I haven’t had time to read every post on this thread but has anyone considered that Notre Dame is a private institution, and as such has its own set of rules for, say, arranged protests? Violating these rules may result in arrest of those who participate in these protests.
That’s not to say that I agree with what happened. I think it’s terrible that an elderly priest was treated this way. But aren’t they those who violate the law going against what the local bishop said about protesting and politicizing the event?
I am not sure why they feel he is a "threat" to them...
It is not a "private institution", and it does receive funding from the Catholic Church (there is a collection every year for colleges)...
When the issue is the mass murder of innocent babies, how terrible is trespassing?
http://www.virtualrosary.org - free download
What does that mean - "politicizing the event"? Actually, Obama is just a "bit player" here. The stand is aimed the administration of Notre Dame.
However, this particular institution, the University of Notre Dame, is at present involved in a violation which is much more serious: a violation of its own laws and charters as follows:
(University of Notre Dame Charter and Statutes, para V.e):
"The essential character of the University as a Catholic institution of higher learning shall at all times be maintained, it being the stated intention and desire of the present Fellows of the University that the University shall retain in perpetuity its identity as such an institution."
In other words,the UND founders intended it to be Catholic "in perpetuity" and formalized that into their own law; the donors donated to it on that basis; its Fellows and Trustees are supposed to govern on that basis; its students are matriculated and graduated on that basis.
However the UND is in violation because they ignored the US Conference of Catholic Bishops' policy that those who defy "fundamental moral norms" are not to be given platforms and honors; and they are persisting in disobedience to their bishop (Bishop John D'Arcy, who is boycotting the commencement).
This seems to me to be a kind of fraud, or a violation of fiduciary trust: to build a University as a Catholic institution; solicit donors on the basis of being a Catholic institutiion; recruit students to be educated at Notre Dame as a Catholic institution; and then operate in a way that overturns those terms and conditions.
And here's the crux of it: the faithful prolife Notre Dame community apparently have no legal recourse to compel their University to comply with its own Catholic requirements, or to penalize the University's violation.
So it looks like the only recourse the faithful have at this time, is trying to bring the "sensus fidelium" to bear on the situation (the "sense of the faithful.") Hence coming on campus to (peacefully, prayerfully) protest.
The legitimacy of the civil law is upheld because the "trespassers" are not forcibly resisting arrest. The law is, in another, larger, moral sense, being superceded by the even more grave obligation to call Notre Dame back to its founding principles, and bear witness to the Gospel of Life, whch is an essential element of Catholic identity.
That's how I see it.
Here's what Bishop D'Arcy said:
"I urge all Catholics and others of good will to stay away from unseemly and unhelpful demonstrations against our nation's president or Notre Dame or (Holy Cross) Father John I. Jenkins." He said further that he wad supportive of "any other prayerful and dignified demonstrations."
Thus he did not bar, ban, prohibit, or even plead against all protests or demonstrations. He expressed his clear opposition to those which are "unseemly and unhelpful."
It's the Bishop's job to teach with authority the Truths concerning the faith and morals which Christ has given us through His Church.
It's pretty obviously the laity's job to judge, design, and carry out secular tactics and strategies which are seemly, helpful, and peaceful.
I have been trying to find out why this elderly man of the cloth was “taken down” like this. What was his charge? Now I read that Notre Dame is private property and these protesters were not allowed.
So why didn’t the protest take place in FRONT of the school, on PUBLIC ground??? Didn’t the people who had this priest protesting understand the law and knew he could be hurt if he were arrested?
I am sorry but I don’t get it. You can’t protest ON private property so you are supposed to do it on the public sidewalk outside. Why didn’t the protest take place on public property? I feel terrible for this priest.