Wednesday, June 22, 2011

The Fall of The Jesuits Into Hell...Of Their Own Making.

The following is a posting from Life Site News about the Jesuits approval of Abortion.  They have stated they find no fault with the acceptance of Abortion in Mexico.  Obviously, with what the Jesuit run American colleges are doing, they agree with this statement.  This will be the first posting in the series on "Jesuit Catholic In Name Only" Schools and what is happening in the New York State Diocese in particular.  There is a lot of areas to cover, so here we go. 

Jesus Is Lord!
Tim M

Jesuit leadership defends pro-abortion organization denounced by Mexican cardinal

Matthew Cullinan Hoffman Mon Jun 06 20:36 EST Abortion
June 6, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The leadership of the Jesuit order in Canada and Mexico is standing behind a pro-abortion organization sponsored by the order in Mexico, which was recently denounced by the Cardinal Archbishop of Mexico City and cut off as a grant recipient by the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace.
According to an open letter published on May 25 by the Jesuit provincial superiors (see English translation following article), the Miguel Agustín Pro Juarez Center for Human Rights (PRODH), is “a constant engagement in favor of the right to life of all” which “merits our support.”
The letter also claims that the PRODH’s center’s then-director, “is a religious with an excellent reputation with the Church” whose “expertise is recognized in the Church in Mexico.” The superiors add that Fr. Arriaga “acts in conformity with the directives which are given to him by his jesuit superiors.”
However, the Cardinal Archbishop of Mexico City, Norberto Rivera Carrera, had already expressed a very different view of the organization, in a letter to the Canadian bishops which was published following the Jesuit communique.
PRODH “does NOT represent the sentiments of the Church and has been characterized by its support and encouragement of groups and activities that are an affront to Christian values,” the Cardinal wrote, according to a translation of part of his letter published by the Toronto Catholic Register.
“With respect to the theme of defence of life, the organization has supported pro-abortion groups and promoted the purported woman’s right over her body, against unborn life,” the Cardinal added.
When LifeSiteNews asked the Jesuit superior of Francophone Canada, Jean-Marc Biron, to discuss the proof gathered by this news agency of PRODH’s pro-abortion activities, Brion’s press secretary responded by saying that “we are not going to grant you an interview either on or off the record.”
“We worked for several weeks in order to publish our declaration, which clearly presents our common position, and we are sincerely certain of the obligation that we have to support the PRODH Center,” wrote press secretary Pierre Bélanger.
This news agency made another request to Biron and Bélanger on Friday asking for clarification of their views in light of the statements by Cardinal Norberto Rivera.  No response has been received.
LifeSiteNews first revealed the pro-abortion activities of PRODH in 2009, in a series of exposés on dozens of pro-abortion, pro-contraceptive, homosexualist, and anti-Catholic groups funded by the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace (D&P), a foreign aid agency which receives a large percentage of its funding from donations collected by the Catholic bishops of Canada during Lent.
Despite the fact that the organization had openly signed numerous pro-abortion statements, including a protest against a pro-life amendment in the Mexican state of Jalisco, an investigation by Canadian bishops claimed to have cleared PRODH and four other groups of pro-abortion involvement. D&P continued to provide funding to the organization.
However, D&P severed ties to PRODH following the cancellation of a speaking engagement in April of this year by the-PRODH Director Luis Arriaga, by Ottawa Archbishop Terrance Prendergast. Prendergast confronted Arriaga about his organization’s pro-abortion activities after receiving Cardinal Rivera’s letter denouncing PRODH.
Arriaga’s departure from PRODH was announced only two days following the Jesuits’ letter defending him and his work. The organization claims that he was appointed to a five year term, which had now come to an end, and that his exit had nothing to do with the organization’s loss of D&P funding.
Contact information:
Province of Francophone Canada
Jean-Marc Biron, S.J. and Pierre Bélanger, S.J.
Tél. : 514-387-2541
Cel: 514-866-2305
Email: jmbiron@videotron.ca
Email: pierre.belanger@jesuites.org
Jesuit Superior General Fr. Adolfo Nicolás
Tel: +39-06-689-771
Fax: +39-06-686-8214
Web: http://www.sjweb.info/
Email: dir-del@sjcuria.org
Email: webmaster@sjcuria.org

Translation of Letter:
May 25, 2011
The Jesuits of Canada and Mexico express themselves over the Miguel Pro Center for Human RIghts (PRODH) and its director, Fr. Luis Arriaga
COMMUNIQUÉ
Sensitive to the requests that have been made to them in the name of individuals and groups, the pronvincial superiors of the Jesuits of French Canada, English Canada, and Mexico, are issuing this statement to support the integrity of the work of the Miguel Pro Center for Human Rights of Mexico and of its director, Fr. Luis Arriaga, an organization carrying out the social teaching of the Catholic Church.
Fr. Luis Arriaga, director of the Miguel Pro Center for Human Rights (PRODH) of Mexico, was invited by the leadership of Development and Peace to speak last April about the work of the center that he directs.  A set of circumstances rendered his contribution impossible .  More specifically, pressure groups have accused the PRODH Center of having contributed to the promotion of abortion in Mexico.
Two years ago, therefore, a special commission of the CCCB travelled to Mexico and concluded that, if prudence was lacking regarding participation in coalitions linked to the promotion of the rights of the person, in no way had the PRODH Center participated in the promotion of abortion, and no fault could be attributed to the international development organization Development and Peace, which had supported the Center.
In the spirit of the social teaching of the Church, and in support of the PRODH Center and its director, Fr. Luis Arriaga, for affirming in such a way the Christians engaged in the promotion of social justice and the rights of the person, the provincial superiors of Mexico and Canada would like to express the following.
· As the report of the special commission of the CECC affirmed in 2009, the Miguel Pro Center of Mexico has not participated in the promotion of abortion.
· Fr. Luis Arriaga, director of the PRODH Center, is a religious with an excelent reputation with the Church, who acts in conformity with the directives which are given to him by his jesuit superiors.  We note that his expertise is recognized in the Church in Mexico, in view of the fact that he acts as an advisor of an episcopal commission on social issues.
· In the context of the widespread violence in Mexican society, the work of Father Luis Arriaga, as well as all of the members of the PRODH Center, is a constant engagement in favor of the right to life of everyone. The lives of these defenders of human rights are themselves threatened and we affirm that it is international solidarity that allows them to continue their indispensible work.
· More generally, the Christian witness in favor of the promotion of justice, and the promotion of the rights of the person to which it is linked, is done on the cutting edge, in difficult contexts where the partisans of the status quo do everything to block the advancement of fundamental gospel values. In the circumstances, the people who work in this field, as does Fr. Luis Arriaga and his team, merit our support.
Montréal, Toronto, and Mexico, May 25, 2011
[Signed:]
Jean-Marc Biron, Provincial Superior of French Canada
S.J. Jim Webb, S.J., Pronvicnial Superior of English Canada
Carlos Morfín Otero, S.J, .Provincial Superior of Mexico

Friday, June 17, 2011

"Who Is Responsible?‏" A MUST WATCH Video From Michael Voris

This video came to us yesterday, but circumstances prevented us from posting until now.  This is DEFFINITELY one you need to watch.


