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

Paul Begala thinks Nancy Pelosi is telling the truth.

Dr Evil on May 20, 2009 at 10:47 AM

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.

It’s also driving more and more Catholics into the Protestant camp. I know lots of spanish evangelical churches and see it all the time.

latinchic on May 20, 2009 at 10:49 AM

meh. Laura’s opinion on matters of “viable catholic institutions” amounts to what, exactly?

ernesto on May 20, 2009 at 10:49 AM

54 percent of Catholics voted for The One last fall and 67 percent approved of his job performance as of three weeks ago

Speaking of idiots….

Actually, I’m not surprised. Not only was Obama’s stance on abortion kept ambiguous during the campaign, it still is to a certain extent. I’d like to see the numbers when he pushes the FOCA.

Even on abortion and stem cells, those calling themselves Catholic are almost indistinguishable from non-Catholics

Indeed. Though it should be noted that a majority of Americans are pro-life.

amerpundit on May 20, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Was it just me, or were they talking about 2 different things?

bluelightbrigade on May 20, 2009 at 10:52 AM

54 percent of Catholics voted for The One last fall and 67 percent approved of his job performance as of three weeks ago

This is the bigger problem, IMO. I’m surrounded by Catholics (including two ND grads) who constantly suppress their religious beliefs and support the Democratic Party, even though their political party is at odds with the teachings of that Church. So why should Notre Dame be any different.

LastRick on May 20, 2009 at 10:52 AM

Notre Dame has a huge Chicago link. Someone ought to explore that link with obama. His appearing at this once fine institution was by no means a fluke where he happened to have a calender open for the day. It was a well-orchestrated event to minimize BO’s stance on botched abortions and infanticide.

Norte Dame was just a platform…an old used platform for a pro-abortion stance. It sickens me to see this insitution’s obvious break from the church.

jbh45 on May 20, 2009 at 10:54 AM

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.

Allah

Spot on, and well-sourced.

Actually, I’m not surprised. Not only was Obama’s stance on abortion kept ambiguous during the campaign, it still is to a certain extent.

Amerpundit on May 20, 2009 at 10:49 AM

But that is AP’s whole point: Notre Dame may not look Catholic to their own Bishops and Cardinals, but maybe the hierarchy should have a closer look at the pro-abortion liberal sitting in the pews (or not, as the case may be).

Jaibones on May 20, 2009 at 10:55 AM

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.

It’s also driving more and more Catholics into the Protestant camp. I know lots of spanish evangelical churches and see it all the time.

latinchic on May 20, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Qualify “Protestant.” I say this, b/c it’s not like Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans and Episcopalians are experiencing in influx of ex-catholics. This is b/c they are too “liberal”

The sociological reality is that people (who are looking…) look to religion for instructions for life first, not simply to occupy a pew.

bluelightbrigade on May 20, 2009 at 10:55 AM

But that is AP’s whole point: Notre Dame may not look Catholic to their own Bishops and Cardinals, but maybe the hierarchy should have a closer look at the pro-abortion liberal sitting in the pews (or not, as the case may be).

Jaibones on May 20, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Yeah, ignore me. I got a whopping one hour of sleep last night and have had no coffee today.

amerpundit on May 20, 2009 at 10:56 AM

meh. Laura’s opinion on matters of “viable catholic institutions” amounts to what, exactly?

ernesto on May 20, 2009 at 10:49 AM

It amounts to a good story with an eye-catching headline…and a kick to the balls of this Vatican institution if any….

…btw, wasn’t around for the announcement, but is Ed M. on vaca? Heck of a job, Allah, running this place solo.

RepubChica on May 20, 2009 at 10:57 AM

Was it just me, or were they talking about 2 different things?

bluelightbrigade on May 20, 2009 at 10:52 AM

Yeah Bill’s point was that it was a well-played move by Obama. Laura’s was that Notre Dame failed in its mission as a Catholic institution.

In the end she made the point that Obama and Notre Dame would be hurt by the event. I’d bet she’s wrong. The event will likely be largely forgotten though slightly positive for both the university and the President.

dedalus on May 20, 2009 at 10:57 AM

Notre Dame’s no longer a viable Catholic institution

Obama wins again.

Divide the opposition; divide them into smaller units, then defeat them in detail.

pseudonominus on May 20, 2009 at 10:58 AM

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. It reminds me of the members of my wife’s temple overwhelmingly voting for The One knowing that he was weak on Israel. As I mentioned to a member, given the of support shown by the majority of Jews I know, they should be thankful for Evangelicals because without them, Israel would be thrown to the wolves. It would appear that Catholics need to thank Evangelicals as well for carrying on the abortion fight for them.

