Early October

Some people get a little antsy this time of year. Some because they expect a wakeup call from Stockholm, and some because they worry that whoever is going to get the call is not worthy. I've known physicists in both categories. The technology end of the prize has been forgotten recently, which is why I am glad the Physics prize went to CCDs and fiber optics, as they really changed our world, science and otherwise.

However, it is not the Physics prize I have come to talk to you about today. I woke up this morning to the news that our President, Barack Obama, will be awarded the 2009 Nobel Prize in Peace. I am trying to figure out what he has done for peace. What definitive actions has this president, sitting for less than 9 months, done to promote peace, here or abroad? I can't really come up with anything. Wars are still going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the notorious detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is still open.

Sure, there has been some strong rhetoric, but this is not what the prize is awarded for. Back in the day, Einstein didn't receive a Nobel Prize for Special Relativity because it wasn't well enough established, even though most people at the time could see that it had to be right. Likewise, President Obama could very well do many things to promote peace, he is, after all, the President of the most powerful nation in the world. This is why the awarding of the prize this year to him rings hollow.

In his defense, however, he has probably done more to promote world peace than Al Gore. Really, the Peace Prize has become more of a popularity contest than anything. The committee makes these decisions with political motivations, which really waters down the prize. I mean, really, Al Gore for pushing shoddy science, and now Barack Obama for talk of Hope.

Bishop D'Arcy in America Magazine

Bishop D'Arcy, the ordinary of the Diocese which encompass us here at Notre Dame, wrote an article which will appear on the cover of the August 31 issue of America magazine. [Source] I present the whole article here with some modest emphasis and [comments] italics are in the original.

As summer plays itself out on the beautiful campus by the lake where the young Holy Cross priest, Edward Sorin, C.S.C., pitched his camp 177 years ago and began his great adventure, we must clarify the situation that so sundered the church last spring: What it is all about and what it is not about.

It is not about President Obama. He will do some good things as president and other things with which, as Catholics, we will strongly disagree. It is ever so among presidents, and most political leaders.

It is not about Democrats versus Republicans, nor was it a replay of the recent general election.

It is not about whether it is appropriate for the president of the United States to speak at Notre Dame or any great Catholic university on the pressing issues of the day. This is what universities do. No bishop should try to prevent that.

The response, so intense and widespread, is not about what this journal called “sectarian Catholicism.” Rather, the response of the faithful derives directly from the Gospel. In Matthew’s words, “Your light must shine before others, that they may see your good works, and glorify your heavenly Father” (5:13). [He is making sure we know that these things, though presented by various media sources, Catholic and secular, are NOT the issue at hand]

Public Witness

[Three good questions]

[1] Does a Catholic university have the responsibility to give witness to the Catholic faith and to the consequences of that faith by its actions and decisions—especially by a decision to confer its highest honor? [2] If not, what is the meaning of a life of faith? [3] And how can a Catholic institution expect its students to live by faith in the difficult decisions that will confront them in a culture often opposed to the Gospel?

Pope Benedict XVI, himself a former university professor, made his position clear when he spoke to Catholic educators in Washington, D.C., on April 17, 2008:

Teachers and administrators, whether in universities or schools, have the duty and privilege to ensure that students receive instruction in Catholic doctrine and practice. This requires that public witness to the way of Christ, as found in the Gospel and upheld by the Church’s magisterium, shapes all aspects of an institution’s life, both inside and outside the classroom.

In its decision to give its highest honor to a president who has repeatedly opposed even the smallest legal protection of the child in the womb, did Notre Dame surrender the responsibility that Pope Benedict believes Catholic universities have to give public witness to the truths revealed by God and taught by the church? [He leaves a lot of rhetorical thinking questions in this article for the reader to ponder.]

Another serious question of witness and moral responsibility before the Notre Dame administration concerns its sponsorship over several years of a sad and immoral play, offensive to the dignity of women, which many call pornographic, and which an increasing number of Catholic universities have cancelled, “The Vagina Monologues,” by Eve Ensler.

Although he spoke eloquently about the importance of dialogue with the president of the United States, the president of Notre Dame chose not to dialogue with his bishop on these two matters[!!!], both pastoral and both with serious ramifications for the care of souls, which is the core responsibility of the local bishop. Both decisions were shared with me after they were made and, in the case of the honorary degree, after President Obama had accepted. For the past 24 years, it has been my privilege to serve as the bishop of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend. [This is an important statement to the article:] During this time, I have never interfered in the internal governance of Notre Dame or any other institution of higher learning within the diocese. However, as the teacher and shepherd in this diocese,[These are important words] it is my responsibility to encourage all institutions, including our beloved University of Notre Dame, to give public witness to the fullness of Catholic faith. The diocesan bishop must ask whether a Catholic institution compromises its obligation to give public witness by placing prestige over truth. The bishop must be concerned that Catholic institutions do not succumb to the secular culture, making decisions that appear to many, including ordinary Catholics, as a surrender to a culture opposed to the truth about life and love.

The Local Bishop

The failure to dialogue with the bishop brings a second series of questions. What is the relationship of the Catholic university to the local bishop? No relationship? Someone who occasionally offers Mass on campus? Someone who sits on the platform at graduation? Or is the bishop the teacher in the diocese, responsible for souls, including the souls of students—in this case, the students at Notre Dame? Does the responsibility of the bishop to teach, to govern and to sanctify end at the gate of the university? In the spirit of Ex Corde Ecclesiae, which places the primary responsibility on the institution, I am proposing these questions for the university.

