Bishop D’Arcy won't attend Notre Dame commencement featuring Obama (Boycott Alert!)

Fort Wayne, Ind., Mar 24, 2009 / 12:52 pm (CNA).- Bishop John M. D'Arcy has issued a statement saying that he won't be attending Notre Dame's commencement exercises, which will feature President Obama as the keynote speaker and honor him with a doctor of laws degree.

Concerning President Barack Obama speaking at Notre Dame
graduation, receiving honorary law degree

March 24, 2009 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.

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.

This will be the 25th Notre Dame graduation during my time as bishop. 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.

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.

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.

Dear Houghton M.,

“But given that Ex corde ecclesia EXPLICITLY grants autonomy to Catholic universities as far as the management of their ‘university-ness’ is concerned, for the bishop to revoke the priestly faculties of Holy Cross priests as a penalty for the university’s decision about an honorary doctorate would, in canon law, I think, be rather dubious.”

I disagree. Revoking faculties, etc., is very much of a piece with declaring the university to no longer be Catholic. It is a way of saying, “We withdraw our association with you. We wish you the best as you continue on without us, but you are no longer a part of us. You are a cesspool, a den of iniquity, and you no longer have anything to do with the Church of Jesus Christ.”

In that it is a Catholic university that is honoring the most pro-baby-murdering person ever to achieve office in the history of the United States of America, it would not be inappropriate for the bishop to pronounce the entire university no longer Catholic in any way, and to state that it would be a sacrilege for the sacraments to be offered in such a polluted, unholy place. He could say that it would be like offering Mass in a whorehouse.

“In the old days (Middle Ages), where the entire population were baptized Catholics, the interdict could be used this way.”

The bishop still has the capacity to put folks under interdict.

In none of these actions, the revocation of faculties, the revocation of permission to say public Masses, and selective interdicts, is the bishop asserting any right to run the university. He is merely making clear in his actions that the university is no longer a Catholic one, and is so far removed from and so hostile to Catholicism, that extraordinary means are required to let the perpetrators know, and also to let others know, that, if they wish to protect their souls, they should stay away.

sitetest

No, the bishop’s relationship with priests in his diocese, esp. with priests under the authority of a religious order, is not the same as his relationship with a Catholic university in his diocese. To punish priests (and the faithful whom they pastor) for the university’s actions is incommensurate. Before he did that, he would be more justified in excommunicating the Catholic administrators responsible for the offensive actions.

Of course the bishop still has authority to interdict. I did not dispute that. I disputed its effectiveness in a secularized culture. Indeed, it was not always effective in the Middle Ages.

Sure, the bishop has these powers. The bishop has the power of the nuclear option. You misread my argument if you think I deny he has this authority.

I just tried to point out the likely outcome of exercising them.

You did not dispute my claim that he has no direct authority to intervene in university governance. Instead, you came out with another exercise of his sacramental authority, which I outlined in some detail in the post to which you were responding. He has more direct control over sacramental, liturgical and catechetical functions than he does over academic or even dorm life. And when the priests administering the sacraments and doing catechesis are religious order priests, even his sacramental and liturgical authority, though real, is indirect.

My original point stands and you have reinforced its truth: the university is not under diocesan control in any direct sense so far as university-ness is concerned. Its self-description as a Catholic university is under the bishop’s control as is its sacramental life. But for a bishop to take away priests’ faculties to administer sacraments as a means to get at the policies of the university board of trustees is (1) canonically dubious and (2) practically imprudent.

Dear Houghton M.,

“Have you been following Bishop D’Arcy for the past five years?”

No, I looked only at the (weak) action of this bishop concerning the abomination of giving an honorary degree to a baby-murderer.

“...we are not supposed to engage in rash judgment.”

Unless you tell me that he is likely to start revoking faculties - especially of the pseudo-Catholic president-priest - forbidding public Masses and interdicting various folks, it would seem that I haven't engaged in rash judgment but rather have correctly noted that the bishop will not perform these actions.

“Like Martino in Scranton, he’s PUBLICLY admonishing the school.”

Bishop Martino's words have been far clearer and far more to the point than what Bishop D'Arcy has said here so far. What's more, Bishop Martino has explicitly told the university in question that they should dissolve their “Diversity Institute.” As well, Bishop Martino has told the school to provide detailed information supporting the assertion that they teach Catholic faith. Although he can't force the school to do much of anything - you're right about that, he has laid out a specific course of remedial action as part of his vocation as pastor of his flock at the university.