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

American Catholicism is going the way of liberal mainline Protestantism….just left wing politics covered by a thin veneer of Christianity. If it keeps heading in that direction it will meet the same fate as the mainline Protestant denominations which is shrinking membership and complete irrelevance. Where liberalism thrives, religion dies. Where conservatism thrives, it grows.

frank63 on May 20, 2009 at 10:59 AM

frank63 on May 20, 2009 at 10:59 AM

well said.

youngO on May 20, 2009 at 11:01 AM

All hail, your self-annointed overlords of what is and isn’t acceptable conservative thinking and behavior have spoken.

sanguine4 on May 20, 2009 at 11:04 AM

If one supports abortion in any fashion, then one is sadly unclear on the teachings of Christ. Or, worse, one does know right from wrong and openly chooses “wrong” b/c that is the new “cool”. My mind and heart wobble and ache & I fail to understand how killing tiny perfect humans is justified, let alone cool b/c ogabe says so. He is an evil, sick and perverted man & is leading so many millions down the wrong path and they go willingly, knowingly.

These people are NOT Catholics (what a joke); these are NON Christians. For the first time in my adult life I am ashamed of my country and mortified by its barbaric agenda.

Ris4victory on May 20, 2009 at 11:06 AM

It’s weird that non-Catholics are acting so judgmental about what a Catholic university does.

But then again, I think this issue really belonged in the ND and ND alumni community.

How would you like it if outsiders told you what your university should or should not stand for?

YYZ on May 20, 2009 at 11:06 AM

Laura Ingraham hit the nail, on the head. She is absolutely correct. Bill O’Reilly was spinning, in the “No Spin Zone.

sinsing on May 20, 2009 at 11:08 AM

latinchic on May 20, 2009 at 10:49 AM

This is true, and it’s usually the hardcore, evangelical Protestant ones who have no qualms about bucking cultural trends(which I love).

I think AP put his finger on it; regular mass attendees are notably different, value-wise, from non-Catholics, just as regular church attending Protestants have different values.

The problem is an influx of nominal Christians who are spoiling the image of actual Christians. At least, so I hope.

emailnuevo on May 20, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Can I add that it was awesome to have the “Look, I’m trying to be in the no-spin zone with you” while O’Reilly was spinning like a whirling dervish?

emailnuevo on May 20, 2009 at 11:09 AM

I don’t have the link just now, but you have to read Jenkins’s letter to the graduates to appreciate the level of delusion that impairs him. He declares all Catholics to be something like “irrevocably pro-life”, or some nonsense, failing either to understand or to admit that the great majority of his students are no such thing, and failing to even comprehend that our scummy, addled President just urged Catholics to keep an open mind about infanticide (as I describe his position, based on his entire career of promoting every form of abortion, intra-uterine or otherwise).

That was right after Jenkins knobbed him on the dais.

Jaibones on May 20, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Which puts Notre Dame squarely inside the mainstream.

The mainstream of what?

Rocks on May 20, 2009 at 11:11 AM

meh. Laura’s opinion on matters of “viable catholic institutions” amounts to what, exactly?

ernesto on May 20, 2009 at 10:49 AM

It amounts to agreement with Catholics who attend church regularly. The average Catholic has been unaware of the extent of the true state of Catholic higher education until now. The Notre Dame controversy, coupled with the vicious attack on pro-life students protesting Obama’s opposition to Life by the President of Trinity University have been like a nuclear blast in my Catholic community. ND is Catholic no more.

littleguy on May 20, 2009 at 11:11 AM

You are either Catholic and follow the teachings or you are not and don’t. It’s that simple.

“Catholic -Lite” is not an option – and the polling of so-called Catholics is nothing more than propaganda concerning issues.

I was baptised, communed and confirmed and attended St Francis of Assisi. I haven’t been to mass in over 20 years.

I am no longer a Catholic.

It’s that easy.

Odie1941 on May 20, 2009 at 11:13 AM

If the Inquisition were re-instituted, many people could be forced back to the true path.

Bishop on May 20, 2009 at 11:14 AM

But then again, I think this issue really belonged in the ND and ND alumni community.

How would you like it if outsiders told you what your university should or should not stand for?

YYZ on May 20, 2009 at 11:06 AM

I agree: it’s their school and their donations. But then the obvious question to the university (and it’s left-leaning alums) is Why are you Catholic if you won’t defend its tenets?

LastRick on May 20, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Rome needs to take action to address Notre Dame issue by quickly firing its president and its cabal of progressives to make a very public statement on the university; Laura Ingraham should preface her remarks by saying that Notre Dame’s no longer a viable Catholic institution with its current leadership.

IntheNet on May 20, 2009 at 11:15 AM

frank63 on May 20, 2009 at 10:59 AM

I’ll disagree with that, only because of one difference.

Liberal Protestanism is a result of the natural digression of Protestant churches as they shed doctrines in the quest for greater profits.

On the other hand, Catholicism always has been and always will be a political symbiote. It was founded by government, funded by government, and has long acted as a agent for politicians that wish to appear spiritual without actually being so.

I agree that the money-minded liberal Protestants will fade away in time, but as long as Catholicism can continue to broker power and provide cover for Godless politicians, it will persist.

