Obama and Notre Dame: courage to say the obvious
An editorial in America makes a notable contribution to the debate over the University of Notre Dame’s decision to invite President Obama to speak on campus and to honor him. It contains this reality check:
The divisive effects of the new American sectarians have not escaped the notice of the Vatican. Their highly partisan political edge has become a matter of concern. That they never demonstrate the same high dudgeon at the compromises, unfulfilled promises and policy disagreements with Republican politicians as with Democratic ones is plain for all to see. It is time to call this one-sided denunciation by its proper name: political partisanship.
Pope Benedict XVI has also modeled a different stance toward independent-minded politicians. He has twice reached out to President Obama and offered to build on the common ground of shared values. Even after the partially bungled visit of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with Pope Benedict, Vatican officials worked quickly to repair communication with her. Furthermore, in participating in the international honors accorded New Mexico’s Governor Bill Richardson in Rome last month for outlawing the death penalty … Pope Benedict did not flinch at appearing with a politician who does not agree fully with the church’s policy positions … Finally, last March the pro-choice French president Nicolas Sarkozy was made an honorary canon of the Basilica of St. John Lateran, the pope’s own cathedral.
In my home state, New York, it’s been common for Catholics with strong pro-life credentials to share a stage or grant a forum to a politician who is pro-choice. No one thought the less of Cardinal John O’Connor, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ committee on pro-life activities, for writing a book together with Mayor Ed Koch. Everyone knew they disagreed on abortion, of course, but that did not prevent the cardinal from speaking warmly about his friend the mayor. I don’t recall anyone questioning Bill Donohue’s pro-life credentials when he held news conferences together with Mayor Rudy Giuliani. And to do so would be unfair to Donohue. More recently, bishops in New York have held a news conference with and praised a Brooklyn state legislator, Vito Lopez, who has played a leading role in the effort to stop a bill aimed at allowing retroactive lawsuits over clergy sexual abuse. The bishops have also assailed the sponsor of the bill, Marge Markey, with one questioning in a column how Catholics could vote for someone like her. Lopez is rated “pro-choice” by NARAL, while Markey is rated “anti-choice.” None of this is remarkable; everyone knows the bishops oppose legalized abortion.
The University of Notre Dame has a few Catholic credentials, too, and should not be subject to a smear campaign propelled by political partisanship and intra-church rivalries.
America is stating the obvious, but in doing so, the editors of the Jesuit weekly have shown much courage.
on May 3rd, 2009 at 9:53 pm
I agree. Their point that the pope made Sarkozy a canon is a slam dunk. For what its worth, in the middle ages, canons were reputed to be the clerics most likely to be rich, keeping a woman, and ambitious. Maybe the pope is being sly on Sarko.
on May 3rd, 2009 at 11:40 pm
You and “America” are leaving a big piece of the picture out. Anyone could have foreseen this controversy. Nobody protests a news conference or a golf game. Did the Notre Dame administration really have the authority on their own to start something which has, from the letters to the editor and blogs I’ve seen, not only not promoted “the primacy of charity among Catholics who advocate different political options” (another part of the editorial) but affected the Church’s pastoral mission? (e.g. evangelization perhaps?)
So why are we so concerned all of a sudden? We who wouldn’t know what an anti-abortion protest looked like if it hit us in the face? It might have something to do with a man who has ordered some and pledged even more actions in contradiction of fundamental human rights. It might not help that he will be given a platform to speak from and an honor by a Catholic university acting ex cathedra. We were bumps on logs until President Obama stirred us up, and Notre Dame is just piling on.
This “Catholic institution” got so narcissistically caught up in its own reputation that it forgot that its actions had an impact on the broader Church. That’s a “charitable” view.
on May 3rd, 2009 at 11:46 pm
According to Paul Moses,
America is stating the obvious, but in doing so, the editors of the Jesuit weekly have shown much courage.
Of course. We are all aware that courage is on the Left, while hate and anger are on the Right. That’s the paradigm, so let’s all get with the program, get in step, and inveigh, inveigh…
on May 3rd, 2009 at 11:50 pm
A small point but for the record it’s worth noting that while the America editorial states that:
“Furthermore, in participating in the international honors accorded New Mexico’s Governor Bill Richardson in Rome last month for outlawing the death penalty (See Signs of the Times, 5/4), Pope Benedict did not flinch at appearing with a politician who does not agree fully with the church’s policy positions.”
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11636&comments=1&approvelatter=1
if one goes to Signs of the Times, 5/4 one finds:
“The archbishop pointed out that it was not the Vatican or the Catholic Church that was officially honoring Richardson, but the Catholic lay Community of Sant’Egidio.”
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11621
The editorial appears to imply that the Pope appeared with Richardson as a way of according him international honors but the Archbishop’s statement doesn’t imply that at all. Is there any text which might indicate the nature of the honors accorded to Richardson by the Pope?
on May 3rd, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Bob,
I get you – but in this case it’s not right and left, it’s right and wrong. I probably wouldn’t be here blogging past bedtime if Fr. Jenkins had just forum shopped for an amenable bishop who would now be taking the heat.
