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

The Catholic Church and its adherents should clean up their house before trying to force feed their version of morality on the rest of the world. Admittedly they have had a great deal of success, especially in developing nations with under-educated populations, but its claim to any kind of moral authority is at best suspect given its disgraceful history of covering up sexual abuse and of course its collusion with the nazis and other totalitarians in the 20th century.

Personally I don’t care if priests schtup alter boys and nuns regularly. Personally I don’t even care that they colluded with the fascists in WW2. What sticks in my craw is having these craven fools try to ram down their twisted morality down everyone’s throats.

Enough.

Ares on March 29, 2009 at 5:32 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 5:12 PM

soooo…. because the Catholic church has acted in a hypocritical manner in the past….

You condemn them for this stand…. when for the first time in YEARS they are not being hypocritical?

You condemn them for GOOD behaviour? ie, acting on their beliefs? in a purely LEGAL manner?

Romeo13 on March 29, 2009 at 5:32 PM

That’s why the Republican party finds in the state it is in today. Anybody who disagrees with them on one issue is immediately accusing of being a Soros plant. Fine. Got ahead and keep foresaking the pro-choice voters. Heck even South Dakota – hardly a liberal (statist) state – voted down a recent effort to ban abortion. Nevermind the polls. Look at people’s actual votes on the issue of abortion. They don’t want the government to meddle.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 5:32 PM

Doesn’t Notre Dame confer degrees every year on students who support abortion rights? I don’t believe they have a disqualification for students or faculty based on the abortion issue.

dedalus on March 29, 2009 at 5:11 PM

I wasn’t aware that the real students had a litmus test about abortion before attending Notre Dame. This is different with one of the few things on record for the filthy liar being his staunch support of the culture of death. Honorary degrees are supposed to give prestige to people who support the goals of the institution. Notre Dame slaps all Catholics by honoring a filthy liar like Barak Obama.

highhopes on March 29, 2009 at 5:33 PM

The Catholic Church and its adherents should clean up their house before trying to force feed their version of morality on the rest of the world.

Ares on March 29, 2009 at 5:32 PM

UH… Notre Dame IS THEIR HOUSE!!!!!!!!!!

Romeo13 on March 29, 2009 at 5:34 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 5:26 PM

Jack Chick is a cartoonist. Ed Morrissey was saying that your comments on Catholic doctrine are ridiculously oversimplified or stereotypical representations.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 5:34 PM

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 5:29 PM

Explain this:

Pope Innocent III (circa 1161-1216)ruled that a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not “animated.”

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 5:37 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 5:32 PM

The Republican party platform supports the right to life and family values. When they are guilty of hypocrisy, like any other authority including the Catholic Church, they lose their credibility. That has been a bigger problem than losing a culture war with the Democrats, which is also a big problem.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 5:37 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 5:32 PM

Nice try but if you’re suggesting that people who are pro life subjugate their right to protest the actions of a Catholic institution in order to gain voters for the GOP you are way off base.

msmveritas on March 29, 2009 at 5:40 PM

Probably have been pro-choice commencement speakers at Notre Dame in the past, but obama is in a special category all his own on the abortion issue. He’s not only pro-choice, he tacitly appears(whether he means to or not) to promote abortion by his emphatic statements that partial birth abortion is acceptable. He also has(for the moment anyway)enormous influence on those who often do not think for themselves. He should step down. He is a bad choice for this venue at this time. Were I Catholic, I would be supporting the effort to have him replaced. The fact that the powers at Notre Dame keep insisting he was invited as President and not on the basis of moral advocacy or the lack of it is specious. The issue will hang there in the atmosphere and grow bigger if it is ignored and color everyone’s point of view in one way or another. Sorry–perhaps should keep my opinion to myself on this issue but am beginning to empathize in spite of myself.

jeanie on March 29, 2009 at 5:41 PM

Thus far 206,102 have signed the petition to encourage Notre Dame’s President Father John Jenkins, C.S.C., to dis-invite Mr. Obama on May 17.

Practicing Catholics cannot, in good conscience, support Mr. Obama. Obama voted three times against the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act and the consequences of his actions left babies who lived through the heinous late term abortion procedure to die, alone, in hospital laundries.

Those who are interested are welcome to sign the following Notre Dame Scandal petition:

http://notredamescandal.com/

sinsing on March 29, 2009 at 5:45 PM

Jack Chick is a cartoonist. Ed Morrissey was saying that your comments on Catholic doctrine are ridiculously oversimplified or stereotypical representations.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 5:34 PM

I didn’t think that we were allowed to present a thesis. My statements are no more or less oversimplified or stereotypical than other posters writing “pro-abortion”, “killing babies”. This format does not lend itself to dissertations.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 5:46 PM

Honorary degrees are supposed to give prestige to people who support the goals of the institution. Notre Dame slaps all Catholics by honoring a filthy liar like Barak Obama.

highhopes on March 29, 2009 at 5:33 PM

A real degree is of more value than an honorary degree. An honorary degree can be had just by giving a speech, while an actual degree confirms that the graduate is steeped in the Notre Dame education.

dedalus on March 29, 2009 at 5:48 PM

You keep harping on the argument of abortion being “murder” – the church has never denied that abortion is murder. It has varied on when that exact point is, that much is true – it has ALWAYS been murder at some point or another.

However, and this is the important part, you keep dodging the FACT that the Church has NEVER wavered on abortion as being intrinsically EVIL no matter when it occurs.

If you claim otherwise, then produce proof of your claim of the change in stance in abortion being intrinsically evil. Lets see you produce even ONE official document that claims elective abortion is no evil. The previous citations you produced deal with the severity of the penalty, not the base nature of abortion – you are either stupidly or deliberately confusing the two issues.

Furthermore, you are committing a logical fallacy called tu quoque – meaning you are in error when sayign the current actions are wrong because there were possibly bad actions in the past. Sorry, you fail at the keeping to the facts about the argument at hand (arguing over honoring an abortion advocate who as recently and through his career acted against the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding abortion), the facts (the Catholic Church claims abortion to be intrinsically evil and always has) and you fail at basic logic (tu quoque error on your part).