“It’s not for you or me to decide when that line has been crossed or to prejudge the bishop’s guts.”

Sorry, I can no longer agree with that. Fifty million baby murders later, it's well past time for the bishops to have acted. Frankly, their failure to act with courage, boldness and decency has dramatically exacerbated and deepened the problem of abortion in this country. They share the guilt of the blood of the unborn in their sins of omission over the last three and a half decades.

I'm not judging, I'm observing. I observe that Catholic politicians believe that there are no consequence to endorsing baby murder, even Catholic PRIESTS believe that there are no consequences, either. And guess what? They are very nearly completely correct. One can count on one hand the number of bishops who have publicly disciplined pro-death Catholic politicians and Catholic priests who run Catholic-affiliated entities who have done so in a pro-death manner.

“As I pointed out in other comments, he only has one real weapon in his arsenal—the nuclear option.”

As I pointed out, he has several other options, including temporary revocation of faculties of priests, temporary banning of public Masses, and interdict against select persons (including, if appropriate, any boards of trustees, faculty senates, etc.). These are a step below the truly nuclear option of announcing that Notre Dame is no longer affiliated in any sense with the Catholic Church.

“We ought not be REMF’s...”

I don't know what an REMF is. Sorry I'm not up on the lingo.

“Instead, aim your ire at the board of trustees, the donors etc. Find out who they are and let them have both barrels.”

I'm not aiming any fire at anyone. I'm merely commenting on these current events. I haven't fired off any nasty notes to the bishop, and likely will not to the president, the trustees, or anyone else. I'm disgusted, and as a long-time member of FR and of the Catholic Caucus, I feel free to express my disgust in this open forum.

The only thing I count on from the bishops is that when they teach in union with the Holy See, they teach what is true. Jesus told us that we are to obey what they teach “from the Chair of Moses,” but otherwise not to emulate them. Sadly, it appears that most of our bishops are part-time Catholics and full-time Democrats. It is not for nothing that it is said that the floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.

sitetest

“n none of these actions, the revocation of faculties, the revocation of permission to say public Masses, and selective interdicts, is the bishop asserting any right to run the university. He is merely making clear in his actions that the university is no longer a Catholic one,”

No. Bishops routinely delegate facultied priests to make sure the sacraments are available to students at non-Catholic universities. Even if the bishop were to trigger the nuclear option and declare Notre Dame unCatholic, he would be wrong to, as a consquence of that finding of fact, to deny the sacraments to Catholics on campus by revoking faculties of priests on campus. The link you try to establish just won’t bear the weight you put on it.

For God’s sake, focus your anger at the UNIVERSITY, its trustees, its faculty, its administrators, its donors.

I get so damned tired of Catholics who think that if bishops just pulled the right strings all would be well.

Yes, bishops failing to pull the right strings 30 years ago, failing to discipline when it would have had an effect, are to blame for the situation we are in now.

But having gotten into this situation, bishops cannot get us out of it and this fantasy that all they have to do is say the word and we shall be made whole is detrimental to the cause you serve.

D’Arcy has done more than most bishops. It remains to be seen what he will do when this gets tossed back in his face. But regardless of that, the real problem with Catholic universities today is that there just does not exist a large enough pool of Catholics who care about these issues to make a difference. Catholic universities know their business, know their market and the market tells them that Fama vicit, that it’s all about prestige and that the standards for what counts as prestige are set by the Ivy Leagues and the mainstream media.

And the vast majority of Catholics are just fine with that. You aren’t, I’m not. But traditional Catholics have got to get it through their heads that they are a minority among those who self-identify as Catholics. They will never become the majority again if they constantly yell at the bishops to fix it. The bishops have a role to play and many of them are not playing it. But more and more of them are and D’Arcy is one of them.

But lay Catholics have a role to play. Right now, far too many self-identifying Catholics continue to send their children to these fake-Catholic schools. The ones who really understand the issues long ago pulled their children out and supported the new start-ups. I praise the new start-ups. They are playing an important role. But that shifted the market for the CINO schools. They have cultivated constituencies over the decades who are as pleased as punch with CINOism. The marginal portion of the market that is uneasy with the CINOism of Notre Dame or Boston College but still sends their children to these school is a swing block that might have some effect if this incident convinces them to say NO MAS and mean it. But even then, I doubt that this group is large enough. We’ll see.

