|
2 members (Hutsul, 1 invisible),
352
guests, and
90
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,506
Posts417,454
Members6,150
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405 |
According to His Eminence Francis Cardinal George, Metropolitan Archbishop of Chicago and President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, "it is clear that Notre Dame didn't understand what it means to be Catholic when they issued this invitation." Well said, your Eminence! Exclusive: President of US Bishops Conference: Notre Dame Obama Invite an "Extreme Embarassment"By Kathleen GilbertNOTRE DAME, Indiana, March 31, 2009 ( LifeSiteNews.com [ lifesitenews.com]) - Speaking as the head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, this weekend Cardinal Francis George of Chicago said that the University of Notre Dame's decision to host and honor President Obama at their commencement ceremony this year was an "extreme embarrassment" to Catholics. "Whatever else is clear, it is clear that Notre Dame didn't understand what it means to be Catholic when they issued this invitation," George told the crowd at a conference Saturday on the Vatican document Dignitatis Personae. The conference was hosted by the Chicago archdiocese's Respect Life office and Office for Evangelization at the Marriott O'Hare hotel. In a video obtained by LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) today, Cardinal George prefaced his remarks by noting that as USCCB president he does not have jurisdiction or authority over other bishops, but nonetheless has "some moral authority, without any kind of jurisdiction or any sort of real authority." "As president of the U.S. bishops' conference I have to precisely speak for the bishops and not in my own name, as I could as Archbishop of Chicago," he added. George said he had spoken with the administrative committee of the bishops' conference and corresponded with University president Fr. John Jenkins several times on the issue. "That conversation will continue .... whether or not it will have some kind of consequence that will bring, I think, the University of Notre Dame to its [the USCCB's] understanding of what it means to be Catholic," said the Cardinal. "That is, when you're Catholic, everything you do changes the life of everybody else who calls himself a personal Catholic - it's a network of relationships. "So quite apart from the president's own positions, which are well known, the problem is in that you have a Catholic university - the flagship Catholic university - do something that brought extreme embarrassment to many, many people who are Catholic," said the cardinal. "So whatever else is clear, it is clear that Notre Dame didn't understand what it means to be Catholic when they issued this invitation, and didn't anticipate the kind of uproar that would be consequent to the decision, at least not to the extent that it has happened," said George. The Cardinal urged concerned Catholics "to do what you are supposed to be doing: to call, to email, to write letters, to express what's in your heart about this: the embarrassment, the difficulties." However, Cardinal George emphasized that the U.S. presidency "is an office that deserves some respect, no matter who is holding it," and said that Notre Dame would not disinvite the president, since "you just don't do that (disinvite the president of the United States)." According to the cardinal requests to revoke the invitation would fall on deaf ears, but he also observed that there is legitimate potential to organize some form of protest at the ceremony. "You have to sit back and get past the immediate moral outrage and say, 'Now what's the best thing to do in these circumstances?'" said the Cardinal. "I can assure you the bishops are doing that." Cardinal George is the ninth U.S. bishop to speak out against the scandal. [ lifesitenews.com]
Last edited by Latin Catholic; 03/31/09 04:24 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396 |
The point you make (The execution of a convicted killer can in no way be compared to an extinguishing of a innocent life in abortion...) shows the weakest link in Pat's argument. The issue is the word innocent. Pat argued strongly that every one who was put to death was obviously guilty. The problem is that, in recent years, dna evidence has shown many men/women convicted of a capital crime were really not guilty. You have all heard the argument that better a guilty man go free than the innocent be convicted. Based on this point alone, you can compare correctly in my judgment executions with abortions. Look at the number of wrongly convicted of capital crimes in Cook County, Illinois over the years. One cannot logically be consistent unless you opposed capital punish and abortion. In a word, you cannot oppose abortion if you don't oppose the death penalty too. Of course, it becomes a non-issue if the death penalty is taken off the books throughout the nation. Remember the US, among other things, bears the dubious distinction of being one of the few so-called civilized, industrial nations that still employs capital punishment. If one supports the concept of capital punishment, he or she can be accused of being a proponent of death, a phrase used in another thread currently receiving a lot of attention on this board. I guess, on reflection, such an individual could take solace in the fact that he or she shares this honor with some high-ranking people in our government.