In short, you are being disingenuous at best and a liar at worst. Care to address the real argument at hand, in an honest manner?

OrdinaryColoradan on March 29, 2009 at 5:49 PM

Gee, even BC just said that Bill Ayers could not speak there,,,and they are Jesuits,,,,,,,,the world is really topsy turvy.

retiredeagle on March 29, 2009 at 5:50 PM

The Republican party platform supports the right to life and family values. When they are guilty of hypocrisy, like any other authority including the Catholic Church, they lose their credibility.

Exactly, that is why they look like fools everytime a Republican politicians is caught cheating on their spouse. Of course, then we get the usual drivel about “we are all sinners”. The Republican party needs to stick to politics instead of trying to be a religious institution.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 5:50 PM

Hmm, I guess not all are allowed to post?

You keep harping on the argument of abortion being “murder” – the church has never denied that abortion is murder. It has varied on when that exact point is, that much is true – it has ALWAYS been murder at some point or another.

However, and this is the important part, you keep dodging the FACT that the Church has NEVER wavered on abortion as being intrinsically EVIL no matter when it occurs.

If you claim otherwise, then produce proof of your claim of the change in stance in abortion being intrinsically evil. Lets see you produce even ONE official document that claims elective abortion is no evil. The previous citations you produced deal with the severity of the penalty, not the base nature of abortion – you are either stupidly or deliberately confusing the two issues.

Furthermore, you are committing a logical fallacy called tu quoque – meaning you are in error when sayign the current actions are wrong because there were possibly bad actions in the past. Sorry, you fail at the keeping to the facts about the argument at hand (arguing over honoring an abortion advocate who as recently and through his career acted against the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding abortion), the facts (the Catholic Church claims abortion to be intrinsically evil and always has) and you fail at basic logic (tu quoque error on your part).

In short, you are being disingenuous at best and a liar at worst. Care to address the real argument at hand, in an honest manner?

OrdinaryColoradan on March 29, 2009 at 5:50 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 5:37 PM

The claim is false. The ensoulment issue was used to measure penalties — late abortion attracted heavier penance and other particular penalties i.e. ‘excommunication’ but abortion at any stage was a grave sin (mortal sin), and it is false to say a fetus “could be aborted.” The idea of late ensoulment was prominent in the Middle Ages but not in the Early Church.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 5:52 PM

jeanie,

As you know, I don’t like Obama at all. However, let’s not have our dislike blind us. They invited him because he is POTUS. It is a tradition. I don’t know whether they give an honorary degree to all POTUSes. If not, then they should not have given him one. Obama is going to come out smelling like a rose out of this incident while the pro-lifers are going to look like idiots.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 5:52 PM

Chunder thank you – I keep trying to post and none of mine get through.

OrdinaryColoradan on March 29, 2009 at 5:53 PM

A real degree is of more value than an honorary degree. An honorary degree can be had just by giving a speech, while an actual degree confirms that the graduate is steeped in the Notre Dame education.

dedalus on March 29, 2009 at 5:48 PM

By that logic, why doesn’t Notre Dame invite Dr. Jack Kevorkian and the lawyer that killed off Terry Shiavo too. Along with the filthy liar, they could make it clear that Notre Dame fully supports the unborn and the inconveniently incapacitated and the infirm. It would be a real feather in the cap of the culture of death folks. As it is, the message that is being sent is the Catholic Church doesn’t really mean it when they speak out against abortion.

highhopes on March 29, 2009 at 5:54 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 5:50 PM

Democrats look equally ridiculous when they are caught cheating on their spouses like Elliot Spitzer. However, they are held to a lower standard since they don’t care much about the rights of the unborn or promoting the family unit. That’s just a reality of politics, but not an argument to abandon our principles.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 5:54 PM

The idea of late ensoulment was prominent in the Middle Ages but not in the Early Church.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 5:52 PM

Exactly my point. The Catholic Church has wavered on whether abortion was murder depending on the stage of pregnancy. By limiting their comments to saying that it was always considered immoral, it obfuscates the fact that the punishment the Church did change its position on whether it was considered murder from conception or not.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 5:56 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

-
Great questions… Too bad they don’t fit what I said, at all. But since you asked… Of course not to both the first and second questions.
-
How does that line of question relate to the alum putting ND on notice in this matter? The POS in the WH publicly favors all manner of blood thirsty policy so far as abortion/infant murder goes, and if enough folks who view abortion as murder remind ND that they should publicly maintain a more respectful pov towards life than to let this POS speak there… that’s their right. Actually, it’s their duty as alum.
-

RalphyBoy on March 29, 2009 at 5:58 PM

I don’t know whether they give an honorary degree to each POTUS… Obama is going to come out smelling like a rose…

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 5:52 PM

Maybe Bush got a brain, Clinton got a penicillin shot and a certificate of health, Poppy Bush got a balloon ride and Carter got some nerve!

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 5:59 PM

The idea of late ensoulment was prominent in the Middle Ages but not in the Early Church.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 5:52 PM

Killing something without a soul is clearly of a different nature from killing something with a soul.

dedalus on March 29, 2009 at 5:59 PM

Leftists can never be accused of hypocrisy because in their universe everything is allowed. That’s the trap they always spring on those who try to be good and fail. Screwtape Letters, that’s their MO.

JohnBissell on March 29, 2009 at 6:00 PM

Do not see any of this as hypocritical. See it as a matter of common sense and common good. No matter what Obama says during his speech, if such takes place, the message will be lost in the controversy surrounding his presence. As I see it there is enough schism in the country, the world and the various churches–why go out of one’s way to promote more when such can be avoided by merely stepping down for a well thought out and reasonable criteria.

jeanie on March 29, 2009 at 6:00 PM

You keep making the argument of abortion being “murder” – yet the church has never denied that abortion is murder. It has varied on when that exact point is, that much is true – it has ALWAYS been murder at some point or another.

However, and this is the important part, you keep dodging the FACT that the Church has NEVER wavered on abortion as being intrinsically EVIL no matter when it occurs.