The bishop is a player here but he can’t solve this by himself. And so far, Bishop D’Arcy has done pretty well. The day of reckoning is approaching for him, though. He can’t say, “This time I really mean it” very much more often.

We’ll see. Pray for him.

Dear Houghton M.,

If you are suggesting that the bishop might be choosy with whom he might revoke faculties, I don't have a problem with that. But revoking faculties of any priest involved with or who supports the administration on this question is an appropriate action. And forbidding public Masses at this sewer of a school is also appropriate.

And these two actions will likely bring significant pressure to bear on the administration and those involved in this decision.

“You did not dispute my claim that he has no direct authority to intervene...”

Why would I? I don't think that I ever claimed he had such authority. In turn, you acknowledge that he has sacramental and liturgical authority in the place. Let him use it. The use of this authority is far short of stripping the university of its appellation of Catholic, and the use of this sacramental and liturgical authority can easily be temporary and readily reversed.

It is you who stated he had but one tool - to deny the university of a Catholic identity. I merely pointed out that he had other tools. Now you argue that it wouldn't be wise to use those tools. That's another argument. One with which I disagree, but it isn't the argument that he has no other tools.

I said he had other tools, you said he didn't. But even in your denial, you more or less admit that he does.

“But for a bishop to take away priests’ faculties to administer sacraments as a means to get at the policies of the university board of trustees is (1) canonically dubious and (2) practically imprudent.”

This sounds like, “But for a bishop to forbid a Catholic politician from receiving the Blessed Sacrament as a means to get at his pro-abortion policies is (1) canonically dubious and (2) practically imprudent.”

I disagree on both counts, in both situations.

I'm not suggesting that he use these as weapons, but rather as tools, tools to give practical recognition of the attenuation of Catholicity on the part of the university in the first case, and of various so-called Catholic pro-death politicians in the second case.

A university that grants an honorary degree to the anti-Christ Obama has 1. flouted the direct teachings of the bishops about giving honor to baby killers and 2. has substantially compromised its Catholic identity.

Using the tools that I described, that you admit the bishop has, merely recognizes the actual circumstances, as well as provides motivation to the offending parties to remediate their actions.

It is you who said that the bishop had only one tool. I suggested that he had a few more. Whether you agree that it would be wise to use them, it is wrong to assert, as you did, that he has but one tool. He has several.

He should use them.

sitetest

Dear Houghton M.,

“No. Bishops routinely delegate facultied priests to make sure the sacraments are available to students at non-Catholic universities.”

Yes, that's true. And should it come to declaring Notre Dame no longer a Catholic university, it would be appropriate to establish a Catholic campus ministry on its campus, as an outreach to Catholics and others at a secular university.

But Notre Dame is still counted as a Catholic school, and therefore is subject to the standards of a Catholic insitution. A public university that gave an honorary degree to the anti-Christ Obama would be committing a gravely evil act. But it wouldn't be sacrilege, in that it wasn't a place pretending to be Catholic. For a Catholic university to do the same is an abomination, a pollution of a Catholic thing.

“For God’s sake, focus your anger at the UNIVERSITY, its trustees, its faculty, its administrators, its donors.”

The thing is, I'm not angry. I don't expect much from our bishops anymore. They are, for the most part, failures. I pray for them, and as best as I can, I love them. But I'm not willing to make excuses for them anymore. They are, for the most part, failures. In some cases, abysmal failures. Not that even the worst of them don't have their (good) moments. No, I'm not angry. I'm just wearied by them. And like I said, unwilling to make any more excuses for them.

“I get so damned tired of Catholics who think that if bishops just pulled the right strings all would be well.”

I don't think I've suggested that. However, when they don't act courageously, when they act as middle-management rather than as sacred pastors, they are morally liable for the outcomes. It's like the prophet who resists because he says, “God, they're just going to beat me up and keep doing what they're doing. Even if I do the right thing, it won't matter.” And God always responds, “If you do the right thing, and they don't turn from their evil ways, then their guilt will be on them, but if you do NOT do the right thing, then you will share their guilt.”

I know it's hard to be courageous. I know it isn't easy to be a good bishop. But it doesn't matter. You gotta do what you gotta do.

“Yes, bishops failing to pull the right strings 30 years ago, failing to discipline when it would have had an effect, are to blame for the situation we are in now.”