Last edited by johnzonaras; 04/10/09 03:17 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,760 Likes: 29
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,760 Likes: 29 |
Two points:
1. I disagree with John Z. You can't compare the execution of innocents via abortion or other forms of euthanasia to capital punishment. They are not morally equivalent. Abortion and other forms of euthanasia purposely terminate innocent life. They are murder. Capital punishment intends to terminate non-innocent life. Mistakes do happen and they are horrible but unless the State purposely executed someone it knew was innocent then it is not the moral equivalence of murder (as is abortion and other forms of euthanasia).
2. I do not know the status of the legislation, but in Virginia the legislature was considering legislation to limit the use of capital punishment to those cases where there was absolute dna proof and/or a confession. That would mean life in prison for most others. That is very reasonable. The State should take every measure to ensure someone who is to be executed for a capital crime is actually guilty. Failure on this would be morally wrong but not the equivalent of purposely executing the innocent through abortion and euthanasia.
And a further point on the original topic. President Obama should not have been invited to speak at the Notre Dame graduation because of his open opposition to Catholic Teaching. Graduations are a time for celebrations and honors and his positions especially on life issues are nothing to celebrate or honor. He most certainly could have been invited in another context - like a debate or a dialogue in which he could present his position and someone who is Catholic could present correct positions based in theology and the natural law. The issue is not of his making but the making of Notre Dame. And the invitation should be politely withdrawn.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396 |
John, my comments were not addressed to the visit at Notre Dame but to the quality of Buchannon's argument. Although you may be formally correct tnat the linkage between the issue of abortion and capital punishment is weak, the media and many Catholics and the public do. I urge you to watch the video. Many Catholics (whether it is right or wrong is another issue) agree with the position taken by Mike Barnacle in the piece. I myself think the debate was a draw. There were also some strong negative commentary about those on those on both extremes of the issue (in the next segment of the program) There was no clear objective winner unless you were disposed to one position or another.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
|
|
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1 |
The issue is the word innocent. Pat argued strongly that every one who was put to death was obviously guilty. The problem is that, in recent years, dna evidence has shown many men/women convicted of a capital crime were really not guilty. JohnZ, Always good to hear from you! I agree completely that Buchannan's reliance on this argument hurt the credibility of his position significantly. If he really believes what he is saying here, he is extremely naive with regard to both the realities of American jurisprudence and human nature itself. One cannot logically be consistent unless you opposed capital punish and abortion. In a word, you cannot oppose abortion if you don't oppose the death penalty too. Here, I would have to disagree. Not because I favor the death penalty--I don't--but because of the historical fact that for 2,000 years the Church clearly has always opposed abortion, but just as clearly has not opposed the death penalty. While we might look at the cases where numerous saints have called for leniency and pardon for condemned men through the centuries, it is important to note that this does not constitute opposition to the death penalty per se. That this is hypocritical I freely concede, but I submit that it is equally hypocritical to act as if opposition to the death penalty has always been the Church's position, when it clearly has not. In other words, it is history, not logic, that puts the capital punishment issue on an entirely separate plane from the abortion issue. Peace, Deacon Richard
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,133
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,133 |
"you cannot oppose abortion if you don't oppose the death penalty too"
I disagree with you very strongly on the issue. As John said, the executions of convicted murderers is intended to not only to punish a murderer, but to also protect others from future heinous acts of the deranged individual.
Finally the death penalty in itself often leads the condemned to true repentance. I know I am on a slippery slope here, but I would argue that very often an individual faced with certain death will turn back to God and truly repent. Think about the thief who died on the right side of the Christ. Another such example is given in The Idiot by Dostoevsky where the writer recounts his own near death experience by injecting it as a side story told by the Prince.
I know I am on a slippery slope with the above argument, however it has been made by many Orthodox Bishops. One example of such can be found in the Tale of Bygone Years written by St. Nestor. We actually learn that St. Volodymir the Great abolished the death penalty in his state and the Greek Bishops had to beg him to execute some of the worst criminals so as to protect the innocent.
