perhaps the honest and admirable thing to do here might be for obama to simply state that he feels his speaking there would offend Catholic doctrine too profoundly and he does not wish to be an instrument of widespread dissent. Sure, it will annoy some, but it’s up front and straight forward. A new experience for obama? Bad side? The Catholic vote might start to re-think him.

jeanie on March 29, 2009 at 11:49 AM

if there are so many Catholics coming out of church in support of abortion rights. . . (Rudy, Steele, Pelosi, Kerry, Biden. . . etc. etc. etc

Because the majority of Catholics understand the separation of church and state. It is not the job of Catholic elected officials to use their position to codify into law Catholic doctrine. It is unconstitutional. It runs against the very founding principles of this country.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 11:35 AM

On a moral standing and not a doctrinal standing I will say this, approximately 126,000 babies are murdered everyday worldwide.

They were not convicted of a crime.
Given court appointed lawyers to defend them.
Given rights for countless appeals.

These babies are the most innocent among humanity and they are ripped apart in the womb. Tortured to death you might say (you seem to be in the anti-torture camp so that might trigger some sense of outrage in you).

How many convicted felons are executed in US prisons each year?
Each day?

5,000 babies are murdered each day in the US.
If you don’t see the contrast in your thinking, I’m not sure there is much to be done but by God himself.

katy on March 29, 2009 at 11:53 AM

The invitation is to the office of the presidency, not to Obama as a political figure. This is a silly controversy.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 11:47 AM

The issue is settled. We can close the thread.

Cicero43 on March 29, 2009 at 11:54 AM

What would be nice would be to see the entire student body walk out en masse as a protect against the “lightworker” and his policies. Prolly won’t happen, but it would be a grand thing if those students had the courage of their alleged convictions.

Perhaps they could toss tea bags at the stage?

Mutnodjmet on March 29, 2009 at 11:55 AM

My son-in-law is an alum from Notre Dame… I was at their home the other night when he lodged his dissatisfaction via email. My daughter helped him pick just the right words to frame their disgust, and included a statement that this speaking and honorary degree situation could make it impossible for any of my 4 grandchildren to attend that university.
-
Hit them where it hurts…-

RalphyBoy on March 29, 2009 at 11:55 AM

The invitation is to the office of the presidency, not to Obama as a political figure.

I fully endorse replacing POTUS with TOTUS.

Ed Morrissey on March 29, 2009 at 11:56 AM

The invitation is to the office of the presidency, not to Obama as a political figure. This is a silly controversy.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Where to begin with this nonsense….

You insult your intelligence

katy on March 29, 2009 at 11:56 AM

It is not the job of Catholic elected officials to use their position to codify into law Catholic doctrine. It is unconstitutional.

…….

No, it’s not.

It is not unconstitutional for religious figures to push people to pro-life positions, when voting or otherwise.

artist on March 29, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Catholics are not historically known to vote their supposed religious convictions

If they did, we would undoubtedly control the White house and both houses of congress.

conservnut on March 29, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Ed Morrissey on March 29, 2009 at 11:56 AM

LOL

katy on March 29, 2009 at 11:57 AM

katy

The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty based on the santicty of human life argument. They make no distinction between innocent or “guilty” life. So your hysterics add nothing to the debate.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 11:58 AM

The invitation is to the office of the presidency, not to Obama as a political figure.

…..

So the Ofc of the Presidency can be used for Iran, N Korea and Cuba too?

See, they are foreign heads of state. It’s about their Ofc/title not them, right?

artist on March 29, 2009 at 11:59 AM

I fully endorse replacing POTUS with TOTUS.

Ed Morrissey on March 29, 2009 at 11:56 AM

Ok Ed, help me out here. I have seen reference to TOTUS in a few threads but have apparently missed it’s meaning. What does TOTUS stand for?

conservnut on March 29, 2009 at 11:59 AM

Perhaps obama’s biggest problem here is not that he is pro-choice but that he has sanctioned a kind of late term abortion that even many main stream Protestants find abhorrent and unacceptable. I know I do at that level. And even if his speaking engagement takes place the 800 lb gorilla is going to color and destroy it all. He needs to back out.

jeanie on March 29, 2009 at 11:59 AM

It runs against the very founding principles of this country.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 11:49 AM

abortion isn’t a RELIGIOUS ISSUE. . . until Catholics make it one. Abortion is MURDER. Non-Catholics understand that as a whole. Catholics don’t have a problem with anything unless they are told by a bishop.

