Does Notre Dame teach irony?
posted at 1:36 pm on September 17, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Fr. John Jenkins, current president of Notre Dame University, has sent a letter to Notre Dame alumni informing them that he plans to participate in the March for Life in Washington DC. The march will protest the Roe v Wade decision on its 36th anniversary, making a statement for the pro-life cause. Those who oppose abortion should applaud this activism by Fr. Jenkins and pray for the success of the March for Life to change hearts so that life is protected rather than discarded.
However, his message could be made a little more powerful by the addition of 88 pro-life activists to the march — people instead busy preparing for trials because Fr. Jenkins refuses to drop charges against them for protesting the appearance of President Barack Obama at Notre Dame’s commencement in May. Among those charged is Norma McCorvey, the original Roe, who has long ago switched positions and demonstrates against abortion. Free the ND 88 asks for assistance in asking Fr. Jenkins to show consistency:
Notre Dame President John I. Jenkins announced today that he intends to join the “March for Life” this coming January as part of his commitment made last May, according to Jenkins, to bear witness to the sanctity of life. The March for Life is held each year in Washington, DC to mark the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision.
Apparently the irony was lost on Jenkins that while he will be preparing to protest against Roe v. Wade, the actual Roe, Norma McCorvey, will be preparing for her criminal trial for protesting at Notre Dame after she was arrested under orders from Father Jenkins who has, so far, refused to drop the charges brought against McCorvey and the rest of the “ND 88″, the dozens of pro-life protestors arrested last spring for “crimes” such as saying the rosary and wearing pro-life t-shirts. …
Jenkins expressed his hope that “we can overcome divisions to foster constructive dialogue and work together for a cause that is at the heart of Notre Dame’s mission” something which many in the Pro-Life community believe to be impossible so long as the “ND 88″ are facing possible prison sentences for peacefully expressing the same point of view Father Jenkins is now prepared to support at the March for Life.
The actual “crime” was trespassing, but the point is that the protesters are ostensibly on the same side as Jenkins. Jenkins himself will participate in a massive protest against abortion. Will he do so while prosecuting the woman at the center of the court case that has lent years to the pro-life cause to undo the damage of Roe, merely for the offense of having embarrassed Jenkins during Obama’s appearance? Does Notre Dame, a Catholic institution, really want to press criminal charges against fellow pro-lifers who did nothing on their campus except hold signs and pray the Rosary?
Jenkins should drop the charges and end what seems to be a personal grudge against these activists. Until he does, he risks being a modern-day Pharisee, hiding behind trespassing statutes to gain retribution against those who publicly disagreed with Jenkins about his invitation to Obama. We’ll pray that Jenkins makes the right decision.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
The common-law crime of perjury is now governed by both state and federal laws. In addition, the Model Penal Code, which has been adopted in some form by many states and promulgated by the Commission on Uniform State Laws, also sets forth the following basic elements for the crime of perjury: (1) a false statement is made under oath or equivalent affirmation during a judicial proceeding; (2) the statement must be material or relevant to the proceeding; and (3) the witness must have the specific intent to deceive.
————————
Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the willful act of swearing a false oath or affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding.[1] That is, the matter lied about would affect the outcome of the case. It is not considered perjury, for example, to lie about one’s age, unless that person’s age is a key factor in proving the case, such as eligibility for old age retirement benefits.
—————
My point exactly, uncle. Before several of you call me liar and other names, maybe you should read the definitions first, huh?
Jimbo3 on September 17, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Call it what you want….misleading, perjury, lying, it is all the same, disbarment.
right2bright on September 17, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Someone has a bee in his bonnet here. I was trying for the one-sentence goad and boy did it work.
unclesmrgol on September 17, 2009 at 4:22 PM
The only reason he was not charged with perjury is because he was the President, and he gave up his law license…other words he struck a deal.
BTW, he would have just pardoned himself, which is what was insinuated, and his perjury would have been struck from the record.
This was much more devastating, and humiliating.
right2bright on September 17, 2009 at 4:23 PM
No, it’s not the same, right2bright.
