Catholic college president: Obama protesters at ND were “religious vigilantes”
posted at 10:58 am on May 18, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The perfect ironic conclusion to yesterday’s paean to tolerance and dialogue at Notre Dame: The leader of a Catholic school sneering at student protesters for practicing freedom of speech in defense of Church teachings. Rarely have liberal Catholicism and campus Orwellianism meshed more beautifully.
Speaking on Trinity’s campus in Northeast Washington, McGuire said that “a half-century of progress for Catholic higher education is at risk of slipping back into those insular, parochial pre-Vatican II days” when academic freedom was not valued within the Catholic Church.
“The real scandal at Notre Dame today is not that the president of the United States is speaking at commencement,” McGuire said. “The real scandal is the misappropriation of sacred teachings for political ends. The real scandal is the spectacle of ostensibly Catholic mobs camping out at Notre Dame for the specific purpose of disrupting the commencement address of the nation’s first African American president. This ugly spectacle is an embarrassment to all Catholics. The face that Catholicism shows to our new president should be one marked with the sign of peace, not distorted in the snarl of hatred.”
McGuire continued, “The religious vigilantism apparent in the Notre Dame controversy arises from organizations that have no official standing with the church, but who are successful in gaining media coverage as if they were speaking for Catholicism. . . . They have established themselves as uber-guardians of a belief system we can hardly recognize. Theirs is a narrow faith devoted almost exclusively to one issue. They defend the rights of the unborn but have no charity toward the living. They mock social justice as a liberal mythology.”
Included among the snarling, hateful vigilantes who dared to speak for Catholicism despite their renegade belief system: At least 55 American bishops. No matter, though. According to McGuire’s spokesman, her remarks drew the same kind of fawning applause The One himself received yesterday at ND. I know I’m known as a big-tent guy when it comes to the GOP, but er, how big is the Church’s tent, exactly, when its intellectual leadership is dumping publicly on kids who stand up for life? And since when does peaceful protest not qualify as a “sign of peace”?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Prof., some people are insane. Their morality isn’t the driver of their other thoughts and beliefs. Morality is just one of many considerations. Give it up. Ann in CA is either a new troll (maybe getalife or one of his sisters, Axelrod, etc.) or just another CA person whose common sense was destroyed by living in CA.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2009 at 11:37 AM
So Obama goes to a Catholic school and gives a pro-abortion speech in which he says that the practice of abortion should be legal but rare because sometimes it’s necessary? Okay.
Now, he didn’t go and tell the graduates how to do well in life or talk about success, etc. He talked about abortion and how we have to work together to bridge irreconcilable differences (which if they are “irreconcilable” is there such a bridge)? It’s either murder or it’s not.
But here’s what I find most interesting. On the one hand Obama argues that abortion (murdering helpless babies) and even infantacide if the intention was abortion but the post-fetus (baby) didn’t have the good sense to die is fine in “rare cases,” but waterboarding in order to save a few thousand lives, in which case the victim is not harmed but scared for an hour or so… is NOT fine EVER even in extreme cases.
Okay. Got it.
And I always thought those who would protest FOR abortion but against the death penalty had an interesting set of values.
Oh, and I’m curious but don’t have time to do the research, just how “rare” is abortion in our country anyway? Is it at all comparable to three people being waterboarded out of the thousands we are fighting? Just curious.
UnderstandingisPower on May 18, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Lib! Sentencing someone to death is not murder – it’s a judgement on the sanctity of life. Those who have been so judged have violated their societal contract.
vapig on May 18, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Well, she’s right. I don’t recall these Catholics protesting George W. Bush’s commencement speech at Notre Dame over Texas’ liberal use of the death penalty.
Here are a few. Then again we’re talking about state law as opposed to federal law.
“”2001: Protests greeted newly-elected President George W. Bush. Valedictorian Carolyn Weir posed the question to the audience, and, indirectly to Bush: “Why do you play God, by executing the guilty?” During the roar of applause that followed, Bush leaned over and made a comment to Malloy.”"