What is so wrong about this is that Notre Dame, JUST ANOTHER CATHOLIC INSTITUTION, acting ex cathedra, that is, on it’s own authority, made a decision which is ripping the Church up a bit right now.
The Greeks had a couple of words for this: hubris, tragedy
on May 4th, 2009 at 12:58 am
Stumbled upon:
Not trying to be too nerdy, but If the below means what I think it does, somebody has been kicking sand in my eyes. I ain’t no canon lawyer, but it sure looks to me that Popes and Bishops can dispense with conference laws. Which would render all the tedious comparison between what Pope Benedict or a bishop has done and what the fathers at Notre Dame did meaningless. Well?
ORDINARY. In ecclesiastical law a cleric with ordinary jurisdiction in the external forum over a specified territory; the Pope with unlimited jurisdiction; diocesan bishops and their vicars; prelates nullius; capitular vicars and administrators filling the vacancy in a diocese. Also superiors general, abbots primate, provincial abbots of exempt monasteries. Their representatives too are called ordinaries. (Etym. Latin ordinarius, regular, usual.)
Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., Modern Catholic Dictionary
Can. 88 A local ordinary is able to dispense from diocesan laws and, whenever he judges that it contributes to the good of the faithful, from laws issued by a plenary or provincial council or by the conference of bishops.
on May 4th, 2009 at 1:36 am
I not sure what the above parsing of definitions is about. But the America question is clear and is one as a pro -life person I’ve been asking for a while, Why only democrats?We hear some bishops calling for Catholic Democrats, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry,Biden Sebilius to be denied communion/sanctioned if they persisting saying/voting for choice . But this seems only to apply to Democrats and not to Republican Catholic pro-choice politicians; like Schwarzenegger, Giuliani, Pataki, Tom Ridge etc. One wonders if these ’shout outs’ are more pro-Republican than pro-life.They appear that way to everyone but those in the ‘Choir’ I say this blatant ‘party first’ partisanship is the biggest obstacle the pro-life issue faces..We have seen flip/flops by Republicans on abortion issues for 38 years now.. Reagan flipped, Romney flipped, Bush 1 flipped. Sueter was a stealth flip.
Republicans and the ‘partisan’ bishops lost big time in the last election. If Catholic values are to be promulgated effectively Catholic bishops/leaders must never appear to be seen as partisan advocates.. that’s a losers game and the pro-life issues are too important to be in hands of the partisan inept.. We need some of the silent bishops to get back to Bernadin’s seamless garment..The political solution is on ice for 8 years at least..For those of us who dread what the number of abortions will be in the next 8 years… we demand another strategy. Anyway I think preaching for family support is the best defence against abortion.
on May 4th, 2009 at 5:16 am
Isn’t it a little strange that the editorial hinges on charges of partisanship, and yet illustrates this partisanship with the certainly bipartisan example of an united, regional group of unlike New Mexican bishops?
I think the word “partisan” ought to be unpacked. What is being suggested? That the RNC organized the immediate and very vocal reaction of the faithful against Fr. Jenkin’s decision? That 50 bishops decided, in an overwhelmingly Democrat-dominated national government, that it would be politically expedient to speak out against a Catholic university’s decision to honor a hugely popular president who ran an unequivocal and hard-line pro-choice campaign?
The divide in the American Church exists because abortion is wrong. It is obviously, demonstrably politically useful. And it is utterly wrong.
on May 4th, 2009 at 7:44 am
What we lose sight of here is that despite all the attendace statistics, people in this country have a very negative view of church officials. They do no see them as real spiritual leaders but rather persons of domination and control. This is not a modern phenomenon.
The official church has continually approved burning and killing of heretics and participated in the public display of this cruelty. It continues to align itself with the wealthy while its poor morals are continually exposed as in the disaster with the protection of children from clergy sex abuse.
The abortion imbroglio continues to be used as a cover for a multitude of UnChristian behavior by its official proponents. It remains a phony issue with plenty of holes in it.
on May 4th, 2009 at 8:12 am
I would actually be reluctant to say it’s political partisanship, but it is political. A number of Catholics have a political program for how to attempt to criminalize abortion in the United States, and they are, in my opinion, operating under the mistaken assumption that their political approach to abortion carries the same weight as the Church’s teachings on procuring abortions.
on May 4th, 2009 at 9:17 am
David, the Church’s teaching prohibits not only procuring abortion, but also cooperating with abortion, i.e., making abortion possible. Legislators who make more abortions legal make more abortions possible. Acts of abortion are facilitated by legislators. Their cooperation is not very remote, either.
on May 4th, 2009 at 9:33 am
I”but it is political”.
It is political only for those who can not see beyond their politics to the truth from the beginning, that ALL Human Life is Sacred and thus has Dignity. Every Human Life has been endowed by the Creator from the beginning.
on May 4th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Kathy, it matters greatly whether the cooperation is formal or material. Formal cooperation implies that one is sharing the end of the person engaged in the evil action, whereas material cooperation implies that while one’s actions further the end, one does not actually share the end. Material cooperation is sometimes allowable, and sometimes not, depending on the circumstances.