TMK on May 20, 2009 at 11:16 AM

In the end she made the point that Obama and Notre Dame would be hurt by the event. I’d bet she’s wrong. The event will likely be largely forgotten though slightly positive for both the university and the President.

dedalus on May 20, 2009 at 10:57 AM

Notre Dame has already lost $13.5 million in donations and new polling suggest the country is moving towards a pro-life stance. Looks like they both “lost” the argument.

yogi41 on May 20, 2009 at 11:16 AM

My daughter was recruited heavily for an athletic scholarship at Notre Dame. She spent her athletic career working toward this and it was her dream. So we visited the campus on an official visit. What an unnerving and disappointing experience for a young person with 12 years of Catholic education.

The coach was a vapid non-Catholic with very suspect views, the team was mostly non-Catholic, with collectively suspect views. the students and faculty were decidedly not what we would expect of a Catholic institution. We surmised that something was rotten in Touchdown Jesus-land.

We decided that Notre Dame was a sellout and declined their scholarship offer. This was a decade ago. Nothing has improved.

AP, why are you so focused here? Is it the hypocrisy?

eaglesdontflock on May 20, 2009 at 11:17 AM

The Church will do anything to stay popular with the people. Where I live the Catholic Schools are staying open in the poor neighborhoods and closing in all the other neighborhoods. Yet they send me empty envelopes to donate $5K at a time to keep the schools open that are no where near my house. They are in desperate need of money. They are struggling to hold on to the views and values that have brought them this far.

Tremmy on May 20, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Notre Dame has a huge Chicago link. Someone ought to explore that link with obama. His appearing at this once fine institution was by no means a fluke where he happened to have a calender open for the day. It was a well-orchestrated event to minimize BO’s stance on botched abortions and infanticide.

Norte Dame was just a platform…an old used platform for a pro-abortion stance. It sickens me to see this insitution’s obvious break from the church.

jbh45 on May 20, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Bingo! Notre Dame has long been Chicago’s “Harvard or Yale” and is nothing more than a status symbol to those who attend. The Chicago Irish-Catholic community (which is huge) sends money to this school regardless if they’re alum’s or not. They could care less about the appearance of the Precedent and his stand on abortion.

Notre Dame is nothing more than a money operation and football whores.

Knucklehead on May 20, 2009 at 11:19 AM

The Bishops should never have criticized ND over this issue, they should have sent out a one line statement saying that ND is free to give honorary degrees to whomever they wish since on the basis on their decision they have lost approbation and may no logner refer to themselves as a Catholic instituion in any correspondence.

Note that I’m not suggesting ex-communication of anyone involved. But calling yourself a Catholic institution is not a right given to any group of Catholics. I know this from personal experience. My wife and a few friends of ours started a high school a few years ago (began with 8 kids now up to 50 btw) and we could NOT refer to ourselves as a Catholic High School even though it was a high school run by Catholics, that taught apologetics as a graduation requirement, and professed feality to the Catholic Church.

I’m fine with that, but it does irk me to see ND flaunt the Bishop’s directive on honorary degrees (among its other official insults to the Catholic Church) and get away with it.

Screw ‘em. Let ND have their academic freedom all they want, but tell him they can’t use the word Catholic anymore to describe themselves.

I think that another point is being lost in all of this discussion. The Church has a priest shortage but the priests who have been coming out of the seminary over the last 15 years are the so-called “John Paul II” priests. These are a young men on fire for the Church and for traditional teaching. I know all of the young seminarians from our diocese (several graduated from our high school) and all of the young priests and I can tell you that they are totally solid. For what it’s worth, I live in a diocese in which the city is extremely liberal, so it’s not just a function of locale.

These young JPII priests are quickly moving into positions of authority in the Church and replacing those Vatican II dinosaurs who think that playing Peter, Paul, and Mary during communion is “hip” and “relevant” (egads the only other time I hear PP,& M is when our local PBS station is doing a pledge drive to cater to other liberal dinosaurs).

The liberals at ND know this and they know that they need a counter-weight to that movement. So what they did in essence was “recruit” Obama to act as that counter-weight. When Obama got a standing ovation at ND, it is their response to Pope Benedict XVI being cheered by faithful Catholics. They see recruiting Obama as a way of bring people over to their way of thinking. In essence they’re saying, “You see, being a liberal Catholic is cool, look, we’re pals with Obama!”

PackerBronco on May 20, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Laura is right. It will be interesting to see how alumni donations fare after ND put Obama ahead of Christ. Sad. And why does anyone insist that they’re Roman Catholic if they spurn their leaders? I believe there are a remnant of true believers in the Catholic church, but many are Catholics in name only. And yes, that’s also becoming more the rule with Presbyterians, Episcopalians. Lutherans and Methodists. No wonder many of these churches are shrinking. Anyone who rejected Christianity because of what has been foisted off as Christianity by some of these churches, has missed the whole Gospel. I know firsthand since I was raised in such a church, and rejected it as a teenager. The first time I walked into a believing church (it was an evangelical Methodist church but has now broken ties with the UM’s) some 15 years later, I noticed the difference right away. The folks there really believed in Christ and every one of them was excited about Him.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God to salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17 For in this is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Colossians 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

Christian Conservative on May 20, 2009 at 11:21 AM

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.

