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 4 5

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:34 PM

YOUR president is the biggest hippocrit to walk this earth, he has told more lies and broken more promises than any other in history and you have the right to cry ‘hippocrisy’?!. When you realize that you are a dolt and have been played like a violin, maybe you will see that the RCC has it’s faults, but they are true to their teachings. I have yet to hear a libtard like you, have an open discussion without bringing up another theme to muddy the waters. You cannot stay on topic, just like your idiot telepromter pres. You are a joke, and we are laughing at you……*sigh*

clinker46 on March 29, 2009 at 12:40 PM

That’s why they keep losing moral authority among their followers.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Apparently, the majority of their followers are communists, which is problematic, but theirs to deal with. The Church is doing a poor job of keeping their sheep in the fold, letting them wander off to get abortions and turn tricks on K Street. Oh, well.

Obama giving the commencement to the graduating class of Notre Dame sends a very strong message from the Church that they don’t care about upholding fundamental moral tenets.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 12:41 PM

He is the President.

getalife on March 29, 2009 at 12:39 PM

And he’s a poor choice of role model for Catholics.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 12:42 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

Brava! Nail on the head!

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 12:43 PM

katy on March 29, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Thank you for that link. Yes life of the mother is a straw man and the Church is always on the side of saving both but does not support means that are a direct end to one life over the other. Chekote’s interpretation implies the Church supports abortion to save the life of the mother which is just not the case.

msmveritas on March 29, 2009 at 12:44 PM

I think Obama will bow out. He doesn’t like it when people don’t like him and he won’t be able to pack that venue with Obama supporters.

ctmom on March 29, 2009 at 12:44 PM

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

chunderroad

WRONG! From americancatholic.org:

4. Medical necessity. What about the argument that the Church must make exceptions to its teaching when abortion is medically necessary for the mother’s health or a child’s disability?

First, while the Church opposes all direct abortions, it does not condemn procedures which result, indirectly, in the loss of the unborn child as a “secondary effect.” For example, if a mother is suffering an ectopic pregnancy (a baby is developing in her fallopian tube, not the womb), a doctor may remove the fallopian tube as therapeutic treatment to prevent the mother’s death. The infant will not survive long after this, but the intention of the procedure and its action is to preserve the mother’s life. It is not a direct abortion.

http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0898.asp

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:44 PM

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

Your ignorance is really embarrassing.

neuquenguy on March 29, 2009 at 12:45 PM

MaiDee at 12:12: You are so right.

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

I think you’ll find that the Catholics who are outraged are largely the ones who voted against Obama in the first place – people like me – and there are many, many of us. But sadly, your first question is all too pertinent. It was one of the most discouraging things I saw in this election: how many Catholics, through ignorance or misguided self-interest, voted for The One who promised “Hope and “Change” but no protection for the unborn – not even for a baby who survived a botched abortion.

I’ll never forget a homily I heard in mid-November from an older priest who talked about his hard-working, devout parents, who worked multiple jobs to support their family, didn’t have fancy cars or vacations, and put their family and faith first. He finished with “And they would never have voted for Barack Obama.” I wanted to cry.

Rosmerta on March 29, 2009 at 12:46 PM

Chekote’s interpretation implies the Church supports abortion to save the life of the mother which is just not the case.

msmveritas on March 29, 2009 at 12:44 PM

You are right. The Church is more nuanced that my statements. But the end result is the same: termination of a pregnacy, i.e. abortion. I think the Catholic Church would do better to just say that abortion is permitted if necessary to save the mother’s life instead of the phony direct and indirect argument.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:47 PM

We are discussing why so many Catholic politicians are pro-choice.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:22 PM

Again, morality and religion are mutually exclusive. The Church takes a moral position. The government takes a moral position. Many politicians will say what they must to get elected. A Catholic who professes to be pro-choice because of “separation of Church and State” certainly is.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 12:48 PM

It was the honorary degree that got me. Notre Dame has given up its root principles to attract faculty and students. Kinda like moderate republicans, no real principles, just a desire to go along to get along.