Just because I (hypothetically) would take a candy bar from a gas station, it doesn’t mean I’m guilty of murder. Look at what you wrote: the legal tests are different for those two situations and that’s why he agreed to be disbarred.
Stop being an idiot and read and learn something.
Jimbo3 on September 17, 2009 at 4:24 PM
You’re right. He wasn’t charged, not even for something that was supposed to be mandatory (expired license, I believe).
Still, the man admitted to manslaughter. This isn’t really a case in dispute.
Obviously, Clinton believed it was. He not only lied under oath but bribed Monica with job offers to do the same. That’s not just perjury but conspiracy to commit perjury.
Look, if the news about Monica weren’t relevant, then why else would she have testified?
Esthier on September 17, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Look like you already started.
shick on September 17, 2009 at 4:24 PM
You’ve lost the high ground on complaining about name-calling.
Esthier on September 17, 2009 at 4:25 PM
Two cases of hitting on the hired help have no relevancy?
unclesmrgol on September 17, 2009 at 4:26 PM
We do disagree.
shick on September 17, 2009 at 4:26 PM
A**wipe right2bright, the perjury thing would have happened long before he agreed to give up his law license, which happened either on the last day of his term or right afterwards. Get your facts straight.
And yes, uncle, I am tired of the personal insults.
Why do you (collectively) think you (collectively) can call me liar? Would you do that to someone at work or home that you disagree with? Or is it okay to do this here because of the anonymity?
Jimbo3 on September 17, 2009 at 4:29 PM
One was clearly voluntary, so no.
Jimbo3 on September 17, 2009 at 4:30 PM
We do. When I shake the dust from my sandals, it at least has meaning.
unclesmrgol on September 17, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Isn’t that a question you should be asking yourself? Don’t engage in name-calling and then get offended when others do the same.
Esthier on September 17, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Like all libs – you can’t help but lie.
You have no principals or moral values that you would not cross or betray to advance your liberal agenda.
–You haven’t been paying attention, Esthier.
Jimbo3 on September 17, 2009 at 4:35 PM
I didn’t call you a liar. I’m disagreeing with you. Clinton’s lies were germaine to the case. The guy had a history of not keeping it zipped with respect to the hired help — as at least three women (four if you count Linda Tripp) will attest.
Had a CEO who was not the President done this, the EEOC would have been on his/her back like a ton of bricks.
Clinton got off easy. I often bring up that screenshot of his post-presidential website — you know, the one where he asks for new interns because he’s used up all of the old ones? So many girls, so little time….
unclesmrgol on September 17, 2009 at 4:36 PM
I didn’t miss it, but you don’t get to complain about that while returning insults in kind. Either insults bother you, or they don’t.
I’m not saying people are right to make those kinds of blanket comments about liberals, but you don’t rectify the situation by going down to their level.
Esthier on September 17, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Twice is once too much to let it pass. Especially since the tone here seems to be to “not play fair”.
Jimbo3 on September 17, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Sure it does, it just provides the unbiblical and false kind.
How convenient when tradition has precedence over scripture. When scripture gets in the way, just make a new tradition. They’ve been doing it since the 400s or so.
TTheoLogan on September 17, 2009 at 4:45 PM
It’s a blog comment section. This one’s better than most, but people don’t play fair online. I’m sure it’s carved into stone somewhere.
Esthier on September 17, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Yup, right about the time we standardized your Bible.
unclesmrgol on September 17, 2009 at 4:47 PM
If that was accurate, we’d still be using the extra non-biblical books your church uses.
TTheoLogan on September 17, 2009 at 5:02 PM
I’ve always loved this argument, though.
“We put the bible together, so we have a right to ignore it!”
TTheoLogan on September 17, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Of course, this is also like saying that the moon didn’t exist until man landed on it.
TTheoLogan on September 17, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Of course, I am also saying that Christianity doesn’t exist except where I say so.
TTheoLogan on September 17, 2009
Yes. We get that. What else is new?
Loxodonta on September 17, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Don’t know his politics nor those or the university for sure, but what comes to my mind with all this is an organization that shows that there definitely is a Leftist streak running through the American Roman Catholic establishment:
Catholic Workers Movement.