Religious leadership doesn’t seem to be good at providing good answers to our political problems. The political values advanced by my own religion, Reformed Judaism, are crazy socialists ideas, open borders, and a foreign policy that would up destroying America and Israel. Hence, I ignore my religion in the ballot box. Catholics should do the same. It’s crazy to take seriously the ideas of a bunch of celibate (or guilt-ridden) old men about issues like family planning and abortion.

thuja on May 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM

How would you like it if outsiders told you what your university should or should not stand for?

YYZ on May 20, 2009 at 11:06 AM

A university has a right to stand for whatever it wishes. The issue here is that the University calls itself Catholic. The Catholic Church has been very public in it’s condemnation of ALL abortion, which would include abortions commited by non-Catholics. So if the Catholic Church can pass judgment on outsiders who have abortions (which is fine by me), why can’t outsiders pass judgment on a Catholic University that bestows honor on a man who enables people to commit the very sin which the church condemns. The whole thing reaks of hypocrisy and double standards.

frank63 on May 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Why has the pope remained so silent on this? Surely he too can’t be intimidated or in complete awe of the O.

Tommy_G on May 20, 2009 at 11:23 AM

Notre Dame is nothing more than a money operation and football whores.

. . . and that says it all.

rplat on May 20, 2009 at 11:23 AM

I saw this segment and Laura was taking none of Bill’s equivocating. It was great. So what does Laura’s opinion amount to? It amounts to the truth, that’s what. I don’t care if 90 percent of American Catholics are pro-choice — that doesn’t make their position correct, nor does it make their position “catholic” in any sense.

Notre Dame made its choice — the university honored the highest ranking, most militant purveyor of infantacide in the United States… pathetic.

D2Boston on May 20, 2009 at 11:24 AM

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. — Allahpundit

What is “the church”? Do we count the CEO Catholics? (Christmas and Easter Only) Do we count self-professed Catholics who haven’t been within 100 feet of a nun or priest in a decade? If so, then yeah, Notre Dame is mainstream….

To borrow a certain quote, not all of the church is an eye or an ear – and way too much of the church these days is made up of useless fat, bloating the body and rendering it unable to move faster than a waddle.

As I see it, the ones pollsters need to ask are those who take on the responsibility of teaching the kids in catechism classes, of taking meals to the elderly, of visting parisioners in the hospital, of cleaning the kitchen after the parish pot luck, of running bingo night…

The interesting data point, for me, isn’t “Catholics” but “Catholics who attend mass regularly”…. Notre Dame is doomed as a Catholic institution, long term, if they lose the support of the faithful for the faithful decide where the money goes.

Mew

acat on May 20, 2009 at 11:27 AM

Laura is right. It will be interesting to see how alumni donations fare after ND put Obama ahead of Christ. Christian Conservative on May 20, 2009 at 11:21 AM

As I said before, Notre Dame doesn’t need to worry about donations. Soros and friends will pay nicely to corrupt Catholic institutions. It’s the same as colleges and universities.

While America Slept they have all been corrupted by socialist progressive communists to corrupt the minds of our young people and further their sick agenda. 30 billion in personal wealth goes a long way. That’s just a handful of progressives.

eaglesdontflock on May 20, 2009 at 11:27 AM

We have squishy catholics BECAUSE we have a squishy church!

The Vatican behaves ambiguously- then wonders why people leave the church. GOD is not ambiguous.

God opposes the murder of the ‘innocents’, not all killing, NOT the death penalty, nor war. God is down with the opposition to evil-are you?

ExTex on May 20, 2009 at 11:28 AM

Why has the pope remained so silent on this? Surely he too can’t be intimidated or in complete awe of the O.

Tommy_G on May 20, 2009 at 11:23 AM

This is just the way it’s done. The Pope does not run to a mike every time there is a problem. He has the power. he does not need to win over the public to put pressure where he wants it. You can bet there has been some long hard conversations with the Superior of the Jesuits, who run ND.
Besides the millions this has cost ND it will cost the Jesuits even more in clout.

Rocks on May 20, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Notre Dame has already lost $13.5 million in donations and new polling suggest the country is moving towards a pro-life stance. Looks like they both “lost” the argument.

yogi41 on May 20, 2009 at 11:16 AM

ND is an international brand and Obama’s appearance helps to reinforce that impression.

The Gallup poll isn’t too interesting. Most people are pro-choice and pro-life since the terms are vague and appealing. On the issue of abortion the Gallup poll had most Americans favoring legal abortion with restrictions.

Unfortunately, both parties are controlled by the 20% on either side who hold more polarized positions.

dedalus on May 20, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Why has the pope remained so silent on this? Surely he too can’t be intimidated or in complete awe of the O.