I see the usual anti-Catholic commenters are out in force. I’m surprised they haven’t called the Pope a Nazi yet.

Zorro on March 29, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Apparently you only want absolutes and have trouble with Catholic concept of differing levels of sins. That is of course your choice but it doesn’t mean that the Church is wrong – just that YOU disagree. It is not the same to to the Church. The RC has objected to abortion as a baby is an “innocent” life – a criminal convicted of crimes under law does not have the same innocence.

katiejane on March 29, 2009 at 12:49 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:47 PM

It is not “nuance.” The Church does not choose one life over another. You cite an example of an ectopic pregnancy where the “child” would have died, anyway. A fetus cannot develop in a fallopian tube, but it can kill the mother that way. The Church gives careful thought to how it phrases its arguments.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Catholic doctrine differentiates between “the murder of innocents (not just unborn, but ALL innocents)” and the death penalty carried out against convicted criminals.

These are NOT the same ‘life’ issues.

ExTex on March 29, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Your ignorance is really embarrassing.

neuquenguy on March 29, 2009 at 12:45 PM

So far I have backed up every statement I made. You calling me ignorant doesn’t make it so. The same would be true if I were to call you intelligent. Just because I say it, it doesn’t make it so.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM

ND has already got a rough road ahead for their football team (I’m still an Irish fan, though…). Why exacerbate it with decreased alumni dollars?

Keep the TOTUS off the stage. And for the love of G-d, don’t give that babykiller a honorary anything.

bluelightbrigade on March 29, 2009 at 12:56 PM

Obama giving the commencement to the graduating class of Notre Dame sends a very strong message from the Church that they don’t care about upholding fundamental moral tenets.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 12:41 PM

They already have done that when they chose to protect molesting priests instead of turning them in to the authorities. Where is Cardinal Law (The enabler-in-chief) these days?

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:59 PM

the Church is always on the side of saving both but does not support means that are a direct end to one life over the other.
msmveritas on March 29, 2009 at 12:44 PM

Exactly right! And the pro-choice movement has twisted this simple concept into a sound bite that has given rise to justifying the disgusting and pointless murder of millions of babies.

katy on March 29, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM

Heh. Kind of like Obama calling himself Leader of the Free World as he marches us toward fascism.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:47 PM

I was a Catechist for 9 years and I can tell you it is nuanced with good reason. The circumstance where one life is to be spared over another are rare and nuanced in and of themselves. They advise consultation with clergy in such situations. I know of one situation that involved a very complicated medical matter, where a mother was counseled and supported by the Church throughout her entire pregnancy. The mother and twins in this case all came through fine. My 2nd grade class prayed for the family the entire time and felt their prayers assisted in a miracle. There is no charade to permit some abortions.

msmveritas on March 29, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Why do you continue to take the subject of abortion off into other debates? Death penalty, now molesting priest. This is the liberal way. Throw so much crap out there and hope no one stays focused enough to challenge the original point.
Convince us your correct on one issue and then we can take on the next debate.

This is weak…

katy on March 29, 2009 at 1:04 PM

More from the American Catholic website:

There also occur, very rarely, situations in which, in order to save the mother’s life, the child needs to be delivered early. But this can be done safely with a normal, induced delivery, or a caesarean section.

So it you have to deliver the child prematurily to save the mother’s life, you may do so even if the procedure will end up in the child’s death.

The Catholic Church allows the termination of a pregnacy in cases where the mother’s life is at stake. CASE CLOSED.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:04 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Well, we agree on that. Obama giving the commencement address is *as hypocritical as* covering up sexual abuse perpetrated by the Church’s own priests.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 1:04 PM

your= you’re

katy on March 29, 2009 at 1:04 PM

katy

Argue the points instead of name calling. Talk about acting like a liberal!