Prof. John Cavadini has addressed the questions about the relationship of the university and the bishop in an especially insightful manner. He is chair of the theology department and an expert on the early church, with a special interest in St. Augustine. His remarks were a response to Father Jenkins’s rationale for presenting the play mentioned above.

The statement of our President [Father Jenkins] barely mentions the Church. It is as though the mere mention of a relationship with the Church has become so alien to our ways of thinking and so offensive to our quest for a disembodied “excellence” that it has become impolite to mention it at all. There is no Catholic identity apart from the affiliation with the Church. And again, I do not mean an imaginary Church we sometimes might wish existed, but the concrete, visible communion of “hierarchic and charismatic gifts,” “at once holy and always in need of purification,” in which “each bishop represents his own church and all of [the bishops] together with the Pope represent the whole Church...” (Lumen Gentium, Nos. 4, 8, 23).

The ancient Gnostic heresy developed an elitist intellectual tradition which eschewed connection to the “fleshly” church of the bishop and devalued or spiritualized the sacraments. Are we in danger of developing a gnosticized version of the “Catholic intellectual tradition,” one which floats free of any norming connection and so free of any concrete claim to Catholic identity?

The full letter can be found on the Web site of the Notre Dame student newspaper, The Observer: www.ndsmcobserver.com.

It has been a great privilege and a source of joy to be associated with Notre Dame in the past 24 years as bishop. In so many ways, it is a splendid place. Part of this is because of the exemplary young men and women who come there from throughout the country. It is also because of its great spiritual traditions. The lines of young people preparing to receive the sacrament of reconciliation at the Basilica of the Sacred Heart, the Masses in the residence halls, the prayerful liturgy at the basilica and the service of so many young people before and after graduation in Catholic education and catechetics, and in service to the poor in this country and overseas, is a credit to the university and a source of great hope. The theology department has grown in academic excellence over the years, strengthened by the successful recruiting of professors outstanding in scholarship, in their knowledge of the tradition and in their own living of the Catholic faith. This growth is well known to Pope Benedict XVI. It is notable that a vast majority has been willing to seek and accept the mandatum from the local bishop. [There is still room for improvement in these areas.]

Developments on Campus

Yet the questions about the relationship of the university as a whole to the church still stand, and what happened on campus leading up to and during the graduation is significant for the present debate about Catholic higher education. I released a statement on Good Friday, asking the Catholic people and others of good will not to attend demonstrations by those who had come avowedly to “create a circus.” I referred to appropriate and acceptable responses within the Notre Dame community led by students. Titled “ND Response,” and drawing a significant number of professors, these responses were marked by prayer and church teaching, and they were orderly.

This journal and others in the media, Catholic and secular, reporting from afar, failed to make a distinction between the extremists on the one hand, and students and those who joined them in the last 48 hours before graduation. This latter group responded with prayer and substantive disagreement. They cooperated with university authorities. [There seems to be a theme going, last post I reported on Archbishop Chaput taking The Tablet to task over their reporting of the health care issues, and here, Bishop D'Arcy is pointing out the failures of America in reporting on the Notre Dame Scandal.]

In this time of crisis at the university, these students and professors, with the instinct of faith, turned to the bishop for guidance, encouragement and prayer. This had nothing to do with John Michael D’Arcy. It was related to their understanding of the episcopal office—a place you should be able to count on for the truth, as Irenaeus contended in the second century when he encountered the Gnostics.

I attended the Baccalaureate Mass the day before graduation, for the 25th time, speaking after holy Communion, as I always do. Then I led an evening rosary at the Grotto with students, adults and a number of professors. We then went to a chapel on campus. It was packed for a whole night of prayer and eucharistic adoration.

It was my intention not to be on campus during graduation day. I had so informed Father Jenkins and the student leadership, with whom I was in touch nearly every day. This is the kind of deference and respect I have shown to the Notre Dame administration, to three Notre Dame presidents, over the years. I found it an increasingly sad time, and I was convinced that there were no winners, but I was wrong.

As graduation drew near, I knew I should be with the students. It was only right that the bishop be with them, for they were on the side of truth, and their demonstration was disciplined, rooted in prayer and substantive. I told the pro-life rally, several thousand people on a lovely May day, that they were the true heroes. Despite the personal costs to themselves and their families, they chose to give public witness to the Catholic faith contrary to the example of a powerful, international university, against which they were respectfully but firmly in disagreement. Among those in attendance were many who work daily at crisis pregnancy centers on behalf of life.

The Silent Board

In the midst of the crisis at Notre Dame, the board of trustees came to campus in April for their long-scheduled spring meeting. They said nothing. When the meeting was completed, they made no statement and gave no advice. In an age when transparency is urged as a way of life on and off campus, they chose not to enter the conversation going on all around them and shaking the university to its roots. We learned nothing about their discussions.

I firmly believe that the board of trustees must take up its responsibility afresh, with appropriate study and prayer. They also must understand the seriousness of the present moment. This requires spiritual and intellectual formation on the part of the men and women of industry, business and technology who make up the majority of the board. Financial generosity is no longer sufficient for membership on the boards of great universities, if indeed it ever was. The responsibility of university boards is great, and decisions must not be made by a few. Like bishops, they are asked to leave politics and ambition at the door, and make serious decisions before God. In the case of Notre Dame, they owe it to the Congregation of Holy Cross, which has turned this magnificent place over to a predominately lay board; they owe it to the students who have not yet come; they owe it to the intrepid missionary priest, Edward Sorin, C.S.C., and the Holy Cross religious who built this magnificent place out of the wilderness. They owe it to Mary, the Mother of God, who has always been honored here. Let us pray that they will take this responsibility with greater seriousness and in a truly Catholic spirit.

