Laura Ingraham: Notre Dame’s no longer a viable Catholic institution

posted at 10:46 am on May 20, 2009 by Allahpundit

Via Gateway Pundit, a stemwinder from last night’s Factor that’s most remarkable for her assumption that it was a viable Catholic institution until this past weekend. William McGurn begs to differ:

We’ve been here before. In his response to an inquiry from this reporter, Dennis Brown, the university’s spokesman, wisely ignored a question asking whether “ambiguity” would be the word to describe a similar decision in 1984 to give Mario Cuomo, then governor of New York, the Notre Dame platform he so famously used to advance his personally-opposed-but argument. Or the decision a few years later to bestow its highest Catholic award on Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, another supporter of legal abortion. It seems that whenever Democratic leaders find themselves in trouble over their party’s abortion record, some Notre Dame honor or platform will be forthcoming to provide the needed cover…

With its billions in endowment and its prestigious name, Notre Dame ought to be in the lead here. But when asked for examples illuminating the university’s unambiguous support for unborn life, Mr. Brown could provide only four: help for pregnant students who want to carry their babies to term, student volunteer work for pregnant women at local shelters, prayer mentions at campus Masses, and lectures such as a seminar on life issues.

These are all well and good, but they also highlight the poverty of Notre Dame’s institutional witness. At Notre Dame today, there is no pro-life organization — in size, in funding, in prestige — that compares with the many centers, institutes and so forth dedicated to other important issues ranging from peace and justice to protecting the environment. Perhaps this explains why a number of pro-life professors tell me they must not be quoted by name, lest they face career retaliation.

The real question here isn’t whether Notre Dame is still Catholic in any meaningful sense, it’s what it means to be “Catholic” in America today. 54 percent of Catholics voted for The One last fall and 67 percent approved of his job performance as of three weeks ago; majorities approve of torture in at least some circumstances and say they’re more likely to consider common sense and experience when making decisions than Church teachings; a narrow plurality think priests should be allowed to marry. Even on abortion and stem cells, those calling themselves Catholic are almost indistinguishable from non-Catholics (although there are sharp differences between non-Catholics and Catholics who attend mass regularly). And of course the Vatican itself is as squishy as can be when it comes to taking on Obama for his stances. The Church, ironically, seems to have the opposite problem from the GOP these days: They’re so comfortable with “centrists” that it’s no longer clear what American Catholicism stands for. Which puts Notre Dame squarely inside the mainstream.


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

Laura was right, and Bill was taking the same approach to this as he does regarding his applause where the government dictates the auto standards. He misses the entire point!

What I found absolutely astounding is Obama saying faith comes with doubt. WHAT! Anyone heard of the flaws of one doubting Thomas? I guess that whole encounter between Thomas and Jesus is removed from Obama’s Bible! And for me and my husband, Obama’s entire speech applied the identical philosophy/ideology. He weasel worded or used some form of Orwellian speechisms to craft a very un-Christian way of looking at wealth, poverty, the needy and most definitely the way we look at free will and the importance of the rights of the individual to have free will.

Laura Ingraham is a devout Catholic. She is a real mass attending Catholic, and the personal attacks on her, and the frequency with which she attends mass is just another Alinsky method most Americans, Catholic or not, find offensive and unproductive when it comes to stating the truth about what Obama said during the Notre Dame graduation. When it comes to her statements about Notre Dame being hurt by this, and the school not being a solid Roman Catholic church; there have been many other moves made by Notre Dame prior to this Obama ordeal which have caused some to question just what in the world the Catholic Church was going to do in reigning the school in. This is not the first time many of us have wondered what they were up to in Notre Dame when it comes to promoting Christianity and Catholicism?

freeus on May 20, 2009 at 12:12 PM

So how did the Church change its stance on the death penalty in the 20th Century?

Tom_Shipley on May 20, 2009 at 12:06 PM

It didn’t. The stance has never changed the death penalty has always been and always will be permissible. The only thing which has changed has been what warrants that penalty.

Rocks on May 20, 2009 at 12:12 PM

dedalus on May 20, 2009 at 12:10 PM

What would the Apostle to the Circumcision be doing in Rome… is there any evidence he went there? Well, we know that Paul went there (as late as Acts 28)… but he fails to mention Peter.

We’ll never settle this here… so that should be it.

:)

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 12:14 PM

Laura really took BOR to the woodshed last night…she showed the fire that he has lost.

d1carter on May 20, 2009 at 12:16 PM

this means that the person has closed themselves off and are not willing to be open to the truth of the Holy Spirit.

clarifides on May 20, 2009 at 12:04 PM

OK… are you “stubbornly denying” this “truth”?

It is error to believe that] in the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. — Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855. [Pius IX]

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 12:16 PM

And this above all, to thine own self be true, and it shall follow, as the night does the day, thou canst not then be false to any man

Jvette on May 20, 2009 at 12:09 PM

Yes, good advice though things didn’t go well for Laertes (or Polonius for that matter).

dedalus on May 20, 2009 at 12:16 PM

mankai,

The words of a pope from more than 150 years ago, which were not infallibly spoken are irrelevant. They were not infallibly declared and as such are not binding.

Jvette on May 20, 2009 at 12:17 PM

No government founded the church. The church was extensively persecuted and suppressed for centuries. The church was not founded in Rome either. It was founded on a hilltop in Israel.

