New Restrictions

I noticed on one of the news headlines that there are some new regulations regarding credit cards. I think much of this is foolish, but I don't want to make this a political weblog. What struck me was this point included in the law:

Restrictions designed to restrict credit card companies from pushing their wares on college students without the knowledge of mom and dad.

Credit cards.

So, parents can know if their kids are getting sold on credit cards, in college nonetheless, but not if they want to get abortions even as minors.

Asinine.

Cardinal Arinze on Catholic Colleges

Cardinal Arinze recently delivered a Commencement address at Thomas Moore College, as reported by Zenit. He discussed what it meant to be a truly Catholic college, and brought up some good points.

Cardinal Arinze contended that a Catholic institution of higher learning should teach its students "to appreciate that moral rules of right and wrong apply also to science, technology, politics, trade and commerce, and indeed to all human endeavors."
...
The former Vatican official acknowledged that defending morality can bring difficult consequences. "A person who holds that certain actions, like direct abortion, are always objectively wrong, is regarded as 'judgmental,' or as imposing his views on others," he said.

But, citing the teachings of Benedict XVI, the cardinal added: "The exercise of freedom in pursuit of the truth is very much a part of integral education. If a Catholic college or university does not help in this way, should we not say that it has failed in one of its important roles?"

"If a Catholic college or university answers to its vocation in the ways outlined above, then it will be educating, forming and releasing into society model citizens who will be a credit to their families, their college, the Church and the state," the cardinal stated. "It will prepare for us members of Congress or the Senate who will not say 'I am a Catholic, but ...' but rather those who will say 'I am a Catholic, and therefore ...'"

How often have we all heard "I am a Catholic, but...," and not just from congressmen. What a novel idea, Catholic schools producing people who can think with the Church.

Commencement Photos

Below are some pictures that were taken over the course of Sunday's alternate commencement. You should be able to click on the album to get a larger view. Sorry that it runs a little wide, but I'd rather give you a nice view than squash it in the space that blogger thinks I should use.

Rally: Longer Reflections

I don’t have any of the transcripts or videos from the rally on Sunday yet, but I am ready to reflect on the events with the immediate excitement now wore off a bit.

The first speaker was the Rev. Wilson Miscamble, CSC, a holder of multiple graduate degrees from and a current professor of history at the University. This talk was absolutely amazing; I turned to a friend after it was over and we just looked at each other and said “wow…”. He really fired up the crowd; it was a great way to start the whole event (except for Mass, of course).

Fr. Miscamble gave a brief history of the University and the trials Fr. Sorin had to go through to build up Notre Dame. He also gave a brief synopsis of what we would be missing by not listening to Obama’s speech. He would tell us that, for instance, he was taken care of by Catholics as a youth, he would speak of our debt to Father Hesburgh, and he would even describe that he was influenced by Catholic social teaching. I have not yet listened to the speech, but a friend told me it was spot on.

The speech was really quite moving and it really fired the crowd up. Then the announcement was made that a special guest was arriving, and lo and behold, from the edge of the quad walks Bishop D’Arcy. The crowd cheered him all the way across the quad, and up to the stage. He did not say very much, but it was powerful. He said that he was inspired by the prayerfulness of the students he had encountered the night before at adoration and the rosary. “This is the place for the Bishop,” he said. Reflecting further on this, it must be a slap on the face of Fr. Jenkins. For the Bishop to avoid the commencement ceremony of his local Catholic University, and instead attend the alternative “counter-commencement” must (or should) be disheartening to Fr. Jenkins.

There were other speakers as well. Chris Godfrey, Super Bowl winner, who received his Law degree from Notre Dame, spoke on the importance of standing up for life. Lacy Dodd told her moving story about getting pregnant out of wedlock in her senior year at Notre Dame, with her 9 year old daughter on stage. She is set to open the first of its kind dormitory for pregnant college girls at Belmont Abbey College. Elizabeth Naquin Borger, an ND graduate, spoke about the Women’s Care Center.

Fr. John J. Raphael, SSJ, who graduated from ND in 1989, spoke quite directly on the importance of witnessing to life. His speech was also quite direct and poignant. He spoke as a minority, being African American himself, and drew the obvious connection between rights for all races and for the unborn. He had plenty of zingers, especially pointing out the audacity of claiming to desire the reduction of the number of abortions while increasing the access to them and the funding for them.

