Jivin J’s Life Links 5-15-09
by JivinJ
Douglas W. Kmiec, a constitutional scholar and former Notre Dame professor who was an outspoken critic of abortion when he worked for Presidents Ronald Reagan and the elder George Bush, said he had been advising the White House to use the speech at the university on Sunday to tackle the controversy head on, with the president making the case that “we already have agreement, we both respect life, we both view abortion as a moral tragedy.”
Does Obama really view abortion as a moral tragedy? If so, why does he want our tax dollars to pay for these moral tragedies?…
It is easy to see the appeal of Obama to Notre Dame. Our country has one president, and he is giving only three commencement speeches this year. One is traditionally at a service academy; this year, at Annapolis. Notre Dame (along with Arizona State) won the prize coveted by almost every university.
So far, Bishop D’Arcy seems to be on the right track: Notre Dame chose prestige.
That is nothing new. Prestige – as measured by U.S. News rankings, academic peer recognition, NIH grants, endowment size, New York Times mentions – has been the gold standard at Notre Dame as long as I have been here. Notre Dame’s Catholic identity has largely become the preserve of campus ministry and, to some extent, of the rules governing student life.
On the academic side – in research, teaching, publishing, and the hiring and retention of faculty – the truths of the Catholic faith are missing in action. Notre Dame’s central academic aspiration has nothing to do with Catholicism. It is the Association of American Universities, a group of 62 American research schools – none of them Catholic – that Notre Dame is desperate to join….
At the heart of the matter is the immorality – the sin – of scandal. Scandal is, basically, leading others into sin, in this case by clouding others’ understanding of the truth about abortion. Here, we are talking about the scandalous effects portended by America’s leading Catholic institution when it honors the most pro-abortion president in history. The atmosphere at graduation will be festive, and a packed house will rock it with a standing ovation for Obama. Notre Dame dignitaries and faculty will be photographed beaming as Obama extends his hand to a smiling Jenkins. It will be a visual spectacle of the first order.
This celebration will weaken the belief of some present that abortion is always wrong. For some and perhaps for many, what was before the commencement a conviction that abortion is objectively immoral will become a conviction after that “abortion is wrong for me (I think), but there is reasonable disagreement about that, and everyone has to make that decision for herself, or himself.”
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Doesn’t the government of Spain realise that their current birth rate is 1.1 – far below what they require to maintain their population. In fact, they have fallen below the rate at which they can effect a reverse in the birth rate.
People simply do not connect the dots, in the Western world, between low birth rate, legalized abortion, and national suicide.
I made the point on an earlier post what a fraud the Notre Dame circus/publicity stunt is. It might have made some sense 30 years ago when Benjamin Civiletti, the first of many pro-choice speakers and honorees took the podium.
Since then, there have been more than a dozen pro choice speakers and honorees at Notre Dame graduations. Ten Presidents have been asked to speak without regard to their party or policies.
The only difference here is that far right wing extremist hate groups led by a bunch of “D List”
publicity seekers want to project their insane hatred for Obama. We get it.
Fortunately Notre Dame long ago committed itself under Dr. Hesberg, to be an institution for learning in an environment of respecct for people and ideas. I am confident the university and law enforcement can protect all participants against the publicity-seeking thugs.
Douglas W. Kmiec, a constitutional scholar and former Notre Dame professor said he had been advising the White House to use the speech at the university on Sunday to tackle the controversy head on, with the president making the case that “we already have agreement, we both respect life, we both view abortion as a moral tragedy.”
Ok, I get it. They think we are STUPID! how terribly patronizing….
Since Professor Bradley thinks he is so morally superior to everyone else, including everyone else at Notre Dame, and the instituiton itself, I am sure he refuses a paycheck. Otherwise he would be a hypocrite…
This is the difference, Bystander: In 2004, the USCCB issued the document “Catholics in the Political Life” which, in part, reads
“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.”
http://www.usccb.org/bishops/catholicsinpoliticallife.shtml
OK? So that’s that. This is not the political issue you and so many others try and make this out to be. It is a religious issue, one about our fundamental identity as a religious organization.
Posted by: Bystander at May 15, 2009 6:40 PM
The only difference here is that far right wing extremist hate groups led by a bunch of “D List”
publicity seekers want to project their insane hatred for Obama. We get it.
—————————————————-
There may be one other subtle distinction that may have escape your wary eye and hyper sensitive hearing.
ND is ‘honoring’ pbho by conferring on him a ‘law degree’ which he has not earned.
The one he did earn from Harvard, and for which he applied and received a ‘license to practice law’ in the state of a son of a Blagojevich Illinois and the City of the Chicago ‘way’ has lapsed, gone unrenewed, surrendered, but no one seems to know ‘why’.
We know Bill Clinton was disbarred by the Arkansas Bar Association for comitting perjury, but no one knows why pbho or for that matter his wife, no longer posses a license to practice law in Illinois or any other state, not even Hawaii, where that almost equally elusive ‘birth certificate’ resides sequestered in a ‘lock box’ that would make Hillary Clinton jealous.
Some speculate that the bho answered falsely on the application, that he had never used another name and he could not satifactorily reconcile that answer with records of him being know as one Barry Soretoreo. It is ‘perjury’ to lie on an application to practice law in Illinois, something for which even Illinois lawyers are dis-barred.
But what the heck, the potus is expected to be able to lie early, lie often, and when or in in doubt lie some more. Seems to be working for pbho.
yor bro ken
Posted by: Bystander at May 15, 2009 6:40 PM
“I am confident the university and law enforcement can protect all participants against the publicity-seeking thugs.”
——————————————————
Bystander
The wicked flee in terror when no one pursues because they are bullies and cowards.
Please identify the ‘thugs’ on the video. Give us a description like you would if you were filing a police report.
Gender, hair color, age, ethnicity, what they were wearing any identifying tatoos, scarrs, body piercings, etc.
Give us the time that the ‘thug’ were threatening or assauting anyone.
I thought I saw a man and woman who resembled Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn, but I might have been mistaken.
Please help us we want to avoid ‘ thugs’ like Ayers and Dorhn.
yor bro ken
Bobby, obviously there are millions of Catholics who disagree with you, including the vast majority who support the invitation to Obama,and including the graduating seniors who voted 97% in favor of the invitation, and gave Father Jenkins the highest honor bestowed by the class.
Who exactly told you that you are better and holier than everyone else on earth and that you have the right to force your views on everyone else? How incredibly arrogant can one person be?
That would be so arrogant, your right, Bystander. It would be kind of like forcing your stance on privilege and superiority onto unborn children’s shoulders…wow that would be so weird because then you might actually be both intolerant and hypocritical. What a backwards world that would be.
Sorry, typo: I was enjoying a moment of slight shock when I typed that: your should be you’re.
Posted by: Bystander at May 15, 2009 10:00 PM
“Who exactly told you that you are better and holier than everyone else on earth and that you have the right to force your views on everyone else? How incredibly arrogant can one person be?”
—————————————————
Bystander,
Suggest you read that statement slowly carefully, and digest each word.
Then look in the mirror and read it outloud to yourself and tell yourself why it does not apply to you?
When you have done that then come back and share with us what your ‘self’ told you.
You are not winning too many arguements here. Maybe you can win one with your ‘self’.
yor bro ken
Bystander,
Who are YOU that you can judge everyone else as you do constantly at this site? Not anywhere in Bobby’s responses are there inferences that he is “holier” than anyone. You however, do nothing but accuse, attack and judge.
It doesn’t make any difference how many Catholics disagree — the Catholic Church is based on the Truth that is Jesus Christ — not some opinion poll. Given that so many Catholics are not instructed properly in the faith and Church teaching, etc., it is not surprising that they support Obama’s presence at graduation.
Because that’s what the Left wants.
They want us to pay for their evil.
Bobby walks in humility and love for all.
Arrogant? Better? Holier than anyone else?
That is not the Bobby Bambino that we all know and love and you know it, Bystander.
“we already have agreement, we both respect life, we both view abortion as a moral tragedy.”
Wow, abortion is a “moral tragedy”?! So then why is it legal? Then why has Obama removed restrictions to make it easier to obtain abortions? Their thinking is truly crazy. And they actually think that they can fool people with their insane line of reasoning. Doug Kmiec has really lost it.
“Does Obama really view abortion as a moral tragedy? If so, why does he want our tax dollars to pay for these moral tragedies?…”
If Obama does view abortion as a moral tragedy, there is an obvious mental disconnect between that and his feeling of responsibility for it. He claims its a choice between a woman, her minister and her doctor therefore removing himself from the equation. it’s a moral cop out.
Why does he want our tax dollars to pay for abortion? Because he doesn’t want poor women to have more babies? That would cost the government even more in welfare payments in the future. Just a thought.
Who exactly told you that you are better and holier than everyone else on earth and that you have the right to force your views on everyone else? How incredibly arrogant can one person be?
Posted by: Bystander at May 15, 2009 10:00 PM
oh you mean they way you force YOUR views on us? EXCUSE ME! People like you have forced abortion down OUR throats for the past 30 years! We can’t protest, abstain, object or anything else. We are EXPECTED to leave our BELIEFS at home, while creeps like you take YOUR beliefs into the workplace, the government, the hospitals, and the media and RAM them down our throats!
get a reality check, Bystander.
Doug Kmiec has really lost it.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at May 15, 2009 10:24 PM
yes his faith, his integrity and his soul.
Oh, no, a fight is breaking out on this thread.
So, uh, my cousin Eva celebrated her first birthday today. I would show you a picture but I’m technologically inept.
Mr. Bambino: are things good with the new baby? She was so cute. I bet that she’s very sweet. :).
no fights Vannah! :)
Eva’s a nice name!
It looks like Eva but the E is pronounced “eh.” :D. I love babies. They make me smile. Any babies in your life at this point, Angel? I hope so.
Well, I don’t plan to disrupt any graduation ceremonies or get arrested this weekend, so I guess I am not “forcing” my views on anyone.
Bystander: demonstrating against something is NOT forcing a view on anyone.
It is presenting an opposing viewpoint.
But taking away a doctor’s right to decline performing a procedure he/she deems immoral is forcing a view on that person.
Funding abortions with taxpayer money is forcing a view on millions of people.
I think you and I both know that there is only one view of choice when it comes to abortion. Choice=abortion.
angel, excellent points.
Janet, I have a feeling that Obama is simply using his Alinsky tactics manual. Cardinal George said that it was difficult to argue with him because he continually said that he “agreed” with the Cardinal when Cardinal George said “No, we don’t”. Obama continually does these grievous things all the while he is empathizing with everyone.
Joanne: The problem is that this “No, really, we all agree” tactic does seem to work for him.
Vannah: That’s the way Eva is usually pronounced, in my experience. It is a beautiful name however it is pronounced. I love names!
Bystander, let’s try this again. You said that this kind of protest should have been happening 30 years ago and that there have been many other PC speakers at ND. OK, fair enough. Then I pointed out that something had changed in the past 30 years; namely, in 2004, the Catholic Bishops issued a statement addressing these issues, and NOW it has become clear. Then you responded by telling me about the opinions of many Catholics and calling me arrogant and saying I’m forcing my views on others.
You are simply beyond reason, Bystander. You refuse to participate in back and forth dialogue. I’m incorrect about what the Church teaches and these other 97% are correct? Fine, that’s possible. Show me a document. Discuss things like a rational human being. In fact, I may very well be arrogant and conceded. How does that change a single argument I have put forth? How does my arrogance change the validity of the Bishop’s 2004 statement?
Bystander, it’s people like you that make me appreciate so much more pro-choicers like Hal and Alexandra, and other reasonable pro-choicers. They are willing to discuss the issues. They are willing to actually READ and address what pro-lifers say to them, and they respond in a thoughtful, considerate manner. They admit when they make mistakes, they admit when they are wrong or don’t have an answer to someone. This is in complete contrast to your attitude, Bystander. All I see from you is the old go-to of “thou shalt not judge”, “don’t impose your beliefs on me”, and “you think you’re holier than thou,” not to mention peppering your posts with phrases like “extreme right wing nut jobs” and “Faux news.”
It’s lame. It’s just simply lame.
It is a religious issue, one about our fundamental identity as a religious organization.
Well put, Bobby.
That is not the Bobby Bambino that we all know and love
Agreed, Carla. bystander’s comments reveal more about herself than they do about Bobby.
Bobby, congratulations on actually doing some research on the history of pro-choice speakers at Notre Dame, and acknowledging the truth- that Obama is perhaps the 15th pro-choice honoree.
Obviously the Church, Notre Dame, its administration and the vast majority of Catholics do not agree with or interpret the 2004 “statement” as you do. Is it possible they are right and you are wrong?
Doug Kmiec reminds me of Talleyrand who served Louis XVI, the Revolutionary gov’t and Napolean.
Well here’s the thing Bystander. I have not heard anyone (who supports Obama speaking at ND) address it. No one is willing to give an alternate interpretation because one would have to be a post-modernist to interpret it any other way than what it says:
“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.”
One would have to question the meaning of words, how we use language, if anything can ever be interpreted properly, etc. in order to avoid the plain and clear words above. One would have to embrace post-modernism to avoid what the sentence is actually saying.
The problem is my guess is that people just don’t care. The whole progressive Catholicism is based on the idea of rebellion and not submitting oneself to the teaching authority of the Church. I mean, I’m sure you’ve seen many Catholics who know very well that the Church is opposed to artificial contraception, yet say “I don’t care. I think the Church is wrong.” That is what I’m quite sure is happening here. I have never heard an alternate theory for what the statement means, nor can I imagine what one would be. It all goes back to the “non servium” of Jeremiah 2:20.
Sorry I snapped at you earlier, Bystander.
“Bobby, obviously there are millions of Catholics who disagree with you,”
Who cares what a bunch of Catholics think?
There is only one Catholic opinion; the Pope’s.
If members of the church could vote, there would be no church and endless splinters, divisions and heresies.
I am not Catholic, but come on, 2000 years and not one single Pope has written one single line of heresy in his official capacity.
There are millions of Catholics but only one Catholic opinion.
And has the Pope taken a position on the Obama address? Not that I know of…
I have not heard anyone (who supports Obama speaking at ND) address it.
I’ve heard supporters claim that the title of the document implies that it doesn’t apply to this instance because PBHO isn’t Catholic. I’ve not heard anyone reference statements in the document to build a case though.
“I don’t care. I think the Church is wrong.” That is what I’m quite sure is happening here.
I agree. To my way of thinking, PBHO is preaching to the choir tomorrow. Many of those “catholics” who are not loyal to magisterial teaching were already in his corner. His address will IMHO solidify his support among those who already backed him but further alienate those Catholics who already opposed him.
bystander, one of Pope Benedict’s top officials (Apb Burke) has spoken out as well as about 70 US Bishops and cardinals. They’re authorized to represent Church authority here, which is why they put forth the document Bobby referenced. The Pope need not speak out when those he’s delegated have already done so.
Bystander…
Peace be with you and know that God loves you. Psalm 139 is from Him to you. He will share with you some insight into the miracle of you.
“I’ve heard supporters claim that the title of the document implies that it doesn’t apply to this instance because PBHO isn’t Catholic.”
Isn’t that the excuse that Fr. Jenkins used? But the abortion issue is not a religious issue; it is about Natural Law — knowing interiorly that killing innocent human beings is WRONG.
Eileen, that was well put!
Thanks, Heather :)
Eileen#2, I was thinking it was Fr J but wasn’t certain my memory was correct. I understand and agree with what you’re saying about natural law. My feeling about it is that even if it weren’t natural law, Fr J is a consecrated religious who has taken a vow of OBEDIENCE to Church authority and her teachings. If there were any doubt whatsoever about the meaning of the document, Fr J had a duty to the Church and the faithful to discuss it with his Bishop or seek further guidance. For me this is not only about prolife issues. It’s about Catholic identity, as Bobby said, and it’s about loyalty–or lack of–to the Church to which one professes to belong.
Fed Up — you always make good points.
Fed Up,
I have been to a Rachel’s Vineyard Retreat. I noticed you had a question on another thread and I will try to answer it if I can.
Thank you, Carla. Feel free to email me if you don’t want to derail the thread here. I just visited RV’s site and they have more content there than last time I checked. Most of my questions are resolved now. Still, I’m wondering about a few things.
1- I understand that the RV hotline assists people of all faiths or no faith. Same with retreats. At the retreat you attended, were there any participants of no faith? If so, how did RV accomodate these individuals so they didn’t feel like the odd man out in a group of believers? Or am I incorrect to assume that the majority of participants come from a faith-based background of some kind?
2- Can you tell me anything about the way RV screens/assesses the readiness of the caller to participate in a retreat?
Thanks in advance for any enlightenment you can provide me :)
Fed Up,
The retreat I attended all of the participants had faith. The majority of those that attend do know it is a faith based retreat.(There are Catholic retreats as well) My good friend is a facilitator and told me of a Jewish woman who had an abortion and was so completely distraught but left in the middle of the weekend.
I do not know how the screening process goes but those that are interested are told of the basic flow of the weekend and if they think they are “ready” for it. It is emotional and spiritual and leaves one quite drained. I attended 18 years after my abortion and I know others that attend only months after their abortions. Such a personal decision to make. I guess you just don’t reach for it, until you feel ready. You just don’t pick up that phone to call, you know?
Thank you, Carla.