Jesus Is Lord!

Tim M

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Notre Dame and Abortion...More Jenkins and Martino

It seems that this just won't go away, much to the chagrin of Fr. Jenkins and the Board.  Here is an article from
The National Catholic Register a subsidiary of EWTN.  After the article is a link to go to the specific page and read the comments made there.  Thank you.

Jesus Is Lord!
Tim M

Lying Father Jenkins Must Go

Sunday, June 12, 2011 9:20 PM Comments (64)
I believe that Roxanne Martino, the University of Notre Dame Trustee who just resigned over her support of virulently pro-abortion groups, was just a mere symptom of a much greater disease.
Something has been sticking in my craw these last few days. It is this line used by Martino in her resignation statement and is similar to the defense mounted for her by Fr. Jenkins and his minions on the Notre Dame Board.
“In the best interests of the University, I regretfully have decided to step down from the Notre Dame Board of Trustees,” Martino said in the statement. “I dearly love my alma mater and remain fully committed to all aspects of Catholic teaching and to the mission of Notre Dame. I had looked forward to contributing in this new role, but the current controversy just doesn’t allow me to be effective.”
I remain fully committed to all aspects of Catholic teaching. Aspects? If my wife quizzed me on whether I am a faithful husband and I responded by saying, “Honey, I remain fully committed to all aspects of our marriage vows,” she would slap my face and run off crying.
The only people who say I remain fully committed to all aspects of something are people who are not fully committed to some aspects. Truth be told, when it comes to Catholic teaching, this phraseology is as close as you can to saying “seamless garment” without getting invited to Father Fr. Pfleger’s house for dinner and some light meditation.
Father Jenkins, President of Notre Dame, and Richard Notebaert, chairman of the University’s board of trustees, used similar language in their defense of Martino saying that she is fully committed to Church teaching on human life while she sent gobs of money to groups whose sole reason for being is to promote killing babies. This is similar to the defense that Notre Dame launched when it invited the virulently pro-abortion Barack Obama to speak at commencement and receive an honorary degree. Some people have tried to dull the sharp edge of the obvious and call it dissembling. I call it lying. Do you know what you call people who repeatedly lie? You call them liars, that is what you call them.
Father Jenkins is a liar**. Father Jenkins must go.
How can the flagship Catholic University in the country have a priest who has proven to be a serial liar on the most important moral issue of the day? It is untenable.
When Father Jenkins looks into the eyes of those rightfully outraged and says with Weiner-esque chutzpah that Martino is pro-life and did not know that Emily’s list supports abortion, he proves himself to be a liar and completely unfit for the office that he holds.
This is why there is no statement from Notre Dame regretting their error and vowing to fix the process leading to this horrendous error. It was not an error. They knew. They did not care, or worse. Moreover, they lied about it. No amount of spin can change this simple fact.
George O’Leary was fired from a Notre Dame coaching job for lying about things he had not done. Father Jenkins remains president of Notre Dame by lying about things he has done.
All money to Notre Dame from Catholics, who do not just support merely aspects of Catholic teaching but are simply Catholics, needs to cease immediately. Protests should be mounted and petitions signed. Whatever it takes. We want our Catholic University back.
Father Jenkins must go.
**This piece represents my own opinion and not necessarily the view of the National Catholic Register. Although they should agree, ‘cause I am right.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/lying-father-jenkins-must-go/#ixzz1PRjymegN

Monday, June 13, 2011

Notre Dame and Abortion...More

We have been privileged to have been allowed to post the Bulletin from The Sycamore Group
The following is the latest from this organization trying to regain the Catholic Identity for Notre Dame.  Please contact them at their website linked above to help in their endeavor.

Jesus Is Lord!