Dr. David Solomon, the Director of the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture addressed the crowd as a faculty member. At the beginning of his talk, he called up all the faculty members in attendance. I wasn’t able to be sure, but I think there were about 20 professors standing in front of the stage in solidarity. It was a moving sight. The crowd offered a standing ovation, and in fact, remained standing through the whole address.

The whole event was prayerful, and the focus was correct. I was recently in a discussion with a friend with whom I often disagree. He complained that upon an invitation offered and accepted, people should not protest him. He is the President, after all, and it is an honor. He did not have the benefit of seeing these events of the last weeks unfold in person. He also likely got his news from the secular media. He didn’t realize that the real focus was against the administration of the University. The mentioning of Obama was first and foremost to discuss why he was disqualified to be honored by a Catholic institution. This demonstration was no different.

It was quite edifying to be able to see the 2000+ people who came out to show solidarity with those standing for the Truth, and especially Bishop D’Arcy. I will hopefully get some of those pictures up soon.

The Response (Initial Reactions)

This is my first post regarding the commencement time demonstration that was sponsored by ND Response today. I took a lot of pictures, and I hope to be able to share them with you soon.

I attended starting at an outdoor Mass held on South Quad. This mass was concelebrated by the likes of Fr. Kevin Russeau, C.S.C. (Rector of Old College) Fr. Frank Pavone (Priests for Life) Fr. John Corapi, and others. They had an altar stone! There were maybe 2000 people there, though estimates vary.

The rally started after Mass, and interestingly, just after Air Force One flew over. I don't remember who all the speakers were, but they were all really good. Bishop D'Arcy showed up to everyone's surprise! He said he was not planning on coming to campus at all today, but after being there last night for the rosary and adoration, he decided "This is where a Bishop should be". He also said "John D'Arcy is not important, but the office of Bishop is important" and that office must always stand up for life. Fr. Pavone led the rosary in the grotto, with some reflections for this specific event.

Afterward, there was a dinner downtown, at which Fr. Corapi spoke, for the first time publicly in two years. The likes of Alan Keyes and Randall Terry were there, and after Fr. Corapi finished and Alan Keyes took the stage, we cleared out.

It was very good, and I hope to add more reflections later, and also share some pictures.

More than meets the eye

I recently came across an article from Lifesite with a provocative headline: "Notre Dame President Sits on Board of Directors of Pro-Abortion, Pro-Contraception Organization". My thoughts are: first of all, why has this not been in the news yet, and likewise therefore, is it really true? Secondly, I am not surprised to hear that there might be more going on here than meets the eye.

To the first point. It is clearly true that Fr. Jenkins sits on the board of Millennium Promise; that is plain from their website. The mission of Millennium Promise is to promote the 8 millennium development goals of the UN, in Africa. Among these goals are to "Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women", and "Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases". You could give them the benefit of the doubt, or just accept that this is newspeak for "Condoms and Abortion". I'm not saying that any of the other things they do are not good, but I am trying to show the specific things that this organization supports that could be contrary to the teachings of the Church.

Reading the front pages of their website, indeed, does not yield a lauding of how many condoms and abortions they have supported as an organization, but utilizing the search feature of the website allows for some more in-depth digging. Consider the Millennium Villages Handbook, where they make as a goal the promotion of safe sex (separate from monogamy). They even have a section suggesting village-level abortion services under "maternal and child health". That makes sense, because abortion is good for the health of persons.

So, I am fairly convinced, from my own searching of their website that they are a group which supports the distribution of condoms and the increase of availability of abortion services in Africa. [May I note here that I didn't actually read the whole Lifesite article until right now, and they addressed my concerns.]

Patrick Reilly, president of the Cardinal Newman Society, a Catholic education watchdog organization, responded to the news of Fr. Jenkins' involvement in Millennium Promise, saying in an interview with LSN, "One has to wonder what Fr. Jenkins' opinion is of the Church's teaching on contraception."

Indeed. I am sure the reason he is on the board of this organization is to "engage" those who disagree with us. That's what he does, you know. Now, I don't think that, under pressure, Fr. Jenkins would even come out with a statement to the effect of "I think condom distribution in Africa is wrong", though I can hope I am wrong. The facts seem to be clear: Fr. Jenkins sits on the board of an organization which supports certain initiatives which are contrary to the teachings of the Church. I think that as a priest (never mind his prominence), he should make it quite clear that he does NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, support those aspects of Millennium Promise which are contrary to the Church's teachings, and, further, that he is doing all that he can as a board member to direct the actions of this group away from morally illicit activities. This would really be an absolute minimum and I think that it would be better for a Catholic priest to not serve on the board of such an organization, despite the many very good things they seem to also do.