Critical Questions

As bishops, we must be teachers and pastors. In that spirit, I would respectfully put these questions to the Catholic universities in the diocese I serve and to other Catholic universities.

[1] Do you consider it a responsibility in your public statements, in your life as a university and in your actions, including your public awards, to give witness to the Catholic faith in all its fullness?

[2] What is your relationship to the church and, specifically, to the local bishop and his pastoral authority as defined by the Second Vatican Council?

[3] Finally, a more fundamental question: Where will the great Catholic universities search for a guiding light in the years ahead? Will it be the Land O’Lakes Statement or Ex Corde Ecclesiae? [This is really important, and something I have posted about before. Catholic institutions are at a crossroads, and this is the time where people need to choose sides. The two statements are, for the most part, opposed to each other, and one of them comes directly from the office of the Papacy.] The first comes from a frantic time, [July, 1967, frantic indeed] with finances as the driving force. Its understanding of freedom is defensive, absolutist and narrow. It never mentions Christ and barely mentions the truth. The second text, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, speaks constantly of truth and the pursuit of truth. It speaks of freedom in the broader, Catholic philosophical and theological tradition, as linked to the common good, to the rights of others and always subject to truth. Unlike Land O’Lakes, it is communal, reflective of the developments since Vatican II, and it speaks with a language enlightened by the Holy Spirit. [It came from the Vicar of Christ, after all.]

On these three questions, I respectfully submit, rests the future of Catholic higher education in this country and so much else.

There is little more that I could say to improve this. I bet a personal letter version of this has been sent to the office of Fr. Jenkins, and any other Catholic schools around. So far, there is nothing posted on the Archdiocese website concerning this, no additional statements. God bless our Bishop.

[UPDATE: 08/25/2009 23:09]
Fr. Z has made a post on an this article. I quote here from one of the commenters [a catechist] on his site:

We probably won’t ever know, but it strikes me that perhaps this was originally addressed to the Fellows, and then submitted to “America”. Just speculation, but it would make sense. Lots of sense, were I the bishop.

I hadn't thought of that, but that might be a good place to see to it that the targets of this letter read it.

Chaput takes The Tablet to task

Archbishop Chaput has recently written an article challenging an editorial written in the publication The Tablet, a Catholic weekly in the UK. To give you an idea of the issues at hand, the title of the editorial was "US Bishops must back Obama", and dealt with the, so-called "Obamacare" health care reform plan. Let's take a look, with my emphasis and [comment]:

Last week a British Catholic journal, in an editorial titled "U.S. bishops must back Obama," claimed that America's bishops "have so far concentrated on a specifically Catholic issue - making sure state-funded health care does not include abortion - rather than the more general principle of the common good." [It is unfortunate that I tire of this phrase, because of its misuse among some.]

It went on to say that if U.S. Catholic leaders would get over their parochial preoccupations, "they could play a central role in salvaging Mr. Obama's health-care programme."

The editorial has value [I'm not so sure...] for several reasons. First, it proves once again that people don't need to actually live in the United States to have unhelpful and badly informed opinions about our domestic issues. Second, some of the same pious voices that once criticized U.S. Catholics for supporting a previous president now sound very much like acolytes of a new president. Third, abortion is not, and has never been, a "specifically Catholic issue," and the editors know it. And fourth, the growing misuse of Catholic "common ground" and "common good" language in the current health-care debate can only stem from one of two sources: ignorance or cynicism. [It's as if he read my mind on this one.]

No system that allows or helps fund - no matter how subtly or indirectly -- the killing of unborn children, or discrimination against the elderly and persons with special needs, can bill itself as "common ground." Doing so is a lie. [I would say it is part of the "progressive" and "modern" plans to usurp the language, and change the meaning of words, to hoodwink the masses. Consider what is now called "freedom" and "right" as compared to years ago.]

On the same day the British journal released its editorial, I got an email from a young couple on the east coast whose second child was born with Down syndrome. The mother's words deserve a wider audience:

[Here, he goes on to share this story, of a child who "'consumes' a lot of health care." I add the final paragraph here for context]

We are unsure and uneasy about how this might change. We worry that we, and Magdalena's siblings, will somehow be cut out of the process down the line when her health issues are sure to pile up. I can't forget that this is the same president [Obama] who made a distasteful joke about the Special Olympics. He apologized through a spokesman . . . [but] I truly believe that the people around him don't know -- or don't care to know -- the value and blessedness of a child with special needs. And I don't trust them to mold policy that accounts for my daughter in all of her humanity or puts "value" on her life.

Of course, President Obama isn't the first leader to make clumsy gaffes. Anyone can make similar mistakes over the course of a career. And the special needs community is as divided about proposed health-care reforms as everyone else.

Some might claim that the young mother quoted here has misread the intent and content of Washington's plans. That can be argued. But what's most striking about the young mother's email -- and I believe warranted -- is the parental distrust behind her words. She's already well acquainted, from direct experience, with how hard it is to deal with government-related programs and to secure public resources and services for her child. In fact, I've heard from enough intelligent, worried parents of children with special needs here in Colorado to know that many feel the current health-care proposals pressed by Washington are troubling and untrustworthy.

