www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Number one supporter of abortions to speak at Notre Dame Commen..

The following is a statement by Bishop John Michael D'Arcy of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, in whose diocese the University of Notre Dame is located.


Source:
Bishop D’Arcy won't attend Notre Dame commencement featuring Obama. [catholicnewsagency.com]

I think that this was a very good statement.

[Linked Image]

I sent the note below to the President, Provost, and one office (can't recall the title) at Notre Dame University, South Bend, Indiana, USA

I urge all to send a similiar note. Zenit has a story and a link to explain the protests surrounding President Obama being invited to give the commencement speech at Notre Dame, and receive and Honorary Law Degree.

This is a copy of the email sent to the President of the University:

Sir,
How can you, in your office of president, and priest, give platform to one who has removed the last (though very small) hinderence to stem cell research; who is fully behind the FOCA legislation that will allow, unobstructed abortions; take away parental rights to protect their children from abortions and great health risks associated with abortion. The University can, and should engage in discussion of all these issues, but should absolutely not give platform to, or tacit agreement with any such people who support the murder of the unborn, and as well as others who are claimed to lack "personhood". While in full agreement with Hitler's and various communists policies, President Obama stands diametrically opposed to all that is Catholic/Christian.
In your offices, you stand not only to promote sin within yourself, but also to promote the sin of scandal. Scripture tells us that clergy is held to a high standard before God.
With the Love of Christ our God,
Steve,
recent convert to Catholicism - Byzantine Rite
Florida

While I fully appreciate the depth of conviction that seems to motivate many of those involved in this campaign, I seriously question the wisdom and prudence of their effort. Our Savior's example seems worth considering here: If Christ could share a table with sinners, and share the Eucharist itself with His betrayer, might not we, his sinful followers, share a platform with a man who has taken on the task of leading our Nation in these difficult times, even if he has espoused views with which we may profoundly disagree?

While I fully appreciate the depth of conviction that seems to motivate many of those involved in this campaign, I seriously question the wisdom and prudence of their effort. Our Savior's example seems worth considering here: If Christ could share a table with sinners, and share the Eucharist itself with His betrayer, might not we, his sinful followers, share a platform with a man who has taken on the task of leading our Nation in these difficult times, even if he has espoused views with which we may profoundly disagree?

It is one thing to lovingly accept and minister to sinners, but it is another thing to invite them as guest speakers and give them honorary degrees. I don't seem to remember our Lord inviting the Pharisaic leadership to come and preach to His disciples.

Borislav is right in my opinion. Allowing Obama to speak is akin to John Kerry and others who run around getting their photos taken receiving communion and chumming it up with the Catholic Priests and hierarchy. It's a political ploy to make people think "mmm, his views much not be that bad, I mean, the Archbishop shook his hand and smiled".
Obama is more than welcome to debate, discuss, and otherwise engage in an exchange. Giving him such an homor as being the key commencement speaker of a notable Catholic instituion is beyond the pale.
I'm sure we'd be more than happy to have dinner at the White House with Pelosi, Schumann, Waxman, and Reid, and discuss life the universe and everything. Or at my house. But not at this venue, in this manner.
I appreciate what Tim wrote, but we are not directed to sell people the rope with which to hang ourselves.
-Steve

He shared the table with them, and spoke to them.

He didn't interrupt the Sermon on the Mount to invite the sinners to address the crowd . . .

hawk

To the contrary, I think that a Catholic university is the very place where we should not be afraid to engage with those with whom we disagree, however profoundly, about moral issues. I also think that it is possible, and appropriate, to honor the good in people with whom we disagree on such issues, especially when those people are not of the Household of the Faith. I think that the decision of some to absent themselves from the commencement is unwise, not in keeping with the spirit of a great university, and an ineffective means of expressing the teaching of the Church on life issues. I fear it may harm the Church and not advance the pro-life cause.

But they are not going to engage him in a discussion. They are honoring him by allowing him to speak at commencement and are giving him an honorary degree. That is not engagement. That's groveling.

CDL

A friend emailed me this:

WITHOUT A DOUBT

My Interview with President Obama

Posted Feb 12, 2009

BY BISHOP THOMAS J. TOBIN

(The following is an interview I didn't have, but can imagine having, with President Obama.)

