Bishop D’Arcy’s Statement and Hope
April 24, 2009, 4:20 pm
Posted by Robert P. Imbelli
Bishop John D’Arcy of Fort Wayne-South Bend issued a Statement to the members of his diocese that concludes with these words:
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.
Those strike me as extraordinarily strong words (“terrible breach . . . between Notre Dame and the church”). It seems to come close to putting — or actually does put — Notre Dame outside the church. I assume Bishop D’Arcy is saying that if Fr. Jenkins had consulted him on the invitation, it would have been made clear to Fr. Jenkins that the invitation must not be extended.
I am not an expert in how bishops assert authority, but it appears to me that Bishop D’Arcy is demanding (without saying so) a withdrawal of the invitation, or at minimum a downgrading of the appearance to a speech without an honorary degree.
I don’t see what good can come of this.
I think Bishop D’Arcy makes a good case, even if he does use particularly strong language. I don’t know what Fr. Jenkins’ relationship with his local ordinary has been historically (Cathleen, any clues?), but it strikes me that the invitation to President Obama should have at least been disclosed, if not actually discussed. Fr. Jenkins must have known that this invitation would have raised a lot of hackles. And while I think that people like William Donohue are way over the top in their reaction, I would lay some of the responsibility for this whole thing at Jenkins’ feet.
What is Bishop D’Arcy like? Is he the kind of fellow who would have had a hissy fit at the mere suggestion of President Obama’s presence on the campus? Or would he have tried to work with Fr. Jenkins in some way or another? For all its vaunted status as a national, “flagship” Catholic university, ND still functions within a specific diocese and has a certain degree of responsibility to the bishop of that diocese.
Or am I missing something here?
I agree with David that the question of what good may come of this remains an open one.
I cannot help but think that Bishop D’Arcy is posturing a bit here trying to maintain the appearance of holding the power in this situation. How many times did he refer to himself as the “teacher and lawgiver”? This certainly is true in canonical matters where the Bishop has jurisdiction. And there is the rub. He knows that he has no real authority over a university that is separately incorporated with a Board of Directors who hold all the power. In my opinion he is throwing what little weight he has in the matter around to try to effect a change, but i do not think that will be forthcoming.
On the matter of the Bishop’s conference statement. If they did not want colleges and universities to give honorary degrees to questionable people why did they write “should” and not “may”? Can it be because they know they have no power to legislate in the situation?
The fifth point on the number of people “scandalized” should not be part of the discussion since many of them were manipulated by the Cardinal Newman Society, Randall Terry, and others outside of ND, who have used all of their resources to manufacture “rage” on a grand scale for their own ends.
Alan, I am wondering what you mean by manufacturing “rage” on a grand scale for their own ends. What would that end be other than an end to the deliberate act of destroying an innocent Human Life?
Nancy Danielson,
Even Bill Donahue has criticized Randall Terry for making political hay out of the ND/Obama situation (http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1595) and has basically told him to shut up because he is too recent a convert to know anything about the issues, or Catholicism for that matter. I do not think I have ever agreed with Bill Donahue, but on this point I do. Ask Bill Donahue what his “end” is or Randall Terry for that matter.
No serious person negotiates in public. Bishop d’Arcy seems to be demanding unconditional surrender. Whether Fr. Jenkins has been circumspect in all respects is not for me to say, but I would not like to to see him surrender on d’Arcy’s terms, nor, I think, would the majority of the faculty and students of UND. I really wonder what d’Arcy hopes to achieve with this pronouncement. Is he planning to put UND under interdict?
Bishop D’Arcy, from Olympian heights condemns unequivocally the president of Notre Dame, then says he wants to “work” with him. Really? Not believable. He thinks he is being generous, when it’s unconditional surrender he wants, as Joseph Gannon observes. I would add, humiliation. D’Arcy wants to shame Jenkins, tell him what to do, and be obeyed. Period. There is nothing he is putting into this, nothing. He shows no conscientious scruples over contributing to this debacle, which includes efforts to unseat Jenkins, undermine his leadership, cast aspersions on the school, and “make a circus” out of the Notre Dame commencement for political ends (as the student editorial charges). The whole thing is sickening, and as a demonstration of what’s wrong with our episcopate, alas, perfect.
Bob, where do you see the hope? And on what grounds?
Alan, just to be clear, in what way has the Cardinal Newman Society manipulated the Obama-N.D. situation?
Rita, you claim that Bishop D’Arcy wants “unconditional surrender”, to what political end?
I have no doubt that Father Jenkins has the ability to transform this current situation to one that will clearly define Respect for the Right to Life of every Human Being from the beginning.
I see only one way out. Notre Dame must refuse to cover all of their religious symbols, and then Obama won’t be able to approach the campus.
I doubt it will come as a surprise that I too find this whole episode sickening and growing worse by the day.
Only, earlier today, I was reflecting on the absence of this internal “war” of words being written about in the secular press and low and behold Margaret posts the piece from the Washington Independent.
Tying the two together, David Weigel quotes George Neumayr, the editor of Catholic World Report, “The bishops are bombarded with complaints because of of the activity level of blogs and the ease with which people can contact the chancery. A bishop who’s receiving 1,000 messages is more likely to come out and at least make a statement about the most anti-Catholic president in modern history.”
I have to think this is exactly what Bishop D’Arcy is attempting to do. Look tough! He most of all bishops is likely being bombarded to do something.
Also the latest of the 42 bishops comments are so lightweight and so stretched by the likes of Lifesitenews.com that one can barely place them into the same pile as the like of the Nebraskan bishop.
Quite frankly the sooner may 17th arrives and is over with the better. of course the right will try to oust Jenkins but eventually the fuss will die down.
The whole thing is just so dam much American overkill. As the UK Tablet wrote, it would have no legs in Europe and I hope little legs in Canada (except for Lifesitenews whose real audience is the USA).
I want to end with a comment from the wonderful “The Last Word” from the current issue of Commonweal “Pulling Punches” Christopher Duncan describes how his Dad & Grandfather taught him never to lead with his right. Well in this case the pro-life forces have been leading with their right both on this issue which is really about their anti-abortion strategy.
Eventually, The CNS, and their fellow travellers are going to get hit by a counter punch just when they think they have scored big. I for one will not have much sympathy for them. As Michael Higgins writes in The Catholic Register (April 26) Benedict XVI has recently made reference to St. Paul’s warning Letter to the Galatians that Christians should not “go on biting and devouring one another”.
Seems like history hasn’t changed much; maybe someone ought to remind Bishop D’Arcy and the other 41 bishops of that message.
Nancy, I fully recognize that you are fully committed to ending abortion but lets be very clear about one thing; this situation is no longer about ending abortion or defining what it means to be Catholic.
This is now about POWER, plain and simple. CNS and their fellow travellers smell blood and they are burning the midnight oil to gain a victory of any sort. In fact from the point of view of publicity they have scored big and likely before the 17th it will only be bigger.
So please take off the rose colored glasses and see this for what it is, a chance to make money for the pro-life cause and hurt Obama in the process. As for what it does to the members of the body of the Church…if they aren’t with me, then they are simple dispensable.
I don’t really think that is how you think.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0901877.htm
A bit of a tangent perhaps, but here is Cardinal George speaking openly of his meeting with President Obama at the White House several weeks ago.
Bishop D’Arcy, apointed to Fort-Wayne South Bend in 1985, has now been bishop in the time of threee UND presidents –Father Hesburgh, Father Malloy, Father Jenkins. He is seventy-six and eight months, and though episcopal appointments in this pontificate are very slow, his resignation cannot be far off. (But certainly it will now be delayed until after the Notre Dame commencement.) Bishop D’Arcy is known, during his time as auxiliary of Boston in the early 80s, for having clearly dissented with Cardinal Law over the re-assignment of priests with a history of abuse of minors.
I suspect getting on the president’s schedule was a complicated process, and one that required some fairly quick decisions on the part of Father Jenkins and the Board to ensure that it was secured.
With others here I don’t think Bishop D’Arcy’s statement sets out a true road for dialogue with UND and the healing process that he puts forward as a central point. He seems to have all the cards in his hand.
I meant to add that Bishop D’Arcy did try to take a moderating role in the US conference’s debates over the application of Ex Corde Ecclesiae in the US, and in the process he consulted various canonical experts, some of whom were not in favor of a too determined application of the norms to the US higher education siituation, which, of course, is unique in the Catholic world. The late Msgr. Frederick McManus, long a professor of canon law at CUA and a priest of Boston, was one of those consulted.
If Notre Dame acccepts this paternalistic intrusion in their affairs they will lose credibility as an institution devoted to the ideals of a University. Fr Jenkins should politely tell the bishop that he is speaking way out of line. The powers of the Church over Catholic Universities are carefully negotiated and these Universities have to be eternally vigilant against illegitimate Vatican intrusions. If there is no written contractual obligation of the University’s president to consult the hierarchy before inviting a guest, then he should not consult them. To set up an informal practice of such consultation would subtly undermine the freedom of the University.