The law against abortion isn’t crafted from some religion. . . unless you think that thou shalt not murder is the sole reason for our laws against murder (thereby making it a religious ruling that is ‘against the very founding principles of this country’).

Why don’t Catholics believe that abortion is terrible? Ed seems like the only one who does (maybe he shouldn’t be Catholic to avoid being stained with the same hypocritical stereotype that is prevalent among Catholics). The Catholic Church seems to only care when the hierarchy of the Church senses the ability to get some publicity and headlines.

ThackerAgency on March 29, 2009 at 12:00 PM

I graduated from a small Catholic college and I’m not even remotely Catholic, much less a die-hard Believer.

Bishop on March 29, 2009 at 11:23 AM

I thought you were some crazy outspoken Bishop of the the Catholic Church and had one of those cool pointed hats.

WashJeff on March 29, 2009 at 12:00 PM

What does TOTUS stand for?

conservnut on March 29, 2009 at 11:59 AM

just go here.

WashJeff on March 29, 2009 at 12:01 PM

even many main stream Protestants find abhorrent and unacceptable.

HAHAHAHAHA! main stream Protestants find ALL ABORTION ABHORRENT. We don’t need a pope or bishop to tell us that. Our shepherd is Jesus, not a person.

Apparently you have been told that only Catholics are pro-life.

ThackerAgency on March 29, 2009 at 12:01 PM

What does TOTUS stand for?

Teleprompter of the United States.

A reference to the fact Obama can’t seem to string together a coherent sentence without one — so the Teleprompter must be the real American leader.

Mutnodjmet on March 29, 2009 at 12:01 PM

My daughter helped him pick just the right words to frame their disgust, and included a statement that this speaking and honorary degree situation could make it impossible for any of my 4 grandchildren to attend that university.

Are you so delusional as to think that no pro-choice people have graduated or taught at Notre Dame? Let me up the ante. Are you so delusional to think that no one associated with Notre Dame (student, teacher, staff) has ever had an abortion?

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:01 PM

What does TOTUS stand for?

conservnut on March 29, 2009 at 11:59 AM

Teleprompter of…

H/T Rush.

artist on March 29, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Please qualify what you consider hysterics…

Didn’t see that one.

As far as the church and the death penalty, you are selectively reading comments on this thread. Ed clarified it in this post,

Not as a matter of doctrine, as it does with abortion. In fact, the church specifically does not reject it entirely, as explained in paragraph 2267 of the Catechism. Maybe if you didn’t get your anti-Catholic talking points from Jack Chick tracts, you’d know that.

Ed Morrissey on March 29, 2009 at 11:39 AM

katy on March 29, 2009 at 12:03 PM

This is a silly controversy.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 11:47 AM

It has been said, so shall it be…

NOT!!!

Yoop on March 29, 2009 at 12:03 PM

just go here.

WashJeff on March 29, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Gotcha, thanks

conservnut on March 29, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 11:49 AM

If this is so silly, why are you so worked up about it? This is not a matter of using political authority to codify Catholic doctrine. This is about the souls of the politicians who use their position to expand access and thus enable the murder of innocent babies. Is there anything in the constitution that provides a right to abortion? I would like to see it if you find it. This is the oath of office in case you’re not clear:

“I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

msmveritas on March 29, 2009 at 12:04 PM

The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty based on the santicty of human life argument. They make no distinction between innocent or “guilty” life. So your hysterics add nothing to the debate.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 11:58 AM

And your spin on what you think Catholics “believe” adds nothing to the debate.

katiejane on March 29, 2009 at 12:04 PM

I thought you were some crazy outspoken Bishop of the the Catholic Church and had one of those cool pointed hats.
WashJeff on March 29, 2009 at 12:00 PM

I was excommunicated from the church for refusing the wear the hat on account of it creating havoc with my hair style. Well…that and unrepentant lust for women.