Tommy_G on May 20, 2009 at 11:23 AM

Alan Keyes pointed out that as a head of state the pope wouldn’t have spoken about this. What he did though was to send Burke, the most powerful American bishop to the national prayer breakfast where Burke made an unambiguous statement that this was not acceptable, that Catholic teaching on abortion is clear. So, in effect, the pope spoke through Burke and did condemn the honor that ND bestowed on the most anti life president ever.

Jvette on May 20, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Christ warned of this.

He also told them a parable: “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? – Luke 6:39

Turn from following a blind man and instead follow who Peter describes as the rock.

As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture:
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone.”

and
“A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense.”

shick on May 20, 2009 at 11:32 AM

YYZ on May 20, 2009 at 11:06 AM

Spot on. I’m catholic, with 16 years of catholic education under my belt. I’m pro-choice. If faced with a situation in which abortion was an option, I don’t think I’d choose for one.

I’m also pro-birth control.

Now, in my experience, being a Catholic is SO much more than just two issues. It’s more a relationship with God and those around you. I was always taught what the Church said, while at the same time being told than man is not perfect and living the “right way” is a struggle.

But in all my years of being a Catholic, I had NEVER heard anyone suggest I should leave the Church if I didn’t follow every “law” or “order.” That is until people started injected politics into the equation.

I pay zero attention to people like Laura Ingram. I have no respect for someone who tries to inject politics into religion. It’s not a “game.” It’s not a case of “you’re doing it wrong.” In the end, it’s an incredibly personnel journey guided by the Church and its teachings. I hold contempt for people (catholics and non-catholics) who want to treat the Church like the Republican party and kick out anyone who’s not “pure.” No one’s pure. That’s the point.

Tom_Shipley on May 20, 2009 at 11:35 AM

I agree that the money-minded liberal Protestants will fade away in time, but as long as Catholicism can continue to broker power and provide cover for Godless politicians, it will persist.

TMK on May 20, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Yes it may persist as an institution, but it’s membership will dwindle and it will slide further into irrelavance. That has already happened. I live in the Boston area which is heavily Catholic (I come from a Catholic family and was raised in the church as a child). Compare today to 50 years ago. Mass attendance is much lower today. The number of men going into the priesthood is shrinking. Back in my grandparents day the politicians of Massachusetts feared the Catholic clergy since priests wielded so much power over the minds of their flock and could influence elections. Today, major “Catholic” politicians can flaunt the church’s teaching and still receive public communion. The slide into irrelevance has been going on for a long time. 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

As I said before, Notre Dame doesn’t need to worry about donations. Soros and friends will pay nicely to corrupt Catholic institutions. It’s the same as colleges and universities
eaglesdontflock on May 20, 2009 at 11:27 AM

They won’t even need to go the Soros route. I’m sure our good old Mayor Daley and our corrupt city council will just add the Notre Dame shortfall into our budget and Chicago/Cook County will pay the debt. All of their kids have gone to school there.

But folks will continue to donate money to Notre Dame no matter what that school does. After all, Notre Dame is the closest thing to God and heaven in these folks mind. And why? Because that school has beat the drum for so long people believe it.

Knucklehead on May 20, 2009 at 11:37 AM

I tell my kids that the Church is perfect, as her head Christ is perfect. Her teachings and doctrines and Sacraments are perfect. When we want to know what the Church teaches, we must look to the official documents and declarations that are binding and infallible.

What happens too often is that people base their opinions of the Church on the statements and actions of humans especially members who are poorly catechized or reject teachings they find difficult to accept and live by.

The media and their president have used the dissension and relativism of some Catholics to justify their position on abortion. But, these Catholics are not the infallible head of the church nor are they the spokesmen for her.

Jvette on May 20, 2009 at 11:41 AM

meh. Laura’s opinion on matters of “viable catholic institutions” amounts to what, exactly?

ernesto on May 20, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Well, she’s hot. So her opinion has to mean something. ;-)

I’ll click on every Laura Ingraham story just to look at the pics of her. But I quit clicking on the MegMac stories a long time ago.

UltimateBob on May 20, 2009 at 11:41 AM

I pay zero attention to people like Laura Ingram. I have no respect for someone who tries to inject politics into religion. It’s not a “game.” It’s not a case of “you’re doing it wrong.” In the end, it’s an incredibly personnel journey guided by the Church and its teachings. I hold contempt for people (catholics and non-catholics) who want to treat the Church like the Republican party and kick out anyone who’s not “pure.” No one’s pure. That’s the point.

Tom_Shipley on May 20, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Very well stated. As a recent convert to Catholicism, Laura should understand that people who have lived their entire lives as Catholics are turned off by TV pundits who use the faith as political fodder.

dedalus on May 20, 2009 at 11:41 AM

This is an educational institution first and foremost. If you can get the President at any time I’d say go for it. I think Presidents are basically evil people, but the vast majority still have their heads up their @sses so those is a plus for the university. And frankly from a lady who kissed Bush’s @ss and claims to be a conservative, Laura’s claims of hypocrisy are rather laughable.

LevStrauss on May 20, 2009 at 11:42 AM

But in all my years of being a Catholic, I had NEVER heard anyone suggest I should leave the Church if I didn’t follow every “law” or “order.”