I have never met either Bishop D’Arcy or Father Jenkins. I believe them both to be men of integrity and commitment.
In my only previous comment on dotCom regarding the Notre Dame affair I called attention to the Bishop’s appeal to his fellow bishops to postpone the implementation of the “mandatum” and to enter into prolonged and serious dialogue with theologians. I thank John Page for his reminder of Bishop D’Arcy’s principled advice to the Archbishop of Boston.
I have heard from friends who know both men that both are suffering over this whole matter. The hope that I refer to in the post’s head is not mine but the Bishop’s: a hope for healing. I think that deserves our prayer.
Two further impressions. First, I think there have been over the top reactions from some bishops and an appalling rhetoric from some “on the right.” On the other hand, others seem too quick to frame the matter in “power” terms. I think we do better to draw upon the Catholic language of authority and discernment. In other circumstances — eg. to counter presumed Roman centralization — voices “on the left” have no hesitancy to invoke the authority of the local bishop.
Therefore, second, I find Father O’Leary’s statement to be a counsel of despair: “To set up an informal practice of such consultation would subtly undermine the freedom of the University.” If his advice is followed, as well it may be, we would then be irrevocably destined to “the dying of the light:” the demise of distinctive higher education in the Catholic tradition.
These are all very interesting and thoughtful comments.
But I wonder if Bishop D’Arcy — and other US bishops, for that matter — might not have greater credibility and trust among the so-called Cathlics “on the left” if they spoke out against so much of the vitriol that is being increasingly spewed by so-called Catholics “on the right”.
The Catholic hierarchy has done nothing to call off the dogs, as it were. And one is left wondering why they have not done so.
How do most people respond to vitriol? Well the first or second times, you try to respond. Then, most people walk away.
Like it or not the bishops that are speaking ARE the face of the Church. Like it or NOT, Randall Terry is the face of the prolife movement.
This will energize the hard core Catholic right and the hard core pro-life movement. But I don’t see it evangelizing anyone. I see more and more people walking from it all. Whatever they want, they don’t want this. They don’t want a circus. Evangelization is good news. Vitriol is never good news.
But then the ante is upped. The promise of a circus on the part of the pro-life movement is in fact a threat. . . . People think that they need civil protection from the Church- and from the pro-life movement. (You can’t help looking at the rhetoric and and remembering the abortion-doc killings . . .) They’re not inclined to give civil protection to the Church and to the pro-life movement if they think they think they’re mean and socially unstable. And don’t forget, the sex abuse crisis is still lingering in people’s minds.
So. .. . how will this effect the conscience clause debates, etc?
I have to agree with Robert. As you know it was the point I was trying to make when I in an earlier thread referenced the fact that only then 33 of 444 bishops had spoken out. There are hundreds of quiet bishops…letting a few speak negatively…Why, indeed.
I totally agree with Fr. Imbelli and his brilliant phrase “counsel of despair”. and what it means for Catholic higher education.
If we have a bad situation now, imagine how bad it would be if Bishop D’Arcy were to make a statement removing the term “Catholic” from UND. That I am convinced would release the kind of counter punch from within the Catholic community to which I referred in my earlier post.
Fr. I do wish this had not descended into the realm of power terms but I see little understanding or motivation on the part of the CNS types to draw upon “Catholic language of authority and discernment.” Theirs is a secular authority language of the autocrat, the dictator, the domineering father figure or worse.
I am left wondering too, if the bishops of America were ever to push too far on the abortion issue as the radical pro-life force is want to do, in what ways secular governments would push back/counter punch very much to the detriment of the financial health of the Catholic Church or all churches in general.
For example with respect to the current issue of the Freedom of Conscience Bill and doctors… how many legislatures are pron to using it to send a message to religious leaders to back off the rhetoric, even if it is not directly theirs… as a form of exercising power.
Whoops, in that last paragraph the word should have been “legislators”.
John Borst’s and my posts crossed. His last two paragraphs are exactly my concern. With the added concern that as happened in Massachusetts, that the mass-going population says, well the Church needs to be taught a lesson. It said that before, incidentally, when the Church kept pressing to keep contraception illegal.
I think if the financial crisis deepens, we’re going to rethink tax exemptions -especially property tax. Local communities are really suffering. There’s nothing in the Constitution that requires Churches get to keep their property tax exemptions.
I also think it’s very interesting that none of the pro-choice groups have spoken out on this. I think that means they see the ND incident as long-term, good for them. The pro-life movement gets more firmly identified with Catholicism, rather than a broad-based movement. Catholics and pro-lifers (or at least people sympathetic to pro-lifers) are attacking each other.
What’s going to be the case five months from now? Who’s going to look “aggressive, disruptive, and apocalyptic” (Cardinal Stafford’s description of Obama). Obama? Or the Church and the pro-life movement?
Actually, generally speaking, in legal drafting “should” is used in mandatory language, expressing a duty; “may” is used in discretionary language, expressing permission. The intent of the bishops and their legislation was quite clear.
I thought this piece was interesting–and helpful. It’s by Catholic Sensibility.
http://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/on-darcy-point-five/
John Borst, this situation, from the beginning, has been about the desire to end abortion, which should be in the heart of every one who believes in the Sacredness and Dignity of Human Life.
Human Life is God’s creation. The unalienable Right to Life comes from the Love of God.
Roe v Wade has been a lie from the start.
Perhaps the real fear is for those who do not want to see the faces of abortion. “Jesus turned to them and said, ‘do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and your children…’
Just having read Bishop D’Arcy’s statement (thanks to Bob Imbelli for posting it) and comments here and elsewhere, I can see there are many ways to think about it.
So let me throw in this possibility: There is something pathetic (i.e., full of pathos) about the tone. Perhaps it is a power play as some suggest, but it may also be the statement of a man beseiged. It is a thin reed that Bishop D’Arcy clings to when he appeals to the Faithful Catholic Statement, not because there aren’t compelling arguments in it, but because everyone knows that the statement itself is a compromise document rewritten every election cycle. It is the result of conflicting views among the bishops themselves, and whether “should” is prescriptive or descriptive is beside the point. It doesn’t say “must” because there were, no doubt, bishops who do not understand their relationship to the university, at least on this issue, in the prescriptive manner.
So now Bishop D’Arcy has had several thousand communications, Randall Terry is camped out somewhere in his vicinity, people are telling him both that he’s a fool for starting the whole thing and that he’s a fool for not shutting down UND. (There are certainly bishops who are not happy about this). If he knew what he would unleash, would he have quietly and privately let Fr. Jenkins know he’d be elsewhere on commencement day and simply absented himself. I wonder.
He acquitted himself honorably during the Boston s-abuse crisis (I have always thought Cardinal Law rewarded him by sending him to the hinterlands; yes, South Bend). As I recall he also wrote some important statements once there about the crisis. He is now in over his head, or at least facing a crisis he hadn’t anticipated, and he strikes back by appealing to an unenforceable statement, indicating that he would like to restart the discussion, and in an angry fashion implies that UND is in some way separated from the church. Pathetic….
Or at least that is one way to read it.
Appreciate your comments, Ms. Steinfels. My experience is that when one “reacts” to events; it is usually out of fear, threats and sounds defensive and personalized.
Here is a new study/book that has some interesting insights along the lines of Prof. Kaveny’s last post and link.
From Baggett’s “Sense of the Faithful: How Catholics Live Their Faith”
“Maybe the strongest single contribution of this book is Baggett’s chapter about the conundrum of the stillbirth of Catholic social teaching in the U.S. church. He explains this in terms of “civic underachieving,” shown by Catholics’ above-average socioeconomic status but notorious low levels of giving and volunteering; in terms of “civic narrowing” through the inward focus of activities and moral concerns in parishes; and “civic silencing,” illustrated by the clergy’s reticence to alienate parishioners by speaking out on delicate, demanding or controversial social issues.
Baggett claims correctly, I believe, that the faithful today are different in how they practice their faith, but are not significantly less religious than their American Catholic ancestors. In his view, we are witnessing the end of an era of “devotional Catholicism” marked by nostalgia and authoritarianism, and the onset of a new era of lay initiative that will be marked by their critical appropriation of the Catholic tradition and a lively and creative autonomy.
Although Baggett’s study looks in-depth at six very different Catholic parishes, his conclusion is that catholicism is lived on the ground in home parishes – that is where we find our spiritual, social justice, liturgical, and other needs. Would suggest that a catholic university is in some ways like a large catholic parish and Baggett’s insights about the need for a new era of lay initiative characterized by a “critical appropriation of catholic tradition and a lively/creative autonomy” is exactly what Fr. Jenkins and ND’s mission is – not sure that D’Arcy understand this.
Nomik, I’m not a lawyer but my job was to ensure that the Education Act of Ontario was followed by school boards. “Should” is permissive in the same way as “may”. The term with little wiggle room is “shall”. I can’t remember “should” ever being used in legislation; it is a term which appears too often in Board policies or procedures…much to the later shagrin of a superintendent/board.