If you claim otherwise, then produce proof of your claim of one documented change in stance in abortion being intrinsically evil. Produce even ONE official document that claims elective abortion is no evil. The previous citations you produced deal with the severity of the penalty against the timing of the abortion, but do not address the base nature of abortion – you are confusing the two issues. Furthermore, you are committing a logical fallacy called tu quoque – meaning you are in error when claiming the current actions are wrong because there were (possibly) errors in the past.

Sorry, you fail at the keeping to the facts about the issue at hand at hand (arguing over honoring an abortion advocate who as recently and through his career acted against the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding abortion), the facts of the issue (the Catholic Church claims abortion to be intrinsically evil and always has consistently) and you fail at basic logic (the massive tu quoque error on your part).

Care to address the real argument at hand, in an honest manner?

OrdinaryColoradan on March 29, 2009 at 6:02 PM

All the Catholics that voted for O’dimmwitt have a lot to answer for

Mercy4Me on March 29, 2009 at 6:03 PM

It would be a real feather in the cap of the culture of death folks. As it is, the message that is being sent is the Catholic Church doesn’t really mean it when they speak out against abortion.

highhopes on March 29, 2009 at 5:54 PM

If Dr. Jack could work it out with his parole officers and then get elected by a majority of voters to the highest office in the country, at that point it might cross their minds.

dedalus on March 29, 2009 at 6:03 PM

The Catholic Church has wavered on whether abortion was murder depending on the stage of pregnancy.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 5:56 PM

That is a lie. Innocent III debated the penalty for abortion, but it has always been the Church position that it is a mortal sin. Since you are repeating the lie that the Church position has evolved over the years, I will repeat:

Because a) Aristotelian delayed ensoulment theory has never been accepted by the Roman Catholic Church as official teaching and b) the Church’s constant condemnation of abortion has never relied upon theories such as ensoulment for its binding force.

The Roman Catholic Church has consistently condemned abortion as a grave sin from the first century to the 21st. The Didache, an important Church document from the First Century said:

“You shall not kill the foetus by abortion, or destroy the infant already born,”

Tertullian (c160-240) said:

“For us [Christians] we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter when you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one: you have the fruit already in the seed.” Apology 9:6

St Jerome c 342-420 said

“They drink potions to ensure sterility and are guilty of murdering a human being not yet conceived. Some, when they learn that they are with child through sin, practice abortion by the use of drugs. Frequently they die themselves and are brought before the rulers of the lower world guilty of three crimes: suicide, adultery against Christ, and murder of an unborn child.” -Letter 22:13

And there are multiple examples of abortion being condemned by the Church fathers, to name a few, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus and Cyprian as well as agreement among Jerome, Ambrose, Gregory and Augustine that abortion at any stage was a grave sin against emergent human life. Jerome and Aquinas speculated as to the moment of ensoulment but always denounced abortion.

The delayed ensoulment abortion canard was nailed back in the fourth century by St Basil the Great, who declared: “The hairsplitting difference between formed and unformed makes no difference to us. Whoever deliberately commits abortion is subject to the same penalty as homicide.”

Or as Professor David Albert Jones wrote in The Soul of the Embryo: “The constant and consistent Christian tradition from the Early Church to the nineteenth century repudiated abortion at any stage of pregnancy while offering different penances as a means to reconciliation.”

The notion that abortion, at any stage, has ever been acceptable in the Roman Catholic Church is a barefaced lie.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 4:06 PM

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 6:04 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 5:52 PM

Must disagree. If he wishes to appear as a statesman and a man for all people, he should step down. To appear now, is to throw down an unnecessary and divisive gauntlet better left unthrown.

jeanie on March 29, 2009 at 6:06 PM

Killing something without a soul is clearly of a different nature from killing something with a soul.

dedalus on March 29, 2009 at 5:59 PM

I think the debate was over whether miscarried fetuses, sperm and victims of childbirth went to heaven.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 6:07 PM

JohnBissell on March 29, 2009 at 6:00 PM

What an interesting statement. Also, I have not read the Screwtape Letters in a long, long while. Think I’ll get it out of the library.

jeanie on March 29, 2009 at 6:08 PM

I think the debate was over whether miscarried fetuses, sperm and victims casualties of childbirth went to heaven. (Obamian slip!)

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 6:07 PM

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 6:10 PM

Personally I don’t care if priests schtup alter boys and nuns regularly. Personally I don’t even care that they colluded with the fascists in WW2. What sticks in my craw is having these craven fools try to ram down their twisted morality down everyone’s throats.Enough.
Ares on March 29, 2009 at 5:32 PM

JUST how do they try to cram it down your throat anyway. I suspect someone feels guilty. In fact you know it. You would rather tear down a WHOLE group of people for the faults of a few than face your own sins.

Jamson64 on March 29, 2009 at 6:14 PM

You don’t really need POTUS, just TOTUS and someone who can read.

Kralizec on March 29, 2009 at 6:15 PM

Exactly, that is why they look like fools everytime a Republican politicians is caught cheating on their spouse. Of course, then we get the usual drivel about “we are all sinners”. The Republican party needs to stick to politics instead of trying to be a religious institution.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 5:50 PM

Yes to simple thinkers like yourself. The sins of a few taint them all? Hmm Ted Kennedy what does that say about the DEMS? Oh that is right that could not even stand up for the poor girl who died in that accident. You are as sick as you are evil.

Jamson64 on March 29, 2009 at 6:17 PM

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 5:46 PM

There is no amount of spin that will prove you right, even if you wrote a thesis on the subject. You abandoned the Catholic faith, anyways, so you are using Wikipedia argument to bolster your position, that the Church is imperfect therefore not meriting your hard work, faith and dedication. You lack the commitment to seek out truth. You are guilty of pride.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 6:17 PM

Chek: Quick scan of myself to see if your “don’t let your dislike of obama color your point of view” statement holds any water, since it could if I am not careful. But, not so in this case. Tradition not withstanding, he is a poor choice this time. His appearance there stands to cause too much unnecessary damage to and for too many….not the least of which may be himself.

jeanie on March 29, 2009 at 6:17 PM

yes the Church is made of IMPERFECT PEOPLE. Some do bad things but most do good. To paint them all as the same is evil.