Tim M

In this bulletin, we describe the misdirection employed by top leaders of the University in their effort to salvage the appointment to the board of  trustees  of a long-time supporter of pro-abortion organizations and what this sorry episode means in the struggle for the soul of the University.
SOUTH BEND, IN —While the resignation of Roxanne Martino from the Notre Dame Board of Directors is welcome indeed, this deeply troubling episode raises questions of the utmost importance about the leadership and future course of the University.
After all, were it not for the ever more incriminating successive disclosures of support by Ms. Martino of pro-abortion organizations, she would still be involved in setting policy for the school. And had the shifting and increasingly implausible explanations given by the Board Chairman, Richard Notebaert, and adopted by Father John Jenkins succeeded in quelling the protests, she would still be in place.
The “blame the messenger” Notre Dame public relations press release announcing Ms. Martino’s resignation is both illuminating and discouraging.
First, the University cannot even bring itself to concede that EMILY’s List and the Illinois Personal PAC are in fact pro-choice. Rather, in unusually placid and accommodating words, the University says these organizations only “characterize themselves as pro-choice,” as in “he says he is Christian.” Is the suggestion that Ms. Martino just did not believe these organizations’ own pro-choice “characterization”?
Much more importantly, there is not the faintest hint by either Mr. Notebaert or Ms. Martino that her actions bore upon her qualifications for the Board.
Ms. Martino’s declaration that she is “fully committed to all aspects of Catholic teaching and to the mission of Notre Dame” without any expression of regret for her support of pro-abortion organizations surely rings false, but much more worrisome is Mr. Notebaert’s assertion that Ms. Martino is “absolutely dedicated in every way to the Catholic mission of the University.”
Mr. Notebaert  seems clearly to be saying that Ms. Martino’s association with pro-abortion organizations is fully in harmony with the mission of this Catholic university. Unhappily, this is of a piece with Mr. Notebaert’s actions, joined in by Father Jenkins, throughout this scandalous episode.
The significance of Mr. Notebaert’s statement was perceived immediately among pro-life advocates. Anthony Lauinger, Vice President of the National Right to Life League whose association with Notre Dame has been long and deep, observed with alarm that Mr. Notebaert's statement “raises grave concerns about whether some at Notre Dame even comprehend what constitutes ‘the Catholic mission of this University.”
In this bulletin we trace the unfolding of events from the time of Ms. Martino’s election. They raise questions that demand answers respecting how Board members are selected, their qualifications, the vetting process, full disclosure to those who elect the members, candor by the Chairman in informing the Board and candor by the President in responding to alumni, and the diminishing role of the Order.
We also furnish Fr. Wilson Miscamble’s courageous and compelling address  during the recent Sycamore Trust meeting at Notre Dame in which he laid waste to this appointment and described how it has undermined the University’s tepid effort to undo the damage caused by its honoring of President Obama.
Our bulletin is considerably longer than usual. We ask both your patience and your attention. The matter is of large importance.
Initial Disclosures: Ms. Martino’s support of EMILY’s List
As we recounted  earlier (Just Stop Talking and Notre Dame Fellows Elect Pro-Abortion Trustee), shortly after the election of Ms. Martino there emerged escalating reports of her long, regular, and  substantial support of EMILY’s List, an organization with the sole mission of  “electing pro-choice Democratic women to office.” EMILY’s List, as we reported, is one of the most powerful pro-abortion organizations in the country. The list of pro-choice candidates it has helped elect is a rogue’s gallery of enemies of the Church on the defining moral issue of the day.
  • First,  the Cardinal Newman Society disclosed that Ms. Martino had contributed $16,150 to EMILY’s List between 2005 and 2008.
  • Next, Sycamore Trust  reported that Ms. Martino’s contributions had been much larger — $27,150 — over a much longer period and were in fact current.   Ms. Martino began contributing to EMILY’s List in 1998 and began major giving in 2005. In 2006 she contributed $4,900, almost the $5000 legal limit, and from 2007 through 2010 she gave the full $5,000 each year. Her most recent $5000 contribution for 2010 was made last December 23rd.
The Cover-Up
Bill McGurn (ND ’80), a prominent Wall Street Journal columnist and former high public servant, played a major role in unveiling the repeated efforts by Mr. Notebaert, joined in by Father Jenkins, to screen these contributions from the Board and alumni.
In his first article, Mr. McGurn described Ms. Martino’s  extensive support of EMILY’s List and the exclusively pro-abortion agenda of that organization as background for his report that Mr. Notebaert had sent a misleading memorandum to Board members in defense of Ms. Martino. Mr. Notebaert’s explanation:
She has through the years contributed to organizations that provide a wide range of important services and support to women. She did not realize, however, that several of these organizations also take a pro-choice position.
This description had nothing to do with EMILY’s List and its single-purpose agenda, but evidently Mr. Notebaert hoped it would serve. Mr. McGurn observed:
What does it say about his judgment as board chairman. And what does it say about his view of the intelligence of the Notre Dame board that he would put out something so dissembling?
In his second article, Notre Dame and Emily's List, Mr. McGurn turned his attention to Father Jenkins. He reported that Father Jenkins had simply copied Mr. Notebaert’s explanation in response to questions from alumni. Moreover, copies of some of these exchanges that we have in our possession confirm that the inquiries were explicitly, and only, about EMILY’s List.
Then came the most damaging admission, this from Mr. Notebaert whom the University called into service to respond to Mr. McGurn’s pressing the University for an example of “important services” provided by EMILY’s List  unrelated to abortion.
With no examples to give, Mr. Notebaert made the breath-taking concession that  his and Fr. Jenkins’s description of the organizations to which Ms. Martino had contributed “did not apply to EMILY’s List.”
There was no effort to plead ignorance or mistake. The dissimulation in offering a bogus explanation — one that appeared to cover EMILY’s List but did not — was evidently intentional.
As Mr. McGurn trenchantly observed:
At this point the question of judgment goes far beyond Martino. What does it say about Notre Dame’s chairman of the board and its priest-president that they would send out the dissembling emails they have?
Forced to say something at last about EMILY’s List, Mr. Notebaert  declared without visible means of support simply that  Ms. Martino “was unaware” of what EMILY’s List did. This would be a risible claim for any literate person in his or her right senses. For a CEO of a company charged with handling some $8 billion in assets it is surreal. 
(A footnote: Bill Dempsey e-mailed EMILY’s List to ask for solicitation materials and was told that he would have to become a member by contributing. Nevertheless, in short order he received two e-mails (An anti-choice extremist and Our Senate Firewall) seeking support for pro-abortion actions. As a member, Ms. Martino must have received countless messages over the past 12 years.)
The Most Recent and Conclusive Evidence
Finally, in his June 3rd  report, Mr. McGurn revealed that “over roughly the same period Ms. Martino gave to another group solely dedicated to advancing abortion rights, the Illinois State Personal PAC.” “Like EMILY’s List,” he wrote, “this group makes no secret of its agenda, stating up front across the top of its home page: “Vital to Electing a Pro-Choice Illinois.” But it does not stop there. It  promotes abortion by directing women to abortion providers and  advising teenagers how to obtain abortions without parental consent.
The record of contributions discloses that in 2008 Ms. Martino donated $3,500 to this organization, which means she contributed $8,500 in that single year to organizations with the sole mission of electing pro-choice candidates to public office and promoting abortion. In 2007 the total was $6,300.
Mr. McGurn concluded:
Very hard to see how a woman who gives so repeatedly to two different single issue prochoice groups is not...well...prochoice. Every bit of new information, however, suggests that the bigger issue here is not Ms. Martino but the University itself: specifically, the chairman and the president  and how forthcoming they are being with the truth.
Mr. McGurn is hardly alone. Pro-choice commentators have lamented Ms. Martino’s resignation, but we have found none of any stripe who have credited the tortured explanations advanced in her defense.
Rather, noted Catholic author and commentator George Weigel, in a detailed account of the case, referred to the “dissembling” of those in governance in their attempts “to wriggle out of the bind.”
Father Miscamble’s address
At Sycamore Trust’s June 4th breakfast meeting, Fr. Wilson Miscamble, C.S.C. — the founder and president of the Notre Dame chapter of Faculty for Life and  member of the national organization’s board of directors, a former chair of the History Department, a former rector of Moreau Seminary, award-winning author and gifted teacher — spoke with courage and candor about the waning Catholic identity of the University and specifically addressed the Martino episode.
We cannot do justice to this remarkable address here.  It should be required reading for all who love Notre Dame. We earnestly press the full text upon you now.
Very briefly:
After an introductory gratifying encomium to Sycamore Trust — it “plays an enormously important role in promoting the Catholic character and mission of Notre Dame” — and recognition of the “many wonderful developments taking place at Notre Dame,”  Father turned to describing “the reality of our circumstance.”
Speaking “plainly and directly about recent developments,” Father used the Obama incident as a point of departure to describe the pro-life steps taken when the administration “was pushed into damage control mode.” 
We should be “grateful for these measures,” he said, but should know
that  the main pro-life efforts on campus continue to be those pushed by the students in Notre Dame Right to Life and by those faculty most closely associated with the Center for Ethics and Culture, certain terrific folk in the Law School, and the Faculty for Life group.
“Speaking for myself,” Father Miscamble said, “I would say the central administration did what they felt was required but little more.” And the Martino case, he said, indicates there is not the “desire and commitment” to do more.
Noting the obvious implausibility of the “ignorance defense” mounted by Mr. Notebaert and Fr. Jenkins on behalf of Ms. Martino, Fr. Miscamble asked: “Would an ‘unambiguously pro-life institution' [Fr. Jenkins’s description of Notre Dame] seek to defend this appointment?”
As  George Weigel put it:
What is so striking about the Martino case...is that it makes clear that Father Jenkins’s modest efforts to demonstrate the university’s pro-life commitment since the 2009 Obama commencement have been largely in vain. Things have gotten worse, not better, since 2009
Broadening the perspective beyond life issues, Father Miscamble continued:
In many ways this matter is more important than the Obama fiasco for what it means about the future direction of Notre Dame and for what it tells us about those who lead our university.
The case, he said, had raised “substantial questions about the suitability of Mr. Notebaert “ — who “seems to have supplanted Fr. Jenkins on the matter” — "to lead our Board." Nor has this been “an episode in which Holy Cross has sought to lead,” for “the six Holy Cross Fellows seem ready to acquiesce in Mr. Notebaert’s decisions.”
Fr. Miscamble closed with a ringing plea to alumni to “stay involved with Notre Dame” because the debate as to competing visions of its future “is occurring right now.” On the one side there is the “complete institutional autonomy from the Church” proclaimed by the Land O’Lakes Statement that Mr. Notebaert seems to champion. On the other is John Paul II’s  Ex Corde Ecclesiae description of the nature of a Catholic university that is incorporated into Notre Dame’s Mission Statement:
A Catholic university draws its basic inspiration from Jesus Christ as the source of wisdom and from the conviction that in Him all things can be brought to their completion. As a Catholic university, Notre Dame wishes to contribute to this educational mission.
George Weigel has reported that a meeting between Bishop Kevin Rhoades and Fr. Jenkins immediately preceded  Ms. Martino’s resignation. Bishop Rhoades’s dedication to Ex  Corde Ecclesiae is well known. One may wonder whether Mr. Notebaert’s insistence that Ms. Martino is “just the sort of person we want on our board” notwithstanding her long engagement with pro-choice organizations is a mark of his and Bishop Rhoades’ opposing views of what sort of university Notre Dame should be.
Conclusion
As with the much belated settlement of the ND 88 cases, the resignation of Ms. Martino under pressure is plainly designed to cut the University’s losses. The hope is that the Board and the Fellows and alumni and the public will just forget what has happened.
It should not be so. There should be an independent investigation and report. As Mr. McGurn wrote:
One would think that the priests and at least one bishop on the Notre Dame board should be demanding some hard answers here. This is a big story...and the Notre Dame community deserves a full and complete accounting...of what Notre Dame’s top officials knew about this, and when they knew it.
And one would think the members of the Board would be asking the same questions. On any corporate board the sort of obfuscation engaged in here by Mr. Notebaert would not be entertained. Just what sort of a Board is Notre Dame’s? Who runs this place anyway?
It is past time, we suggest, for the leaders of the Order to rouse themselves and reclaim the University as a Catholic institution honoring in practice and not just in word its Mission Statement, which we repeat again because of its soaring vision:
A Catholic university draws its basic inspiration from Jesus Christ as the source of wisdom and from the conviction that in Him all things can be brought to their completion. As a Catholic university, Notre Dame wishes to contribute to this educational mission.
Oremus!