Even “shall” isn’t always clear. For example, the current Education Act in Ontario says a Catholic District School board “shall” offer secondary school “programs and services”. But it also says they “may” have construct a “school building”. Now if they don’t have to do the latter, how can they do the former.
At what point are they breaking the law? If no parent ever requests the service, is the law broken? If a parent requests the service, what is the legal obligation of the school board?
I’m sure the bishops understood “should” as “may” and not as a shall, thus leaving lots of wiggle room for university presidents to play with.
I have never met Bishop D’Arcy. I, too, believe him to be a man of integrity and commitment. I know Father John Jenkins is a man of integrity and committment. I expect him to defend our Faith at Notre Dame’s Commencement because that is the mission of a Catholic University from the beginning, to defend our Catholic Faith.
“To whom much has been given, much will be expected.”
I am afraid that I am seeing this comment from Bishop D’Arcy as the first of a multi-pronged front from the Vatican and American to clinch a hold on American Catholics for good. What do I mean by that? The Vatican and American bishops have been in contact to control groups (considered ‘troublesome’) within the United States—in order to prevent what happened in November ’08, from ever happening again—-that the vast majority of Catholic ignored their bishops and voted the Democratic ticket. Since this is a long comment—I will divide it in half.
Look for the following to be happening in the following months and next few years:
1) No Catholic university/college will be permitted to have any speaker address the students on any issue without submitting the speaker’s name to the Diocese for approval.
2) No parish or group of parishes (region) will be permitted to have any speaker address any specific group on any topic—unless that speaker’s name is submitted for approval by the Chancery. This is already happening in a number of dioceses—it is certainly happening in mine. I have a dear friend who is a specialist in Bereavement training—hospices—caregivers, etc. He has written books on this subject. And he is a Catholic. But I cannot invite him in to address assembled groups of hospice workers, those in bereavement ministry on the parishes—–because my friend is a card-carrying member of CTA—Call to Action—a leader. The diocese doesn’t care what he has accomplished—he belongs to CTA—and he is not welcome.
And now I will go to the next phase of the Bishops’ plan.
Bad drafting has indeed bred confusion and courts have had to read “shall” for “may” and “may” for “shall.” (BTW, “should” is indeed a form of “shall,” both etymologically and as used legally. Mandatory “should” appears thousands of times, e.g., in American civil laws. Perhaps it’s not great drafting, but the mandatory meaning is rarely in doubt.)
Still, I’m not sure any of that matters, though. In Catholics in Political Life, the word “should” in the relevant section is followed by “not.” So whether we read it as “may not honor,” i.e., are not permitted to honor, or as “shall not honor,” i.e., have a duty not to honor, the result is the same: no honors from Catholic institutions for “those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles.”
On the larger American picture, the Vatican and American Bishops are cracking down on one group that they consider very dangerous—-the religious women. Catholic sisters are the most educated group of women in America—all have at least an undergraduate degree, and 97% hold a least one post-graduate degree. The Vatican (along with the American Bishops involved) has:
1) Launched an investigation of women’s apostolic religious communities in America.
2) Launched an investigation of one of the two larger leadership groups (LWCR). The
investigation is probing supposed failures by the leadership to actively ‘push’ the
bishops’ agenda in the United States. Look for the following outcomes from these
investigations:
a) replacement of all leadership members with more conservative leaders.
b) no speaker may address the Sisters for any reason unless the speaker’s
name is submitted for approval by the local ordinary. (forget the fact that
religious communities are multi-national and are to be the prophetic voice
in the church—this will go by the wayside).
c) any sister speaking on any topic that fails to meet the Vatican or Bishops’
approval, will be silenced.
3) Editors of Catholic magazines/websites that don’t follow the norms set for them by the
Bishops will be fired.
In other words, folks, the plan is to choke off all commentary, dissent, etc. by the Vatican and
American Bishops. The only think that the Vatican and American Bishops don’t control is the Internet.
If the American Catholic Laity are going to be taking the initiative in revitalizing the Church—it is imperitative that they are much better organized than they are now. The Vatican and Bishops certainly have been planning well.
Little Bear,
You may be on to something. Yesterday I attempted to interview a nun who is a leader of her order here in Ontario. She would not share an opinion for publication without first seeing what I was to print. I refused.
This was even a former classmate from 1959-60. I was left with the impression of fear to say anything. Not what I expected.
If the Church devolves to a state you describe…it’s goodbye!
BTW, when I transferred ownership of the website I founded to The Congregation of the Holy Ghost – Spiritans I put in a clause which stated that if they were forced to close down the site that ownership reverted automatically back to me. They agreed to those terms.
Nomilk, fully agree on the difficulty of drafting any kind of legislation or laws. The old adage that you can put three lawyers together in a room and give them the same two words and you can generate an argument as to their meaning is almost too true for words.
People see in words what they want to see. It is no different for the Church, either in its management as an institution or its theological beliefs.
Maybe that is part of Fr. Imbelli’s reference to “Catholic language of authority and discernment.”
I think there’s consensus here that both Fr. Jenkins and Bishop D’Arcy are decent folk.
That doesn’t get us very far though in the continuing deterioration of relationships on Church leaders and politicians, Church leaders and higher education, (and, as Little Bear notes, Church leaders and religious women).The concomitant disociation of the American hierrachy from its troops on the ground (as Bill D. points out,) is not a sign of much hope.
It’s not just Obama and Donna Brazile; Biden’s being honored at Georgetown Law for his role in legislation protecting women raises Archbishop Wuerl’s hackles. Siubelius is under attack for another veto in Kansas for a law that she sees as unconstitional.
I don’t see how anyone can see this as not an issue about power and its use toward major institutions and persons.
I see little hope of change on the hierarchical side.Two new Episcopla appointments may illustrate this : the St. Louis Post Dispatch ran an op-ed on new Bishop Carlson, quoting some of his priests in Saginaw where he’s leaving as being a tough by the book guy. A new Bishop (44 year old youngest US Bishop) in Gallup -big native American indian territory – says in the newspaper this morning that his priorities are life issues and vocations.From where I sit, I can only see a further growing gap between many laity and the hierarchy and one issue (and obviously powerful) right to life groups, the latter of which will clobber and punsih anyone they see as out of line.
Was it Rita who said that we’re not evangelizing?
Are we (under kind words?) increasing hatred, not love as Fr. Kavannagh suggests?
Pray indeed for a better future, but the signs of the times don’t offer a lot of hope for it.
Nomilk, a further point, of course we could argue about the meaning of the term “act in defiance of” as well as “fundamental moral values”.
The other day Archbishop Turcott (Montreal, I think) made the statement that even abortion was not an absolute at all times. ie. that when two goods clashed sometimes “fundamental moral value (a) had to take precedence over fundamental moral value (b).
We may need a grammarian steeped in history and etymology. But I enter this consideration: Would, Could Should are often used in the conditional, e.g., If I had a million dollars, I would give it to Commonweal. If I could only throttle Catholic converts from the right-wing, we would all be free of this partisan rancor and everyone would be better off. So what about “should”? It’s not shall or must. If you knew what was good for you, you should do what the bishops tell you.
And, then…. the status of faithful citizenship as a church document is certainly confounded by the Vatican’s (maybe even Ratzinger’s) putting the kabash on collegial bodies like bishops’ conferences. Their statements have no authority as a collective, apart from Vatican approval. (I think I’m right about this. Joe K???) So if the pope can welcome Nicolas Szarkozy, president of La Republique (a man of many sins it would seem), how is it that UND can’t welcome the President of the United States? Hmmm!
Further to Bob Nunz comments:
I have been following the state of affairs in the Scranton PA diocese of Bishop Martino.
At what point will the laity really erupt in open revolt as opposed to walking away. This is an area with a very long history of fighting for labour rights, often lead by local priests.
Yet Martino has shut out the local Catholic teachers union and formed his own “association” a typical anti-labour tactic…so many Catholics are alienated at that. Next he, like many other bishops, is closing and consolidating schools. Ditto for over 30 parishes.
He too is in a fight with a private and independent Catholic University, Misercordia, over a speaker the Diversity Club brought in (he was gay).
So is it any surprise that his annual fund raising goal is still, two months after it’s close, $830,00 (or 16%) short of its goal. Do you think he wins any friends when he orders his priests to have extra collections in May and then if that isn’t good enough, to unilaterally take it out of parish coffers.
Bob is right the signs of the time, do not offer a lot of hope.
Great question, Ms. Steinfels. May I add another – given this latest public, written pronouncement by D’Arcy; did the bishop meet with Fr. Jenkins and review this publication?; did he reach out and discuss this and give him a heads up?
It appears to me that Ex Corde and even the university document supports some type of dialogue – for me, dialogue is a two way street. Publishing comments without prior dialogue seems to violate the principle, if not, the letter of the documents.
Just some questions as some of you speak about “control”, “power”, etc.
I want to return for a moment to Peggy Steinfels’ reflection upon “pathos.” It means, of course, “suffering.”