Voting for pro-choice politicians *because* they are pro-choice would likely count as formal cooperation, but not every act of voting for a pro-choice politician meets this description. The same applies to a given legislator’s support of a law that expands, enables, or funds abortion. According to the Church’s moral framework, it matters greatly why the legislator is supporting the law. If the intention is to make abortion more readily available, it’s probably formal cooperation, but that is not always the intention. Once we are in the realm of material cooperation, practical judgment is very important, and people can reasonably disagree over whether the material cooperation is licit, based on the facts of the case. (Thus, people can reasonably disagree over whether a given pro-choice politician’s social policies will reduce the incidence of abortion enough to warrant voting for her or him.)
All these distinctions among types of cooperation rest on fine-grained philosophical points, which makes some people lose patience with them, but they are essential to understanding the Church’s views on these matters. There is an enormous moral difference between formal cooperation with abortion and material cooperation based on a mistaken practical judgment, and it is important not to conflate the two.
If I remember correctly, Cathy Kaveny has written fairly extensively on this topic. Maybe some kind person at dotCommonweal will provide a link!
on May 4th, 2009 at 10:08 am
“What is being suggested? That the RNC organized the immediate and very vocal reaction of the faithful against Fr. Jenkin’s decision?”
The RNC is so disorganized it might have trouble organizing a cocktail party. But there are Catholic Republican web sites that have promoted this as a Cause. At least two have been caught in spreading outright lies and misinformation over the past few months, and one has been embarrassed by using an “endorsement” of a prominent Republican without his knowledge. Let’s be perceptive about how politics works in this country, Kathy. Unlike the belief of some in the Church, it doesn’t run from the top down. Last time I looked, this is still a democracy.
The divide among American Catholics, if it exists, occurs because some place the end above the means, and have become shrill and angry. And they have the nerve to blame the people who disagree with them. “If only you didn’t make us so mad!”
on May 4th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Kathy,
Even if I accept everything you say as infallible truth, it is still a giant leap to saying it is “un-Catholic” to have Obama as a commencement speaker at Notre Dame or give him an honorary degree. Notre Dame has not confused people about the anti-abortion stance of the Catholic Church by inviting Obama, nor do I believe it will change the position of a pro-choice politician to deny him honorary degrees at Catholic universities.
How to deal with abortion in the Unites States is an extremely complex matter even for those who are adamantly opposed to it and wish to see a total legal ban. The reigning “Catholic” program for dealing with abortion is also the program of the Republican Party: Try to change the make-up of the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade and then let the individual states decided. In and of itself, that is not even anti-abortion or pro-life. It’s based on the belief that Roe was wrongly decided and that it is up to the states, not the federal government, to decide what the law ought to be on matters of abortion. Abortion was legal in about 15 states before Roe, and there is no reason to think if Roe is overturned that any specific number of states would outlaw it.
The Church has the luxury of taking unequivocal positions on matters that politicians have to deal with in a democratic political system. The Church can articulate ideals, but politics is “the art of the possible.” There are many Church teachings that ought to guide Catholic politicians, and there are many almost universally held religious principles that ought to guide any religious politician. But exactly how they translate into political agendas is not a matter of doctrine. It’s a matter of what can be done in the messy world of democratic politics.
I am going to quote Fr. Komonchak yet again, with the caution that he was speaking of withholding communion, and he may not agree that his words support what I am saying in this matter:
There are many evils that the Church opposes, and the principle of material cooperation applies to all of them, not just to abortion. To single out abortion in the way some in the Church have done and go so far as to tell Americans whom they may or may not vote for, or whom they may not give honorary degrees seems to me an unprecedented shift from previous Catholic stands on saying what ought to be done to a current stand of how it ought to be done. It doesn’t seem to me to be an effective way of achieving the goal of a reduction or ending of abortion in the United States, and I think it’s harming the teaching authority of the Catholic bishops.
Also, I think for a great many people (not necessarily the bishops), there is a large element of personal antipathy toward Obama based on the demonization of him by some extremists in the “pro-life” movement as someone who favored infanticide and other such slanders. As I have said before, I feel sorry for those who can see Obama only as a symbol of abortion, because he is so much more than that.
on May 4th, 2009 at 10:34 am
It is political only for those who can not see beyond their politics to the truth from the beginning, that ALL Human Life is Sacred and thus has Dignity. Every Human Life has been endowed by the Creator from the beginning.
Nancy,
The fundamental issue is what civil law governing abortion ought to be in the United States. No matter how clear the teachings of the Church or “natural law” is in regard to abortion, that is still a political matter. How one should vote is a political matter. What position one ought to take toward the president of the United States, when you disagree with him on a fundamental matter is political.
To say that the Church is involving itself in a political matter is not to say that they are wrong. The Catholic Bishops have many statements that are direct comments on political matters.
on May 4th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Mr. Moses – thanks for highlighting this article from AMERICA. Would like to expand on Mr. Flowerday’s comments by borrowing a concept from American political history.
