Is he picking up the pace in his 'fight'?

A couple days ago, it was reported here that the self-professed "champion", "friend", and "ally" in the White House who previously assured homosexuals that he will "fight" for them recorded a 'pro-gay video message for youth'. Other recent news accounts indicate that...

* President Obama called himself a "stalwart ally of the LGBT community" and proudly boasted that he has "appointed more openly gay people to more positions in this government than any president in history"

* He apparently has a strategy for ending the military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy during the lame-duck session, despite critics' concerns regarding negative effects on military readiness and threats to religious freedom

* The self-professed 'Christian' president hinted that his position against homosexual 'marriage' may have "evolved" to support this perversion of true marriage

One may fear their 'champion' is picking up the pace in his 'fight'.

Related: The End of Freedom in America? (7/09) | Catholic teachings on homosexuality (Topic Page)

[10/28]

'Relentless March' Update

A couple recent items in the "relentless march" of homosexual activism...

* A Facebook group is reportedly organizing a demonstration whereby hundreds of homosexuals will (~ disgusting alert ~) kiss each other in front of Pope Benedict as he travels the streets of Spain next month

* The self-professed "champion", "friend", and "ally" in the White House who has assured homosexuals that he will "fight" for them has recorded a 'pro-gay video message for youth'. In the video, President Obama tells homosexual students that "with time you’re going to see that your differences are a source of pride and a source of strength" [Commentary: He sees perversion as a source of pride and strength?]

Refresher: Catholic teachings on homosexuality (Topic Page)

[10/26]

Some More News Highlights

Some more recent news highlights...

* For the second time this year, a parishioner has been murdered at a Youngstown, Ohio parish. The most recent killing was "apparently a case of mistaken identity" involving the deceased's vehicle. The victim's wife was also injured during the attack, but she is expected to survive

* Dialog with the schismatic Orthodox reportedly failed to produce a "breakthrough" concerning papal primacy

* Two teenagers have been charged in connection with damage to a Des Moines Catholic high school which occurred in August. Police have not released the suspects' names

* A week after a presidential speech omitted the word "Creator" in reference to the Declaration of Independence, President Obama once again spoke of "inalienable rights" without referencing that such rights were endowed by our Creator

* Bishop Aquila recently reminded that "Catholics in the political arena must recognize that opposition to intrinsic evils, such as abortion, euthanasia, genocide, embryonic stem-cell research and same-sex unions is always required by the faithful Catholic" and that 'Catholics' who support such evils should refrain from Holy Communion. He also reminded that such 'Catholics' will "one day stand before the judgment seat of God and give an account of themselves"

* According to an EWTN report, Archbishop Dolan recently spoke to a Los Angeles audience regarding the "intrinsic connection" between Jesus and the Church. He reminded that we cannot have Christ without his Church

* According to the Inspector General, a controversial Catholic group ('Catholic Worker') was improperly investigated by the FBI even though there was "little or no basis" for a probe. Other groups were likewise wrongly investigated

[9/28]

Fr. Jenkins Wants the ND 88 Jailed?

LifeSiteNews.com has reported on "a bizarre personal encounter" between an attorney and Fr. Jenkins regarding the ND 88. The site recounts a conversation between the two:

"When I said to you, Fr. Jenkins, that these defendants believe that, like [the civil rights leader] Dr. King, they did nothing wrong but were marching for civil rights and social justice for all Americans, born and unborn, you responded, 'But Dr. King served time in jail.'"

Could this mean the self-avowed "pro-life" Fr. Jenkins actually wants jail time for the peaceful pro-life protesters?

Related: Threats to Life: Abortion

[2/9]

Fr. Jenkins would do it again

Despite the scandal, public protests, graduates' boycotts, criticism from bishops, and the flagrant disregard for the 2004 USCCB statement ("The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions"), Fr. Jenkins has told an interviewer that he would do it all again. The Notre Dame president - who has refused to seek leniency for pro-lifers who were arrested while peacefully protesting on his campus - said that if he had it to do all over again, he would again invite pro-abortion President Obama to speak at commencement and would again award him an honorary law degree. Regarding the pro-homosexual, pro-abortion President, Fr. Jenkins says "It was an honor for us to welcome him to campus." Too bad he wasn't so "honored" by the presence of the pro-lifers (including an elderly priest) who were carted off to jail and still face fines and jail time for peacefully protesting the scandal on Our Lady's campus.