Rocks on May 20, 2009 at 12:17 PM

mankai,

The words of a pope from more than 150 years ago, which were not infallibly spoken are irrelevant. They were not infallibly declared and as such are not binding.

Jvette on May 20, 2009 at 12:17 PM

Would you like to know if Pius IX thought they were infallibly declared? If he did, would you “submit will and intellect” to his words?

150 years is relatively recent. Do you believe a Pope could be that much in error on a matter of faith?

And if the Pope doesn’t know what sin is, who possible can know?

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 12:19 PM

Read the Book of Acts. Become informed.

Cadian on May 20, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Man, am I dumb. In Acts 3 I see a married guy who was willing to put his own life in the hands of prison guards to preach to hostile jews and gentiles at a temple used by another religion, and then I look at your Pope, who is afraid to leave his guarded castle without a magic hat and a bullet-proof car.

Maybe you were thinking of another St. Peter?

TMK on May 20, 2009 at 12:21 PM

Studied it extensively… gonna need a verse.

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Acts Chapter’s 2 and 3 deal with the foundings of “the church”. The Catholic church equates this with their founding. One could argue it wasn’t until after Emperor Constantine that the Catholic Church was founded true. But again, Catholic’s hold that St. Peter was the first Pope.

Cadian on May 20, 2009 at 12:22 PM

So how did the Church change its stance on the death penalty in the 20th Century?

Tom_Shipley on May 20, 2009 at 12:06 PM

The church has always held that the state has the legitimate right and duty to protect its people, though it recognizes that the death penalty is extreme and in this day it suggests that it is possible to protect its citizens without the use of the death penalty.

Catholics are free support the death penalty.

Jvette on May 20, 2009 at 12:24 PM

Tommy_G on May 20, 2009 at 12:07 PM

That’s not Acts, but even if it were, how does Jesus saying he will found His assembly on Peter translate into “I establish the Throne of Pope forever, but make sure you wear a crazy hat” for you?

TMK on May 20, 2009 at 12:27 PM

150 years is relatively recent. Do you believe a Pope could be that much in error on a matter of faith?

And if the Pope doesn’t know what sin is, who possible can know?

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 12:19 PM

As a matter of fact, yes I do. It is evident that there were popes who were very sinful, popes who said and did things that were not in line with the true teachings of the church. It is only when it is declared infallibly that what a pope says is binding on all Catholics.

Infallibility has been used fewer than 10 times in the history of the church.

Again, we should not look to the human element of the church for perfection as it cannot be found there. the Lord understood this and thus sent the Paraclete to ensure that Catholic teaching is true and complete for the salvation of men.

Jvette on May 20, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Catholics are free support the death penalty.

Jvette on May 20, 2009 at 12:24 PM

According to JP2 it is subject to serious restrictions, which probably can’t be met in the United States.

dedalus on May 20, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Pius IX clarifies for us:

The encyclical QUANTA CURA:

And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,” viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.”

Note: The reference for G16 in which he equates “liberty of conscience” with “insanity” is Marari Vos.

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 12:34 PM

We’ll never settle this here… so that should be it.

:)

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 12:14 PM

OK. I wasn’t there at the time though I did visit a basilica named after him a few years ago when I was in Rome. :)

dedalus on May 20, 2009 at 12:35 PM

As a matter of fact, yes I do.

Then why do you trust them on anything? Perhaps the Popes are staggaringly wrong on thousands of things.

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 12:35 PM

We’ll never settle this here… so that should be it.

:)

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 12:14 PM

Ah, but it has been long settled. You choose not to accept.

Jvette on May 20, 2009 at 12:35 PM

Here’s a link about the Board of Trustees of Notre Dame.

It helps explain why Jenkins, knowing full well he was blatantly disobeying the directive of the bishops of the United States, felt very comfortable with his rbellious stance vis a vis Obama’s visit and award:

http://www.pewsitter.com/view_news_id_18408.php

marybel on May 20, 2009 at 12:36 PM

OK. I wasn’t there at the time though I did visit a basilica named after him a few years ago when I was in Rome. :)

dedalus on May 20, 2009 at 12:35 PM

So did I. I was a Religious Education teacher and diocesan youth conference speaker too.

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 12:36 PM

In answer to the original question raised by this thread (ie. what does it mean to be a Catholic)…. Historically, what distinguished Catholicism from other Christian groups (Protestants, Easter Orthodoxy) was the question of authority. For Catholics, the Pope was the final authority. For Protestants it was the Bible. To say you’re still a Catholic but reject the Pope’s authority is like me saying I’m an Evangelical but I don’t believe in the Bible. If we do this then what meaning do these labels have anymore? That’s why there’s so much confusion over what it means to be a Catholic. People just hold onto the label of the religion they were born into but then go on to believe whatever they want. If that’s the case, then religious labels mean nothing. If we’re going to keep any distinction in religious definitions then we need to look at what each religion itself purports to be the truth, not at the shifting opinions of those who identify themselves with that religion. To know what each religion stands for, you need to define what it’s authority is. For Catholicism that is the Magesterium headed by the Pope. Those who reject that are not true Catholics just as those who reject the Bible are not true Evangelicals.

frank63 on May 20, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Jvette on May 20, 2009 at 12:35 PM

How do I know they’re right? Pius thought he settled a few things (in rather clear terms, standing on codified doctrines hundreds of years old), yet you feel free to dismiss his declarations as rank error.