Dr. ZhivBlago on September 17, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Your printer made a mistake in the 1700’s.
unclesmrgol on September 17, 2009 at 5:31 PM
But we don’t ignore it — and we don’t have missing stuff in ours like you do.
unclesmrgol on September 17, 2009 at 5:33 PM
No, it isn’t — I said we standardized. In an age where nothing was printed and everything was hand-written, assuring quality control was job 1 for the Bible makers.
All the versions, in every language, that the Reformation people used to develop their translations came from the Catholic Church. In fact, the training in those languages was Catholic, too.
We brought your Bible unscathed from its beginnings through to modernity.
Of course, you don’t have to thank us, but we know you secretly appreciate it.
unclesmrgol on September 17, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Denominational arguing? Isn’t this the bride of Christ torn into 12 pieces like the concubine? Aren’t we supposed to be one body?
Esthier on September 17, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Gad, people, the lefties invented civil disobience and used it as if it was their right taking any minimal punishment in stride. Seems that the 99 should just do the same never allowing the consequences to change their tactics or their mission.
docdave on September 17, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Then ain’t the proper response, especially from a member of the bar, to say “Judge, I shouldn’t have to answer that.” Instead of lying, and ignoring the referee there to decide such procedural issues, and shouting that it oughta not been argued.
Chris_Balsz on September 17, 2009 at 5:56 PM
Jesus drove the moneychangers from the Temple. Brotherly admonishment is the order of the day, and it is called for in the Bible.
unclesmrgol on September 17, 2009 at 5:57 PM
Test
Monkeytoe on September 17, 2009 at 6:31 PM
A+
CWforFreedom on September 17, 2009 at 6:39 PM
Jimbo,
By your own definition, Clinton is a perjurer. Lying about a sexual relationship with a subordinate is material to a sexual harassment case against that supervisor. I could cite you many cases on this point (that the sexual relationships of supervisors / subordinates are material and relevant).
You are arguing a legalistic claim – i.e., he was not convicted of a crime therefore he did not violate the law.
That is why I call you a liar. That is a lie, plain and simple. It is not a “disagreement.” He was an attorney, an officer of the court, he took an oath to tell the truth. He admittedly lied. The subject matter was material to the case. He was not convicted b/c of politics and a deal to relinquish his law license.
You are basically claiming if someone is politically connected or rich enough to avoid prosecution they by definition cannot “violate the law”. Is that really your morality?
I have asked you simple questions and you are playing barracks lawyer to evade, equivocate, and obfiscate. Again, that is why you are a liar. It is not a disagreement as to political philosophy – it is about truth versus falsehood.
You are attempting to play word games. I’ll ask some simple questions:
1) do you believe someone can have violated the law even though they are never prosecuted?
2) Do you believe that b/c someone is politically connected and/or rich and avoid prosecution that they therefore never violate the law?
As to Kennedy, what are you waiting for more facts to come out? is that why you are reserving judgment? Or is it b/c you know your position is indefensible? The latter is the only explanation. Again leading me to lable you a liar. You know he got away with at least manslaugter and was worshiped by the left. Which is a problem for your “violating the law has consequences” stance on this forum. Therefore, you avoid. You obsfiscate.
You keep trying to play legalistic word games, but you continue to be wrong and not know what you are talking about. I have tried sexual harassment cases. What Clinton did was perjury whether or not he was convicted of it. Every lawyer who is honest and not defending an ideological position knows this.
To sum up, that is why I think you are a liar.
Monkeytoe on September 17, 2009 at 6:40 PM
And, I’ll explain why I call out a liar when I encounter them. I always see liberals playing these legalistic word games, and changing their arguments when facts are prented that conflict, and claiming they never meant what their words meant.
I want to shine a light on liberals and have them look at themselves and ask – if my political philosophy is so good, so right, why do I have to go through these intellectual and moral contortions to support it? I know it is not a comfortable question for you, but you should ask it.
Monkeytoe on September 17, 2009 at 6:48 PM
U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled that Clinton’s deposition in the Monica Lewinsky case was immaterial to the sexual harassment suit that Paula Jones brought against Clinton.