Note: For more regarding the ND-Obama scandal, click here and see the news archives for 2009

[12/28]

Top News of 2009

According to an annual CNS poll, the top "religious news stories" of 2009 concerned the following topics...

* healthcare reform

* "the continued effects of the recession on the U.S. and global economy"

* the Obama-Notre Dame scandal

* Pope Benedict's recent encyclical

* the Apostolic Visitation of U.S. female religious

"Top newsmakers" were...

* Pope Benedict XVI ("the clear winner this year")

* President Obama

* Ted Kennedy

* Sonia Sotomayor

* Archbishop Dolan

[12/14]

Moral Outrage (at least on some fronts)

In another blow to pro-lifers, the U.S. bishops have congratulated President Obama - "the most pro-abortion president in history" - on receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, stating that...

"In our own country, the remarkable and historic achievement of his election has changed the relationships between men and women of all races. The rich diversity of United States society is now more surely anchored in a national unity that is better able to foster the peace we all are challenged to pursue."

So because a (half) black man has been elected president we are now "more surely anchored in a national unity that is better able to foster the peace we all are challenged to pursue" - even though this man champions s*domy & the killing of the unborn? Even though he has increased international abortions and keeps pushing for more increases in abortion? Even though he rejects marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman? Even though he wants c*ntraceptives handed out to children in government-run schools?

Previously, news of the award was "greeted with appreciation at the Vatican in light of the president's demonstrated commitment to promoting peace on an international level and, in particular, in recently promoting nuclear disarmament", a reaction that caused "shock and dismay" to pro-lifers. As one anonymous pro-life leader told the LifeSiteNews.com website, "If Obama was good on international peace and nuclear disarmament but favored the killing of Jews, its not likely he would get either the Noble Peace Prize or be praised by the Vatican."

Passed over for the Nobel Peace Prize were true champions of peace with tangible accomplishments who are not - as ALL's Judie Brown notes regarding Obama - "dedicated to war in the womb". Besides, as faithful Catholics might ask, how can Obama be given any award for peace - no matter what accomplishments he might have achieved - in light of the fact that he is an unrepentant & ardent promoter of the murder of the unborn? What peace can there be when the weakest among us can be killed with impunity? Had Hitler ever made any true advancements in the name of peace - much less simple 'hopes' - could everyone look the other way regarding his barbaric slaughter of Jewish people because of these efforts (or hopes)? How can we look the other way when an even greater number of children have been killed by their own mothers through abortion? And Obama isn't against these murders, but has done much to foster and expand the killing - even using your tax dollars to do so.

Fortunately the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, was at least partially critical of the award (a 'happy surprise' given some of their recent controversial articles), stating that "Analysts have almost unanimously interpreted his selection as a way of pressuring Obama to make pacifist choices as his administration continues forward." The paper also said that Obama should "recall that in 1979 he was preceded by Mother Teresa, who had the courage to state in her acceptance speech that the harshest war with the greatest number of 'fallen' is the practice of abortion, legalized and facilitated as well by the international structures" and noted "that the selection process has become mired in being politically correct."