Health-care reform is vital. That's why America's bishops have supported it so vigorously for decades. They still do. But fast-tracking a flawed, complex effort this fall, in the face of so many growing and serious concerns, is bad policy. It's not only imprudent; it's also dangerous. As Sioux City's Bishop R. Walker Nickless wrote last week, "no health-care reform is better than the wrong sort of health-care reform." [This is the perennial drum-beat of the modern political system. More below.]

If Congress and the White House want to genuinely serve the health-care needs of the American public, they need to slow down, listen to people's concerns more honestly -- and learn what the "common good" really means.

What we hear in politics these days is, "Now! Now! Now! There can be no waiting, because this change/reform/action is so important that if we wait, we will be doomed!" We heard it in the various bailout bills, and we hear it again here. We heard it over global warming, and we will hear it again. There are two reasons I can come up with why this "doomsday approach" to legislating is being used. First, there is the fact that the government has limited money and attention to spend on various topics, and so the one that is most pressing will get the most money, simple economics (or manipulation). Second, there is the more dangerous aspect, which is the desire to sneak through legislation with less popular measures in it because it will take too long to fix the unpopular parts of the bill.

This, I am sure, is what is happening with the health care reform bill. The legislators have made up their mind what they want to see in the bill, and under the guise of urgency have been pushing this plan forward. The thing is, this isn't Calcutta, people aren't dying in the street. Do we need some kind of reform; sure. Is the status quo so bad that we can't continue as a nation; I don't think so.

Archbishop Chaput did a good job, I think, dealing with the arguments put forward by The Tablet.

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.

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.

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 Bishop in support of Notre Dame

As far as I can tell, the count is 31 Bishops against the decision of Notre Dame to honor President Obama, and now there is one in favor of the decision.

Archbishop John R. Quinn is the retired emeritus Archbishop of San Francisco. From what I can tell, he retired under fire at the relatively young age of 66, in the time of the priest sex abuse crisis. He was a diocesan priest of San Diego before being consecrated a Bishop. He wrote recently in the Jesuit periodical America: (with my emphasis and [comment]) (s0urce)

"What if the president is forced to back out of his appearance at Notre Dame either because he withdraws or the university withdraws its invitation?" asked Quinn. "If this happens, will that further the pro-life effort in our country?" [I think the answer might be yes. The better question might be: would it further the effort if the premier Catholic university ignores the bishops and invites the most idealogically pro-abortion President ever?]

The archbishop emeritus also wondered, "If the president is forced to withdraw, will that bring about fewer abortions in the United States?"[As if the pro-life movement was a numbers game. Would it be better for the country to halve the number of abortions, but still pay for them with public funds? Of course, this is the arguement that people made at election time, that the truly pro-life people should support Obama because he will address the reasons people seek abortion, thereby lowering the numbers, nevermind that this hasn't ever panned out in the past.]

Quinn also questioned whether a turnaround would be received as a way to "link the church with racist and other extremist elements in our country." [??? Could anyone be convinced that if, after all this fallout, it was a racial issue? Or does he mean that pro-lifers are extremist terrorists?]

"Will the banishment of the first African-American president from Catholic university campuses be seen as grossly insensitive to the heritage of racial hatred which has burdened our country for far too long?" he mused.

"We must step back and consider the limitations - prudential, moral and political - on the role of bishops in public issues," wrote Quinn. "We must weigh very seriously the consequences if the American bishops are seen as the agents of the public embarrassment of the newly elected president by forcing him to withdraw from an appearance at a distinguished Catholic university." [OR, get this, Bishops could teach! In season and out, that's what Bishop D'Arcy said, choose truth before prestige. And, Ex Corde Ecclesiae definately applies, and it says the Bishops have a special duty to ensure the Catholic identity of a Catholic university.]

The Archbishop also expressed confidence in Obama's character. "The president has given ample evidence that he is a man of good will, of keen intelligence, desirous of listening and capable of weighing seriously other views," he wrote. [Because seeking the removal of conscience protections fits that description.]

Technically correct, the best kind of correct

With the Pascal Triduum safely behind us, we can return to the issue of Notre Dame.

It would seem that Fr. Jenkins is looking for any out he can find. It has been reported that Fr. Jenkins is now trying to hide behind some canonical technicalities.

The 2004 document was clearly adopted by the Bishops as provisional. As the document says, "[h]aving received an extensive report from the Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians, and looking forward to the full report, we highlight several points from the interim report that suggest some directions for our efforts...." Nevertheless, despite its provisional character, this document has been used by all the people at Notre Dame who recommend speakers for commencement or others for honorary degrees since its publication. We have tried to follow both the letter and the spirit of its recommendations.

Two key sentences of the document have been frequently quoted regarding the invitation to President Obama:

"Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions."

Because the title of the document is "Catholics in Political Life", we understood this to refer to honoring Catholics whose actions are not in accord with our moral principles. This interpretation was supported by canon lawyers we consulted, who advised us that, by definition, only Catholics who implicitly recognize the authority of Church teaching can act in "defiance" of it. Moreover, fellow university presidents have told me that their bishops have told them that in fact it is only Catholic politicians who are referred to in this document.

In addition, regardless of how one interprets the first sentence, the second is also important. It reads: "They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions. [My italics]" In every statement I have made about the invitation of President Obama and in every statement I will make, I express our disagreement with him on issues surrounding the protection of life, such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research. If we repeatedly and clearly state that we do not support the President on these issues, we cannot be understood to "suggest support".

Canonist Ed Peters discusses this comment as well.