And every bishop who continues along that line, who fails to discipline now, reinforces that bad outcome, deepens the rut, so to speak, making it that much more difficult to change things in the future.

“But having gotten into this situation, bishops cannot get us out of it and this fantasy that all they have to do is say the word and we shall be made whole is detrimental to the cause you serve.”

You take my argument much further than I take it myself. At this point, I'm not sure that so-called “Catholics” who have become completely integrated and co-opted by our national power structure can be reclaimed at all. I half expect that should the bishops forcefully stand forthrightly for what is right, for a change, that the coming persecution of the Church in the United States will be hastened, not undone. But I'm not much in favor of going over to the dark side to prevent it.

“D’Arcy has done more than most bishops.”

Oh dear. So he's not quite the scoundrel that many of the others are. Let's pin a medal on him.

“But regardless of that, the real problem with Catholic universities today is that there just does not exist a large enough pool of Catholics who care about these issues to make a difference.”

Genuinely Catholic colleges and universities appear to be thriving.

“Catholic universities know their business, know their market and the market tells them that Fama vicit, that it’s all about prestige and that the standards for what counts as prestige are set by the Ivy Leagues and the mainstream media.”

And bishops who offer little but token protest tell these schools that they're on the right track, seeking the fame of the world rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

“But lay Catholics have a role to play...”

Absolutely. My sons know that there are “Catholic” colleges to which they may not apply.

“The bishop is a player here but he can’t solve this by himself. And so far, Bishop D’Arcy has done pretty well. The day of reckoning is approaching for him, though. He can’t say, ‘This time I really mean it’” very much more often.”

Really, we aren't far from perfect agreement. You believe that the day of reckoning is in the near future. I believe that it is here, right now, and he must act forcefully.

Saving them the cost of one more chicken dinner at the banquet afterward is hardly forceful action.

“Pray for him.”

I try to remember to pray for our priests and bishops. It's clear that they need it.

sitetest

Dear Houghton M.,

There are nearly two hundred ordinaries in the United States. I've long since given up trying to follow the actions of each one. It is possible that Bishop D'Arcy did a smashing job with the Vagina Monologues issue vis-a-vis Notre Dame. But his response here is very weak.

“Look up what D’Arcy said to Jenkins...”

That's nice. But what did he DO to Fr. Jenkins? That's the real question.

“But to rush to judgment when you admit you don’t know his history vis-a-vis Notre Dame, just because he has not done what you in all your wisdom KNOW would be THE solution to everything (revoke priests’ faculties) is the height of arrogance.”

Actually, I haven't ever said that he specifically should revoke faculties, etc. I responded to what YOU said, that he had no other tools other than denying the Catholicity of the school. I pointed out that he had these other tools at his disposal. If he doesn't see fit to use them at this time, but takes some other FORCEFUL action, that might be the appropriate path.

But his current action is a little akin to threatening to hold his breath until he turns blue.

If he were to do what Bishop Martino has done, requesting that Notre Dame provide detailed information regarding courses that teach the Catholic faith, and requesting that the school take specific remedial actions to make structural changes to help the school become more truly Catholic, I would stand up and applaud.

If you say, well, the bishop can't force a school in his diocese to do these things, well, you're right! Neither can Bishop Martino! But he sure can request them!

As well, their failure to respond adequately would provide a firmer footing to take more serious disciplinary action.

sitetest

Dear Houghton M.,

“A euphemistic definition of REMF...”

Okay, gotcha. I can assure you that I'm not in the rear echelon. It is the bishops who are in the rear echelon, and are failing to give folks like me, on the front lines, the support we need to do OUR jobs.

As a lay Catholic, as a husband, a father, a leader in my parish community, a Knight of Columbus, a three-time Grand Knight of my Council, I feel keenly the lack of support from the folks who really are in the rear echelon.

The issue of life is an excellent example. As a lay leader in my parish and as Grand Knight of my Knights of Columbus Council, I try to promote the cause of the unborn and other vulnerable persons at every turn. But at best, the response I get is lukewarm. Why? Because lots of my fellow parishioners aren't actually pro-life.

When I discovered this some years back, I was pretty shocked and horrified. And puzzled. So I inquired with some folks about their views toward abortion. This is what I heard, “The Church isn't serious about abortion. You can be a good Catholic and still be pro-choice.”