Unfortunately though, the paper concluded that "at the same time, as the director of the Holy See’s Press Office has stated, we cannot help but rejoice at the recognition of President Obama’s efforts at nuclear disarmament and his personal disposition towards a policy that seeks peace more than the affirmation of U.S. power in the world." Once again, it seems fair to ask if Hitler made efforts at nuclear disarmament (or simply hoped to), could everyone look the other way regarding his barbaric slaughter of Jewish people because of these efforts (or hopes) and not help but "rejoice"? Do you think they would still "rejoice" if their own parents were among those killed by him simply because he supported nuclear disarmament? What if he supported nuclear disarmament even at the very same time that he supported killing more members of their own families? Think they'd still be rejoicing? Think they couldn't "help but rejoice"? Maybe they'd give him a peace prize themselves? Would they then also consider giving Ted Bundy or Charles Manson a peace prize for some perceived good they accomplished (or hoped to achieve) in light of the murders they were also responsible for? Even if these two serial killers were big supporters of nuclear disarmament, it's extremely doubtful anyone would consider giving either of them an award for peace. But unborn babies are every bit as victimized by abortion as these killers' victims were - even more so if you consider that these infants probably never had an opportunity for baptism - so why give an award for peace to someone who supports their killing?

How is it the Vatican, the bishops, and the Vatican newspaper "cannot help but rejoice" at the news of the Peace Prize being given to a radical abortion promoter? Numerous faithful Catholics are morally outraged and want to know why their leaders are expressing "appreciation" and "rejoicing" instead of joining them in expressing moral outrage. Why waste this great teachable moment? Why not tell the world there will be no peace while society tolerates the murder of babies in the womb? Why not remind the world that true peace is not possible when we do not obey Christ? How can they feel "appreciative" and "rejoice" at the thought that this man would fight for the 'right' to kill them as well as their loved ones - and anyone else for that matter - while they were in the womb? Let's also not forget that this same 'peaceful' man voted against giving medical care to babies born alive after an 'unsuccessful' abortion. Still rejoicing?

What about the recent comments of the self-professed 'champion' of s*domites that echo his previous statements & actions. Do they still feel "appreciative" and "rejoice" at the award in light of the following recent remarks of Obama's?...

* Obama has pledged to be with the homosexuals in their "fight" (sound peaceful?), saying that "we will have moved closer to that day when no one has to be afraid to be gay in America. When no one has to fear walking down the street holding the hand of the person they love."

* Obama claims that those who oppose homosexual 'marriage' are holding "outworn arguments and old attitudes"

* Obama claims that defenders of traditional marriage "would enshrine discrimination into our Constitution" and claims that they are pushing "divisive and deceptive efforts to feed people’s lingering fears for political and ideological gain"

* Obama stated that his administration will work to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. He is also trying to get the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act passed as well as moving ahead with plans to end the military's "don't ask, don't tell policy"

* Obama told a homosexual advocacy group that they "will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman" (emphasis added)

Still rejoicing? Still think the man promotes peace? Does it bother you that he is spending your hard-earned tax dollars on new federal benefits for 'LGBT families', not to mention increased funding for abortion? Doesn’t it make you sick to think that he and his wife purposely invited "LGBT families to the White House to participate in events like the Easter Egg Roll, because we want to send a message"? Doesn't it offend you that he's doing all he can to push sinful, abhorrent homosexual unions as well as the murder of the unborn? How can a man so committed to half of only four sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance [namely: (1) willful murder (abortion), and (2) sodomy] be given an award for peace? And how can our Catholic leaders be "appreciative" of and "rejoicing" at the news? Enough rejoicing already - this is a time for lamination!

"'Peace, peace!' they say, though there is no peace. They are odious; they have done abominable things, yet they are not at all ashamed, they know not how to blush. Hence they shall be among those who fall; in their time of punishment they shall go down, says the LORD." (Jer. 6:14-15)

"We remember saying that...as long as individuals and states refused to submit to the rule of Our Savior, there would be no really hopeful prospect of a lasting peace among nations." (Pope Pius XI)

[Related: The End of Freedom in America?]

[10/12]

What's Next for L'Osservatore Romano - Praise for Satan himself?

A sampling of some of our recent news links highlights an alarming problem with the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano. For example, consider these recent items:

* Unbelievable: Vatican newspaper gives mixed review to 'Angels and Demons' film; Calls anti-Catholic movie "gripping", with "splendid" camera work, and "dynamic and alluring" direction [5/6]

* Most "pro-abortion president in history" is not pro-abortion according to editor of Vatican newspaper [5/21] [previous news brief here]

* Vatican newspaper stirs it up again: Recently deceased "pop music legend" who was not known for promoting Christian values is praised by L'Osservatore Romano [6/27]

* Here we go again: Vatican newspaper praises arch-heretic John Calvin; Calls him "extraordinary" and a "Christian" [7/3] [Reality checks: (1) Heresy costs souls (click here for more information), and (2) Protestants are not rightly called Christian ("The very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the apostles and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded, and if anyone departs from this, he neither is, nor any longer ought to be called, a Christian." - St. Athanasius, Doctor of the Church]

* Vatican newspaper does it again: L'Osservatore Romano praises new Harry Potter film which contains witchcraft [7/14] [Reality checks: (1) "Behind Harry Potter hides the signature of the king of the darkness, the devil" (Father Gabriele Amorth, Chief Exorcist of Rome), (2) "It is good, that you enlighten people about Harry Potter, because those are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul, before it can grow properly" (Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI), (3) "Neither let there be found among you any one that shall...consulteth soothsayers, or observeth dreams and omens, neither let there be any wizard, nor charmer...For the Lord abhorreth all these things" (Deut. 18:10-12), (4) "Every form of sorcery is practiced with indirect or direct recourse to Satan" (TIA article). Also, remember that the more witchcraft is portrayed "positively", the more dangerous it is.]

What is going on over there? At this rate, it seems reasonable to fear that we'll soon see the paper publish praise for Satan himself. It's really not that much of a stretch when one considers that the publication has already lauded an anti-Catholic film, a pro-abortion president, a cr*tch-grabbing pop-star whose works include the albums "Bad" & "Dangerous", an arch-heretic, and now a film containing witchcraft. Really, at this point, such praise is but a very short step. [7/14]

The Pope's meeting with Obama: NOT another Notre Dame scandal

In various forums, people have been comparing the Pope's meeting with Obama to the Notre Dame scandal. But this comparison is fatally flawed. There is a huge difference between (1) a Catholic college causing worldwide scandal & violating a directive of the bishops (From the 2004 USCCB statement: "The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions") by inviting & conferring an honorary law degree on a pro-abortion president (who, by the way, feels the "world's most innocent & helpless persons" - the unborn - should have no legal rights whatsoever) and giving him a platform to speak to impressionable students, even in defiance of the area's bishop, and (2) the Pope agreeing to meet with Obama diplomatically as head of the U.S. without giving him an award or a public platform to speak to impressionable young persons. The former situation honors the man, the latter honors the office of the president.

And we can be fairly sure that when Obama meets with the Pope, the President won't be wearing an inscription symbolic of dedication to the Blessed Virgin Mary while affirming his radical pro-abortion stance. Also, the two of them will each be speaking - the Pope won't simply be listening to Obama's rhetoric. Further, we feel confident that elderly priests on the grounds won't be arrested and carted away for defending life along with other pro-lifers. Likewise, we hope that the Pope would dismiss the idea of "common ground" on the killing of babies as fast as he would reject the notion of finding "common ground" concerning toleration of racial prejudice. Obviously, both should be rejected outright. Furthermore, it would seem out of character that a Pope would give Obama the (embarrassingly) laudatory treatment that Notre Dame's Fr. Jenkins accorded our President. Nor will Obama walk away from his meeting with the Pope carrying an honorary degree. Finally, while the President's presence at Notre Dame was in no way obligatory, his presence in world diplomatic relations obviously is necessary. Who cannot see that there is a world of difference between these two events? Or is this just one more attempt by liberals to turn a situation to their advantage?

[7/9]

Empty words?

It's hard to ignore the irony regarding a couple of recent news items. On one hand, there is the story "House Administration Committee unanimously approves engraving National Motto 'In God We Trust' inside new Capitol Visitor Center" while on the other hand we read: "House approves funding bill allowing Obama to promote abortion internationally". While the first story is welcome news, the other story apparently displays their lack of trust in God (Where do they think these aborted children come from? How can one claim have faith - "trust" - in God but dishonor His commandments?). Let us hope this engraving will not be mere empty words. Obviously it is great to engrave them on the walls, but it will be of no avail if they are not engraved upon hearts. [6/11]

The Power of Language

[Advisory: News brief contains some graphic references]

Never having been waterboarded and therefore unable to speak from personal experience, it was particularly interesting to hear from one American who has undergone the procedure. This individual, Oliver North, has gone on record saying that...

* He has been waterboarded

* He waterboarded others

* "...none of us thought it was torture"

Obama, of course, refers to the technique as "torture", a word which brings revulsion to the minds of Americans. But might we now suspect another attempt by liberals to manipulate language to achieve desired results? For example: slaughter of the unborn becomes "evacuation of the uterus", pro-abortion becomes "pro-choice", murdering of the elderly becomes "mercy killing", and so on. So why not refer to "enhanced interrogation techniques" as "torture" since this single word will evoke the desired reaction?

This seems a fair conclusion, especially in consideration of the following...

* If this procedure was really torture, would we allow it to be used on our own innocent military personnel?

* If this procedure was really torture, would we allow our military personnel to use the procedure on other innocent military personnel?

* If this procedure was really torture, why don't those who have experienced it think it is torture?

Given these facts, it's hard not to conclude that the use of this term is just one more attempt to manipulate Americans using the power of language. It seems that the issue is not really about "torture" at all, but rather it is about the political agenda of liberals. This may be further evidenced by the musings of pro-lifers who have pointed out, "if Obama was genuinely concerned about torture why does he not care about - and even promotes - the torture undergone by the unborn in the womb...those helpless victims who can feel pain, who try to escape the instruments used to kill them...these helpless children who are routinely dismembered while still alive...?" Until Obama begins to show concern over the torture of innocent children in the womb, how can we believe he truly cares about torture? And finally, let's not forget that those innocent little ones tortured in the womb end up dead - unlike the criminals who are waterboarded.

[6/9]

Now we can be sure

If there was any doubt over Sotomayor's pro-abortion position, it may now be put to rest based on the following...

* Pro-abort President Obama is 'comfortable' with Sotomayor's abortion views

* Pro-abort Senator Boxer is also "comfortable" with Sotomayor's abortion position

* A former colleague of Sotomayor "guarantees" that Sotomayor is "for abortion rights"

* The president of a major abortion provider (PP) called Sotomayor's nomination a "strong signal" that Obama wants Supreme Court justices who "respect precedent"

* A large pro-abort organization (NOW) "celebrated" Sotomayor's nomination and will campaign for her "swift confirmation"

Did anyone really doubt that Obama would put forth a nominee who would overturn Roe v. Wade, especially in light of comments he made during his campaign?

References: Obama 'comfortable' with Sotomayor's abortion views | Pro-abort Senator Boxer "comfortable" with Sotomayor's abortion position; Former colleague "guarantees" Sotomayor is "for abortion rights" | Pro-abort groups praise Sotomayor nomination

[5/30]

Obama not pro-abortion?

The Editor-in-chief of the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano has gone on record stating that Obama, the "most pro-abortion president in history" is "not a pro-abortion president." This comes as news to pro-lifers - and probably to Obama as well who has made no secret of his position on abortion. This puzzling statement would have been odd enough coming from a liberal newspaper's editor, but coming from the editor of the Vatican newspaper, it is even more shocking. If Obama is "not a pro-abortion president", then please explain why Obama...

* Repeatedly places persons with radical pro-abortion records in key positions

* Issues statements supporting abortion

* Forces American taxpayers to fund pro-abortion organizations

* Has taken steps to overturn conscience protections for health care workers who oppose abortions

* Funds embryonic stem cell research with taxpayer money

* Funds organizations which promote abortion overseas

* Allows an FDA ruling to stand which allows minors to purchase the abortifacient "morning after pill" over the counter, without parental notification

* Forces taxpayers to pay for abortions in the nation's capital

* Eliminates federal funding for abstinence-only education

* Etc.

In light of the above, what exactly would it take for the editor of the Vatican newspaper to consider Obama a pro-abortion president? [story here] [5/21]

A thing of beauty

Truths and strong words from Archbishop Chaput's statement concerning the ND scandal are a 'thing of beauty'. Highlights include:

* We "have the duty to avoid prostituting our Catholic identity by appeals to phony dialogue that mask an abdication of our moral witness."

* "Notre Dame did not merely invite the president to speak at its commencement. It also conferred an unnecessary and unearned honorary law degree on a man committed to upholding one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in our nation’s history"

* "[T]here was no excuse - none, except intellectual vanity - for the university to persist in its course."

* "Father Jenkins compounded a bad original decision with evasive and disingenuous explanations to subsequently justify it."

* "Notre Dame's leadership has done a real disservice to the Church, and now seeks to ride out the criticism by treating it as an expression of fringe anger. But the damage remains, and Notre Dame's critics are right."

* "[T]he most vital thing faithful Catholics can do now is to insist - by their words, actions and financial support - that institutions claiming to be 'Catholic' actually live the faith with courage and consistency."

[story here] [5/19]

The good & the bad, and the ridiculous

The following is a short summary of certain good & bad elements from Notre Dame's controversial commencement ceremony & the events surrounding it...

The Good

* Some pro-life students boycotted their own commencement ceremony

* Bishop D'Arcy boycotted the graduation ceremony & spoke to pro-lifers at a Notre Dame pro-life rally [story here]

* Around 100 pro-life students attended the graduation wearing a pro-life symbol; These students remained seated while Obama received standing ovations

* Courageous individuals risked arrest in support of the pro-life cause. Those arrested included an elderly priest, Alan Keyes, and Norma McCorvey (the "Roe" of "Roe vs. Wade")

* Pro-life hecklers disrupted Obama's speech on several occasions

* The pro-life rally held at ND was attended by thousands [story here]

* Bishop D'Arcy called the pro-life students who boycotted their commencement "heroes" [story here]

* A selfless lady declined a prestigious ND honor [see previous news brief]

The Bad

* The "most pro-abortion president in history", Obama, received an honorary law degree from the nation's "most prestigious Catholic university", causing great scandal

* ND's president disregarded the bishops' statement, his own bishop's condemnation, and the public scandal to go forward with his "pet project". Despite this, students seem to support him overwhelmingly.

* Obama enjoyed the support of thousands of students & received a standing ovation; Attendees even chanted Obama's campaign slogan in response to pro-lifers' heckling

* Radical pro-abortion Obama received ND's honor & affirmed his pro-abortion stance while wearing a robe containing an inscription to the Holy Mother of God, "symbolizing dedication of all Notre Dame's activities to the Virgin Mary" [story here]

* There was no formal condemnation of ND's honoring Obama from Pope Benedict XVI (Archbishop Burke criticized the decision, but this is obviously not the same as if a condemnation had come from Pope Benedict himself)

* Some fear that "Notre Dame will become symbol of Catholic dissent" [story here]

The Ridiculous (pathetic, absurd)

* Obama's ridiculous call to find "common ground" over the murder of the unborn. Would he advance "common ground" on racial matters or would he reject racism outright?

* Hypocrisy of Obama on "respecting" each others views on abortion considering that he has shown no respect to the views of pro-lifers (and, of course, it isn't possible for pro-lifers to "respect" the views of those who advocate the killing of children) [story here]

* Hypocrisy of Obama concerning "conscience rights"; on one hand he claims to honor conscience rights, but on the other he works to remove protections already in place [story here]

* Fr. Jenkins' laudatory treatment of Obama; Embraces him, pats him on the back, almost seems to campaign for Obama

* The Vatican newspaper's response to the event fails to include a condemnation of the scandal; instead claims Obama seeks "common ground" on baby killing [story here]

[5/18]

More Clarity: Head of Catholic 'Supreme Court' Tells Obama Supporters to Get to Confession

The Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura ("Chief Justice of the Church's Supreme Court") has stated that Catholics who knew Obama's "clearly announced" anti-life, anti-family agenda could not have voted for him "with a clear conscience". He further stated that if a Catholic "knowingly and deliberately" voted for a candidate who was in favor of "the most grievous violations of the natural moral law" (i.e. Obama), then he has "formally cooperated in a grave evil and must confess his serious sin". Finally, some straight talk. For those who couldn't bring themselves to vote for McCain, don't fret. Americans are always free to write in a pro-life candidate (or they can choose one of the independent pro-life candidates already on the ballot). At least that's one freedom we haven't lost. [story here] [5/13]

Thank a ND student

The scandal over Notre Dame's commencement, which will feature & honor Obama, "the most anti-life president in U.S. history", has not been entirely devoid of 'signs of hope'. Although ND's President continues to act in defiance of the U.S. Bishops - not to mention basic Catholic common sense - and, unfortunately, also with some backing of ND students, many others have been strongly on the side of truth and life. Since the news first broke, dozens of bishops have spoken out against the decision, the area's bishop will be boycotting the commencement, another bishop has already held a Mass of reparation, one lady selflessly turned down a prestigious ND honor, donors have withheld millions in donations, and there has been "national outrage". And, in the course of events, Obama's anti-life policies have been exposed to those who might otherwise have been unaware of them.

One thing this country typically suffers from is apathy. In this case at least - thankfully - apathy has not been as readily apparent. Although it appears that the commencement plans will, unfortunately, go as planned, many pro-life students at ND are not taking this lightly. Recently, they have announced plans to hold a protest at their commencement. Also, many ND students are expected to boycott their own graduation. Some students may confront Obama over his pro-abortion position. Images of aborted babies may be draped along the way. Although this should be a special day - a day of joy - for these students, a cloud will be put over the event because their leader has chosen to betray Catholic principles and would not back down even in the face of condemnation by his bishop & public outcry.

In spite of this, it is good to see that there are courageous ND students who still hold sacred their Catholic values. Any student who boycotts the graduation for which they worked so hard to achieve in order to defend their Catholic beliefs is deserving of respect. This shows great character and gives hope and inspiration to others. May God bless and guide all ND students. And may all people support and thank those who do what is right, even at a high personal cost. [story here] [5/5]

Putting her faith first

Rather than putting her own interests first, Mary Ann Glendon, a former ambassador to the Vatican, has declined a prestigious honor from Notre Dame due to their honoring of Obama at their upcoming commencement. In her letter to ND's president she states, "as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions 'should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles' and that such persons 'should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.' That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it." Her letter was released to the public in order "to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision". Way to go, Mary! [4/27]

No more excuses

Now that Bishop D'Arcy has publicly issued a statement to the faithful, perhaps any remaining "controversy" can be put to an end. The bishop stated unequivocally that "I consider it now settled - that the USCCB document, Catholics in Public Life, does indeed apply in this matter." It will be interesting to see what happens. Could one be allowed to hope that Obama may be disinvited from ND's commencement? Or at least not be given an honorary law degree? Time to start praying... [4/22]

Great grades, but what about Catholic teachings?

Notre Dame's 2009 valedictorian has gone on record saying that the "opportunity" to have Obama speak at ND is "unbelievable and incredible". Unfortunately, she means this in a positive sense. She called Obama a "great leader" and praises that he "continues to live by those values... He sticks with his values and his ideals". How is it that this obviously intelligent student doesn't see that it would be better in his case - e.g. the case of the most pro-abortion president in history - if he gave up some of his "values and ideals"? Even if one conceded any positive "values & ideals" to the U.S. President, how can they be "of much value" if the man doesn't respect even the most basic right to live? Maybe ND needs to add another class to its roster concerning the importance of holding all Catholic teachings without exception. "For whoever keeps the whole law, but falls short in one particular, has become guilty in respect to all of it." (Jms. 2:10) And, further, how can such a smart student not see that for a Catholic University to give Obama an honorary law degree when he seeks to break the most basic of all laws - the right to life - is scandalous & most definitely not worthy of praise? [story here] [4/20]