But speaking of words, Jenkins' unnamed canon lawyers (assuming, by the way, that they were answering the question Jenkins thought he was asking, and that Jenkins understood and is accurately conveying their response) tell him that "by definition, only Catholics who implicitly recognize the authority of Church teaching can act in 'defiance' of it." Huh?

What's this "by definition" stuff? What definition? A definition of "defiance"? The word "defiance" is not in the Code. Even the Latin pertinacia does not seem to apply to our facts, so, what exactly is Jenkins talking about here? I don't know, but whatever Jenkins or his canonists hope it means, the sentence he/they put so much stock in was obviously not drafted to stand up to close textual parsing. Else, all a Catholic would have to do to avoid the charge of acting in "defiance" of Church authority would be to decline recognizing Church authority in the first place!

Likewise, watch how Jenkin's claim that bestowing an honorary doctorate on the pro-abortion movement's most powerful politician ever does not "suggest support" for the politician's pro-abortion record, can be parsed into a defense of Jenkins: an honorary doctorate of law does not "suggest" support for a politicians' legal philosophy, no, instead it screams it. Therefore, Jenkins is not guilty of "suggesting" support. Aren't word games fun?

He goes on to suggest that the solution to the problem would be for the school to declare itself no longer Catholic, then the Bishops wouldn't have any complaints. Recall also that Bishop D'Arcy said in his interview recently

They are saying in their correspondence, that that only applied to Catholics, and that it was only a provisionary document. The person who can interpret when there is a difference on a Canonical matter is the local Bishop, but they never asked my opinion as to whether this document applied or did not apply.

Basically, this whole thing feels like an attempt to get out of a scandal by technicality. Do you think that St. Peter at the gates to heaven will see it the same way.

It also brings up a number of questions. If this was something done, or thought about ahead of time, why did it take this long to get out? Isn't it more plausible that this was a reactionary step? Also, what sort of canon lawyers did they find to come up with the interpretation they did, after all, the Bishops, who crafted this document, have been quite clear about that they intended. At this point, I think that anything Fr. Jenkins will say, short of canceling the invitation, will just seem like a child making excuses.

Full transcript of Bishop D'Arcy's Interview

As promised, the text of the interview of Bishop D'Arcy is now completed. I comment on it in a previous post, and the actual interview can be found here.

What, Bishop, is your role at the Notre Dame graduation?

I always go and I’m going this year to the Mass, which is the day ahead, Saturday, and the only other time that I didn’t go to a Notre Dame Graduation was when senator Moynihan received the Laetare medal, because of his pro-choice position, and even then I went to the mass. When I attend the mass, the President is the celebrant, but I attend, and then I speak at the end of mass, a little bit about a Catholic University devoted to Faith and Reason, kind of an informal talk, and I will do that. But at the graduation, as such, I usually just sit there in my robes, the choir robes that a Bishop wears, and I go to the Lunch and I’m on the platform, so those are the things I won’t do.

Okay, were you anticipating this, because of the tradition of inviting new Presidents?

No. I probably should have been. I got a call at a funeral in Decatur. I was driving forth a few weeks ago, and the call came that Fr. Jenkins wanted to talk to me. It was 3:00 PM by the time we connected, and I was trying to find out when the White House press briefing is, and maybe you know that?

I don’t, 10 AM or something.

If it was 10:00 AM, then I wasn’t called until after it was announced. That, I didn’t think was very respectful. I did not anticipate it, I did not know why he was calling, we do have contact from time to time, and I probably should have been. I do recall that President Clinton did not speak for whatever reason. Someone told me recently that he was invited, but couldn’t make it or something. I did not anticipate this, I did not, and I was kind of stunned.

Yeah, what was your initial reaction?

Well my initial reaction was, well, on the one hand to get the President is a feat for any University, but I told Fr. Jenkins right away I probably won’t come, I think I remember saying I’m about 60/40 that I won’t come. I said I’m a Bishop I have to teach. He said he was going to put out a statement indicating that this did not mean that they supported the President’s positions on embryonic stem cells or on the Life issues that he would put out a statement illustrating that. And, he also told me that Mary Ann Glendon was going to get the Laetare Medal, which is an award given to a Catholic, and considered by Notre Dame its highest honor. So I said she might pull out. And he said, well, he had communicated with her by e-mail and she did say to him, I’ll have to rewrite my talk. She and I conferred a few days later, we spoke and I urged her to come.

And so that kind of gets to my next question: Were you hoping to influence anyone else, or was this just a personal decision for you?

I did not expect to influence Notre Dame. I remember speaking to them at the time of the Moynihan appointment, and Fr. Malloy was most understanding of my position, but he said they could not withdraw the invitation. I was thinking more what was the right thing as a Bishop. I did know that there would be a tremendous outpouring, and I told that to John, I said this is going to be wild, to Fr. Jenkins. I was trying to search my own heart for the right thing to do.

And what are some of the things you thought about?