I've had a sense that more was going on than meets the eye with the whole Notre Dame scandal. Now, it comes out that Fr. Jenkins has involvement with an organization which supports abortion and contraception. Unfortunately, it is probably not, then, that the University has put, as Bishop D'Arcy so aptly stated, "Prestige before Truth," but rather, they have put the false claims of modern culture before Truth. Now I must make clear, these are the musings of me alone, and could be completely false.

I don't think this will be very widely reported, and I'm sure everyone will forget all about is come Monday.

Lilacs

The lilacs are in bloom across campus, and they make the campus smell quite nice. The bushes by the Basilica and Sorin are especially full. I have a few blooms in my office, livening up the place a bit. I think it helps a little with everyone so stressed out about their final exams.

Laetare

Laetare -- Rejoice!

As all of my readers, I'm sure, are aware, Mary Ann Glendon has decided recently to refuse the Laetare Medal this year.

The actual medal has the inscription "Magna est veritas et prevalebit" which could be translated "Truth is mighty and shall prevail." How appropriate!

Professor Glendon has essentially said that she did not want to legitimize an otherwise wrong action. Originally she was going to accept the award, but the University has gone on to say that her presence makes it all okay. Of course, what they fail to realize is that it would be better to not have President Obama here in the first place.

[NOTE CHANGES BELOW!]
Father Jenkins had made it clear that he intended to offer the award to someone else. I can't see how this could have been a good thing. At this point, with the controversy as it is right now, finding a worthy candidate who will accept this award is going to be nigh on impossible. This may mean that the award will be given to someone who is a less worthy example than, say, Mary Ann Glendon would have been. And then, the argument of Fr. Jenkins, that "at least they'll get to hear from Prof. Glendon," will fall apart completely.

Just now I heard that they have decided not to give the Laetare medal this year, but rather ask a former recipient to speak instead. So, I ask, how is it possible that the relatively short tradition of having Presidents of the United States speak and receive honorary degrees has now trumped the much longer and more venerable tradition of awarding the Laetare medal?

We do know, as the medal proclaims, that Truth is mighty, and we have seen the end of the story, and we know that the Truth will prevail. Perhaps not today, perhaps not before commencement, but the Truth will prevail.

This is the lesson we must take from this whole controversy. Magna est veritas et prevalebit!

Onward to Victory

An article appearing on the internet from the President of HLI, Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, reflects on the words of the ND fight song and the controversy at Notre Dame.

Let's be honest: all the hand wringing and justification for Fr. Jenkins' decision is just fluff. Despite the unprecedented tour de force of close to fifty US bishops objecting to this travesty, Fr. Jenkins's claim that his decision is "consistent" with the bishops' 2004 directive on speakers at Catholic colleges - simply because Barack Obama is not a Catholic - is, well, absurd on its face. No person in his right mind buys it.

And that's the point - Notre Dame leadership is not "in its right mind" any more. The ones who made or endorsed this decision are not thinking with the mind of the Church let alone the Mind of Christ. This doesn't just apply to Fr. Jenkins either. It also applies to his superior, Fr. Hugh Cleary, who has an obligation to demand Jenkins' immediate resignation from his post to end this scandal but who chose instead to make a sappy, glowing, politically-correct statement which dares call this hurtful fiasco a "teachable moment."

No, Father Cleary - a "teachable moment" would be your removing Fr. Jenkins from office to show the world that the Church really means what she says in calling abortion an "abominable crime." (Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, 51)

As far as I am concerned, a thunder of judgment has just been shaken down on Notre Dame, its Board of Directors and any faculty, students or alumni who endorse the decision to bring Barack Obama to Notre Dame's campus to sully Our Lady's good name and our deepest loyalties.

Stuff and fluff indeed. It's a good article and gets right to the point, not dancing around the issue in the way some have.

Bishop D'Arcy Again

Rather than post on and comment on the recent statement of Bp. D'Arcy regarding Notre Dame, I rather direct you, dear readers, to Fr. Z's posting and analysis of it, as I do not have the time to give it justice. Needless to say, it is a well crafted statement.