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:06 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:04 PM

That is another example of death of the infant being a “secondary effect.” In this case, the natural human gestation period is cut short, but consideration to both lives is given. Not what you’re arguing at all.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 1:09 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:04 PM

You’re clearly not able to discern what is being stated. Case not closed. You simply can’t justify this rare occurrence with the killing of millions of babies.

katy on March 29, 2009 at 1:09 PM

I am baffled that a man celebrating INFANTICIDE could be invited in the first place, regardless of his office. Hussein supports the slaying of infants born alive, by the miracle of what some might call divine intervention, during a barbaric despicable and unnecessary act.

No woman need risk pregnancy, if they choose to prevent it.

dogsoldier on March 29, 2009 at 1:10 PM

CASE CLOSED.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:04 PM

Just because I say it, it doesn’t make it so.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM

So, who died and made you God this afternoon? Schizo much?

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 1:10 PM

The Catholic Church allows the termination of a pregnacy in cases where the mother’s life is at stake. CASE CLOSED.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:04 PM

Delivering a child early can result in a life unless of course some nurse puts them in a laundry bin and withholds life saving measures. You are not going to convince me there are absolutes in this, you’re just wrong.

msmveritas on March 29, 2009 at 1:11 PM

So far I have backed up every statement I made. You calling me ignorant doesn’t make it so. The same would be true if I were to call you intelligent. Just because I say it, it doesn’t make it so.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM

You THINK you have backed up every statement you made. Unfortunately for you, your attempts to use quotes to back them up simply show a real difficulty with reading comprehension.
Equating the issues of abortion and the death penalty in Catholic doctrine or to put them at a similar level betrays a complete luck of understanding on the church’s teaching on these issues. Abortion is an intrinsic evil, it’s always wrong. The death penalty, or even killing a person are NOT intrinsic evils, they are right or wrong depending on the circumstances. The teaching of the church on these issues are not based on the same principles.
Furthermore, to suggest that the fact that it is not evil of an abortion is terminated as the result of some procedure (which is not directed to terminating the pregnancy) is governed by the same principles as self-defense is incorrect.

neuquenguy on March 29, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Argue the points instead of name calling. Talk about acting like a liberal!

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:06 PM

I asked you before to give me an example of my hysterics in my first post. Which there were none.
No reply…
Using the work weak in describing your arguement is not name calling. It’s a statement.

katy on March 29, 2009 at 1:12 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

Yeah, true. With abortion, though, life never had a chance. But the death penalty’s something different; the chance was squandered. The Catholic Church is also opposed to murder. Just in their eyes, a murderer gets a mulligan and you can’t execute a murderer. I vehemently disagree with the Church’s stance on the DP. Some people jus’ need killin’.

RickZ on March 29, 2009 at 1:12 PM

msmveritas

I know a couple whose doctor told them – after a sonogram – that the baby was not developing normally. They chose to bring the pregnancy to term because they are pro-life. The baby was born with no anus, abnormal brain and several other malformities. A few days after birth, they pulled life support and the baby died in a few hours. Did they kill him?

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:12 PM

work=word

katy on March 29, 2009 at 1:13 PM

I asked you before to give me an example of my hysterics in my first post. Which there were none.

That whole post about killing babies was hysterical.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:14 PM

A few days after birth, they pulled life support and the baby died in a few hours. Did they kill him?

