Does Notre Dame teach irony?
posted at 1:36 pm on September 17, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
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.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
That is correct, any Mormon can come in and “explain” their religious views…they won’t be arrested.
You don’t remember the nuts who took over the service in S.F.? They were not arrested.
Good try, idiot…you keep digging yourself deeper…
right2bright on September 17, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Jimbo,
That’s amusing coming from a lib. Isn’t half of your god’s cabinet scofflaws? didn’t O! admit to selling coke in his autobiography? Didn’t teddy k murder a woman and get away with it? Aren’t the libs against requing ID to vote so that voter fraud can continue to run rampant? Didn’t the left defend Clinton b/c his perjury and use of office to cover it up was “only about sex”?
Libs only care about applying the law when it suits their agenda.
Regardless, prosecuting crimes in the D.A.’s job, not Fr. Jenkins. Fr. Jenkins, as a Catholic, should drop charges against people who were following Catholic teaching. But, his invite of O! to Notre Dame in the first instance demonstrates that Fr. Jenkins does not care about Catholicism or the Core beliefs of Catholicism. He is about as Catholic as Teddy K was – which is not at all, only as a political prop and to advance himself.
Monkeytoe on September 17, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Will it take until tonight or tomorrow for HotAir to address Obama’s hatchet job on Poland and the Czech Republic as Russia’s great facilitator in Eastern Europe?
Fred Thompson tore Obama to shreds.
maverick muse on September 17, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Pick and choose your charities carefully–you never know where your money goes…
lovingmyUSA on September 17, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Over 30 convictions, not including the two founders who stole over 1 million dollars, but were not prosecuted because they would have had to open their books to an external audit.
–So how does theft by the founders indicate a systematic pattern of theft by the organization? Sorry, I am behind the curve.
Jimbo3 on September 17, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Archbishop Chaput of Denver. Fr. Mitch Pacwa. Fr. Bernard Groeschel. Fr. John Corapi. Just off the top of my head.
Fr. Corapi made a fabulous DVD on why “Sin is UnAmerican”. Should not be missed.
atheling on September 17, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Why not stick with ND…that is what the thread is about.
right2bright on September 17, 2009 at 2:29 PM
2:28
glad to see the thread now
maverick muse on September 17, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Because highhopes said he didn’t care that they trespassed and I wanted to find something similar to see his reaction.
Jimbo3 on September 17, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Eh. ND complained to the police about the trespass. The trespassers refused to leave when ordered by the police to do so. They wanted to be arrested and they were. It is the prosecutor who makes the decision to file charges – not the police and not ND.
They could have peacefully demonstrated and got their point across. However, they chose to trespass and attempt to disrupt the commencement.
I see no reason for the DA to drop charges against them. My advice to them, is advance their case, plead guilty, take your punishment which will probably be a small fine, and sin no more.
Blake on September 17, 2009 at 2:31 PM
You seem to have missed the first part…30 other convictions to date.
And in case you don’t understand, often the executives set the example for the organization.
They were let off because the new executive did not want their books audited by the courts…why do you think that is? You would think they would want to know where all the money went and where…but then they wouldn’t be ACORN if they were held accountable.
That is why executive go to jail for mismanagement. You don’t know that?
right2bright on September 17, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Oops, Fr. Corapi’s video is called “Wake Up America”, which teaches that immorality is unAmerican.
atheling on September 17, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Multiple convictions in multiple states – many investigations under way and the founders have also participated in fraud…but his isn’t systemic? It’s just a few bad apples perhaps? What organizations other than the mafia or unions have such exhibited such ‘bad luck’?
gwelf on September 17, 2009 at 2:33 PM
I would. That guy probably has lobster and crunchy tacos every day. With real guacamole, not the cheap dip kind that comes in a plastic tub.
TMK on September 17, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Didn’t teddy k murder a woman and get away with it? Aren’t the libs against requing ID to vote so that voter fraud can continue to run rampant? Didn’t the left defend Clinton b/c his perjury and use of office to cover it up was “only about sex”?
–Ted K was not charged (I think) but he was certainly not convicted of murder. Clinton did not commit perjury because his lie was not critical to the case and so didn’t meet the definition of perjury.
