Regardless who points out the problem, given the number of bishops who have expressed displeasure with ND’s choice (given the guidance the USCCB had issued on the topic several years ago) it seems in appropriate to claim that the decision is only opposed by “partisan groups drive by narrow ideological agendas”.
We Support Notre Dame is a project of Notre Dame Alums in Support of Fr. Jenkins, Faithful America,
Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, and Catholics United.
For press inquiries or more information, please contact info@catholics-united.org.
Glad to see we don’t have any partisan groups driven by narrow ideological agendas behind the Support Notre Dame site…
Regardless who points out the problem, given the number of bishops who have expressed displeasure with ND’s choice (given the guidance the USCCB had issued on the topic several years ago) it seems in appropriate to claim that the decision is only opposed by “partisan groups drive by narrow ideological agendas”.
The USCCB has said nothing in response to Notre Dame’s invitation and <10% of the bishops have been moved to say anything against the action, with even some of them softening their remarks in terms of a private opinion. For example, I don’t find anything said by Archbishop Dolan to be a smear of Notre Dame. A polite disagreement would come closer.
Not that it is impossible for bishops to engage in smears and narrow agendas. The Archbishop of St. Paul and Bishop Garcia of Texas come close.
Maybe the term “partisan” is inappropriate. I don’t find many leading Republicans saying that the President is not an honorable man. In fact, I think the GOP wants to distance itself from the critics of Notre Dame. Smart move on their part.
First of all Minion, I didn’t criticize anyone. I asked a question. No one has answered it, as is usual here.
Secondly, Kurt, I believe that the USCCB, through its president Cardinal George, has spoken to this issue:
“It is clear that Notre Dame didn’t understand what it means to be Catholic when they issued this invitation,” said George, who made his remarks at a conference Sunday hosted by the archdiocese’s Respect Life office in Rosemont.
Now, I would be ineffably surprised to learn that Cardinal George is a Republican.
So my question remains. Are they talking about the USCCB?
Are they even talking about the many bishops who have individually addressed this question?
How about the Superior of the Holy Cross Order, and the members of the Order who have spoken out?
Are we to accept that all of these are “partisan groups driven by narrow ideological agendas [which] are attempting to smear the Notre Dame community”?
I asked a question. No one has answered it, as is usual here.
To answer your question, no, it does not seem that the group behind the website is referring to the USCCB. The USCCB hasn’t made a statement about the Obama-ND case.
Secondly, Kurt, I believe that the USCCB, through its president Cardinal George, has spoken to this issue…
Didn’t Cardinal George say that he wasn’t speaking on this issue in his capacity as President of the USCCB, i.e. that he was not speaking on behalf of the USCCB?
Didn’t Cardinal George say that he wasn’t speaking on this issue in his capacity as President of the USCCB, i.e. that he was not speaking on behalf of the USCCB?
Yes. And it was the only thing he said. He did nto make prepared or written remarks on this topic. he spoke in response to a question at a private meeting and seemed surprised and upset that it was recorded and reported in the media (did he learn nothing from Archbishop Burke?!). Since then he has clammed up and refused further requests on the topic. I’m ready to declare him innocent of smearing Notre Dame.
The USSCB meets in June. Let’s see if someone puts forward a resolution saying the President is not an honorable man and let’s see how many votes it gets.
The USSCB meets in June. Let’s see if someone puts forward a resolution saying the President is not an honorable man and let’s see how many votes it gets.
Kurt, the question isn’t whether the President isn’t “an honorable man” (whatever that means), but whether Catholic universities should be honoring people who have so vocally and so effectively been champions of the Culture of Death.
It’s not about Obama. It’s about Notre Dame.
And other than on Vox Nova I am not aware of any Catholic forum in which Obama’s positions on abortion and embryo-destructive stem cell research are regarded as above reproach.
Hmmm. Perhaps it is about Obama after all. Should he be honored or reproached by Notre Dame?
I find it interesting that the “We Support Notre Dame” website is funded by the same organizations responsible for the “Catholics for Sebelius” petition, and who have thus far refused to give President Obama any more than a slap on the wrist for his anti-life policies thus far. Certainly, legitimate arguments can be made for allowing the President to speak at ND (though I tend to agree with the bishops–and the majority of VN posters–that he shouldn’t), but I’m not sure how much credibility groups such as Catholics United really have. They don’t seem to be anything more than front organizations for the Democratic Party’s Catholic outreach efforts, rather than true representatives of a Consistent Ethic of Life.
They don’t seem to be anything more than front organizations for the Democratic Party’s Catholic outreach efforts, rather than true representatives of a Consistent Ethic of Life.
I’m not even sure if they represent a faction of the Democratic Party. It appears they represent themselves and should be treated as such. Just because I’m white and over weight doesn’t mean I represent white and over weight America. Perhaps just call it the corollary of the plural of anecdote isn’t data.
And other than on Vox Nova I am not aware of any Catholic forum in which Obama’s positions on abortion and embryo-destructive stem cell research are regarded as above reproach.
Please link to any post on Vox Nova that states directly or even implies that Obama’s position on abortion is “above reproach”.
“Please link to any post on Vox Nova that states directly or even implies that Obama’s position on abortion is “above reproach”.”
Fine. Nobody will publicly say his position is “above reproach”. They just think his position on raising the minimum wage a buck an hour more than makes up for all of those icky dead babies.
Fine. Nobody will publicly say his position is “above reproach”. They just think his position on raising the minimum wage a buck an hour more than makes up for all of those icky dead babies.
Hmm. Probably not a fair representation of what “we” think at all.
Kurt, the question isn’t whether the President isn’t “an honorable man” (whatever that means), but whether Catholic universities should be honoring people…
Paul,
You are going to have to find a real good Jesuit to explain the difference between honorable and honor-able, and that whatever difference can be found is significant enough and objective enough that third parties can bind the judgment of others, namely the University of Notre Dame, an autonomous juridical person.
Now, try that again, the question is not if he is an honorable person but that is he a person we are able to honor? Huh?????
A sound majority of Catholics would sign this petition – and you guys know it -and it is driving you nuts – but hey what is new -Jesus Christ was able to get under the skin of the ‘holier than thou types’ in his time.
Obama is a very very fine leader – he respresents some of the very best this country has to offer to the world. The man actually right now insprires billions – tough luck that some of the folks that could not be bothered raising a finger when the previous President ran this fine nation down fiscally and morally (Torture, Wars based on lies) now all of a sudden are up in arms.
It is such a fake “outrage” – this one will backfire.
Well, no. He makes a lot of people feel good. There’s a difference, as his trip to Europe shows. A lot of applause, not much action.
“fake outrage”–yes, because there’s no possible principled objection to what Notre Dame has done. Glory and praise to our Chief, who alone gives light to our days.
“fake outrage”–yes, because there’s no possible principled objection to what Notre Dame has done.
I’ll take that as a white flag of surrender.
No longer is it being claimed that the ONLY possible principled position is to reject the President, but that it is possible that principled people might have differing discernments? So the juridicial person with the right to make and act on this discernment — Notre Dame — might well have made a principled discernment, even if is not the discernment some others may have made.
And other than on Vox Nova I am not aware of any Catholic forum in which Obama’s positions on abortion and embryo-destructive stem cell research are regarded as above reproach.
You ignore the negative evidence, which happens to be every post on Obama and abortion at Vox Nova. Please don’t resort to caricatures as an excuse not to think.
Fine. Nobody will publicly say his position is “above reproach”. They just think his position on raising the minimum wage a buck an hour more than makes up for all of those icky dead babies.
Once again, forming caricatures is much easier than thinking.
There are lots of reasons why the time seems right and why a person like Obama can inspire people around the globe. Obama is the first to admit that – it is less about his person and more about a certain “can do” rationale attitude. As you know plenty of traditionally conservative/Republican voting parents who voted for Obama because they could feel he had the energy and inspiration to lead a new generation.
For many of us such profound paradigm shifts are exciting and very healthy. That is what Democracy is all about – a fresh mind taking the lead.
In my view Obama is a very measured and responsible President so far.
Let me give this a different spin -
it would be very appropriate if our church finally would start taking bold steps to stop this current energy choking downward spiral.
I find it more than ridiculous that numerous of the same Monsignores that could not be bothered protecting our children from sexual abusive criminal Priest and did not have the gutts to face up to the systematic failures that enabled that tragedy to happen now think they can pontificate over a very fine family man.
Now they busy themselves thinking about which way to face and what silky vestments to wear – it is just great – get real and a life and start leading ALL of your Catholics brothers and sisters within a realistic framework – to insist that Catholics abstain from using contraception’s is delusional -to insist that Homosexuals crawl back into a celibate corner of society is delusional.
As David Nickols I believe pointed out – what business do these guys have to point fingers at the elected American President when they can not even manage to convince their immediate Flok to abstain from Abortions. Do your housekeeping before pointing fingers. Frankly everybody knows that the catholic position requiring sexually abused women and girls to give birth to rape children and even accept death for the sake of ‘moral purity’ is not an acceptable one for our society – ever- deal with it.
IMHO much good would come out of a frank discussion of the issue. I think a good number of the indeed terrible socially motivated abortions could be avoided if ALL sides rationally sat down and came up with a workable compromise.
Calling the elected rather popular American President names will not get it done – that is for sure.
Of course grega is right. Abortion is regrettable, but it has been a big part of human life since the beginning of time, and no magic wand waved by Pope or President will put an end to it. The frenzy of the Brazilian bishop or Cardinal Re excommunicating the mother of the raped and abused 9-year old has NOTHING to do with respect for life but rather betokens dogmatic absolutism. And reading the latest New York Review of Books essay on Bush’s torture regime, one cannot but ask how come the bishops were so quiet about that… Were they playing some kind of political game? I heard no outcry comparable to this nonsensical campaign about ND.
And reading the latest New York Review of Books essay on Bush’s torture regime, one cannot but ask how come the bishops were so quiet about that…
I think this is probably fairly typical of the Church hierarchy’s behavior in relation to torture regimes, sadly. The Romeros are pretty few and far between. The Chaputs have, until now, been few and far between, but they are on the rise, giving the illusion of prophetic Church leadership.
The overnights on yesterday’s tea bag rallies were quite surprising, even to me. It seems the general public does not take well to what appears to them to be an angry white mob protesting the President. I think the Republicans have something to add to the conversation on economic policy, but yesterday’s tactic hugely backfired and due to the visuals rather than the substance. The placards about Obama wanting to “enslave” taxpayer were particularly a mistake (the Nazi, Muslim, child abuse and racial allusions were not any better).
So, what are the chances the anti-Obama protests in South Bend on May 17th will do anything but an act of self-embarrassment? Another angry white mob attacking the President?
<While some partisan groups driven by narrow ideological agendas are attempting to smear the Notre Dame community for extending this invitation…
Is this referring to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops?
Lame…
Paul, you are in no position to criticize those who criticize the USCCB.
Regardless who points out the problem, given the number of bishops who have expressed displeasure with ND’s choice (given the guidance the USCCB had issued on the topic several years ago) it seems in appropriate to claim that the decision is only opposed by “partisan groups drive by narrow ideological agendas”.
We Support Notre Dame is a project of Notre Dame Alums in Support of Fr. Jenkins, Faithful America,
Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, and Catholics United.
For press inquiries or more information, please contact info@catholics-united.org.
Glad to see we don’t have any partisan groups driven by narrow ideological agendas behind the Support Notre Dame site…
Regardless who points out the problem, given the number of bishops who have expressed displeasure with ND’s choice (given the guidance the USCCB had issued on the topic several years ago) it seems in appropriate to claim that the decision is only opposed by “partisan groups drive by narrow ideological agendas”.
Agreed.
The USCCB has said nothing in response to Notre Dame’s invitation and <10% of the bishops have been moved to say anything against the action, with even some of them softening their remarks in terms of a private opinion. For example, I don’t find anything said by Archbishop Dolan to be a smear of Notre Dame. A polite disagreement would come closer.
Not that it is impossible for bishops to engage in smears and narrow agendas. The Archbishop of St. Paul and Bishop Garcia of Texas come close.
Maybe the term “partisan” is inappropriate. I don’t find many leading Republicans saying that the President is not an honorable man. In fact, I think the GOP wants to distance itself from the critics of Notre Dame. Smart move on their part.
First of all Minion, I didn’t criticize anyone. I asked a question. No one has answered it, as is usual here.
Secondly, Kurt, I believe that the USCCB, through its president Cardinal George, has spoken to this issue:
“It is clear that Notre Dame didn’t understand what it means to be Catholic when they issued this invitation,” said George, who made his remarks at a conference Sunday hosted by the archdiocese’s Respect Life office in Rosemont.
Now, I would be ineffably surprised to learn that Cardinal George is a Republican.
So my question remains. Are they talking about the USCCB?
Are they even talking about the many bishops who have individually addressed this question?
How about the Superior of the Holy Cross Order, and the members of the Order who have spoken out?
Are we to accept that all of these are “partisan groups driven by narrow ideological agendas [which] are attempting to smear the Notre Dame community”?
I asked a question. No one has answered it, as is usual here.
To answer your question, no, it does not seem that the group behind the website is referring to the USCCB. The USCCB hasn’t made a statement about the Obama-ND case.
Secondly, Kurt, I believe that the USCCB, through its president Cardinal George, has spoken to this issue…
Didn’t Cardinal George say that he wasn’t speaking on this issue in his capacity as President of the USCCB, i.e. that he was not speaking on behalf of the USCCB?
Didn’t Cardinal George say that he wasn’t speaking on this issue in his capacity as President of the USCCB, i.e. that he was not speaking on behalf of the USCCB?
Yes. And it was the only thing he said. He did nto make prepared or written remarks on this topic. he spoke in response to a question at a private meeting and seemed surprised and upset that it was recorded and reported in the media (did he learn nothing from Archbishop Burke?!). Since then he has clammed up and refused further requests on the topic. I’m ready to declare him innocent of smearing Notre Dame.
The USSCB meets in June. Let’s see if someone puts forward a resolution saying the President is not an honorable man and let’s see how many votes it gets.
The USSCB meets in June. Let’s see if someone puts forward a resolution saying the President is not an honorable man and let’s see how many votes it gets.
Kurt, the question isn’t whether the President isn’t “an honorable man” (whatever that means), but whether Catholic universities should be honoring people who have so vocally and so effectively been champions of the Culture of Death.
It’s not about Obama. It’s about Notre Dame.
And other than on Vox Nova I am not aware of any Catholic forum in which Obama’s positions on abortion and embryo-destructive stem cell research are regarded as above reproach.
Hmmm. Perhaps it is about Obama after all. Should he be honored or reproached by Notre Dame?
And is it, after all, only a partisan judgment?
I find it interesting that the “We Support Notre Dame” website is funded by the same organizations responsible for the “Catholics for Sebelius” petition, and who have thus far refused to give President Obama any more than a slap on the wrist for his anti-life policies thus far. Certainly, legitimate arguments can be made for allowing the President to speak at ND (though I tend to agree with the bishops–and the majority of VN posters–that he shouldn’t), but I’m not sure how much credibility groups such as Catholics United really have. They don’t seem to be anything more than front organizations for the Democratic Party’s Catholic outreach efforts, rather than true representatives of a Consistent Ethic of Life.
Catholics in Alliance and Catholics United excoriating narrow partisanship and agenda-pushing?
Cheeky.
Though I will give them some credit from avoiding use of the term divisive. A bit of mildly surprising restraint there.
Otherwise:
“Kettle, your backside is miserably sooty…” sayeth the pot.
Should read “for,” not “from.”
Alas…
They don’t seem to be anything more than front organizations for the Democratic Party’s Catholic outreach efforts, rather than true representatives of a Consistent Ethic of Life.
I’m not even sure if they represent a faction of the Democratic Party. It appears they represent themselves and should be treated as such. Just because I’m white and over weight doesn’t mean I represent white and over weight America. Perhaps just call it the corollary of the plural of anecdote isn’t data.
And other than on Vox Nova I am not aware of any Catholic forum in which Obama’s positions on abortion and embryo-destructive stem cell research are regarded as above reproach.
Please link to any post on Vox Nova that states directly or even implies that Obama’s position on abortion is “above reproach”.
“Please link to any post on Vox Nova that states directly or even implies that Obama’s position on abortion is “above reproach”.”
Fine. Nobody will publicly say his position is “above reproach”. They just think his position on raising the minimum wage a buck an hour more than makes up for all of those icky dead babies.
Fine. Nobody will publicly say his position is “above reproach”. They just think his position on raising the minimum wage a buck an hour more than makes up for all of those icky dead babies.
Hmm. Probably not a fair representation of what “we” think at all.
Kurt, the question isn’t whether the President isn’t “an honorable man” (whatever that means), but whether Catholic universities should be honoring people…
Paul,
You are going to have to find a real good Jesuit to explain the difference between honorable and honor-able, and that whatever difference can be found is significant enough and objective enough that third parties can bind the judgment of others, namely the University of Notre Dame, an autonomous juridical person.
Now, try that again, the question is not if he is an honorable person but that is he a person we are able to honor? Huh?????
“Now, try that again, the question is not if he is an honorable person but that is he a person we are able to honor? Huh?????”
Exactly
A sound majority of Catholics would sign this petition – and you guys know it -and it is driving you nuts – but hey what is new -Jesus Christ was able to get under the skin of the ‘holier than thou types’ in his time.
Obama is a very very fine leader – he respresents some of the very best this country has to offer to the world. The man actually right now insprires billions – tough luck that some of the folks that could not be bothered raising a finger when the previous President ran this fine nation down fiscally and morally (Torture, Wars based on lies) now all of a sudden are up in arms.
It is such a fake “outrage” – this one will backfire.
It is such a fake “outrage” – this one will backfire.
HAS backfired
“The man actually right now inspires billions”
Well, no. He makes a lot of people feel good. There’s a difference, as his trip to Europe shows. A lot of applause, not much action.
“fake outrage”–yes, because there’s no possible principled objection to what Notre Dame has done. Glory and praise to our Chief, who alone gives light to our days.
“fake outrage”–yes, because there’s no possible principled objection to what Notre Dame has done.
I’ll take that as a white flag of surrender.
No longer is it being claimed that the ONLY possible principled position is to reject the President, but that it is possible that principled people might have differing discernments? So the juridicial person with the right to make and act on this discernment — Notre Dame — might well have made a principled discernment, even if is not the discernment some others may have made.
Dale, I have no problem with that.
And other than on Vox Nova I am not aware of any Catholic forum in which Obama’s positions on abortion and embryo-destructive stem cell research are regarded as above reproach.
You ignore the negative evidence, which happens to be every post on Obama and abortion at Vox Nova. Please don’t resort to caricatures as an excuse not to think.
Fine. Nobody will publicly say his position is “above reproach”. They just think his position on raising the minimum wage a buck an hour more than makes up for all of those icky dead babies.
Once again, forming caricatures is much easier than thinking.
There are lots of reasons why the time seems right and why a person like Obama can inspire people around the globe. Obama is the first to admit that – it is less about his person and more about a certain “can do” rationale attitude. As you know plenty of traditionally conservative/Republican voting parents who voted for Obama because they could feel he had the energy and inspiration to lead a new generation.
For many of us such profound paradigm shifts are exciting and very healthy. That is what Democracy is all about – a fresh mind taking the lead.
In my view Obama is a very measured and responsible President so far.
Let me give this a different spin -
it would be very appropriate if our church finally would start taking bold steps to stop this current energy choking downward spiral.
I find it more than ridiculous that numerous of the same Monsignores that could not be bothered protecting our children from sexual abusive criminal Priest and did not have the gutts to face up to the systematic failures that enabled that tragedy to happen now think they can pontificate over a very fine family man.
Now they busy themselves thinking about which way to face and what silky vestments to wear – it is just great – get real and a life and start leading ALL of your Catholics brothers and sisters within a realistic framework – to insist that Catholics abstain from using contraception’s is delusional -to insist that Homosexuals crawl back into a celibate corner of society is delusional.
As David Nickols I believe pointed out – what business do these guys have to point fingers at the elected American President when they can not even manage to convince their immediate Flok to abstain from Abortions. Do your housekeeping before pointing fingers. Frankly everybody knows that the catholic position requiring sexually abused women and girls to give birth to rape children and even accept death for the sake of ‘moral purity’ is not an acceptable one for our society – ever- deal with it.
IMHO much good would come out of a frank discussion of the issue. I think a good number of the indeed terrible socially motivated abortions could be avoided if ALL sides rationally sat down and came up with a workable compromise.
Calling the elected rather popular American President names will not get it done – that is for sure.
Sounds and Looks “Soro-sy”
Of course grega is right. Abortion is regrettable, but it has been a big part of human life since the beginning of time, and no magic wand waved by Pope or President will put an end to it. The frenzy of the Brazilian bishop or Cardinal Re excommunicating the mother of the raped and abused 9-year old has NOTHING to do with respect for life but rather betokens dogmatic absolutism. And reading the latest New York Review of Books essay on Bush’s torture regime, one cannot but ask how come the bishops were so quiet about that… Were they playing some kind of political game? I heard no outcry comparable to this nonsensical campaign about ND.
And reading the latest New York Review of Books essay on Bush’s torture regime, one cannot but ask how come the bishops were so quiet about that…
I think this is probably fairly typical of the Church hierarchy’s behavior in relation to torture regimes, sadly. The Romeros are pretty few and far between. The Chaputs have, until now, been few and far between, but they are on the rise, giving the illusion of prophetic Church leadership.
The overnights on yesterday’s tea bag rallies were quite surprising, even to me. It seems the general public does not take well to what appears to them to be an angry white mob protesting the President. I think the Republicans have something to add to the conversation on economic policy, but yesterday’s tactic hugely backfired and due to the visuals rather than the substance. The placards about Obama wanting to “enslave” taxpayer were particularly a mistake (the Nazi, Muslim, child abuse and racial allusions were not any better).
So, what are the chances the anti-Obama protests in South Bend on May 17th will do anything but an act of self-embarrassment? Another angry white mob attacking the President?