Jamson64 on March 29, 2009 at 6:19 PM

I think the debate was over whether miscarried fetuses, sperm and victims of childbirth went to heaven.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 6:07 PM

The analysis would have bearing on the nature of what happens during an abortion.

My understanding is that miscarried babies can’t be assured of going to heaven if they haven’t been baptized, and that baptism can’t happen after the miscarriage because there is no soul to baptize. The presence of a soul is a very important consideration.

dedalus on March 29, 2009 at 6:21 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

If you believe in the separation of Church and State, then the Church’s position (regardless of what you might think of the Church itself) is viable. If you think that the Church ought to bow down before Barack Obama because of his office, you don’t.

Either you believe in separation of Church and State, or you don’t. It’s that simple.

unclesmrgol on March 29, 2009 at 6:21 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
If you believe in the separation of Church and State, then the Church’s position (regardless of what you might think of the Church itself) is viable. If you think that the Church ought to bow down before Barack Obama because of his office, you don’t.

Either you believe in separation of Church and State, or you don’t. It’s that simple.

unclesmrgol on March 29, 2009 at 6:21 PM

Actualy, the better arguement is that the Degree will go to Obama the individual, not to the office of the Presidency.

Romeo13 on March 29, 2009 at 6:26 PM

I find it impossible to believe that Rev. John Jenkins knew who the real Obama [World wide abortion enabler] is. If he did know he should be removed from his position, and the Church.

BTW, I love the Catholic Church bashers. Just remember your comments when Muslim Da Bama comes after your beliefs. I’m certain that I’ll shed a tear for you.

DannoJyd on March 29, 2009 at 6:32 PM

There is no reasoning with the faithless Chekote. He needs to justify the fact that he is not a practicing Catholic even to the point of being pro-abortion in his rant here.

Yes pro-abortion! Your use of pro-choice is a cop out to your choice of aborting a defenseless baby.

Vince on March 29, 2009 at 6:33 PM

After some more thought: When all’s said and done though, they can’t replace him and maybe he can’t step down either. Either avenue makes somebody look bad. I guess the only course is to bull through it and hope that the damage isn’t too bad.

jeanie on March 29, 2009 at 6:34 PM

Actualy, the better arguement is that the Degree will go to Obama the individual, not to the office of the Presidency.

Romeo13 on March 29, 2009 at 6:26 PM

By this logic, though, wouldn’t the ND law school have to withhold an honorary law degree to a visiting judge who cited Roe as precident? The problem isn’t necessarily with Obama’s expertise with the law, but with the Catholic Church being fundamentally opposed to what SCOTUS has interpreted as a fundamental right.

dedalus on March 29, 2009 at 6:38 PM

Do you think The Muslim will do the right thing? Hardly. He’ll bail out if it’s clear that this will be political egg on his face, which could happen (but not holding my breath).

As for Notre Dame, what were you thinking? This guy cares nothing about Catholics, Catholicism, or life. Don’t you know that Liberals get a hard-on when anyone even remotely Conservative gives them the time of day. He plans on getting a lot of mileage out of this event, i.e., pass more anti-life legislation. Irish: Don’t you get what’s going on here? This guys a reptile (hint, hint), not human.

EMD on March 29, 2009 at 6:38 PM

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

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:56 PM

Regardless of what you think of us, we have the right to determine whom we honor and whom we permit to enter and speak within our institutions.

Mr. Obama is not welcome by the majority of us. He is not welcome per the statements of our leaders. The Church has always considered abortion a sin, and a mortal one at the beginning. We are past all that ensoulment crap, having returned to that First Principle (that abortion is a mortal sin). Obama not only is guilty of aiding and abetting abortion, he is also guilty of aiding and abetting infanticide (e.g., the death of viable children born during abortion), both of which the Church frowns upon, to put it mildly.

We are all sinners, but there’s a special heated place reserved for those who trumpet their sin in unrepentant fashion. Obama is among those, and I will not kiss his ring.

unclesmrgol on March 29, 2009 at 6:43 PM

They are using excess embryos from IVF that are going to be destroyed anyway.
Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 3:40 PM

Yeah. Today they are. But it’s a small step to justify the next intrusion.

csdeven on March 29, 2009 at 6:45 PM

The analysis would have bearing on the nature of what happens during an abortion.

My understanding is that miscarried babies can’t be assured of going to heaven if they haven’t been baptized, and that baptism can’t happen after the miscarriage because there is no soul to baptize. The presence of a soul is a very important consideration.

dedalus on March 29, 2009 at 6:21 PM

The current Catechism does not contain a direct mention of Limbo:

* The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in CCC 1261:

“As regards children who have died without baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God, who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children, which caused him to say, ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them’ [Mark 10:14, cf. 1 Tim. 2:4], allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy baptism”.

* The Catechism of the Catholic Church also states in CCC 1257:

“The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation…The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude…God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism…”

It is important to realize that just because the Church is unaware of any other means does not necessarily mean that such means are not available.

There was supposedly a revelation from the Virgin Mary on October 2, 1987.

“And what, My children, are We going to do with all the aborted babies? O My child, I know you feel as I do, for I can see the great distress on your face. What are we going to do, My child? Do you understand when they come to Us, they must go to Limbo? They are in Heaven, a happy place, but they cannot see God.”

This would be the recurring biblical theme of the transferability of sin by punishing the innocent for the sins of others. In this case, the fetus is punished by never being allowed to see God, in response to either:

* The woman’s decision to have an abortion — an act considered to be a mortal sin by the Roman Catholic Church, or
* The sin of omission on the part of their parents in not having the child baptized.

The RCC doesn’t recognize this message, but the arguments are worth considering when weighing the possibility of limbo. I would argue that life is a gift, therefore seeing God and knowing His love would be preferable to ignorant bliss, which is still not damnation.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 6:49 PM

After some more thought: When all’s said and done though, they can’t replace him and maybe he can’t step down either. Either avenue makes somebody look bad. I guess the only course is to bull through it and hope that the damage isn’t too bad.

jeanie on March 29, 2009 at 6:34 PM

He is utterly replaceable. However, he certainly won’t step down. Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums showed class in not speaking at the funeral for the four slain officers because one of the families requested that he not do so; United States President Barack Obama has not got the class to do likewise.