And my observation regarding Father Jenkins and Bishop D’Arcy was not that they were “decent folk,” but that they were men of integrity and commitment who, I have on good authority, are experiencing a fair amount of personal suffering.
I certainly concur with those like Bill DeHaas who appeal for dialogue. I would only add: because how else can we reach mature discernment? I regret that this seemingly did not occur between Father Jenkins and Bishop D’Arcy prior to the invitation. Consultation and dialogue do not determine outcome and decision. But such prior dialogue can build bridges of trust even in the midst of differences. I hope and pray it is occurring now. For the health of the body of Christ.
A tangent. Does anyone know the protocol in these matters? Does the White House approach the University to suggest that the President would welcome an invitation? or does the initiative arise from the University?
I see this attack on Obama’s invitation as the Charge of the Light Brigade.. with the same bad results for the ‘radical right’. It will end in fizzle… the attack is no surprise… has no chance to dislodge the ‘enemy’..has no thought through of consequenses and especially no reserves or follow through….it was a reckless attack by inexperieced leaders with little care for casualties. a good tangent result will be hopeful change… It’s about time that the promulgation of Catholic values in the political culture be put in the hands of competent leaders.. A/B Dolan in NYC already seems to have indicated a more successful tone.. . Radical right tactics and straregies have been absolute failures.
I certainly concur with those like Bill DeHaas who appeal for dialogue. I would only add: because how else can we reach mature discernment? I regret that this seemingly did not occur between Father Jenkins and Bishop D’Arcy prior to the invitation.
This kind of policy sounds problematic to me. How would a university president do that without effectively ceding a measure of the university’s autonomy? Whenever there’s even the remotest possibility of controversy, the president would then have to go running off to the chancery to receive some sort of imprimatur. Where does it end?
I regret that this seemingly did not occur between Father Jenkins and Bishop D’Arcy prior to the invitation. Consultation and dialogue do not determine outcome and decision. But such prior dialogue can build bridges of trust even in the midst of differences. I hope and pray it is occurring now. For the health of the body of Christ.
Fr. Imbelli,
It is difficult not to read Bishop D’Arcy’s statement about consultation as saying anything other than, “If Fr. Jenkins had consulted with me in advance, I would have made it clear that inviting Obama was impermissible, Fr. Jenkins would not have done it, and we wouldn’t have this situation.”
In using the words “terrible breach . . . between Notre Dame and the church,” he seems to me (as I have said before) to be placing Notre Dame outside the church. I would like to think of Notre Dame as part of the church, with this whole matter being an internal controversy. But it seems to be Bishop D’Arcy’s view that Fr. Jenkins and Notre Dame “broke the rules” laid down in “Catholics in Public Life,” when it is not clear to me that they were binding rules.
It seems to me this is not about the clarity of the Church’s teachings on abortion itself. Certainly the invitation of Obama as a commencement speaker does not induce Catholics (or anyone else) to conclude that the Catholic Church has changed its position on abortion. The questions involved seem to be about the relationships between Catholic institutions and the politics of abortion. It is really a matter of how some in the Church believe the abortion question should be addressed in the American political system.
Fr. Komonchak made an interesting statement partly in response to some of my questions. This was regarding the controversy over who should be refused communion, but I think it is relevant here:
No one from Notre Dame is questioning that abortion is an evil, and no one is endorsing Obama’s pro-life position. What Fr. Jenkins has done, as I see it, is declined to buy into what is essentially a political position on how pro-life politicians ought to be treated by Catholic organization: You may talk to them, but you may not honor them for anything they do — whether realated to abortion or not — because their position on abortion makes them ineligible for any honors whatsoever.
In 1995, Pope John Paul II wrote that the death penalty was to be used only “in cases of absolute necessity, in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady immprovement in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”
Was there an outcry in May 2001 when George Bush, who had signed 152 death warrants as governor of Texas, was invited to make the commencement address at Notre Dame?
“Bob is right, the signs of the time do not offer a lot of hope.”
Agree: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gEA97EnxE4
As the quality of this exchange demonstrates you are all extremely knowledgeable about the Catholic Church, especially within American society.
What I would like to know is, from where among American bishops is a leader who understands the modern complexity of operating within the American democratic model? Is anyone likely to come forward to prevent the future harm that both Margaret & I fear is a possible secular counter-reaction to the current vacuum which the outspoken bishops on the radical right now fill.
Someone hesitantly suggested Dolan; Who else is even a possibility?
There seems to be much talk about the vitriol of Rabid and Radical Right. It makes me wonder whether anyone has read the comment by its editor in the National Catholic Reporter on the Cardinal Newman Society. Talk about vitriol!
There seems also to be an overlooked point. Be as condescending as one likes to Bishop D’Arcy, he is a bishop. Fr. Jenkins, for all that he has gotten himself elected president of a university by a secular board, is but that – a priest in charge [more or less] of a university. It sounds grand to people in the academe. But to people outside the academe, a bishop is [to use Mr. Obama's phrase] on a higher pay scale.
I think [but do not know] that most Mass going Catholics would agree with this. But I don’t see the relevance. We are not a Church whose dogmas are decided by majority vote – even of theologians.
John, perhaps you could explain when Respect for the Dignity and Sacredness of innocent Human Life from the beginning became a “radical right view” in the Catholic Church.
Perhaps this may help you with your confusion:
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/Rigali-Murphy-Joint-Statement.pdf
John Borst:
I hate to sound like the ‘spinner of conspiracy theories” but here is another observation that I have made, and it is based on something you wrote above. You stated that you are watching what is going on in the Scranton, PA Diocese with Bishop Joseph Martino’s actions. You wrote that with Martino ” his annual fund raising goal is still, two months after it’s close, $830,00 (or 16%) short of its goal. Do you think he wins any friends when he orders his priests to have extra collections in May and then if that isn’t good enough, to unilaterally take it out of parish coffers.”
My question is, are you aware of how in so many dioceses, the bishops are trying to collect extra monies to use in building up the Cathedral? I am not in the Scranton Diocese (and I pray for those good people there every day), but in my diocese, following the DLA (Diocesan Lentan Appeal), the bishop will begin a wave of extra collections to renovate and build up the Cathedral. The appeal will not hit all parts of the diocese at once—-a few months in some parts, and then a few months in others. But if the parishes don’t meet their allotted assessment—-there will be Hell to pay. Our bishop actually stated that he did not believe that “the economic situation will in any way affect this drive.” And this is going on in some other dioceses (archdioceses).
In the latest edition of U.S. Catholic (May 2009), there is an article about the ‘Collection Racket”. It is about embezzelement that often goes on at the parish level. What about down right financial pressure being applied to parishes from the local ordinary—to build up his power base? I also saw an ad in this same magazine placed there by the “Voice of the Faithful”. Maybe this is something that they should look into. And it fits with my theory of a complete multi-pronged attack by both the Vatican and the American Bishops in order to stamp out any voice but their own in the American Catholic Church.
Antonio Manetti – (I love all those vowels),
I do not want to appear naive or dismissive of your concern. You ask: “where will it end?”
I wonder: “when will it begin?”
In A People Adrift, Peter Steinfels (I am quoting from memory) pondered that the two “narratives” that have prevailed since the Council (shorthand: liberal/conservative) have become exhausted.
But most of us — bishops, academics, editors — are still running on their fumes. What steps should/could/may/shall we take to begin anew, to sing a new song to the Lord in his Church? It will undoubtedly entail a good deal of pathos.
On Dialogue: After a respectful sharing of views and a response and counter-response, further clarification, etc., let’s remember that one outcome of dialogue is agreeing to disagree. Would Bishop D’Arcy have accepted that outcome? Perhaps Is it possible that Fr. Jenkins would have been persuaded to change his course of action? Perhaps. After the fact, it is hard to see how either would change his mind.
Secular Board: Gabriel Austin, the UND board is non-clerical (though there are probably clerics on it), but in what sense is it secular? For the most part, it is made up of Catholic men and women of the lay persuasion.
There are bishops opposed to this fracas. Of course, one hesitates to name them, lest they be besieged more than they are already.
In the 70s, 80s, up to the late 90s the centrists, much inspired by V II (in which some had participated,) in the line of Dearden, Quinn, Bernardin, Roach, Malone, Pilarczyk, Pilla (not an exhaustive list by any means) were dominant in the US conference. By the late 90s, the situation had changed, changed utterly. As an observer at Conference plenary meetings, I was shocked (yes) by edvidences of a new confrontational stlye in the debates.
Sadly, I do not see a return to the moderation that then obtained. Fear seems to be in the ascendant.
evidences, style
When the Index of Forbidden Books was in force, Catholic college faculty were required to get permission from the local bishop to assign the authors and books on the Index to their students. Each semester a letter was sent to the bishops and a “permission to read” letter came in the return mail.