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Here’s a link about the Board of Trustees of Notre Dame.

It helps explain why Jenkins, knowing full well he was blatantly disobeying the directive of the bishops of the United States, felt very comfortable with his rbellious stance vis a vis Obama’s visit and award:

http://www.pewsitter.com/view_news_id_18408.php

marybel on May 20, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Last Paragraph:

In conclusion, a review of the Board of Trustees at Notre Dame does NOT reveal a particularly strong Catholic identity. There are board members whose actions and associations put them in a position directly at odds with Church teaching and in line with the Obama administration. At the Notre Dame board we see a group of well-connected well-heeled individuals from all sectors of society, and at the most prominent levels. Taking a stand against inviting the President of the United States would likely jeopardize membership in the elite club where they travel. Therefore it is highly unlikely that there will be any movement from within the board to rescind invitation to President Obama.

Which show’s that their gods are liberalism, greed, and Chicago politcs. ( I know redundant x2 *shrug* )

Cadian on May 20, 2009 at 12:40 PM

Many Churches have become much more liberal. This is why it’s so necessary to have a Religious Right that consists of religious people from various denominations who can stick together and stick up for shared religious values.

This true nature of the Religious Right is why I go nuclear anytime I hear someone say that the Religious Right wants to turn America into a theocracy. Exactly what kind of theoracy would be created by a melting pot of religious Catholics, Jews, Baptists, Methodists, Evangelicals, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, etc, etc?

I scream into these people’s ears that the Religious Right isn’t on the offensive, they’re on the DEFENSIVE. They’re a brave minority that has the guts to object to the spiraling decadence of our liberal controlled popular culture.

My father keeps kosher and goes to synagogue regularly. I do neither. Yet he’s terrified of the Religious Right while I support them, because, as a baby boomer, I’m much more objective than my father about the cultural rot that has been unfolding for the past several decades. My father didn’t know much about the hippies of the 1960′s. He knows even less about the left wing punk rock movement. He sees the Democrats as the party of FDR and is prejudiced against rural WASPS. He has absolutely no clue about what kind of power the baby boomer and GenX left has amassed. So naturally, there’s no reason for him to believe that the Religious Right was created as a defensive reaction to that power.

ardenenoch on May 20, 2009 at 12:44 PM

Then why do you trust them on anything? Perhaps the Popes are staggaringly wrong on thousands of things.

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 12:35 PM

Just as with any other human. I do not believe that everyone is right all the time, or wrong all the time. I take what I see, hear and read and process it in light of the official teachings of the church.

You isolate some passages, claim that we as Catholics are being lied to or whatever, but don’t consider what in these writings may have benefit.

Now, I don’t have time to read everything written by a pope or theologian. I don’t hold that they are all perfect in their writings or theology.

Here is what the church tells me is infallibly true.

The Ten Commandments
The Bible
Jesus is the son of God
Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit
Mary is the Virgin Mother of Jesus and remained a virgin throughout her life.
Mary, due to being the mother of Jesus, is called the Mother of God.
Mary, was conceived without sin.
Mary, was assumed body and soul into heaven, by her son Jesus upon her death.
The Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Jesus.

And remember, Jesus promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against his church. He knew that his church would be attacked from without and undermined from within.
And it has. But, 2,000 years later, she is still here, still vibrant and still spreading the Gospel.

Jvette on May 20, 2009 at 12:45 PM

***
XYZ MAY 20 1106 AM is a person who is a faithful pro birth control and pro choice Catholic. Laura Ingraham is a faithful Catholic convert who seems to have a better understanding of what God expects and requires of all persons–regardless of what church they go to–or don’t go to or believe in.
***
I am an 68 year old white Caucasian male who became a serious Episcopalian Christian at age 11–when my church still stood for God and Bible based education. One of my tasks when I retired a few years ago was to completely re-read the Bible from cover to cover–I recommend this to XYZ and others of all faiths.
***
I do not see how any Christian can vote for a PRO ABORTION (not “choice”) candidate. What will we say to God when we stand before him on the final day of judgement? He may ask us, “Why didn’t you try to defend the unborn babies (not “fetusus” or “cell clumps”) by voting for pro life candidates? I didn’t ask you to make war against the abortionists and their supporters.” What answer can we make?
***
Responsible birth control and personal responsibility look like the right way to handle these problems–not murder of unborn babies and partially or completely born infants. Remember how many times the Bible shows God’s demand to treat all persons fairly–and the part of the Bible that states, “I am the Lord–I change not!”
***
A slick politician–President Obama–made a great speech to try to prevent losing good Christian votes in 2010 and 2012. Adolf Hitler made some impressive speeches to the German people–his real hidden agenda resulted in the deaths of 6 million innocent Jews and tens of millions of innocent civilians and soldiers. Abortion has killed over 40 million people in the U.S.A. since Roe vs. Wade set up this legalized murder–and the death toll is climbing.
***
Laura Ingraham got it right.
***
John Bibb
***

rocketman on May 20, 2009 at 12:46 PM

“The Church, ironically, seems to have the opposite problem from the GOP these days: They’re so comfortable with “centrists” that it’s no longer clear what American Catholicism stands for.”