In this case, we are the equivalent of more than two of the four families, and we’re trying to get the organizers of this “funeral” to listen to us. Hopefully they will.

unclesmrgol on March 29, 2009 at 6:49 PM

I don’t get this one at all. Much ado about nothing.

AnninCA on March 29, 2009 at 6:50 PM

I don’t get this one at all. Much ado about nothing.

AnninCA on March 29, 2009 at 6:50 PM

That’s because you’re a Democrat, an atheist or agnostic, and married to a hippie university professor, and you voted for Obama, though you struggled with that decision.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 6:57 PM

The RCC doesn’t recognize this message, but the arguments are worth considering when weighing the possibility of limbo. I would argue that life is a gift, therefore seeing God and knowing His love would be preferable to ignorant bliss, which is still not damnation.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 6:49 PM

Yes, it is a tricky issue. If aborted babies are denied the ability to see God, then abortion as a sin is one with graver consequences than murder.

Though God has bound man to Baptism, God Himself is not bound and, perhaps, God’s mercy will apply a different standard for those souls never born.

dedalus on March 29, 2009 at 6:59 PM

In this case, we are the equivalent of more than two of the four families, and we’re trying to get the organizers of this “funeral” to listen to us. Hopefully they will.

unclesmrgol on March 29, 2009 at 6:49 PM

One event is clearly more personal and private than the other. Perhaps having the President speak at Notre Dame will give those at the university opposed to his abortion policies additional media attention with which to convey their message.

dedalus on March 29, 2009 at 7:23 PM

The analysis would have bearing on the nature of what happens during an abortion.

My understanding is that miscarried babies can’t be assured of going to heaven if they haven’t been baptized, and that baptism can’t happen after the miscarriage because there is no soul to baptize. The presence of a soul is a very important consideration.

dedalus on March 29, 2009 at 6:21 PM

Remember that “baptism by blood” or “baptism by desire” are acceptable, and then, if one assumes ensoulment, we have precisely the argument of St. Augustine in his “City of God”:

Chapter 13.— Whether Abortions, If They are Numbered Among the Dead, Shall Not Also Have a Part in the Resurrection.

To these objections, then, of our adversaries which I have thus detailed, I will now reply, trusting that God will mercifully assist my endeavors. That abortions, which, even supposing they were alive in the womb, did also die there, shall rise again, I make bold neither to affirm nor to deny, although I fail to see why, if they are not excluded from the number of the dead, they should not attain to theresurrection of the dead. For either all the dead shall not rise, and there will be to all eternity some souls without bodies though they once had them—only in their mother’s womb, indeed; or, if all human souls shall receive again the bodies which they had wherever they lived, and which they left when they died, then I do not see how I can say that even those who died in their mother’s womb shall have noresurrection. But whichever of these opinions any one may adopt concerning them, we must at least apply to them, if they rise again, all that we have to say of infants who have been born.

Other theologians are more stern, and yet other unwilling to codify that which they themselves can discern neither by Scripture nor by natural law; see this.

As for the Church itself, here’s the Catechism:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

So, while Baptism is a Sacrament, the lack of it does not indicate damnation, but the certitude of it is the door to Salvation.

unclesmrgol on March 29, 2009 at 7:27 PM

Jenkins sold his soul when he allowed the Vagina Monologues to play on campus during Holy Week 2 years ago. It’s as if my beloved University has been hijacked by some fanatical secular group of lefties. They’re placing temporal over spiritual.

So far, 208,000 signatures on the petition and Jenkins is not budging.

I’m passing on my football tickets this year, along with the sizable donation that is required to receive them. I have better things to do with my $$. Plan to donate to the local crisis pregnancy center.

sheesh on March 29, 2009 at 7:28 PM

I don’t get this one at all. Much ado about nothing.

AnninCA on March 29, 2009 at 6:50 PM

Then, of course, there are those of us who believe this is much ado about something.

It’s as if Adolf Hitler were still alive today, and Brandeis University called upon him to receive an honorary degree in Judaic Studies.

It’s that serious. Seriously.

unclesmrgol on March 29, 2009 at 7:34 PM

Ditto on no tickets or money,,,,they have forfeited my allegiance and trust.

retiredeagle on March 29, 2009 at 7:36 PM

Enough.

Ares on March 29, 2009 at 5:32 PM

Notre Dame is a Catholic University, started and funded by all us pedophile-priest-loving Nazis who happen to dislike infanticide.

You have no right to tell us what we can or cannot ask with respect to our own university system.

You want Obama to speak? Go get your own University system and invite him.

As for us, we are trying mightily hard to uninvite him from ours.

unclesmrgol on March 29, 2009 at 7:41 PM

One event is clearly more personal and private than the other. Perhaps having the President speak at Notre Dame will give those at the university opposed to his abortion policies additional media attention with which to convey their message.

dedalus on March 29, 2009 at 7:23 PM

Only if the networks don’t cut away during the counter-speech.

I doubt this will be a teachable moment.

unclesmrgol on March 29, 2009 at 7:51 PM

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 6:49 PM

Should have read down to you before posting. Could have cut mine in half or more.

unclesmrgol on March 29, 2009 at 7:52 PM

OrdinaryColoradan on March 29, 2009 at 6:02 PM

+10

unclesmrgol on March 29, 2009 at 7:55 PM

The hockey thing has gotta hurt. Maybe Bemidji State wasn’t as shorthanded as everyone thought…

unclesmrgol on March 29, 2009 at 8:00 PM

I am thrilled that Cardinal DiNardo will confirm my son this June. It is quite an experience to hear this man speak. ….While the Tea Parties represent the common man challenging this government, this Cardinal challenges the rank-and-file Catholics to demand a return to Catholic values.

on fire on March 29, 2009 at 8:07 PM

Should have read down to you before posting. Could have cut mine in half or more.

unclesmrgol on March 29, 2009 at 7:52 PM

The catechism can’t be emphasized enough when it comes to final authority, so no worries. You and Dedalus have raised some important concerns.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 8:17 PM

Know what I find disappointing? That the leaders of the Catholic Church covered crimes commited by their priests on altar boys. Not Obama speaking at Notre Dame, young boys that had their lives ruined by priests. So cry me a river about Obama speaking Cardinal, your church has no credibility.

athensboy on March 29, 2009 at 9:03 PM

dedalus on March 29, 2009 at 6:38 P

M

Hi dedalus, Sneaking a few minutes on the computer before starting dinner as I haven’t been on in a couple of days. Naturally, I find this thread and you right in the thick of it.

I wanted to respond quickly to this post regarding a judge who had cited Roe in a decision.

There seems to be a lot of why Obama and why now questions. The TP-Pres seems to have hit a nerve and we know that he is not the first pro-abortion speaker at a Notre Dame graduation, so indeed, why him and why now?

I believe that what we are seeing in this bruhaha is the voice of the faithful, finally having enough. The TP-Pres is a straw breaking the back of the camel. Those in the pews every Sunday and in the trenches in this struggle for the unborn were very disheartened with Obama’s election. We knew that it spelled the death knell for some hard fought victories, all with the swipe of his pen.

This invitation to ND just seems a slap in the face by a church that plays too many political games and forgets, it seems, its true mission, the guidance and protection of the souls of its faithful.

I suspect there will be further uprisings, further vocal calls to the hierarchy to stop with the games and declare themselves, consequences be damned.

The faithful are just that, simple, dedicated and absolutely fed up. We are all a little like Martin Luther, we know there is wrong in the hierarchy, though we do not wish to take the Church down. On the contrary, we wish to lift it up.

Jvette on March 29, 2009 at 9:04 PM

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?

It is a sad shame that all the precious unborn babies can’t sign the petition.

Who will speak on their behalf? Notre Dame or Barack Hussein Obama?

TN Mom on March 29, 2009 at 9:34 PM

Know what I find disappointing? That the leaders of the Catholic Church covered crimes commited by their priests on altar boys.

Me too, it caused so much damage to the Church. But that is, hopefully, in the past so it’s really off topic to this issue. Regardless of what was done in the past, Obama has no business speaking at the University with his pro-abortion platform.

sheesh on March 29, 2009 at 9:34 PM

athensboy on March 29, 2009 at 9:03 PM

As your faith is oh-so-credible, how about sharing? Let’s see if yours is up to a Google search.

DannoJyd on March 29, 2009 at 9:39 PM

athensboy on March 29, 2009 at 9:03 PM

You are an ignorant. If you would think and examine the facts before you condemn the church, maybe you’d be respectable. Where there horrible things done by a small minority of priests? Sure were. Where they covered up by fearful bishops – again a small minority – who let the seminaries (in the 70s and 80s) get overrun by homosexuals? Darn right. Can the church progress from that point? Of course. Only idiots like you feel that the church can’t repent and should not provide spiritual guidance to a world that has run amuk. Go get enlightened.

Fuquay Steve on March 29, 2009 at 9:44 PM

athensboy on March 29, 2009 at 9:03 PM

That may be the case if Obama is permitted to speak.

We’re going to stand with the Cardinal on this.

unclesmrgol on March 29, 2009 at 9:48 PM

Doesn’t Notre Dame confer degrees every year on students who support abortion rights? I don’t believe they have a disqualification for students or faculty based on the abortion issue.

dedalus on March 29, 2009 at 5:11 PM

Honorary degrees are supposed to give prestige to people who support the goals of the institution. Notre Dame slaps all Catholics by honoring a filthy liar like Barak Obama.

highhopes on March 29, 2009 at 5:33 PM

A real degree is of more value than an honorary degree. An honorary degree can be had just by giving a speech, while an actual degree confirms that the graduate is steeped in the Notre Dame education.

dedalus on March 29, 2009 at 5:48 PM

dedalus,

Degrees are earned; honorary degrees are bestowed. They’re simply not the same thing.

The instruction which Jenkins is blatantly ignoring is the U.S. bishops’ 2004 document that states:
“The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

Operative words are “act in defiance” and “awards, honors or platforms.” It simply could not be clearer.

After having looked up some of the past recipients of honorary degrees at Notre Dame, I would be very surprised if some of the recipients were personally pro-choice. It’s not like they are only awarding the degrees to prominent members of the church and I’d be very surprised if they include questions about abortion, euthanasia, or similar issues in the vetting process. The issue here is that President Obama (and, before he was president, Senator Obama) is actively working to make abortions more available in this country. I would assume they would incur similar criticism had they tried to award an honorary degree on the president of Planned Parenthood.

Jenkins should man up and admit he was wrong. He should call President Obama and apologize profusely for mishandling the whole thing through his own failure to follow the bishops’ instruction (and failure to consult Bishop D’Arcy). It isn’t right that Obama — or anyone — be embarrassed. Jenkins definitely screwed up. However, that doesn’t change that he needs to be obedient to his bishop and revoke the HDr offer.

Y-not on March 29, 2009 at 9:49 PM

athensboy on March 29, 2009 at 9:03 PM

There was never an ongoing policy encouraging or condoning the sexual abuse of minors. When the scandal broke in 2002, the Church responded immediately. Some priests resigned, others were defrocked or jailed and financial settlements totaling in the hundreds of millions of dollars were made with many victims. That same year, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops adopted a “zero-tolerance” policy for accused offenders and commissioned a comprehensive study that found that four percent of all priests who had served in the U.S. from 1950 to 2002 faced some sort of sexual accusation.