We have a democratic republic set up with checks and balances between executive, legislative, and judicial. At various times in our history (especially when the republic has been faced by threats, challenges, etc.) we have experienced an inbalance between these branches – basically, we have seen the growth of the imperial presidency. Examples of “elites” perceiving threats and justifying the use of power:
Red Scare (1919/1920) – Sedition Act; suspension of habeus corpus; McCarthyism – Committe on UnAmerican Activities, witch hunts, black lists; Bay of Pigs; Vietnam; CIA activities approved by the President e.g. overthrow of governments in Chile, Iran, Guatamela, Indonesia, Iraq; Watergate; Irangate; now the torture, Guantanamo, CIA camps;
Would suggest that the Catholic Church has simplistically been set up as a three legged stool – hierarchy (bishops – includes pope, councils, synods, conferences of bishops, principle of subsidiarity, etc.); theologians (include catholic universities in this area); sensus fidelium. Paralleling the above, when any one “branch” becomes too powerful; too authoritarian; this imbalance creates dissonance and loss of faith.
Just as in 20th century American History, would suggest that the since 1980 for numerous reasons, the role of the pope/bishops has unbalanced the way we traditionally see the church e.g. use the models of Dulles. When any one model dominates, the fullness of the church suffers.
Would suggest that when issues arise within the church, what we see too often is a reaction from a minority that proclaims “the truth” diminishing the church’s charisms of listening, learning, teaching and diminishing the church as community, people of God, sojourners on the road to the Kingdom of God. Please understand – do not question their good intentions, the rightness of their cause or issue but do question their choice of message, style of communication, dissonance created in the community; placing their needs first; the disadvantages of authoritarianism.
As many have said before – “when in doubt, mercy”; big tent approach; “in all things, mercy”. We need to seek a rebalance; a reorientation to the center. We need bishops to take the lead on this rather than create disunity by appealing to single issues; condemnations, threats, etc.
on May 4th, 2009 at 10:57 am
This, by John Allen, just posted on NCR’s website:
on May 4th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Bill, you forgot to include in your list emancipation and the Civil Rights movement. Where were doubt and mercy when Lincoln emancipated the slaves and the Kennedys enforced desegregation and equal opportunity, with federal force? They were on the side of the oppressed.
on May 4th, 2009 at 11:31 am
To expand on Bill Hass’s history post, Where have the bishops been about using the law to prohibit the ‘intrinsic evil’ of contraception. Connecticut had such a law a generation ago.No birth contol ‘devices’ could be sold..
It was Overturned by the Supreme Court.. not a peep from bishops ever since.. imagine if this litmas test ‘of we want law’ was applied to speakers at Catholic institutions today? Yes I know, contraception is not as evil as abortion, or slavery, or usury or torture.. etc..
on May 4th, 2009 at 11:57 am
I think the America editorial by the Jesuits showed courage, for, as Allen’s piece points out, the Right to Life movement here is (in a gentle term) “pugnacious.”
As in earlier posts and treads on this subject, the one issue folk will continue here to battle on
with “intrinsic eveil” and other arguments we’ve talked about before.
Besides the (gentle) label”pugnacious”, I would also add” purblind,” -stuck in that one view of theri own rightness.And that, I’d add again, along with all the buried poltical baggage they bring -part of the who’s partisan defense approach – means perspective is difficult if not impossible to reach -so, hence, much repetition.
on May 4th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
David, civil Law governing abortion in the United States should protect and secure the Fundamental Right to Life because that would be consistent with the Fundamental Principle, the Foundation upon which this Nation was formed, the unalienable, ordered Rights, endowed by the Creator, the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The Fundamental Right to Life is listed first because it is fundamental to all other Rights.
on May 4th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
“so, hence, much repetition”.
The Truth is consistent.
on May 4th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Things are consistent, well at least repetitious. So much of the above sounds like what came out of the mouths of the apologists for slavery, which the abolitionists fought so hard against. And yes, the abolitionists provoked a “schism”, too. Was it worth it?
on May 4th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
“It was based on the belief that Roe was wrongly decided and that it is up to the States, not the Federal government, to decide what the Law ought to be on matters of abortion.”
Actually, Roe was wrongly decided because it is not consistent with the unalienable Right to Life of ALL Men, which, according to our Founding Fathers, does not depend on being a citizen of The United States of America nor does it depend upon the State in which that Human Individual resides.
on May 4th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
So let’s see now. We are a Catholic country who buys our priests from other countries because the faithful here do not believe being a priest is desirable. Yet these bishops who are buying priests know how to advise Catholic universities who seem to know and do their job better than the bishops. Make no mistake the word is “buying” because those priests are needed even more in their own countries.
Again the bishops are embarassing themselves in sexuality where they have been wrong so often. The Middle Ages practically relegated marriage to second class citizenship and Catholics believed this up to Vatican II. Now it is recognized that sex can be enjoyed in marriage; something strongly forbidden by Jerome and Augustine. Some say even John Paul II.
The example is still condemnation instead of example. Involvement in politics rather than in parishes. The parishes are languishing yet the overseers of those failing parishes can tell everyone else what to do. Makes sense.
on May 4th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Mr. Carl – interesting question and point. It has been discussed here on previous blogs numerous times.
Allow me to respond with a couple of points:
1) historians would usually state that the North fought to retain the concept of “Union”; the South fought to retain “slavery under the guise of states rights”;
2) in hindsight, the “human beings are all equal” proclaimed by abolitionists did prevail – but at what cost in terms of the means – civil war; loss of a generation through death, disease, etc.; reality that it took another 100 years to legally finish the abolitionists’ ends (even that is questionnable when you look at innner cities, prisons, economic disparity, educational disparities, health disparities);
3) even Lincoln did not start out with a political goal to free all slaves – this was a result of the progress made via the civil war;
4) on one level you can compare the rights of the unborn with the rights of slaves; but the United States of 1860 and the US of 2009 are not comparable. The civil war settled the issue of “union”; not sure that a majority of US citizens would use, much less, support violence to attain or change Roe v Wade.
5) which leaves us with our current political and legal system challenges and continuing to find ways to decrease abortion via social, cultural, family, and church means.
My response – your comparison does not work and provides little in the way of moving us forward on this significant issue.
on May 4th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Nancy and Clifton,
This country was founded by a group of men many of us believe to have been great who either avoided (Articles of Confederation) or compromised (Constitution) on slavery. Compromises on slavery happened time and again until the Civil War and Emancipation. If the Founding Fathers had not been willing to compromise on the question of slavery, there might not even be a United States of America. Note also that most of them were slave owners themselves.
on May 4th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
What exactly is the legal challenge to the abortion issue? What fundamental Right exists that could possibly trump the unalienable Right to Life to begin with?
on May 4th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
David, regarding the issue of slavery, imagine where we would be today had they not compromised.
on May 4th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Actually, Roe was wrongly decided because it is not consistent with the unalienable Right to Life of ALL Men, . . . .
Nancy,
Those (or at least most of those) who believe Roe was wrongly decided do not make the argument you are making. They believe that the Constitution is silent on the matter of abortion, and that Roe “found” in the Constitution a right that is not actually there. That is why if Roe is overturned, abortion will not become illegal. It will be a matter left up each individual state to decide.
on May 4th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
David, here is why Roe v.Wade needs to be overturned. It is a lie from the start:
http://www.abort73.com/index.php?/abortion/medical_testimony
on May 4th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
In an effort to bring this back on topic – here is another example of a fringe group and its stance against Obama and ND. Pavone is based in Amarillo, Texas where he finds a bishop who supports and protects him by giving him backing per canon law. He speaks often in the Dallas Diocese; is slick; and convincing but is so single issue that he speaks down at his audience; never gives the complete story in terms of theology, scripture, moral history of the church – he picks and chooses using emotional and inflammatory stories to make his point.
Here is a latter about a rosary campaign to protest the “evil” ND and, by a stretch, Obama.
May 4, 2009
Dear Rick,
We at Priests for Life are joining with the students of Notre Dame, calling upon believers to offer rosaries for the conversion of President Obama and in reparation for the scandal of him being honored during the Notre Dame commencement ceremony. Go to http://www.prayercampaign.org to sign up.
Here is what the Notre Dame students are saying on their website at http://www.ndresponse.com.
Call to action
“In recent weeks the announcement of President Barack Obama as Notre Dame’s commencement speaker has caused much controversy. We, the concerned students at Notre Dame, are attentive to this and have led several efforts to voice our opposition to the decision to honor President Obama with a doctor of laws degree, given his stance on abortion. We know that this controversy has gained much attention worldwide, but we are aware that our story is merely one case among many in which the struggle of Catholics in political life becomes clear. Our sad situation is an occasion for Catholics across the country, and worldwide, to reflect on the tragedy of abortion, the real danger of policies opposed to life, and the important role we must play in fighting for the dignity of all human life. There are many important and necessary ways for us to fulfill this role. We remember, however, that Notre Dame is indeed Our Lady’s University and that our strongest weapon to fight this public scandal and disregard for the importance of life is to have recourse to prayer.
As such, we now call for a Rosary Crusade of One Million Rosaries.
We students will pray the rosary daily for 40 days – from Wednesday of Holy Week (4/8/09) until the day of commencement (5/17/09). We will pray especially for conversion of heart for President Obama, that he might grow to respect life from conception to natural death and that his policies might reflect that (in particular that he will reverse his pro-abortion stance). As a secondary intention, we will pray for the University of Notre Dame, and all Catholic universities, that they might grow in their understanding of what it means to be Catholic and truly embrace their Catholic identity. Finally, we pray that this country, and all countries throughout the world might embrace a greater respect for life in all its stages.
But we know that we cannot achieve this without help. We have found many internet petitions that have been signed in support of this effort and know that one of them has well over 200,000 signatories already. If only a fraction of you join us in prayer for 40 days, we will reach our goal of One Million Rosaries, and perhaps we will even surpass it. We hope that you will join us in prayer, and encourage others – through whatever means – to do the same. We encourage you to visit our website to report how many rosaries you have said for this intention (www.ndresponse.com).
Many of us have responded angrily to this situation, questioning why Our Lord would allow such a public scandal. It is to remind us to put all of our hope in Him, and to redouble our efforts to pray for an end to abortion in this country and across the world. Perhaps all we need to do is to recall the words of our own fight song. Assured of Victory, we call to mind the words of the Blessed Mother given at Fatima: ‘In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.’
Onward to Victory.”
Friend, please join us in this effort by signing up at http://www.prayercampaign.org and we will let the Notre Dame students know of your commitment.
Thank you,
Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life
Geez, I feel like I am back in 4th grade at Most Precious Blood Catholic School with the Daugthers of Charity (and their wings) breathing down my neck. How do we define “fundamentalist catholic”. Read this letter and compare to the AMERICA article on sectatian Catholics.
on May 4th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Bill D., I have no problem with people praying rosaries for the President to have a change of heart about abortion. Heck, I pray for the same thing. Compared to some of the other activities planned (did I read something about vehicles being driven around with giant pictures of aborted fetuses), I’d say it’s a pretty good option.
on May 4th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Many of us have responded angrily to this situation, questioning why Our Lord would allow such a public scandal. It is to remind us to put all of our hope in Him, and to redouble our efforts to pray for an end to abortion in this country and across the world.
Jim,
Setting aside that many of us don’t believe there has been a “scandal,” don’t you find the above just a little strange? Apparently Jesus could have prevented the Notre Dame invitation, but he allowed it to go forward to remind people to pray.
If praying can persuade “the powers that be” in heaven to cause Obama to have a change of heart on abortion, and if abortion is such a terrible thing, why do “the powers that be” even need to be asked? Why can’t they change everbody’s heart, and then abortion won’t even be an issue?
on May 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
David–
I seem to recall a man praying to “the powers that be” that this cup may pass away without having to drink from it. If it’s good enough for him, it’s good enough for me.
on May 4th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
While President Obama is at Notre Dame, I hope some authority from the university has the courage to reaffirm the church’s pro-life position in accordance with our church teaching. I’m glad the president will be there and it may afford ND a teaching opportunity from the catholic perspective, and one that President Obama may take notice of in a positive way. Enough with the negative publicity; that has never put forth anything note-worthy. It is ND’s turf and they have a teachable moment here.
on May 4th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Jim – not against prayer, per se. But would agree with Mr. Nickol that Pavone’s letter and framing of this rosary crusade is a “little strange”. If you are going to use prayer – I lean to the sacramental liturgies of our church; lectio divina, etc. and not the rosary (too much piety and, IMHO, a way to avoid the difficult task of dealing with a faith struggle or question of faith, morality, etc.) Would rather turn to the experiences of saints, poets, musicians, theologians than the recitation of the rosary.
on May 4th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Bill D.—
All the forms of prayer and reflection you mentioned are excellent, but I have to respectfully disagree with you about the Rosary.
Though praying the Rosary is a simple and humble activity, I find its rhythmic cadence comforting. Athletes speak about experiencing muscle memory from long repetition of the same skill movement. I get something of the same feeling as the beads pass through the thumb and forefinger on my right hand. Once one gets in the habit of the Rosary, “the difficult task[s] of dealing with a faith struggle or question of faith, morality, etc.” might get easier. No promises, however. ;)
And there is really more to the Rosary than people might think. In JPII’s Apostolic Letter “Rosarium Virginis Mariae,” he had a number of interesting comments and reflections on the Rosary, including that it is a “compendium” of “the Gospel message in its entirety”:
“The Rosary, though clearly Marian in character, is at heart a Christocentric prayer. In the sobriety of its elements, it has all the depth of the Gospel message in its entirety, of which it can be said to be a compendium. It is an echo of the prayer of Mary, her perennial Magnificat for the work of the redemptive Incarnation which began in her virginal womb. With the Rosary, the Christian people sits at the school of Mary and is led to contemplate the beauty on the face of Christ and to experience the depths of his love. Through the Rosary the faithful receive abundant grace, as though from the very hands of the Mother of the Redeemer.”
….
“The simple prayer of the Rosary marks the rhythm of human life. Anyone who contemplates Christ through the various stages of his life cannot fail to perceive in him the truth about man. It is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man is seen in its true light. The Rosary helps to open up the way to this light.”
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20021016_rosarium-virginis-mariae_en.html
on May 4th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Well said, well written, and totally agree with your Christocentric message. I also agree with your “meditative and rythmic” approach – not unlike the using the Book of Prayers – morning, noon, vespers, matins, etc. and I realize that many other religions have their own rythmic prayer methods.
My poorly worded comments was that, unfortunately, I am not sure that most users of the rosary approach it with your depth, understanding, or feeling. You truly see it just as a small version of the liturgical cycle of the church & a brief synopsis of scripture. Wish I had your same love of the rosary from that perspective. Thanks.
on May 5th, 2009 at 8:15 am
I seem to recall a man praying to “the powers that be” that this cup may pass away without having to drink from it. If it’s good enough for him, it’s good enough for me.
Mark,
Jesus was in private, and he said “if it is possible” and “but not my will, but thine be done.” That is quite different from initiating a prayer “crusade” as a public protest. Where is the humility Jesus brought to his private prayers in these very public calls to prayer on an issue about which these people just know they are right? This is not prayer as prayer. It’s prayer as public relations, prayer as public condemnation, and prayer as a weapon.
And what about the theology of this:
Well, why does Our Lord allow abortion itself? What’s the reminder in that. Or why did Our Lord allow the Holocaust? If you ask why Our Lord allowed the Notre Dame/Obama affair, it seems to me you have to ask why he allows everything that happens? Do you agree that Our Lord “allowed” the whole thing to remind us to put all our hope in him? They seem awfully certain. How do they know these things?
on May 5th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Mr. DeHaas,
I am always grateful for your full and very thoughtful comments, but I am not sure what the connection is between Father Pavone’s prayer campaign and the Daughters of Charity (and their wings!) who taught you in the fourth grade. It’s so easy to take hits at the Sisters. That was another time, another place. Surely the enduring contribution that St. Vincent’s daughters have made to the life of the Church since 1633 deserves more than this exasperated aside.
on May 5th, 2009 at 9:00 am
Well, why does Our Lord allow abortion itself?
What alternatives would you suggest, David? Should God override free will? Should God make technology impossible?
On the other hand, according to the Gospels, God sends the Holy Spirit to those who pray, does not ration the Spirit, and gives swift justice to those who call out to Him night and day.
on May 5th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Mr. Page – as I said above, my point was not articulated well and I did not intend to “HIT” the dear Daughters of Charity.
My point (along with Mr. Nickol) is that I basically do not agree with using prayer as a weapon; I find some of the Pavone letter points to be theologically immature, disconnected, and reflecting more pre-Vatican II spirituality. That is all I meant.
In fact, I had the good daughters from 3rd grade all the way through college and wound up teaching with a couple of daughters on that same college faculty. I also did my student teaching internship at a school staffed/run by daughters.
I have been to their motherhouse numerous times (even brought my kids – kicking and screaming). I have many daughters who are friends; do at times visit the central and mid-central motherhouses and have priest friends who are their chaplains.
The have and continue to make a huge contribution to the common good of the whole world – currently, have friends staffing parishes and seminaries in Kenya where the daughters run an orphanage and protected/stood off the vigilantes last year in the Kenyan tribal war.
Recent story on the daughters: ” …..highlights the work of an Israeli home for disabled kids run by Vincentian sisters:
The creamy stones of the Sacred Heart Home gleam in the sun, and squeals of delight echo in the corridors when Sister Pascale Jarjour enters a room.
When she talks about an individual child’s case, tears fill her eyes. But when she’s with one of her 60 little charges, it’s all smiles, caresses and kisses.
Sister Jarjour is one of four members of the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul and 105 staff members who care for the 60 severely physically and mentally disabled children who call Sacred Heart their home. Two hundred children attend the day care center in the same compound.
Like the inhabitants of Haifa itself, the residents and staff of the home are Muslims, Jews, Druze and Christians.
Some parents arrange for their children’s baptisms or bar mitzvahs while they are at the home, and several take their children home briefly for their own religious holidays, Sister Jarjour said. During Passover this year, one couple brought everything needed for a Seder and celebrated with their 1-year-old son who suffered severe brain damage as a result of choking.
“Whether we are Christians, Muslims, Druze or Jews, suffering is the same and the small joys are the same,” Sister Jarjour said.
“Many families say they want to share this experience with the politicians, to say to them, ‘We can live together,’” she said.
The Lebanese-born sister has worked in Israel for 30 years and spent the last 20 of them in Haifa at the home for disabled children, who range in age from 2 months to 21 years.
While only about 5 percent of the children are from Christian families, Sister Jarjour said the work “has been a profoundly Christian experience.”
“I would love to tell everyone about Jesus, but in this situation I cannot,” she said. “However, in this work, what you do is more important that what you say, and people see what we do.”
Mr. Page – meant no disrespect; I do tease some of the sisters about a few of my favorite memories (my lowest grade in college was given by a DC in fine arts – what can I say)
on May 5th, 2009 at 9:37 am
David, your question is, why does God allow abortion or the Holocaust.
God is Love. Love is not possessive, it is a Gift given freely from the Heart. Love exists in relationship. Man’s viability depends on Loving relationships. Pope Benedict XVI, says this about the consequences of Faith in Creation:
“The fundamental Christian attitude is one of Humility, a Humility of being…being as receiving, accepting oneself as created and dependent on Love.(God)…The doctrine of Creation is, therefore, inseparably included within the Doctrine of Redemption. The Doctrine of Redemption is based on the Doctrine of Creation, on an irrevocable ‘Yes’ to Creation…Only if the Being Creation is Good, only if Trust in Being is fundamentally justified, are Humans at all redeemable. Only if the Redeemer is also Creator, can He really be Redeemer. That is why the question of what to do is decided by the ground of what we are. We can win the future only if we do not lose Creation.”
This is why, to deny the Loving Gift of the Creative Love of God, The Lord, The Giver of Life, from the Beginning, IS the unforgivable sin.
“IAM the Alpha and the Omega.”-Christ
The Good News is, “He is Risen”.
on May 5th, 2009 at 10:35 am
What alternatives would you suggest, David? Should God override free will? Should God make technology impossible?
Kathy,
Why bad things happen when we have an all-good, all-powerful God is a huge question. My point here is that the author of the letter says:
The clear implication is that God could have prevented the Notre Dame situation, but he chose not to in order to teach us to put our trust in him and redouble our efforts to pray. I am asking, “If Fr. Pavone is saying God could have prevented the Notre Dame invitation, then what’s to say God couldn’t prevent abortion?”
The questions you ask me could be asked of Fr. Pavone. If God allowed the situation at Notre Dame, then God must have been able to prevent it. How?
I am suggesting that Fr. Pavone went overboard in pretending to know what God did or didn’t do, and why.
On the other hand, according to the Gospels, God sends the Holy Spirit to those who pray, does not ration the Spirit, and gives swift justice to those who call out to Him night and day.
The above was a criticism of the letter. The rest here is more along the lines of, “I wish I knew more, or could find something good to read, about the mechanism and efficacy of prayer.” It does not seem to me unreasonable to pray that someone has a change of heart. But can such prayers be efficacious by nudging God to somehow cause a change of heart in the person prayed for?
on May 5th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Re: the rosary. William C. pointed out some of the good things about the rosary (with JPII’s able assistance :-)). I lived in a family that prayed the rosary together every Sunday afternoon, and for me it was boring and a waste of time. As an adult, I’ve looked on the rosary with new eyes. It really does condense a lot of the basic truths of the faith – it’s a way to touch upon the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Passion, Death, Resurrection, Ascension, Pentecost, etc. It also touches on conception, birth, death, sin and redemption, i.e. the deep things of human life. It is also a good reminder that the saints intercede for us.
FWIW – I try to find something spiritual to do every Friday. A lot of times I abstain from meat. If that’s not in the cards, then frequently that “something” is to pray the rosary during my drive home from work. Also, I’ve found that when it’s really prayed from the heart – e.g. when rushing to the hospital to be with a loved one who has a medical emergency – it can be a tremendous source of comfort.
For Catholics who take part in pro-life activities, the rosary offers a lot of advantages. It is wonderfully portable – it can be prayed virtually anywhere. It is extremely participative – anyone who can recite a Hail Mary can join in. It can be prayed individualy or in a group. It is a non-confrontational form of witness: e.g. persons entering or leaving a clinic can see the group of people praying for them and the babies without being hassled or harassed in any way. For people who are not comfortable going to clinics, they can pray the rosary for the unborn from the security of their church, home or automobile. And the connection of Mary to women with unexpected, embarrassing or otherwise publicly awkward pregnancies is obvious to everyone.
One of the marvels of the Catholic Church is that it encompasses so many forms and varieties of spirituality. If someone tells me that the rosary is not for them, who am I to tell them that they are wrong? There are forms of spirituality that don’t work for me, either. But for millions of people, it does work.
on May 5th, 2009 at 10:40 am
. . . . IS the unforgivable sin.
Nancy,
There are no unforgivable sins.
on May 5th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Jim,
I appreciate everything you say, but doesn’t “Rosary Crusade” imply the rosary is being used as a weapon? In everyday language, “crusade” may mean simply “campaign.” But in a religious context, it implies a holy war. To me, what this “crusade” means is that Notre Dame has acted so badly, and Obama is so unworthy to be honored, that a massive, public response is needed to combat the evil of it all. Of course, I sympathize with Notre Dame and am appalled by the angry response, so I see it from that point of view. But a Million Rosary Crusade seems to me to be more about making a public protest than praying.
It occasionally happens in forums like this that someone in a heated exchange will say, “I’ll pray for you.” Sometimes it is a sincere sentiment. But other times it means, “You are so wrong, and I am so right, I pity you.” That’s what this reminds me of.
on May 5th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Hi, David, yes, Pavone is an activist, and it seems pretty clear he’s seizing on the situation to get his base energized. I won’t be taking part in the crusade, but it doesn’t particularly bother me, either. As I say, there are probably a lot of worse ways for people to respond.
I think “crusade” should be understood in an analogous sense, kind of like a United Way crusade.
When the Soviet Union was in power, the rosary was seen as a way of combatting godless Communism, and a lot of people took it pretty seriously. Maybe this is supposed to remind them of those days. It’s not for me, but if people want to go for it, they can have at it.
on May 5th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
David, at the hour of our Death, to deny the Creative Love of God, The Holy Spirit, would be the unforgivable sin. God knows those who Love Him.
on May 5th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
The Catholic Catechism is a wonderful source of information on “God’s Universal Call to Prayer”.
on May 5th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
David, at the hour of our Death, to deny the Creative Love of God, The Holy Spirit, would be the unforgivable sin. God knows those who Love Him.
Nancy,
Are you saying it is impossible for God to forgive people after they die?
on May 5th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
No David, I am saying, at the hour of Death, we will witness God’s Mercy.
on May 5th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Here is Father John Jenkins statement that reflects his intention for inviting President Obama to give the Commencement Address at the University of Notre Dame. At the time, I believe he thought he was respecting the Bishops’ request. I know his intention is sincere because he is a Good and Holy Priest who believes that Love requires us to speak the truth about The Truth. I know that he believes in the Sanctity of Human Life and the Sanctity of the Sacrament of Marriage. I would not be surprised if Father John’s Address at the Graduation inspires us.
http://president.nd.edu/events-and-communications/communications/fr-jenkins-statement-on-2009-commencement-speaker