A Disgrace at Notre Dame
I am a University of Notre Dame grad and I'm terribly disappointed that my school is intent on providing a platform for President Obama to lecture the Country on his pro-abortion beliefs.
For anyone who wants to "sign" the petition (almost 200,000 signers as of this morning) asking Notre Dame to end this outrage, the site is notredamescandal.com. While you're at it, you might want to email the President of Notre Dame, Fr. Jenkins, at president@nd.edu.
Of all the material published on this subject over the last week, I thought the press release and statement by many of the student groups at Notre Dame were the best. I re-produce those here:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
NOTRE DAME STUDENT GROUPS DENOUNCE UNIVERSITY’S CHOICE FOR
COMMENCEMENT SPEECH
NOTRE DAME, IN, 25 March 2009 — A number of student groups at the University of Notre Dame issued a statement today repudiating the University’s selection of President Barack Obama to deliver its 2009 Commencement Address. The statement criticizes the president’s position on abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and other life issues, and chastises University administration for apparently looking over what they termed “fundamental moral principles.”
The statement responds to Friday afternoon’s announcement of Obama as the speaker for the University’s 164th Commencement. Citing Catholic teaching on abortion, as well as the US Bishops’ 2004 document "Catholics in Political Life," which deals with issues surrounding a Catholic response to politicians who advocate abortion, the student statement expresses “deepest opposition” to the decision. “This is not a partisan issue; rather, it’s an issue of respect for human life, and our Catholic
character. We want to emphasize that we are not attacking the office of the President, but taking issue with his moral stances. I think the statement makes it clear that the student body of Notre Dame is not unequivocally in favor of this decision,” said senior Emily Toates of Notre Dame Right to Life.
An Ad Hoc committee sponsored by a coalition of University-sponsored student groups has been organized to lead student response. These groups include Notre Dame Right to Life, Jus Vitae (Notre Dame Law School Right to Life), the Irish Rover independent student newspaper, Notre Dame College Republicans, The University of Notre Dame Anscombe Society, The Identity Project of Notre Dame, Notre Dame Knights of the Immaculata, Notre Dame Children of Mary, the Orestes Brownson Council,
Notre Dame Law St. Thomas More Society, and the Federalist Society of the Notre Dame Law School.
STUDENT COALITION STATEMENT ON THE 2009 UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME
COMMENCEMENT CEREMONIES
In defense of the unborn, we wish to express our deepest opposition to Reverend John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.’s invitation of President Barack Obama to be the University of Notre Dame’s principal commencement speaker and the recipient of an honorary degree. Our objection is not a matter of political partisanship, but of President Obama’s hostility to the Catholic Church’s teachings on the sanctity of human life at its earliest stages. His recent dedication of federal funds to overseas abortions and to embryonic stem cell research will directly result in the deaths of thousands of innocent human beings. We cannot sit by idly while the University honors someone who believes that an entire class of human beings is undeserving of the most basic of all legal rights, the right to live.
The University’s decision runs counter to the policy of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops against honoring pro-choice politicians. In their June 2004 statement Catholics in Political Life, the bishops said, “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.” Fr. Jenkins defends his invitation by saying that it does not honor or suggest support for the President’s views on abortion, but rather support for his leadership. But our “fundamental moral principles” must be respected at all times. And the principle that requires us to refrain from the direct killing of the innocent has a special status even among the most fundamental principles. President Obama’s actions have consistently shown contempt for this principle, and he has sought political gain by making light of its clear political implications. Leadership that puts the lives of the most innocent at risk is leadership we must disdain. In the face of President Obama’s actions, Father Jenkins’ words ring hollow.
It is a great irony that the University has chosen to award President Obama an honorary law degree. As the oldest Catholic law school in the country, the Notre Dame Law School states that its mission is “to facilitate greater understanding of and commitment to the relationship between law and social justice.” The social justice issue of our day is the deliberate, legal attack on the most vulnerable members of society, the unborn. To award a Notre Dame law degree to a lawyer and politician who has used the law to deny equality to the unborn diminishes the value of the degree itself.
Additionally, Fr. Jenkins has placed some of his students in a moral dilemma as to whether they should attend their own graduation. Many pro-life seniors, along with their families, are conflicted about whether to participate in the commencement ceremony. The lack of concern for these devoted sons and daughters of Notre Dame, who love this University and the Catholic principles on which it was built, is shameful.
In response to the University’s decision, we pledge ourselves to acts of witness that will be characterized by respect, prayerfulness, outspoken fidelity to the Church, and true concern for the good of our University. It is appropriate that only members of the Notre Dame community lead all such protests, and we ask outside groups to respect our responsibilities in this regard. Over the next several weeks, in response to this scandal, our organizations will host various academic and religious events to engage the University community. We request any groups who are committed to respectful actions to support our efforts, thereby ensuring a unified front and a more compelling public witness.
