That’s the latest blast from the Bishop of South Bend, Bishop John D’Arcy. The statement concludes:
As I have said in a recent interview and which I have said to Father Jenkins, it would be one thing to bring the president here for a discussion on healthcare or immigration, and no person of goodwill could rightly oppose this. We have here, however, the granting of an honorary degree of law to someone whose activities both as president and previously, have been altogether supportive of laws against the dignity of the human person yet to be born.
[snip]
I consider it now settled — that the USCCB document, “Catholics in Public Life,” does indeed apply in this matter. The failure to consult the local bishop who, whatever his unworthiness, is the teacher and lawgiver in the diocese, is a serious mistake. Proper consultation could have prevented an action, which has caused such painful division between Notre Dame and many bishops — and a large number of the faithful.
That division must be addressed through prayer and action, and I pledge to work with Father Jenkins and all at Notre Dame to heal the terrible breach, which has taken place between Notre Dame and the church. It cannot be allowed to continue. I ask all to pray that this healing will take place in a way that is substantial and true, and not illusory. Notre Dame and Father Jenkins must do their part if this healing is to take place. I will do my part.
It’s an interesting contrast between the bishop’s approach and that of Father Jenkins, president of Notre Dame. According to the Catholic News Service report, Dennis Brown, university spokesman, said: “As always, we will continue to speak privately with Bishop D’Arcy on this and other matters.”
Bishop D’Arcy seems to be taking his case public, as have several other bishops. I wonder why. Is quiet dialogue not achieving the desired results? Perhaps that also explains the mixed signals coming from D’Arcy. On April 10, the bishop issued a clear statement urging “all Catholics and others of good will to stay away from unseemly and unhelpful demonstrations against our nation’s President or Notre Dame or Father John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.”
“The Notre Dame community is well-equipped to supervise and support discussions and prayer within their own campus.
I had a positive meeting this week with Father Jenkins, and I expect further dialogue will continue. These are days of prayer and hope when we should turn to the Risen Christ for light and wisdom.
Let us all work towards a peaceful graduation experience for the Class of 2009 at our beloved Notre Dame.”
For his trouble, Bishop D’Arcy got rudely schooled by Randall Terry, who issued a statement saying (you can’t make this up) he wished “the bishop had followed biblical teaching and contacted me before making his public statement against our efforts. Since he has spoken publicly, I have a duty to respond in the same venue.”
“Peter boldly swore that he would not deny Christ,” Terry wrote. “D’Arcy boldly declared he would not deny the value of innocent lives for the sake of prestige. But now D’Arcy wavers before Pilate (don’t protest Obama), confirms Judas (don’t protest Jenkins), and abandons Christ in the babies (don’t show pictures of dead babies, don’t cry out against their murder).”
That was too much for Bill Donohue, who took Terry to task.
Then, however, on April 16, Thomas Peters, the “American Papist,” reported a communication from D’Arcy to NDResponse, a student-led anti-Obama group:
“I am supportive of all efforts by NDResponse or any other prayerful and dignified demonstrations by Notre Dame students; and if my schedule allows, I will attend and also meet with students if they would find this helpful.” – Bishop J. M. D’Arcy
All very confusing and divisive. Will it get uglier as the date approaches, or will cooler heads prevail? Either way, Obama, as usual, has a great chance to come out looking better than anyone.
posted April 23, 2009 at 9:57 am
Bishop John D’Arcy isn’t going to win this one. Is the Church going to forsake its commitment to higher education? If Notre Dame has to drink the cool aid, it will wind up like Oral Roberts U or Bob Jones U, or Steubenville.
Just to make a plug for Obama’s approach again. There is a lot of wisdom in finding ways to reduce the demand for abortion without banning it. Having lived in two almost entirely Catholic third world countries apart from the US, I have seen what a shame an absolute ban on abortion really is. Much higher rates of abortion, big medical risks and no one seems to give a flip about those children already born.
posted April 23, 2009 at 11:42 am
Notre Dame would do well to “wind up like . . . Steubenville.”
posted April 23, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Why is it that when pro-choice/anti-abortion in name only or pro-war or anti-social justice Republicans show up, you don’t hear a peep, but Obama is worthy of their wrath?!?!?!?!
posted April 23, 2009 at 12:12 pm
If I were Obama, I would cancel and say it wasnt’ worth causing so much turmoil. That perhaps Newt Gingrich or Rudy Giuliani were available to discuss the sanctity of marraige.
posted April 23, 2009 at 1:39 pm
“Why is it that when pro-choice/anti-abortion in name only or pro-war or anti-social justice Republicans show up, you don’t hear a peep, but Obama is worthy of their wrath?!?!?!?!
