Jeffrey Miller

Here is what is suppose to be a leaked copy of the contents of the “honorary” degree to be given my Notre Dame.

“At the 164th Commencement The May Exercises

The University of Notre Dame Confers the degree of

Doctor of Laws, honoris causa, on the 44th president of the United States, whose historic election opened a new era of hope in a country long divided by its history of slavery and racism. A community organizer who honed his advocacy for the poor, the marginalized and the worker in the streets of Chicago, he now organizes a larger community, bringing to the world stage a renewed American dedication to diplomacy and dialogue with all nations and religions committed to human rights and the global common good. Through his willingness to engage with those who disagree with him and encourage people of faith to bring their beliefs to the public debate, he is inspiring this nation to heal its divisions of religion, culture, race and politics in the audacious hope for a brighter tomorrow.

I guess Fr. Jenkins wants to get the job of Press Secretary for the President. What a load of bunkem, Great job on helping the marginalized. Those being aborted will surely see this Fr. Jenkins’ way Got to love how the President allows those “bitter Americans” to bring their faith to the public debate. Funny I can’t see one example where he has done this. I was sure he had done the opposite by putting plenty of people in his administration that were often extremely anti-Cathoilc. He managed to only find people of “faith” who supported abortion and no appointments of anybody opposed. What in the world has he healed? Please name one divide that is not more divided? As Cardinal George pointed out after meeting him is that President Obama pretends to be on you side with his rhetoric while actually not agreeing at all. He will say things like “I understand your position” or “abortion is a moral question” while at the same time in his actions being quite dismissive.

As for his time as Community Organizer he left that community with no noticeable improvements. This is of course why he never gave any metric for what his success as a Community Organizer was. Later on he was able to steer grants to developers for a 100,000 dollar gazebo that never got built and money wasted on a park that never got developed.

So as far as I can tell Fr. Jenkins just made up crap to pad the President’s resume for him. What he says has no connection with the reality of Obama’s actions.

The hubris of Fr. Jenkins continues and he continues to seem to have zero empathy for those hundreds of thousands (and the 65 bishops who made public statements) who disagree with him.

Hat tip Creative Minority Report

Amy Welborn offers a Sed Contra to the constant charge that whenever Catholics speak out against some politician that they are playing politics. The anger a Notre Dame is purely political. Wanting pro-abortion politicians to not receive the Eucharist is purely political.

First. The accusation is faulty because it presumes American bishops are naturally sympathetic to the GOP. Anyone who is familiar with the American episcopacy knows how laughable an assertion this is, not only historically, but in the present as well.

Secondly, does anyone really think that if Rudolph Giulani or Arnold Schwarzenneger were invited to serve in the same role, that those protesting Obama’s role would be either silent or cheering?

The outcry might not be *as great* because neither of those guys are president (thank God) elected in a just-completed, very contentious election in which abortion was a prime issue.

But it would be there.

And then the whole Bush-gave-a-commencement speech thing is brought up. Well, first of all, there *were* protests when Bush spoke in 2002 from the ND community itself. Secondly, I’m going to guess that if George Bush were invited to give the commencement and were to be honored by a Catholic university today, there would be *plenty* of protests – from many of the same people objecting to Obama’s honor now. Not all. There are Catholic pundits who are openly and clearly sympathetic to the GOP for reasons beyond abortion. Just as there are Catholic pundits who are clearly sympathetic to the Democratic party. There are Catholic operatives and defenders on both sides. But somehow, only the Republicans are accused of “politicizing” matters of faith.

Sort of related: Pro-life activist Catholics are scolded at times for “being in bed with the GOP.” Well, I don’t know if Pro-life activist Catholics in California, New York, Massachusetts….etc…would agree with that assessment. There may be some ancient, lingering, instinctive GOP loyalties among some, but most of the pro-life activists I know are very realistic about the limitations of the GOP when it comes to life issues. They know the score.

And really – the only way that final accusation makes sense is if the Democratic party had, officially, welcomed those concerned with the abortion issue – on their own terms – which includes concerns about the legal status of abortion in this country. But that’s off the table. That’s anti-choice. When pro-life activists explicitly reject a Democratic party that is, at all institutional levels, open to their point of view, then you can accuse them of being mindless party loyalist hacks. But until then…it doesn’t stick.