Bishop on May 18, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Notre Dame’s football team – mediocre. Notre Dame’s leadership – mediocre. Notre Dame’s academics – well, you get the point.
They should paint over Touchdown Jesus’s face and make it Obama’s face to complete their conversion.
mr1216 on May 18, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Yep,next thing ya know nObama will tell us the sun is warm…..wow he is amazing isn’t he?
dmann on May 18, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Wow! Obama’s goons arrest a 80 year old man for standing up for Life. How pathetic and sad we have become as a country when we coddle criminals and imprison ancient heroes.
Guardian on May 18, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Yep, so did mankai if you can’t tell.
darclon on May 18, 2009 at 11:32 AM
in that case, I can understand why.
youngO on May 18, 2009 at 11:39 AM
So then the two issues are not equal.
Stop pretending that they are.
CDeb on May 18, 2009 at 11:39 AM
What is more hateful than promoting the killing of the unborn?
Badger40 on May 18, 2009 at 11:39 AM
What is more hateful than promoting the killing of the unborn?
Badger40 on May 18, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Putting panties on the head of a terrorist, apparently.
Bishop on May 18, 2009 at 11:41 AM
“You laymen just put your dough in the plate and shuddup.”
Akzed on May 18, 2009 at 11:41 AM
They would have to re-name it Three Point Jesus.
myrenovations on May 18, 2009 at 11:42 AM
A young christian woman wearing a bikini.
daesleeper on May 18, 2009 at 11:43 AM
The ONE should be condemned.
Texas uses the death penalty to put to death the scum of the earth.
Criminials that kill other people are a menace to society. Obama puts the unborn in the same league as criminials. He says that women should not be punished if they don’t want a child. What about the unborn? They have done nothing wrong yet Obama has no problem condeming them to death.
What is wrong with this picture? The sooner that Jenkins is gone the better.
Obama has just ratacheted up the debate and you wll see the anti-abortion forces in America will just grow & grow. Much to the chagrin of Notre Dame.
izoneguy on May 18, 2009 at 11:43 AM
This must be why liberals are so adept at simultaneously holding morally contradictory positions. E.g. waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed bad, chopping babies up in the womb and flushing them out good. I don’t understand how their heads don’t explode with all the cognitive dissonance they must have to deal with.
ProfessorMiao on May 18, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Just a reminder of what Obama fanatically supports:
CDeb on May 18, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Vatican City had its own death penalty on its books until the 1960’s, whereas the Church has recognized abortion as a serious sinc from the jump.
Akzed on May 18, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Being a woman(gay,black, asian, jew, etc.) but not belonging to the officially approved democrap victim class.
Miss CA and Sarah Palin are more hateful to many Americans than killing an unborn baby.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2009 at 11:44 AM
What is more hateful than promoting the killing of the unborn?
Putting panties on the head of a terrorist, apparently.
Ah, priorties.
thebrokenrattle on May 18, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Annas: He’s back in town and the crowds are growing by the hour.
Caiphas: They’re mobs of religious zealots!
Annas: I heard him preach he could destroy the temple and rebuild it in 3 days.
Caiphas: That’s religious vigilantism!
Annas: He preaches of fulfilling the law of Moses and the prophets.
Caiphas: That’s a faith we can hardly recognize! Where’s my money bag? I need some silver. Let’s have an open minded dialogue with his supporters.
Ted Torgerson on May 18, 2009 at 11:44 AM
“Secularism is a euphemism for a set of beliefs that are the antithesis of faith. Boiled down to its basic elements, secularism is man’s subordination of morality to his own earthly judgments, scientific and otherwise. …[T]he secularist catechism holds that truth is subjective, relative or contextual; because it demands that rationality can solve moral and ontological questions about man’s nature, that discrimination is the greatest of all evils and that patriotism is the only social disease that isn’t sexually-transmitted. … Obama’s thesis … is that our moral code can exist in the absence of a religious foundation. …[S]ecularism — and its cousin, multiculturalism — are the primary causes of the weakening of western society at a most dangerous time in history. The weakness results … because secularism turns the bedrock of western society — the moral code derived from Judeo-Christian faith — into sand. By divorcing our societies from faith, we render every man’s morality equal to every other’s, and thus make them all valueless. When President Obama says we are a nation bound by ideals and values, he postulates an impossibility: where do those secular ideals and values come from if — as liberal dogma requires — every man makes up his own?” –Human Events editor Jed Babbin
kirkill on May 18, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Calling those that protested racists? Maybe not as bad, but close enough and I’m sick of it.