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:12 PM

It depends on what the life support was. If it was extraordinary means no they didn’t and God called the child home on His own.

msmveritas on March 29, 2009 at 1:15 PM

That whole post about killing babies was hysterical.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:14 PM

How. Give me specifics so I can learn to debate better. Was it the numbers and facts I sited? Maybe the capital letters and exclaimation marks? Maybe the name calling? Help me here.

katy on March 29, 2009 at 1:16 PM

The Catholic Church allows the termination of a pregnacy in cases where the mother’s life is at stake. CASE CLOSED.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:04 PM

Either you do not understand what you read or you purposefully miss-represent it.
Since you feel you can back up everything you say (which you should if you are going to pretend to speak with authority on catholic doctrine) why don’t you back this statement up with a quote from the catechism?

neuquenguy on March 29, 2009 at 1:16 PM

As a 1967 alum,I took the advice of a poster on this site about contacting the “legacy office” I received an immediate email and then a phone call. She was very understanding and I could tell that as an employee of the university and a grad, she was also upset. I emailed Jenkins as well as other alum groups and groups on campus. This is indeed a sad day for ND. They will no longer get money from me or in my estate or season football tickets. Our Lady of the Lake has become Our Lady Of Commerce and Expediency. Immelt gave the 2005 Commencement Speech[my nephew was graduating] and made an offside comment about teaching Jenkins how to operate ND as a business and corp,,,there you have it. GE has done well,,hasn’t it????? Good luck ND.

retiredeagle on March 29, 2009 at 1:18 PM

I vehemently disagree with the Church’s stance on the DP.

RickZ on March 29, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Yet abortion is a MORTAL i.e. death, sin. Does that mean that the death penalty is allowed for abortion? They talk out of the many sides of their mouth.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Maybe the capital letters and exclaimation marks? Maybe the name calling? Help me here.

BINGO! There is no need for all that. The pro-life movement has gained no ground because of such hysterics. It would be better to have a rational debate.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:20 PM


That whole post about killing babies was hysterical.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:14 PM


How. Give me specifics so I can learn to debate better. Was it the numbers and facts I sited? Maybe the capital letters and exclaimation marks? Maybe the name calling? Help me here.

katy on March 29, 2009 at 1:16 PM

In case you decided not to read it the first time.

katy on March 29, 2009 at 1:21 PM

why don’t you back this statement up with a quote from the catechism?

neuquenguy on March 29, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Why don’t you take your beef to the AmericanCatholic.org? They are the one putting out the info. Not me.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:22 PM

Katy

I responded.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:22 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:20 PM

um…. there were no capital letters. No name calling. No exclaimation marks…hence, no Bingo….

You’ve lost this one Chekote…

katy on March 29, 2009 at 1:23 PM

retiredeagle

Did Clinton speak at ND?

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:23 PM

Chekote,
serioulsy, You have a passion. It’s misdirected. Take the time to read through the post. Click the link I gave you. Study the subject, read the catachism, the Bible, but use your passion for a worthy cause and get the facts.
Use your own mind and not what others have filled it with. You may end up to be a more serious challenge someday.

katy on March 29, 2009 at 1:27 PM

Notre Dame is being used. Obamabi will use the visit and honorary degree to say, “Well see, this whole notion that uh, all, uh Catholics don’t agree on ,uh what the Church teaches on abortion means that Catholics can support me with a uh, clear conscience”. If you are Catholic, you should be ashamed if you voted for this sham of a tell-a-prompter. You been had.

sheriff246 on March 29, 2009 at 1:29 PM

Katy

You did use bold lettering:

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

The whole tone is hysterical.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:31 PM

katy

The Bible says nothing about abortion. Actually, I can find where God advocated killing children.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:32 PM

It depends on what the life support was. If it was extraordinary means no they didn’t and God called the child home on His own.

msmveritas on March 29, 2009 at 1:15 PM

Life support is life support. Without it, you are dead.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:34 PM

Yes, I think Clinton did also and that was just as wrong but if one wants to start comparing and talking moral relativity,,,at least clinton did not have the pro-death record that this clown does. Once you start down that slippery slope of not supporting your core principles,,,,,the snowball builds and eventually there is no recognition of who and what you really are. ND has continually rolled that snowball faster and bigger and this is the final drop off point for me and a lot of others. The Cardinals thoughts say it all.. I would not be surprised if the Pope weighed in at some level. However, it is really a lost cause,, an overwhelming majority of seniors agree with abortion according to a campus poll,,,for whatever that is worth.

retiredeagle on March 29, 2009 at 1:35 PM

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Belief in GOD does not equal church or a particular religious doctrine. So you quoting elected officials referencing God is completely meaningless.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:37 PM

Its all about principle, baby.

