Posted on 05/20/2009 1:02:00 PM PDT by Salvation
May. 18, 2009 (CWNews.com) -
President Obama's appearance at the Notre Dame commencement exercises produced an enormous outpouring of journalistic coverage.
Prior to the event, the atmosphere was so feverish that when Duncan Maxell Anderson concocted a story based on the idea that Obama had donated his speaking fee to defray lost alumni contributions, many readers failed to recognize that it was a satire.
On the GetReligion site, Terry Mattingly continued to insist that reporters should get their facts straight. That was, alas, a losing battle.
USA Today provided live blogging on the event, with a panel of experts (including Joseph Lawler, son of CWN editor Phil Lawler) offering their perspectives.
When he addressed the commencement audience, Father John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame, was in effect making his own observations on the controversy. Father Jenkins let his enthusiasm for President Obama show through clearly; it cannot be a coincidence that he used the word "hope" five times in his first five opening paragraphs.
Father Jenkins clearly implied, in his plea for civil dialogue, that opponents of the President's speech were guilty of intolerance, while "President Obama is not someone who stops taking to those who differ with him." The Jenkins speech did not impress Ralph McInerny, longtime Notre Dame philosophy professor, who commented for The Catholic Thing. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say that McInerny was impressed--negatively:
The fallacious defenses on the part of a once stellar philosopher, Father John Jenkins, continued in his introduction of the president, exhibit how corruptive of clear thinking holding high office can be. Not since the local lands were wrested from the Indians has a white father spoken with such forked tongue.
Another Notre Dame faculty member, law professor Gerald Bradley, asked a rhetorical question in his analysis for National Review: "Prestige or Truth?" Bradley's answer to that question can be summed up in one sentence: "Notre Dame chose prestige."
Not everyone saw things that way. Predictably enough, some of the President's political allies felt that his appearance had been a coup. E. J. Dionne, writing for the New Republic, put the emphasis on Obama's willingness to confront criticism:
By facing their arguments head-on and by demonstrating his attentiveness to Catholic concerns, Obama strengthened moderate and liberal forces inside the church itself. He also struck a forceful blow against those who would keep the nation mired in culture-war politics without end.
Father Tom Reese, SJ, gave a Washington Post audience an even rosier view of the occasion, suggesting that Obama's message to the Notre Dame audience-- the same message that he has trumpeted for months-- was a brilliant new strategy that all pro-lifers should adopt. In fact, while others including Father Jenkins said that pro-life activists were wrong to "demonize" the President, Father Reese took the first step to demonize the pro-lifers. First he announced that "pro-life people should join with Obama in doing everything possible to reduce the number of abortions." (Implicit there is the assumption that in fact Obama is doing everything possible.) Then Reese added: "Not to do so is to put politics above the life of the unborn." So there you have it: anyone who fails to support the President is showing contempt for unborn human life: a neat reversal of the reality most people perceive here.
If Father Reese has become a cheerleader for the Obama administration, he is merely continuing down the path that he has followed throughout his journalistic career. But it is truly sad to see Douglas Kmiec, once a thoughtful pro-life analyst, acting the same way. Kmiec told his new friends at the National Catholic Reporter that both presidents, Obama and Jenkins "were there in splendid form" at the Notre Dame commencement, but the bad guys in the drama were the American bishops who questioned the wisdom of honoring an advocate of unrestricted abortion.
Not every liberal voice joined the chorus of praise for President Obama. Michael Sean Winters of America gave the President a grade of C-minus for his effort, saying that his speech "did not help his cause."
These analysts, however, were concentrating on the influence that Obama's speech would have on the political world. In a perceptive National Review critique, George Weigel looked at the event from the opposite perspective, and noticed the influence that the President was having on the internal affairs of the Catholic Church.
Debates are not uncommon within religious groups, Weigel observed. "Yet never in our history has a president of the United States, in the exercise of his public office, intervened in such disputes in order to secure a political advantage.?? Until yesterday, at the University of Notre Dame."
The key point of the presidential address, Weigel argued, is that he--Obama--was setting himself up as judge, to pronounce on which side of the intramural Catholic debate was correct:
Rather like Napoleon taking the diadem out of the hands of Pope Pius VII and crowning himself emperor, President Obama has, wittingly or not, declared himself the Primate of American Catholicism.
Then (ostensibly) Catholic universities shouldn't be inviting politicians to address their graduates and receive honorary degrees.
“Do you see any evidence that the Pope considers Bishop D’Arcy schismatic?”
D’Arcy had every right to do what he did. You still don’t understand the problem, C.
“Bishop Martino?”
Martino will be punished. He should be anathemized since his ravings will tear apart the Latin Church here, but I doubt he will be.
“Has he fired Abp. Burke yet from his position as head of the highest judicial organ in the church?”
Noy yet; he may never be, but he will be punished too.
“Then (ostensibly) Catholic universities shouldn’t be inviting politicians to address their graduates and receive honorary degrees.”