You are a liar about the facts, Monkeytoe.
Jimbo3 on September 17, 2009 at 7:01 PM
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, April 13) — Two months after he was acquitted by the Senate, President Bill Clinton received news Monday that U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright was holding him in contempt of court for his “willful failure” to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.
–Weber did find him in contempt.
Jimbo3 on September 17, 2009 at 7:09 PM
I don’t see the lie. Susan Webber Wright chose not to find Clinton’s lie to be material. Others of us can, quite legitimately, hold a different viewpoint.
And monkeytoe’s assertion that, just because a guy wasn’t prosecuted for perjury doesn’t mean that he didn’t commit perjury certainly holds water for me.
The root of the whole matter resides in why Clinton lied. If he had told the truth, what would the result have been. I think it would have been a trial-changer. You are claiming otherwise.
I don’t believe you, just as you don’t believe me.
unclesmrgol on September 17, 2009 at 7:23 PM
As one of the ND88, if he does not push to drop the charges and I go to trial, and I see him at the March for Life in Jan., I will be
IN HIS FACE!!!!!
What an incredible hypocrite.
Sapwolf on September 17, 2009 at 7:32 PM
If he’s still bashing Hillary, he’s OK in my book.
SagebrushPuppet on September 17, 2009 at 7:48 PM
No we weren’t convicted. They have not set trial dates.
And by the way, I didn’t even protest. The police handed me a piece of paper to sign, something about trespassing and I signed it without reading it. Then they said I was trespassing if I stayed, so I calmly said “I’ll stay.” Then I put my hands behind my back so they could tie them up.
What Jenkins is doing is so hypocritical it boggles the mind.
Sapwolf on September 17, 2009 at 7:53 PM
Should I be assassinated too Jimbo3?
Sapwolf on September 17, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Jimbo,
They did not arrest us because we were trespassing. They arrested us because they believed, despite being a Catholic institution, that it was proper to let Obama use the commencement address and his honorary degree as a platform against life.
The trespassing law which is virtually never used on ND was used sort of but not completely like how Al Capone was nailed for tax evasion.
Sapwolf on September 17, 2009 at 7:59 PM
Sapwolf, they arrested you because you signed a paper that a policy officer gave you without reading it. You have a big element of personal responsibility here.
Jimbo3 on September 17, 2009 at 8:25 PM
ND was notified beforehand and they had all the campus and local police ready to arrest us.
It happened days before the commencement and was peaceful. Witnesses will confirm it.
I’m not pleading to anything, I am fighting it until they drop the charges, or I win (and if I win, it is a win for all Catholics).
By the way, I committed no sin in my protest, merely it appears that I broke a trespass rule that is normally NOT enforced on ANYBODY else.
Sapwolf on September 17, 2009 at 8:25 PM
It’s not just that Fr. Jenkins showing hypocrisy.
Fr. Jenkins is also ‘a lost sheep’.
It is my duty along with other Catholics to point out to them their hypocrisy and try to persuade them back to the flock.
If he would show mercy to the ND88, I’ll be the first one waiting in DC to walk with him.
If he shows no mercy, …well you reap what you sow.
Sapwolf on September 17, 2009 at 8:56 PM
Sapwolf, I don’t have this person’s email address but Ed might. Someone with the name of “MissDarcy” last Friday and Saturday said she was a lawyer that defended pro-life activists and was pretty successful. You should try to get in touch with her to see what she might be able to do.
I am just shocked that the leaders of the protest didn’t prepare you better for this. Terry, Schneidler (sic) and the priest who got carried away have been arrested at least thirty or forty times each and, I think, all have gone to jail for some time. If they didn’t prepare you for the possibility that you could be arrested by campus or South Bend police and tell you what you should and shouldn’t do, they should be ashamed of themselves. I mean it’s just basic stuff to never sign something given to you in connection with public or private police action.
Anyways, hope this piece of info helps. I do think you were wrong to tresspass, but I also think you were not properly prepared. Sorry.
Jimbo3 on September 17, 2009 at 8:58 PM
Of course Clinton committed perjury.