Not to worry, AP. Within my lifetime Church teaching will start being prosecuted as a hate crime, after which Catholics will start being fined, then jailed, and eventually executed. The squishy elements like Notre Dame, non-churchgoers, most Bishops, etc. will peel off pretty quickly, leaving the hard core.

It’s a self-cleaning organism that Christ built into the institution from the beginning. Comes into play every few hundred years. Think Rome AD 30-300, Europe 450-600, Middle East 800-1000, UK 1600-1800, and 20th/21st century atheist regimes in Asia, Europe, Africa, South America, and finally North America.

God’s in charge.

Gaunilon on May 20, 2009 at 12:47 PM

What’s going on at ND is the culmination of decades of liberalism seeping into the church.

frank63 on May 20, 2009 at 11:37 AM

I’d argue it’s more a matter of liberalism seeping into society in general. The ancient Catholics were merely superstitous Pagans who saw their rituals co-opted to make Catholicsm more palatable as ancient rulers sought to find vindication for their self-proclaimed nobility beyond strength-of-arms.

I think if Catholicism relearns to “contemporize,” that is, co-opt the science-flavored superstitions of today (animal-worship, earth-worship, child-sacrifice, ect.) while repositioning itself as a king-maker again, you’ll see the same sort of growth as in medieval Europe, especially if our politicians keep moving America and Europe back to feudalism-style socialism for ever-more ignorant citizenry.

TMK on May 20, 2009 at 12:49 PM

“As I said on my humble blog a few days ago, if Catholics are unwilling to defend key tenets of their faith, then they cannot ask us to do it for them.”

[The Opinionator on May 20, 2009 at 10:59 AM]

As a corollary to that, why should rank and file Catholics take the fundamental doctrines seriously, if their leaders don’t. And by that I mean to include not only Jenkins but his superiors.

And all this could have been avoided if Jenkins had not given into the temptation to believe that his position and Notre Dame’s prestige is more important than the teachings of the Church.

It would have passed unnoticed if Jenkins had decided the invitation inappropriate and quietly nixed it at the outset. No one would have ever thought “Hey, why didn’t ND give and honorary degree to the President this year?” or “Why didn’t ND begin a dialog with the President at their commencement ceremonies this Spring?” But that would have required Jenkins to stifle the pride of personality and to recognize that Notre Dame as prestigious as Notre Dame is, it is not more prestigious than Catholicism itself.

Dusty on May 20, 2009 at 12:49 PM

Why does O’Reilly even put her on? She does not like Obama…ok we get it…..in her world Obama bad, lately she has been as bad on Obama, Sean too, as the far left loons were on Bush.

I would have thought and hoped we would have been better to Obama, not agree and not dissent, than the far left moveon MSNBC crowd was to Bush.

arizonateacher on May 20, 2009 at 12:50 PM

Spin Master O’Reilly was in fine form yesterday as he proclaimed the genius of nObama’s position on abortion while blatantly ignoring his actual voting record on the matter. The hypocrisy demonstrated by Bill is daunting, he cannot spew enough venom about “Tiller the baby killer” or Gov. Sibelius but for nObama he voluntarily straps the ball gag on and bends over. Laura should smarten up and join Michelle as a former guest on the nO’bama Factor.

dmann on May 20, 2009 at 12:51 PM

***
XYZ MAY 20 1106 AM is a person who is a faithful pro birth control and pro choice Catholic. Laura Ingraham is a faithful Catholic convert who seems to have a better understanding of what God expects and requires of all persons–regardless of what church they go to–or don’t go to or believe in.
***
I am an 68 year old white Caucasian male who became a serious Episcopalian Christian at age 11–when my church still stood for God and Bible based education. One of my tasks when I retired a few years ago was to completely re-read the Bible from cover to cover–I recommend this to XYZ and others of all faiths.
***
I do not see how any Christian can vote for a PRO ABORTION (not “choice”) candidate. What will we say to God when we stand before him on the final day of judgement? He may ask us, “Why didn’t you try to defend the unborn babies (not “fetusus” or “cell clumps”) by voting for pro life candidates? I didn’t ask you to make war against the abortionists and their supporters.” What answer can we make?
***
Responsible birth control, personal responsibility, better education of pre-adult children, and adoption look like the right ways to handle these problems–not murder of unborn babies and partially or completely born infants. Remember how many times the Bible shows God’s demand to treat all persons fairly–and the part of the Bible that states, “I am the Lord–I change not!”
***
A slick politician–President Obama–made a great speech to try to prevent losing good Christian votes in 2010 and 2012. Adolf Hitler made some impressive speeches to the German people–his real hidden agenda resulted in the deaths of 6 million innocent Jews and tens of millions of innocent civilians and soldiers. Abortion has killed over 40 million people in the U.S.A. since Roe vs. Wade set up this legalized murder–and the death toll is climbing.
***
Laura Ingraham got it right.
***
John Bibb
***

rocketman on May 20, 2009 at 12:51 PM

arizonateacher on May 20, 2009 at 12:50 PM

and in your world nObama is good?

dmann on May 20, 2009 at 12:52 PM

arizonateacher on May 20, 2009 at 12:50 PM

I don’t think Sean or Laura are calling for impeachment, so you are wrong.

zmdavid on May 20, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Spin Master O’Reilly was in fine form yesterday as he proclaimed the genius of nObama’s position on abortion while blatantly ignoring his actual voting record on the matter.

arizonateacher on May 20, 2009 at 12:50 PM

I don’t think O’Reilly was agreeing with Obama on abortion. He was pointing out how much of a political genius Obama has been in being able to garner so much Catholic support despite his radical views on abortion. I think O’Reilly is 100% right on that count even though I am 100% against abortion myself. You can strongly disagree with a man and yet recognize his political skills.

frank63 on May 20, 2009 at 12:57 PM

It is only when it is declared infallibly that what a pope says is binding on all Catholics.

Can’t you see the admission in your statement that papal infallibity trumps scripture? Rome has declared the following statement as infallible so nothing more needs to be said.

Infallibility has been used fewer than 10 times in the history of the church.

Jvette on May 20, 2009 at 12:31 PM

And only infalliblly interpreting scripture 10 times is comforting? There’s a whole buffet of countering doctrinal opinions that the Pope could clarify but never does. That’s why half of Catholics are liberal while the other half are conservative. No clarifying position. Instead of going by scripture alone, Rome responds by providing blanketing answers that keeps everyone happy.

The case of Obama visiting Notre Dame should be a clear example of this.

shick on May 20, 2009 at 12:57 PM

The far left never gave Bush a chance just because he was President Bush and Conservative. President Bush could have cured cancer and the msnbc crowd would still never saying anything positive about him. It was too simple for them Bush was Bad in their mind no matter what, they never looked at the policy they just looked at him. I thought we as conservatives would be above that. Are many of Obama’s policies good? Probably not, but evaluate the policy and not simply say if it came from Obama its automatically bad. I will not do to Obama what the loons did to Bush.

arizonateacher on May 20, 2009 at 12:59 PM

How do I know they’re right? Pius thought he settled a few things (in rather clear terms, standing on codified doctrines hundreds of years old), yet you feel free to dismiss his declarations as rank error.

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Okay, the church still believes that there is no salvation outside of the church. But, this doctrine has been better understood in recent years. The core is the same, but the understanding has been better revealed.

The problem with you and your obsession with this particular pope is that you believe that the church is a stagnant. That there is no growth in her theology and understanding. That is simply not true. It is an historical fact that the church has held many different positions in the secular world. Her place may change, but her doctrines are the same. She is a pilgrim church.

I have used this imagery before. The teachings of the church are like a room which goes from night to day. As the light rises, the objects in the room become clearer. The objects have not changed, though the dark has distorted some of their shapes, but the objects are the same. What is different is that they may be better seen.

Jvette on May 20, 2009 at 1:01 PM

Not a good week to be a Catholic.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090520/ap_on_re_eu/eu_ireland_catholic_abuse

My southern Baptist upbringing is looking pretty good.

faol on May 20, 2009 at 1:01 PM

Spin Master O’Reilly was in fine form yesterday as he proclaimed the genius of nObama’s position on abortion while blatantly ignoring his actual voting record on the matter.

dmann on May 20, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Sorry, I wrongly attributed to arizonateacher due to cut & paste error in 12:57 post.

frank63 on May 20, 2009 at 1:03 PM

frank63 on May 20, 2009 at 12:57 PM

I understand that, I’m just amazed the nO’Reilly failed to point out the political expedience of nObamas rhetoric. Least we forget Bill is always “looking out for you” and is the self proclaimed champion of “the folks”.

dmann on May 20, 2009 at 1:05 PM

That was brilliant, especially Laura’s final statement that nobody in the pro-fife movement had their minds changed by Obama’s speech, or believes anything he said about reducing the number of abortions. She really showed what this was, a blatant attempt by Obama to gain some cover from Notre dame for his extreme pro-abortion policies.

rockmom on May 20, 2009 at 1:10 PM

How do I know they’re right? Pius thought he settled a few things (in rather clear terms, standing on codified doctrines hundreds of years old), yet you feel free to dismiss his declarations as rank error.

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Okay, the church still believes that there is no salvation outside of the church. But, this doctrine has been better understood in recent years. The core is the same, but the understanding has been better revealed.

The problem with you and your obsession with this particular pope is that you believe that the church is a stagnant. That there is no growth in her theology and understanding. That is simply not true. It is an historical fact that the church has held many different positions in the secular world. Her place may change, but her doctrines are the same. She is a pilgrim church.

I have used this imagery before. The teachings of the church are like a room which goes from night to day. As the light rises, the objects in the room become clearer. The objects have not changed, though the dark has distorted some of their shapes, but the objects are the same. What is different is that they may be better seen.

I would love to delve further into your comment and the things you believe the pope should or could clarify, but I am out of time for the day. I have to go to work.

I love saying that, it’s my first job in 20 years! I miss HA and all this great discussion, but I have two kids in college starting in the fall and it is time I helped my husband with the finances. Just grateful, I was able to find something.

Jvette on May 20, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Wow, don’t know what happened there, the first half of the post was a repeat, but not what I had typed, then the second half was the new post.

sorry, hate to do stuff like that.

Jvette on May 20, 2009 at 1:14 PM

The secret to loving Catholicism is to view it in its entirety.

I have yet to hear a legitimate criticism of the Church that doesn’t boil down to “yeah but it’s just not modern, you know, this is like, the 21st century”.

Notice I said “legitimate” criticism. I think Luther had substance. I recognizer the popes made plenty of wrong turns prior to modern times. But modern criticisms? They’re a joke. They’re not against Catholicism, they’re against some cartoon that some critic thinks accurately characterizes the doctrines. I’m glad others have the patience to argue against those critics because I can’t find a shred of sympathy for them.

jeff_from_mpls on May 20, 2009 at 1:16 PM

arizonateacher on May 20, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Maybe its your state,

I thought we as conservatives would be above that

worked out real well for Juan McCain didn’t it?

dmann on May 20, 2009 at 1:16 PM

The Church, ironically, seems to have the opposite same problem (as) the GOP these days: They’re so comfortable with “centrists medicrity” that it’s no longer clear what American Catholicism stands for. Which puts Notre Dame squarely inside the mainstream.

Connie on May 20, 2009 at 1:19 PM

Laura Ingraham: Notre Dame’s no longer a viable Catholic institution

I fully agree. Ms Ingraham can add Georgetown to the same list. Both had Obama with different conditions, of abortion being OK, and the intentional covering up of religious artifacts. However, the murdering of innocent life can never be justified, or tolerated and with both incidents disqualifying Notre Dame, and Georgetown as accredited Catholic institutions.

WATERBOARDING=BAD *** ABORTION=GOOD

byteshredder on May 20, 2009 at 1:27 PM

Okay, the church still believes that there is no salvation outside of the church. But, this doctrine has been better understood in recent years.

Can’t go there with you… that statement is condemned by Leo XIII (is he better than Pius IX?).

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 1:29 PM

I fully agree.

The Pope doesn’t.

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Here is what the church tells me is infallibly true.

Mary … remained a virgin throughout her life.

I’m sure you could try to defend this from scripture and I could easily counter but this is more than just an infallible proclamation. This is dogma. One has to believe this for salvation. Where in scripture does it say that this must be believed? Where did Christ or the apostles even come close to defining that this is a critical teaching that must be believed?

Mary, was conceived without sin.

Again where is this dogma declared in scripture a requirement for salvation?

Mary, was assumed body and soul into heaven, by her son Jesus upon her death.

Again.

And remember, Jesus promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against his church.

Yes he did and it does prevail but he also said through Paul that man should test all things with scripture.

And it has. But, 2,000 years later, she is still here, still vibrant and still spreading the Gospel.

Jvette on May 20, 2009 at 12:45 PM

If the Roman Catholic Church is the same as it was 2000 years ago why did Cardinal Newman come up with the Development of Doctrine concept which is held by most of RC academia and Roman authority?
The Development of Doctine concept recognizes that Catholic teaching evolved over time. If something evolves over time it is not the same as when it began. You can’t have both at the same time.

shick on May 20, 2009 at 1:31 PM

The Development of Doctine concept recognizes that Catholic teaching evolved over time. If something evolves over time it is not the same as when it began. You can’t have both at the same time.

shick on May 20, 2009 at 1:31 PM

I think there’s a difference between evolving and flip flopping. An example of an issue where the Catholic Church has evolved is the death penalty. The Church has always taught that the death penalty is permissible under some circumstances. Where their position has evolved is in judging under which circumstances it should be permissible. The set of acceptable circumstances today would be viewed as MUCH narrower by the church than it has been judged in the past. But at it’s core you can’t say the church has flip flopped on the issue.

As far as salvation outside the church, I don’t think there’s any way of getting around the fact that the Church has flip flopped on that. They used to say there was no possiblity of salvation outside Catholicism. Now it seems as everyone is under salvation except those who leave Catholicism.

frank63 on May 20, 2009 at 1:49 PM

This may or may not have been mentioned earlier, but how about Texas Christian University, who tried to institute a gay dorm? My dad was disgusted with them, and their nominal Christianity, and quit after one year. In the late 50s.

bikermailman on May 20, 2009 at 1:50 PM

Come on, Obama is so dedicated to reducing the number of abortions that he has the full endorsement of Planned Parenthood /sarc

gwelf on May 20, 2009 at 1:52 PM

That’s not Acts, but even if it were, how does Jesus saying he will found His assembly on Peter translate into “I establish the Throne of Pope forever, but make sure you wear a crazy hat” for you?

TMK on May 20, 2009 at 12:27 PM

Whoa there. You just highlighted one of the biggest misunderstandings between Catholics and Protestants.

13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

14They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15″But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ,[b] the Son of the living God.

17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven.” 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

(Matthew 16:13-20)

Jesus was referring to the “rock” that is the understanding and admission that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. And this understanding forms the cornerstone of the Christian faith.

dominigan on May 20, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Man, am I dumb. In Acts 3 I see a married guy who was willing to put his own life in the hands of prison guards to preach to hostile jews and gentiles at a temple used by another religion, and then I look at your Pope, who is afraid to leave his guarded castle without a magic hat and a bullet-proof car.

Maybe you were thinking of another St. Peter?