Friday, June 10, 2011

"More Cracks in the Golden Dome" as the Hits Just Keep On Coming.

The title of this Post is taken from an article written by George Weigel of National Review Online and sent to us courtesy of Dr. Dan Boland of The Sycamore Group from Notre Dame.

The article goes deep into the problems at Notre Dame and seems to put a very different perspective on the so-called "Premier Catholic University".  Comments would be appreciated.

The University of Notre Dame’s ongoing confusions
In 2001, the University of Notre Dame hired George O’Leary as its football coach: a position regarded by some alums, boosters, and board members as only slightly less significant than that held by the university’s president, and by others as of undoubtedly greater importance. Shortly after the hire, the Manchester Union Leader disclosed that O’Leary had engaged in some serious résumé padding, including claims for a master’s degree he had not earned from a university that did not exist. O’Leary’s tenure as head coach of the Fighting Irish ended three weeks after it began.
It now seems that, over the ensuing decade, Notre Dame didn’t learn much about due diligence, even as its leaders forgot a few more things about integrity and honesty.
Late in the spring term, Notre Dame announced that one of its alumnae, Roxanne Martino, a prominent Chicago investment manager, had been elected a member of the university’s board of trustees. Such a seemingly routine appointment — wealthy alum joins university board — would have drawn little notice at a less contentious moment in Catholic higher education. But by its 2009 decisions to make an unabashedly pro-abortion Barack Obama its commencement speaker and to honor him with an honorary doctor of laws degree, Notre Dame invited intense scrutiny by Catholics determined to hold the country’s flagship Catholic university to a standard of Catholic identity it seemed unwilling to maintain by itself. Thus, shortly after Ms. Martino joined the Notre Dame board, it came to light that she had been a longtime and significant contributor to Emily’s List, one of the nation’s premier pro-abortion lobbies. (See Photos on Right.)(Emphasis mine.)
Emily’s List does not mask its agenda behind a blizzard of euphemisms. Its website asks the visitor to “HELP US ELECT PRO-CHOICE DEMOCRATIC WOMEN.” The What We Do part of the site makes the organization’s goals quite clear: “We’re a full-service political team with a simple mission: to elect pro-choice Democratic women.” It would take a very dim observer of the contemporary political scene not to know what Emily’s List is all about. One might barely imagine that a Chicago donor who reflexively gives to the usual Democratic causes could write a check to Emily’s List under the impression that the organization was some sort of generic feminist lobby — although imagining a generic feminist lobby that is not pro-abortion takes even more, er, imagination.
Faced with the revelation that one of its new board members — one of those charged with guiding Notre Dame into the future — was in the habit of writing large checks to a pro-abortion lobby, the Notre Dame administration tried to wriggle out of the bind by claiming that Ms. Martino hadn’t realized that Emily’s List did what Emily’s List does. When that invited the obvious rejoinder that no one so unaware of elementary political reality had a claim to help guide a major university into the future, board chairman Richard Notebaert tried to save Ms. Martino, doubling down while clumsily changing the subject.
In an e-mail to the Wall Street Journal’s William McGurn, a Notre Dame alumnus who was on the case, Notebaert harrumphed that the fact that Ms. Martino “erred in not knowing completely about two of the many organizations to which she makes contributions does not in any way diminish the exemplary way in which she has lived her life and faith.” Moreover, the chairman averred, this is precisely “the sort of person we want on our board”: someone who is “a Notre Dame graduate, loving parent, dedicated to national and international service, a highly regarded professional in her field, and committed to all Catholic teachings.” (Memo to Mr. Notebaert: If those are your criteria for Notre Dame board membership, your letter inviting an alumnus of Notre Dame who is a distinguished journalist, a former presidential speechwriter, and a loving husband and parent to join the Notre Dame board should be in the mail today; I’m sure Bill McGurn will consider the possibility carefully.)
A week or so into the controversy, it seemed clear to all except the university’s board chairman and its president, Fr. John Jenkins, that Ms. Martino was unsalvageable: Either Notre Dame had a significant donor to an aggressive pro-abortion lobby among its trustees, or it had a board member whose judgment in making donations “on the basis of a recommendation from others” (as Notebaert put it to McGurn) raised severe questions about her competence to serve the university and its Catholic mission. Yet the dissembling continued and the implications of it for Notre Dame’s governance were briskly identified on June 4 by Fr. Wilson Miscamble, CSC, a distinguished diplomatic historian on the Notre Dame faculty.
In an address to a group of Notre Dame alumni concerned about the university’s Catholic identity, Miscamble said that board chairman Notebaert seemed “to have supplanted Fr. Jenkins in determining university policy” in the Martino affair. Then Miscamble, an Australian given to plain talking, cut to the chase: “If [Notebaert] can’t understand the damage that an appointment like this does to Notre Dame’s credibility and reputation as a Catholic university, then his credentials and capabilities to lead the board must surely be questioned.” And lest he be thought excessively clerical in calling out a lay board chairman, Father Miscamble immediately went on to lament the six members of his own religious order, the Congregation of the Holy Cross, who had acquiesced in Ms. Martino’s appointment.
After Father Jenkins had met with Bishop Kevin Rhoades of Fort Wayne–South Bend, this sad affair came to a formal end on June 8 when Ms. Martino resigned from the Notre Dame board, telling the Chicago Tribune that “the current controversy doesn’t allow me to be effective.” Yet the fallout from the Martino affair continues, and one finds some rather depressing indicators about Notre Dame’s future while sifting through the wreckage.
At no point during the controversy did the formidable Notre Dame publicity machine do the obvious and honorable thing: admit that due diligence had not been done; admit that a serious mistake had been made and that the mistake was deeply regretted; then state that Ms. Martino had been asked to remove herself from the board. Those watching from a distance could only conclude that Ms. Martino, Mr. Notebaert, and perhaps Father Jenkins simply did not understand what the fuss was about, and yielded only under unbearable pressure. That impression was strengthened by the affair’s untoward end game, which Father Miscamble described in a public statement after the Martino resignation:
I am grateful that Mrs. Martino had the decency to resign from the Board of Trustees but very disappointed that she included no apology in her statement for her sad record of donations to Emily’s List and other virulently pro-abortion PACs like Illinois State Personal PAC. I am further disappointed by the very limited press release from the University of Notre Dame and by the remarks of the board chairman, Mr. Richard Notebaert. He neither gives an apology for his earlier misleading statements concerning Mrs. Martino’s donations nor expresses regret for his failure to vet this appointment with appropriate diligence. Further, he gives no assurance that contributing in any way to explicitly “pro-choice” organizations in incompatible with service on the Notre Dame Board of Trustees.
The obtuseness displayed by the university administration and board chairman over the past two weeks suggests that neither the administration nor the board has learned the primary lesson it should have learned from the controversy over the Obama commencement in 2009: that an unambiguous, indeed happily robust, pro-life position, embodied in action and not just in abstract declarations of adhesion to Catholic teaching, is now the cultural marker of seriousness about Catholic identity in the American public square.
That this fact of 21st-century American Catholic life makes things difficult for Catholic tribal Democrats is undeniable. But efforts to dilute the weight and density of that cultural marker by, among others, Notre Dame faculty who find in Barack Obama the living embodiment of Catholic social doctrine now look ever more farcical, as indeed they seemed highly implausible before the administration’s policies began to crumble. (Republicans tempted to gloat here should be very careful: Catholics determined to strengthen, not dilute, Catholic identity in Catholic institutions will turn their fire on squishy members of the GOP just as readily as fire has been turned on Democrats.)
Irrespective of the politics involved, though, what is really disturbing about all this from a Catholic point of view is just how out-of-it Notre Dame’s leadership seems to be. The administration and board of a university that has long imagined itself on the cutting edge of Catholic culture in the United States seem to have completely missed the great sea-change that has taken place in the public life of U.S. Catholics since Roe v. Wade, Blessed John Paul II, and the emergence of the pro-life cause as the prime, although surely not sole, indicator of Catholic seriousness amidst the sundry contentions of the public square.
A month or so before the Martino affair broke, the Notre Dame faculty senate voted down a proposed resolution commending the president, Father Jenkins, for his efforts to strengthen Notre Dame’s pro-life commitment in the wake of the Obama commencement. That was weird enough. But windy faculty senates with little real power often do weird things. What is so striking about the Martino case, however, is that it makes clear that Father Jenkins’s modest efforts to demonstrate the university’s pro-life commitment since the 2009 Obama commencement have been largely in vain. Things have gotten worse, not better, since 2009.
If an Emily’s List contributor is considered a fit member of Notre Dame’s board of trustees by, among others, members of the religious congregation that founded Notre Dame, and if the Notre Dame board chairman flails about defending such a decision by suggesting that the nominee in question is an ideal Domer trustee, then the Catholic learning curve in South Bend remains a steep one.
— George Weigel is distinguished senior fellow of Washington’s Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he holds the William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies. 
 
This problem is obviously ongoing.  It is definitely NOT limited to Notre Dame as the balance of our Posts have shown. Please stay with us as we expose those schools that need to be eliminated from the realm of "Catholic", even when it's in name only.
 
Jesus Is Lord!
 
Tim M 

ND, Ms.Martino And Abortion: A Letter From Dr. Boland

This is a letter regarding the Notre Dame Board and their activity concerning Ms. Martino and Emily's list.  Read this carefully and I hope the links provided will work as they are an integral part of the letter.  This is but one more nail in the "Catholic" coffin of Notre Dame.

Jesus Is Lord!
Tim M

Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 19:08:04 -0700
From: bolandparke@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Teen abortion support w/o parental knowledge: A page from a group supported by Ms Martino

To Interested Pro-Life Persons in regard to the Martino Issue at Notre Dame:
 
There is no question about the sole pro-choice purpose of Emily's List. Their web site is abundantly clear in its pro-choice advocacy.
 
However, out of nagging curiosity (admittedly, not always the best of motives, but in this case, justifiable) I checked to see exactly what sort of pro-choice activities are also endorsed and produced by the Personal PAC to which Ms Martino is reported to have made significant financial contributions.
 
It is this PAC about which Ms. Martino, Fr. Jenkins, Chairman Notebaert and other University Fellows claim no knowledge whatever and were apparently surprised to learn of its work.
 
What I found on that PAC's web site was a stunning amount of clearly stated pro-abortion material which University leadership seeks to dismiss with a single sentence.
 
I here submit only one page of that PAC:  http://www.ilbypasscoordinationproject.org/
 
This Personal PAC clearly and openly promulgates its primary purpose with utmost clarity:  to militantly promote abortion. It even seeks to reassure teenagers that abortion without parental knowledge or consent is available in Illinois, as the link demonstrates.
 
One always tries to keep a fair and open mind, to believe that University leadership is sincere in its protestations of ignorance regarding Ms Martino's contribution to a pro-choice (is that not a way of saying pro-abortion?) organization and her support of this pro-abortion political action committee as well.
 
Upon visiting the web site of that political action committee, one's fairness and open mindedness are sorely tested, one's confidence in the reliability of University leadership shaken to the core.
 
Upon viewing that political action committee's pro-abortion web site, one comes to the conclusion that it is fair to wonder if Ms Martino and her defenders among University leadership  -- i.e., Fr. Jenkins,, Mr. Notebaert, other University Fellows and Trustees -- are truly aware of the fundamental moral reality of our time, abortion, and of the moral position of the Catholic Church about the grave evil of abortion.
 
Do they deliberately choose not to see what is evident to any who will but look? 
 
Given the gravity of the moral issues, one wonders why University leadership finds it so difficult to prioritize the simple act of selecting and embracing truly pro-life Catholics as representatives to its governance body? Are there so few prominent pro-life Catholics capable of stepping up and guiding the University on a truly Catholic path to research acclaim?
 
Finally, one cannot also help but wonder how far these persons in leadership intend to go and how long the leadership of the Congregation of Holy Cross intends to silently acquiesce?
  
 
Daniel M. Boland, PhD

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

"Gay Marriage?" And Governor Cumo. Where Are Our "Bishops"?

Normally, we don't get into political camps with this Blog unless it directly relates to a school or religious group we are profiling, but this situation warrants a statement from True Catholics who believe our "Bishops" have failed their Mission. We alluded to this problem, no actually STATED this problem in a previous post. ( here )Now, though, the silence has been deafening. 

I guess Governor Cumo of New York is right at home as a "Gay Divorcee".  After all, being "Catholic" gives him the knowledge of what it's like to be on the short side of the rope...oh...no, that's not right.  He's in FAVOR of "Gay Marriage" and is trying to twist the arms of those who are against it to make it legal in New York State.  Forget the fact that as a "Catholic" he is supposed to be a moral person, not someone in favor of Sodomy and unnatural sexual perversions as listed in 'The Bible'.  But then again, he really isn't a Catholic as he doesn't believe he's living in a state of Sin, (oh, that nasty word!) when living with a woman to whom he is not married and favoring the killing of the unborn as a "choice".  And Mayor Bloomberg...we wonder where he would be if his mother had decided Abortion was the better alternative and had exercised her "choice"?

I'm still waiting for the Archbishop of New York to weigh in on this...not a word.  Bishop Hubbard...not a word.  Had lunch with the Gov lately guys?  Still believe it's OK to give him The Body and Blood Of Christ in The Eucharist, or is that Blasphemy?  Has anyone ever asked about the second thief that was crucified with Jesus?  Any idea what happened to him? Anyone remember what he said to Jesus?  Everyone knows the 'good thief'...just a little food for thought.  Michael Voris sums it up when he says the Bishops are only doing a 9-5 job...they are no longer "Real Catholics".  We totally agree, at least where these are concerned. And we were dumb enough to think that Archbishop Dolan as President of the USCCB was a good idea. Guess we got snookered, huh? 

Do your job as "Catholic Leaders" if that's what you are, (doubtful) and get the lead out of your A-- and say something to defend the Institution of Marriage created by God or ask the Pope to replace you with someone with Backbone.  Someone who is truly Catholic.  We're getting tired of non-Catholic "Bishops" trying to masquerade as Catholics. Your "Choice".

Jesus Is Lord!
Tim M

Thursday, June 2, 2011

Notre Dame And Emily's List , Part 3

In order to post both letters, they had to be split into two different posts and are now available for your enlightenment.  Please comment as you feel is appropriate.  He is trying to be respectful.  I, on the other hand, don't have to be as respectful.  Those of you who normally read this Blog know that we are at times, very blunt.  Thank you for reading us.
Jesus Is Lord!

Tim M


May 23, 2011

Most Rev.  Daniel Jenky, CSC


Diocese of Peoria



Peoria, IL  61603
 
My Dear Bishop Jenky:
With countless Notre Dame alumni and friends, I have watched for four decades as the Catholic tenor, vitality and credibility of the University have slowly but surely diminished. Over the years, I have expressed my concerns in writing to various CSCs, to no avail.  Like many others, my affection for Holy Cross has been life-long  but my heart is now sore-tested, my trust exhausted by the inexplicable silences (with one exception) of so many members of Holy Cross in the face of morally precarious decisions by the University Fellows and the Jenkins Administration. Doubts are brought to a breaking point by the appointment by the Fellows of Ms. Martino, a supporter of abortion agencies, as a Trustee.
Many persons’ lives have been profoundly bettered by our associations with the University and the Congregation. Many of us have nurtured a spirit of fraternal respect, but now find it most difficult to believe in the leadership of the Holy Cross Fathers. A deeply troubling list of decisions by the Fellows leads us to conclude that ND is very close to being a fully secularized institution (with a Newman Club called Campus Ministry). To many of us, the loss of ND’s once-prophetic identity and mission falls squarely on the shoulders of Holy Cross Priests who serve (and have served) as University Fellows.
The Obama Incident was (or so we thought) a morally critical turning point in the credibility of  CSC leadership at ND, but the appointment of Ms Martino heightens the stakes even more. It is inexplicable that the CSC Fellows – five priests and a bishop -- could possibly support the lay Fellows in this latest decision to bestow such influence on anyone who backs abortion. This is a morally astounding, morally inexplicable decision. To faithful Catholics who value ND and comprehend the profoundly evil act which defines abortion, this is an incredible insult to the Mens Ecclesiae, to the Magisterium and to Our Lady and Her history with the University -- yet there it is, with the approval of clergy.
Profound moral wonderment demands that one ask:  How in God’s name could such a decision be made at a Catholic institution and approved of by Catholic priests and a bishop? How could this happen -- unless we have finally arrived at the point in ND’s history (as many believe) that the word “Catholic” is now a meaningless and cynical appendage, useful only for public relations and fund-raising purposes?
One cannot help but wonder if the Fellows -– clergy and lay -- are now so thoroughly hardened by the pursuit of academic celebrity, political correctness and world class research status that, as the Faculty Senate urged two years ago, the University no longer regards the University’s Catholicism as a priority when its academic status can be improved. Have the Fellows’ ambitions finally stifled fidelity?
I intend no undue disrespect to you or to your CSC confreres, good men all, I am sure. Nonetheless, a grave moral question lingers, a question about responsibility and accountability which you and other Holy Cross Fellows cannot escape and should answer: How can intelligent Holy Cross Priests possibly cooperate and concur in decisions which strike at the core of ND’s Catholicity?
The origins of ND’s secularization originate in the Land O’Lakes Statement of radical separation which was spearheaded by Fr. Hesburgh and signed by CSC’s leaders (including Frs. Kenna and Lalonde). Now, 45 years later, we see clearly the dispiriting outcomes of that unilateral separation of ND from its ecclesial roots. We have witnessed decades of the slow, but inexorable, ascendance of secular academic freedom and political correctness, while the Faith has been marginalized. We have seen the arrivals of new faculty and new Trustees, many of whom bring academic repute and business acumen but little or no knowledge of (and certainly no affection for or passionate commitment to) ND’s finest Catholic moral and intellectual traditions; no affinity with, nor priority for, fundamental First Principles. For years, we watched University leadership deliberately distance itself from the Magisterium (from your own brother bishops) with nonchalance and benignly-worded disdain. We note a distinctly diminished public regard for Catholic ideals and sensibilities, along with a distressing absence of visible respect for, and zealous commitment to, the Mens Ecclesiae.  
Years of willing compromise seem to have resulted in the loss of moral influence by Holy Cross. The secularist mentality which now dominates the Fellows’ decision-making has brought us to the point at which Catholic beliefs are discounted, for example, by virtue of academic freedom which inspires a moral theology professor to openly defend abortion, without a single clarifying comment or a reiteration of Catholic principles from anyone in authority. Many similar events reveal ND’s waning Catholic status and raise disturbing questions about ND’s reported failure to impart a solid Catholic education to undergraduates. These and other serious issues have, slowly but surely, given birth to grave doubts and deep wonderment in the minds and hearts of very many persons who once placed unquestioned trust and confidence in Holy Cross leadership. We now realize how far things have truly gone, and we recognize that our hopes of a resurgence of vibrant and exemplary Catholic leadership at Notre Dame seem fruitless. The appointment of Ms. Martino bespeaks this entire sorry situation and underscores the absence of sensitivity to Catholic fundamentals which now characterizes ND’s leadership caste.
Nothing more I say can here will add clarification to the dangers which the University and its leadership (and, in the opinion of many, the Church) now face. The issues are clear or they are not, the solution equally so.  
May God keep us and help us, one and all.
Respectfully,
 Daniel M. Boland


Daniel M. Boland, PhD

Notre Dame And Emily's List, Part 2

One of the major groups to attempt to maintain the "Catholic Identity" of Notre Dame is The Sycamore Group.
One of the more distinguished leaders of this organization is Daniel Boland, Ph.D. He has responded to the situation at Notre Dame and has asked if I would print his responses.  Without a moments hesitation...the following are two letters to very important people at Notre Dame with direct access to the meat of the problem.  The first on this post and the second on the following  post.

Please let us know your thoughts on Dr. Boland's comments.

Jesus Is Lord!

Tim M


May 23, 2011

Fr.  John  Jenkins

University President
Notre Dame, IN 46556

 
 
My Dear Fr. Jenkins:
I write to you with reluctance tempered by the desire to preserve the virtue of charity in what follows, and with the intention not to offend by exaggeration or excess … but there is an adage floating about these days which addresses the idea of speaking truth to power. So, with candor, write I must.  
I hope you will accept that I write with good will. Despite differences in our moral vision about what is the best Catholic course for Notre Dame, I have always assumed you have acted in good will, according to your sincere insights about what is best for the moral and spiritual, as well as academic, benefit of the University (although I not convinced this is true of all University Fellows). There are a number of decisions over the years I might address, but I will confine my comments to pro-life issues.
With countless Notre Dame Alumni, I have watched for four decades as the Catholic tenor, vitality and credibility of University leadership have slowly but surely diminished. For years, I have stated my concerns in writing to various CSCs, to no avail. Like many others, my affection for Holy Cross has been life-long, but in recent years my loyalty has been sore-tested, my trust in the wisdom of CSC leadership exhausted by the morally precarious decisions made by your Administration.
Doubts and apprehensions about the Catholic stewardship of the University Fellows are brought to a breaking point by the your appointment of Ms. Roxanne Martino as a University Trustee and, worse, by the reasons (some say lame excuses) you and Mr. Notebaert employ to defend her long-term financial support of pro-abortion agencies, and your willingness to include her in Notre Dame’s leadership class.
One once hoped that it would be self-evident to you, to Mr. Notebaert and to the Fellows that authentic Catholic leaders never approvingly invite pro-abortion supporters to share governance of their institutions, even in an advisory capacity, even if the pro-abortion person possesses financial expertise. One readily asks: Are there no faithful, serious pro-life Catholics who possess similar expertise? Does academic freedom, secular notoriety and politically correct inclusion demand that you embrace moral equivalence, eliminate fundamental Catholic standards for leaders and allow anyone with financial standing and/or political visibility to act in a leadership role for Our Lady’s University?
It seems unnecessary to say that every mature and faithful Catholic can comprehend the profound evil which defines abortion. For you and the Fellows to celebrate persons who actively support abortion and its agents is to court grave evil. To Christian people who recognize abortion for what it is, the Martino decision is yet another morally precarious dalliance, nay, an outright rejection by you and the Fellows of your responsibility to uphold fundamental Catholic moral principle. It is an insult to the moral beliefs of the Church, to the Mens Ecclesiae, to the Magisterium and an insult to Our Lady’s heritage at Notre Dame. Indeed, the very idea of the University Fellows welcoming abortion supporters, rewarding them with a variety of favors and openly celebrating, responding to and soliciting their influence should be anathema to you.
It is deeply disturbing –  and sadly revealing -- that you and the Fellows even need to be reminded.
The Obama Incident was (or so countless people thought) a critical turning point in the decline of the moral credibility of the Fellows and of CSC leadership at ND. It was additionally disheartening – and needlessly provocative – of you to publicly reaffirm (after your appearance in the March for Life) that you would repeat the Obama episode, even as evidence of Mr. Obama’s pro-abortion policies is made even more clear (in this regard, many have wondered about the nature and frequency of the University’s “dialogue” with Mr. Obama, one explanation you used for awarding him University honors).
Though you claim pro-life allegiance, we were even further confused by your adamantine insistence -- for two years -- that the ND88 pro-life protestors be prosecuted (while you chose to exempt pro-abortion, gay rights and anti-military demonstrators), as if prosecuting the ND88 would somehow, as you indicated, add to the stability and tranquility of University life.
When legal settlement was finally reached with the ND88, we were yet again surprised by your comment that you were on the same side as the demonstrators all the while, a statement which, be assured, tests the limits of credulity of a great many interested observers.
And, yet again, in what seems further contradiction to your pro-life claims, you now choose to appoint Ms. Martino, an action which heightens the moral stakes even more. One can be forgiven for re-stating the obvious principle that a pattern of decisions speaks far more convincingly than words.
It is inexplicable that CSC Fellows – five priests and a bishop -- could possibly support this latest decision to bestow influence and recognition on someone who, for many years and with significant sums, repeatedly chooses to support agencies which promote pro-abortion politicians. This is a morally astounding, morally inexplicable decision, a decision made worse by the reasons offered by you and Mr. Notebaert, reasons (some again might say empty excuses) which seem to proceed on the assumption that your target audience is bereft of intelligence and lacking in fundamental common sense. Or, one might ask, is it Ms. Martino who is thus afflicted, given the many years of her studiously uninformed distributions of thousands of her dollars to assist pro-abortion politicians into power.
Furthermore, as I read the reasons you and Mr. Notebaert provide, I cannot help but ask: What "wide range of important services and support to women" does Emily's List provide in its drive to elect pro-abortion politicians? How are your or ND’s pro-life credentials affirmed by Ms. Martino’s appointment? Perhaps the most direct way to phrase the matter is this:
What has happened to the Administration’s basic respect for the Catholic Church’s inspired ideal of giving sturdy moral example both to individuals and to American culture by demonstrating unwavering respect for life from conception to natural death? Why do you and the Fellows, including your brother priests, find it increasingly necessary to make unseemly compromises with pro-life Catholic principles? Why do you dance around the fact that Notre Dame should be the first to defend and the last to diminish pro-life values, the first to vigorously and vocally defend life, the last to celebrate and reward life’s enemies? Whatever your intentions, are you unaware of the consequences of your actions, unhearing of the messages you send? How far on this slippery slope will you go?
Fr. Jenkins, it would be ever so refreshingly honest and far more deserving of respect if you, Mr. Notebaert and other University Fellows would simply “Man Up” and admit one of two truths:
1) We made a serious but avoidable mistake in our vetting of this candidate. We now intend to make it right and uphold Catholic pro-life priorities by asking her to withdraw;
2) We do not care that Ms. Martino is a significant financial supporter of abortion-promoting organizations. So what? We run the University; we make the decisions and we compromise as we wish. We are accountable to no one. The conflict between pro-life principles and pro-abortion principles does not matter to us. It is only a political issue; we are unconcerned about the moral content and nuance of our actions. Furthermore, outside criticisms and challenges are not welcome and will not be answered.
So, after years of troubling, morally precarious decisions, bewildering actions and the decrease of evidence to the contrary, especially the cumulative impact of these pro-life contradictions,  many people are finally -- sadly but finally -- driven to conclude that your priorities and the priorities of the University Fellows are now fully focused on the academic and financial advancement of the University. Despite your claims to value the Church’s pro-life principles, your actions convincingly say otherwise; we are at last persuaded that upholding these fundamental pro-life principles of Faith and Nature is no longer a priority for the Fellows and, consequently, for the University.
One cannot help but be further convinced that the Fellows -– clergy and lay -- are now thoroughly and primarily enamored of the pursuit of academic celebrity, political correctness and world class research status. It is as the Faculty Senate urged two years ago when they recommended that the Administration and Fellows no longer regard the University’s Catholicism as a priority over its academic status.
One may be excused for concluding that we have finally arrived at the point in ND’s history (as many now believe) at which the word “Catholic” seems to have become an empty, even cynical, appendage, useful mainly for public relations and fund-raising purposes.  
Finally, I shall continue to add still further prayers for you and your colleagues. May God keep us and help us, one and all. May God help you choose what is best for the unborn and may He grant you and the Fellows the wisdom both to see the consequences of your actions and to use for His Will the extraordinary power you hold.
Sincerely,
 
 
Daniel M. Boland, Class of 1956



Daniel M. Boland, PhD
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Notre Dame And Emily's List

For those of you that don't know, "Emily's List is the Pro-Abortion Political action group whose only purpose is to bankroll pro-abortion politicians.  An example of their supporting work.


  The latest Board member of the Governing Board of Notre Dame, Roxanne Martino, is a long time contributor to Emily's List.  Here is the Article from WILLIAM McGURN .  He now writes “Main Street” at the Wall Street Journal and is an Alumni of ND.


Notre Dame and Emily’s List

 
by WILLIAM McGURN 06/01/2011 
"During the firestorm that followed the University of Notre Dame’s decision to honor President Barack Obama two commencements ago, the university’s president, Father John Jenkins, wrote a letter to the Class of 2009 explaining his position. He stated his sadness that the honors bestowed on Obama had been taken as “ambiguity in our position on matters of Catholic teaching.” Notre Dame, he asserted, “was unequivocally committed to the sanctity of human life and to its protection from conception to natural death.”
 
Remember those words: “unequivocally committed” with no “ambiguity in our position.” How are these words reconciled with the university’s announcement that Roxanne Martino has been elected to the board of trustees? For it turns out that Martino, an accomplished businesswoman and ND alumna, has given more than $25,000 over the years to Emily’s List.
 
Emily’s List is not just any group. The New York Times recently called it a “fundraising powerhouse.” Arguably, it is one of America’s best known and most prominent political organizations in the country. And it is dedicated to abortion rights.
 
What was Notre Dame’s response? The chairman of the university’s board of trustees, Richard Notebaert, sent out an email to fellow trustees, saying that Martino is “fully supportive of Church teaching on the sanctity of human life.”
 
Notebaert went on to say that Martino “has through the years contributed to organizations that provide a wide range of important services and support to women. She did not realize, however, that several of these organizations also take a pro-choice position.”
 
He’s not the only one putting that line out there. Now Father Jenkins has chimed in, sending some concerned alumni an email from “the Office of the President” that is almost word for word the same as Notebaert’s. One forwarded to me reads as follows:
 
“Ms. Martino (along with her husband, Rocco) is a Notre Dame graduate, and she is fully supportive of Church teaching on the sanctity of life.”
 
“She has through the years contributed to organizations that provide a wide range of important services and support to women. She did not realize, however, that several of these organizations also take a pro-choice position. This is not her personal position, and she will now review all of her contributions to ensure that she does not again inadvertently support these kinds of activities in the future.”
 
Father Jenkins has two big problems here. The first is his declaration that Martino was unaware that the organizations she donated thousands of dollars to “also” take a pro-choice view, in addition to providing a wide range of “important services and support to women.”
 
When asked to provide backup for that statement — e.g., an example of a service that Emily’s List provides in addition to its agitation for abortion— Notre Dame’s communications office forwarded me an answer from Notebaert. In it, he reasserted that Martino supports Church policy, that she was “unaware of the specific objective of Emily’s List,” and that his and Father Jenkins’ statements about other “important services” for women applied to a group, and did not apply to Emily’s List. That admission, of course, suggests that his and Father Jenkins’ earlier notes were highly misleading — and deserving of a similar clarification.
 
For as Notebaert’s message confirms, Emily’s List exists for one reason and one reason only. Click the home page of its website, and it asks you in big capital letters — some in red — to “HELP US ELECT PRO-CHOICE DEMOCRATIC WOMEN.”
 
If you continue onto the “What We Do” section inside the website, it goes on to say, “We’re a full-service political team with a simple mission: to elect pro-choice Democratic women.” Let’s underscore those words: simple mission. Let’s just say Emily’s List is admirably clear about what it does, and leaves no room for ambiguity.
 
Let’s say, however, that, nevertheless, Martino was, as Father Jenkins and Notebaert tell us, shocked, shocked to learn that Emily’s List had anything to do with abortion (which would make her one of the most unaware people in America). Is this a person whose judgment you want on a board of trustees? According to FEC (Federal Election Commission) records, Martino has given the group more than $27,000 starting in 1998 — with her most recent contribution of $5,000 in December.
 
At this point, the question of judgment goes far beyond Martino. What does it say about Notre Dame’s chairman of the board and its priest-president that they would send out the dissembling emails they have? And what does it say about the continued presence on this board of Bishop Daniel Jenky, a Holy Cross priest who is also bishop of Peoria, Ill.? He is the only bishop on the board.
 
When asked whether he worried that when bishops remain on the boards of Catholic institutions that are all too willing to flout the bishops’ teaching, they might be undermining their own authority and credibility, Bishop Jenky declined to comment.
 
In their 1998 statement “Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics,” the U.S. Catholic bishops contrasted Sir Thomas More with American politicians today who “safely keep their heads.” It’s a fair point. Let me, a layman, add, however, that we surely would have more Thomas Mores if we had more Bishop John Fishers.
 
In many ways, after all, the Martino situation is worse than the Obama invitation. President Obama was at least not a Catholic — and was not being invited into the governing authority of the university. Nor was there the kind of bald attempt to rewrite facts that we have here, in an effort to fudge the clear and unambiguous message sent by Martino’s long and considerable material contributions to a pro-choice America.
 
Plainly, Father Jenkins and Chairman Notebaert are calculating that the Notre Dame trustees and the larger Notre Dame community are either too unaware or too apathetic to see through the spin. Of course, these are same people who didn’t anticipate the enormous reaction to the Obama honors.

Comments are welcome here at Non-Faithful Catholic Schools.  
 
Jesus Is Lord!
 
Tim M