It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Catholic TV Says Vatican Will Step In-- Obama Will Be Disinvited to Notre Dame

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by WisdomInChains
thats what i like to call anecdotal evidence how do they know what the majority of the student body wants


How about this:

www.suntimes.com...



According to junior Jenn Metz, editor-in-chief of Notre Dame's student newspaper, letters from students are 70 percent in favor of Obama's visit and 30 percent against -- the same as last week.




posted on May, 15 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout

Why so rude? How you can you claim the high ground when your attitude stinks? ATS doesn't need your hostility.

How can you think that bush supporting the murder of people convicted of murder is even remotely in the same class of Obama supporting the slaughter of not only the innocent unborn but the practice of literaly throwing live infants in the trash can?

Such a sick world we have made.


First of all, I never claimed to occupy the high ground. Believe me, I hold no illusions about that.

I do apologize for my hostility but, in fairness, I don't appreciate being accused of "bigotry," which is precisely what ProfE did in an earlier post. I still should not have responded in kind but it's important to note that it wasn't I who initiated the hostility.

Finally, I am not not saying abortion and the death penalty are on the same plane (though one could argue that you either value life or you don't) because I am not qualified to make that judgement.

The Catholic Church, however, is squarely against legalized abortion and the legalization of the Death Penalty. They were also vociferously against the US WAR in Iraq. I may or may not agree with any or all of those stands but they are, at least, consistent.

Yet, when George W. Bush was invited to speak, the Church did not (at least as far as I recall) voice opposition to his receiving an honorary degree. I don't remember these same Catholic lay groups organizing protests at that time, either.

Also consider that the Church often lectures us that we, as Catholics, do not get to pick and choose which portion of the Catechism we want to follow. Catholics who do this are often derisively characterized by Church officials as, "cafeteria Catholics."

And yet, the Church itself seems more than willing to pick and choose which violation of church teachings deserves a protest and which gets greeted with silence.

Does this not seem hypocritical?

It's not an isolated occurrence either. Consider the fact that Church leaders will threaten Catholic politicians who support abortion rights with excommunication but have not seen fit to excommunicate priests, Bishops and Cardinals who have been proven guilty of criminal negligence and, in many cases, criminal behavior in the molestation of so many children.

How can such actions be justified? Should they not be taken to task for such hypocrisy?

The message from the church seems to be that we will fight to the death for to preserve your life until that life is brought into the Earthly existence. After that, you are on your own.

Is this what the Catholic Church is supposed to stand for?

[edit on 15-5-2009 by Night Watchman]

[edit on 15-5-2009 by Night Watchman]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by WisdomInChains
 


And your cousin is aware of the views of a majority of the student body on the President of the United States speaking at Notre Dame's commencement ceremony? Word of advice: The most outspoken individuals don't always represent the greater whole.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Since when do a majority of the students need to object before Obama is uninvited?

Obama wasn't invited because he is anything special. It is the tradition of ND to invite newly elected presidents to speak at commencement.

It seems that every day, some tradition in America is attacked and changed because a very few individuals were 'offended' by something. Why not this?

Let Blunder Boy go sell his advocacy for Partial Birth Abortion somewhere else. Notre Dame does not want him, or his desire to kill babies that have survived abortion.

stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com...

Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn't kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL).

Obama, however, is another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee's chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.

Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby.



If Obama had his way, Gianna Jessen would be dead today.




posted on May, 15 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Protesters Arrested at Notre Dame

www.foxnews.com...

I know it's fox, but it is the only one that carried it that I can find.


Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes led about 50 people onto the campus. They came across the gate and about 200 yards up the driveway where campus police were waiting. They were peaceful. The police asked the protesters to leave. They refused and were taken into custody. Vans were ready to load them up.

Perhaps the most dramatic moment happened when Father Norman Weslin of Omaha, Neb., a former army colonel and founder of the Lambs of Christ, refused to leave. He was singing and was carried off on a stretcher, not strong enough to march off on his own.

All in all, about 15 people, a group not from the Notre Dame community, was arrested.




[edit on 013131p://bFriday2009 by Stormdancer777]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
52% Say Notre Dame Made a Mistake Honoring Obama

www.rasmussenreports.com...

www.gallup.com...


More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time
Also, fewer think abortion should be legal “under any circumstances”
by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.


May15



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby.


You know what always strikes me about people like you is that, while you are so convinced of Obama's evil nature, you must resort to blatant, easily refutable lies in order to make the case.