Jimbo3 on September 17, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Eunice Kennedy Shriver was a pro-life stalwart.
T.D.D. on September 17, 2009 at 2:34 PM
So trespassing is a sin? You sound like a Pharisee with your legalism.
atheling on September 17, 2009 at 2:35 PM
And, almost forgot, yesterday Louisiana supeonoed the financial records of ACORN because they are under fraud investigation.
right2bright on September 17, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Clinton just had his law license revoked because it was a Tuesday.
mankai on September 17, 2009 at 2:35 PM
I would. That guy probably has lobster and crunchy tacos every day. With real guacamole, not the cheap dip kind that comes in a plastic tub.
–Nah, probably good Italian pasta with German beer and Italian wine. Hmm, maybe I’ll apply for the position.
Jimbo3 on September 17, 2009 at 2:35 PM
I missed the arrests of the 88 protestors a few months ago, because I couldn’t bring myself to watch Obama speaking at a seeming Catholic university with Jesus covered by a drape.
Having pro-life peaceful protestors arrested at a Catholic university is well beyond irony.
This morally obtuse ND President should be fired.
Why Catholic clergy vote pro-abortion is beyond me.
molonlabe28 on September 17, 2009 at 2:35 PM
The public scandal brought about by the remnents the Marxist liberation crowd, by honoring the most anti-life president in history – an agressive advocate of infanticide-and a facilitator of degrading living human embryoes for medical experiments reminiscent ot 1940′s Germany, exposes one very transparent truth. There is, within the Catholic Church, a large anti-Catholic virus best described by the late Pope Paul who, after being blindsided by them, announced that “the smoke of Satan has entered the tabernacle.”
The fact that many millions of dollars in funds contributed for the poor inadvertently ended up in ACORN’s pockets still warrants deeper investigation as to it’s innocence.
As a traditional Catholic, I am unfortunately reminded that this is the Church of Judas as well as the Church of a myriad of Saints. I pray that it returns to the purpose of its founding -the salvation of souls.
Don L on September 17, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Guardian on September 17, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Just because you claim to be something or to believe in something does not make it true.
LincolntheHun on September 17, 2009 at 2:37 PM
And that’s because it’s a different test. To lose a law license, you generally have to knowingly make false statements to a public body. That’s not the test for perjury.
Jimbo3 on September 17, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Hey, now, he doesn’t make fun of your religion, so quit messing with his myths and creeds.
TMK on September 17, 2009 at 2:37 PM
No, it’s a joke. You sound fussy and irritable. Here’s a binky, lay down and take a nap.
Blake on September 17, 2009 at 2:38 PM
The Catholic Campaign for Human Development gave $1.1 million to ACORN in 2007.
They didn’t suspend funding until the end of October 2008.
Fallon on September 17, 2009 at 2:39 PM
You really shouldn’t comment on that which you know nothing.
If you had a clue about how the Pope lives, you’d realize that he lives a very spartan lifestyle. Have you ever seen the Papal Apartments? Very monastic and bare bones.
The Pope always dines privately (that’s why he didn’t even attend the dinner in his honor provided by President Bush when Benedict visited the US). He eats whatever the nuns prepare for him, which is plain German food.
Once Pope John Paul II was asked what his favorite food was. He said, “Anything anyone is kind enough to put in front of me”.
Indeed, the modern papacy has returned to a more monastic lifestyle, unlike that of the Jim Bakkers and other televangelists on American tv.
atheling on September 17, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Well you should have used sarc tags. Don’t blame me for your poor delivery.
atheling on September 17, 2009 at 2:41 PM
That’s another joke, sourpuss.
Blake on September 17, 2009 at 2:42 PM
I have a very, very difficult time accepting Fr. John Jenkins as a Catholic. Much moreso a Priest.
Lourdes on September 17, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Hey Jimbo3
GO MICHIGAN!!!!
But a guy like you probably watches figure skating or the Lifetime Channel instead of watching football.
panzerkardinal on September 17, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Ah, mea culpa, you are correct. But I still stand by my criticism of Jesuits.
atheling on September 17, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Like all libs – you can’t help but lie. The case the deposition was taken in was one of sexual harassment. The questions concerning his activities and attitudes towards those working under him were in fact important to the case and did constitute perjury. As an attorney, Clinton knew that and his law license was appropriately revoked as he is unfit to practice law.