Bishop D’Arcy states that the local bishop is the ultimate authority in determining acceptable speakers/ presenters on the local Catholic campus. Perhaps, at the beginning of each year, colleges could submit to the bishop a list of possible speakers. (An expedited procedure could be developed for last minute invitees!) Then each speaker could be introduced with the statement: “Tonight’s honored speaker appears with the approbation of Bishop …….”
But would the bishops welcome this procedure? Do they want to pass judgment on the orthodoxy and philosophical correctness of every speaker who comes to campus?
Rather bishops seem most concerned to veto speakers identified as supporters of legal abortion. They fear that these speakers undermine the perception that the American church, including Catholic colleges, stands united in advocating that abortion be made illegal.
Nor would most Bishops want to assume such a formal and public supervisory role. They would rather make a phone call to the college president and have the “politically incorrect” speaker quietly and quickly dis-invited.
The ND affair will likely reinforce the existing relationship between bishops and colleges: periodic phone calls from the Chancery Office and heightened self-censorship exercised by the college presidents. (In these stringent financial times, college presidents are not looking for controversy.)
However potential conflict between the college and Chancery will remain. For bishops are likely to continue to expect Catholic colleges to symbolically and institutionally present themselves as advocates for making abortion illegal.
Academic communities are at best obstreperous and unstable political allies and agents.
The proximate appointment of a new bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend will not garner the attention that the New York appointment has, but it has the potential for being a very telling moment.
“However potential conflict between the college and Chancery will remain. For bishops are likely to continue to expect Catholic colleges to symbolically and institutionally present themselves as advocates for making abortion illegal.”
Imagine that, Catholic Universities and Catholic Colleges and Catholic Theologians and Catholic Lawyers and Catholic…that present themselves as advocates for the Right to Life of every Human Being from the beginning. I am shocked that you find that shocking.
David Nickol posted this above and it is a good reminder that we are talking about fourth and fifth levels of removal from abortion: that includes President Obama, President Jenkins, the UND Board, the students, etc. I guess that is hard for some to remember.
“Fr. Komonchak made an interesting statement partly in response to some of my questions. This was regarding the controversy over who should be refused communion, but I think it is relevant here: That abortion is an evil is one proposition. That it should be prohibited by civil law is another. That it should be prohibited in all cases and under all situations is another. That it should be prohibited under the present circumstances of U.S. society and culture is still another. How a Catholic should judge and act with regard to these last questions, whether as a private citizen or as a public office-holder, are prudential judgments, and I do not myself think that judgments involved in this degree of contingency should be considered grounds for excluding people from Holy Communion. Most U.S. bishops would seem to agree.”
Nickol: “No one from Notre Dame is questioning that abortion is an evil, and no one is endorsing Obama’s pro-life [MS: pro-choice is probably meant] position. What Fr. Jenkins has done, as I see it, is declined to buy into what is essentially a political position on how pro-life politicians ought to be treated by Catholic organization: You may talk to them, but you may not honor them for anything they do — whether realated to abortion or not — because their position on abortion makes them ineligible for any honors whatsoever.”
I think Jenkins not interacting with his local Bishop, despite seeking advice from other Church authorities on this issue, is interesting and important. Does anyone have any thoughts on why he did not do this? Was it because he didn’t understand canon law? Did he already know what the answer would be and didn’t want to hear it? Did he just not care to get local bishop approval? Something else?
Also, and I apologize if this has been discussed on another thread, but I think a very interesting argument present in this issue is with regard to Obama’s capacity to act ‘in defiance’ of ‘our’ fundamental moral principles. Jenkins apparently received assurances from canon lawyers that Obama, as a non-Catholic, could not act in defiance of Catholic teaching. D’Arcy does not appear to give an argument for his position that it is ‘settled’ that ‘Catholics in Public Life’ applies to the Obama matter. Perhaps the healing could begin by both sides making arguments for why they take the position they do…aside from being interesting for people like me to hear, it would be evidence (1) that Notre Dame is showing deference to the local bishop by engaging him and (2) that the bishop would be showing respect for Notre Dame’s autonomy as a University by not shoving an interpretation down their throats.
Little Bear
We are off topic but in the Martino/Scranton case there is a direct co-relation between parishes under closure and low donations.
I was not aware of the tactics you describe.
Can anyone explain why Catholics remain loyal to such Bishop’s campaigns when they disagree with a bishop’s actions?
I think there is something else that has happened to Catholics especially the average Catholic who rarely attends mass, but sends their kid to a Catholic school especially up here where Catholic education is public education.
They no longer accept the authority of bishops or the Pope or the local priest. They make up their own mind. It doesn’t matter whether it is a doctrinal issue like the virgin birth or confession at least once a year or same sex marriage or no abortions in all circumstances.
Somewhere along the way we all changed. The so called teaching authority of the Magisterium is no more relevant than today’s issue of Quirks and Quarcks ( a Saturday science program on CBC radio) for the majority of young and many old Catholics.
It is just gone!
The exceptions to this approach go over board the other way. They want and demand obedience without thought to everything the Magisterium says. And for them the abortion test is the ultimate test of loyalty. There is no middle ground. There is no compromise.
It is why Catholicism and fundamentalist religion is feared and why society will not tolerate its intolerance for long. As others have said this religious fundamentalist minority may already have overplayed their hand, even within the Church.
We will just have to wait and see.
John Borst rightly says; “As others have said this religious fundamentalist minority may already have overplayed their hand, even within the Church’
Another example is A/B Hughes boycotting Catholic Donna Brazille’s honors at Xavier U in new orleans. She holds no office, has no votes but works with Pro- choice candidates.. [maybe she is an adivsor to pro life candidates too!] Maybe her landlord and her cousin are pro-choice!!
More dissing of African Americans and the church can say goodby forever.
Didn’t Steele the Republican national Chairperson mess up his pro- life/pro-choice syntax.. ???
To American Bishops… silence is acquiescence to failed strategy and tactics…
Charles Camosy,
I find your choice of words interesting; Jenkins is to show “deference” while D’Arcy is to show “respect”.
At one level deference can mean “courteous respect” but the more usual definition is “submission, or courteous yielding to the opinion, wishes, or judgment of another”. That in my opinion is not engagement. So what did you really mean?
It is, however, what most bishops expect. It is also what the majority of Catholics no longer are prepared to give.
I will respect the position of a priest, or bishop or even the Pope but if I believe any one of them is wrong I will say so. A good example is the recent Williamson affair. But we could add the 9 year Brazilian girl’s abortion and the excommunications attached to it; the Condom AIDS/HIV remarks of BXVI etc. Catholics and non-Catholics of every stripe simply no-longer defer to a Pope or a bishop.
There has been a good deal of confusion over this and much of the diocesan press has tried to explain it away as misinterpretation or a lack of awareness of the subtlety of Catholic teaching. The Pope does appear genuinely surprised by this turn of events. It just proves how out of touch and isolated he is from the reality of Catholic living in a democratic, modern secularist world.. Blaming secularism as a modern version of Sodom doesn’t play well anymore either. As I’ve said already, the authority simply isn’t there.
We will be respectful to the person and the position but we will no longer be deferential. I would think a bishop like D’Arcy understands this…but what he has written hasn’t convinced me in this case.
John, ‘what I really meant’ is what I said…deference in the sense of engagement in the way I specifically mentioned. Was there something unclear about it?
The Land of Lakes Agreement which effectively barred people from the Roman Curia from making further historic mistakes, is a great document which enunciate great theological principles. It was spearheaded by arguably the greatest Catholic in American history, Ted Hesburgh. The distinguished Catholic American historican John Tracy Ellis said that “it is not even close.”
The first three points are instructive. An objective appraisal will show that Notre Dame has done this as well if not better than any Catholic University.
“1. The Catholic University: A True University with Distinctive Characteristics
The Catholic University today must be a university in the full modern sense of the word, with a strong commitment to and concern for academic excellence. To perform its teaching and research functions effectively the Catholic university must have a true autonomy and academic freedom in the face of authority of whatever kind, lay or clerical, external to the academic community itself. To say this is simply to assert that institutional autonomy and academic freedom are essential conditions of life and growth and indeed of survival for Catholic universities as for all universities.
The Catholic university participates in the total university life of our time, has the same functions as all other true universities and, in general, offers the same services to society. The Catholic university adds to the basic idea of a modern university distinctive characteristics which round out and fulfill that idea. Distinctively, then, the Catholic university must be an institution, a community of learners or a community of scholars, in which Catholicism is perceptibly present and effectively operative.
2. The Theological Disciplines
In the Catholic university this operative presence is effectively achieved first of all and distinctively by the presence of a group of scholars in all branches of theology. The disciplines represented by this theological group are recognized in the Catholic university, not only as legitimate intellectual disciplines, but as ones essential to the integrity of a university. Since the pursuit of the theological sciences is therefore a high priority for a Catholic university, academic excellence in these disciplines becomes a double obligation in a Catholic university.
3. The Primary Task of the Theological Faculty
The theological faculty must engage directly in exploring the depths of Christian tradition and the total religious heritage of the world, in order to come to the best possible intellectual understanding of religion and revelation, of man in all his varied relationships to God. Particularly important today is the theological exploration of all human relations and the elaboration of a Christian anthropology. Furthermore, theological investigation today must serve the ecumenical goals of collaboration and unity.”