Why is that? Are you too uneducated to realize what you have claimed is a lie? Are you so brainwashed that you have been convinced you are telling the truth? Or are you staunch in your belief that your views = truth that you willingly lie in order to sway others who don't know better?

Which is it?

So let's take your ignorant charge of Obama's support for infanticide shall we? As has been discussed time and time again when low life snake oil salesman have tried to perpetrate this lie, Obama opposed this legislation because, quite simply, what it purported to stop, the murder of a baby who had survived an abortion, was ALREADY ILLEGAL UNDER ILLINOIS LAW.

www.ilga.gov.../&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFF ENSES&SectionID=29493&SeqStart=10600000&SeqEnd=11500000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.

If you claim otherwise you are simply lying. Clearly, the bill in question was an attempt to weaken abortion rights in the state of Illinois and those who supported added in the questionable clause in the hopes that it would frighten any politician from daring to vote against it.

So let me make this clear once again. Because I am sure all of the TRUE BELIEVERS will attempt to twist what I have written. At the moment Obama voted against the bill in 1975, there it was expressly illegal in Illinois to murder babies who survived abortions and were out of the womb.

If you are going to disagree with me then you need to make the case that the law that I linked to earlier would not have been applicable to a baby that had survived an abortion.

Other wise, you will be exposed as a liar.


If Obama had his way, Gianna Jessen would be dead today.



Yes and George Bush had his way and 3,443 Americans were shipped to Iraq and are dead today. Over 80 people were executed in 2007 and 2008. George Bush had his way there as well.

But again, where was the outrage when he received his honorary degree from ND in 2008?



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   
www.nrlc.org...


“Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -– a child, a nine-month-old –- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it –- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.”


Obama

This page has a lot of info we can examine.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
h
This page has a lot of info we can examine.


Did you bother to read my previous post? Or are we going to just continue to post different versions of the same lie?



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Night Watchman
 



So let's take your ignorant charge of Obama's support for infanticide shall we? As has been discussed time and time again when low life snake oil salesman have tried to perpetrate this lie, Obama opposed this legislation because, quite simply, what it purported to stop, the murder of a baby who had survived an abortion, was ALREADY ILLEGAL UNDER ILLINOIS LAW.


That has got to be one of the lamest excuses for opposing the bill that I have ever heard.

Instead of putting a second nail in the coffin of this atrocious procedure, he says, nah, what we have is enough.

What harm would have come from him supporting the legislation?

He would have lost the votes of the liberal left that supported killing babies that survived abortion, that's what.

It was a purely political move, driven by political expediency by a corrupt baby killer.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Here is the email that Fr. Jenkins, President of Notre Dame, wrote to Notre Dame graduating students concerning Obama's invitation and honorary degree:



May 11, 2009

Dear Members of the Notre Dame Graduating Class of 2009:

This Sunday, as you receive your degrees at Commencement, your joy – and that of your families – will be shared by the faculty, staff, and administration of the University. We have had the privilege of laboring with each of you to inquire and discover, to teach and to learn, and we will send you off with affectionate and fond hopes for the future.

For those of you who are undergraduates, I feel a special kinship. You arrived in your dorm rooms as I arrived in the President’s Office. You have learned much; I may have learned more. I am grateful for the opportunity I had to learn with you, come to know you, and to serve you during our time together at Notre Dame.

During your years here we have endeavored to train you in the various disciplines and urged you to ask the larger questions – discussing not only the technical and practical but also the ethical and spiritual dimensions of pressing issues. I have been proud of you as you’ve grappled with intellectual, political, and spiritual questions. But I have never been more proud than I have been watching the way you’ve conducted yourselves over the past several weeks.

The decision to invite President Obama to Notre Dame to receive an honorary degree and deliver the Commencement address has triggered debate. In many cases, the debate has grown heated, even between people who agree completely on Church teaching regarding the sanctity of human life, who agree completely that we should work for change – and differ only on how we should work for change.

Yet, there has been an extra dimension to your debate. You have discussed this issue with each other while being observed, interviewed, and evaluated by people who are interested in this story. You engaged each other with passion, intelligence and respect. And I saw no sign that your differences led to division. You inspire me. We need the wider society to be more like you; it is good that we are sending you into that world on Sunday.