What do you expect from Cafeteria Catholics in the GOP?
posted April 23, 2009 at 1:59 pm
“Bishop D’Arcy seems to be taking his case public, as have several other bishops. I wonder why. Is quiet dialogue not achieving the desired results?”
Don’t be impudent and obtuse. The reasons for going public are obvious, and in case you missed them, the bishop reiterated them in his statement: the discussion had already gone public with Jenkins’ statement and antics (bishop-shopping, twisting the plain meaning of documents issued by the bishops, and failing to consult his own bishop for clarification), and the bishop was speaking out in the same way in the same public forum to correct the canonical and theological nonsense Jenkins was spouting in public.
posted April 23, 2009 at 3:25 pm
We need a defender of life to speak at ND, not Obama. Someone like Condi Rice. She should available for a return commencement speech, no?
posted April 23, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Condi Rice??? The woman who did precious little to end the two wars where how many people have died?
posted April 23, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Condi Rice, who we just found out approved torture? Jaho, are you joking?
posted April 23, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Maybe Catholics think Notre Dame is more important than it really is. To me this seems to be little tempest in a little teapot. It’s just a speech.
posted April 23, 2009 at 6:02 pm
I have never seen among Catholics such hatred towards a President as some have towards Obama. I wonder what black Catholics think of this. I never saw the bishops speaking out so against either President Bush, President Reagan, Carter, Nixon, LBJ and so on. We have our first African American president and wow do the long knives come out.
posted April 23, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Mareczku, Amen. So many past president’s have campaigned on anti-abortion, but then did nothing when elected. The holy reagan got nothing done on it.
posted April 23, 2009 at 9:58 pm
The Bishop is only responding to the obvious, which few of the protesters understand. He is powerless in relation to the decisions ND makes. It is a university that it separately incorporated, governed by a president, who serves at the pleasure of the Board of Directors. This is precisely what the right never understood about the the impossibility of enforcing of Ex Corde Ecclesiae in the American context. Bishops do not make or approve appointments to department of philosophy and theology in this country, nor should they. Ex Corde only works in a European or Latin American context. So D’Arcy can lament all he wants to garner support, but ND owes him nothing. From a PR standpoint it may be to their advantage to “work” with him but ultimately he has no say in what the university decides.
posted April 24, 2009 at 1:14 am
Honorary Doctorates are for people who have accomplished extraordinary feats that rival the so-called earned doctorates in novel contributions. Obama isn’t there yet. Winning elections is not the stuff of honorary degrees. The awarding of such high honor to one whose work is squarely at odds with the Church whose teachings are allegedly upheld by the university cheapens the degree and the proceedings.
At least Jenkins isn’t a phony.
posted April 24, 2009 at 9:30 am
The Donohue statement against Terry is surreal.
I never would have expected to read the words “the problem with pro-life zealots” in a Catholic League release.
posted April 24, 2009 at 10:00 am
It’s not that Catholics or Protestant evangelicals for that matter, hate Obama. Hate is inconsistent with a faith based on love, forgiveness and reconciliation. We don’t hate him, in fact we pray for him. We are against him because he has made it abundantly clear that he advocates the death of unborn children through abortion. By his actions he opposes a fundamental belief and teaching of Catholics, and many Protestants, Muslims and Jews, the sanctity of life.
posted April 24, 2009 at 1:30 pm
budcath stated above, that none of the previous presidents did anything for the unborn, then why did Obama repeal the Bush doctorns on funding abortions and etc.if nothing was done? This is extremely bad judgement on the part of ND inviting this pres. and awarding a doctorate with his stances which are firmly against Catholic teaching and beliefs, and all others who honor life.
posted April 25, 2009 at 7:37 pm
One of these days these old white guy bishops are going to want face time with the Obama administration about a matter of grave concern to them.
Be prepared to wait a long, long time!