Bishop on March 29, 2009 at 12:05 PM

artist

How are you man? I was just explaining why so many Catholic politicians take a pro-choice stance as a matter of public policy. They personally are pro-life based on their Catholic beliefs but recognize that the separation of church and state forbids them trying to use the power of government to impose their religious (Catholic) views on the whole population.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Any person that can recall recent history–liberals will have to Google this–recalls the student protests when Bush, Rice, etc. were scheduled to deliver commencement speeches. The press framed these as “valiant students standing up to the Warmonger/Gaia Killer.”

Should the ND students do likewise, they will be framed by Obama’s National PR Dept the press as “religious students disrespecting the Office Of The President.”

Patrick S on March 29, 2009 at 12:07 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:01 PM

You’re missing the issue here, which was made very clear by: The Bishops of the United States published a document a few years ago asking all Catholic universities to avoid giving a platform or an award to those politicians or public figures who promote the taking of unborn human life.

Based on Obama’s efforts with BAIPA and his weak defense of it later, I wouldn’t say he’s even a good attorney, not good enough to merit an honorary degree, certainly. This is more hypocritical of the Church than the pedophile cases.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 12:07 PM

I’m not Catholic and have been pro-choice most of my life until a recent second look, and just…cannot…believe Ogabe was invited to this bastion of Catholic education.

What’s next, Bill Ayers at Boston College?

Oh wait. Ayers is speaking there tonight at 6pm (no joke).

ex-Democrat on March 29, 2009 at 12:07 PM

I was excommunicated from the church for refusing the wear the hat on account of it creating havoc with my hair style. Well…that and unrepentant lust for women.

Bishop on March 29, 2009 at 12:05 PM

You forgot the Ace of Spades finish to your comment: but mostly unrepentant lust for women.

WashJeff on March 29, 2009 at 12:07 PM

Why don’t Catholics believe that abortion is terrible? Ed seems like the only one who does (maybe he shouldn’t be Catholic to avoid being stained with the same hypocritical stereotype that is prevalent among Catholics). The Catholic Church seems to only care when the hierarchy of the Church senses the ability to get some publicity and headlines.

Wow, from under what rock did you crawl out?

MilesfromKansas on March 29, 2009 at 12:08 PM

Hey Chek.

You cause a storm wherever you go!

artist on March 29, 2009 at 12:08 PM

ex-Democrat on March 29, 2009 at 12:07 PM

HA posted an article the other day that said they retracted that invite. What gives?

katy on March 29, 2009 at 12:09 PM

Is there anything in the constitution that provides a right to abortion?

No. There isn’t. And that is why Roe vs. Wade was a bad – constitutionally speaking – decision. There is also NOTHING in the Constitution to prohibit abortion. It is a matter to be left for the people to decide and everytime they have voted on ballot initiative banning abortion, the people spoke and kept abortion legal.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:09 PM

The lad needs a few doors slammed in his face.

Limerick on March 29, 2009 at 11:23 AM

You nail it … President Sociopath has NEVER been told “no” before….never.

We had a chance until Sphincter, Snowe, and Collins were paid off.

Now a Catholic priest gives Ogabe a Sinclair.

ex-Democrat on March 29, 2009 at 12:10 PM

The Catholic Church also opposes the death penalty. Why was it okay to invite Bush and not Obama? More hypocrisy from the Catholic Church.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 11:35 AM

WRONG! The Catholic Church has supported the death penalty for nearly 2000 years. JPII’s comments were outside the teaching of the Magesterium and carried no weight other than the opinion of the man JPII. JPII also kissed the Koran, an act which would make the saints roll over in their graves. Pius IX, X, XI all would be appalled by the post-Vatican liturgical changes, ecumenism and dialog all of which have served to weaken the Church.

Charles Martel on March 29, 2009 at 12:10 PM

I used to have the hope that the political actions of the Catholic Church would drive people from it and it would become the small cult it should be. I no longer have any such delusions. Most Catholics when they learn of the hierarchy’s political stances just shrug them off. Now, my hope is that the Catholic hierarchy’s political activities get more attention, so as to get the Catholic laity to become even more apathetic about the political values of the hierarchy.

thuja on March 29, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Artist

I didn’t start this.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Oh wait. Ayers is speaking there tonight at 6pm (no joke).

ex-Democrat on March 29, 2009 at 12:07 PM

I am pretty sure that invite was rescinded.

msmveritas on March 29, 2009 at 12:11 PM

Still waiting for Chekote’s reply…. waiting…

katy on March 29, 2009 at 12:11 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:06 PM

I seriously doubt that, and morality has nothing to do with religion. The Church has taken a pro-life moral stance. The government, since Roe v. Wade, has taken a pro-choice moral stance. “Separation of church and state” is from the Commie Manifesto; there is nothing in our Constitution regarding it. Regardless, it’s not the issue here.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 12:11 PM

Not only should the invitation and honorary doctorate award be rescinded, but Jenkins should resign and if that isn’t forthcoming, he should be removed.