BISHOP TOBIN: First of all, Mr. President, congratulations on your election and inauguration. They were certainly historic events that inspired a renewed sense of unity and hope for many Americans.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you, Bishop Tobin. Yes, the goal of my campaign and election was to bring people together, to heal the divisions of the recent past and to inspire new hope for all the citizens of our great country.

TOBIN: I think we'd all agree that your goals of unity and hope are very worthwhile. But for that very reason, many of us were surprised, and even disappointed, that you signed an executive order overturning the so-called "Mexico City Policy" within the first few days of your administration. As you know, your action directs that American tax dollars be used to fund abortions overseas. Why did you have to act so quickly on such a controversial policy?

OBAMA: Well, I believe it was important for me to fulfill the campaign promises I made to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. After all, they're among my biggest supporters and I don't want to disappoint them.

TOBIN: But the use of tax dollars to pay for abortions is very controversial. It's a divisive policy. It violates the conscience of millions of Americans who respect life and oppose abortion. Isn't that completely contrary to your goal of fostering unity in the nation?

OBAMA: Bishop Tobin, let's be clear. I said in my inauguration speech that with all the problems our nation is facing we have to overcome narrow ideological positions and move beyond childish behaviors.

TOBIN: But, Mr. President, providing tax money to support abortion - isn't that in itself an ideological position?

OBAMA: No, not in my view.

TOBIN: But do you consider the heartfelt convictions of pro-lifers to be "childish behaviors?"

OBAMA: Well, not exactly, but let's move on . . .

TOBIN: Is it safe to assume that you consider the use of tax dollars to pay for abortions overseas to be good foreign policy?

OBAMA: I believe that people overseas should have the same rights we Americans have - the right to kill their children and use abortion as a form of birth control.

TOBIN: But shouldn't we be using foreign aid for more positive reasons - for example, to provide food, clothing, shelter and medicine to impoverished children?

OBAMA: Bishop, obviously you're missing the point. If you control the population and eliminate the children, you don't have to worry about giving them food, clothing, shelter and medicine now do you?

TOBIN: Mr. President, during the campaign you said that you wanted to reduce the number of abortions. And yet now you're providing American tax dollars to encourage abortions overseas. Isn't that a contradiction?

OBAMA Let me be clear. During the campaign, I was talking about American babies. People in other countries have to make their own decisions about killing their children, and if that's what they want to do, I'm willing to help them. But let's move on . . .

TOBIN: Sir, you've taken a very strong stance against the use of torture, a decision that's been widely applauded. But at the same time, some scientific studies have shown that the procedures used in abortion cause terrible pain and suffering for the unborn child. Isn't that a form of torture too?

OBAMA: Um . . . let me get back to you on that.

TOBIN: Mr. President, there's a very good chance that during your term in office you'll have the opportunity to appoint new justices to the Supreme Court. When that opportunity comes, will you use the support of abortion as a litmus test for their appointment?

OBAMA: I don't believe in litmus tests for court appointments. But you can rest assured that no one who respects the right to life for unborn children will get anywhere near the Supreme Court.

TOBIN: Mr. President, don't you see the contradiction in what you just said?

OBAMA: No I don't, but please . . . can't we just move on?

TOBIN: Alright, then let's get to the heart of the question. Mr. President, when does life begin?

OBAMA: That question, Bishop, is way above my pay grade.

TOBIN: Mr. President, you have a consistent record of supporting abortion, and you've been called the most pro-abortion president ever. In light of your radical pro-abortion stance, can you and your administration give any hope at all to pro-life Americans?

OBAMA: To quote my favorite campaign slogan, "Yes we can."

TOBIN: Can you be more specific?

OBAMA: No I can't. But, Bishop Tobin I see that the clock is ticking away and our time is up. Unfortunately we'll have to wrap-up our interview.

TOBIN: Thank you for your time Mr. President, and happy Presidents Day.