Not those who espouse positions contrary to what The Church teaches, no. To the extent that a politician is a polarizing figure, and it is unlikely since 1981 there are any national politicians who are otherwise, your suggestion is probably a good one.
It seems to me that you are using this scandal to denigrate the Catholic Church, brandishing this unfortunate matter about as proof that the Catholic Church is too corrupt to be saved and comparing it unfavorably to the Orthodox Church. Somehow the Pope is at fault because he hasn’t done “enough” to prevent or punish those responsible for the scandal. Yes, better for the East to remain aloof and apart from the Catholic Church, lest it be sullied by our many sins, which, apparently includes our “obsessiveness” over the issue of abortion.
I guess the sanctity of human life is not something that Orthodox “hierarchs” are willing to take too public a position on.
“It seems to me that you are using this scandal to denigrate the Catholic Church,...”
Not the Latin Church, s, but rather some of the hierarchs of the Latin Church here in America and their clerical and lay fellow travelers, the people who will excuse any excess so long as it is in service of advancing the penultimate American Latin church “dogma” of anti-abortionism.
“Somehow the Pope is at fault because he hasn’t done “enough” to prevent or punish those responsible for the scandal.”
His Holiness is not even remotely responsible for this mess some of your hierarchs have made, though in the Latin system he may be the only one who can do anything about it. Either he will or he won’t. It is entirely his call. That call will have consequences.
“Yes, better for the East to remain aloof and apart from the Catholic Church, lest it be sullied by our many sins, which, apparently includes our “obsessiveness” over the issue of abortion.”
Better the East not sanction canonical violations or rush to communion with hierarchs who espouse heresy. We don’t trust that your meddlesome political hierarchs won’t intrude into our affairs, the good intentions of the Pope to the contrary notwithstanding.
“I guess the sanctity of human life is not something that Orthodox “hierarchs” are willing to take too public a position on.”
Do you mean not taking so public a position that they would proclaim that no issue facing Christians as Christians is of greater importance or that canonical violations are acceptable to advance such a position? God I hope they are not willing to do or say that!
Ding ding ding! He and they thrive and prosper on divisiveness. They've been doing it in the Christian church for decades (in TEC, ELCA, PCUSA, etc.).
Any confusion is trouble. However, to the extent that abortion is a moral issue -- and it is, -- and to the extent that the American system allows voting on moral issues -- and it does, -- the Church will continue to form the politicial conscience of the flock. If the East somehow is not comfortable with that, the East should examine itself, critically.
I don't understand what is your post saying. It seems to be really addresses to Kolokotronis.
Of course. I am merely making a prediction that Jenkins will weasel out and the hierarchy will let him. One way for that to change is for the faithful to keep the pressure on the bishops and on the Notre Dame.
This is a situation of conflicting goods. Honesty in Catohlic higher education is a good, but keeping the liberal wing in the flock, where they can be better formed is also a good. The Church needs to find the proper balance, and over time, she will.
Yes, very true. Catholics should stop thinking that the system will accomodate them based on reason; the system is the enemy and not something to "dialogue" with. In that sense, Kolokotronis is correct, that the world will marginalize the Church and proclaim the jenkinses as mainstream. That should not be our concern.
It is what you are calling “the liberal wing” who are “forming” the young people. So much so that they will honor and cheer for Barack Obama, and drown out those who would tell them the truth with chants of “yes we can!”
It’s quite obvious that nobody is “forming” them in the least. They are reprobates.
I agree that the professorate, starting with Jenkins should be anathemized. The concern is with the flock who considers them real authority, — those Catholics who they duped. They can be reformed.
***I don’t understand what is your post saying. It seems to be really addresses to Kolokotronis.***
No, it’s addressed to all Latins (and onlookers). Kolo and kosta are exactly 100% correct. I posted the relevant canons from the Vatican.va website. Kolo has proven the most eloquent in describing the situation in accordance to how it stacks up to canon law. If we violate canon law according the whims in our bellies or the emotions in our hearts of the moment, then we are no better than the Episcopagans or any of the other denominations that are tearing themselves apart in the name of what they feel, not what is right.
Bishop D’Arcy did everything he could up to the point of declaring ND non Catholic. And he did nothing wrong canonically. The rest of the bishops are free to comment, not to demand.
And where were all these fine bishops over the last 50 years of canonical abuse? Who authorized Catholic churches to resemble Protestant prayer barns and put the Tabernacle in a closed closet several corridors away from the sanctuary? Who authorized all the liturgical abuses? Who authorized these nests of Wiccan earth worshiping sojourning nuns? The faith encompasses much more than this topic. It’s good to see the Catholic laity getting up off of its collective fat lazy incompetent illiterate and stupid ass and getting interested in matters.
Let them get interested in all matters. To reiterate a point; the Orthodox have 2000 years of dealing with heretics. The Latin Church basically gave that up 500 years ago after the incompetence that permitted the Reformation to not only occur, but to take root.
Let us see the zeal for all of the faith and not just one thing in the new cafeteria, yes? Else it is just the substitution of one cafeteria for the last one.
I have been pleading with Kolokotronis for weeks now to explain to me what canon was violated and how. If you can convince me, go ahead and show me. (I would agree that USCCB offering a joint statement would have been preferable, even if the joint statement were less strident; I would also agree that if d'Arcy had supported Jenkins, the letters from other bishops would have been contrary to canons).
Separate from that there is the asserton from Kolokotronis that generally the concept of "anti-abortionism" is somehow heretical, and specifically, something the bishop Martino form Scranton did was raving heresy. But what Kolokotronis showed me was a pastoral letter from Martino instructing his own flock on the relative importance of political questions that the voters face -- nothing remotely heretical on its face.
The rest of the bishops are free to comment, not to demand.
They demanded? What I saw was offering advice and opinion, on a matter relevant to their own flock.
And where were all these fine bishops over the last 50 years of canonical abuse?
Not where they should have been. So?
***I posted the relevant canons from the Vatican.va website. Kolo has proven the most eloquent in describing the situation in accordance to how it stacks up to canon law.
I have been pleading with Kolokotronis for weeks now to explain to me what canon was violated and how. If you can convince me, go ahead and show me.***
Sure. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM gives the entire canon. I think that more Catholics need to read not only the Catechism but the Canon as well.
We can focus on http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2M.HTM which gives the teaching function of the Church.
Can. 806 §1. The diocesan bishop has the right to watch over and visit the Catholic schools in his territory, even those which members of religious institutes have founded or direct. He also issues prescripts which pertain to the general regulation of Catholic schools; these prescripts are valid also for schools which these religious direct, without prejudice, however, to their autonomy regarding the internal direction of their schools.
In other words, he can issue statements and demands, but the ordered schools don’t have to pay attention to them.
Can. 808 Even if it is in fact Catholic, no university is to bear the title or name of Catholic university without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.
In other words, the bishop can declare the school not Catholic. But that is all he can do.
Can. 810 §1. The authority competent according to the statutes has the duty to make provision so that teachers are appointed in Catholic universities who besides their scientific and pedagogical qualifications are outstanding in integrity of doctrine and probity of life and that they are removed from their function when they lack these requirements; the manner of proceeding defined in the statutes is to be observed.
According to the statutes means the Order has the final say in the faculty, not the Bishop. That’s it. The Bishop can use the nuclear weapon but nothing else.
***Separate from that there is the asserton from Kolokotronis that generally the concept of “anti-abortionism” is somehow heretical, and specifically, something the bishop Martino form Scranton did was raving heresy. But what Kolokotronis showed me was a pastoral letter from Martino instructing his own flock on the relative importance of political questions that the voters face — nothing remotely heretical on its face. ***
Kolo has said nothing of the kind. What he has said is that one must embrace the entire faith and not pick and choose as American Catholics have done lo these many years.
Let us examine what the Catechism says about abortion. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm is on
PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST
SECTION TWO
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
CHAPTER TWO
“YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF”
ARTICLE 5
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
You shall not kill.54
You have heard that it was said to the men of old, “You shall not kill: and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.” But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.55
2258 “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”56
The chapters are:
I. RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE
The witness of sacred history
Legitimate defense
Intentional homicide
Abortion
Euthanasia
Suicide
II. RESPECT FOR THE DIGNITY OF PERSONS
Respect for the souls of others: scandal
Respect for health
Respect for the person and scientific research
Respect for bodily integrity
III. SAFEGUARDING PEACE
Peace
Read the page, all those who would be enlightened. Abortion, while a grave sin, is NOT the overriding pillar of the Faith. Where were all these bishops when Terri Schiavo was being starved to death on national television? Most of them are on board with capital punishment, but how many of them have spoken out on suicides, the atrocious treatment and early deaths of our elderly and sick, the grave sin of scandal which is condemned with as stern wording as is abortion, euthanasia, the evils and injustices of war, terrorism, hostage taking, the use of recreational drugs, and so on.
***The rest of the bishops are free to comment, not to demand.
They demanded? What I saw was offering advice and opinion, on a matter relevant to their own flock. ***
Some of them went far beyond that.
***And where were all these fine bishops over the last 50 years of canonical abuse?
Not where they should have been. So?***
So don’t pick a single issue. Pick them all. Why are the bishops not so enthusiastic about all of the faith?
Take a look at Canon IX of the Council of Antioch and Canon II of the Second Ecumenical Council. There’s a canon from the Apostolic Canons too.
***Take a look at Canon IX of the Council of Antioch and Canon II of the Second Ecumenical Council. There’s a canon from the Apostolic Canons too.***
There is one thing to demand that bishops know the Psalter by heart and another thing to get them to act accordingly.
I like Canon VII. No church is to be consecrated without relics; all churches are to have relics placed within them.
I should really try to find out how many of our recent Protestant prayer barns have relics interred within them.
Which Council are you referring to with Antioch?
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.