Heck, anyone associated with having pushed Obama’s commencement address invitation should be summarily fired.

Dusty on March 29, 2009 at 12:11 PM

I figured that the Catholic vote was quite literally our last salvation and insurance policy against the catastrophe of an Obama election. Instead they voted 54% for the most abortion-friendly, anti-Christian secularist and pro-baby killing( for stem cell research ) individual who has ever lived.

When the Catholic Church starts paying property taxes, sees its parochial schools (ten times better than the disasters which pass as public schools)closed,sees “God” taken off buildings and currency, and hundreds of thousands of additional babies slaughtered like cattle, they cannot look elsewhere to affix blame. In fact, the Notre Dame invite would never have to have been made if the Catholics had voted with their consciences.

MaiDee on March 29, 2009 at 12:12 PM

Yes Ayers appearance was cancelled

msmveritas on March 29, 2009 at 12:13 PM

ThackerAgency on March 29, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Appreciate your input, but this main stream Protestant(Episcopal)(not evengelical by my defintion)does NOT come out strongly against early abortion. I do come out strongly against late term abortion especially that which the obama administration rescinded the ban on. If that offends your brand of Protestantism, then so be it.

jeanie on March 29, 2009 at 12:14 PM

HA posted an article the other day that said they retracted that invite. What gives?

katy on March 29, 2009 at 12:09 PM

I didn’t know that. I will look for the info …. of course, I spend SEVEN HOURS waiting for Mark Levin’s book sig yesterday so I’m a little behind in my revolution fomentations.

Found it: Looks like students and local leftists are trying to move it off-campus.

Thank you for pointing this out. I really try to be 100% accurate in my posts.

ex-Democrat on March 29, 2009 at 12:14 PM

It isn’t until your further along in life that you realize that your faith is really forefront to all of your deeds and accomplishments. It would indeed be a rewarding endeavour for each student to walk out of the speech and confirm the commitment to their own beliefs in their own lives.

Catholic “light” brings belivers only perceived merit within their broader community, but does not provide the the solid rock of faith within their own lives.

I do wish the Church would stand firm and unwavering in their commitment to all human life. It would be such a wonderful thing to think that we were all joined together in the ultimate celebration of life.

caygeon on March 29, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Nice job Chekote…

Where’s the beef? What no answers? No ideas? Stumped on HA…. sheesh, that was easy….

katy on March 29, 2009 at 12:16 PM

I really try to be 100% accurate in my posts.

ex-Democrat on March 29, 2009 at 12:14 PM

I tend to go for 98.9% just because I like wiggle room.. ;o)

katy on March 29, 2009 at 12:18 PM

The invitation is to the office of the presidency, not to Obama as a political figure. This is a silly controversy.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 11:47 AM

The presidency is the ultimate political position.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 12:18 PM

And your spin on what you think Catholics “believe” adds nothing to the debate.

katiejane on March 29, 2009 at 12:04 PM

It is not spin. It is Catholic doctrine. Here from the 2267:

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

The Catholic opposition to the death penalty is based on the principle of the dignity of the human person. The Catholic Church makes allowance for self-defence (if that is the only option available to protect life). It is the same reasoning for allowing an abortion to save the mother’s life.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:19 PM

Where’s the beef? What no answers? No ideas? Stumped on HA…. sheesh, that was easy….

katy on March 29, 2009 at 12:16 PM

What are you talking about?

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:21 PM

“Separation of church and state” is from the Commie Manifesto; there is nothing in our Constitution regarding it. Regardless, it’s not the issue here.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 12:11 PM

So now the concept of separation of church and state is communism? And of course, it is the issue here. We are discussing why so many Catholic politicians are pro-choice.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:22 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:19 PM

This started when you equated the death penalty with abortion.