Ryan Gandy on March 29, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:32 PM

New Testament or Old. Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ so there’s a pretty heavy emphasis on the the New Testament. I also think the story of Abraham sends a pretty loud message on sacrificing children.

msmveritas on March 29, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Yet abortion is a MORTAL i.e. death, sin. Does that mean that the death penalty is allowed for abortion? They talk out of the many sides of their mouth.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Mortal = life or death. Do you understand that much?

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 1:40 PM

retiredeagle

Obama’s policies as POTUS on the issue of abortion are the same as Clinton. ND is upholding a tradition of inviting POTUS. If they rescind the invitation, it will open them up for future political protests. They need to stick to their guns and tell people to channel their energy in other ways.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:40 PM

Belief in GOD does not equal church or a particular religious doctrine. So you quoting elected officials referencing God is completely meaningless.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:37 PM

Where was I quoting elected officials? Also, God is implied in Church, so if this supposed “separation of Church and State” existed, there would be no continual invocation of God throughout our government’s history going back to its inception.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 1:42 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Hysterical-

1 : a psychoneurosis marked by emotional excitability and disturbances of the psychic, sensory, vasomotor, and visceral functions
2 : behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess

Not seeing it.. sorry.

As far the Bible. Deuteronomy 30:15 . Start there and join a group for joint study. There’s more to it than what on the surface. The Bible is not a talking point. It’s infinite wisdom.

katy on March 29, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Life support is life support. Without it, you are dead.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:34 PM

This is an intellectually dishonest argument. Ordinary and extraordinary means makes a good bit of difference.

msmveritas on March 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Once you start down that slippery slope of not supporting your core principles,,,,,

The Catholic Church has been down that slippery slope for centuries. Nothing new here.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Chek: You are confusing me. Are you arguing against the Catholic Church’s stand on abortion? Or are you arguing that obama’s stand on abortion should not matter at Notre Dame? Or are you arguing that the Catholic church should not have the right to come out against abortion? Or are you arguing against the CC moral stands in general? Or none of the above? Not sure what your point/s are.

jeanie on March 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Obamas policies are more extreme than clintons. Who cares about political protests,,this is above political issues,,despite what people want to believe, abortion is not a political issue, it is a moral issue. I am not going to get into a p###ing contest over this. You either stand for something or you do not,,,,pretty simple.

retiredeagle on March 29, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Why don’t you take your beef to the AmericanCatholic.org? They are the one putting out the info. Not me.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:22 PM

They are not putting out this info:

The Catholic Church allows the termination of a pregnacy in cases where the mother’s life is at stake. CASE CLOSED.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:04 PM

You are. And you are either misunderstanding what they are saying in the quote you provided or simply twisting it.
You appear to have some interest in catholic doctrine, I would recommend you take advantage of that interest and inform yourself about it, and perhaps discuss what you read with knowledgeable catholics so you can ensure you understand what you are reading. Then you will be able to engage on discussions of doctrine with some level of credibility.

neuquenguy on March 29, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:40 PM

* Barack Obama passed in his first 50 days the funding of foreign abortions with your tax dollars.
* Tax payer money will also go to the killing of Embryos

From the Notre Dame website on Faith and Service.

From its earliest days, Notre Dame’s distinctive mission has set it apart from other institutions of higher education. The difference lies not so much in terms of subject matter and academic disciplines as in the perception of how those disciplines ought to serve God and humanity. At the very heart of Notre Dame’s mission is its profound faith heritage and aspiration to be at the center of Catholic intellectual life—to be a bellwether institution in the pursuit of truth and knowledge, while remaining guided and elevated by the moral imperatives of the Catholic faith.