No sentient, moral person claims otherwise.
proconstitution on September 17, 2009 at 10:38 PM
as a catholic i believe jenkins is a hypocritical jerk who was shown up for what he is, out of step with the churchs teachings and the holy father…his walking is a johnny come late attempt to rehabilitate himself with the vatican…nothing less than pure showmanship
FloridaMike on September 17, 2009 at 10:53 PM
We all knew what we were getting into. I knew I would probably be arrested.
There comes a point when you just have to do what is right, like Ghandi and MLK, despite the dangers.
Like sheep among wolves.
Sapwolf on September 17, 2009 at 10:59 PM
There’s a reason why Jenkins is going to Washington for pro-life — I’m betting ND donations are down quite a bit, and he’s trying to get some “moral” capital. Just make sure your friends give him an earful.
unclesmrgol on September 17, 2009 at 11:19 PM
Don’t forget your camera. We’d like to see the youtube of whatever goes down with Fr. Jenkins.
unclesmrgol on September 17, 2009 at 11:22 PM
Absolutely. And may God bless you for what you are going through for Him. You are our voice. Thank you.
Fr. Jenkins has disgraced himself and could begin to make ammends by dropping the charges.
Like Ed said so well:
Jenkins should drop the charges and end what seems to be a personal grudge against these activists. Until he does, he risks being a modern-day Pharisee, hiding behind trespassing statutes to gain retribution against those who publicly disagreed with Jenkins about his invitation to Obama. We’ll pray that Jenkins makes the right decision.
Elisa on September 18, 2009 at 12:14 AM
Of course we don’t ignore the Bible. We interpret it differently than you do. Yet we both pray to the same Holy Spirit for discernment. I believe Christ left us His physical Church built on the Apostles to help in that discernment of the Holy Spirit’s voice. Through the oral Word of God, Sacred Tradition.
The Bishops of the Church in the 4th century, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, selected what books went into the New Testament you hold in your hands right now. If they had selected differently, then your Bible might not have Hebrews or James or Revelation or some other books and might have the Epistle of Barnabas instead or the Shepherd of Hermes.
While the Gospels and Paul’s letters were considered scriptural by all Christians universally since the first century, several other books were widely, but not universally accepted as Scriptural. And there were other 1st century books in that same category that were and are good Christian writings (widely, but not universally accepted as scriptural) that the Bishops did not put into the canon of the New Testament. And of course there were other nonsense books that were never considered Scriptural by the Church, like the Gnostic “gospels.”
I have faith in the Bible canon because I have faith that the Holy Spirit works infallibly in the formal decisions of the Church in matters of faith.
It never made sense to me that someone could be confident that the New Testament canon is correct and know that all those books were the Word of God, yet not believe the Holy Spirit worked through the Bishops who chose the books. One could say they “feel” the books are the Word of God. But that is still subjective and there were other good Christian books that if you read them would also “feel” like the Word of God. And one’s own subjective judgment is open to error. We aren’t God.
2 Peter 1:18-21:
“We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain. Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.”
The Holy Spirit used the Sacred Tradition of the Church to write, collect, preserve and pass on the books of the Bible and used it to come up with the canon of Scripture. And while Protestants accept those decisions of the Bishops about the New Testament canon, they do not accept the same decisions of the same Bishops at the same councils written in the same proclamations when they pertain to the Old Testament canon. That never made sense to me either.
Good night all and God bless you.
Elisa on September 18, 2009 at 12:44 AM
We don’t pray to the same Holy Spirit. There’s as much distinction with catholicism from biblical Christianity as with mormonism and many other cults. It’s just more acceptable nowadays. You cannot separate Catholicism from the worship of Mary(you use the euphemism “venerate”), worship of idols, etc.
It wasn’t until the mid 1900s that you even allowed laymen access to the bible. But, like mormonism did with revamping its racist theology toward blacks to fit with the times, you also realized what you had to do to keep followers.
I’d encourage you sometime, if you’re really interested, to see how many catholic traditions have been taken from other religions, including Islam.
TTheoLogan on September 18, 2009 at 1:47 AM
No, you borrowed half your religion from other pagan religions, like the worship of Isis/Mary(Queen of Heaven), the prayer beads, idols, and many of your holy days.