One point that Fr. Z didn't comment on:

Rather than share my full letter, which I have shared with some in church leadership, I prefer to present some of the key points.

Perhaps the Council on Catholic Education has been notified.

You've got to love a statement that quotes canon law and Ex Corde Ecclesiae. I will be continuing to pray for Bishop D'Arcy, as I am sure he could use all the prayerful support he can get right now.

On Divine Mercy

Yesterday was Divine Mercy Sunday, the end of the Octave of Easter.

I can not remember when I was first introduced to the Chaplet of Divine Mercy or even the feast day. It was probably related to listening to Relevant Radio in college.

There are a few things I like about the divine mercy chaplet. It is simple, and quick. Whereas a rosary takes about 15 minutes, the divine mercy chaplet can be finished in about 5. I realize this is not the ideal motivation for prayer, but it is a legitimate one. At least that's what I tell myself. Second, the hour of mercy is 3:00, and usually I can find the 5 minutes it takes to pray it, if I remember. Finally, it is a very Eucharistic prayer. "Eternal Father, I offer you the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of your dearly beloved Son in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world." This begs to be said before the Blessed Sacrament.

Often, since I don't have class, I go to the place of adoration on campus either right at 3:00 or at least some time within the hour. I pray the Chaplet before Jesus in the Monstrance. I also like to pray the St. Michael prayer, and remember my intentions for the day. There are usually (though not always) what I would think are extra people in the chapel at 3:00 and I like to imagine that some of them are there for the same reason. It has become a staple in my daily prayer regimen and is a nice reminder in the middle of my day of the mercy of God.

Bishop Finn on Notre Dame

Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-St. Joseph, Mo., in his recent comments posted at the Catholic Key, (also posted by Fr. Z) commented on the Notre Dame scandal.

In my first U.S. Bishops’ Conference meeting – June of 2004 – the bishops passed what seemed to me to be a compromise statement as a result of our lengthy debate on politicians and Communion. There we stated that pro-choice leaders (and specifically, Catholic leaders were mentioned) should not be given public platforms or honors. As we all know the eminent American Catholic University, Notre Dame, is poised to bestow such an opportunity and honor on President Obama, who is, of course, not Catholic. But it doesn’t take another Bishops’ Conference statement to know this is wrong: scandalous, discouraging and confusing to many Catholics.

God knows what all motivates such a decision. I suspect that, since Notre Dame will need a scapegoat for this debacle, and Fr. Jenkins will probably lose his job, at this point perhaps he ought to determine to lose it for doing something right instead of something wrong. He ought to disinvite the President, who I believe would graciously accept the decision. Notre Dame, instead, ought to give the honorary degree to Bishop John D’Arcy of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, who has supported and tried to guide the University, despite their too frequent waywardness, faithfully for 25 years.

I am not as convinced that Fr. Jenkins will be fired over this. His superior doesn't see anything wrong with this. The trustees don't see anything wrong with this. Further, they don't seem to care that Bishops care. Would that the rancor be such that his job would be in jeopardy! I can agree on this point: Bishop D'Arcy would be a great replacement choice, and that would be seen by history as a turning point for this University.

Honor Super Veritatem

We have chosen prestige over truth.

ND Response and Fr. Jenkins

I have so far avoided analysis of the most recent press release of ND Response, the student group which formed in response to the invitation of the University of Notre Dame to President Obama to be the commencement speaker and receive an honorary doctorate of laws degree.

I can give a little background as far as I understand it. After the group formed, they were sent a letter from President Jenkins, suggesting a meeting to discuss the situation. In response, the group made a counter offer. Originally, President Jenkins wanted a closed meeting limited to 25 students. The counter offer, in a letter to Fr. Jenkins, contained the following preconditions for a meeting.

1. The University publicly makes the institutional and permanent promise that the University of Notre Dame will not engage in, promote or allow practices offensive to life (e.g., research involving human embryos in any way, including on biological materials derived from embryo- or fetal-destructive techniques on-campus, or off-campus in collaboration with others);

2. The University will formally support pro-life initiatives on campus through financial and personnel resources. In particular, that you will appoint a pro-life ombudsperson at the level of associate provost to ensure that appropriate attention is paid to life issues at the beginning of life in both teaching and research at the University of Notre Dame. The appointee should be a person who has a deep and demonstrated commitment to the cause of unborn life.

