Sunday, March 18, 2012

FR. JENKINS...IT'S TIME TO BE A "CATHOLIC PRIEST"!!!

The following is a letter from Dr. Dan Boland, printed here with his permission, to a "so-called" Catholic Priest who is the president of Notre Dame University. (No Caps on president for a reason).  Contact Fr. Jenkins and make him do his duty...and to Fr. Jenkins, a word of caution...Jesus has said "To those to whom much is given, much will be expected."  I don't want to be there when you have to account for your actions.

Jesus Is Lord!
Tim M


17 March 2012
 
Personal Letter to Rev. John Jenkins, CSC
President, University of Notre Dame
 
My Dear Fr. Jenkins:
 
As we all know, the HHS Mandates released several weeks ago by the Obama Administration seek to marginalize the legal freedoms and moral principles of our beloved Church. In unparalleled fashion, Mr. Obama also seeks to facilitate the schism which has rent the American Catholic community in two. But it gets worse.
 
Today (March 17) we learn that an additional moral challenge has been thrust upon us by the Obama Administration. The Health and Human Services Department has added the further demand that college student health care plans will be treated like employees’ plans — making them subject to the same mandate the Obama administration put in place that has upset pro-life groups for its violation of religious liberties and fundamental Catholic morality. Now Notre Dame must also include our undergraduates.
 
I have written you before, but I am prompted to do so again. With many others, I have already asked you to come forward and speak as a Catholic priest and as President of our University. I have before urged you to add your voice and influence to the chorus of faithful Bishops, priests, religious and laity which has arisen in a unified defense of the Church's God-given, Constitutionally-guaranteed right to moral self-definition and to the free exercise of our Catholic religion.
 
Incidentally, when I say "our Catholic religion," I refer to the Catholic religion as defined by the Magisterium of the Church -- the Catholic Bishops in union with our Holy Father. I do not include persons whose disdain for fundamental Catholic theology is apparent; e.g. persons such as Notre Dame faculty member Dr. Gary Guttman, whose contempt for the hierarchy and Church tradition is simply stunning.
 
Several weeks ago, I did receive a computerized response from your office, the same response you sent to many others. Rather than address the grave issues we Catholics now face, your response avoided the issues. It merely reminded us that you had been briefly praised by Cardinal Dolan. The response attempted to inflate the Cardinal's comment into an indication that your leadership was vigorous, timely and forthright. But this distasteful stretch of the Cardinal's words served only as an embarrassment to you and to the University, adding further emphases to the fact that your defense of the Church was barely discernible. Since then, the American Church has heard nothing from you.
 
That computerized response added no luster to you or to the University. It did not stamp you as an involved and dedicated leader with uncompromising fortitude and timely courage. It was not the action of a moral exemplar whose first priority is for the good of the Church.
 
In fact, in light of all that has since happened, your response only underscores the additional questions of why you continue to prolong your silence, why you delay, why you avoid any statement, why you refuse to act.
 
All Catholics are now compelled to confront the present crises which Mr. Obama has ignited. As we do so, we must always be aware that the aggressive confrontation which Mr. Obama has chosen is a delicate and dangerous form of human interaction. As we respond, we Catholics (unlike our enemies) must choose to walk a cautious line between fact and emotion, between fairness and excess, between reasoned expression of principle and careless, rash judgment, between moral tradition and secular expediency, between the demands of Christian virtue and the crass, unprincipled tactics of morally indifferent politicians such as Mr. Obama who possesses great power and influence.
 
We Catholics must walk that delicate line between Charity and prudence on the one hand, and the demands of truth and rational evidence on the other. We are called upon to be leaven within a culture of death led by Mr. Obama and his followers who are dedicated to preventing and destroying life and exploiting the unborn even in the form of embryonic stem cell research.
 
We Catholics are, at times, inspired -- even required -- to stand up in public for our moral values and to articulate clearly those principles which our enemies despise and are doing their best to eradicate. That is what our Faith now requires of us all, laity and clergy. Nothing has ever been as clear as is this challenge to us all.
 
So, once again I ask that you finally step forward as befits the President of the most prominent Catholic institution in America.
 
Your prolonged silence in this and other prominent instances stands in stark and worrisome contrast to the unqualified, pro-abortion statements made by several Notre Dame faculty members.
 
We who respect the Catholic Faith and the University's historic Catholic traditions cannot but be deeply concerned that pro-abortion statements have been made by several Notre Dame faculty members. Academic freedom is a valid consideration, to be sure, but even academic freedom is not without its proper limits. It is commonly agreed that academic freedom should allow a professor (or student) to speak only within the recognized limits of her/his professional expertise. Academic freedom is not -- not -- a license to attack an opponent at will or permission to make outrageous comments which strike at the heart of an organization's fundamental principles. Academic freedom does not preclude a response from those whose ethical values or moral beliefs are thus disparaged, such as a response from you or your spokesperson.
 
These outspoken pro-abortion Notre Dame faculty persons have expressed their support for abortion and their gratuitous disdain for the Magisterium. They have done so time and again without a single word from you or from members of your Administration. This customary silence on your part offends even the most liberal understanding of academic freedom and even suggests your official indifference to blatant moral insults to the Church -- but there is more.
 
We also recall your firm opposition to the pro-life actions of the ND88. We recall your support -- for more than two years -- for the prosecution of these pro-life persons, and we recall misleading comments made by University spokespersons in an attempt to exonerate other demonstrators.
 
We recall your energetic but utterly confounding defense of an appointee to the University's Board of Trustees when her financial support for several pro-abortion agencies was discovered. We recall the swift and generous defense of this appointment which was also promulgated by Mr. Richard Notebaert, Chairman of the University Fellows. You and Mr. Notebaert were quick to officially defend this person but did not extend the same concern to the morally-admirable pro-life actions of the ND88.
 
One cannot help but wonder what priorities do indeed take precedent.
 
We further recall your adulation of Mr. Obama when you awarded him an honorary Doctorate. We recall your recurring statement (inexplicably repeated several times over the past two years) that you would again grant Mr. Obama the same honor; this, despite what you now know of his aggressive pro-abortion, anti-Catholic behavior.
 
Many people are caught in nagging wonderment as to why you would proceed with such energy in areas involving the defense of -- or, worse, the open celebration of -- pro-abortion politicians, spokespersons, lawmakers, faculty members and donors whilst hesitating for so long to speak in proud unity with Catholics who defend the Church and the unborn (including those who defend the moral rights of embryonic stem cells).
 
Finally, I recognize that as I discuss these issues, my comments may strike some people as "judgmental." Being judgmental in this time of secularist political correctness has become taboo (although one would certainly not think so by the anti-magisterial/pro-abortion comments of faculty persons such as Dr. Guttman). Indeed, one often hears the politically correct dictum that one is not supposed to say anything judgmental.
 
I believe this dictum is both logically inane and morally absurd, especially for a believing and informed Catholic. This dictum attempts to deny -- even stigmatize -- the fact that the ability and the responsibility to make proper and informed moral judgments are incumbent on every intelligent Catholic. We are blessed with the intellectual power to discern good from evil and sin from virtue, to determine what is moral from what is immoral. We are required to define right from wrong. We are urged by the Gospel to offer our neighbor the grace of fraternal correction. We are commanded to offer one another encouragement to timely and proper moral action.
 
Sometimes making and articulating such judgments is an awkward process; human beings are involved, human dignity is at stake. At the same instant, it is morally untenable that we should look away when evidence insists that we should speak. It is good to risk offending another person -- especially recalcitrant and resolved evildoers -- when a Higher Good is involved. Prudence should not becloud responsibility nor temperance rationalize denial.
 
Moreover, obvious facts (even unpleasant ones) and reasoned conclusions are responsibilities of the morally involved Catholic. Standing up for our Faith does not allow passivity or appeasement, dalliance or equivocation.
 
There are times when keeping the peace is less charitable, less just, less important than moving the Church to militant action. Now is such a time.
 
There are times when moral principles are so clear that we must -- we simply must -- act as moral exemplars. Now is such a time.
 
There is a point beyond which even Charity no longer allows us to remain silent, tolerant or passive. Now is such a time.
 
Indeed, there are times when Charity demands that we speak with conviction and without hesitation. Now is such a time.
 
When we are pushed beyond the margins of human law and the demands of divine law, then morality and sound reason require action, lest we slip into collusion by omission and avoidance. After a certain period, reasonable tolerance and charitable restraint become destructive if we who know better still remain silent.
 
Now is surely such a time.
 
Many Catholic leaders -- even Catholic teenagers and many Notre Dame faculty and students -- openly speak in unison against the Obama Administration's attempts to neuter and overwhelm the Church. Your continued silence and unseemly absence from the public forum now reflect ungracious timidity, not timely commitment. Your hesitation suggests you are unwilling to exert the power and influence of your office as President of a great University. It is as if you deliberately resist the prophetic responsibility which your office as President of Notre Dame thrusts upon you.
 
With prayerful urgency, I call upon you one last time: wait no longer. Come forward. Now is the appointed time.
 
Daniel M. Boland, PhD
ND Class of 1956

 

Thursday, March 15, 2012

"Fr. Jenkins: Please do your duty" FROM DR. DAN BOLAND, Ph.D

The following is an e-mail I received from Dr. Boland.  I think it deserves to go up because it hits the nail on the head as to the attitude of so-called "Catholic Colleges".  Notre Dame is fast becoming of little relevance as the following statement proves:  In it's entirety:

From: "Daniel Boland, Ph.D." <bolandparke@sbcglobal.net>
Date: March 6, 2012 3:33:25 PM EST
To: Office of the President <prelect@nd.edu>
Subject: Fr. Jenkins: Please do your duty


To Notre Dame Spokespersons:
 
We are all aware of Cardinal Dolan's florid reference to Fr. Jenkins's moment of tactful diplomacy. One would wish to find some pride in this, some element of worthy achievement or celebratory clarity which resounds to the betterment of the Church. But the significance of that brief, solitary and vastly over-hyped moment is unworthily over-played by Notre Dame's off-target PR machine. Stop it.
 
Your use of that now-past moment as a cue for applause about Fr. Jenkins's leadership vigor is but crumbs to a hungry Catholic populace; a populace who look for authentic leaders who exemplify uncompromised fortitude and timely courage. These traits are hardly exemplified by Fr. Jenkins's further delays and lack of action.
 
Indeed, as multiple Catholic leaders -- clergy and laity, even Catholic teenagers -- stand and speak in unison to address the folly of the Obama Administration's attempts to neuter and overwhelm the Church, Fr. Jenkins's prolonged and, truth be added, astonishing silence speaks volumes of the worst sort. He is notable by his unseemly absence. Timidity, not commitment, leaps from the brevity of his few paltry comments. His excessive hesitation suggests that he still does not comprehend the power and influence he possesses as President of the University. It is as if he deliberately hides from the prophetic responsibility which his office as President of Notre Dame thrusts upon him.
 
Does he wait for permission to speak? If so, from whom? If not, let him speak "in his own voice." as the Notre Dame press release puts it (one wonders what other voice he might use?).
 
His prolonged silence -- and the silence of the University Fellows and the Board of Trustees -- brings no honor to our University, nor to any of them. Let Fr. Jenkins finally take action now. Let him at least become a worthy follower of more zealous and upstanding Catholic leaders, lest he heighten the distinct impression that Notre Dame's Fellows and Trustees (both clerical and lay) are increasingly irrelevant, willfully useless to their Church in this time of crisis. Fr. Jenkins's hesitation is now excessive, and depicts him as a man in shadow. He thus diminishes the God-given charism with which Notre Dame's leaders should confront the culture of death and its callous spokespersons who threaten the freedoms of all American citizens. His timidity does disservice to Notre Dame and to all who hold our affiliation with a Catholic Notre Dame in high regard.
 
If he does not yet see this, kindly allow him to read this message and/or encourage him to action. Passivity and clearly fallow attempts at prolonging what is now a dialogue of appeasement are no longer acceptable modes of responsible Catholic leadership.
 
Kindly tell Fr. Jenkins that the time to act is now. 
 
Thank you.
 
Daniel M. Boland, PhD
 
 
Jesus Is Lord!
Tim M

Friday, March 2, 2012

Archdiocese of Washington Shows Itself To Be Non-Faithful....Again


The following from Matt Abbott is an exploration of how stupid some Bishops act and shows how little they respect the rule of the Catholic Church they are ordained to uphold.  Auxiliary Bishop Barry Knestout of the Archdiocese of Washington has stated the following in response to a letter chastising a priest for doing his duty as a Priest.  The statement from the Auxiliary Bishop...'I am sorry that what should have been a celebration of your mother's life, in light of her faith in Jesus Christ, was overshadowed by a lack of pastoral sensitivity.'

This is a direct attempt to cause this very holy Priest grief and discredit him.  Please read the article from Matt and then decide for yourselves.  This Priest is right...the Bishop is wrong.  My opinion...What's yours?

Jesus Is Lord!
Tim

This is also posted at our sister Blog.

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Faces of the American Holocaust...from...California Catholic Daily

This has been published on our companion Blog, Non-Faithful Catholics...it was too important to NOT publish it here as well.
Jesus Is Lord!
Tim
 
 
California Catholic Daily -- taken from www.calcatholic.com
Published: March 1, 2012

Faces of the American Holocaust

Who’s behind the public policies that have led to millions dead from abortion?

By R.J. Grace

When the killing of human beings becomes a pre-meditated methodical policy -- put forward as a public good -- massive slaughter results, and can be called a “holocaust.”

History puts a face on leaders who considered mass murder a political “good” -- leaders like Adolph Hitler of Germany, Mehmet Talaat of Turkey, Pol Pot of Cambodia, Mao of China and Joseph Stalin of Russia.

But what about American leaders responsible for our own ongoing holocaust: abortion? History has yet to put a face to them, but those who value the sanctity of human life are obligated to ferret them out and hold them responsible.

This is the fourth in California Catholic Daily’s ongoing series, “Faces of the American Holocaust,” in which we put faces to those behind the mass murder of innocents in the U.S.


NANCY PELOSI

Nancy Patricia Pelosi (née D’Alessandro) was born in Baltimore, Maryland, on March 26, 1940, the last child of six and the only daughter. She grew up in a Roman Catholic neighborhood and attended the Institute of Notre Dame, an all-girls Catholic high school, and Trinity College, a liberal arts Catholic college for women. Her parents were strict Catholics. In an interview with the National Catholic Reporter, Pelosi said that her mother would have loved for her to become a nun -- but she wasn’t interested. She would have rather become a priest: “I didn’t think I wanted to be a nun, but I thought I might want to be a priest because there seemed to be a little more power there, a little more discretion over what was going on in the parish.”

While working in Washington, D.C., she married a Georgetown graduate, California native Paul Frank Pelosi, whom she had met while in college. They eventually moved, along with their five children, first to New York, and then, in 1969, to San Francisco. She was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from California’s 5th (now 8th) congressional district on June 02, 1987 -- a seat she has held since.

Currently Pelosi serves as the Democratic House Minority Leader. She has a 100% approval rating from the radical pro-abortion group NARAL, and is well known for her consistently antagonistic stance against the pro-life movement. While her pro-abortion activities have intensified over the past year or two, she has a long history of fighting to defeat pro-life measures and to advance abortion as a good thing.

2012

In a Feb. 22 interview with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, Pelosi characterized opposition from religious leaders to the Obama Administration’s contraception mandate as nothing more than a group of men who oppose women’s healthcare interfering in a family’s “…important decisions [which should be made] together with their doctor, with their God.”

In a Feb. 20 speech at Texas A&M University, Pelosi made the convoluted claim that the Catholic Church has not enforced its teaching on birth control, but now wants the federal government and private insurance companies to enforce the teaching for it.

On Feb. 16, The Weekly Standard reported, in answer to a reporter’s question, “Should the Catholic Church… be required to pay for morning-after pills and birth control if they find them morally objectionable?” Pelosi replied, “Yes.”

2011

In a Nov. 17, 2011 interview with The Washington Post, Pelosi dismissed the protection of the freedom of religion guaranteed by the first amendment by referring to objections by the Catholic Church to abortion as “this conscience thing.” She adamantly opposed a bill that allowed health providers to refuse to provide abortions on conscience grounds, claiming that the measure would allow Catholic healthcare providers to “let women die on the floor.”

In February of 2011, Pelosi began a campaign to rally the public against two bills before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary Committee, H.R. 3 (No Tax Payer Funding for Abortion Act) and H.R. 358 (the Protect Life Act). She opposed the bills even though U.S. bishops expressed strong support for them.

Also in February of 2011, the House passed an amendment that prohibited the use of federal funds for Planned Parenthood. Pelosi voted against the amendment.

2010

On April 29, 2010, Pelosi was a featured speaker at the 25th anniversary celebration of the pro- abortion political action committee Emily’s List. The purpose of Emily’s List is to elect “pro-choice” women candidates to political office.

In October of 2010, the House passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Pelosi voted against it.

2009

Pelosi is the mother of five children and has five grandchildren, yet in a Jan. 25, 2009 on ABC This Week with George Stephanopolus, she made the argument that contraception and abortion stimulates the economy by reducing the number of children who will need education, healthcare and other state and federal services.


On Feb. 8, 2009, Pelosi had a meeting with San Francisco Archbishop George Niederauer to discuss her pro-abortion politics. The archbishop requested the meeting following a firestorm of criticism of Pelosi, who, describing herself as “an ardent, practicing Catholic,” told an audience of millions on a nationally televised Aug. 24, 2008 news program that Church teaching on when human life begins is unclear.

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly confirmed that the meeting took place, but noted that Pelosi was not changing her pro-abortion stance as a result.

2008

The August 2008 interview that led to the request from Pelosi’s archbishop for a private meeting was with Tom Brokaw on Meet The Press. At that time she made the claim that the doctors of the Church had been unable to determine that life begins at conception.

The same year, on Aug. 3, in an interview with Brian Lamb at CSPAN’s “Q&A” program, Pelosi was asked if her Church was giving her any difficulties about receiving communion, given that she had such a history of promoting abortion and contraception. “Not really”, she replied. “It depends on the bishop in a certain region.”

2006

Pelosi voted against the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2006, which was meant to require abortion providers who perform an abortion of a 20-week or older child to tell the mother how old the child is and obtain her signature.

2003

In June of 2003, the House passed the Partial Born Abortion Ban Act, which contained an exception in cases where it was necessary to save the life of the mother. Pelosi voted against it, but it never reached the Senate for a vote.

2002

In September of 2002, the House passed the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2002, which was to prohibit the federal government and any state or local government receiving federal funds, to discriminate against any healthcare agency that refused to administer any abortion inducing drugs or procedures. Pelosi voted against the bill.
© California Catholic Daily 2012. All Rights Reserved.

Article URL: http://calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=27db7a16-c3dd-4491-8f82-afa90ee4dc3b

 
Daniel M. Boland, PhD