As to Teddy K – if you are honestly going to claim he did not murder Mary Jo – at least manslaughter – and get away with it, then you have no credibility whatsoever. Not that you have much now.
Why must lefties always lie? Doesn’t it bother you that in order to try and argue your case, you always have to lie? Don’t you ever question your philosophy based upon the lies you must rationalize to yourself? I’m not meaning these questions as snark, but I am curious how people can support something that requires so much dishonesty.
You sit here and defend ACORN. How? If multiple offices in different cities commit the same offense, does that not tall you something about the moral turpitude of the organization? Or do you really believe that random “bad apples” at multiple different locations just happened to commit the same egregious acts under the color of the organizations authority?
I mean, come on. Liberals will claim if the same police department stops 1% more than the appropriate # of black drivers, there is a racist racial profiling conspiracy going on. But multiple ACORN offices doing the same bad acts and you can’t admit ACORN is rotten and corrupt organization?
Monkeytoe on September 17, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Well don’t quit your day job, joker.
atheling on September 17, 2009 at 2:44 PM
I completely agree with you (that is, agree on all the points you’ve made there).
Lourdes on September 17, 2009 at 2:45 PM
And you should go take a nap, sourpuss. Don’t blame others for your sour disposition, lack of humor, and inability to comprehend modern American English.
Blake on September 17, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Well, don’t stop taking the psychotropic medicines your doctor prescribed you, whackjob.
Blake on September 17, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Repeating for emphasis.
Lourdes on September 17, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Great post (great s/n, too).
I notice Jimbo is quite the typical, pedantic lib who is enamored of straw men and red herrings. Hey Jimbo, try some intellectual honesty and linear thinking for once. You’ll feel much better if you do in the long run. Trust me on that! :)
Rushs talent lender on September 17, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Excuse me, but what the hell is your problem? You make an alleged joke among the serious comments here without a sarc tag and blame me for misreading it? Then you resort to namecalling?
Grow up, you silly child.
atheling on September 17, 2009 at 2:47 PM
By “drop the charges” I mean that Fr. Jenkins should come out against the 88 being prosecuted. Whether the D.A. drops the charges or not he would have no control over. I would think if Fr. Jenkins asked the D.A. to drop the charges, the D.A. would, but the D.A. does not have to.
Monkeytoe on September 17, 2009 at 2:47 PM
This guy is a buffoon! Notre Dame, how have you sunk so low with this putz as head?!?
mozalf on September 17, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Catholic institutions want it both ways. A powerful part of the world they should be rejecting, and the torn cloak of the pilgrim for sympathy.
“Nobody expects the Notre Dame inquisition!!!!!!”
Hypocrites and vipers…..
Hening on September 17, 2009 at 2:49 PM
I agree.
atheling on September 17, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Like all libs – you can’t help but lie. The case the deposition was taken in was one of sexual harassment. The questions concerning his activities and attitudes towards those working under him were in fact important to the case and did constitute perjury. As an attorney, Clinton knew that and his law license was appropriately revoked as he is unfit to practice law.
As to Teddy K – if you are honestly going to claim he did not murder Mary Jo – at least manslaughter – and get away with it, then you have no credibility whatsoever. Not that you have much now.
–Where were the convictions? Perjury has to generally affect the outcome of the case. Consensual sex with Monica doesn’t necessarily have ay relevance to an involuntary sexual harassment claim in the Paula Jones case.
Jimbo3 on September 17, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Monkeytoe on September 17, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Only, Don L, you are not a “traditional Catholic,” but a Catholic. The liars are not.
By their own sin they are ex-communicated from the Church. For example, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Biden, Dodd, etc., these are people clearly ex-communicated from the Church by the fact that they persist (a conscious, dedicated, persistent support of sin) in supporting grave, moral sin (of a variety of sorts, worse).