I am saddened that many friends of Notre Dame have suggested that our invitation to President Obama indicates ambiguity in our position on matters of Catholic teaching. The University and I are unequivocally committed to the sanctity of human life and to its protection from conception to natural death.

Notre Dame has a long custom of conferring honorary degrees on the President of the United States. It has never been a political statement or an endorsement of policy. It is the University’s expression of respect for the leader of the nation and the Office of the President. In the Catholic tradition, our first allegiance is to God in Christ, yet we are called to respect, participate in, and contribute to the wider society. As St. Peter wrote (I Pt. 2:17), we should honor the leader who upholds the secular order.

At the same time, and born of the same duty, a Catholic university has a special obligation not just to honor the leader but to engage the culture. Carrying out this role of the Catholic university has never been easy or without controversy. When I was an undergraduate at Notre Dame, Fr. Hesburgh spoke of the Catholic university as being both a lighthouse and a crossroads. As a lighthouse, we strive to stand apart and be different, illuminating issues with the moral and spiritual wisdom of the Catholic tradition. Yet, we must also be a crossroads through which pass people of many different perspectives, backgrounds, faiths, and cultures. At this crossroads, we must be a place where people of good will are received with charity, are able to speak, be heard, and engage in responsible and reasoned dialogue.

The President’s visit to Notre Dame can help lead to broader engagement on issues of importance to the country and of deep significance to Catholics. Ultimately, I hope that the conversations and the good will that come from this day will contribute to closer relations between Catholics and public officials who make decisions on matters of human life and human dignity.

There is much to admire and celebrate in the life and work of President Obama. His views and policies on immigration, expanding health care, alleviating poverty, and building peace through diplomacy have a deep resonance with Catholic social teaching. As the first African-American holder of this office, he has accelerated our country’s progress in overcoming the painful legacy of slavery and segregation. He is a remarkable figure in American history, and I look forward to welcoming him to Notre Dame.

As President Obama is our principal speaker, there will no doubt be much attention on your Commencement. Remember, though, that this day is your day. My fervent prayer is that May 17 will be a joyous day for you and your family. You are the ones we celebrate and applaud. Congratulations, and may God bless you.

In Notre Dame,

Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
President





posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Night Watchman
Since when does a school only invite Commencement speakers with who they politically agree?


Since it is a CATHOLIC school that has to abide by CATHOLIC rules in order to maintain it's CATHOLIC standing and CATHOLIC income backing.

Can't have it both ways.


Originally posted by Night Watchman
it is still the responsibility of secondary educational institutions to provide a balanced educational experience.


No it's not. It's the responsibility of the CATHOLIC school to provide a CATHOLIC education according to the rules set forth by the CATHOLIC Church.


It's in the rules.
The pathetic leadership of Notre Dame screwed up.
This isn't Obama's fault. It's theirs.
Either fire them all or take the CATHOLIC name off the school.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

That has got to be one of the lamest excuses for opposing the bill that I have ever heard.

Instead of putting a second nail in the coffin of this atrocious procedure, he says, nah, what we have is enough.

What harm would have come from him supporting the legislation?



You don't need another nail in the coffin. It was already illegal. Should we be passing additional legislation making child abuse illegal? Would that make it more illegal?

No, there are no degrees of illegality. It is or isn't.

What the bill you refer to was designed to weaken the abortion laws of the state. It wasn't about adding a completely unnecessary "second nail," that served absolutely no legal purpose.

So, again, back to the main point of this post. Catholic Organizations and the Church itself are putting pressure on ND to not bestow the honorary degree on Obama. The expressed reason for this pressure is because Obama's view are inconsistent with Church teachings.

Yet, George W. Bush's views (Supports Death Penalty) and actions (Iraq War) were also contrary to Church teachings but there was no request last year to withhold his honorary degree.

I don't know how any fair minded person cannot see the hypocrisy in that.

[edit on 15-5-2009 by Night Watchman]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

S
It's in the rules.
The pathetic leadership of Notre Dame screwed up.
This isn't Obama's fault. It's theirs.
Either fire them all or take the CATHOLIC name off the school.




What are the "rules," to which you refer? Please provide a link because I have no idea what you are referring to.

Do you believe that Notre Dame (or any Catholic College) should be providing courses on theologies and religions other than Catholicism?



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Night Watchman
The Catholic Church, however, is squarely against legalized abortion and the legalization of the Death Penalty.

You've tried to claim this before ... and you've been educated about this before ... obviously you weren't listening.