Part of the problem is that it is often the case that the people making these charges are the ones guilty of just playing politics. If you see the world through a secular and political lens then it is easy to see others acting in the same light. Going after the motives of other people is often if not always a bad idea. If you disagree with someone challenge their arguments. But as is often the case when it comes to the topic of the Culture of Death they do not want to discuss specifics about abortion, embryonic stem-call research, etc. It is much easier to side-track the issue by discussing motives.

The very people who go on and on about dialogue often really want no such thing. If you are upset about President Obama speaking at Notre Dame you are either a racist, a Republican hack, or both. Of course there are plenty of party first Catholics who seem to see their party plank as the Catechism. The torture apologists on the right who think they can ignore the teaching of the papal magisterium and those on the left who think they can pretty much ignore all Catholic teaching except what they have defined as Social Justice.

One of the more dishonest articles to come along in recent years is Democratic operative Robert Shrum’s “Sharia politics at Notre Dame.” Apparently Catholics such as myself who see the President receiving a honorary law degree as scandolous are Neo-Caths. Oh well. I have been called a Neo-Cath before by the likes of the troll and priest “Spirit of Vatican II.” It seems such an odd label since Neo mearly means new. That somehow people who adhere to the ancient faith of the Church are the ones that are the new-Catholics. That Catholics supporting abortion, homosexual acts, contraception, etc are actually the normal ones and not new at all! The term neo-Cath makes no sense at all applied to faithful Catholics. Rather odd for a political group that identifies itself as progressive to use the term “neo” as a disparagement.

The fight against Obama is being advanced by a band of neo-Catholics who adhere to the radical notion that sectarian doctrine must be written into public policy.

This is a tactic often used. Though I wonder how abortion is a Catholic issue only? I was a pro-life atheist in my day and there are plenty of non-Catholics who recognize that abortion is wrong. “Thou shalt not kill” is accessible via human reason. Thou shall not kill is not some rule that Catholics cooked up and only applying to Catholics.

Some of the church’s politicking–including its opposition to stem-cell research, which hardliners absurdly condemn as murder in a Petri dish–wasn’t problematic for Kerry.

Yes there we go again. Defending life is politicking. Yes it is absurd to label the destruction of a human embryo as murder. So what if science agrees that life begins at conception. Well call me a hardliner for thinking that human life is sacred and should be protective from conception to natural death.

But the American people have already given Obama the world’s biggest platform, which he earned with the support of 54 percent of Catholic voters.

I am quite tired for this statistic that gets touted so often. Actually among Catholics that attend Mass weekly the number was 54% for McCain and 45% for Obama. Yeah the statistic is still sad, but if you are even going to talk about Catholics in the first place then Mass going ones would be the minimum requirement to go by.

In the article Shrum also mentions how close Sen Kerry was to Catholic Social teaching. I am extremely tired hearing about how Democratic policies are so close to Catholic teaching. Fr. Jenkin’s in his latest apologia for his blunder-headed move also said about President Obama that he had “deep residence with Catholic social teaching”

Excuse me! Is it not part of Catholic social teaching that we are all created in the image of God? Or can you kill children in the womb and in test tubes as long as you talk about helping the poor. Where the hell is it in Catholic social teaching that the best way to care for the poor and to provide medical care is via a bloated Federal government? Can’t seem to find that in an encyclical. Last I checked subsidiarity was taught in the encyclical Rerum Novarum which addressed this area.

CCC 1894 In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies.

Yeah that sounds exactly like how Democrats plan to help those in need. Sorry charity starts in our own hearts and pocketbooks and we don’t give up our responsibility to a bloated government who takes a cut and then decides who to distribute funds to. The government deciding works out so well with the dismissal of the Mexico City policy and taxpayer funding for abortions in Washington D.C.

How to best care for the poor and to help with healthcare is an area of prudence and both parties have ideas on how to go about this. This idea that the Democratic Party is close to Catholic teaching on this I find quite laughable. Not that I would rubber stamp how those in the Republican Party would go about this either. We should just be honest here in saying that both parties want to achieve these goals and our arguments should be on the prudence of the policies and not blessing one party as being the closest on Catholic social teaching. Preferential love for the poor is about loving our neighbor and it is best done at the lowest level starting with our own actions.

Oh well I ranted enough, but so many stories touched on each other with a common thread.

I hadn’t intended to weigh in on the Fr. Cutie incident. When anybody falls into sin it is very sad, especially if they are a priest. Normally the response to a situation like this would be to mainly pray for the person. Yesterday I saw the video of him on one of the morning shows and then later read Fr. Richsteig’s reaction.

His interviews gives an insight into how his involvement with a divorcee happened. He offered more of a defense than an apology. It seemed more of a regret for causing pain than that he had committed an objectively grave sin and caused scandal. I do wonder if his bishop had allowed him to show up on national television? It is hard to believe that he would. It really shows bad judgment on Fr. Cutie’s part to do this in the first place since he has caused even more scandal by trying to justify his “falling in love.” To go on national television and to say that celibacy should be optional is pretty self-serving. As Fr. Richsteig commented.

He is so unrepentant that he went on national TV where he said that celibacy is good, but it should be optional for priest. (And the man caught in adultery said, “Marital fidelity is a beautiful thing, but it should be optional.”).

“Under the cassock are a pair of pants.” is one of the lines he used. Last I checked this was true for all diocesan priests who are faithful to their promises. A married man that commits adultery because he “loves” his mistress I guess can not be blamed because he is a man and wears pants. You can almost see the process of justification he used to become involved with this women in the first place. He said that he had been under spiritual direction since he was tempted against celibacy and that this is something he struggled with. Too bad he did not take this temptation more seriously and worked to avoid situations where he would be tempted. Becoming a minor celebrity and media personality and being nicknamed “Father Oprah” was probably not the most prudent course if you are particularly tempted in this manner. We should flee from those situations where we know we are easily tempted.

I do pray that he fully repents and that he comes to the full realization of what his sin really is. In the meantime I hope he stays away from any media outlets.

received an e-mail recently from a lay pastoral associate, whose ministerial focus is on adult education and who possesses a graduate degree from a Catholic university. I have his permission to cite a portion of our exchange in this week’s column.
I have suppressed some of the details lest his pastor identify the source and seek to jeopardize the pastoral associate’s job.

The e-mail came from a large suburban parish in which the pastor has apparently done everything that he can to remove most traces of the reforms initiated by the Second Vatican Council, promulgated by the late Pope Paul VI, and approved by the late Pope John Paul II and the current Pope, Benedict XVI.

The pastor has done away with all contemporary music at Mass, and has restored pre-conciliar devotions along with auricular confession. He even gives the impression that confession is the greatest of the sacraments.[reference]

I must of missed that part of the Vatican II documents that mandated contemporary music along with removal of pre-conciliar devotions and auricular confession. Though I wonder why he even pointed out the auricular aspect? Pretty hard for a priest to forgive yours sins if you don’t tell them what they are.

Perhaps there is some misunderstanding here because the Council of Trent, back in the 16th century, made clear that the greatest of the seven sacraments is the Eucharist.

Of course we have no idea what the pastor actually said to give this apparently disgruntled pastoral associate an “impression”. Though it is rather funny to see Fr. McBrien quote the Council of Trent. Isn’t Trent pre-conciliar or something?

Under the pastor’s control, the parish has no youth ministry, no parish council, nor any other consultative body. According to my correspondent, “consultative is not in his vocabulary.” He also gave vocal support to the minority of U.S. Catholic bishops who proclaimed in effect that “Catholics could burn in hell” if they voted Democratic in the recent presidential election.

Again hard to know what the pastor actually said and how he said it. But certainly if someone voted for Obama supporting his abortion agenda they are in objectively grave sin and could indeed go to Hell if they fully met the conditions of moratl sin.

My correspondent reported that other members of the parish staff are hurting “terribly.” Indeed, they share the feelings of the woman who darted out of church recently during the homily — in tears.
She informed the pastoral associate that she could no longer handle the situation, and that she had to leave the parish. She said that all that she ever hears from the pulpit is what sinners the parishioners are, and why it is so necessary for them to “go to confession.”

Gee you would think they would pass on what the homily was about?Rather an important detail needed to judge the situation. I have heard that one of the priests at my parish had people walk out on homilies at his previous parish. In the homilies I have heard from him he certainly did not shy away from bringing up contraception as a grave sin and other topics. Though certainly done in a pastoral way and not trying to beat people over the head. People don’t mind most homilies as long as they focus on somebody’s else’s sin.

That particular Sunday, with the old-fashioned church music, all the statues covered in purple as they were before Vatican II, and the usual severe words in the homily, the pressure was simply too much for her to bear.

Yes covering statues is harsh! Rather odd complaint considering how many more progressive parishes have simply removed statues and devotional art in the first place. Putting sand in the Holy Water font is the way to go don’t you know. Now how could severe words bring pressure? I guess if you have unrepented sins, hearing that they are sins is rather annoying.

The woman poured out her frustrations, saying that the pastor had taken the parish back to a Church that she knows nothing about and in a manner that showed no understanding of others’ feelings.

At the end of his first e-mail, my correspondent asked, “Are we expected just to get used to it?”
In my reply, I wrote: “No, you are not simply to ‘get used to it.’ Parishioners need to go elsewhere, like the woman who left Mass in tears.”
I continued: “If there are no parishes or other worshipping communities in the vicinity where the pastoral leadership is healthy rather than driven by a narrow ideology, then one simply has to ‘take a vacation’ from the Church until the skies finally clear and we are bathed in sunlight once again.”

Yes telling people to miss Mass and commit an objectively grave sin until a pastor that suits you comes along is great advice from a priest. Funny when we complain about liturgical abuses they basically tell us to “suck it up” and don’t complain.

At the end of his first e-mail, my correspondent asked, “Are we expected just to get used to it?”

Well if the priest is actually going against Church teaching or any Church documents than they can bring it up with him or end up taking it to the Bishop. These would be the proper steps and not winning to a dissident like Fr. McBrien.

I continued: “If there are no parishes or other worshipping communities in the vicinity where the pastoral leadership is healthy rather than driven by a narrow ideology, then one simply has to ‘take a vacation’ from the Church until the skies finally clear and we are bathed in sunlight once again.”

It is interesting how progressives see orthodoxy as being narrow. Though living the faith in an orthodox way can lead you on the narrow road defined in the Gospel. It is the progressive view that is so narrow with sharp edges defined by culture and not the Gospel. Disagree with a progressive and you easily find where their dogmas lie and that are more binding than anything the pharisees came up with.

The lead article in America magazine’s 100th anniversary issue (April 13) is by a Dominican who is justly admired the world over (by Progressives). It is Timothy Radcliffe’s “The Shape of the Church to Come.”

However, he does identify this polarization as consisting of self-defined “traditionalist” Catholics in open conflict with self-defined “progressive” Catholics.

Because it is only “traditionalists” who cause polarization. Playing games with the liturgy never causes polarization. Playing fast and loose with the theology of the Church never causes polarization.

The pastor in the true story above surely would regard himself as “orthodox,” but the woman who left the church in tears would never have defined herself as a “progressive” Catholic. That adjective would mean nothing to her.

It is not polarization but the pastor of the story and many like him who are responsible for the grieving Church.

He has passed sentence on a fellow priest he has never met and knows nothing about except for this report of hearsay. You would think that he might have made some caveat about this in his article. Though this might be an ironic charge coming from a blogger. It is often quite hard knowing what the actual facts are, but this article was extremely low on actual facts such as what the pastor actually did wrong except for maybe being too blunt. If the pastor actually did something wrong besides violating the phony Spirit of Vatican II then it could be addressed.

We need another petition to have Notre Dame professor’s Fr. McBrien columns removed. His columns serve no useful purpose other than undermining the Church at every opportunity. Telling people to take a vacation from Mass if the parish doesn’t agree with them is evil. You sometimes hear traditionalists calling into Catholic radio asking whether than can not go to Mass because some parish angers them so. They of course don’t tell them to take a vacation, but to address it via the proper steps and to pray. Fr. McBrien didn’t ask anyone to pray for this priest that he has condemned as responsible for a grieving Church. I will pray for Fr. McBrien and I hope you do to.