It was a shame, and no one in the Church bureaucracy should have covered up these crimes. Some psychiatrists noted that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling. Many of the abusive priests had received counseling before being reassigned. The argument that this is greater than the destruction brought by President Obama’s pro-abortion policies — in the eyes of the Church — is not only weak but insulting to the very weak referenced in Matthew 25:40.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 9:53 PM

Jvette on March 29, 2009 at 9:04 PM

The question is really does a Catholic university have an obligation to its community to accept the opportunity to have the POTUS as commencement speaker? If I were a graduating senior (or more reasonably the parent of one) I’d hope that Obama spoke. However, I’d also hope that there would be some pressure for him to address the abortion issue. ND famously had Mario Cuomo address the issue on their campus. Agree or disagree with Cuomo his discourse was one of the most thoughtful on the contending priorities for Catholic politicians who were elected by pro-choice voters.

dedalus on March 29, 2009 at 10:12 PM

Ares: you don’t know your WWII history, old boy. It was basically the Catholics in Italy who saved so many Jewish lives from the Nazi occupiers.
As for Chekote: if you are a non-practicing Catholic, you are no longer a Catholic. Perhaps you have forgotten your catechism about missing Mass and practicing the Church’s teachings. Being a conservative Republican may be well and good, but you have forgotten all you’ve known about your faith. And that’s that.

chai on March 29, 2009 at 10:16 PM

The question is really does a Catholic university have an obligation to its community to accept the opportunity to have the POTUS as commencement speaker?

dedalus on March 29, 2009 at 10:12 PM

Are you saying that you think Obama called and requested that he be given an HDr and be commencement speaker? That would be pretty damned cheeky of him.

It’s not only disrespectful of the Church’s authority, but it is a slap in the face to academe. I’ve participated in the delicate situations that arise when a misguided person requests an honorary doctorate. No matter how big the benefactor or how influential s/he might be, the institution always says no.

The president of a Catholic university has an obligation to follow the instructions of the Catholic hierarchy to which he reports. The U.S. bishops specifically addressed this situation over four years ago — they told U.S. organizations not to honor people who actively oppose Church teaching on abortion.

Y-not on March 29, 2009 at 10:20 PM

The instruction which Jenkins is blatantly ignoring is the U.S. bishops’ 2004 document that states:
“The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

Operative words are “act in defiance” and “awards, honors or platforms.” It simply could not be clearer.

Y-not on March 29, 2009 at 9:49 PM

One issue might be that ND was founded by a religious order rather than by one of the diocese headed by a bishop. Not sure if they get to bypass the US bishops and take their orders directly from Rome.

dedalus on March 29, 2009 at 10:21 PM

One issue might be that ND was founded by a religious order rather than by one of the diocese headed by a bishop. Not sure if they get to bypass the US bishops and take their orders directly from Rome.

dedalus on March 29, 2009 at 10:21 PM

I very much doubt that loop hole exists. If it did, why did Jenkins take the time to call Bishop D’Arcy?

The U.S. council of catholic bishops reports to Rome. Their authority is over U.S. catholics. They issued a very clear statement about this years ago. Jenkins chose to ignore it.

As someone who attended a Catholic college for undergrad studies (and who got into Notre Dame, although I went elsewhere), I’m telling you that whatever the politics are of the Catholic students at Notre Dame, many of their parents are still observant Catholics. They’ve paid a premium to send their kids to a Catholic school. I bet many will skip graduation. I am 100% sure my parents would have — as would I.

Y-not on March 29, 2009 at 10:25 PM

Are you saying that you think Obama called and requested that he be given an HDr and be commencement speaker? That would be pretty damned cheeky of him.

Y-not on March 29, 2009 at 10:20 PM

I think hundreds of universities send the commencement invite to POTUS and the White House contacts a few to see if it will work. So I’m saying that it is the White House call to the university indicating that it is on the short list that gets the ball rolling.

dedalus on March 29, 2009 at 10:25 PM

As someone who attended a Catholic college for undergrad studies (and who got into Notre Dame, although I went elsewhere), I’m telling you that whatever the politics are of the Catholic students at Notre Dame, many of their parents are still observant Catholics. They’ve paid a premium to send their kids to a Catholic school. I bet many will skip graduation. I am 100% sure my parents would have — as would I.

Y-not on March 29, 2009 at 10:25 PM

I think your points about what ND means to Catholics and that many will skip the commencement and skip donations is entirely accurate.

However, I do believe that religious orders operate at great distance from the Bishops who oversee dioceses. They should be on the same page, but the org chart has them reporting up to the Pope differently.

dedalus on March 29, 2009 at 10:29 PM

I think hundreds of universities send the commencement invite to POTUS and the White House contacts a few to see if it will work. So I’m saying that it is the White House call to the university indicating that it is on the short list that gets the ball rolling.

dedalus on March 29, 2009 at 10:25 PM

The honorary doctorate process is done in secret and only proceeds to the stage of contacting the candidate after most of the “vetting” is complete (to avoid embarrassment should the person not be approved by the faculty body, the deans, the upper administration, and the Board of Trustees). At a Catholic university, part of the vetting must include considering any applicable Church policies.

Commencement speakers are a bit more hit and miss, and the process is not as rigorous at most places, but they are still pretty targeted processes. The speakers tend to be people with whom someone high up at the university has relationship so they have a decent idea up front that the person will say yes.

The honorary doctorate process should never have gotten started. If Jenkins had a doubt about whether or not speaking at commencement would constitute “honoring” Obama, he should have consulted his local Bishop.

Y-not on March 29, 2009 at 10:30 PM

However, I do believe that religious orders operate at great distance from the Bishops who oversee dioceses. They should be on the same page, but the org chart has them reporting up to the Pope differently.

dedalus on March 29, 2009 at 10:29 PM

Why did Jenkins call Bishop D’Arcy just before he made the announcement about Obama receiving the honorary doctorate and speaking at commencement?

Y-not on March 29, 2009 at 10:32 PM

Why did Jenkins call Bishop D’Arcy just before he made the announcement about Obama receiving the honorary doctorate and speaking at commencement?

Y-not on March 29, 2009 at 10:32 PM

The bishop is an important person. I’m sure POTUS calls the PM of Great Britain to give him a heads up on things, even though the US hasn’t reported into GB for a couple hundred years.

dedalus on March 29, 2009 at 10:39 PM

The honorary doctorate process should never have gotten started. If Jenkins had a doubt about whether or not speaking at commencement would constitute “honoring” Obama, he should have consulted his local Bishop.