So much for that pesky sixth commandment of Thou Shalt Not Kill. Can you admit that a fully delivered infant left to struggle for breath alone in a dark, dirty linen closet is infanticide, not abortion?

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 1:49 PM

This is an intellectually dishonest argument. Ordinary and extraordinary means makes a good bit of difference.

msmveritas on March 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM

It’s hard to tell if chekote is intellectually dishonest or simply has a very poor understanding of catholic teaching. The tone of his posts suggests that he has SOME KIND of interest in Catholic Doctrine but is unwilling or unable to make the effort to understand it.

neuquenguy on March 29, 2009 at 1:51 PM

neuquenguy on March 29, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Chekote has no interest in Catholic doctrine but in providing an excuse for Cafeteria Catholics to vote for Obama. Mostly, his intent is to discredit the Church’s authority altogether.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 1:52 PM

He is the President .

getalife on March 29, 2009 at 12:39 PM

And Benedict Arnold was a General in the Continental Army.

Patrick S on March 29, 2009 at 1:53 PM

The Catholic Church has been down that slippery slope for centuries. Nothing new here.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM

When would that have been?

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 1:54 PM

Obama and abortion (never a no in his political history; see partial birth abortion; see babies surviving abortions.)

plus

Socialized medicine (wait until you’re old and sick)

equals

Culture of Death

Greg Toombs on March 29, 2009 at 1:55 PM

Hi jeanie:

Are you arguing against the Catholic Church’s stand on abortion?

No. They can believe or teach whatever they want.

Or are you arguing that obama’s stand on abortion should not matter at Notre Dame?

Yes. The invitation is to POTUS. Not Obama. If Mac had won, he would have been invited.

Or are you arguing that the Catholic church should not have the right to come out against abortion?

No. The Catholic Church can oppose and make the case against the choice of abortion. But they should not insist that Catholic doctrine be codified into US law. We don’t have a state religioun.

Or are you arguing against the CC moral stands in general?

No. My beef with the Catholic Church is that they are hypocrites.

I hope that answers your questions.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:56 PM

Well, this helps to explain why 54% of Catholics voted for Obama. If the preeminent Catholic University invites a politicin who supports abortion and wants no restrictions on it( not even limits on partial birth abortions) why then should its members not vote for other vocal pro-abortion politicians…Why not also invite Barney Frank that way you can condone abortion AND homosexuality: a two fer as it were…So much for the Church’s moral authority…

I don’t feel like going to Mass today…

sirpatrick on March 29, 2009 at 1:57 PM

[Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 11:35 AM]

That’s rather misleading. It does not oppose all capital punishment, and even in the current edition of the Catechism it only renders it’s application to “rare to non-existent” and this judgement is based on the subjective “[T]oday, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime” which is demonstrably arguable as not a fact.

I don’t know the argument regimen for the Church’s position, but this does not have a force of infallibility in any way whatsoever. As such it can be modified (in the way, of course, that the Church does modify when it decides by persuasion, deliberation, reflection and prayer).

Even so, the position of the Church on capital punishment vis-a-vis abortion is quite stark. They have never suggested excommunication nor even refusal of communion for the supporting capital punishment whereas it is wrt abortion.

Your ability to differentiate doesn’t appear to be very good and you should refrain from referring to those opinions of others in your arguments so you don’t waste other people’s time having to correct you.

Dusty on March 29, 2009 at 1:57 PM

When would that have been?

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 1:54 PM

Pretending to be concerned about children while shielding molesting priests.

Campaigning against the legalization of divorce while offering annulment to the rich.

Take a look through their history. Filled with hypocrisy. Of course, they always hide behind” we are human and thus fallible. But wait, the Pope is the vicar of Christ on earth. How can he be wrong?????

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:59 PM

I think that Chekote is a “fallen” catholic and is trying to justify this to himself.