My arguement was that there is NO equating the two church doctrines. The church states clearly that abortion is against doctrine with no limits. The death penalty indeed has limits. So to equate the two stances is intellectually dishonet

katy on March 29, 2009 at 12:25 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:19 PM

However you spin it – the RCC does not equate support of the death penalty with support of abortion. Someone who facilitates implementation of the death penalty has not committed a mortal sin requiring coonfession – however according to the RCC someone who participates in aborting a baby does. So in the eyes of the Church they are not equal.

katiejane on March 29, 2009 at 12:27 PM

The church states clearly that abortion is against doctrine with no limits.

Really? How about the life of the mother?

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:27 PM

Really? How about the life of the mother?

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:27 PM

Nope. Church says if it is God’s will, the mother will go when her time is up.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Someone who facilitates implementation of the death penalty has not committed a mortal sin requiring coonfession – however according to the RCC someone who participates in aborting a baby does.

More hypocrisy on the part of the Church. They oppose both abortion and the death penalty because of the principle of the dignity of human person. The doctrine makes exceptions only in cases when there is no other option available to protect life, i.e. self-defence and the life of the mother. Same principle. Same exceptions. Same thing. The fact that the Church enforces one more than the other just shows how intellectually dishonest the Church is. That’s why they keep losing moral authority among their followers.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:34 PM

If the Catholic church can’t hole the line at its own private schools they they should really stop preaching about abortion. They might want to rename the school Notre Dame Du Couteau to honor female abortionists and the muted clergy at the university. As the prophet of the competing Islamic superstition said: Silence means consent.

Annar on March 29, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Correction: hole —> hold in my last post.

Annar on March 29, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:22 PM

*In 1776, 11 of the 13 colonies required that one had to be a Christian to be eligible to run for political office.

*Our DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE declares, “…the laws of nature and of nature’s God… We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights… appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions…”

*The GETTYSBURG ADDRESS states “…this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom…”

*94% OF THE WRITINGS OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS OF THE U.S. CONTAINED QUOTATIONS FROM THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.

*THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS OF ALL 50 STATES MENTION GOD.

*The NATIONAL ANTHEM written by Francis Scott Key (who was also director of the American Bible Society) says: “This be our motto – ‘In God Is Our Trust’.”

*The motto, “In God We Trust” was adopted by Congress in 1956. It is inscribed on our coins and currency.

*On that First “Thanksgiving”, who do you think the people were giving thanks to? To God!

*Our PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE declares that we are “…one nation, under God…”

*The famous “Liberty Bell” has part of Leviticus 25:10 inscribed on it: “Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.”

*Part of the Scripture Proverbs 14:34 is inscribed above the L.A. city hall door: “RIGHTEOUSNESS EXALTETH A NATION: BUT SIN IS A REPROACH TO ANY PEOPLE.”

Does that sound like “separation of Church and State” to you?

*An image of Moses carrying the tablets of God’s Law faces the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

*The U.S. Congress begins every session with prayer.

*The entering President takes his courtroom OATH OF OFFICE with his right hand on the Holy Bible, and concludes his vow “So help me God.”

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:27 PM

Please, please for once someone please show me the proof of this ridiculous talking point. This lie has been perped for decades and it is a lie.
When the life of the mother has been in serious physical danger of loss, then yes. This happenes so rarely and has been used to justify the killing of millions of babies. Read this link about this subject.

The bottom line is the mother’s life arguement is a straw man and you know it.

http://bluewavecanada.blogspot.com/2007/04/when-pregnancy-threatens-mothers-life.html

katy on March 29, 2009 at 12:37 PM

I hate to say this, but Notre Dame is simply doing what it started back in 1967 when it adopted a lay board of trustees which enabled them to get government funding, it typically receives $80 million in federal grants a year. It ended the control of the university by the Congregation of the Holy Cross in order to get the government funding. Today most of the faculty is Liberal and many are non-Catholic. And any loss of revenue from alumni over this incident will be more than offset by the school’s contract with NBC Sports. As far as I’m concerned Notre Dame is Catholic in name only, and they should just change their name to Our Lady of Greed.

Deanna on March 29, 2009 at 12:39 PM

He is the President .

getalife on March 29, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5