In Notre Dame,
Notre Dame Right to Life
The Irish Rover Student Newspaper
Notre Dame College Republicans
The University of Notre Dame Anscombe Society
Notre Dame Identity Project
Militia of the Immaculata
Children of Mary
Orestes Brownson Council
Notre Dame Law School Right to Life
Notre Dame Law St Thomas More Society
The Federalist Society at Notre Dame Law School
I am a University of Notre Dame grad and I'm terribly disappointed that my school is intent on providing a platform for President Obama to lecture the Country on his pro-abortion beliefs.
For anyone who wants to "sign" the petition (almost 200,000 signers as of this morning) asking Notre Dame to end this outrage, the site is notredamescandal.com. While you're at it, you might want to email the President of Notre Dame, Fr. Jenkins, at president@nd.edu.
Of all the material published on this subject over the last week, I thought the press release and statement by many of the student groups at Notre Dame were the best. I re-produce those here:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
NOTRE DAME STUDENT GROUPS DENOUNCE UNIVERSITY’S CHOICE FOR
COMMENCEMENT SPEECH
NOTRE DAME, IN, 25 March 2009 — A number of student groups at the University of Notre Dame issued a statement today repudiating the University’s selection of President Barack Obama to deliver its 2009 Commencement Address. The statement criticizes the president’s position on abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and other life issues, and chastises University administration for apparently looking over what they termed “fundamental moral principles.”
The statement responds to Friday afternoon’s announcement of Obama as the speaker for the University’s 164th Commencement. Citing Catholic teaching on abortion, as well as the US Bishops’ 2004 document "Catholics in Political Life," which deals with issues surrounding a Catholic response to politicians who advocate abortion, the student statement expresses “deepest opposition” to the decision. “This is not a partisan issue; rather, it’s an issue of respect for human life, and our Catholic
character. We want to emphasize that we are not attacking the office of the President, but taking issue with his moral stances. I think the statement makes it clear that the student body of Notre Dame is not unequivocally in favor of this decision,” said senior Emily Toates of Notre Dame Right to Life.
An Ad Hoc committee sponsored by a coalition of University-sponsored student groups has been organized to lead student response. These groups include Notre Dame Right to Life, Jus Vitae (Notre Dame Law School Right to Life), the Irish Rover independent student newspaper, Notre Dame College Republicans, The University of Notre Dame Anscombe Society, The Identity Project of Notre Dame, Notre Dame Knights of the Immaculata, Notre Dame Children of Mary, the Orestes Brownson Council,
Notre Dame Law St. Thomas More Society, and the Federalist Society of the Notre Dame Law School.
STUDENT COALITION STATEMENT ON THE 2009 UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME
COMMENCEMENT CEREMONIES
In defense of the unborn, we wish to express our deepest opposition to Reverend John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.’s invitation of President Barack Obama to be the University of Notre Dame’s principal commencement speaker and the recipient of an honorary degree. Our objection is not a matter of political partisanship, but of President Obama’s hostility to the Catholic Church’s teachings on the sanctity of human life at its earliest stages. His recent dedication of federal funds to overseas abortions and to embryonic stem cell research will directly result in the deaths of thousands of innocent human beings. We cannot sit by idly while the University honors someone who believes that an entire class of human beings is undeserving of the most basic of all legal rights, the right to live.
The University’s decision runs counter to the policy of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops against honoring pro-choice politicians. In their June 2004 statement Catholics in Political Life, the bishops said, “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.” Fr. Jenkins defends his invitation by saying that it does not honor or suggest support for the President’s views on abortion, but rather support for his leadership. But our “fundamental moral principles” must be respected at all times. And the principle that requires us to refrain from the direct killing of the innocent has a special status even among the most fundamental principles. President Obama’s actions have consistently shown contempt for this principle, and he has sought political gain by making light of its clear political implications. Leadership that puts the lives of the most innocent at risk is leadership we must disdain. In the face of President Obama’s actions, Father Jenkins’ words ring hollow.
It is a great irony that the University has chosen to award President Obama an honorary law degree. As the oldest Catholic law school in the country, the Notre Dame Law School states that its mission is “to facilitate greater understanding of and commitment to the relationship between law and social justice.” The social justice issue of our day is the deliberate, legal attack on the most vulnerable members of society, the unborn. To award a Notre Dame law degree to a lawyer and politician who has used the law to deny equality to the unborn diminishes the value of the degree itself.
Additionally, Fr. Jenkins has placed some of his students in a moral dilemma as to whether they should attend their own graduation. Many pro-life seniors, along with their families, are conflicted about whether to participate in the commencement ceremony. The lack of concern for these devoted sons and daughters of Notre Dame, who love this University and the Catholic principles on which it was built, is shameful.
In response to the University’s decision, we pledge ourselves to acts of witness that will be characterized by respect, prayerfulness, outspoken fidelity to the Church, and true concern for the good of our University. It is appropriate that only members of the Notre Dame community lead all such protests, and we ask outside groups to respect our responsibilities in this regard. Over the next several weeks, in response to this scandal, our organizations will host various academic and religious events to engage the University community. We request any groups who are committed to respectful actions to support our efforts, thereby ensuring a unified front and a more compelling public witness.
In Notre Dame,
Notre Dame Right to Life
The Irish Rover Student Newspaper
Notre Dame College Republicans
The University of Notre Dame Anscombe Society
Notre Dame Identity Project
Militia of the Immaculata
Children of Mary
Orestes Brownson Council
Notre Dame Law School Right to Life
Notre Dame Law St Thomas More Society
The Federalist Society at Notre Dame Law School
posted by Zack at 6:43 AM
14 Comments:
This raises an issue I've been struggling with of late: how does one square the views expressed with support for the Iraq war? One of the statements in the press release is that "the principle that requires us to refrain from the direct killing of the innocent has a special status even among the most fundamental principles." There is no doubt that the Iraq war has led to the loss of many thousands of innocent lives -- including the lives of thousands of innocent women and children. If one is anti-abortion, as I am, because "the direct killing of the innocent has a special status," then why doesn't that compel a view that the Iraq war is wrong?
Conscience,
No conflict here whatsoever.
Despite what Rep. Jack Murtha (D, PA) says, US Marines are not killing innocent Iraqi woman and children in cold blood.
Yes, innocent men, woman and children are dying as a result of coalition forces pursuing the "guilty".
I agreed and I agree with the words of President Clinton when he said on December 16, 1998, "Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties . . . Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction."
Again, it certainly is not the intention oc coalition forces to kill innocents.
March 29, 9:44 AM
Conscience,
The very purpose of an abortion is to kill the innocent.
March 29, 3:47 PM
I understand, but in both instances an innocent life is lost. An unborn child's life has no more intrinsic value (or less, I agree) than that of an innocient Iraqi child. My point is that if you value innocent life as much as you do, shouldn't you also have a great concern about the loss of innocent life caused by war?
When pursuing a war, it is done with the knowledge that there will be significant loss of innocent life. Although that is not the intention, it is inevitable, and the loss is no less tragic whether it's inteded or not.
To be clear, my point is not that your stance on abortion is wrong, but rather that consistency as to respect for life would seem to suggest that you should be exceedingly reluctant to support any war, including the Iraq war.
Conscience,
I suggest you read any St. Augustine or any St. Thomas Aquinas to get the very best arguments of just war theory.
March 30, 4:53 PM
Notre Dame has a history of inviting sitting Presidents as commencement speakers. George Bush was welcomed to Notre Dame to speak despite his record of authorizing executions as Governor in Texas. Isn't the Catholic church against the death penaltty as well as abortion? Where was the outcry then?
Anonymous,
Please define "outcry" and who is doing it? And, who are you directing the questions to? Anyone or me?
April 7, 4:32 PM
I define outcry as what is going on now. Petitions being signed, groups you listed in your blog who have publicly called out the University and ask others to join them, groups and the general public organizing to descend upon the University to protest at graduation time, the Bishop declaring he will not attend Commencement in protest, etc. I am directing the question to you or anyone else who has an answer to it. Do you have one?
Anonymous,
I guess the passion for defending the lives of the innocent is greater than the passion for defending the lives of the guilty. If you don't understand this, please elaborate on what part you don't understand.
The groups listed have not asked others to join them; they specifically asked that their response be their response.
If you think President Bush ever gave a speech anywhere and was not hounded by protesters, you are in deep denial.
I don't know if your questions are borne from anti-Catholicism, I'd appreciate it if you could share with us if you have an anti-Catholic bias or not.
Moving from the Catholic protest angle and addressing just the protest angle, can you please tell us where all the ugly protesters who attacked Bush on a daily basis have gone now that Obama is prosecuting an illegal war in Iraq?
April 9, 6:46 PM
For the record,I am a pro-life Catholic who does not think it is fitting for Obama to be speaking at Notre Dame. I have been confronted by people posing the same question to me that I asked of you. I was just curious to see how you would have answered it. There does seem to be some hypocrisy but I defended the Church the same way you did w/the innocent vs guilty distinction.
Anonymous,
I was a student at Notre Dame when Gov. Mario Cuomo (1984 or 1985; I'm not researching to get the exact year) was given a microphone to specifically defend his pro-abortion views in Washington Hall. That was truly vile.
There is no hypocrisy in our position. There is just war theory that can be applied to support for the death penalty. The monster in Florida who beat and raped a nine-year old girl and then buried her alive to suffocate alone and in complete fear should have been put to death; I'll take my chances with my Church for believing so.
The hypocrites are the ones who argue against the death penalty and support abortion. Those hypocrites never have to explain their idiotic position.
Obama believed that no attempts should have been made to save the life of a child who survived a failed aboriton.
He has no problem with partial birth abortion - a scissor in the skull of a baby up to 8 1/2 months in the womb to then suck the baby's brain out to collapse the skull so as to cause the least amount of discomfort to the carrier.
Don't ever expose yourself to the questions of true hypocrites who try to put you on the spot. You ask the questions and have the true hypocrite try to defend partial birth abortion and keeping alive men who rape, beat and murder 9 year-old girls.
April 10, 7:13 PM
Anonymous (and Conscience),
First, Happy Easter!
Second, Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, wrote in 2004:
"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
Wow. Great find- that really says it all. We cannot lose on the moral equivalency argument.
Post a Comment
<< Home