Knucklehead on May 18, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Sure lady. Conservatives are well known for ignoring the needy. Liberals are so generous, with other people’s money of course.
No, they mock it as LIBERATION theology and quite rightly I might add. It was mocked in South and Central America and it will be mocked here.
Rocks on May 18, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Very well said, John Steele.
Why don’t you pass that along to your brother Michael?
;-)
UltimateBob on May 18, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Wow
Doofpundit used the word “nuance” again.
What a surprise.
TTheoLogan on May 18, 2009 at 11:46 AM
The hate, the hate!!!!
blatantblue on May 18, 2009 at 11:46 AM
The death penalty & abortion are two totally different animals…
See my last post.
Again, the death penalty is used to eliminate criminials.
Unborn babies are not criminials – don’t mix the two together.
izoneguy on May 18, 2009 at 11:46 AM
First, there’s no right to free speech assertable against a private university. As conservative/libertarian types, we should keep that straight.
However, that so many supposedly “Christian” organizations have sided with the trendy norms of society and against their own historical teachings indicates there will soon come a time when relgious freedom and free religious speech is confined to silent prayer at home, if that.
It’s astonishing, to say the least, that advocacy on behalf of the unborn could be characterized as expression of hate. If indeed abortion is a form of homicide/murder–and if you’re Catholic, the teachings of your church indicated that it is–then the true hate lies in the hearts of those who, like our current president, derive political clout from opposing even the smallest restrictions to the practice of abortion.
Those Catholics, such as Mr. McGuire, who prefer to be lukewarm when it comes to abortion, shall likely be spat or vomited out by Christ. Revelation 3:16.
cackcon on May 18, 2009 at 11:46 AM
There is no room for abortionists in Catholicism and no room for their supporters. This is not high brow it is Catholicism for Dummies.
I lived in a community, not too long ago, where many families religion shopped. They would try church after church until they found one they liked. Many of these people “former Catholics”.
This whole debate reminds me of those church shoppers looking for a church to fit their views. Only in this case, these priests and universities have modified their faith to fit popular belief.
Absolute moral wimps.
ORconservative on May 18, 2009 at 11:47 AM
I watched Obama’s speech live,yesterday on Fox!
I noticed that when there was an outburst,and secruity
was dealing with the situation,I noticed Obama’s little
smirk as Obama watched the person get hauled away!
And why is it,that when Lefty protesters start,it seems
forever to shut them up and haul them away!
canopfor on May 18, 2009 at 11:47 AM
IN my experience with liberals (and liberals are the ONLY people I know,) their extreme hatred and fear of some aspect of the ruling class (whites, christians, straights, whatever,) is the overriding factor and unifying glue that allows their minds to remain functioning, even while holding views that are contradictory, and even in defiance of their very own values.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Publicly answering a question posed by a gay beauty pageant judge that you personally believe that the insitution of marriage ought to remain between a man and a woman? Just a guess.
sdd on May 18, 2009 at 11:47 AM
And so another myth gets played in the media and in the minds of the public.
The VAST majority of people at ND yesterday who were in opposition to Obama’s honoring were at a peaceful alternative mass that drew almost 1000. These included many graduates and parents, as well as concerned Catholics from around the country who wanted to express their devotion to Catholic values in the proper way. National Review has several posts today from people who were there and saw no disruptive mob-type behavior at all.
But by all means, let’s ignore them and brand all who dissent from the Holiness of The One as a “mob” displaying “religious vigilantism.”