Tom_Shipley on May 20, 2009 at 11:35 AM

No, they just tell you that you’re going to hell.

That’s why I left the church.

UltimateBob on May 20, 2009 at 11:43 AM

Laura Ingraham just talked about your article on her radio show.

Blake on May 20, 2009 at 11:43 AM

I am an Evangelical Holiness minister, and I feel the need to inform Christians and Catholics everywhere that to support a politician who is pro life, who enables the murder of infants, and who votes for abortion is a sin that must by it’s nature separate them from God’s mercy, condemning them to hell unless it is repented of and forgiven. Repentance includes vowing never to do that particular sin again. Sin is death to God and man.

TimothyJ on May 20, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Tom_Shipley on May 20, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Thank you, you just made my point.

Jvette on May 20, 2009 at 11:44 AM

I’m sure our good old Mayor Daley and our corrupt city council will just add the Notre Dame shortfall into our budget and Chicago/Cook County

ND is four counties away and in another state. Hope Daley can’t reach that far. Although he’s screwed up the part of Indiana I live in.

Tommy_G on May 20, 2009 at 11:44 AM

And if we were to follow this litmus test, a Catholic University couldn’t have Bush either because he started a pre emptive war that Pope John Paul spoke out against repeatedly. Frankly no President could ever speak at Notre Dame if we follow this litmus test because no President is clean from a “religious perspective”.

LevStrauss on May 20, 2009 at 11:45 AM

I hold contempt for people (catholics and non-catholics) who want to treat the Church like the Republican party and kick out anyone who’s not “pure.” No one’s pure. That’s the point.

Tom_Shipley on May 20, 2009 at 11:35 AM

It’s not about being pure, it’s about recognizing authority. Martin Luther was not excommunicated for being impure. What got him kicked out of the Catholic Church was his rejection of the Pope’s authority. If you are pro-choice and pro-birth control then you do not recognize the Pope’s authority on matters of faith and morals so by definition you’re a Protestant at heart. Protestants were those who protested the authority of the Pope. So if you have contempt for anyone it’s for your own Church since they are the ones who excommunicated Luther.

frank63 on May 20, 2009 at 11:46 AM

I went to Notre Dame and am Catholic. I stayed away from their theology department as much as possible. I knew there was no way they would rescind their invite to Obama. They are liberal academics, after all. They are more afraid of what other Universities will say than the U.S. Bishops or the Pope.

zmdavid on May 20, 2009 at 11:46 AM

No, they just tell you that you’re going to hell.

I was fortunate enough to be taught you had to be pretty bad to get into hell. Purgatory was really the place you wanted to avoid.

Tom_Shipley on May 20, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Tom_Shipley on May 20, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Your sixteen years of Catholic education did not serve you well. Fortunately my eighteen years of Catholic education were more instructive.

You isolate abortion as a single issue

(Now, in my experience, being a Catholic is SO much more than just two issues)

.

There is nothing more fundamental to Catholicism as it was given to us by Christ Himself than the love and respect for the dignity of every human, especially the most lowly and innocent. The heart of the “singular abortion issue” pervades the entire belief system that is Catholicism. The ability to create life is from God Himself. To capriciously wipe it out for convenience sake is from Satan.

To ignore this basic truth and foundation of our faith is, in the words of many HotAir posters over the years, an EPIC FAIL.

D2Boston on May 20, 2009 at 11:50 AM

And if we were to follow this litmus test, a Catholic University couldn’t have Bush either because he started a pre emptive war that Pope John Paul spoke out against repeatedly. Frankly no President could ever speak at Notre Dame if we follow this litmus test because no President is clean from a “religious perspective”.

LevStrauss on May 20, 2009 at 11:45 AM

There is a huge difference here. The JPII spoke out against the war as a head of state. He did not infallibly declare that the war was unjust or immoral.

This is what I mean. The pope speaks all the time and though we should listen and hopefully learn something, it is only when spoken as the infallible head of the church that a statement is binding on all Catholics.

Abortion has been declared an intrinsic evil, which can never be justified. Support of it and those who seek or perform them is a sin.

War and the death penalty have not been declared intrinsically evil and can be support in certain circumstances. This teaching allows individual Catholics to make their own choice regarding these things.

Jvette on May 20, 2009 at 11:51 AM

I was fortunate enough to be taught you had to be pretty bad to get into hell. Purgatory was really the place you wanted to avoid.

Tom_Shipley on May 20, 2009 at 11:47 AM

I was taught by nuns in first through fifth grades.

The punishment for “mild” offenses like chewing gum in class was pretty severe – they would take it out of your mouth and stick it on your forehead, where you had to sear it for the rest of the day.

For the “big” sins like lusting after girls, we were told that we were surely going to burn in hell. I thought that was insane, so as soon as I was old enough I left the church.

UltimateBob on May 20, 2009 at 11:53 AM

No, wait, I know this one!

54 percent of Catholics voted for The One last fall and 67 percent approved of his job performance as of three weeks ago;

These are not real mass-attending Catholics.

And of course the Vatican itself is as squishy as can be when it comes to taking on Obama for his stances.

He is not a real mass-attending Catholic… er, wait a second.

I guess Laura Ingraham’s pronouncement (without regard to whether Rome considers ND “Catholic”) means she must not be a real mass-attending Catholic either.

If anybody bothered to study what constitutes a “grave sin” in RCism… he’s conclude that probably 95% of American Catholics are eternally condemned by their own Church for one thing or another.

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 11:53 AM

It’s not a case of “you’re doing it wrong.” In the end, it’s an incredibly personnel journey guided by the Church and its teachings. I hold contempt for people (catholics and non-catholics) who want to treat the Church like the Republican party and kick out anyone who’s not “pure.” No one’s pure. That’s the point.

Tom_Shipley on May 20, 2009 at 11:35 AM

I would agree with this sentiment, no one should be kicked out(which has nothing to do with excommunication). What’s personal should be personal. Speaking as a Catholic or calling an institution Catholic is not personal. It’s a very public claim of community. If you are pro-life that is your choice, but you are not Catholic on that issue. How people feel personally about abortion is irrelevant, no matter how many people agree with them. Politicians, and individuals, should not attempt to use their membership in the Catholic church as cover for statements or actions which are not Catholic.

No one is pure, that’s true, but it does not follow that impurity is just fine.

Rocks on May 20, 2009 at 11:54 AM

ND is four counties away and in another state. Hope Daley can’t reach that far. Although he’s screwed up the part of Indiana I live in.

Tommy_G on May 20, 2009 at 11:44 AM

You need to buy copius amounts of KY Jelly because it’s only going to get worse. We are being taxed into oblivion and are running across the Indiana state line in droves.

Illinois is the next California. Indiana should put up a toll booth for those of us that cross the state line to do all of our shopping. You’d make a fortune.

Knucklehead on May 20, 2009 at 11:58 AM

On the other hand, Catholicism always has been and always will be a political symbiote. It was founded by government, funded by government, and has long acted as a agent for politicians that wish to appear spiritual without actually being so.

TMK on May 20, 2009 at 11:16 AM

This statement is false. The Catholic Religion was founded by St. Peter and the rest of Our Lord’s Apostles. Read the Book of Acts. Become informed.

Cadian on May 20, 2009 at 11:58 AM

kick out anyone who’s not “pure.” No one’s pure.

Apparently you haven’t read the infallible decrees of the Council of Trent… or Unam Sanctam… or Pius IX… etc.

“Heresy consists in a stubborn denial of truths which have been defined an proposed by the Church as divinely revealed doctrines.” (Canon 1324-1325 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law).

“By the divine and Catholic Faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written Word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal magisterium, to be believed as divinely revealed.” (Vatican Council I, Denzinger 1792)

“Any baptized person who … obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic.” (C. 1325)

I could go on… but you get the point.

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 11:59 AM

This statement is false. The Catholic Religion was founded by St. Peter and the rest of Our Lord’s Apostles. Read the Book of Acts. Become informed.

Cadian on May 20, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Studied it extensively… gonna need a verse.

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 12:00 PM

And if we were to follow this litmus test, a Catholic University couldn’t have Bush either because he started a pre emptive war that Pope John Paul spoke out against repeatedly. Frankly no President could ever speak at Notre Dame if we follow this litmus test because no President is clean from a “religious perspective”.

LevStrauss on May 20, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Go do a Web search on the Catholic Doctrine of Just War. You’ll find pages and pages of discussion from Aquinas to Pope Benedict XVI as the Church has struggled to define exactly when, where, and how war can be justly waged.

Now do a similar search for Just Abortion.

You’ll find no teachings on Just Abortion. none.

Appreciate that and you MAY start to appreciate the difference between Bush and Obama.

PackerBronco on May 20, 2009 at 12:00 PM

I was fortunate enough to be taught you had to be pretty bad to get into hell. Purgatory was really the place you wanted to avoid.

Tom_Shipley on May 20, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Depending on your ultimate fate TS, the word “fortunate” might not be accurate. :-)

PackerBronco on May 20, 2009 at 12:02 PM

On the other hand, Catholicism always has been and always will be a political symbiote. It was founded by government, funded by government, and has long acted as a agent for politicians that wish to appear spiritual without actually being so.

TMK on May 20, 2009 at 11:16 AM

A liberal lie.

Jvette on May 20, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Tom_Shipley on May 20, 2009 at 11:47 AM

The point that you and so many other catholics in this post seem to be missing is; The Church is eternal, you are asked to conform to the churches standards not the other way around. There are clearly defined rules as to what being catholic or christian is all about (there is a very nice instruction manual that has been around for centuries). The word can’t be watered down or made to conform to today’s standards. The real problem in this country is no standards. Tolerance has crept up on people so slowly in the past several generations that is was almost impossible to see it happening.

Tommy_G on May 20, 2009 at 12:02 PM

To ignore this basic truth and foundation of our faith is, in the words of many HotAir posters over the years, an EPIC FAIL.