I think, as Pope John Paul II said, if you speak about the right to a job, the right to human rights, the right to be treated with dignity, none of those rights exist without the right to life. And the President, who I respect and everything, there were three or four things in a row: The Mexico City policy, there was also the promise in the campaign, at least in the primary campaign, to push FOCA, the freedom of choice act, which would do away with so many of the limitations that were put against attacking unborn life, also the embryonic stem cells and then the freedom of conscience. All four things, and a week later Notre Dame invites him, so I just felt that my position, if I’m up there, on the platform, it must be okay. It’s saying to the young people “well it’s okay, it really doesn’t matter.” And so there was no way I could. I had that decision within a half hour. Then the question was should I wait, which I did with Moynihan, should I wait until near the graduation, but then I sensed pretty quickly that I better get this out there right away. My anxiety now is for Notre Dame, that they are sort of a Catholic Icon, well, you might say for many religious people, other Christians, they’re kind of an icon. Dean Wenthe of Concordia got his doctorate at Notre Dame, a congressman got his Master’s at Notre Dame, and so forth, Condaleeza Rice, so many people who are not Catholics have great affection for the place. So, I just felt that my position was to teach; that a Bishop teaches by his words, but also by his actions, and I didn’t want to say anything else. And then, we’ve gotten over 3000 emails and letters here, and my assistant tells me they’re coming in every day. My fear is that Notre Dame has alienated itself from the Catholic Community, from the Bishops, many Bishops are writing, from ordinary Catholic people, with so many people that are parents or alumni, and that’s what troubles me. I don’t think most people would have a problem if he was invited to speak at the university in a symposium on health hare, a national issue, foreign affairs, the question of Iraq, and those things. The university should do those things, there needs to be diverse opinions, but this is giving a Doctor of Laws to a person who’s only experience with laws in the state legislature and here, has been anti-life laws. And Notre Dame is honoring him with a Doctor of Laws, and speaking to the graduates, so to give him that honor, that’s why I said, “Have they chosen Prestige over Truth?”

And he’s not just a person who’s beliefs run contrary, he’s actually, as you said, actually made laws, made US Policy. He’s in that position to make a difference.

Yes.

Now the US Council of Catholic Bishops, I believe, did make a statement with regard to Catholic institutions honoring people, do you think there should be any consequence to Notre Dame for this, or would you rather not see that?

I think that issue has to be discussed with Notre Dame. They are saying in their correspondence, that that only applied to Catholics, and that it was only a provisionary document. The person who can interpret when there is a difference on a Canonical matter is the local Bishop, but they never asked my opinion as to whether this document applied or did not apply. I’m not in favor of overreacting, of any penalty or anything like that. No, I think dialog is the way to talk about it here. I will be meeting with Fr. Jenkins. Cardinal George, who is the president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Archbishop of Chicago, I think he intends to meet with him. Many are calling for that sort of thing, but I don’t think that helps, no.

What about your relationship with Fr. Jenkins? Does he understand your position? Has he been understanding about this?

Uh, we’ll see. I’ll be seeing him soon. I think he…I don’t know if he understands my position. I told him when he called, that we must continue our relationship, that that’s important between a Bishop. Ex Corde Ecclesiae, which is a document on Catholic Universities and the bishops, calls for that, for mutual respect. I think he minds it, but I think he’s troubled by it, and I don’t think he’s really eager to talk about it too much.

That will be an interesting conversation I’m sure.

Yes.

Some of our viewers have wondered about your attendance at the ceremony when George W. Bush was there, and to the issue of Capital Punishment, and have said how is this different?

Well, So that must refer to George W. Bush when he was Governor of Texas.

Yes, because he authorized several death sentences.

Many, yes. The Catholic Church’s position is that the taking of a life in the womb is an intrinsically evil act. It doesn’t say that about the death penalty. A good Catholic could disagree with the Church on the death penalty. Now Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae, which is the Gospel of Life, and later it’s in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, said today we should protect society by bloodless means because we can do that with the penal system. We can keep people out of society who are dangerous, so we should do that. But, you could differ on that and still be a good Catholic. But the direct attack on life in the womb is intrinsically evil, can never be accepted, can never be permitted, or anything of that nature. And so, I agree with Pope John Paul II and present church thrust that we should protect life by lifetime imprisonment and things like that. But there’s a difference between those two issues, as there is a difference between the Iraq war, I did not agree with the Iraq war, but a person of good will, a good Catholic, could disagree on that, and reach a different conclusion. This is something that always binds, a direct attack on an unborn child.

Innocent life, right? Isn’t that how you put it in your statement?

Yes.

And the other question everyone has been asking as they write in: what was Notre Dame thinking? Any guesses?

[Laughter] Well, you’d have to ask Father Jenkins. He hasn’t been available has he? Have you tried?

Did Father Jenkins make the decision? Is it his decision?

I think so, from what I hear, I’m sure, I would think, some members of the board of trustees might have been sought for their opinion, probably others. I don’t know whether or not he took into account the position of the Church, but I was not consulted. As far as I know no Bishops were consulted. Nor did he have to consult us, but I think it would have been better had he done this. I think what I put in my statement was for them to ask the question: have they put prestige over Truth, prestige over the Truth about human life, and that’s the question for a Catholic University. As I said before, if he’d came for a seminar even on this issue, or on health care or something like that, that’s what a University should be doing. But to honor someone Doctorate of Laws and the only laws he’s made are laws which are against innocent life. So, I think Notre Dame wishes to be a very significant University in the public order, and it is, and I think that’s what must have driven the decision.

What is the one message that you would like to convey with this decision not to attend? What is the one thing you want people to understand about your decision?

To be at those graduations, the Mass the day before, all the young people that are there, all the parents that are there, and their friends who are there, and they are graduating from this splendid University. How beautiful is life? You’re a parent. How beautiful is life? And they’ll go out to world, and fall in love, they’ll have children, they’ll have grandchildren, they’ll have families. No one is allowed to say who’s going to sit at the table of life, and more important, who’s not going to sit at the table of life. God didn’t give us that privilege, he gave us many other privileges, who we choose for a spouse, whether to become a priest. He gave us a lot of freedom. He didn’t give us that freedom. That belongs to him alone. That’s what I want to somehow convey. This is so central. There’s no other right unless you have the right to life, and a Catholic University should support that 100%. It doesn’t mean you couldn’t have a discussion of it on campus, but the University should always support it.

An Interview with Bishop D'Arcy

I know it seems like this weblog has become less general and more specifically Notre Dame in recent weeks. This is not my overall intention, but the issue has been consuming me of late.

On to the story at hand. A local news outlet has interviewed Bishop D'Arcy of Ft. Wayne/South Bend regarding the decision to invite President Obama to speak and to receive an honorary degree. The interview can be found here (it is quite a large download). Unfortunately they have not provided a transcript, but I will discuss some of the salient points. Lifesite also has a summary of the interview.

I shall include some salient points here with emphasis and [commentary], and hopefully produce a full transcript for posting later without commentary.

Were you anticipating this, because of the tradition of inviting new Presidents?

No. I probably should have been. [Unfortunately.] I got a call at a funeral in Decatur. I was driving forth a few weeks ago, and the call came that Fr. Jenkins wanted to talk to me. It was 3:00 PM [This is about the same time I found out as well] by the time we connected, and, I was trying to find out when the White House press briefing is, and maybe you know that?

I don’t, 10 AM or something.

If it was 10:00 AM, then I wasn’t called until after it was announced. That, I didn’t think was very respectful. I did not anticipate it, I did not know why he was calling, we do have contact from time to time, and I probably should have been. I do recall that President Clinton did not speak for whatever reason. Someone told me recently that he was invited, but couldn’t make it or something. I did not anticipate this, I did not, and I was kind of stunned. [Glad I'm not alone.]

Yeah, what was your initial reaction?

Well my initial reaction was, well, on the one hand to get the President is a feat for any University, but I told Fr. Jenkins right away I probably won’t come, I think I remember saying I’m about 60/40 that I won’t come. I said I’m a Bishop I have to teach. He said he was going to put out a statement indicating that this did not mean that they supported the President’s positions on embryonic stem cells or on the Life issues that he would put out a statement illustrating that. And, he also told me that Mary Ann Glendon was going to get the Laetare Medal, which is an award given to a Catholic, and considered by Notre Dame its highest honor. So I said she might pull out. [Yep] And he said, well, he had communicated with her by e-mail and she did say to him, I’ll have to rewrite my talk. [Good! She may have some great stuff to say!] She and I conferred a few days later, we spoke and I urged her to come.

And so that kind of gets to my next question: Were you hoping to influence anyone else, or was this just a personal decision for you?

I did not expect to influence Notre Dame. I remember speaking to them at the time of the Moynihan appointment, and Fr. Malloy was most understanding of my position, but he said they could not withdraw the invitation. I was thinking more what was the right thing as a Bishop. I did know that there would be a tremendous outpouring, and I told that to John, I said this is going to be wild, [WILD!] to Fr. Jenkins. I was trying to search my own heart for the right thing to do.

What is the one message that you would like to convey with this decision not to attend? What is the one thing you want people to understand about your decision?

To be at those graduations, the Mass the day before, all the young people that are there, all the parents that are there, and their friends who are there, and they are graduating from this splendid University. How beautiful is life? [Really beautiful, probably the greatest gift we received from God] You’re a parent. How beautiful is life? And they’ll go out to world, and fall in love, they’ll have children, they’ll have grandchildren, they’ll have families. No one is allowed to say who’s going to sit at the table of life, and more important, who’s not going to sit at the table of life. God didn’t give us that privilege, he gave us many other privileges, who we choose for a spouse, whether to become a priest. He gave us a lot of freedom. He didn’t give us that freedom. That belongs to him alone. That’s what I want to somehow convey. This is so central. There’s no other right unless you have the right to life, and a Catholic University should support that 100%. It doesn’t mean you couldn’t have a discussion of it on campus, but the University should always support it.

He also asked twice if they chose Prestige before Truth.

Rally Part II

The ND Response team has made available the full texts of the speeches given at Sunday's prayer rally here. Unfortunately they are in PDF form.

I have made reference to this section of Prof. Freddoso's speech numerous times already, so I will include it here:

Make no mistake. This protest has to do with President Obama’s actions and with his
intentions regarding future actions, and not merely with his beliefs.

Now, of course, the administrators of the university do not “condone or endorse his
positions”—or, presumably, his actions—“on specific issues regarding the protection of
human life.” And, to be sure, it is permissible to honor someone despite the bad
things he’s done, as long as those bad things are “not all THAT bad.” So let’s look at
a few of the actions that the administrators of the university consider to be “not all
THAT bad.”

President Obama has overturned the Mexico City Policy that had prohibited taxpayer
money from going to groups that promote or perform abortions in other nations. This
is bad, the administrators of the university admit, but it’s not all THAT bad.
President Obama has, in Michael Gerson’s words, “signaled that he will overturn [the
previous president’s] executive order protecting health workers from firing and
discrimination if they refuse to perform actions they consider morally objectionable.”

This is bad, the administrators of the university admit, but it’s not all THAT bad.
President Obama has lifted the previous president’s already weak-kneed restrictions
on the use of taxpayer money for embryo-destructive stem cell research—which
research, by the way, unlike non-destructive stem cell research, has yet to result in
curing anyone of any disease. This is bad, the administrators of the university admit,
but it’s not all THAT bad.

President Obama has nominated an enthusiastically pro-abortion Catholic to become
Secretary of Health and Human Services, the department that oversees the medical
profession along with other human services. This is bad, the administrators of the
university admit, but it’s not all THAT bad.

The issue is that objectively President Obama has acted in opposition to morality, and the Bishops have stated that those who do this should not be honored by a Catholic school. This describes the scandal of Notre Dame much better than I could.

Talking Points on Notre Dame Scandal

The talking points have been released for for the Board of Trustees of Notre Dame regarding the Obama invite. I shall attempt to present them here with Emphasis and [comment]. (Source: Lifesite)

- Presidents from both parties have come to Notre Dame for decades [as if it were a big-T Tradition] to speak to our graduates. Barack Obama will be the sixth President to speak at commencement, and the ninth to receive an honorary degree from the University. [This point combines two problems in argument, first is the "we've done it before so it must be good" point, which is clearly not the case. Not every president was as gung-ho pro-abortion as Obama. Second, it makes it out to be a political issue, as if party affiliation made or broke one's qualification to be honored by a Catholic school.]

- It's a rare thing to be able to offer your graduates a commencement address from one of the most influential figures in the world - especially as they're entering that world hoping to make it better. [Better for whom? The unborn? This point fails the Hitler test I laid out before. If the arguments fail to rule out a figure such as Hitler, they are deficient arguments.]

- We think a visit from the President will help inspire our graduates to be active citizens - whether they agree with his politics or not. [So, perhaps would a visit from a solid Catholic Pro-Life Democrat. Also a visit from a terrible person could spur graduates into action.]

- We knew there would be some controversy over this choice. Frankly, I was impressed [I was saddened and disappointed.] that Fr. Jenkins invited him; he's facing some criticism for this. And I admire President Obama for accepting. It shows he respects his audience. [But he doesn't, at least not their consciences.]

- But there shouldn't be any confusion about the honorary degree. We're honoring him as the sitting president of the United States...for his historic election, for fighting poverty, expanding health care, improving schools, seeking peace, breaking barriers of race. [You can't honor the man in part. The school is saying, by this honor, that although the many things he supports and has already done, gay marriage, abortion, embryonic stem cells, etc., are bad, they really aren't that bad. Not bad enough for him to be honored by a Catholic school, and so perhaps not bad enough for a Catholic to support either. That's scandal, my friends.]

- These issues are dear to the heart of Catholics and the president has elevated them, and we honor that. [The issues I mentioned above are held dear, unfortunately, to the hearts of many Catholics as well. This is why it confuses the authentic teaching of the Church.]

- We are aware of the discussion surrounding the bishops' document, Catholics in Political Life. The University took this document into full consideration. We believe it allows those non-Catholics to be invited to give their views on important issues. [But the Bishop's disagree, they wrote it and they can authentically interpret it. I posted this regarding Bishop D'Arcy's statement, and many (almost 20 now) Bishops have made this clear in those references.]

-We have said from the start, that this invitation does not mean we agree with all positions the President has taken. We do not condone the President's positions on abortion and embryonic stem cell research. We have crucial differences with him on issues of protecting human life. Fr. Jenkins made that clear.

- Butt [sic] that doesn't mean we shouldn't invite him to Notre Dame. We can never change the President's views unless he listens to us. And how can we expect him to listen to us if we won't listen to him? [Only those we honor can change? Also, this fails the Hitler test.]

- And President Obama won't be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican, will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal. [Perhaps I'm wrong, but didn't Obama fire her, and is now unable to find a replacement?]

- We think having the President come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the President and for the causes we care about. [The Bishops disagree.]

I need not say more.

Peaceful Protest

Today marked the first of the organized protests put on by the ND Response coalition. The turnout was very good, about 400 people showed up. Joe Scheidler, of the Prolife Action League was there in attendance, though he did not address the crowd. There was a small group of naysayers who only caused a small disruption. I do not know what they were saying. Other than the brief outburst, and some otherwise rude talking during speakers and the Rosary, even the naysayers were well behaved.

The speakers focused primarily on the reasons why President Obama ought not be honored by a Catholic school. I wish the focus was on the Bishops, especially some of Bishop D'Arcy's statements in the recent years, and specifically on the 2004 statement of the USCCB stating that Catholic Universities were not to honor those who were opposed to fundamental moral principles.

This, really, is the point, and the crux of the matter to me. It need not be our place to evaulate the morality of the actions of President Obama, or anyone, this is the job of the Bishops. The Bishops have clearly spoken on the issue, and rightly condemned some of President Obama's actions, especially with regards to abortion and embryonic stem cell research. They have also decided it prudent and just that honors are not to be given out by Catholic schools to those who support positions that are fundamentally flawed morally, so as not to cause scandal, or encourage those people in their sins. One of the speakers today made a point that these fundamentally immoral positions, by the action of the administration of the University, are seen as "bad, but not that bad."

Ultimately the problem is a lack of obedience. The bishops have made it perfectly clear that: (1) politicians who support fundamentally immoral and unjust laws should not be honored by Catholic schools, and (2) President Obama's positions on Abortion and Embryonic stem cell research are fundamentally immoral. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the invitation was wrongly given. But, since Land O' Lakes, Catholic Universities are above their Bishops, despite the canonical declaration otherwise in Ex Corde Ecclesiae.

Responses

As of this writing, I know of 17 separate bishops who have responded to the announcement that Notre Dame would be honoring President Obama at this year's commencement. The ND Response team has compiled that list here. It is amazing the backlash has been what it has. I hope that perhaps getting some of these letters will inspire President Jenkins to do a little soul searching.