Additionally, we hope that you will consider the following ways in which the University can take up the cause of life as its own by publicly speaking out against the injustices against the unborn: through the “What Would You Fight For?” commercials aired on NBC during football season, by leading the Notre Dame students in the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C., by designating the topic of next fall’s forum as a celebration of life in its earliest stages, and by speaking out in other prominent forums.

You are a teacher, and we are students. Therefore, if these proposals are acceptable to you, we would like to meet in a setting that is comfortable for both of us, such as a classroom. We would suggest the McKenna Hall Auditorium or the Jordan Auditorium of the Mendoza School of Business. We anticipate that this meeting will be exclusively with the students of ND Response and select faculty and staff who support us. To this end, there will be more than 25 people at this meeting. We can guarantee that the number of students that will speak or engage with you will be limited to less than ten. The content of this meeting will be available to the public following its event in the form of a transcript and live video recording: True dialogue only comes with accountability.

I would say that these requests go too far. ND Response knows that the University will not back down, if the demands of the Bishops of the Church will not change their minds, it's no doubt that a small group of students will not. To demand, as a precondition to discuss this issue at hand, the formation of an administrative position, and an official policy statement of the University seems out of line here. Perhaps they would have been good points for discussion in a meeting, but not as preconditions.

The request for a larger group seems reasonable, as the size of ND Response is quite large, and ensuring that the number of student speakers is limited to 10 seems like a reasonable request. I also think that one way or another the meeting should be made public, even if only through the release of a transcript. In this way, interested students (such as myself) who might be unable to attend this meeting, especially if a compromise were reached which limited the number of attendees, would still be able to see what happened as it happened, not in the form of press releases from each side.

The response from President Jenkins, needless to say, was in the negative. I first saw this yesterday on Lifesite, and it has since hit some other news services. I will be working from the official ND Response press release.

In a private letter addressed to a coalition of 12 campus groups and organizations, University of Notre Dame president, Fr. John I. Jenkins, CSC, denied students' requests for dialogue on the issues surrounding the University's invitation to and honoring of President Barack Obama at this year's commencement exercises. Responding to a letter sent to him by representatives of the ND Response coalition on April 7th, the University's president wrote that "conditions for constructive dialogue simply do not exist" and that students could disregard his earlier invitations to meet with him.

In their original letter to Fr. Jenkins, the student leaders of ND Response confirmed their interest in discussing their concerns with the University's president but acknowledged their hesitancy to accept the parameters of a meeting he outlined in an email to ND Response on March 27th. Citing that President Jenkins' offer of holding a closed-door meeting to 25 members of the coalition was not an adequate option, ND Response leaders requested that a meeting be held in one of the largest classrooms on campus and opened to all members of the groups in the coalition. In addition to this request, the students also asked that the University affirm its "commitment to defending human life in its most vulnerable stages" before President Jenkins sat down to speak with students. In particular, the students requested both that the University publicly declare that it would never engage in or collaborate with research involving human embryos or fetal tissue obtained through destructive techniques and that the University appoint a "pro-life ombudsman" to ensure that proper attention is paid to life issues in both Notre Dame's teaching and research. "These requests," ND Response spokeswoman Mary Daly said, "were intended to lead the University into making gestures of good-will that would facilitate our productive discussion and demonstrate President Jenkins' genuine interest in transparent dialogue."

Although his letter indicates that President Jenkins urges the students to "disregard the invitation to meet," Daly says that "ND Response remains open to true and transparent dialogue with Fr. Jenkins on this issue."

This, I believe, is a misrepresentation of the facts. The request for dialogue could have been originated by ND Response, in a sense, by their very formation, and their initial statements, though, as far as I know, Fr. Jenkins made the first concrete effort, naming a place and time, and listing preconditions. By responding with the conditions they did, ND Response, in a sense, denied the request for dialogue. By making what I see as unreasonable demands, Fr. Jenkins, probably rightly so, shut down the negotiations for dialogue, which he was, at one point open to. Compare that to their headline "University of Notre Dame President Rejects Students' Requests for Dialogue". At best, he rejected the preconditions for dialogue.

There is a well-reasoned analysis here, though I may disagree on a couple details, he has done a good, and I think fair, job.

A Special Happy Birthday to our Pope

This Romish Papist would like to extend prayerful birthday wishes to our sovereign Holy Roman Pontiff, Benedict XVI.

May the LORD grant him length of years!


Make a special effort to remember him in your prayers today.