Be that as it may, most people will refuse to admit that they are wrong or even partially wrong. It is useless to argue because there will never be any give and take.

Vince on March 29, 2009 at 2:03 PM

So, Chekote, it is ok then if ND keeps O speaking because it will be in their long history of being hypocritical,,,,just so I get that straight.

retiredeagle on March 29, 2009 at 2:03 PM

Take a look through their history. Filled with hypocrisy.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:59 PM

You have a hypocrisy fetish. Common marxist clap trap. Point out how your opposition fails to meet your idealist utopian standards. To thinking people, history suggests that this utopians — of which you appear to be one — are far more dangerous and bloody than any Christian has ever been.

Could you name one figure in history who is not or was not a hypocrite?

I didn’t think so.

jeff_from_mpls on March 29, 2009 at 2:07 PM

Dusty

Again, just because the Catholic Church chooses to enforce one more than the other does not change the fact that its opposition is based on the same principle. The exemptions are both based on the notion of no other alternative is available to save, protect life. Those are the facts. Nothing to correct.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 2:08 PM

Hi chek: Are you still a practicing Catholic? I seem to recall that you once were, or am I mis-remembering? Or, don’t answer, if this is an invasion of your privacy–do not mean to intrude.

jeanie on March 29, 2009 at 2:09 PM

So much for the Church’s moral authority…

I don’t feel like going to Mass today…

sirpatrick on March 29, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Hate to nitpick, but the topic of Ed’s post was a news story which shows that the Church is exercising its moral authority by placing the pressure of a Cardinal on the president of Nortre Dame.

That you could draw the 180 degree opposite conclusion from the article is astonishing to me.

jeff_from_mpls on March 29, 2009 at 2:11 PM

So, Chekote, it is ok then if ND keeps O speaking because it will be in their long history of being hypocritical,,,,just so I get that straight.

retiredeagle on March 29, 2009 at 2:03 PM

No. ND has a tradition of inviting POTUS. I see no reason to change that. They hypocrites are all the people who are getting up in arms about the invite when not a peep was heard when Clinton (both Hillary and Bill) were invited. I just saw a report on Fox News where a priest at ND said that they don’t insist on the faculty and staff being “Catholic”.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 2:11 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 2:08 PM

Could you define “intrinsically evil” for us.

We’ll wait for what promises to be a hilarious attempt.

jeff_from_mpls on March 29, 2009 at 2:12 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 2:08 PM

In the case of the death penalty, that person has had the chance to live their life and chosen wickedness. Infants are perfectly innocent, and through Christ’s mercy born sinless.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 2:13 PM

They hypocrites are all the people who are getting up in arms about the invite when not a peep was heard when Clinton (both Hillary and Bill) were invited.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 2:11 PM

Again with your hypocrisy fetish.

Any progress on coming up with a non-hypocrite in history?

Didn’t think so.

jeff_from_mpls on March 29, 2009 at 2:13 PM

Be that as it may, most people will refuse to admit that they are wrong or even partially wrong. It is useless to argue because there will never be any give and take.

Vince on March 29, 2009 at 2:03 PM

I admit when I am wrong. I am not wrong in this case.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 2:13 PM

As I said,,,do not intend to get into a p###ing contest. However, I do think that as an ND grad, I not only have the right but duty to make a stand on what they are doing. Also, as a lifelong Catholic, I do try to live up to it’s standards[do not always make it], does that mean that the standards are wrong or there should be no standards[all those pesky rules,,,,moral relativsm is sooooooo much more fun] I am out of here,,too nice a day out to blast my neurons with academic falderall.

retiredeagle on March 29, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Chekote:
No Catholic school, elementary, grade, high school or college insists that the faculty or even the students be Catholic. What is your point?

Vince on March 29, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Any progress on coming up with a non-hypocrite in history?

Do you think it is hypocritical to oppose divorce but allow annulment even if children were born in the marriage?