TMK on May 20, 2009 at 12:21 PM

St Peter had a wifie. He could not have a connection to the romish religion.

seven on May 20, 2009 at 2:13 PM

Acts Chapter’s 2 and 3 deal with the foundings of “the church”. The Catholic church equates this with their founding. One could argue it wasn’t until after Emperor Constantine that the Catholic Church was founded true. But again, Catholic’s hold that St. Peter was the first Pope.

Cadian on May 20, 2009 at 12:22 PM

RIGHT ON!

will sass u on May 20, 2009 at 2:19 PM

Which show’s that their gods are liberalism, greed, and Chicago politcs. ( I know redundant x2 *shrug* )

Cadian on May 20, 2009 at 12:40 PM

Exactly right. Jenkins’s claims about his Catholic views are pure crap – his only God at Notre Dame is liberalism. He celebrated the color of Obama’s skin, not the content of his character, and the teachings of the Catholic Church had exactly zero to do with anything that happened there.

Jaibones on May 20, 2009 at 2:19 PM

Here is what the church tells me is infallibly true.

Mary … remained a virgin throughout her life.

So what you’re saying is that either the Bible is wrong, they adopted a bunch of children, or there were many immaculate conceptions?

53When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. 54Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. 55″Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57And they took offense at him.
But Jesus said to them, “Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor.”

(Matthew 13:53-57)

I think I’ll stick with the Biblical account for my Christian faith. Unless you can backup your claims from the Bible…

dominigan on May 20, 2009 at 2:20 PM

So how did the Church change its stance on the death penalty in the 20th Century?

Tom_Shipley on May 20, 2009 at 12:06 PM

I don’t know why I give you the benefit of doubt, Tom; you never fail to demonstrate your stupidity. Are you seriously that unfamiliar with the Old Testament?

Jaibones on May 20, 2009 at 2:21 PM

dominigan on May 20, 2009 at 2:06 PM

I know, I was just saying that even if Jesus said He was going to found His assembly upon Peter himself, how does that justify a never-ending progression of men to claim the mantle of “Foundation of the Church.”

What is missing from that leap of logic is:

a) Assuming Jesus said that Peter would be that foundation, where is the declaration that anyone else would be?
b) The idea that a church needs an endless supply of “foundations.”
c) If Jesus did in fact give Peter the Ultimate Authority, why is the majority of Scripture supplied by the Apostle Paul and other prophets, not Peter (including an instance of Peter being chastized for favoring Jews over Gentiles)?

TMK on May 20, 2009 at 2:47 PM

I don’t know why I give you the benefit of doubt, Tom; you never fail to demonstrate your stupidity. Are you seriously that unfamiliar with the Old Testament?

Jaibones on May 20, 2009 at 2:21 PM

Well if that’s the case…up with bigamy…down with ham sandwiches!!!

LevStrauss on May 20, 2009 at 2:51 PM

It is fitting that America’s first POTUS to support radical infanticide should be so honored at Notre Dame, because Notre Dame is where to American Catholic treason on abortion began; and in the office of the President of University of Notre Dame itself.
.

What is not often appreciated is that Fr. Theodore Hesburgh, President of Notre Dame was one of the very first of the American Catholic quislings to go over to the dark side.
.
One can learn how the population control movement brought the “respected” and “renowned” Fr. Hessberg to the highest point of the Temple and offered him the world in exchange for homage … here in the monumental academic study of the American Population Control and Eugenics Movement:
Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion, and the Federal Government in Modern America, by Dr. Donald T. Critchlow
.
Fr. Hesburgh got a board of directors seat at Chase Manhattan Bank and a trustee position and later, chairmanship of the Rockefeller Foundation to boot!

..
see here also”:
Sympathy for the Devil: Obama and the University of ND

Mike OMalley on May 20, 2009 at 2:57 PM

TMK on May 20, 2009 at 2:47 PM

Peter is the foundation. The church is built upon him though it requires a succession of mortal men to run it.

Jesus didn’t record his words or organize the editing and assembling of the written record of his words. A church was required to collect and interpret his teaching long after his death and the deaths of his apostles.

Spreading the word on a global basis requires some organizational infrastructure.

dedalus on May 20, 2009 at 3:11 PM

Father Pfleiger is Catholic and has never been ousted.

Clearly, there are a lot of people commenting who aren’t Catholic and have no clue.

AnninCA on May 20, 2009 at 3:25 PM

Here is what the church tells me is infallibly true.

The Ten Commandments
The Bible
Jesus is the son of God
Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit
Mary is the Virgin Mother of Jesus and remained a virgin throughout her life.
Mary, due to being the mother of Jesus, is called the Mother of God.
Mary, was conceived without sin.
Mary, was assumed body and soul into heaven, by her son Jesus upon her death.
The Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Jesus.

And remember, Jesus promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against his church. He knew that his church would be attacked from without and undermined from within.
And it has. But, 2,000 years later, she is still here, still vibrant and still spreading the Gospel.

Jvette on May 20, 2009 at 12:45 PM

We Lutherans are with you on everything except the doctrine of Mary. It isn’t found in Scripture and therefore we reject it. We do not believe she was conceived without sin or that she was taken directly to heaven because God’s word does not speak to either question. It simply says she found favor with God. This statement was made about numerous other people in the Bible who were themselves sinners…

Not a point, however that would threaten one’s soul. We just don’t pray to Mary for intercession. Only to the Father in Jesus name…

sabbott on May 20, 2009 at 3:28 PM

dedalus on May 20, 2009 at 3:11 PM

So instead of dealing with the problems I presented, you restate the already well-known position of the Catholic Church.

Until you start meditating on Scripture instead of regurgitating dogma, you might as well go back to burning guys like me at the stake to win your debates.

TMK on May 20, 2009 at 3:35 PM

Every time I think you people can’t possibly marginalize yourselves any more, you manage to pull out something like this.

Bravo!

benny shakar on May 20, 2009 at 3:35 PM

Peter is the foundation. The church is built upon him though it requires a succession of mortal men to run it.

Read 1 Peter 2. The “first pope” seems to disagree with you.

Jesus didn’t record his words or organize the editing and assembling of the written record of his words.

God did record the son’s words and did organize the editing because it wasn’t influenced by man but breathed of God.

A church was required to collect and interpret his teaching long after his death and the deaths of his apostles.

Spreading the word on a global basis requires some organizational infrastructure.

dedalus on May 20, 2009 at 3:11 PM

Yes but what has that to do with Rome’s claim that it alone can do it and its interpretations are final?

shick on May 20, 2009 at 3:37 PM

We Lutherans are with you on everything except the doctrine of Mary.

sabbott on May 20, 2009 at 3:28 PM

Actually your doctrine on the eucharist is not the same as the Catholics. There’s a difference between Roman Catholic transubstantiation and Lutheran consubstantiation. But your both wrong. :)

shick on May 20, 2009 at 3:40 PM

*rolling eyes*

Nothing like protestants to chime in on anything “Catholic.”

AnninCA on May 20, 2009 at 4:20 PM

So instead of dealing with the problems I presented, you restate the already well-known position of the Catholic Church.

Until you start meditating on Scripture instead of regurgitating dogma, you might as well go back to burning guys like me at the stake to win your debates.

TMK on May 20, 2009 at 3:35 PM

Actually, I did deal with points A and B. Your conjecture that my points are sourced in dogma, that I haven’t meditated on scripture or that I look for heretics to burn are not supported by evidence.

Re: Paul. His role is crucial to the growth of the church. His writings probably survived due to the nature of his work which involved traveling among cities and corresponding back to churches he had established. Peter’s teaching was likely recorded in two epistles and a gospel, though because of how precarious the administration of the early church was.

dedalus on May 20, 2009 at 4:26 PM

Re: Paul. His role is crucial to the growth of the church. His writings probably survived due to the nature of his work which involved traveling among cities and corresponding back to churches he had established. Peter’s teaching was likely recorded in two epistles and a gospel, though because of how precarious the administration of the early church was.dedalus on May 20, 2009 at 4:26 PM

Make that two Gospels and Acts of the Apostles. See Paul on Trial: The Book of Acts as a Defense of Christianity by John W. Mauck

Besides Simon was a small business owner/manager and Saul was a Rabbi. They brought different skill sets to the table in their second careers as apostles Peter and Paul.

Mike OMalley on May 20, 2009 at 4:57 PM

O’reilly missing the point. Imagine that. I fast forward over most of his show but watch Laura’s and a few other segments. O’reilly calls him brilliant. Can you be even more o’blivious?

oakpack on May 20, 2009 at 5:07 PM

Make that two Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.
Mike OMalley on May 20, 2009 at 4:57 PM

I thought Luke wrote Acts?

Good point about Paul’s training vs Peter’s.

dedalus on May 20, 2009 at 5:36 PM

No wonder AP is an atheist.

eaglesdontflock on May 20, 2009 at 6:47 PM

Your conjecture that my points are sourced in dogma

dedalus on May 20, 2009 at 4:26 PM

You cited no Scripture that establishes a perpetual office of “Pope.”

TMK on May 20, 2009 at 7:12 PM

You cited no Scripture that establishes a perpetual office of “Pope.”

TMK on May 20, 2009 at 7:12 PM

Nor did I cite any Catholic teaching. In your 2:47 post you questioned a “leap of logic”. I was responding to it from more of a logical than doctrinal perspective.

The organizational coherence of the RCC was integral to the spread of Christianity. Was the RCC architected by Jesus? As you point out, allowing that Peter was the foundation, the structure of what the church became is far beyond what scripture outlines.

dedalus on May 20, 2009 at 10:11 PM

As I had to leave yesterday and couldn’t respond, I will do so now, though it’s unlikely anyone will see.

Everyone who disputes Catholic doctrine loves to throw out the Scripture and where is it meme. Show me in Scripture they say, this is extra-Biblical they say, where is support for that in the Bible they say.

Well, where in the Bible, anywhere old nor new, does it say that only Scripture is a valid record of belief? Where in Scripture does it say that it is only through Scripture that one can find the way to salvation?

It doesn’t. In Timothy it does say that Scripture is useful and should be read, but the Scripture of this verse is limited to the OT.

What I see is in John, he tells us that there are many more things that Jesus did that could fill the earth with books. I see Paul tell us that we should heed the traditions handed down by MOUTH or by written letter.

Also, where in Scripture does it tell us who is to interpret Scripture for us? The good book tells us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Which church would that be?

When you can answer this, I will entertain that men who founded their own churches over the last 500 years are better suited to interpret Scripture, hand down Tradition and determine the Sacraments.

Jvette on May 21, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Comment pages: 1 2