Catechism of the Catholic Church on respect for life -
www.scborromeo.org...

www.cacp.org...


2267. Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.


And before you bring say it again ... YES there are different levels of sin and scripture backs that up.

teaching and scripture quotes here

more quotes

"All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly." (1John 5:17).



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Night Watchman
What are the "rules," to which you refer?

The Catholic Church is VERY strict about abortionists not being given honors in the church and not being given any pulpit to speak from ... even if they don't discuss abortion.


Do you believe that Notre Dame (or any Catholic College) should be providing courses on theologies and religions other than Catholicism?

Of course. And they do. World religions.
Even the Catholic grade schools teach about the different religions.
Knowing about them isn't the same as teaching someone to do it.

But that's comparing apples to road pies.

USCCB made the rule for the Catholic Institutions in the USA.
It follows guidelines from Rome.
It adheres to the Catechism - which basically nothing supercedes.

www.cnsnews.com...


In his critique of Notre Dame's decision, Cardinal DiNardo (like Bishop Olmsted and Bishop D’Arcy) expressly referred to a 2004 document published by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that says Catholic institutions should not honor or give platforms to people who act in defiance of fundamental Catholic moral principles



“The Bishops of the United States published a document a few years ago asking all Catholic universities to avoid giving a platform or an award to those politicians or public figures who promote the taking of unborn human life,” wrote Cardinal DiNardo. “Even given the dignity of Office of the President, this offer is still providing a platform and an award for a public figure who has been candid on his pro-abortion views. Particularly troubling is the Honorary Law Degree since it recognizes that the person is a ‘Teacher,’ in this case of the Law. I think that this decision requires charitable but vigorous critique


Of course there are some weasily bishops (pathetic souls :shk: ) who slither around like politicians -

www.lifesitenews.com...

but the document is really very clear -


"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."


Giving Obama an honorary degree DEFINATLY goes against this rule.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

You've tried to claim this before ... and you've been educated about this before ... obviously you weren't listening.



Oh I was listening just fine and once again, I thank you for becoming helping me point out the depth of hypocrisy in the church today. Based on what you have presented to as the Church's position, then please help me reconcile the following words spoken by the late Pope John Paul when he visited St. Louis, MO in 1999:



The core of the homily was a challenge to America to heed this mercy and thus become unconditionally pro-life in every situation: abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, racism, poverty, even capital punishment.

"I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary," he said. "Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform."


So, let me get this straight. The Church does not officially condemn the death penalty but the Pope speaks, as the representative of the Church, he calls on the US to end this "cruel and unnecessary," practice.

Also, as you are most likely well aware, the US Catholic Bishops have been outspoken critics of the death penalty for decades.

Oh Ok.

Abortion bad.

Capital Punishment kinda bad.

Child Molestation by Laymen: bad

Child Molestation by priests: What Molestation?

Protection of Child Molesting Priests by Bishops and Cardinals: Good.


Thanks for clearing it up.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Of course. And they do. World religions.
Even the Catholic grade schools teach about the different religions.
Knowing about them isn't the same as teaching someone to do it.



I'm glad you realize they are teaching other religions. I was afraid you were going to ask that Professors only teach Catholic Dogma.

You surprised me.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan


Giving Obama an honorary degree DEFINATLY goes against this rule.




And had they applied the same criteria to George W. Bush then I would have complained about that too...but at least there would be some consistency.

See remarks by Pope John Paul and remarks of the US Catholic Bishops w/r/t Death Penalty. See also, Catholic Church's stringent opposition to US action against Iraq.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Night Watchman
please help me reconcile the following words spoken by the late Pope John Paul when he visited St. Louis, MO in 1999:

The Popes personal views are just those ... personal views ... and it in no way supercedes the catechism or the law of the church.


Abortion bad.
Capital Punishment kinda bad.
Child Molestation by Laymen: bad
Child Molestation by priests: What Molestation?
Protection of Child Molesting Priests by Bishops and Cardinals: Good.


yep. exactly.

But to get back on topic .... the RULE is what I showed you and inviting Obama breaks the rules. It can't be allowed. Just because some bishops in the past protected pedophiles who came into the church to hunt, that doesn't mean that everyone throws in the towel and the rest of the church should break all the rules.

If Notre Dame wants to do it's own thing then they need to take the CATHOLIC sign off their building. They can't have it both ways. Either they are Catholic or they are not.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join