TTheoLogan on September 18, 2009 at 1:49 AM
Advertisement? What exactly to you suggest I’m advertising? Anti-catholic bigotry? Puh-lease. Ya know, Jimmy Carter, I’m going to call you on your bigotry card so that all can see that you have an empty hand. I strongly disagree with Roman Catholic doctrine but I do not hate Roman Catholics. In fact I was a Roman Catholic and the majority of my nuclear family still is. I don’t hate them but show love to them by exposing the false gospel that they have been led to believe. But instead of agreeing to disagree with me it’s easier for you to throw out the bigotry card.
In this very post you demonstrate the false gospel that Rome proclaims. Instead of salvation coming from the Lord you attribute God’s word to the Catholic Church. God’s word was recognized by his true church way before the fourth century.
The apostle Paul commended believers that recognized what he had taught them was the word of God and not influenced by man.
Athanasias was very much alone against a hostile majority “that was the church” on who had ecclesiastical authority; scripture alone or Rome. God protected and confirmed him to the end.
You can’t even use the troll card. For I am keeping the discussion related to the topic at hand and my comments are no less controversial than this topic as well. The events that have been taking place at N.D. clearly demonstrates to anyone who truly searches for truth that Rome fails at its attempt to lead the church.
shick on September 18, 2009 at 8:52 AM
Thousands of evil men do good that was foreordained by God but that will not save them from the wraith of God. Only believing in the one time finished work of Christ can do that.
That’s a pretty bold statement make in assuming I know nothing of Roman Catholicism. I was raised as a faithful Catholic for 23 years and have been studying it consistently after to make sure I do not falsly represent it.
Exposing any false gospel and calling people to repent and believe is doing God’s work.
shick on September 18, 2009 at 9:00 AM
I never suggested anyone was.
However, you made a choice to post a comment that disparages my faith and the denomination that represents half or mores of the world’s Christians.
I am not saying anything less disparaging then what the reformers responded to Rome years ago with and also nothing less than what Rome said to the reformers. There is an enormous divide between us on doctrine that you can’t ignore with fluffy words of ecumenism.
This is your house? I didn’t know this was a catholic owned site.
Question: Will you also concede that Rome is failing to demonstrate its leadership over Fr. John Jenkins? I make a suggestion. If Rome is silent on this issue you should follow her wisdom and stop complaining as well. If Rome doesn’t have a problem with a pro-abortion leader to speak at a Roman Catholic university AND if Rome doesn’t have a problem with Fr. John Jenkins filing charges against those rise up against such leader, you should also remain silent.
shick on September 18, 2009 at 9:10 AM
The Vatican itself has received Obama. They, and ND, can both recognize Obama as a head of state and disagree with his position on abortion or other policy.
The protesters should be treated like other protesters. It is possible to agree with their message but disagree with the method of expression. The ND president has a campus full of kids who will likely protest some issue again in the future. He can’t allow disruptive activity.
dedalus on September 18, 2009 at 11:22 AM
Of course Clinton committed perjury.
No sentient, moral person claims otherwise
–proconstitution, just because Ken Starr believed Clinton committed perjury doesn’t mean the rest of the world agrees. You have no right to tell me I have no ethics or morals because I disagree with you.
Jimbo3 on September 18, 2009 at 11:46 AM
A bishop is Pope in his own diocese. Bishop D’Arcy has already made his position well known to Fr. Jenkins. I’m sure if Bishop D’Arcy asked the Pope, we’d hear something; I also suspect that D’Arcy hasn’t asked — who wants to be a wuss in their diocese by asking for heavy lifting, and who in Rome wants to undermine the authority of the local Bishop by interfering without his formal request?