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Perhaps it’s fair to ask if chekote believes himself to have ever been a hypocrite?

If so, by his own queer standard, he’s refuted every argument he’s ever made.

Well, old sport? Prove you’re perfect or STFU.

jeff_from_mpls on March 29, 2009 at 2:15 PM

question for those of you who are practicing Catholics. Does the opposition of multiple Catholic Prelates carry enough weight to cancel o’s visit? Certainly, Fr. Jenkins must be subject to or sensitive to the wishes of those above him in the heirarchy?

jeanie on March 29, 2009 at 2:15 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Pedophilia is not the exclusive domain of the Church, nor is the official position. The Church condemns child abuse. Its bureaucracy covering up the scandal was shameful but not any indication of Catholic doctrine.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 2:16 PM

Chekote, you are wrong so what am I?

Fallen Catholic eh?

Vince on March 29, 2009 at 2:17 PM

As I said,,,do not intend to get into a p###ing contest. does that mean that the standards are wrong or there should be no standards [all those pesky rules].

retiredeagle on March 29, 2009 at 2:14 PM

It’s the tactic of a loser.

You squeal that until everyone is perfect, which means no hypocrisy, nobody gets to assert moral authority.

It’s understandable when coming from the mouth of a pot-smoking college student slacker.

It’s pathetic coming from a serious adult.

I hope to God old chekote’s the former.

jeff_from_mpls on March 29, 2009 at 2:18 PM

question for those of you who are practicing Catholics. Does the opposition of multiple Catholic Prelates carry enough weight to cancel o’s visit? Certainly, Fr. Jenkins must be subject to or sensitive to the wishes of those above him in the heirarchy?

jeanie on March 29, 2009 at 2:15 PM

No, it doesn’t carry enough weight as a procedural move.

But as a moral imprecation, it carries a lot of weight.

Consider this: it’s as if a man has been asked by his co-workers to stop drinking because he appears unaware of the consequences of what he’s doing.

The fellow can look deeply at himself and admit his arrogance.

Or he can go to Moe’s bar or the Drunken Clam and toss down a Jack Daniels.

One of them is the sign of a man. The other, a mouse.

jeff_from_mpls on March 29, 2009 at 2:20 PM

Again, just because the Catholic Church chooses to enforce one more than the other does not change the fact that its opposition is based on the same principle.The exemptions are both based on the notion of no other alternative is available to save, protect life. Those are the facts. Nothing to correct.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 2:08 PM

No they are not the facts, as has been explained to you several times already in this thread; and as it is explained in all authentic catholic sources; and as is understood even by well formed elementary schoolers. But you are apparently not interested in the facts, only in propagating error.

neuquenguy on March 29, 2009 at 2:20 PM

No. My beef with the Catholic Church is that they are hypocrites.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:56 PM

The instances of hypocrisy you pointed out are legitimate examples, though they have more to do with the Church than Catholicism itself. As a Catholic school, Notre Dame is guilty of this hypocrisy by inviting a politician who lobbied in favor of infanticide, not to mention in Christ’s name (it was Christ Hospital and TUCC behind the abominable practice of letting infants who survived abortions die without proper compassionate medical care) which is blasphemy.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 2:21 PM

jeanie @ 2:15PM

Fr. Jenkins is probably stuck in a corner right now. If the Pope would tell him to disinvite, he would but that’s not going to happen.

Hopefully Fr. Jenkins just had a brain cramp when he issued the invite and not a liberal priest that seems so prevalent these days. Some staff member could step up and say that the invite was issued as a matter of course without Fr. Jenkins knowledge and the invite could be withdrawn.

Vince on March 29, 2009 at 2:23 PM

Its bureaucracy covering up the scandal was shameful but not any indication of Catholic doctrine.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 2:16 PM

Is this the same staff who goes around the world and beats its chest about protecting children?

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 2:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5