ANYone can beat their chest and pose greatly before an alter and lay claim to being a great big Catholic (like Nancy Pelosi who is fond of insisting that she is “an ardent Catholic”), but by their BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS they are known for who they are: not Catholic, advocates of sin (even worse).
So you, Don L, are a Catholic. No need to qualify your faith with other adjectives.
Lourdes on September 17, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Keep posting the guy’s photo on conservative blogs. Hopefully on the day of the march, enough of the marchers will know his face that he’ll be shunned at the event. Add some mobile phones with video capture to the mix, and we could end up seriously humiliating and embarrassing him and Notre Dame to boot. As a conservative and USC alumnus, that’s a win-win in my book.
joe_doufu on September 17, 2009 at 2:52 PM
After one commits his first serious crime, subsequent lesser crimes become much easier to commit.
Crime 1: Fr. Jenkins, here, invited as a major speaker to his religion-based university a man who is dedicated to protecting people who kill babies. The speaker wasn’t just an ordinary chap but the President of the USA.
Killing babies is against the rules of the religion the good Father practices.
Crime 2: Fr. Jenkins causes the arrest for trespassing 88 people who were protesting his invitation of this speaker as contrary to the teachings of the same religion. To this day, Fr. Jenkins refuses to drop these charges.
Any questions.
TXUS on September 17, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Well I’m Catholic too, but I qualify that with “orthodox” Catholic, because I am aligned with the Magisterium. However, there are Catholics who are not, and I choose to differentiate myself from them, as Don has.
It’s just to clarify.
atheling on September 17, 2009 at 2:53 PM
It was not for Clinton to decide whether it had relevence. An employer / supervisor’s attitude toward women in the workplace clearly has relevence in a sexual harassment lawsuit. If you can demonstrate the supervisor in question is a sexual predator who regularly came on to his employees, it is easier to prove your case. To claim otherwise is idiotic. To claim that his relationship w/ lewisnky was irrelevant demonstrates you have no knowledge of sexual harassment law.
As to Teddy K – are we now defining breaking the law solely as being convicted? Have you no moral values? You will support someone who clearly committed manslaughter (driving drunk, wrecking car, leaving scene, not calling for help) just b/c (there was no conviction). Then in your world the rich and connected commit no crimes b/c they can buy their way out (like Kennedy did) and therefore they are moral.
You truly believe that the only thing that matters is power for liberals don’t you? You have no principals or moral values that you would not cross or betray to advance your liberal agenda. That is sad.
Monkeytoe on September 17, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Not you, sourpuss.
Allow me to repeat the gist of the post that twisted your panties into knots: Jenkins does not have the power to drop the charges – only the prosecutor does, who has no reason to do so.
Sourpuss. Sourpuss. Sourpuss.
Get a personality, crabby.
Blake on September 17, 2009 at 2:55 PM
As I recall when President Obama visited the Pope the Pope gave him a copy of the Dignity Of Life.
So Notre Dame gets to ignore the Pope and all Christianity?
What happened to Forgiveness and turn the other cheek?
How does Notre Dame get off calling themselves, Catholic or Christian or even Religious?
What would Jesus do? Weep.
Dr Evil on September 17, 2009 at 2:57 PM
So does prayer and so do acts of forgiveness.
Loxodonta on September 17, 2009 at 2:58 PM
There are some Marxists who use the Catholic Church under pretense of that mantra, “social justice,” and they’re the Leftwing who maintain they’re “Catholic” while they usually ignore if not consistently reject the theology that the Vatican supports.
Even ACORN, that bunch of thieves, crooks, perversion-assisting and participating creeps, gets that fancy-funny name, it’s like the abuser offering candy to the child with a great big smile: the nature of sin is to deceive and ruin.
That group is only “Catholic” because they’re using the word in their identity, AND, undoubtedly, using various Catholic Dioceses to con and mislead some. In other words, the ways of sin.
Pope Benedict has spoken out (and written) extensively about the rejection of Marxism as anathema to the Church, how it is that Marxism is rejectable and to be rejected by Christianity.
Lourdes on September 17, 2009 at 2:59 PM
You told me that Clinton committed perjury and Kennedy committed manslaughter at a minimum. You didn’t ask me what I thought of their acts.