Y-not on March 29, 2009 at 10:30 PM

Sure, he should have spoken to the bishop. I do know some people who have received honorary degrees that they didn’t have the professional accomplishments to merit. I do think many universities are guilty of trading the honorary degree for star power.

dedalus on March 29, 2009 at 10:44 PM

The Catholic Church and its adherents should clean up their house before trying to force feed their version of morality on the rest of the world.
Ares on March 29, 2009 at 5:32 PM

Are you saying they don’t have the right to police their own? Are you saying they don’t have the right to invite whomever they wish? I fail to see how they are “force feed[ing]” anything upon anyone.
Are you actually saying there are people who sin within the Catholic church, among other denominations? Say it isn’t so.
“If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.” 1 John 1:8-10

Send_Me on March 29, 2009 at 10:47 PM

I do think many universities are guilty of trading the honorary degree for star power.

dedalus on March 29, 2009 at 10:44 PM

Well, they’ve made quite a deal with the devil this time.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 11:14 PM

Well, they’ve made quite a deal with the devil this time.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 11:14 PM

Yeah. I think many universities are quite corrupt with the way they manage their division I athletic departments. Don’t know anything about ND specifically, but big universities have often have their eye in the revenue line.

dedalus on March 29, 2009 at 11:20 PM

My understanding is that miscarried babies can’t be assured of going to heaven if they haven’t been baptized, and that baptism can’t happen after the miscarriage because there is no soul to baptize. The presence of a soul is a very important consideration.

dedalus on March 29, 2009 at 6:21 PM

Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother’s breast. From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother’s womb you have been my God (Psalm 22:9-10).

Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth. Even to your old age and gray hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you (Isaiah 46:3-4).

And now the LORD says—he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD and my God has been my strength (Isaiah 49:5).

When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy” (Luke 1:41-42, 44).

The word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart…(Jeremiah 1:4-5).

There is no doubt, except for those that do not believe…

right2bright on March 29, 2009 at 11:35 PM

Actualy, the better arguement is that the Degree will go to Obama the individual, not to the office of the Presidency.

Romeo13 on March 29, 2009 at 6:26 PM

True. True. It won’t say “Office of the Presidency” on the sheepskin, and the sheepskin won’t go into the Archives when BO leaves office…

unclesmrgol on March 30, 2009 at 12:43 AM

Let us understand clearly that “arguments” which involve claims “Notre Dame did this” or “the Catholic Church did that” at various times in the past are nothing but diversions.
`
Perhaps those offering such red herrings do so intentionally to distract from the true issue at hand, or perhaps they are merely too stupid to comprehend the folly of their statements. Perhaps they are Satan’s sock puppets. It’s an irrelevant inquiry in itself, of course, and a further diversion from the real issue.
`
The only question at hand is, “Is it appropriate for a Catholic University to award an honorary law degree to, and host as commencement speaker, one who is diametrically, deliberately, and actively opposed to Church teachings on the critical issue of the rights of the innocent to life?”
`
The Church takes a liberal approach towards the “Catholic universities” nowadays. They would never consider interfering with the science curriculum, or prevent an honest and open debate on any aspect of Church doctrine, for example. But this is no debate or class presentation. It’s the key speech to the graduating class AND an honorary degree in law to be awarded.
`
If the Church cannot assure itself that its universities will, at the least, not seek to undermine the very foundations of Church teachings with their choices for these important symbolic honors, of what use is it to describe such institutions as “Catholic” in the first place?
`

Adjoran on March 30, 2009 at 1:06 AM

I knew that I’d find plenty of examples of bigotry, lies, and smears against the Church here. Hot Air never fails to disappoint.

Cheroke, Thacker, and Ares – I hope all of you like being published in all your glory: More Hot Air Bigots.

It is insanely stupid for this blog to continue to be host towards anti-Catholic bigots or Angry Lapsed Catholics Whose Mission In Life Is To Destroy The Church. When will this place be as safe for Catholics as it is for everyone else?

Sydney Carton on March 30, 2009 at 1:12 AM

When will this place be as safe for Catholics as it is for everyone else?

Quit whining. I know the truth hurts but don’t take out on me. Take it out on the offender, i.e. the Catholic Church.

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 1:29 AM

Quit whining. I know the truth hurts but don’t take out on me. Take it out on the offender, i.e. the Catholic Church.

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 1:29 AM

Chekote, all you’ve posted are lies. Others have done plenty to correct you on that. Yet you continue to rant over the Church because you’re pro-choice and they’re not. And you lie, saying that the Church cooperated with the Nazis and Mussolini despite the obvious facts to the contrary.

Do you think Michelle Malkin appreciates making this blog your personal dartboard towards Catholics?

Sydney Carton on March 30, 2009 at 2:15 AM

Wow… this is really quite a mess. Why couldn’t the President of the University see this comming? Is it possible the choice of Obama was done to cause controversy? Does the President of the College harbor some secret wish that his Church would soften the doctrine?

I don’t think Catholics should require everyone think exactly like them to qualify to speak. And like it or not Obama is President.

I agree that giving a degree to Obama after his nearly first acts where to make sure more and more of the unborn would die needlessly…

It is like an abolutionist organization giving honorary award to Jefferson Davis…telling him what a great job he is doing perpetuating slavery.

It is totally inconsistent.

I’m sure Obama jumped at the chance because it gives the impression that the Catholic church endorses him in spite of his unashamed support of infantcide.

I guess when I think of it like that… he probably shouldn’t be allowed to speak either. It allows some Catholics to support him and ease their conscience while doing so.

This kind of symbolism does undermine the right to life stance of the Catholic Church.

petunia on March 30, 2009 at 2:18 AM

Excommunicate, banish, ban anyone who disagreed with the Catholic Church.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 2:31 PM
That is exactly what the Church should be doing when hypocrisy comes to light. If these individuals had moral courage or intellectual honesty, they would have left voluntarily.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 2:33 PM

I am not qualified to speak so… I will anyway. I think if the Catholics had done more excomunicating in the last couple of decades when they discovered the wayward Priests that they would have more credibility now.

I come from a tradition where excomunication is a path to repentence and not an absolute expression of a person’s final judgement so I may be totally wrong about the situation. I mean no one on Earth has the power to really condemn anyone for eternity. Only excluded them from fellowship.

petunia on March 30, 2009 at 2:28 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5