This is exactly what I feared would come out of this, no matter what happened. The Precedent gets glowing reviews for his tolerance and fair-mindedness, while those standing in principled opposition get vilified as religious fanatics and close-minded bigots. This, of course, is EXACTLY why the White House sought this invitation and so eagerly accepted it.
rockmom on May 18, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Liberals don’t think with their heads. But they carry around awful cases of hemorrhoids, if that yields any insight into the situation.
progressoverpeace on May 18, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Benedict also issues a strongly-worded rebuff after Nancy Pelosi tried to defend abortion as a “devout” Catholic while telling the Pope that pro-life teaching is only 50 years old (hmmm, that would be a compliment to Saint Augustin).
Benedict also understands totalitarianism–he grew up in Nazi Germany!
As for “joining the battle against Obama”, it’s not really the place of the Pope, as head of the worldwide Catholic church, to pick political fights with the leader of one country, but to defend the principles of the Catholic faith in all countries. The Pope is probably opposed to the philosphies of Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, and Kim Jong Il, but he can’t unite the Catholic Church around Jesus Christ if he picks fights with 100 national leaders at once! What the Pope CAN do is name Bishops who are firmly committed to defending Catholic principles against all attacks, and let them speak in his name.
The Church, and especially Catholic colleges had been allowed to drift leftward during the reign of Paul VI, and Pope John Paul II concentrated most of his efforts early in his papacy on the struggle against Communism and the “theology of liberation” in South America.
He did name many conservative Bishops during the 1990’s, but he didn’t realize the extent of the liberal teaching in “Catholic” colleges until very late in his Papacy, when his poor health prevented him from taking a more active role.
John Paul II did require Catholic colleges to submit to a “mandatum” to respect Catholic teaching, which has been better enforced by Vatican commissions under Benedict XVI. However, it does take time to clean up the entire network after nearly 40 years of neglect.
Steve Z on May 18, 2009 at 11:51 AM
I dont care if hes orange, its not his skin color that concerns me, its his views and the ideas he espouses.
Just because hes the first black President doesnt mean hes beyond scrutiny or criticism, much as the left would like to believe that.
Opportunity Costs on May 18, 2009 at 11:51 AM
Another tried an true strategy…
We noted that you can drop the “2000 years” one day so long as you wait until the next day to show horror when anyone dares to quote from anything over 40 years ago. It’s the “unchanging faith” strategy kept independednt of the “the church has grown in its understanding” strategy (you must ignore Vatican I and Leo XIII for the latter, however… if Leo is quoted, use the “how dare you go back 100 years!” indignation).
The next lesson in avoidance… claim someone is “simply ignorant” of RC teaching and laugh derisively… if the person, however, has RC bona fides… you then laugh that being an “ex-RC” is the disqualifier. Just be sure (as in our first lesson) that you use these strategies at different times. You’ve thus neutralized any argument… the non-catholic is ignorant, the educated ex-Catholic is disqualified by definition. All quotes of Popes or Councils become “Catholic bashing.”
Always be sure to ignore the arguments being made… laughing it off and resorting to personal attacksd and inuendo is always the better strategy. For good measure, imply that the person has some personal vice. But in the end, any legitimate argument should be labeled “catholic bashing” thereby ending the logical sequence.
mankai on May 18, 2009 at 11:52 AM
This is the difference between the left and the right.
Carrie gives men on the right a tingle in their loins.
Obama gives men on the left a tingle up their leg.
UltimateBob on May 18, 2009 at 11:52 AM
So were the people protesting at ND nutjobs? I mean someone who is intellectually honest please answer that because I sincerely dont know. Were they just pro-lifers who are against abortion or were they the Catholic Code Pink dressed like nuts and shouting craziness?
I mean how McGuire responded is how I would like to hear people respond to the Code Pink lunatics. So if the ND protesters are analogous to that it’s a big difference in how I take this. Protesting the Iraq war is one thing, Code Pink nuts shouting ‘war criminal’ dressed like a mental patient is something else. Protesting abortion is one thing… etc etc.
Dash on May 18, 2009 at 11:52 AM
An otherwise ordinary Monday morning made a little brighter. Ah thank you.
Oh no, not this crap again.
daesleeper on May 18, 2009 at 11:53 AM
ND is just another lib school, it has been for a long time.
I had friends who went there in the 70s and they tell of professors who were no different from the leftists hacks I “enjoyed” at my Big 10 school.
clnurnberg on May 18, 2009 at 11:53 AM
McGuire is a disgrace (literally) but I think I know what makes her say such garbage
sloopy on May 18, 2009 at 11:53 AM
She makes men pitch enough tents to fit every type of Republican under
blatantblue on May 18, 2009 at 11:53 AM
You think he would have learned after last night!!!
BWaHAHA I’m still laughing so hard over it
blatantblue on May 18, 2009 at 11:53 AM
If not for abortion we might have had a different and actually qualified ‘African-American’ President if he or she had been allowed to live.
DarkCurrent on May 18, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Well, that is EXACTLY right. My husband was raised Catholic and left the Church because of its stance on abortion and divorce, and female ordination. Yet all of his family remain nominal Catholics, despite one of them being an openly practicing homosexual and two being divorced.
rockmom on May 18, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Great one! +100
UltimateBob on May 18, 2009 at 11:54 AM
And if abortion had been legal in 1961, young Stanley Ann Dunham might well have had one.
rockmom on May 18, 2009 at 11:55 AM
You are not allowed not to care. Your race blindness is unapproved. Without race and gender awareness, we can’t tell the good guys from the bad guys. Your supposed virtue is a vice. Stop repeating that you don’t care. In the Obama world, race, gender and sexual orientation matter. Saying it doesn’t emboldens your enemy, it doesn’t disarm them.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2009 at 11:56 AM
First, a hate-filled tirade against the Catholic youth:
Then, this in support of the Godless:
So, what will it be: “lobbing hate mail” at faithful Catholics, or “the moral high ground” of the infanticide crowd? Will the real Catholic Church please stand up?
littleguy on May 18, 2009 at 11:56 AM
I have less of a problem with gay Catholics (in fact, really no problem) or divorce but I absolutely can not handle pro abortion Catholics.
Get the heck out of the Church. There is no wiggle room.
ORconservative on May 18, 2009 at 11:57 AM
The medical research scientist that would have discovered the cure for AIDS was aborted thirty years ago. Same thing happened to the doctor that would have found the cure for cancer. At least one future president’s body parts were dumped into a medical waste bag at a family planning clinic. Thank you President Obama for your continued support of abortion! Oh…and let’s not forget you clergymen who think there’s room for compromise. Thanks alot!
sdd on May 18, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Ban this turd Allah. He’s got some serious issues that aren’t appropriate at HA.
Knucklehead on May 18, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Masturbation (or simply lust) is a “grave sin”, you know. Do not pass GO, do not collect 200… straight to torment for you!
mankai on May 18, 2009 at 11:59 AM
I don’t know too many non-liberals, either. I think you’re right about the extreme hatred/fear factor, and the greatest object of hatred seems to be western civilization itself. The environmentalists hate our technological and medical expertise (except when it helps them, personally). The peaceniks hate our power and military superiority (although I suspect that few would be consistent in that when their own lives are on the line). The socialists hate our economic standard of living (even though their leaders and most vocal supporters are among the most wealthy). They detest individualism (except for a ‘woman’s right to choose’).
But I don’t think any of them can actually articulate a consistent set of values. They exist in ideological opposition to conservative positions, rather than for any positions that arise from fundamental moral values, and this accounts for much of the moral inconsistency.
ProfessorMiao on May 18, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Can you be pro-abortion and Catholic?
YES WE CAN! (was the resounding reply at Notre Dame)
Apparently they consider the Pope a “religious vigilante” and their new messiah is, well, The One.
clnurnberg on May 18, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Good points all. But I was particularly responding to the notion that a slow pace is preferable for the Vatican, because it’s 2000 year longevity proves it’s actions are correct. What would be the value for the church and American Catholics of losing the US as a capitalist democracy?
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Guilty as charged.