Jimbo3 on September 17, 2009 at 3:00 PM
On an ethical level, the same question can be asked as to why Barack Obama, a man who has advocated for, funded, insisted upon and sought extensive expansion of abortion, as also supported and continues to support euthanasia for children born alive after a failed abortion, why this man would seek out a Catholic University for purposes of appearing there and worse, delivering another (indoctrinating) speech.
Obama just wants to spread his sin around. It’s pitiful that Notre Dame’s President welcomed that intent and assisted in it.
Lourdes on September 17, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Do you have any proof that Obama asked to be invited, Lourdes?
Jimbo3 on September 17, 2009 at 3:03 PM
As I recall when President Obama visited the Pope the Pope
I think what Jesus would do is throw ‘Father’ Jenkins out on his ear with a very definitive series of rejecting rebukes by Jesus in the process.
Lourdes on September 17, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Do you have any proof, Jimbo3, that Obama did not ask to be invited?
Lourdes on September 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Defending sin is partaking in it.
Lourdes on September 17, 2009 at 3:05 PM
You’re the one who made that statement. I thought it was pretty clear from the news reports that ND asked Obama without any request from Obama.
Jimbo3 on September 17, 2009 at 3:05 PM
I want laws to be enforced. But there are minor offenses for which handling the matter out of court can often be better, especially with civil disputes. In this case, I would hope the ND88 would help cover the costs to the University and the University would drop the charges. I believe this is reasonable.
Loxodonta on September 17, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Is accidentally tossing a raw egg at the March For Life against the law?
jay12 on September 17, 2009 at 3:07 PM
There have been errant Jesuits involved in the black liberation theology. It gets little attention but this is the religion Obama practiced for how long, under what well known minister?
Dr Evil on September 17, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Wow, you really want to play games. Again – it doesn’t bother you that you must deceive, obfiscate, and lie to advance your philosophy?
Either you believe they committed the crime or you don’t. whether or not they were legally convicted does not enter into that equation.
You were the one who said that “violating the law has consequences”. My point was that libs are very inconsistent in applying the law – and I gave examples.
Your defense was “there were no convictions”, which is pretty much my point. When I boxed you into a corner, you come back w/ your attempt at a legalistic argument that you were simply saying they weren’t convicted, not that their acts were not bad.
I hate to break it to you, but people can break the law without being convicted of anything. Indeed, people can and do get away with murder (O.J. Simpson and Ted Kennedy spring to mind). That does not make the violation of law any less real. Same w/ Clinton and perjury.
You can parse your words and arguments all you want, but you are being dishonest – either you believe that both Clinton and Kennedy violated the law, or you don’t. If you don’t then you are blinded by your partisanship – but at least be honest and stop trying to play word games – you are only making yourself look more dishonest.
If you do believe they violated the law, then explain whey they did not suffer consequences for their violation of the law and were suppored and defended by the left.
Monkeytoe on September 17, 2009 at 3:10 PM
LOL. Nice pithy response to a short comment.
Anti-catholic! /sarcasm
Watch out! They will not let your deed go unpunished.
shick on September 17, 2009 at 3:15 PM
This is what I would do. Except I probably would trespass again in protest, just not in the same prosecutor’s district.
Loxodonta on September 17, 2009 at 3:24 PM
What would be great is ignore him at the march…then we will see where his heart is.
He should be doing it for the good, not the glory…
right2bright on September 17, 2009 at 3:26 PM
“Does Notre Dame teach irony?”
I don’t know.
Kevin M on September 17, 2009 at 3:28 PM
If he read and actually understood your post, his head would explode…that is way to reasonable for any liberal to understand.
right2bright on September 17, 2009 at 3:28 PM
And you conclude that “the news reports” reflect reality? That they convey the right ethics and support an ethical reportage of facts?
You are on broken ethical ice, Jimbo3. That means, you’ve already fallen through.
Lourdes on September 17, 2009 at 3:28 PM
Oh, right, attempt to redirect the argument. Like I just wrote, you’ve already fallen through the cracked, ethical ice.
Lourdes on September 17, 2009 at 3:29 PM
What happened to: “Turn The Other Cheek”
Does that only count for priests when they’re with little boys?
Jeff from WI on September 17, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Then you should have no problem with Mormons or mainstream Protestants coming to mass and explaining their religious views during the sermon. Right?
Jimbo3 on September 17, 2009 at 2:15 PM
You honestly aren’t comparing attendance at religious rite with attendance at a Presidential Speech, are you? I never would have put you down as one of those who worship at the altar of Obama.
BTW, nice attempt at trying to make this all about bashing Mormons or whatever that non-sequitor was supposed to accomplish.
Leaving your deity aside for a moment, the only real defense for prosecuting isn’t the trespassing charge but some sort of a claim based on creating a disrupting influence that was unfair to the graduates who had spent four years of daddy’s money on that overpriced degree. I really felt sorry for those kids after their institution proved that morality is relative, their President declared that killing off unborn life is a legitimate ethical position, and idiots like you who have nothing but hatred for those passionate enough to stand up for what they believe.
highhopes on September 17, 2009 at 2:23 PM
May your tribe (and your posts) increase, highhopes.
tigerlily on September 17, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Guess its time to start organized trespass on Notre Dame’s campus.
Chris_Balsz on September 17, 2009 at 3:35 PM
How is it trespassing? ( I know nothing about this case)
If those people were not specifically barred from the grounds before the event, how is it a violation to show up at the event? It seems like they were just expressing their opinion, which they should have a right to do.
Itchee Dryback on September 17, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Jimbo3, you better give up while you still have some hide and hair. Monkeytoe has totally destroyed you twice on this thread alone.
BillyGoatGruff on September 17, 2009 at 3:39 PM
ernesto, “laws” are SUPPOSED TO BE — ASSUMED TO BE — a collective statement of that which our society concludes is “right” (honorable, good, decent, deserving, to be supported, etc.).
That, of course, is a different area of human concerns (the lawful versus the ethical in personal conduct — for example, do you violate a law if no one is looking, if you are not being observed or do you uphold the law even when you are not being observed, questions for the individual member of society, such as that).
BUT, in the context of this particular issue — the Notre Dame scandal (it was a scandal theologically and ethically, an educational body that is private, said to be founded and guided by Catholic theology, acting in contradiction if not utter insult to that theology by hosting an extremely sin-advocating guy as their graduation speaker) — it was a question then of ethics and it continues today to be one of ethics.
However now with LEGAL dimensions, the question remains one of ethics ON THE PART OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY (‘Father’ Jenkins).
He can withdraw charges, but refuses to do so. That won’t automatically produce, if withdrawn, a dropping of charges against the protesters (the “88″ who have been charged for protesting Obama’s/the abortionist-advocating guy’s appearance on an elevated, honored basis at Notre Dame), but it would go a long way to accomplish the cessation of harms upon those protesters, which would be the ethical thing for Jenkins to do, given the vows the guy has taken (to uphold the theology of the Church, which he clearly violated in even tolerating much less honoring the abortionist-speaker).
My guess is as to why Jenkins isn’t doing that is because if he should do so, it’d emphasis how he has defied his very vows, and, intentionally refused to uphold the vows and the theology that he pretends to represent.
So Jenkins is perpetuating grave sin, in my view.
Dropping the charges would be an ethical thing to do — the protesters were upholding THE THEOLOGY that Jenkins (a man vowed to uphold that theology, yet who defied it) offended, insulted, rebelled against, etc.
The area of most concern for the Catholics here is of the theological kind, and the ethical. The complications of “the law” (charges of trespassing brought against the protesters) is secondary (though, granted, important, it’s not the keen area of discussion and concern for most Catholics in this issue overall).
Lourdes on September 17, 2009 at 3:40 PM
I would guess that there were certain locations designated for protesters and only people invited to attend could go to certain areas of the campus.
And, in all reality I think we (conservatives) would want trespassers/disrupters prosecuted if it was a conservative president speaking somewhere.
However, this is about the stance that Fr. Jenkins takes, not the stance that the police or D.A. take. Of course, the fact that he invited Obama in the first place shows where Fr. Jenkins loyalties lie.