When I pointed out that the Church, the pope, the bishops, all teach to the contrary, and quite adamantly, here's what I heard back, “They talk a good game, but they don't really mean it. After all, look at Ted Kennedy. They haven't done anything to him, have they? Or Nancy Pelosi. Or Barbara Mikulski. Or Rudy Giuliani.” Or any number of pro-abort Catholic politicians.

Wow. That was a shocker.

It was then that I realized the deep and lasting damage that the bishop have done to the unborn.

And I've run into this at every turn. I'd guesstimate that our own parish is perhaps not much more than 50% against legal abortion. And I'm talking about the folks who actually fill the pews, not the folks who register so that they can get married or get their kids into Catholic school, and we never see them again, or maybe just at Christmas and Easter.

I usually write the pro-life columns in our monthly newsletter. I know that I step on some folks’ toes. I try to be polite, but I refuse to say other than what is true - abortion directly and intentionally kills innocent human persons, it is always gravely evil and the matter of mortal sin, and every human person deserves to have his life protected in law, and it is the matter of mortal sin to refuse to protect the innocent unborn in law. Of course, we talk about other aspects of the issue, we support pregnancy aid centers and groups in our local area, we explain that abortion doesn't just kill unborn babies, but harms women, too.

But every year, our pastor charters a bus to go from our suburban Washington, DC parish to downtown Washington, DC (about a 40 minute drive) to the March for Life, and every year, our parish with 1100 families manages no better than a few dozen, maybe 40 folks willing to take their day one day a year to give a voice for the voiceless, the defenseless.

This year, during Mass, our pastor actually walked us through filling out the postcards regarding FOCA to send to our representatives and Senators, and it was sickening to me to see the number of people who sat in the pews, refusing to fill these postcards out, refusing to make the smallest effort in defense of innocent human life.

But hey, my deeply Democrat, allegedly pro-life friend tells me that the Republican Party has duped me, that despite the murder of fifty million children, the Democrat Party is REALLY the party of life, and if it weren't so, the bishops would have acted years ago against folks like Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Patrick Leahy, etc., etc., etc.

When I say that you can't be a good Catholic and be pro-abort, he says, if that were true, the bishops would have formally disciplined all these good Catholic politicians, laity, and even priests who invite baby-murdering politicians to speak at major universities.

He's got a point.

So don't tell ME about being a REMF. I think that title more might better apply to others in the Church.

But unlike some, I'm a little too polite to directly address it to anyone.

sitetest

I salute you. Fire away at bishops who deserve it. I could name names. But don’t fire at those who are in the trenches with you.

Some bishops are.

You are unfair to them when you assume that every bishop is in the rear echelon.

I understand why you think that. You have, the Church has, been harmed by episcopal malfeasance over many decades.

But you are taking the Devil’s hook if you refuse to recognize bishops who are on the front lines with you just because they don’t use the tactics you think they should be using. They will have to answer to God for the tactics they choose.

Some bishops truly are doing the Devil’s work. But others are trying their darndest to advance the pro-life cause.

One tactic is to warn, first privately, then publicly, before laying down penalties. Naumann has done that in Kansas City, Martino in Scranton. Neither of them has yet pulled the nuclear trigger of excommnication. Will you denounce them because of that or will you put the best construction you can on their actions as we are required by Catholic moral theology to do? If you have evidence that a bishop is perfidious (again, some are—I have specific examples in mind but won’t name them), then you have legitimate reason to doubt he has enough guts to do what you think should be done.

But in the absence of specific evidence, blanket condemnation of bishops is just as wrong as blanket condemnation of all fathers, of all teachers, of all bankers, of all used car salesmen.

Traditional Catholics are sorely tempted by the genuine mistreatment they’ve experienced at the hands of the hierarchy to turn unreservedly anticlerical. That is EXACTLY what Luther did. He was treated utterly unjustly by the Roman Curia (they were negotiating behind his back to have Elector Friedrich turn him over for a heresy trial at the very time he had been promised a fair hearing theologian to theologian with Cajetan; he was doublecrossed.) He had a right to be angry but that’s exactly the point at which he began declaring the entire hierarchy to be tools of the Devil, the visible Catholic Church to be the whore of Babylon etc. Up to that point his legitimate concerns about real abuses might have been addressed, but he pulled the trigger on a total change of attitude toward the Church that split the Church in the West. Traditional Catholics, no matter how angry they may be at episcopal malfeasance must avoid turning into protestantized anti-clericalists for whom a bishop is guilty until proven innocent of malfeasance.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.