Of lusting after Carrie, that is. Not the other thing.
UltimateBob on May 18, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Good question for Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX.
mankai on May 18, 2009 at 12:02 PM
No they can’t. These priests will have to deal with the consequences. Period.
No matter how you spin it, you are taking a life.
You want to screw someone of the same sex or divorce or whatever, go for it but you can not take a life.
ORconservative on May 18, 2009 at 12:02 PM
This made me wonder: does anyone know (if only by estimate) what percentage of the ND student body is actually Catholic?
BuckeyeSam on May 18, 2009 at 12:03 PM
The bigger the church’s tent the emptier it gets.
evensteven on May 18, 2009 at 12:04 PM
The point is that God created Man and Woman, and blessed their union in marriage to create children and continue His creation through the generations. God created Man in His image and is the only One to judge when that life is created and when it should end. He blessed marriage and man cannot sunder what God has blessed. This is God’s plan, and homosexuality, divorce, artificial birth control, abortion, and even the death penalty all disrupt that Divine plan and place our judgment and convenience ahead of God’s. That is why a true Catholic cannot pick and choose which of these sins is worse than the other. They are all equally wrong and must be shunned and denounced. If you can’t handle that you should not call yourself a Catholic, you should find another Chruch.
rockmom on May 18, 2009 at 12:04 PM
I’m afraid we have hit the bottom of the slippery slope.
clnurnberg on May 18, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Obama cites his faith (see the 2004 senate race) as a reason not to support gay marriage (which is a head-scratcher for me — where in his Bible does it say that gay marriage is a no-no but same-sex relations are fine?). Biden calls himself a Catholic on the stump.
Seems to be a lot of it about. Yet you reserve your outrage for one side.
DrSteve on May 18, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Waaaah.
Stating you were a former Catholic is in no way a personal attack.
You air your dirty laundry against the Church on the blog constantly, and now you don’t want anyone bring it up? I say again, waaaaah.
Apostate Catholics have a well deserved reputation for bitterness.
The problem issued in the article is more of a recent one, not some inevitable conclusion drawn from Catholic theology.
darclon on May 18, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Translation: “The laity needs to just SFTU & eat the wafer.”
What a jackass.
bluelightbrigade on May 18, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Rush just opened his show with comments about ND-Obama.
SKYFOX on May 18, 2009 at 12:07 PM
And what Rush said was absolutely right, SKYFOX.
clnurnberg on May 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Ok, now you’ve created quite a dilemma and are forcing me to reconsider my position…
DarkCurrent on May 18, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Branch Rickey on May 18, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Did anybody get the sense that the latter half of
Obama’s speech,was a speech about ‘Civil Rights’?
canopfor on May 18, 2009 at 12:15 PM
When you are a pseudo / cafeteria / not really a Catholic ‘intellectual’ who is more worried about prestige and not principles.
Sooooo glad that the alum in the close circle of family friends who went to Trinity is onto her greater reward and not alive to see this disgrace at her beloved alma mater.
Branch Rickey on May 18, 2009 at 12:17 PM
When did I ever deny being an ex-RC (Religious Education Teacher, etc.)? You can put that in all-caps and bold it if you wish. I’m not whining that you mention it… I note that it is used as a disqualifier. And as quickly as I am dismissed for being an ex-RC (see also: Sarah Palin) others will be dismissed for their ignorance of Catholic doctrine. You want to eat your cake and have it too.
btw – in the Palin thread I made it abundantly clear that I am an ex-RC. In other threads I was careful to merely quote Popes and Councils sans comment knowing that just quoting a Pope amounts to “Catholic bashing” (although I still haven’t sorted out the logic behind that charge).
And as soon as I post a papal or conciliar quote from 150 years ago, I’ll be accused of dragging stuff up from “so long ago”… in the next thread I’ll be told of the “wisdom of 2000 years of history.”