Monkeytoe on September 17, 2009 at 3:43 PM
You’ve made some mighty fine points and asked some very important questions, liberal troll hunter. I wait to see if any can answer you honestly. I doubt it, but I do try to maintain at least an atom of hope.
Loxodonta on September 17, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Well said.
Lourdes on September 17, 2009 at 3:45 PM
I’m not a lawyer (I couldn’t qualify; my parents were married) but was the charge against the ND88 criminal trespass or simple trespass. It’s my understanding is that simple trespass is up to the property owner to persue or dismiss, while criminal trespass may be up to the DA. Any one know?
BillyGoatGruff on September 17, 2009 at 3:46 PM
And again, well said.
Lourdes on September 17, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Parishoners don’t trespess when they go onto their own church’s “propery”.
unclesmrgol on September 17, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Human or poultry?
Hening on September 17, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Because Rome has a false gospel. No matter how noble the pro-life movement is, it provides no assurance of salvation.
shick on September 17, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Shick, I’m really gonna love the verbal azzwhuppin’ someones gonna lay on you!
BillyGoatGruff on September 17, 2009 at 3:54 PM
I disagree. Rome has the truth.
unclesmrgol on September 17, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Speaking as a recovering Catholic: ‘Talk about a control freak!’
sonnyspats1 on September 17, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Because Rome has a false gospel. No matter how noble the pro-life movement is, it provides no assurance of salvation.
shick on September 17, 2009 at 3:50 PM
The above unwelcome advertisement has been posted by a bigoted, anti-Catholic troll who doesn’t understand that the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which has been handed down to all Christians from Christ and the apostles, is the SAME Gospel which has been canonized and protected in the Bible, which incidentally the Catholic Church compiled in the Fourth century, A.D.
Someone needs to get back under the bridge.
tigerlily on September 17, 2009 at 4:06 PM
You’re the one who made that statement. I thought it was pretty clear from the news reports that ND asked Obama without any request from Obama.
Jimbo3 on September 17, 2009 at 3:05 PM
And you conclude that “the news reports” reflect reality? That they convey the right ethics and support an ethical reportage of facts?
You are on broken ethical ice, Jimbo3. That means, you’ve already fallen through.
–Considering you were the one who said that Obama solicited an invitation and can’t substantiate that, I think it’s a mutual thing,
Jimbo3 on September 17, 2009 at 4:06 PM
I do not believe Clinton committed perjury. In fact, I think it’s pretty clear that he did not commit perjury. And I think people who aren’t blinded by their hatred for Clinton would generally agree. That, of course, doesn’t include you.
I’ll reserve judgment on the Kennedy situation.
And I said I haven’t been following the ACORN situation.
Perhaps you can stop with the personal insults. It is not a lie to disagree with what YOU believe, last time I looked.
Jimbo3 on September 17, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Listen, the time to be “fair” has long past…no I don’t want equal treatment, because I think protesting for keeping babies alive is not the same as protesting against lowering taxes.
I am well beyond the mindset of, “if we do it, then they can do it”…the fact is, they (liberals) can kill a protester and hardly a peep from the media or the liberals…if an abortionists murderer is killed we have to beg for mercy for years.
Sorry, but I am tired of trying to be fair and understanding…it doesn’t work, it won’t work. And as someone once said…the rule of war is established by the attacker…
right2bright on September 17, 2009 at 4:13 PM
I disagree. I think he did. In the end, it all comes down to the meaning of the word “perjury”.
unclesmrgol on September 17, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Obviously with good reason.
unclesmrgol on September 17, 2009 at 4:16 PM
I don’t know about the first part (I do, it is a stupid comment), but the last part is correct…no one has the assurance of salvation, it is by God’s grace alone. And you are not the arbiter of that assurance. But doing God’s work puts them a lot closer then a poster criticizing a religion he knows nothing about.
right2bright on September 17, 2009 at 4:17 PM
Amazingly, nobody is forcing you to be a Catholic. And nobody is forcing me either. 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.
If you want to invite people into your house, please do so. But if you throw fire bombs at other people’s houses, don’t expect that will increase the likelihood your invitation will be accepted.
Loxodonta on September 17, 2009 at 4:18 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »