Marquette - UPDATE

As I mentioned earlier, the President of Marquette University decided to rescind an offer of a dean's position to an openly lesbian professor who had a history of writing things contrary to Catholic doctrine. Lifesite News has a nice summary of the uproar that has followed.

They actually go through some of her writings and find some disturbing things. In addition, some more information has come out with regards to this decision.

One professor, speaking to Milwaukee Magazine on condition of anonymity, said that Fr. Wild told the faculty that Archbishop Listecki had expressed an opinion on the matter that had a bearing on his decision. Upon being pressed for an account of how the decision was made, Fr. Wild reportedly declined to give any details.

When Archdiocesan Judicial Vicar Father Paul Hartmann wrote to the committee chair searching for a new dean, according to the Journal Sentinel, he wrote that some possible candidates were pursuing subjects of study "that seems destined to actually create dichotomies and cause tensions (if not contradictions) with Marquette's Catholic mission and identity."

"My greatest fear, as a priest, alum, and as president of a high school which sends dozens of new students to (Marquette) each fall, is that the important decision to be made in this moment will instead dichotomize university from Church and reason from faith," Hartmann wrote.

Interesting if true. Can you believe, a University listening to its Ordinary? It's good to hear about such things.

Cardinal Schönborn off the Rails

I've admired some of the works of Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, especially his book Change or Purpose on cosmic and biological evolution. He doesn't always get the science right, but he has at least tried to look at the science from a theological perspective, which is a direction in modern theology which I think need to be explored more, especially by those few who are familiar with both science and theology.

So, I have been a bit dismayed with some of the things I have seen in more recent times from Cardinal Schönborn and the Archdiocese of Vienna. Most recently, I saw this.

The Church should "give more consideration" to "the quality" of homosexual relationships, the cardinal archbishop of Vienna said this weekend. Christoph Schönborn told the far-left British Catholic magazine the Tablet that the Church should also consider allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion since “many people don’t even marry at all any longer.”

“We should give more consideration to the quality of homosexual relationships. A stable relationship is certainly better than if someone chooses to be promiscuous,” Schönborn said.

What?

He's a Cardinal Archbishop. Where is this coming from?

Marquette and the Catholic Identity

A good friend of mine has directed me to this article.

Marquette University defended its decision to withdraw an offer to an openly lesbian faculty member to become a college dean after it became evident that the teacher's published writings opposed Church teachings on human sexuality.

The Jesuit university underscored the importance of finding a dean who is not only academically competent but represents “our Catholic identity.”

I took the liberty of checking out her CV, and it indicated she had written articles which had titles likely supporting the claim that her published writings opposed Church teachings.

Fr. Robert Wild, president of Marquette, commented on the situation during a faculty award dinner on Thursday, underscoring that the decision to withdraw the offer to O'Brien was not a discriminatory act.
“I want to say it strongly, clearly and directly,” the reason for rescinding the position was “not about sexual identity,” Fr. Wild said.

Right, the issue is Catholic identity. A Catholic university needs to seek out administrators and faculty who can build up and support that identity. Ex Corde Ecclesiae would agree, saying that those who are not part of the faith must nonetheless be aware of the University's Catholic identity and mission, and work toward that end.

Fr. Wild had to intercede on behalf of the Faith, which is is job. This episode indicates that there are probably some bigger issues that need to be dealt with on this campus. Any chance, though, to re-assert the Catholic identity on campus must be commended.

Fr. Hesburgh and Health Care

I've been so busy recently, I've barely had the chance to even read articles that could make their way to this weblog. Today, though, I saw a headline that was too provocative to pass up: Pelosi Invoked Fr. Hesburgh to Turn 'No' Health Bill Vote to 'Yes'.

This saddens, but doesn't surprise me. Though it is worse than I thought. The headline made me think she said something like "what would Fr. Hesburgh do?" but, it turns out, he actually was asked to make a phone call

Hesburgh was called in to persuade U.S. Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) to vote for the health care bill despite the vast expansion of abortion funding embedded in it. Donnelly had been a member of the group of Democrats led by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who opposed the bill without Hyde-amendment restrictions on abortion funding.
...

Elizabeth Shappell, Donnelly's press secretary, claims Hesburgh did not tell Donnelly how to vote but only advised him to "vote your conscience."

A well formed conscience should have been able to see clearly what the issues at hand were. In fact, it really would be the role of the episcopate and presbyteriate to help form the consciences of those considering this bill. There was no pressing need to pass this bill now, on that day, as it stood. After all, people weren't dying in the streets; the current system works, though perhaps imperfectly, and we thus should have done such a massive reform correctly, even if it took a little more time.

If only Fr. Hesburgh had forgotten all about the Land O' Lakes statement, and just told Congressman Donnelly to listen to the Bishops.

St. Fabian, Pope and Martyr

Today (January 20) is the feast of St. Fabian, Pope and Martyr. He's usually forgotten in the history books and even on the calendar, because people like St. Sebastian more. Pope Fabian was the 20th Pope, and probably my favorite ancient Pope (after Peter, of course). The Martyrologium Romanum states

At Rome, the birthday of St. Fabian, pope, who suffered martyrdom in the time of Decius, and was buried in the cemetery of Callistus.

Not much said, but there is much more to this interesting Saint. He was a layman when he was elevated to the Chair of Peter. In fact, he was a simple farmer. From the Catholic Encyclopedia

After the death of Anterus he had come to Rome, with some others, from his farm and was in the city when the new election began. While the names of several illustrious and noble persons were being considered, a dove suddenly descended upon the head of Fabian, of whom no one had even thought. To the assembled brethren the sight recalled the Gospel scene of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Saviour of mankind, and so, divinely inspired, as it were, they chose Fabian with joyous unanimity and placed him in the Chair of Peter.

The Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to tell us that there is a certain tradition that he instituted the minor orders. It could be St. Fabian we have to thank for the subdeaconate. He sent missionaries to Gaul. Overall, he was a well-liked Pope, I think. He condemned some heresies and did other such Popery.

He is an example for us all. He was not the only Pope to be elevated to the Papacy while still a layman, but he may have been the first (ignoring arguments about when Peter was selected first Pope and made a priest/bishop). Though he isn't especially "popular" among the Saints, evidenced by the fact that usually Sebastian's mass texts get said today, and that he has no official patronage. I, however, propose that he should be considered a patron of being open to the call of God, After all, he just came into Rome to catch some of the excitement of a Papal election (there had had been less than 20 ever). By being open to the grace of God, he came up to Rome a farmer, and ended up Bishop and Pope.

God our Father, glory of your priests,
may the prayers of your Martyr Fabian
help us to share his faith
and offer you loving service.
Grant this through Christ our Lord. Amen.

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.

Reform Group Not Catholic

A group using the name "Catholic" but seems to be advocating for things like the ordination of women is NOT part of the Catholic Church, so warns Archbishop Neinstedt of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.

The group, the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform (CCCR) is planning to hold a “synod” at an undisclosed location within the archdiocese on September 18, 2010. The theme will be “Claiming Our Place at the Table.”

On its website, the group explains its “Understanding of Church [sic]” as a “communion of communities” based upon “acceptance.” It professes support for the “fundamental equality of all members,” participation and collaboration, a “dialogical spirit” and a “Prophetic/prophetic sign.”

The website announces a “major fundraiser” for the “synod,” held in Lake Elmo, Minnesota on Thursday, with Maryknoll priest Fr. Roy Bourgeois. The announcement says he will share his perspective on “the social injustices within Roman Catholicism” and will offer a vision of the “emerging church.”

Last year Fr. Bourgeois was excommunicated for publicly dissenting from Catholic teaching by advocating the "ordination" of women.

He has described the “exclusion of women from the priesthood” as an injustice comparable to the injustice he has opposed in the School of the Americas, a controversial U.S. training program for Latin American military leaders. He has also compared Catholic teaching on women’s ordination to the segregation of African-Americans in his home state of Louisiana.

“Moreover, the Archdiocese wishes to lovingly caution those members of the faithful participating in the ‘work/study groups’ and intending to attend the synod of the potential that the issues on which CCCR will seek reform are magisterial teachings of the Church, and are therefore to be believed by divine and catholic faith,” the statement continued.

The archdiocese reminded the Catholic faithful that contrary doctrines ought to be shunned, while the faith and morals proposed “definitively” by the Magisterium of the Church should be embraced, safeguarded and expounded.

This is what Bishops need to do, unfortunately. In order to safeguard the faith, they must warn the faithful when there are others who claim the name of the Church, but teach things contrary to the Truth. I like how he specifically points out that these issues, at least some of them, have been definitively taught by the Magisterium.

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.

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.

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.

A Priest Responds

The news keeps coming, and so it would seem I keep posting.

A Franciscan priest who is a law professor here has spoken with Zenit (here) about the Hope he sees on campus. I will include some excerpts, but I encourage reading the article. My emphasis and [comments].

"At the same time," he said, "the university community has a responsibility to foster Catholic teaching especially when some aspects of this truth might be countercultural."

The priest acknowledged his concurrence with Bishop John D’Arcy of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, who gave a public statement Tuesday on his decision not to attend the university's graduation ceremony.

Father Coughlin explained: "This action on the part of the university is inconsistent with the rules established by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that prohibit honors from being bestowed by Catholic institutions on public figures who have clear records that are contrary to the Church's fundamental moral teaching. [This is really the point. Worthy or not, good rules or not, this is the direction which our Bishops have given to us, and we, the faithful, are to follow them. To do otherwise would be to erode our Catholic identity, which we are doing.]

"There can be no question that the inviolable dignity of each human person and the defense of innocent human life are fundamental to the Church's teaching. One who publically opposes in word and action this truth should not be honored by a Catholic university." [If he were a C.S.C. I would see if he could be made University President by popular acclimation.]
[...]
"I have been privileged to be a Franciscan priest on the faculty for the past seven years," the priest continued. "I offer Holy Mass at the university each day -- sometimes several times a day [I hope not more than twice] -- and hear Confessions daily in my office and once a week at the [university's] basilica -- where there are always long lines. [I can attest to that!]

"We have Eucharistic adoration daily, and I am always impressed by the large number of persons who regularly participate in this life-giving prayer."
[...]
He gave particular reference to the "vigorous commitment of so many members of the university community to the defense of innocent human life as evident of those who regularly participate in the rosary and other prayer outside of abortion clinics," or other pro-life activities.

"Indeed, my experience of the many Catholic persons and aspects of Notre Dame has left me with a realistic hope for the future of Catholicism in the United States," Father Coughlin concluded. "I thank God for this hope."

I also share in this hope. I do fear that as the Church descends more and more into decline in this country and elsewhere, that the numbers of the faithful will drop severely. However, I have encountered so many people here and elsewhere with such a fervency in their faith, that I know there will always be at least a faithful remnant. Plus, they will probably all have lots of kids.

This Franciscan, Fr. John Coughlin, is okay in my book.

Students Respond

The Observer, the student newspaper on campus, has had multiple pages of letters for and against the selection of President Obama as a commencement speaker and a recipient of an honorary law degree. Most recently, a coalition of student organizations on campus has formed a response, in the form of a letter to the University. The text follows with my emphasis.

In defense of the unborn, we wish to express our deepest opposition to Reverend John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.’s invitation of President Barack Obama to be the University of Notre Dame’s principal commencement speaker and the recipient of an honorary degree. Our objection is not a matter of political partisanship, but of President Obama’s hostility to the Catholic Church’s teachings on the sanctity of human life at its earliest stages. His recent dedication of federal funds to overseas abortions and to embryonic stem cell research will directly result in the deaths of thousands of innocent human beings. We cannot sit by idly while the University honors someone who believes that an entire class of human beings is undeserving of the most basic of all legal rights, the right to live.

The University’s decision runs counter to the policy of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops against honoring pro-choice politicians. In their June 2004 statement Catholics in Political Life, the bishops said, “The Catholic community and 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.” Fr. Jenkins defends his invitation by saying that it does not honor or suggest support for the President’s views on abortion, but rather support for his leadership. But our “fundamental moral principles” must be respected at all times. And the principle that requires us to refrain from the direct killing of the innocent has a special status even among the most fundamental principles. President Obama’s actions have consistently shown contempt for this principle, and he has sought political gain by making light of its clear political implications. Leadership that puts the lives of the most innocent at risk is leadership we must disdain. In the face of President Obama’s actions, Father Jenkins’ words ring hollow.

It is a great irony that the University has chosen to award President Obama an honorary law degree. As the oldest Catholic law school in the country, the Notre Dame Law School states that its mission is “to facilitate greater understanding of and commitment to the relationship between law and social justice.” The social justice issue of our day is the deliberate, legal attack on the most vulnerable members of society, the unborn. To award a Notre Dame law degree to a lawyer and politician who has used the law to deny equality to the unborn diminishes the value of the degree itself.

Additionally, Fr. Jenkins has placed some of his students in a moral dilemma as to whether they should attend their own graduation. Many pro-life seniors, along with their families, are conflicted about whether to participate in the commencement ceremony. The lack of concern for these devoted sons and daughters of Notre Dame, who love this University and the Catholic principles on which it was built, is shameful.

In response to the University’s decision, we pledge ourselves to acts of witness that will be characterized by respect, prayerfulness, outspoken fidelity to the Church, and true concern for the good of our University. It is appropriate that only members of the Notre Dame community lead all such protests, and we ask outside groups to respect our responsibilities in this regard. Over the next several weeks, in response to this scandal, our organizations will host various academic and religious events to engage the University community. We request any groups who are committed to respectful actions to support our efforts, thereby ensuring a unified front and a more compelling public witness.

In Notre Dame,

Notre Dame Right to Life
The Irish Rover Student Newspaper
Notre Dame College Republicans
The University of Notre Dame Anscombe Society
Notre Dame Identity Project
Militia of the Immaculata
Children of Mary
Orestes Brownson Council
Notre Dame Law School Right to Life
Notre Dame Law St Thomas More Society
The Federalist Society at Notre Dame Law School

Full disclosure demands I state that I am a member of the Notre Dame Right to Life. My only concern is that people will read the list, see the College Republicans on the list, and immediately dismiss it as a partisan action. I believe that very question was debated within the coalition, and it would seem they decided to include them as signers.

I do like that this group has formed, and that they are taking responsibility for the organized oposition to this. I don't understand how these concerns, of the students and of the Bishop would not have been considered by the administration in extending this invitation.

So says the Bishop

The statement of Bishop John M. D'Arcy (Fort Wayne-South Bend) has been made public. It is not yet posted on the website of the diocese, but I am sure it will appear here. [EDIT: Posted now] There is also a statement by Fr. Jenkins, CSC, President of Notre Dame here. I shall start with that, with emphasis and [comment] mine.

“Presidents from both parties have come to Notre Dame for decades to speak to our graduates – and to our nation and world – about a wide range of pressing issues – from foreign policy to poverty, from societal transformation to social service. We are delighted that President Obama will follow in this long tradition of speaking from Notre Dame on issues of substance and significance. [Doesn't is sound like he is trying to make this a political thing? It is true that being a Democrat doesn't disqualify you from honors by a Catholic institution, just as being a Republican doesn't qualify you, but it is actions, which Bishop D'Arcy has spoken to.]

We will honor Mr. Obama as an inspiring leader who faces many challenges [Germany once had an inspiring leader, does that automatically qualify him to be a commencement speaker to be honored?] – the economy, two wars, and health care, immigration and education reform – and is addressing them with intelligence, courage and honesty. It is of special significance that we will hear from our first African-American president, a person who has spoken eloquently and movingly about race in this nation. Racial prejudice has been a deep wound in America, and Mr. Obama has been a healer. [Tell that to the unborn of his race.]

Of course, this does not mean we support all of his positions. The invitation to President Obama to be our Commencement speaker should not be taken as condoning or endorsing his positions on specific issues regarding the protection of human life, [This is the old Faithful Citizenship dodge. This German leader I spoke of cleaned up the economy, and made the trains run on time, just because we disagree with some of his policies regarding human lives...] including abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Yet, we see his visit as a basis for further positive engagement."

I must say, I can't see how this is a "basis for further positive engagement." It is a basis for President Obama to speak to some impressionable youths, many of which have been caught up in the excitement of his charismatic rhetoric. They won't be there to tell him what it is that Catholics believe. This is what Cardinal George did not so long ago. His words will be all honey, and surely there won't be any direct dialogue.

It turns out that my suspicions about the foreknowledge of Bishop D'Arcy were correct. His statement follows.

On Friday, March 21, Father John Jenkins, CSC, phoned to inform me that President Obama had accepted his invitation to speak to the graduating class at Notre Dame and receive an honorary degree. We spoke shortly before the announcement was made public at the White House press briefing. It was the first time that I had been informed that Notre Dame had issued this invitation. [Shouldn't such a decision be made in consultaiton with the local ordinary? Perhaps I am wrong. As an aside comment, might I note that Bishop D'Arcy celebrated Mass on campus the evening before, on the patronal feast of the CSC brothers, the feast of St. Joseph. I may be wrong, but I bet they had dinner together and everything.]

President Obama has recently reaffirmed, and has now placed in public policy, his long-stated unwillingness to hold human life as sacred. While claiming to separate politics from science, he has in fact separated science from ethics and has brought the American government, for the first time in history, into supporting direct destruction of innocent human life. [The bishop has previously written on this.]

This will be the 25th Notre Dame graduation during my time as bishop. [He was installed in 1985, and is 76 years old.] After much prayer, I have decided not to attend the graduation. I wish no disrespect to our president, I pray for him and wish him well. I have always revered the Office of the Presidency. But a bishop must teach the Catholic faith “in season and out of season,” and he teaches not only by his words — but by his actions. [So must a University.]

My decision is not an attack on anyone, but is in defense of the truth about human life.

I have in mind also the statement of the U.S. Catholic Bishops in 2004. “The Catholic community and 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.” Indeed, the measure of any Catholic institution is not only what it stands for, but also what it will not stand for.

I have spoken with Professor Mary Ann Glendon, who is to receive the Laetare Medal. I have known her for many years and hold her in high esteem. We are both teachers, but in different ways. I have encouraged her to accept this award and take the opportunity such an award gives her to teach.

Even as I continue to ponder in prayer these events, which many have found shocking, so must Notre Dame. Indeed, as a Catholic University, Notre Dame must ask itself, if by this decision it has chosen prestige over truth. [He puts it better than I could have.]

Tomorrow, we celebrate as Catholics the moment when our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, became a child in the womb of his most holy mother. Let us ask Our Lady to intercede for the university named in her honor, that it may recommit itself to the primacy of truth over prestige.

Amen. I don't think the Bishop will be exercising any more veto power, however; there will likely be no formal sanctions. Let us not forget that he is already nearly two years past his mandatory retirement. This may be (we can hope) his last major fight with the University. I hope and pray that the Nuncio and the Pope are listening, perhaps the Congregation of Catholic Education is also paying attention. I hope whoever they put in will love the University enough to tell them when they have gone wrong.

Please join me in praying for Bishop D'Arcy.

Not a fan

I wish I would not have to be put into this position.

I am a graduate student at the University of Notre Dame. They recently announced that the school would be inviting President Obama to be a commencement speaker and to receive an honorary degree from the University. I am saddened to be put in the position of protest against my own institution, which pays my bills and gives me an education.

There are plenty of places where the Church, as the USCCB or the Vatican, has made it clear that those who are publicly repudiate absolute moral norms are not to be honored by Catholic Schools. John Paul II laid out some relevant canonical norms in the Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae (emphasis added):

Article 2. § 4. Catholic teaching and discipline are to influence all university activities, while the freedom of conscience of each person is to be fully respected(46). Any official action or commitment of the University is to be in accord with its Catholic identity.

Article 5. § 2. Each Bishop has a responsibility to promote the welfare of the Catholic Universities in his diocese and has the right and duty to watch over the preservation and strengthening of their Catholic character. If problems should arise conceming this Catholic character, the local Bishop is to take the initiatives necessary to resolve the matter, working with the competent university authorities in accordance with established procedures(52) and, if necessary, with the help of the Holy See.

Honorary degrees are official honors. Should we give official honors to a President who has started to spend tax dollars to kill the unborn in other countries? What about one who has pushed forward the possibility of removing all conscience exemptions? What about the President who has decided to fund research involving the killing of the unborn, rather than more successful research with less ethical problems?

There is a part of me that wants to overturn tables, another part that would settle on letter writing, and a third that would prudently avoid making waves, at least for now.

Perhaps I will be supported by Bishop D'Arcy. He has written on Ex Corde Ecclesiae and academic freedom here. His closing paragraph is just as timely now:

Notre Dame, with its vast resources, can do better than this. I believe it will. Its responsibility to its students and to the position it has attained in Catholic higher education calls it to do better.

I do believe that Our Lady watches over Notre Dame and I place this matter in her hands, the woman of faith so revered in this place. We need her prayers and the light of her Son, who is the Way, the Truth and the Light during these hours and always.

Bishop D'Arcy was on campus to celebrate Mass only Thursday, the day before this news broke. I can only imagine that if he didn't know about it at the time, he will certainly be speaking on this soon.

Bishops to Punt on First Down

The Religion News Service is reporting that the US Bishops have removed the planned discussion on the Political Support for Abortion from their upcoming meeting. This seems like exactly the wrong thing to do.

We are in the wake of what could be seen as the biggest political loss seen by the pro-life movement since Roe v. Wade. The Bishops acted surprisingly well, and many of them issued statements that were quite clear regarding the obligations of a Catholic voter especially as related to Abortion. They even corrected politicians such as Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Biden, when they publicly misrepresented the Faith.

This is not a time to give up. We lost the election, that has happened. Maybe we fumbled, and the culture of death was able to score a touchdown. But, we get the ball back and shouldn't be punting right now. With such prominent Catholics in positions of power (number 2 and 3 in the order of succession), the Bishops need to unite, and be the Shepherds they are supposed to be.

Our current system isn't working. Right now, the agreement reached by the USCCB puts the primary responsibility on the "home" Bishops of the Catholic Politicians. The Bishop of DC, for instance, then simply respects any agreements reached by the other Bishops. This arrangement has a couple fundamental flaws. First, there is no guidance, therefore no consistency, in applying, for instance Can. 915 (Those...who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.). Recourse to Rome, for instance Abp. Burke, would give the answer that voting pro-abortion is a sin which is 1) manifest and 2) grave. The agreement also potentially ties the hands of the DC Archbishop, who has the responsibility of preventing such scandal in his Diocese.

This is why we need to talk about it publicly. We need to get the Church's teachings out in the open. We need to be able to discuss this important issue in the open because it is so closely tied to our salvation. If some are led astray directly because of the nonintervention of the Bishops (undoubtedly there are some) then these Bishops will have to answer for this on Judgment day. When there is such a grave evil being supported, like Abortion, this is where the spiritual work of mercy "Admonish Sinners" comes in. The mission of the Church is nothing less than to get everyone into Heaven. And the Bishops, with their special mission to guard the faith and responsibility over their flock, are liable when they don't do all they can to fulfill that mission.

These are trying times, to be sure, and so we must be more vigilant and more faithful than ever. Our love of neighbor must drive us to do what we can to see all to Heaven. Learning what the Church teaches, and being told to follow would probably be a good start.

[EDIT Late Nov. 8 - My most recent post finds that this is indeed not the case, no agenda change is planned.]

Catholic college students rarely consistent

In a surprise news story (see here), it turns out the Catholic college students are inconsistent in their faith, by and large. I never would have guessed such a thing, not after seeing so many Obama shirts and buttons on students at a Catholic College. Obama stands for Hope, right? That's one of those virtues, right? Put your Hope in men, right?

The article is referring to students in Catholic Colleges, as opposed to Catholic students in College. Their survey results indicate that more than half of students on Catholic College campuses did not grow in their faith, or even decreased in faith.

About 64 percent of both Catholic groupings said they agreed that the fullness of God’s truth is found in the Catholic Church. Slightly more respondents, 67 percent of current Catholics and 69 percent of sacramentally-active Catholics, agreed that the communion bread and wine at Mass truly become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

In both groups, 61 percent agreed that women should be allowed to be ordained as Catholic priests.

Among all students at Catholic universities, 60 percent agreed that abortion should be legal, including about half of the Catholics. Similarly, 60 percent agreed that premarital sex “with someone you really care about” is not a sin, including slightly more than half of both Catholic groupings.

Further, 78 percent of all students disagreed that using a condom to prevent pregnancy is a serious sin, including 73 percent of current Catholics and 69 percent of the sacramentally active. Overall, about 57 percent agreed that same-sex marriage should be legal, including slightly more than half of current Catholics and slightly less than half of those sacramentally-active in college.

It would seem that the students are either not being formed properly in the faith, or otherwise they are coming in with no religious background in the first place. That half of the students identified as "sacramentally active" said abortion should be legal is quite a surprise to me. The numbers on morality weren't much better either. I never realized that the rates of premarital sex on Catholic campuses were as high as they seem to be. I might not have even guessed they were that high in secular schools. I am probably just naive.

There is hope in the last line, though:

The survey also found that those who were sacramentally-active, prayed frequently or did not regularly view pornography received higher grades.

It's a big picture thing. It is all interconnected. If you make sacrifices in the spiritual life, you are likely to make sacrifices in the secular life as well.