My goodness! Calm down, already! Look, there is such a thing as tongue-in-cheek hyperbole. I believe I understand the concept of tenure. But it *is* possible that, friendly appeal or no, Fr. Jenkins can most assuredly make Fr. Miscamble's life sufficiently miserable as to force him to "decide" to leave. It's been done before.
As for tendencies toward "misreading" texts, you do a good job of that with mine. Certainly, you project *far* more into my comments than I myself intended to convey, and extrapolate from my remarks all sorts of things about my frame of mind than you could possibly know from the content. I take an obviously hyperbolic (bishops aren't generally nominated in the fashion I "proposed") stance siding with Fr. Miscamble against an institution that has a long way to go in its fidelity to Catholic teaching, and the next thing I know, you decide that this is some sort of prima facie evidence that confirms the (universally known?) impression you have that it typifies "uninformed traditional Catholics making uninformed blanket statements about Notre Dame." I'll thank you, sir, to keep such "blanket statements" about the motives of *this* "traditionalist" to yourself, instead of condemning yourself with the same "charge" that you so "snottily and breezily" lob against me. You don't *know* me well enough to hurl such accusations in public, sir! You "misread" *me*!
Notre Dame may not be Georgetown, but it certainly isn't Thomas Aquinas College, either. It has a deserved reputation for sliding-scale orthodoxy, and it will be years before the school fully restores religious and moral fidelity to the Catholic Faith. To say otherwise fully insults the intelligence of any knowledgeable Catholic. One does not need to be a mere "uninformed traditionalist" to understand ND's current situation in this regard. Ralph McInerny himself felt sufficiently alarmed by Notre Dame's lack of fidelity that he commented on it more than once in his own Crisis Magazine, and full-length exposes concerning the issue have appeared since he left the helm, but maintained a toe-hold with the magazine. Notre Dame is *not* the "Catholic" institution it gives itself out to be. That's common knowledge, and *no* relative comparison was intended by myself with any other college, nominally Catholic or otherwise.
It's too bad when people similarly minded about so many things have to blow up at each other in a public forum like this one. I've admired your scholarship many times; you display amazing knowledge of so many facets of the Faith and history. But this doesn't qualify you to read hearts and minds as you did here, particularly when you thereby engage in the same things ("blanket statements," "snottiness," "breeziness," "misreading" written words, presumption of motives, presumption of ignorance without warrant from the text, and defamation) that you decry.
Some of our FRiends among the "separated brethren" here eat this stuff up. That's too bad. "With friends like you..." Creating that type of potential "scandal" is not my doing here. Perhaps you just need to lighten up a bit, and see an attempt at humorous wishful thinking for what it is, even if you *don't* think it's very funny - that's *certainly* your preogative! :-O
You still don't get it. Jenkins has no wish to make Miscamble's life difficult. They are on the same side. They are friends and allies. Miscamble thinks Jenkins made an unwise, imprudent decision. He hopes Jenkins will change his mind.
I didn't say Notre Dame was a Thomas Aquinas College. You write as if there are only two categories. I was distinguishing four, so that you could be properly incensed at the ones who are beyond the pale and properly supportive of the forces within the ones in the middle who are trying to turn them around. Notre Dame is in the middle. It cannot ever be a Thomas Aquinas College. The pedagogy and mission of the two are very different. But Notre Dame could become a good Catholic college again. I'm not holding my breath, indeed, I don't hold out a lot of hope. But I do have some hope. Jenkins is on our side but he made a very bad decision. He is in a damned if I do, damned if I don't situation. If he moves too far too fast and the majority of the faculty who are not Catholic or are CINOs simply revolt, he would be forced out as president--faculty can do that (witness Harvard) and then he does the cause of restoring Catholicism at Notre Dame no good. But Miscamble thinks that he could have decided the VM matter in the opposite manner and not have risked losing all credibility even with the anti-Catholic/CINO/non-Catholic elements at Notre Dame.
It's a dispute over strategy in a huge chess game that, if not played properly, will end in a disaster for the goal you and I share--a Catholic revitalization. I think Miscamble is right in his strategy on this point and Jenkins wrong but I don't conclude that Jenkins is a tool of the Devil and will have to make Miscamble's life difficult. When you write that sort thing you show no understanding whatsoever of the battle that has been joined for decades now and of the risks and opportunities available to our side.
If you were writing tongue-in-cheek you should have said so. My generalizations were reasonable because you did not indicate that you did not mean what you wrote. I can't see your wink over cyberspace. Surely you know that it is your obligation, Sir, to indicate sarcasm when you mean sarcasm, hyperbole when you intend hyperbole. You indicated nothing of the sort.
Now was your "make his life difficult" in your reply to me also hyperbole? If you didn't mean it, why did you write it? If you meant it (and the context implies you did, which is why you have to indicate you did not if you did not) then it betrays continued failure to understand who Miscamble is, who Jenkins is, where the fault lines are.
And you don't have to be a ND insider to know that. Miscamble's letter was utterly clear. He addressed Jenkins as an ally, named other allies, and appealed to Jenkins as his friend and ally to change is mind. That's what I mean by your misreading of a text--Miscamble's own letter makes your interpretation impossible--unless, of course, you mean the opposite of what you write.
But if you mean the opposite of what you write, then write that as well. Until you do, you deserve to be taken at your word.