Your post confirms my previous post. Thanks!
mankai on May 18, 2009 at 12:17 PM
And all this time I was thinking that Barak Obama was the 44th President of the United States. Now I find out that I was wrong, Obama isn’t the 44th President of the United States, he is the 1st African American President. This fits in well with Barak and Michelle’s core religious belief that America B.O. (Before Obama) stinks and is nothing to be proud about.
Expect new calendars soon and a rewriting of American History books with all dates expressed in BO and AB rather than traditional BC and AD.
Many people think that AD stands for “After Death” referring to the death of Jesus on the cross, but AD actually comes from a Latin phrase which means “In the year of our Lord – referring to the birth of Christ). This is important to understand because some will wrongly assume that AB stands for “After Barak” when it really means “In the year of Barak” – referring to his ascension to the Presidency. His intention is that there will not be any “After Barak”.
Ordinary American on May 18, 2009 at 12:20 PM
And a Cardinal. McGuire is apparently a political hack and liberal nitwit who is unaware that a Catholic Church hierarchy even exists.
Jaibones on May 18, 2009 at 12:21 PM
MOST PRO-ABORTION president Ever
Branch Rickey on May 18,2009 at 12:11PM.
Branch Rickey:
I agree,and Obama is also the first president in history
to be an active and ongoing ‘Activist President’!
canopfor on May 18, 2009 at 12:21 PM
As a Catholic I am proud of those students who protested and ashamed of ND, even more so now.
darcee on May 18, 2009 at 12:26 PM
He’s just not as enlightened as Prince of the Church, Cardinal Mahoney.
mankai on May 18, 2009 at 12:26 PM
How is that?
By proving you are thin-skinned and lack objectivity on anything related to Catholicism?
Citing Popes and Council from a millennium prior is fine as long as it has some relevance to the article or even the topic at hand. For some reason you seem perversely fascinated with self-flagellation and its connection with eternal damnation. It comes up in every Catholic thread.
See:
I’ll just let JetBoy discuss that with you…
darclon on May 18, 2009 at 12:27 PM
I am so tired of this argument. Social justice BEGINS with protecting the rights of the most innocent and needy among us.
Babino on May 18, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Personal attack… par for the course. :)
You and he can discuss Rome’s position of homosexuality, then get back to me.
mankai on May 18, 2009 at 12:29 PM
The key, now, is whether there is any blow back against this president. The degree of venom in his remarks is extraordinary–at least as it relates to his own students, alums, and the Catholic Bishops. (If he wants to bash outside agitators, that’s fine, but there were very well-spoken, polite student groups participating in protest as well.) It seems to me that the Vatican can and should issue an order removing him as the president of ND. It’ll create quite the hoopla, but, something needs to be done to put down this communism and b.s. immediately.
Make no mistake. If BYU’s president pulled a similar stunt, the president of the LDS church would fire him so fast his head would spin.
P.S. Love the fact the ND president also attacked criticism of “social justice.” Catholic liberation theology and social justice has resulted in the deaths of more than a million people around the world. Socialism has a body count over 100 million and is responsible for much misery. How stubborn can these guys be?
Outlander on May 18, 2009 at 12:29 PM
True.
Professor Bradley’s promise that this event – especially the awarding of an honorary doctorate to an abortionist – will have enormous long-term ramifications seems right on the mark.
I believe that the warm embrace of this scumbag by the Catholics at Notre Dame fully exposes the inescapable fact that very few Catholics actually believe in the Church’s doctrine.
Jaibones on May 18, 2009 at 12:30 PM
I quote Popes and Councils without comment… then get accused of “Catholic bashing” (this has been my life online for years)… yet I’m the one who lacks objectivity. Yeah.
mankai on May 18, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Great comment. Obama is disgusting, arrogant, radical and anti-American. (something I never thought about Clinton.) Listen to his speach and how self centered it was. Do you think any of his followers will ever see this? Can they be that dense? Rush once compared them to people in love, how they don’t see their lover’s faults.
And the leadership at Notre Dame disgusts me even more. The students applauding is just a sign of where are youth are in this country. But the President of Notre Dame was the most obnoxious to me yesterday. His fawing over Obama was a disgrace. In every sense of the word. Including the theological one.