The rest of that great document is here: http://archives.nd.edu/episodes/visitors/lol/idea.htm
Hey Bill…can you tell me what any of the above has to do with the question of whether or not Notre Dame should honor Obama?
Showing deference is not normally understood as engagement, except in a feudal system. Deferrence is fine engagement if you are a serf.
It would be considered deference in this case because if Notre Dame was interested in getting an expert opinion it wouldn’t be D’Arcy…but choosing to engaging him they would be deferential toward his authority in this case.
No, how about actually engaging the issue rather than picking on the words?
A few last thoughts of mine:
Charkes is right that there’s too much here on senmantics, wherther about folk or deference.
One problem about engaging the issue is that talking abou twhat might habe been before the invitation was that was then this is now and the power of the right to life movement has made a wide gash in the interrealtion of episcopacy and university.
I thought John Borst’s post of 5:42 was absolutley correct in describing the current situation of folks in the pew. We had a beautiful first communion mass tonight and everybody loved Father with the children – the same priest who long ago banned the Commonmweal magazine from our library.
But people think for themselves and nourish on the Eucharist, but the poltical intrusuions on the one issue right to life folks moves them not, unless they are into the one issue perspective.
In that context, dialogue has not and is not realistic in a meaningful way. when issues that divide arise, love and dialogue take back seat to “I’m right you’re wrong.”
In short, a different kind of leadership is needed if unity, common ground, mutual love is to be fostered and grow!
Bishop D’Arcy seems pained and under some pressure in articulating his position. But presumably he did this freely. I suppose some Bishops feel differently about the whole issue but prefer to remain silent. They might think about solidarity with the laity who agree with them It’s not enough to hold a decent position “in pectore.” Bishops have nothing to fear in speaking out save possible hindrance in their careers. And that is a contemptible motive for silence. Why don’t they speak their minds? I agree with John Page. I watched a couple of plenary sessions of the Bishops’ conferences and found them appalling. How is it that “The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity?” And where is the Spirit in all of this?
Charles, you obviously mean deferential in the “yielding” sense. No way! Never, in these circumstances. Jenkins is president of an independent Catholic university. D’Arcy and folks like CNS should mind there own business.
Whether Obama comes or doesn’t come, is honoured or isn’t honoured at a Catholic University in not within the authority of either a bishop or the CNS to decide. It belongs to the president with the authority of the Board of Directors. The latter fully support the former.
D’Arcy should butt out as should all of the other bishops. This is not the feudal middle ages. No deference in Camosy’s terms is owed to a bishop. I do not know when the Vatican or the authoritarian 42 or what ever number it is bishops, will get it.
Respect has to work equally in both directions. I do not respect either CNS & their fello0w travellers or the bishops who are attempting to use the Catholic position on abortion to pressure UND/Jenkins and the Board to reverse their decision.
Chares, how about this Land of Lakes statement: “Furthermore, theological investigation today must serve the ecumenical goals of collaboration and unity.”
And this: “A further important limitation of the statement must be emphasized. The group clearly recognized that the presence of and active participation by persons who are not Catholics in the Catholic university community are most desirable and, indeed, even necessary to bring authentic universality to the Catholic university itself. ”
This: “Every university, Catholic or not, serves as the critical reflective intelligence of its society. In keeping with this general function, the Catholic university has the added obligation of performing this same service for the Church. Hence, the university should carry on a continual examination of all aspects and all activities of the Church and should objectively evaluate them. The Church would thus have the benefit of continual counsel from Catholic universities. Catholic universities in the recent past have hardly played this role at all. It may well be one of the most important functions of the Catholic university of the future. ”
Finally, every PUSA who ND has invited has had questionable moral qualities. Do you suggest that Reagan and W had not been invited?
It is clear that the Obama administration has placed a Woman’s right to choose an abortion over the Right to Life of that Baby once that Baby’s Life has begun. How many of you plan on being advocates for allowing that Baby to live?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gEA97EnxE4
Nancy,
I regret to say this isn’t really about abortion. The right to life issue is a screen over which the issue of what it means to be a Catholic university is being waged
That is what Bill Mazzella is trying to explain to Charles. What is also at play is the authority of the UND President and the Board of Directors to conduct the affairs of the university independent of ecclesiastical authority.
I suppose this is exactly why Ex Corde Ecclesiae should never have been imposed in the first place. Just as the bishops have lost their authority over the laity the application of Canon Law in the Catholic public domain holds an ever decreasing relevance with Catholic lay elite.
The more the bishops insist on an outdated autocratic view of their authority the less they and their voice will be respected let alone deferred to.
Times like this require a delicate form of diplomacy much of it in confidence and leaving each side with a large measure of respect and dignity. It is exactly that tact that is missing from this affair.
That is also why the CNS and the bishops who have released less than diplomatic statements should not be deferred to. It is why it has become a game of power politics within the Church and is now about to spill out into the secular/public domain.
Frankly the quiet resolve of Fr. Jenkins and his Board to see this through is likely to pay big dividends for the University and Catholic politicians among the majority of Catholics in the long term. Perhaps that is why the forces opposing Obama’s presence are becoming ever more shrill.
But Bill, this is a question about honoring Obama…not theological investigation. D’Arcy clearly agrees that non-Catholics should participate in the life of Notre Dame and that positions not offered by the Church should be welcome in an academic sense…and said so in the letter cited in this blog. Again, this is about honoring Obama…not engaging him critically or vice versa. Let’s stay on topic here.
John, for the third time, I ‘obviously’ mean deference in exactly the sense I said: engagement out of respect for his being the local bishop. Don’t put words in my mouth…I specifically DIDN’T mean ‘yielding’ because I want it to be an engagement of ideas.
Btw, are you suggesting that a Roman Catholic University has no responsibility to be in communion with its local bishop?
J. F. Powers we miss you.
Please forgive me – as this post I write is OFF topic (although that is the very point).
I have read and contributed to the discussions about this ‘controversy” here at the COMMONWEAL blog. As I have read and participated – and as I have watched and read the national news in the last week, I have increasing become dismayed and wonder if I am losing hope…
The reason I write this is that over the few weeks, but particularly this week, we as a people and country are witnessing a particularly salient “teaching moment” occur before us in the political sphere.
With the release of the torture memos and future release of the torture picturesin May…we have spread before us what must be considered at least a serious sin and participation in evil that if not addressed will continue and lead to – if not spiritual and moral, then our own existential disaster.
As I write, I have in mind to posts from yesterday and today, both powerful.
Yesterday, Andrew Sullivan, at his Daily Dish website:
Here is a passage from the encyclical Gaudium Et Spes:
“Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator.”
Andrew Sullivan asks – where are the US bishops?
This morning (Sunday 4/26), the Washington Post leads with a new national poll where in 52% of all Americans think torture is justified in some circumstances…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/25/AR2009042503120.html?hpid=topnews
It’s just great that we as a Catholic Church are making our voice heard about the controversy over ND and Obama. Where are we in making the same kind of life issue arguments over a practice that is/has been developing NOW and has dire consequences for us all.
I am as “pro-life” as anybody… But lots of people like me and other Catholics I know would like to know why such energetic condemnations over the issue of abortion (in and of itself as a practice) but less energy and almost no pronouncement on other human dignity concerns…as if people who torture or accept torture as public policy would not also in a crunch turn to abortion if it suited their purpose/end.
I am losing hope that a church community I love and bishops I respect and accept as my guide and teacher in Christ are nothing of the sort (with an occasional rare exception)
Lots of what I have come to expect from the magisterium LOOKS too much like wanting to control uteruses and ovaries and less like implementation of the seamless garment of life. (Are the bishops afraid of women and the men who associate with them) As a Catholic, I know how to read between these lines and see the bishops good intentions. But people who think differently about this and many other issues (and they are a majority in this democracy) are NOT persuaded and that is the ecclesial and political reality the bishops and we face.
It seems to me that none of the discussion about abortion that occurs is directed at persuading someone contemplating such an act to not pursue that course…
Further, the bishops have an opportunity NOW to insert Catholic values into the back and forth about torture, but will they?
John Borst wrote:
“D’Arcy should butt out as should all of the other bishops. This is not the feudal middle ages. No deference in Camosy’s terms is owed to a bishop. I do not know when the Vatican or the authoritarian 42 or what ever number it is bishops, will get it.”
To which Charles Carmosy replied:
“Are you suggesting that a Roman Catholic University has no responsibility to be in communion with its local bishop?”
I get that Fr. Jenkins has a degree of autonomy here, and that he should not feel obligated to run to his local bishop for permission to invite controversial figures to his campus. But at the same time, I do not believe that we should consider Fr. Jenkins–or any university president–as bishop of his own plot of land. That, it would seem, is closer to the feudalism that was earlier ascribed to the bishop. Especially in such a politically charged situation, prudence would have counseled a different path in this whole thing. I simply can’t imagine that Fr. Jenkins is just an innocent victim of the rabid right. He had a hand in the making of this kefuffle, and it would be naive to believe otherwise.
I find it hard to believe that a university president would be considered a fully autonomous agent in the church. Isn’t there a degree to which he or she remains under the authority of the local bishop? Campuses cannot function like overseas U.S. military bases, with their own set of laws and expectations. And university officials cannot function like U.N. diplomats freely ignoring New York’s traffic llaws. There has to be a degree of collaboration, cooperation, and yes, even religious submission involved. At the same time, a university president is not the equivalent of a secular priest bound by a canonical promise of obedience to his bishop. It’s very tricky, of course, but I suppose that’s what Ex Corde tried to work out.
As to the Land of Lakes statement that Bill has quoted, that seems to apply to situations of academic inquiry. I fail to see how an honorary degree advances academic inquiry.
Not that I think President Obama should not have been invited. I simply think the whole thing might have been handled differently, and borne far better results.
It seems that Fr. Jenkins did one of two things here:
1. He committed a serious blunder, thinking it was no big deal and that Bishop Jenkins should mind his own business (as if what happens in his diocese is not his business). This, I believe, is the less likely of the two options. He is too intelligent and informed a man to have made such a big mistake. The second option seems far more likely, to wit . . .
2. He took a calculated risk, foreseeing a firestorm of criticism but suspecting the whole thing would blow over during the summer break. It remains to be seen whether it will play out this way. But if this is indeed his strategy, it is quite shrewd. Perhaps he was hoping to strike a blow at the blowhards, letting them reveal their truer colors as they raged incessantly at this minor issue. I don’t know. If this was indeed his approach, I wonder what he is thinking now. Does he think it’s gotten out of hand? Or does he think it’s going just as he expected and intended?
To TK’s cri de coeur: Yes, where are the bishops on torture? And the war in Iraq? When you ask the USCCB, you are directed to statements they have made (as I recall Bishop Wenski [famous now on another CWL post!] made a critical statement on torture). Obviously none of these have the public heft that attacking pro-choice politicians has (a sure fire way to get the media’s attention, especially in an election year).
BUT, where are we–lay people? Fordham, Catholic University and probably other Catholic institutions have held public forums exploring and exposing the problem. The National Religious Coalition Against Torture has a Catholic contingent, along with many others…mainline and evangelical Protestants. NCR, America, and, of course, Commonweal have all published articles, etc., with a critical outlook. If the bishops have lost their way (some have), isn’t it up to us to scour church teachings, to formulate questions about public policy, to lobby and protest what our government has done in our name.
The question of investigations and commission are before us (led in the Senate by Patrick Leahy (D.-VT), and RC. How many of us are supporting his effort, or any of the possible others? If the bishops aren’t leading on this, the rest of us should. If the shepherds are gone away, the sheep will have to organize themselves!
John, being an advocate for the Right to Life of every Human Individual once that Human Individual’s Life has begun is the responsibility of every Catholic, and according to our Founding Fathers, the responsibility of all Mankind.
“…We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are ENDOWED by their CREATOR with certain UNALIENABLE Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness-that to SECURE these Rights, (as in protect these Rights) Governments are instituted by Men…”
Men of good will can disagree as to the best way to solve the problem of poverty, keep Peace and Security, impose taxes, etc., but no Man has the Right to deny the Right to Life of an innocent Human Individual once that Human Individual’s Life has begun.
Regarding torture, do you consider the act of abortion to be a form of torture?
“Btw, are you suggesting that a Roman Catholic University has no responsibility to be in communion with its local bishop?”
Charles, Peggy gave you the answer in the post above: “If the bishops aren’t leading on this, the rest of us should. If the shepherds are gone away, the sheep will have to organize themselves!”
The issue should be faced directly. When the bishops go astray they must be challenged. Jesus said: “Beware the leaven of the Pharisees!” The bishops take no responsibility for presiding over the Holocaust, slavery, the dire lack of civil rights for blacks in the South and North. The bishops in South and Central America made Communism so attractive that Ronald Reagan had to send Pentecostal missionaries to bring people back to Christianity and away from communism. Should we be in “communion” when Cardinal Spellman is known for calling the shots in New York city (the “Power House”) and encouraging bombing of the Vietcong?Just leaf through Christian history and you will see that the bishops generally come up empty when it comes to the genuine practice of the faith, contrary to lying hagiographers and controlled Church historians.
Obama towers over all those tyrants who the chruch has honored in the past and present. Charlemagne killed thousands who would not be baptized. Yet the bishops dared not confront him. Rather they applauded.
It is on topic, Charles. You may be making the jump or working on flawed premises.
Hey Bill…Peggy’s post, with which I agree, is not on the topic about which I asked you. I asked you the following question, which, apparently, you refuse to answer by pointing to other topics. I’ll ask again:
“Are you suggesting that a Roman Catholic University has no responsibility to be in communion with its local bishop?”
To head off possible distractions at the pass, I’m not asking about any of the following things:
1. The mistakes of some bishops in the past.
2. The current omissions of some bishops in executing the consistent ethic of life.
3. Anything about our lay roles as advocates beyond what the bishops do…which is, of course, substantial.
I’m asking you, in the specific context of this blog entry, about the relationship between a Roman Catholic University and the local Bishop. I’d advocated the position that Jenkins should at least engage D’Arcy on the level of ideas exchange about whether Obama can act in defiance of Church teaching…out of deference to his authority in the diocese. What’s your view?
Charles,
The local university should work to be in communion with the bishop and vice versa. Notice in the Land of Lakes statement it was pointed out that the church/bishops can learn and be counseled by the University.
Is that clear. Having said that the situation may not favor your yes and no question. We used to say that the best way to create a rule is to presume someone should rule us. If you get my drift. I will stop here awaiting to see if I can get on topic with you.
Mr. Camosy – if I may jump in here and try to redirect between you and Bill. If you scroll above to David Nickol’s comments about “Catholics in Public Life” and others comments on both the document, Ex Corde, and Cathlics in Public Life – you will note a few historical facts:
a) Ex Corde outlined and is an attempt to clarify criteria for the relationship between a catholic university and the local bishop – this is a fairly recent document and not sure we have enough history/case law? – it does seem to try to set up a process and requirements for a dialogue between a president of a catholic university and the local bishop;
b) Catholics in Public Life – goes a step further and outlines how this process is to work. Unfortunately, as the Jesuit University Association president and the Catholic University Association president states – this document is a work in progress; seems to be “interim”; and leaves enough gaps that either side can interpret what a president and what a bishop must do.
Given this “interim” status, it is unfortunate that D’Arcy elevated this dilemma the way he did – it appears that Jenkins acted the way previous ND presidents acted (e.g. Hesburgh). Sorry, do not agree that the bishop is “above” the university president – they each have proper roles. Some would say that Ex Corde went too far; interfering with the rights of a catholic university e.g. mandatum; that may be why the second document was requested.
I would prefer to allow the catholic university presidents to work this out with the USCCB and that it not be done in public for all to see. There needs to be calmer heads; more clarification of what dialogue means; respect for both a local bishop and the role of a catholic university in the public square.
But Jenkins’ argument wasn’t that he wasn’t bound by ‘Catholics in Public Life’…in fact his defense letter specifically mentions how he took the document seriously and went to canon lawyers (I think I’m remembering this correctly) in an attempt to determine if Obama could act in defiance of Church teaching. D’Arcy’s point is that CANON LAW mandates that he go to the local bishop for such interpretations. I have no idea if D’Arcy is correct or not, but, again, let’s stick to the facts of the situation at hand. The document was ‘elevated’ by Jenkins first…and then D’Arcy called him out on an aspect of interpretation.
Bill Mazzella…we agree. Who knew? :) It is precisely the mutual communion I was calling for when I said that Jenkins and D’Arcy should sit down and have it out over whether Obama can act in defiance of Church teaching. But isn’t it at least worth asking the question why, if as you say that Notre Dame should show deference to its local bishop (by working with him rather than–in in addition to-other, perhaps more qualified experts), Jenkins left D’Arcy out of he loop and if he was justified in doing so?
Let’s grant your assumption that Jenkins “had” to review this decision with D’Arcy. Will we ever know what really happened? Jenkins’ interpretation and D’Arcy’s interpretation of the same document or even canon law leads us to an impasse especially given that most on this blog grant that both men are trustful, acted in good faith, and want to do the common good.
Here is what I would propose at this time: Both D’Arcy and Jenkins need to meet and publish a brief statement that references different interpretations of law and documents; the obvious disconnect in terms of dialogue and consensus; apologize for this disconnect together, and then, consistent with the historical tradition at ND, state that Obama will speak and receive an honorary degree; that this in no way indicates church agreement with current political decisions, but that the invitation is out of respect for the office of the President of the United States. (It might be helpful if this statement had the tacit support of the USCCB leadership and Fr. Currie’s Universtiy Association). They could add that out of respect they expect catholics, students, others to not interfere with this invite and that there will be no additional comments made.
End of Story.
Another than another problem with understanding my position (I specifically said that I didn’t know if D’Arcy was right about Canon Law), I think this is a fantastic post. I hope this is exactly what the beginning of the healing will involve.
Bill DeHass and Bob Nunz have astutely drawn the connection with this imboglio and Ex Corde Ecclesia. It is helpful to recall that there was a npoignant atmosphere of terror in Catholic Universities as CNS and other willing fundamentalists started targeting colleges and professors. The usual fall from grace by the bishops (this time it was the pedophilia scandal) served as a knockout for ECE as its prominent promoters like Law fell by the wayside.
As a result is it not about time that we start examing the paramaters of bishop responsibility/accountability? The church has always done better when the bishops are challenged and made aware of Ecclesiam Semper Reformands, the Church must always Reform Itself. So how can we improve the office of bishop and make it more gospel like? Based more on scripture than Canon Law. Anyone like to try that thread?
I just want Charles & others to know that I did reply earlier this morning, (much earlier) to his question on ‘communion’. Then in submitting it WordPress lost it and asked me to login again.
I decided against rewriting it and went back to bed. I wish I had said my piece. But I’m not going to because I have to get my seedlings transplanted.
You know it’s about life. Not all seeds germinated. And many germinate and some, damp off. And in the transplanting, which is a form of thinning out not all survive. And in the growing some get deformed or infected. But many blossom and make this world a more beautiful place.
Seems to me that is a lot like the human species too. Thanks for the intelligent and civil discussion.
I also agree with Bill D’s outline for possible bridge building between the bishop and the ND president.
And if I can be so bold, here’s a way for the President to do his part in ramping down the internecine dispute among Catholics regarding the ND invitation, and perhaps to give himself a more favorable reception when he speaks at ND in a few weeks.
The Pregnant Women Support Act was re-introduced in the House of Representatives last week, and the USCCB, through Cardinal Rigali, the chair of the USCCB’s Committee on Pro-Life Activities, has urged members of Congress to support the bill.
http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2009/09-091.shtml
Wouldn’t it be a conciliatory gesture by the President, and an astute political move on his part, to now come out in very strong support of passage of the PWSA?
“If the bishops aren’t leading on this, the rest of us should. If the shepherds are gone away, the sheep will have to organize themselves!”
I agree 100%. However (and there’s always a however with Catholicism), most of the “faithful” in the pews, the MSM and the outside world in general equate whatever the bishops say as being the Church speaking. The rest of us, because of the very nature of Catholicism that is perpetuated by the powers that be, are viewed at best as dissenters, ergo not to be given credence. as speaking with or for the Church.
In The Laity and Christian Education (Paulist Press, 2006), Dolores Leckey pointed out a strong attitude in the church exemplified by a bishop’s remark at Vatican II: “I looked up the word layman in a theological dictionary, Leckey quotes the bishop, ‘and found that the entry said see clergy.’ “ I question whether one can and would see much change within ecclesiastical halls of power even today.
No matter what was stated by Vatican II in Apostolicam Actuositatem and elsewhere, within the church it still too often appears that “lay persons have always been enemies of the clergy.” Pope Boniface VIII, Clericis Laicos (1296).
I have posted this 20-year old statement in this blogsite before and it bears repeating in this case: “The Catholic leadership crisis for tomorrow is more profound that we dare think about thinking about.” Martin E. Marty, You’re Going to Have to be Institutionalized (article), “The Critic”, Summer 1989
Fr Imbelli wrote: “Others seem too quick to frame the matter in “power” terms. I think we do better to draw upon the Catholic language of authority and discernment. In other circumstances — eg. to counter presumed Roman centralization — voices “on the left” have no hesitancy to invoke the authority of the local bishop.
“Therefore, second, I find Father O’Leary’s statement to be a counsel of despair: “To set up an informal practice of such consultation would subtly undermine the freedom of the University.” If his advice is followed, as well it may be, we would then be irrevocably destined to “the dying of the light:” the demise of distinctive higher education in the Catholic tradition.”
I do rather despair of Catholic Universities under the regime of Ex Corde Ecclesiae and Ad Tuendam Fidem. We have seen about 1000 theological careers hatcheted under the revved up CDF, and that is only the tip of an iceberg of the precipitous decline of Catholic theology, marked by a massive brain drain and a public perception that Catholic departments of theology are not places where intellectual integrity, let alone academic freedom, is likely to flourish.
Now, this destructive policy is reaching even to the freedom of universities to invite public speakers, for fear they might send an Uncatholic message to students or to the wider world.
I know how spineless university administrators are before the pressures of the “business model”. In the case of Catholic Universities they are likely to be equally spineless before opinion campaigns backed by financial threats and bless by bishops. So no “informal consultations” please. No “quiet pressures”. Let the relations between the bishops and the university administrators be transparent and above board.
If we are to have a distinctive higher education in the Catholic tradition, it can only be achieved if we respect academic freedom, freedom of opinion, and freedom of expression, as mandated by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Catholicism in the spirit of Aquinas or Newman should be able to take such demands in its stride, and indeed to promote them. The regime of petty inquisitors meeting spineless lack of resistance from their victims is not aiding Catholic education but destroying it.
Mr Camosy: “I think Jenkins not interacting with his local Bishop, despite seeking advice from other Church authorities on this issue, is interesting and important. Does anyone have any thoughts on why he did not do this? Was it because he didn’t understand canon law? Did he already know what the answer would be and didn’t want to hear it? Did he just not care to get local bishop approval? Something else?”
This seems to see the University of Notre Dame as some kind of parochial outfit directly under the authority of the local bishop. Sadly, many Catholic laity and episcopacy seem unaware of the values on which Universities are founded, values that are also the foundation of Western civilization itself. I wish Pres. Jenkins would stop wringing his hands and “suffering” and instead make a strong and powerful statement on the nature of the University and his responsibilities to safeguard its freedoms and its integrity. I am sure that his predecessor Hesburgh would not put up with this insidious bullying.
Wikipedia has this to say about Theodore Hesburgh: “In 1967, he led an academic movement which issued the so-called Land O’Lakes statement which insisted upon “true autonomy and academic freedom in the face of authority of whatever kind, lay or clerical”.”
Does this resonate at all in an American brutalized by eight years of a torturing dictator?
Father O’Leary,
after ninety comments, I though the thread was winding down, but then in quick succession four more comments appeared.
May I suggest that overblown rhetoric — 1,000 theological careers hatcheted (could you provide data for the assertion?), “petty inquisitors meeting spineless lack of resistance from their victims”, “a torturing dictator” (democratically replaced by a president with whom I presume you have greater sympathy) — does little to enhance the conversation and further the needed discernment.
However important the so-called Land O’Lakes Statement was, we are in a decidedly different cultural and ecclesial situation today. We would do better marshaling our creative energies toward articulating a vision that can chart a new and more promising path. Of course, we may prove incapable of the required imagination and commitment. But it is too easy merely to inveigh against and condemn “them.”
I found the figure of 1000 on Golias, but don’t recall their source. It is perfectly believable. I know of several professors of theology forbidden by Rome to teach Catholic theology whose story did not get into the media, and I suppose you do too. Add it up and about a thousand would be a quite plausible number. Of course we all know the big names — Morel, Pohier, Drewermann, Kung, Curran (ECHT Katholisch!), Boff, Schmidt-Leukel, etc. etc.
I am happy you do not contest the epithet in ‘torturing dictator” — most Americans did, for years, even though those in the know were screaming about it unheard.
Yes, shamefully, he was elected twice by the world’s largest democracy — thanks to his dictatorial skills…
But what is most ironic is that my description would have instantly suggested Saddam Hussein only a few years ago, and now…
Yes, Obama is grand, and a credit to his nation.
“However important the so-called Land O’Lakes Statement was, we are in a decidedly different cultural and ecclesial situation today.”
Of course. Back then the Church believed in Vatican II.
” We would do better marshaling our creative energies toward articulating a vision that can chart a new and more promising path.”
Why not try the old and truly promising path of Vatican II? Hesbergh’s statement was characteristic of the Vatican II Church. If university presidents do not make such statements today, why would that be? Spinelessness is as good a hypothesis as any other.
Father O’Leary,
I shall leave the last word to you. Perhaps we can meet in Rome where, I suspect, we will continue to disagree, but will at least have the benefit of POTUS (in its Latin, not American signification).
It is possible that the Soviets forbad fewer Catholic theologians to teach theology than the Vatican has done!
Factor in all those obscure liberation theologians with long Hispanic names… Many of them have had to convert their energies to secular missions of social justice.
One of the victims was Jacques Dupuis (who is said to have fallen down dead after receiving a post-rehabilitation letter informing him that a planned honorary doctorate would not be given). Now why did Dupuis spend long months writing long explanations to the Vatican bureaucrats, who probably tossed them in their wastepaper baskets? Why to the inquisited so often kiss the inquisitor’s hand?