D2Boston on May 20, 2009 at 11:50 AM

Did Christ address any of his teachings to Caesar or even Herod as directives on how a government should function? Many Catholics live their lives practicing virtue while sacrificing and caring for others. Clearly the Vatican has said that abortion is wrong, but expressing a political opinion is ultimately only one aspect of living a life in Christ.

dedalus on May 20, 2009 at 12:03 PM

[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 12:04 PM

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 11:59 AM

Make note of

Heresy consists in a stubborn denial of truths

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

Your sixteen years of Catholic education did not serve you well. Fortunately my eighteen years of Catholic education were more instructive.

You’re doing it wrong!

You’re exactly the kind of person I hold contempt for. Last I checked, being pro-choice (thinking that abortions should be legal under US law) and disagreeing on the church about contraception are not grounds for excommunication.

Tom_Shipley on May 20, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Studied it extensively… gonna need a verse.

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Would that be verse from the Bible that the Catholic church protected and handed down?

If you have studied it extensively, then you know the verses and choose to use your own or someone else interpretation which must be twisted to deny that Christ founded one church, one faith.

Jvette on May 20, 2009 at 12:06 PM

In the end, it’s an incredibly personnel journey guided by the Church and its teachings. I hold contempt for people (catholics and non-catholics) who want to treat the Church like the Republican party and kick out anyone who’s not “pure.” No one’s pure. That’s the point.

Tom_Shipley on May 20, 2009 at 11:35 AM

If it’s a journey, it’s a journey to SOMEWHERE. And that being the case, good directions are important to get you to your destination. And you should not be led by people who give you wrong directions.

PackerBronco on May 20, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Religion will be outlawed in the next term. You may only worship “The One”.

faol on May 20, 2009 at 12:06 PM

The word can’t be watered down or made to conform to today’s standards.

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 think notre dame is still catholic, for sure. It’s not Christian, but it’s catholic, as it has always been.

TTheoLogan on May 20, 2009 at 12:07 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

Because they don’t base their beliefs on scripture, but whatever a bunch of old codgers decide.

TTheoLogan on May 20, 2009 at 12:07 PM

Studied it extensively… gonna need a verse.

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Matthew 16:18 “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. From the New International Version.

Tommy_G on May 20, 2009 at 12:07 PM

Tom_Shipley on May 20, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Are you open to the possiblity that perhaps you could be wrong?

clarifides on May 20, 2009 at 12:08 PM

We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: ‘Behold, here are two swords’ [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: ‘Put up thy sword into thy scabbard’ [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest. However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: ‘There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God’ [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 12:08 PM

Has God been punishing Notre Dame via the football team? If you are a college football fan and a Christian the idea is hard to dismiss. Remember this?

Theworldisnotenough on May 20, 2009 at 12:09 PM

Did Christ address any of his teachings to Caesar or even Herod as directives on how a government should function? Many Catholics live their lives practicing virtue while sacrificing and caring for others. Clearly the Vatican has said that abortion is wrong, but expressing a political opinion is ultimately only one aspect of living a life in Christ.

dedalus on May 20, 2009 at 12:03 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

One does not separate his faith from his politics. Just as one cannot separate his soul from his body. To do so is death.

Jvette on May 20, 2009 at 12:09 PM

Tommy_G on May 20, 2009 at 12:07 PM

Didn’t know Matthew was also the Book of Acts (see original assertion in which we were told to “read the Book of Acts”).

Do you also believe that Peter is Satan?

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Last year, my daughter and I toured a Catholic college. When she asked about the mass schedule, etc, she was told there were two masses celebrated a week. Then we were told that most don’t go because they only expect “you to be as Catholic as you want to be.”

Oh, yeah, my daughter isn’t going there.

cibolo on May 20, 2009 at 12:10 PM

I think notre dame is still catholic, for sure. It’s not Christian, but it’s catholic, as it has always been.

TTheoLogan on May 20, 2009 at 12:07 PM

I thought Catholics were the original Christians with the Apostle Peter bringing the church to Rome.

dedalus on May 20, 2009 at 12:10 PM

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).

Perhaps the solution is getting Catholics into church more often. My church is so freaking moderate and accepting, we are regularly prodded to introduce ourselves to the people next to us, tell them our problems and pray for them, etc. I am just getting comfortable shaking hands in church, perhaps if the church got back to teaching the catechism (and its application to daily life) and got away from its psychotheraputic approach to theology, more catholics like me would see the point of attending church more regularly. And if more catholics attended church more regularly, we would share a more cohesive world view. Then we could start again to spread the good news.

Angry Dumbo on May 20, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Has God been punishing Notre Dame via the football team?

… and punishing the rest of us through the BCS?

PackerBronco on May 20, 2009 at 12:10 PM

TTheoLogan on May 20, 2009 at 12:07 PM

How many of these

old codgers

have you ever known or even spoke to ? Is it that you look only to defame.

clarifides on May 20, 2009 at 12:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2