Elisa on May 18, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Obama is god now
clnurnberg on May 18, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Btw, wasn’t “A Mother Named Stanley” a big Johhny Cash hit back in ‘69
DarkCurrent on May 18, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Not just one. Houston’s Daniel Cardinal DiNardo also weighed in.
CDeb on May 18, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Thank you for posting that. I hadn’t heard. I wondered who no one had an alternate graduation venue. Now I know. They did, but the media ignored it. Typical
This and the alumni who are withholding donations encourages me a little bit. We are not alone.
And never in my life have a seen so many American Bishops speak out about an issue. About a third of them. That is big. Usually they are silent on current events and politics and are trained to stay out of them en masse. This is very telling that the American Bishops may be starting (now with younger members gaining power) to get more conservative. Thank you Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict. There is alot going on behind the scenes. The liberalism from the 1960’s and 70’s is aging and on its way out the door.
Here is the alumni link again.
http://www.replacejenkins.com/references.html
NOTRE DAME ALUMNI CONFIRM $13.9 MILLION
IN WITHHELD DONATIONS
Financial Penalty of Obama Invite Continues to Mount
DEARBORN, MI – (May 13, 2009) – Organizers of ReplaceJenkins.com, the online effort that asks alumni and donors to the University of Notre Dame to withhold donations, announced Wednesday that they have tallied nearly $14 million in withheld donations from alumni and donors who feel disenfranchised by the trend of Notre Dame’s leadership to abandon its Catholic identity.
The website ReplaceJenkins.com has received over 1,400 pledges from alumni and donors promising to withhold future donations. After more than three weeks since the website was launched, the addition of new alumni and donors on the site continues daily. . . . .
Elisa on May 18, 2009 at 12:47 PM
No, they would crucify him on the spot.
Read the story of the “Grand Inquisitor” from The Brothers Karamazov for more details.
spmat on May 18, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Yeah. I’m guessing self-hating white (a la Michael Pfleger), lesbian, feminist, leftist?
Jaibones on May 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM
I specified Francis Cardinal George because he is their Cardinal, and because he was startlingly harsh, calling this “an embarrassment to all Catholics” – except, apparently, to the thousands of liberal nitwit Catholics at Notre Dame on Sunday.
Jaibones on May 18, 2009 at 1:04 PM
There, fixed it for you.
Don’t worry, we know how the left works. Logic and reason are not tools with which to argue, not when name calling can completely circumvent the argument process immediately. Obviously the protesters were racist, right?
Geministorm on May 18, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Big enough to make a mockery of the Church itself. Shame on them.
petefrt on May 18, 2009 at 1:07 PM
I am in such good company…. I’m a “racist” a “homophobe” a “warmonger”, a “xenophobe”, and now a ” religious vigilante”…. I wear these shrouds proudly… because I know, in truth… it is all false and nothing but the tag lines of a disgusting and hateful, leftist thought process.
MNDavenotPC on May 18, 2009 at 1:10 PM
It’s been pointed out on this website and by others on this thread that the Church’s teaching on abortion and capital punishment are 2 different things.
It was fine to honor Bush. Opposition to capital punishment is the opinion of a Pope and should be respected because he is a wise man and a holy man of faith. For that reason I examine my position on it.
But it is not a doctrine of the faith. It is not a belief on faith or morals that has been revealed by the Holy Spirit and handed down from the Teachings of the Apostles, Sacred Tradition. It has not been the 2,000 year teaching of the Church as abortion is. Only formal doctrines of the faith must be believed by all Christians.
Since the Didache in the 1st century the Church has said abortion is a sin and it is an “intrinsic evil.” No wiggle room there. And Obama is the most pro-abortion President we have had.
It has always been the teaching of the Church that killing is wrong, but that in some cases, such as self defense and just war it is allowed. And capital punishment always fell into that category. However, in modern times, we are to examine if it is still warranted.
But it is not an “intrinsic evil” and can never be compared to the killing of the innocent unborn, no less infanticide.
God bless you all and have a good day.
Elisa on May 18, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »