You might have heard about some mention of some event that happened yesterday at Notre Dame. I know it has hardly been covered at all, but I thought I would weight in anyway.
After the small talk about the graduating class and going into the threat of “climate change.”
Unfortunately, finding that common ground — recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a “single garment of destiny” — is not easy. Part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man — our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.
Well there is certainly some truth in what he says here. Though he is quite supportive of the strong dominating the weak when it comes to abortion.
Nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion.
As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an email from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that’s not what was preventing him from voting for me.
What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website – an entry that said I would fight “right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.” The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, “I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.”
Fair-minded words.
After I read the doctor’s letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn’t change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that — when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do — that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.
The fact that he thought this was significant gives a good look into his thoughts. He actually considers only toning down the rhetoric as significant. He thought this was an important example to give. Why? He has created an administration staffed with people who believe exactly this – that anybody who opposes abortion is a “right-wing ideologue.” His homeland security issued a report that was suppose to be kept from the public that categorized pro-lifers as a threat. So sanitizing his website achieves exactly nothing. The people associated with him believe this including of course the person who wrote the sentence in the first place. The problem is not with the piece of rhetoric that slipped though, but the overwhelming number of people in his administration that believes exactly this.
The whole email exchange also strikes me as odd. A pro-lifer was willing to vote for Obama knowing his position, but yet was upset by a sentence on his web site. What the Hell? So his support of killing children in the womb was not the problem, but a sentence was?
That’s when we begin to say, “Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.
Yes we have heard him use this before. How can it be heart-wrenching if according to him it is a perfectly find option. During the campaign he said this was
“above his paygrade”, yet his actions show he sees abortion as a right and not immoral. What he says is just totally empty and it pretends to take abortion seriously and to admit something to pro-lifers without him meaning any of it.
So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women.”
As pro-lifers often ask “why reduce it if there is nothing wrong with it?” We will just have to wait to see if he is serious about the conscience clause that his administration has been working to strike. Personally I don’t believe a word of what he says here. Especially when he uses the “equality of women” argument as if women can only be equal if they can’t abort their children.
Understand – I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it – indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory – the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.
Agreed to some extent. There is no real common ground between those who would murder the innocent and those who would prevent it. The debate certainly should be done without caricature and personal attacks. But again considering his nominees and some of the outrageous things they have said in regard to the pro-life movement I guess he is only personally against “caricature”
At the time, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was the Archbishop of Chicago. For those of you too young to have known him, he was a kind and good and wise man. A saintly man. I can still remember him speaking at one of the first organizing meetings I attended on the South Side. He stood as both a lighthouse and a crossroads – unafraid to speak his mind on moral issues ranging from poverty, AIDS, and abortion to the death penalty and nuclear war. And yet, he was congenial and gentle in his persuasion, always trying to bring people together; always trying to find common ground. Just before he died, a reporter asked Cardinal Bernardin about this approach to his ministry. And he said, “You can’t really get on with preaching the Gospel until you’ve touched minds and hearts.”
HIs reference to Cardinal Bernadin is full of irony considering the Notre Dame scandal. In 1996 the Cardinal turned down an invitation to speak at the Democratic convention because of the party’s pro-abortion stand. Rather contrasts Fr. Jenkins in this regard. The Cardinal saw speaking at the Democratic Convention was not creating common ground, but giving scandal.
One thing this whole scandalous situation reveals was the divide among Catholics. We could almost cue Sen. Edward’s two Americas speech. The “progressive” Catholic commentators and periodicals were solidly in favor of Obama’s invite. This only gives me more proof that they only give lip service to being pro-life. They are willing to sacrifice the unborn just as long as the government programs they like are created. The fact that they can’t understand the scandal that was given shows how little they value the life of those slaughtered with government permissions. When President Obama recently pushed for taxpayer funding of abortion in Washington D.C. I saw this pass without comment in the progressive periodicals. Every day gives more proof that this is an administration that will increase not reduce abortion and yet the usual suspects go on as if nothing is wrong.
We will just have to wait until next year for who Notre Dame decides is an appropriate commencement speaker. Please no politicians of any stripe. There are plenty of great Catholics living their faith that would be far better for this.
Well remember Fr. Jenkins is all about dialogue.
33 comments
In our need for fresh air to clear the Notre Dame scandal, St. Peter reminded us that we are fighting supernatural powers, in this case satanic pride possessing the priest Jenkins, and those ignorant that believe this: Catholicism is a democracy with “freedom” to make horrendous scandals like ND HONORING (not “debating”) THE major leader of genocide, or his lawmakers receiving the Eucharist in DC last April.
St. Peter II, 2 19 They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption; for whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved… 22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb, the dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire.
HISTORY WILL review Jenkins’ vomits, SEE our beloved Vicar of Christ crucified again, AND COUNT THE INCREASED GENOCIDE by the Obaminator.
No need to be a rocket scientist to count that number, and then be used by dear Abp. Burke in Rome as a MAJOR WEAPON, for purging the hundreds of lukewarm (and I’m being gentle) bishops, and millions of Cafetería Catholics in USA.
Is our DUTY worldwide to support his efforts in talking the talk AND walking the walk of victory for Our Queen of Peace in the Vatican.
Her Son’s light will guide & bless us.
Joseph Bernadin was at the forefront of ushering in the era of Catholic acquiesance to abortion in the public sphere. His seamless garment gave cover to all the “Catholic” politicians on the scene for the past 30 years.
Jeff, could you please link this from over at Voices Carry
http://www.voicescarryblog.com/515/
Thanks
He is a politician…he says what the majority wants to hear. He wouldn’t get elected otherwise. The best part is most people are not smart enough to see through this. I happen to agree with him by the way. Abortions shouldn’t be reduced in my opinion. If the burden is too high for the mother, than options should be available. I am just glad Mr. Obama has a chance to shape his vision of America through federal judge and Supreme Court appointments.
Jake,
I guess your also glad the “burden wasn’t too high” for your mother.
Hey Daniel….got it the first time, thanks. My mother, not that you would know, was prepared to have a child. So I am glad my mother was in position to raise and care for a child. I am also glad that others have a choice.
And furthermore….yes, if my mother was a crack addict or an individual who would resent me and make my life a living Hell, than I think she could have saved everyone a miserable existence. What is the point? Why would you rather have the mother forced to have the baby, and then ignore it, beat it, starve it, etc. Have mercy for goodness sake. I bet the baby would be happy to be spared that life. And yes, I truly believe that.
Jake,
Should we then allow born children suffering the same injustices at their parent’s hand be killed in the name of your “mercy”? Say a one-month-old?
Where will be the world.
He actually considers only toning down the rhetoric as significant.
I’ve noticed this as well. Communication has become not the means to an end, but an end unto itself. Very few people seem to see anything strange in this.
Why would you rather have the mother forced to have the baby, and then ignore it, beat it, starve it, etc. Have mercy for goodness sake.
You show me any pro-life contingent that says a woman HAS to keep and raise a baby and then you’ll have an argument.
But that doesn’t happen.
If you don’t want, aren’t prepared for, kids you have choices and they’re fairly simple:
1) Don’t have sex. It’s the only thing that leads to unplanned pregnancies.
2) Give the kid up for adoption. Are you saying you’d rather be dead than have been raised by non-biological parents?
As for “choice”, the kids who are ripped apart in the womb today, tomorrow, and for years to come will never get any choice. How’s that fair? How’s that “progress” or “compassion”?
Too bad Mary Anne Glendon turned down the invitation to speak at Notre Dame. Her voice would have been more powerful than Obama’s for those ND graduates who needed to hear the truth for the first time in their lives. Instead, she retreated under the guise of not wanting to be part of the spectacle. There was nobody there to speak up for the babies. Sad.
“I bet the baby would be happy to be spared that life. And yes, I truly believe that.”
Don’t you DARE presume to speak for children never given even a chance, Jake. I was raised by a functioning alcoholic who often singled me out at the bad kid. I carry the scars from cigarette burns and fingernails.
Even with that, my childhood wasn’t all bad. And right now, it’s better than what I ever dreamed. So don’t you tell me or anyone else that a child is better off dead. Life is better because at least someone has a chance at happiness.
And furthermore….yes, if my mother was a crack addict or an individual who would resent me and make my life a living Hell, than I think she could have saved everyone a miserable existence. What is the point? Why would you rather have the mother forced to have the baby, and then ignore it, beat it, starve it, etc.
How dare you assume every child born in not the most picture-perfect circumstances is not loved and cared for by their mother. How despicable of you.
” I didn’t change my position” and yet all the voters in the United States were asked to vote to Change theirs.
If you’re for abortion, then you’re for murdering innocent babies to further your own political or economic goals. That’s all that can be said about it. I know this is the internet, and Godwin, and yadda yadda, but if you’re for abortion then you’re a swastika-wearing Nazi monster and an enemy of the human race. End of story.
It’s sad that the American people supported Obama. It’s sad that the German people supported Hitler. But most people are venal and stupid, and they support whoever will give them the most stuff. Since Obama appears to be merely evil rather than insane, he probably won’t destroy the nation at least. We should pray for his conversion.
Mary Ann Glendon did the right thing. She refused to participate because ND basically wanted to trot her out as the Catholic foil to Obama, as if having Glendon would have whitewashed having Obama. Glendon was too smart to let herself be manipulated. I’m glad she refused. Jenkins didn’t even have the courtesy to publicly respond to the points Glendon made in her excellent statement.
Hi,
Are you aware that your “My Previous Blog” link to jeff_miller.blogspot.com is currently a broken link?
You can see that for yourself if you click on it up in the left hand bar near the top near all the stuff about when you became a Catholic etc. 😉
G.T.
I will dare to presume whatever I want. Also….Swastika-wearning monster….a little extreme don’t ya think? Typical responses from the Catholic population. This is quite enjoyable.
I didn’t know that about Cardinal Bernadine and the DNC. I do know that I lost all hope for the Democratic party when Governor Casey’s son spoke at this Convention. His dad wasn’t allowed to speak because the Party wouldn’t give a pro-life politician any time — and now they give his son time but completely ignore him and anyone who agrees with him. Which is worse? When the Party bosses wouldn’t let Governor Casey speak it was because they at least took him seriously. They don’t take junior seriously at all.
Obama lies when he claims to respect the views of others. He lies when he claims to seek “common ground.” He will not even allow pro-life people to have a say in the matter of abortion, which is their constitutional right. Rather, he supports the continued unconstitutional judicial imposition, on all states, of abortion laws which are more radical than those of Europe.
Regarding abortion, the views of Americans are irrelevant. It is the views of Pennsylvanians, Californians, Georgians, etc., that are supposed to matter. Abortion is rightfully a state issue, but Obama doesn’t care. He only cares about getting his way. And he plans to get his way concerning a great many things which will impact our lives.
Moreover, he doesn’t care how he gets his way. If he has to threaten secured creditors into accepting pennies on the dollar, he’ll do it. If he feels the need to silence opposition by killing conservative talk radio through crippling FCC regulations, he’ll do that too. His marxist pedigree shows.
Obama was trained in the political tactics of Saul Alinski. He was taught to lie and dissemble. Even as compared to other politicians, anything he says simply cannot be trusted.
“I bet the baby would be happy to be spared that life. And yes, I truly believe that.”
Jake, how can the baby be happy to be spared that? The baby who is aborted never gets the chance to be happy or sad about anything. Why doesn’t the disadvantaged baby deserve the same right to review his feelings about his life that were granted to you?
How can another person’s right to life be all about you? What you believe another person might feel does not change the truth about life and our obligation to defend the vulnerable.
Joanne…blah blah….you ask how can another person’s right to life be all about you? I ask you…how can a woman’s right to choose be all about you? This isn’t a question of the fetus (unsustainable cells really) rights. It involves more than that. Many women find they are in a position where they cannot think about having a baby. So either they get butchered in a back alley, or they have a procedure safely in a doctor’s office.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVN2MMuiedI gives a brief but incisive analysis of Obama’s tactics to divide and conquer the Catholic Church…at least in America.
Obama is living up to all our fears those of us who have kept track of him since early in the campaign. But given the cover of the press, and free-lancing Catholics, he continues to get a pass.
I’m not really sure that those of us who oppose his policies and are not take in by his rhetoric or straw-man arguements have coalesced a choherent understanding of just what his goals are. Though we are aware of how isnsidious his tactics are…the you-tube has helped me take what has been just a hunch milling around in my brain and given it a more cohesive form. In other words, I have felt that Obama and his team have been trying to use the Church…like pawns, and have had more than willing players, but I haen’t always been sure what the goal was. The video helps.
It also helps to realize that we can’t really call him a liar (of course he prefers the term “untruth.”) Leftists don’t lie. They can’t. To lie is to acknowledge a truth exists. Leftists don’t lie because you can’t lie in a morally relative universe. When all positions are morally equal – a child is just a choice, not a human person with inherent right to life. Of course, if the mother wants the child, then the child becomes a choice with inherent rights bestowed by said mother. Both positions work for Obama because it is the individual person who has the right to chose, and what is being chosen is not relevant. Man, not God, and man’s morally relative views, are the hinge. Hinges go in two opposite directions, but it still remains a hinge.
Obamas miscalculation is that God is not morally neutral. And he is not God. As Peter Kreeft has said, “Justice deferrred is not justice denied.” We are just starting to realize the true nature of the POTUS and faithful, magisterial Catholics need to recognize how Obama sees us and will use us if we are not as sly as foxes also.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVN2MMuiedI gives a brief but incisive analysis of Obama’s tactics to divide and conquer the Catholic Church…at least in America.
Obama is living up to all our fears those of us who have kept track of him since early in the campaign. But given the cover of the press, and free-lancing Catholics, he continues to get a pass.
I’m not really sure that those of us who oppose his policies and are not take in by his rhetoric or straw-man arguements have coalesced a choherent understanding of just what his goals are. Though we are aware of how isnsidious his tactics are…the you-tube has helped me take what has been just a hunch milling around in my brain and given it a more cohesive form. In other words, I have felt that Obama and his team have been trying to use the Church…like pawns, and have had more than willing players, but I haen’t always been sure what the goal was. The video helps.
It also helps to realize that we can’t really call him a liar (of course he prefers the term “untruth.”) Leftists don’t lie. They can’t. To lie is to acknowledge a truth exists. Leftists don’t lie because you can’t lie in a morally relative universe. When all positions are morally equal – a child is just a choice, not a human person with inherent right to life. Of course, if the mother wants the child, then the child becomes a choice with inherent rights bestowed by said mother. Both positions work for Obama because it is the individual person who has the right to chose, and what is being chosen is not relevant. Man, not God, and man’s morally relative views, are the hinge. Hinges go in two opposite directions, but it still remains a hinge.
Obamas miscalculation is that God is not morally neutral. And he is not God. As Peter Kreeft has said, “Justice deferrred is not justice denied.” We are just starting to realize the true nature of the POTUS and faithful, magisterial Catholics need to recognize how Obama sees us and will use us if we are not as sly as foxes also.
I ask you…how can a woman’s right to choose be all about you?
As if abortion isn’t all about you or the selfish needs of society.
As for “choice” – the choice is very clear. Can’t afford a child? Don’t have sex.
But don’t punish an innocent human being – because that’s what a “fetus” is, a human being – because YOU make irresponsible choices.
Hey Jake… by your logic, we can then abort you, correct? Because you annoy the piss out of me with your illogical braindead rhetoric. The only way someone can NOT see that a pregnant woman is pregnant with a HUMAN is from a sense of arrested intellect, of which you’ve shown vastly in your few posts here. Obama is a liar and I can’t wait till he’s out of office.
Let’s say we use Jake’s theory, that people are better off dead if their parents are on crack or alcholol or abusive or in some ways destructive.
We would lose poets and musicians and artists and actors. We would lose writers and sculptors and geniuses. We would lose so many people, because their parents lives were less than ideal.
It is folly to think that only the perfect should have children, for it is folly to think anyone is perfect. It is also folly to presume that destroying the innocent does not have a deletrious effect on one’s whole being.
I have heard people tell me that children with disabilites would be better off dead. The children I have met and worked with who have the most severe of disabilites, non verbal, wheelchair bound, some in state run institutions, still smile with a brightness not matched by any beautiful people in Hollywood, even on the day they are most fawned over. Their lives have meaning and beauty and value, for what they make us learn to be, even more than what they can possibly become.
Jake, I hope you change your heart on this issue, because the values are life, then liberty, then the pursuit of happiness, which I would stipulate, comes mostly, from learning to fully love and serve others.
It is folly to think that only the perfect should have children, for it is folly to think anyone is perfect. It is also folly to presume that destroying the innocent does not have a deletrious effect on one’s whole being.
And “perfection” – whatever its feeble definition – is guaranteed no one.
When I was six months pregnant with our first son, my husband lost his job. He worked for a non-profit that didn’t pay into the unemployment tax so we only had my income and a meager savings to live on. Suffice to say – after insurance and taxes – one of my checks was not enough to cover rent in our small apartment.
Should I have aborted my son because we were, arguably, poor?
Likewise, should something happen and I lose my job or my husband lose his (again – his new company merged; final effects won’t be known until later this year), or if one of us is rendered disabled, or if we have a bout of depression or some other health issue, should we kill our now 2-year-old and the son due in August?
Here is the “bottom line” on the bizarro beliefs of Jake (above), ND Jenkins, and all your Obamorons:
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end”
R. J. Wiedemann Lt. Col. USMC Ret.
Jake’s were about the dummest I’ve yet seen. Typical liberal idiot.
And, Thomas, it wasn’t just Bernardin that confused, caused doubt, and trivialized (NB: the lying liberals were for torture before they were against it, but decry torture, vote for abortion) the abortion crisis. Add hundreds of other professional catholics including JPII “Superstar!”: Veritatis Splendor 80:
80. Reason attests . . . objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, . . . radically contradict the good of the person . . . These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, . . . “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object.”(131) . . . a number of examples of such acts: homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat laborers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, . . . ” (132)
Jake whines: “Also….Swastika-wearing [Nazi] monster….a little extreme don’t ya think? Typical responses from the Catholic population.”
Actually, that’s not at all a typical response from the Catholic population. It is, however, a typical response from Liberals, and you’ve been doing it for decades. Now you object to your own rhetorical tactic turned against you?
If it isn’t “nazi,” it’s racist, sexist, homophobe, xenophobe, fascist, bigot, etc. Opponents of illegal immigration, same-sex marriage, affirmative action, etc., all are routinely smeared by liberals with such labels. If an opponent of open borders can be called a racist, then a supporter of abortion can be called a swastika-wearing Nazi monster. Sounds fair to me.
To Philly Lawyer….That’s your argument? That is your rationale? I feel bad for your clients. That is laughable.
The more I read on this matter, the more digusted I get. Father Jenkins and his pro-abortion board of trustees invited the chief executioner of the US to let him and his followers know that like all harlots, Notre Dame can be bought and bought cheaply at that. Our Blessed Mother deserves far better than those criminals.
I hope and pray that our bishops cleanse Notre Dame of the whole rat nest of whores, hustlers and charlatans who pretend to be intellectually catholic, but in reality are doing Satan’s work. On the other If the Catholic bishops of this country are too weak to compel Catholic institutions like Notre Dame to at least pretend to be Catholic, then close it. Burn it to the ground and then salt the earth under it. We would all be better off for it. And people like Jenkins and McBride will have one less place to poison minds and kills souls.