Clearly with abortion and or euthenasia no such moral or ethical comparative example can be made.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,760 Likes: 29
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,760 Likes: 29 |
One cannot logically be consistent unless you opposed capital punish and abortion. In a word, you cannot oppose abortion if you don't oppose the death penalty too. I commented on this in my previous post, but should have addressed this particular statement. Simply put, it is not supported by Catholic Teaching. The Church opposes abortion and euthanasia because it is the taking of innocent life - murder. The Church does not oppose the death penalty on those grounds. Indeed, it acknowledges that the State has the right to execute for certain capital crimes. It instead opposes capital punishment on the appeal of mercy, and even recognizes that individual Catholics may still support the use of capital punishment. It is not a binding teaching as is the teaching on abortion and euthanasia. The teaching and logic presented by the Church does not support what John Z has offered here. It is not logical to place the murder of an innocent life on the same moral plane as the execution of a life that has freely chosen to engage in crimes resulting in the forfeiture of life. As to what most Catholics believe, it is irrelevant. One must look to what the Church teaches to find out what is true.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396 |
Epiphanius, good to hear from you also. I am not sure how many people had seen the video the good deacon referenced or whether they are shooting from the hip. IF THE LATTER, THEY SHOULD WATCH THE VIDEO BEFORE COMMENTING ON IT. In any case, Pat and Larry go back and forth on the issues. In some cases, they both same to invoke the linkage and sometimes they do not. The whole discussion seemed to me to be wildly out of control and Mike Barnacle wisely stayed out of it. I find I agree with him. In any case, both Larry and Pat -- in my judgment--wanted it both ways. Although I agree with Barnacle, I was not stating my position on the Notre Dame Issue. As a Professor of Classics and Philosophy, I was only commenting on the arguments made and nothing else. I would note that Larry (and I think Pat too) was invoking alleged positions of the RCC on capital punishment(I'm a member of the EOC) which were at variance with the of some of those here. Both men invoked absolutes on the issue, when as you note, the issue is more equivocal. I understand your historical argument, but I do not accept it. Your comments about hypocrisy on this issue defeat it as far as I am concerned. The actual video can be found at ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#30144080). The comments that follow are more interesting in the commentary on the importance of the whole issue and its importance to the electorate as whole beyond the rarified atmosphere of this blog. These comments may well surprise many of the readers of this thread.( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#30143781)
Last edited by johnzonaras; 04/10/09 04:31 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,036 Likes: 4
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,036 Likes: 4 |
The execution of a convicted killer can in no way be compared to an extinguishing of a innocent life in abortion. No, it can't: our courts would never permit the forms of execution used on an unborn child to be used on a murderer . . .  hawk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405 |
I am pleased to see that Richard V. Allen has written an op-ed piece in the New York Times arguing with conviction that Pres. Obama does not merit an honorary doctorate of law from a Catholic university: "Degrees of Acceptance at Notre Dame." [ nytimes.com] What you stand for as a person and as a politician matters when you are considered for an honorary degree; Pres. Obama, with his pro-abortion record, stands for something that the Catholic Church staunchly opposes, Allen argues. Therefore, no honorary degree for Pres. Obama. However, since Allen also argues that "Notre Dame provides a great photo op and seal of approval for any elected official," I don't understand how he can suggest that Pres. Obama should still be giving the commencement address. Perhaps Allen is hoping that if Pres. Obama doesn't get his honorary degree, he won't be coming at all?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Quick question: Do honorary degrees really mean anything? I've never taken them seriously.
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
|
|
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1 |
Joe, I'm sure that some honorary degrees don't mean very much, but--at least theoretically--the conferring of such a degree is meant to imply that the accomplishments of the individual receiving it are so great that the university would be honored if one of their PhD graduates had accomplished as much. It is a way of showing the highest degree of honor and of going on record as fully supporting the recipient in his or her endeavors. I read this whole thing as the ND president trying to leverage Obama's popularity and the fact that he was supported by a large number of Catholics to further distance Catholicism in America from the Pro-Life movement. Peace, Deacon Richard
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Joe, I'm sure that some honorary degrees don't mean very much, but--at least theoretically--the conferring of such a degree is meant to imply that the accomplishments of the individual receiving it are so great that the university would be honored if one of their PhD graduates had accomplished as much. It is a way of showing the highest degree of honor and of going on record as fully supporting the recipient in his or her endeavors. I read this whole thing as the ND president trying to leverage Obama's popularity and the fact that he was supported by a large number of Catholics to further distance Catholicism in America from the Pro-Life movement. Peace, Deacon Richard Father deacon, Thanks for the clarification. Would it be possible to invite someone to be a commencement speaker and not honor him with an honorary degree? Or would that be bad form? Joe
|
|
|
|
|