OBAMA: Thank-you, Bishop Tobin. And please extend my appreciation to all my friends in Rhode Island who voted for me.

http://thericatholic.com/stories/1894.html


WITHOUT A DOUBT
Jesus Wasn't Always Nice
Posted Mar 26, 2009



BY BISHOP THOMAS J. TOBIN

Jesus wasn't always nice. I had to remember that in responding to some letters I received from readers who were disappointed by my recent article, My Interview with President Obama. Some folks didn't like the rhetorical device I employed, namely the fictional interview I composed. Others felt that I was too hard on the President when I criticized him for using tax dollars to fund abortion overseas. They said that I was not being charitable as Jesus would have been.
For example, one letter writer complained that I presented the President as a clown. "I resent the insult to our President," she said. One of my fans from Ohio wrote, "Wow! The venom really drips on this [column] . . . Easy to blast away from the comfort and security of your cemetery hermitage . . . What did you expect to accomplish?" And a third instructed me that "the Bible teaches us to love and pray for our enemies and to turn the other cheek and not attack them . . . Charity is patient and kind. It is not arrogant or rude."
First I should note that I am seldom offended by people criticizing the things I've written. Inspiring healthy dialogue in the Church is one of the goals of my columns. I hope, though, that critics can always distinguish between my personal opinions and the essential teachings of the Church which, as Catholics they are obliged to accept.
I do find it intriguing, though, that the critics of the Obama column were more offended by my writing than the fact that the President is using their tax dollars to destroy unborn children. (And now to engage in the destruction of human embryos in stem cell research.) But it still seems to me that if the President's anti-life actions don't stir up moral outrage in you, nothing will; if they don't offend your conscience, you need a conscience transplant, my friend.
The other premise of my critics seems to be that because we are Christians we should never be angry or challenge others. We should always be charitable, tolerant, kind and nice, they suggest. After all, isn't that what Jesus would do?
Well, in fact, no. The Gospels are very clear that in confronting moral evil Jesus wasn't at all nice or kind. We usually think of Jesus as a prophet of peace, and indeed He was. But His preaching also created bitter controversy and division. "I have come to set the earth on fire . . . Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." (Lk 12: 49, 51)
Think of Jesus cleansing the Temple, an incident recorded in all four Gospels. Jesus entered the Temple angrily, confronted the merchants and money-changers, made a whip out of cords, drove them away and upset their tables and booths. Doesn't sound too charitable to me!
Jesus railed against the towns of Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum for their lack of faith, and predicted a terrible judgment day for those towns. "You will go down the netherworld," He warned. (Mt 11: 23) Doesn't sound too charitable to me!
And of course there's Jesus' withering condemnation of the Scribes and Pharisees. He repeatedly called them hypocrites. He described them as "blind guides . . . whitewashed tombs . . . serpents . . . brood of vipers . . . and murderers." (Cf. Mt, Chapter 23) Doesn't sound too charitable to me!
There are other examples, but you get the point. In confronting moral evil, Jesus wasn't nice, kind, gentle and sweet. He lived in a rough and tumble world and He took His message to the streets. He was a fearless prophet who spoke the truth sometimes with harsh and angry language. Jesus' condemnations infuriated public officials and religious leaders, so much so that they were determined to kill Him. And indeed they did.
In using condemnatory language was Jesus being "uncharitable?" Of course not. It was precisely because He loved people, because He was concerned for their salvation, that He spoke the truth, that He condemned their immoral, sinful behavior.
And that should be the mission of the Church today. Sometimes as Catholics we're hesitant to challenge the immoral behavior of others, including public officials, because we don't want to appear judgmental or uncharitable. Our society urges us to be "tolerant" of other people and their behavior, even if it's objectively wrong. But it's precisely because we love others that we should never tolerate immoral behavior. As Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver has written so well, "Tolerance is not an end in itself, and tolerating or excusing grave evil in a society is itself a grave evil . . . And it is not a Christian virtue." (Render Unto Caesar, p. 145-146)
If the language in my article about President Obama's funding of abortions seemed harsh and offensive, so be it. It has nothing to do with my personal attitude about the man. Admittedly I'm not a fan, but as I've written before, I pray for him and his fine family and I wish him well. As a religious leader, though, charged with carrying on the prophetic mission of Christ, I have the right, and in fact the duty, to challenge his immoral actions. I do so because Christian charity requires me to do so, because I love my country and I believe in the sanctity of human life. As St. Paul said, "Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel." (I Cor 9:16)

http://thericatholic.com/stories/2011.html

Nor did HE give them "honorary certificates of apostleship".

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=93446

Is Notre Dame still Catholic?

by Patrick Buchanan

By inviting Barack Obama to deliver the commencement address and receive an honorary degree at Notre Dame, the Rev. John Jenkins has polarized the Catholic community nationwide – and raised a question. What does it mean to be a Catholic university in post-Christian America?

Are there truths about faith and morality that are closed to debate at Notre Dame? Or is Notre Dame like London's Hyde Park, where all ideas and all advocates get a hearing?

To Catholics, abortion is the killing of an unborn child, a premeditated breach of God's Commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill." The case is closed for all time. Any who participate in an abortion are excommunicated. Catholic politicians from Nancy Pelosi to Joe Biden who support a "woman's right to choose" have been denounced from pulpits and denied Communion.

Obama, however, is the most pro-abortion president ever. On his third day in office, by executive order, he repealed the Bush prohibition against using tax dollars to fund agencies abroad that perform abortions.

He supports partial-birth abortion, where a baby's soft skull is sliced open with scissors in the birth canal and its brains sucked out to ease its passage, a procedure Sen. Pat Moynihan said "comes as close to infanticide as anything I have seen in our judiciary."

In the Illinois Legislature, Obama helped block the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, a bill to save the lives of infant survivors of abortion. He voted to allow doctors and nurses to let these tiny babies die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste.

Barack is committed to signing the Freedom of Choice Act, which would repeal every federal and state restriction on abortion. He has smoothed the path for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

Notre Dame, a university that teaches that all innocent human life is sacred, will thus honor a leader determined to ensure that a woman's right to destroy her unborn child in the womb remains unrestricted.

There is thus a direct clash between what Notre Dame professes to stand for and what Notre Dame is doing.

Says Ralph McInerny, a philosophy professor since 1955: "By inviting Barack Obama to be the 2009 commencement speaker, Notre Dame has forfeited its right to call itself a Catholic University. ... (T)his is a deliberate thumbing of the collective nose at the Roman Catholic Church to which Notre Dame purports to be faithful.

"Faithful? Tell it to Julian the Apostate."

McInerny calls Father Jenkins' invitation to Obama worse than the "usual effort of the university to get into warm contact with the power figures of the day. It is an unequivocal abandonment of any pretense at being a Catholic university."

An honorary degree, writes Catholic author George Weigel, is a statement that here is a man we should admire and emulate. But how can a Catholic university say that about a man who means to appoint Supreme Court justices who will keep constitutional and legal the systematic slaughter of the unborn that has taken 50 million lives in 35 years?

Can Father Jenkins not see the contradiction here that renders Notre Dame a morally incoherent institution?

Diocesan Bishop John D'Arcy of Fort Wayne-South Bend has told Father Jenkins he will not be attending commencement because of Obama's support of embryonic stem cell research.

Said the bishop, "While claiming to separate policies from science, (Obama) 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."

Pope Benedict has yet to be heard from. But on his visit to the United States, he declared that any appeal to academic freedom "to justify positions that contradict the faith and teaching of the church would obstruct or even betray the university's identity and mission."

Does not honoring the most visible pro-abortion advocate in America "betray the identity and mission" of Notre Dame?

Father Jenkins says the invitation "should not be taken as condoning or endorsing his positions on specific issues regarding the protection of human life."

But what Notre Dame is saying with this invitation is that Obama's 100 percent support for policies and programs that bring death to more than a million unborn children every year is no disqualification to being honored by a university dedicated to Our Lady who carried to term the Son of God.

Chris Carrington, a political science major, regards the opposition to Obama's appearance as un-Catholic: "To not allow someone here because of their beliefs would seem a little hypocritical and contradictory to what the mission of the university and church should be."

The obtuse Carrington has stumbled on the relevant question: Is Notre Dame still a repository, teacher and exemplar of eternal truths about God and Man, right and wrong, whose mission is to convey and defend those truths in a hostile world?

Or has Notre Dame joined the secularists in their endless scavenger hunt to seek and find truth in the marketplace of ideas?

Is Notre Dame still a Catholic University?

My vote is NO.