Indeed, D’Arcy has the right to demand that Fr. Jenkins appear in his offices to explain his position, and Fr. Jenkins would then be obligated to do so. I have yet to hear that happen. Maybe D’Arcy is a bit smarter than you give him credit — after all, persecution of people with whom you claim you agree is not going to look very good for either ND or Jenkins. If Jenkins wants to show up at a pro-life march in Washington a few months hence (as he’s indicated is his wish) and not have everyone in sight, regardless of religion, give him what-for, he’s going to have to give in.
unclesmrgol on September 18, 2009 at 1:29 PM
I don’t worship Mary. Scripture is quite clear on who she is, however, and I am reverent toward her. As anyone who prays for another’s well being can attest, intercession is possible, and who would not want Jesus’ mother to intercede for them?
As for prayer beads (the Rosary), where is the prohibition? Are not prayers and meditation on what God wants us to do good? As for the rest, which holy days offend you, and where are the idols of which you speak\?
I know who has an idol (human-manufactured god), and it is, from your comments, you.
unclesmrgol on September 18, 2009 at 1:35 PM
That’s too bad.
And I say that for you, not for me. I know what the Spirit of Truth has put in my heart. And I recognize that Spirit in other Christians, even in Jews who believe in the Spirit of God from the Old Testament.
The Church teaches that the Holy Spirit exists in the hearts of all Christians and can work through other denominations. But that there is only one physical Church of the Apostles, to which all Christians belong, at least partially, to the extent they believe in her truth, given by the Holy Spirit.
That you do not recognize the Holy Spirit in my words or in the Words of His Church tells me that you are not one of the sheep who hears His voice. I pray I am wrong. I pray that it is only stubbornness or obstinance that blinds you. I pray that one day you will see.
I totally understand other Christians who do not believe as Catholics do. But most do recognzied the Holy Spirit in us.
That you do not, speaks volumes to me. I will not continue the discussion.
You ignored all the factual history from my last post on where the Bible came from. It was not as cut and dry as you would like to believe.
I know you think you know and understand Catholic teaching, but I see so many errors in what you write. You know some facts and misinterpret others. You do not see and have hardened your heart. That does not have to be a permanent condition.
I will pray for you, as I pray for all those here. Those who agree with me and those who do not.
Elisa on September 18, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Forgive me for defending the beliefs of my faith, but I saw Queen of Heaven mentioned incorrectly.
For those who are interested, Mary, the Queen of Heaven, is not the pagan “queen of heaven.”
It comes from Jesus being our Davidic King forever. All the Davidic Kings, starting with Solomon, put a throne at their right hand for their mother, the Queen Mother, to sit. The Kings had many wives, so it was their mother who was Queen. And a person could go to the Queen Mother and ask favors of her son, for her to intercede and ask of him.
The office of Queen Mother, as well as chief steward, is seen throughout the Old Testament.
Jesus is our Davidic King forever and His mother is the Queen Mother. Like we see in Revelation 12, the woman clothed with the sun with the crown of stars on her head. After the Ark of the Old Covenant is mentioned at the end of Chapter 11 (there were no chapters and verses until about a thousand years ago), then the woman is mentioned. Mary was considered by the first Christians to be the Ark of the New Covenant.
Revelation 12:1-5,17:
“A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth. Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems. Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth.
She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne. . . .
Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the REST OF HER OFFSPRING, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus.”
The Church has always interpreted Revelation in several ways, all correctly on different levels. Because this is apocalyptic writing. The woman is the Church and the woman is Israel. But the plain meaning has always been that clearly this woman is also Mary and it says that we (those who bear witness to Jesus) are the ‘REST OF HER OFFSPRING.”
Mary is “the woman” of the Bible. In the beginning in Genesis, the woman who’s offspring would crush the head of the serpent and at the end in Revelation when we see the woman and the same serpent. At the beginning of St. John’s Gospel when Jesus respectfully calls her “woman” at Cana at the beginning of His earthly ministry and at the end of the same Gospel on the cross at the end of His earthly ministry when He says, “woman, behold your son.” The Bible has a lot of symmetry.
By their fruits you will know them. Any Christian, no matter how close they are to Jesus, can become even closer to Him by praying to the Blessed Mother, along with our prayers to Christ. It is just a fact. Try it with a sincere heart and it will be proven to anyone. It was proven to me. Mary never points to herself, she always points to her Son. And her message is always the same, at Cana and today: “Do whatever He tells you.”
Elisa on September 18, 2009 at 3:39 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3