An open letter from Dr. Charles E. Rice, Professor Emeritus of Notre Dame Law School, to Fr. John Jenkins, President of University of Notre Dame:
Open Letter to Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., President, University of Notre Dame
September 21, 2009
Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
President
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, Indiana 46556
Dear Father Jenkins:
Professor Fred Freddoso has shared with me the response on Sept. 17th by Dr. Frances L. Shavers, Chief of Staff and Special Assistant to the President, to Fred’s email of that date to you asking that Notre Dame request dismissal of the charges against the persons arrested for trespass on the campus in relation to the honoring of President Obama at Commencement. Dr. Shavers responded on your behalf to Fred’s email because, as she said, “the next few days are rather hectic for [Fr. Jenkins].” I don’t want to add to the hectic burden of your schedule by sending you a personal message that could impose on an assistant the task of responding. I therefore take the liberty of addressing to you several concerns in the form of this open letter to which a response is neither required nor expected.
First, permit me to express my appreciation for the expressions of support for the pro-life cause in your September 16th “Letter concerning post-commencement initiatives.” I know, however, that in a matter as significant as this, you will appreciate and welcome a respectful but very candid expression of views. In my opinion, the positions you have taken are deficient in some respects.
In your Letter of Sept. 16th, you rightly praise the work of the Women’s Care Center (WCC) and of its superb leader, Ann Murphy Manion. I commend you on your statement that the WCC “and similar centers in other cities deserve the support of Notre Dame clubs and individuals.” Your praise of the WCC and similar efforts, however, overlooks a practical step that Notre Dame, as an institution, ought to take. That would be for you, on behalf of Notre Dame, to issue a standing invitation to the WCC to establish an office on the Notre Dame campus to serve students, faculty and staff if, in the judgment of the WCC, that would be desirable and effective. Such would give practical effect, right here at Notre Dame, to your words in support of the WCC and similar efforts.
Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
President
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, Indiana 46556
Dear Father Jenkins:
Professor Fred Freddoso has shared with me the response on Sept. 17th by Dr. Frances L. Shavers, Chief of Staff and Special Assistant to the President, to Fred’s email of that date to you asking that Notre Dame request dismissal of the charges against the persons arrested for trespass on the campus in relation to the honoring of President Obama at Commencement. Dr. Shavers responded on your behalf to Fred’s email because, as she said, “the next few days are rather hectic for [Fr. Jenkins].” I don’t want to add to the hectic burden of your schedule by sending you a personal message that could impose on an assistant the task of responding. I therefore take the liberty of addressing to you several concerns in the form of this open letter to which a response is neither required nor expected.
First, permit me to express my appreciation for the expressions of support for the pro-life cause in your September 16th “Letter concerning post-commencement initiatives.” I know, however, that in a matter as significant as this, you will appreciate and welcome a respectful but very candid expression of views. In my opinion, the positions you have taken are deficient in some respects.
In your Letter of Sept. 16th, you rightly praise the work of the Women’s Care Center (WCC) and of its superb leader, Ann Murphy Manion. I commend you on your statement that the WCC “and similar centers in other cities deserve the support of Notre Dame clubs and individuals.” Your praise of the WCC and similar efforts, however, overlooks a practical step that Notre Dame, as an institution, ought to take. That would be for you, on behalf of Notre Dame, to issue a standing invitation to the WCC to establish an office on the Notre Dame campus to serve students, faculty and staff if, in the judgment of the WCC, that would be desirable and effective. Such would give practical effect, right here at Notre Dame, to your words in support of the WCC and similar efforts.
Your Letter announced your formation of the Task Force on Supporting the Choice for Life. Rather than offer a detailed evaluation of my own, I note my agreement with the personal analysis of William Dempsey, ND ’52, President of the Sycamore Trust, calling attention to “the obviously deliberate exclusion from Task Force membership of anyone associated with the ND organizations that have been unashamedly and actively pro-life: the Center for Ethics & Culture and the ND Fund for the Protection of Human Life. Nor was the student representative chosen from the leadership of the student RTL organization or from anyone active in last year’s student alliance protesting the honoring of the President, ND Response. It is hard to resist the inference that this is as a move toward marginalizing the Center and the Fund, neither of which receives any University support the way it is…. Finally, it is unsettling but instructive that this announcement comes a day after Fr. Jenkins’ annual address to the faculty in which he described his goals for the year, which included increasing female and minority faculty representation but not a word about the most crucial problem facing the university, the loss of Catholic identity through the failure to hire enough Catholics to restore the predominance required by the Mission Statement. This is a striking falling away from [Fr. Jenkins’] wonderful inaugural address. The fact that ND did nothing to serve the pro-life cause until forced by the reaction to the Obama incident testifies to the fact that, without a predominance of committed Catholics on the faculty, any pro-life efforts launched under pressure will in time fade away. The risk, and surely it is real, is that this initiative and the publicity ND is generating about it will deflect attention from the fundamental problem besetting Notre Dame….But I return to where I began: A project that deliberately excludes from participation those who have courageously manned organizations standing against the faculty attitude toward the pro-life cause ought to be regarded with suspicion.”
My main concern in this letter arises from your statement in your Letter that “Each year on January 22, the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, the March for Life is held in Washington D.C. to call on the nation to defend the right to life. I plan to participate in that march. I invite other members of the Notre Dame Family to join me and I hope we can gather for a Mass for Life at that event.” I understand that Notre Dame students have invited you to participate with them in the March. The problem arises from an aftermath of Commencement. On this I refer back to Chief of Staff Shavers’ response to Professor Freddoso’s request that Notre Dame ask dismissal of the charges against those arrested. Dr. Shavers states that “these protesters were arrested for trespassing and not for expressing their pro-life position.” That is misleading. This is not an ordinary case of trespass to land such as would occur if a commuter walks across your lawn and flower bed as a short-cut to the train station. Notre Dame is ordinarily an open campus. Those 88 persons, 82 of whom are represented by Tom Dixon, ND ’84, ND Law School ’93, were arrested not because they were there, but because of who they were, why they were there and what they were saying. Other persons with pro-Obama signs were there but were not arrested and not disturbed. Serious legal and constitutional questions are involved, arising especially from the symbiotic relationship between the Notre Dame Security Police, who made the arrests, and the County Police. This letter is not a legal brief. Rather I merely note that it is disingenuous for Notre Dame to pretend that this is merely a routine trespass case.
The confusion is compounded by Dr. Shavers’ statement that “Under Indiana law, however, Notre Dame is not the complainant in these matters and so is not in any position to drop or dismiss the charges.” That sentence is half-true and half-false. Notre Dame is the complaining victim of the alleged trespass. Whether to dismiss the charges, of course, is for the prosecutor to decide.
Dr. Shavers states that “Notre Dame officials have been in regular contact with the prosecutor’s office on these matters, and, in consultation with the University, the prosecutor has offered Pre-Trial Diversion to those for whom the May incident was a first-time offense. As described by the prosecutor, this program does not require the individual to plead guilty or go through a trial; rather, the charges are dropped after one year so long as the individual does not commit another criminal offense. We understand that most of those arrested have chosen not to take advantage of this offer and obviously we cannot force them to do so. In essence, the choice of whether or not to go to trial belongs to the defendants.”
Pre-trial diversion could change their status as convicted criminals. But it is only because of the actions of Notre Dame that they are treated by the law as criminals in the first place. Notre Dame continues to subject those defendants to the criminal process. If they entered pretrial diversion they would each have to pay hundreds of dollars in costs, which would amount in effect to a fine imposed on them, with the concurrence of Notre Dame, for praying. Most of the 88 are in straitened financial circumstances. The imposition on them of such a fine would be a serious hardship. Instead, Notre Dame ought to state publicly that it has no interest in seeing those prosecutions proceed in any form and that it requests the prosecutor to exercise his discretion to dismiss all those charges unconditionally. Given the prospect of 88 or so separate jury trials, probably not consolidated, in cases involving potentially serious legal and constitutional issues, such a request by Notre Dame would surely be appreciated by the taxpayers of St. Joseph County.
Those 88 defendants were on the other side of the campus, far removed from the site of the Commencement. They are subjected by Notre Dame to the criminal process because they came, as individuals, to Notre Dame to pray, peacefully and non-obstructively, on this ordinarily open campus, in petition and reparation, as a response to what they rightly saw as a facilitation by Notre Dame of various objectively evil policies and programs of Notre Dame’s honoree, President Obama. Those persons, whom Notre Dame has subjected to legal process as criminals, are neither statistics nor abstractions. Let me tell you about a few of them.
Fr. Norman Weslin, O.S., 79 years old and in very poor health, was handcuffed by Notre Dame Security Police as he sang “Immaculate Mary” on the campus sidewalk near the entrance. He asked them, “Why would you arrest a Catholic priest for trying to stop the killing of a baby?” The NDSP officers put him on a pallet and dragged him away to jail. St. Joseph County Police were also there. I urge you to watch the readily available videos of Fr. Weslin’s arrest. If you do, I will be surprised and disappointed if you are not personally and deeply ashamed.
Such treatment of such a priest may be the lowest point in the entire history of Notre Dame. You would profit from knowing Fr. Weslin. Notre Dame should give Fr. Weslin the Laetare Medal rather than throw him in jail. Norman Weslin, born to poor Finnish immigrants in upper Michigan, finished high school at age 17 and joined the Army. He converted from the Lutheran to the Catholic faith and married shortly after earning his commission. He became a paratrooper and rose to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the 82nd Airborne Division, obtaining his college degree enroute. After a distinguished career, he retired in 1968. As the legalization of abortion intensified, he and his wife, Mary Lou, became active pro-lifers in Colorado. In 1980, Mary Lou was killed by a drunk driver. Norman personally forgave the young driver. Norman Weslin was later ordained as a Catholic priest, worked with Mother Teresa in New York and devoted himself to the rescue of unborn children through nonviolent, prayerful direct action at abortuaries. In 1990 at Christmastime, I was privileged to defend Fr. Weslin and his Lambs of Christ when they were arrested at the abortuary in South Bend. One does not have to agree with the tactic of direct, non-violent action at abortuaries to have the utmost admiration, as I have, for Fr. Weslin and his associates. At Notre Dame, Fr. Weslin engaged in no obstruction or disruption. He merely sought to pray for the unborn on the ordinarily open campus of a professedly Catholic university. The theme of Notre Dame’s honoring of Obama was “dialogue.” It would have been better for you and the complicit Fellows and Trustees to dialogue with Fr. Weslin rather than lock him up as a criminal. You all could have learned something from him. His actions in defense of innocent life and the Faith have been and are heroic. Notre Dame’s treatment of Fr. Weslin is a despicable disgrace, the responsibility for which falls directly and personally upon yourself as the President of Notre Dame.
The other “criminals” stigmatized by Notre Dame include many whom this university should honor rather than oppress. One is Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, who has become pro-life and a Catholic actively trying to spread the word about abortion. Those “criminals” include retired professors, retired military officers, mothers of many children, a Catholic nun in full habit, Christian pastors, several Ph.Ds, and Notre Dame grads. They are, in summary, “the salt of the earth.” They came, on their own, at their own expense, and not as part of any “conspiracy,” from 18 states. They came because they love what Notre Dame claims to represent. They themselves do represent it. But one has to doubt whether Notre Dame does so anymore.
Clearly, Notre Dame should do all it can to obtain the dismissal of those criminal charges. This has nothing to do with one’s opinion of the tactics of rescue at abortuaries. It is simply a matter of you, as President, doing the manifestly right thing.
Please permit me to speak bluntly about your announced purpose to participate in the March for Life and to “invite other members of the Notre Dame Family to join me.” Notre Dame should have had an official presence at every March for Life since 1973. But until now it never has. Notre Dame students, with the encouragement of Campus Ministry, participate in the March but the University, as such, has not done so. To put it candidly, it would be a mockery for you to present yourself now at the March, even at the invitation of Notre Dame students, as a pro-life advocate while, in practical effect, you continue to be the jailer, as common criminals, of those persons who were authentic pro-life witnesses at Notre Dame. When the picture of Fr. Weslin’s humiliation and arrest by your campus police was flashed around the world it did an incalculable damage to Notre Dame that can be partially undone only by your public and insistent request, as President of Notre Dame, that the charges be dropped. In my opinion your attachment to the March for Life, including your offering of a Mass for Life, could give scandal in the absence, at least, of such an insistent request to dismiss those charges. Your decision to present an official Notre Dame presence at the March could be beneficial, but not in the context of an unrelenting criminalization by Notre Dame of sincere and peaceful friends of Notre Dame whose offense was their desire to pray, on the campus, for the University and all concerned including yourself. If you appear at the March as the continuing criminalizer of those pro-life witnesses, you predictably will earn not approbation but scorn—a scorn which will surely be directed toward Notre Dame as well. As long as you pursue the criminalization of those pro-life witnesses, your newest pro-life statements will be regarded reasonably as a cosmetic covering of the institutional anatomy in the wake of the continuing backlash arising from your conferral of Notre Dame’s highest honor on the most relentlessly pro-abortion public official in the world.
In conclusion, this letter is not written in a spirit of contention. It is written rather in the mutual concern we share for Notre Dame—and for her university. I hope you will reconsider your positions on these matters. Our family prays for you by name every night. And we wish you success in the performance of your obligations to the University and all concerned.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Rice
Professor Emeritus
Notre Dame Law School
My main concern in this letter arises from your statement in your Letter that “Each year on January 22, the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, the March for Life is held in Washington D.C. to call on the nation to defend the right to life. I plan to participate in that march. I invite other members of the Notre Dame Family to join me and I hope we can gather for a Mass for Life at that event.” I understand that Notre Dame students have invited you to participate with them in the March. The problem arises from an aftermath of Commencement. On this I refer back to Chief of Staff Shavers’ response to Professor Freddoso’s request that Notre Dame ask dismissal of the charges against those arrested. Dr. Shavers states that “these protesters were arrested for trespassing and not for expressing their pro-life position.” That is misleading. This is not an ordinary case of trespass to land such as would occur if a commuter walks across your lawn and flower bed as a short-cut to the train station. Notre Dame is ordinarily an open campus. Those 88 persons, 82 of whom are represented by Tom Dixon, ND ’84, ND Law School ’93, were arrested not because they were there, but because of who they were, why they were there and what they were saying. Other persons with pro-Obama signs were there but were not arrested and not disturbed. Serious legal and constitutional questions are involved, arising especially from the symbiotic relationship between the Notre Dame Security Police, who made the arrests, and the County Police. This letter is not a legal brief. Rather I merely note that it is disingenuous for Notre Dame to pretend that this is merely a routine trespass case.
The confusion is compounded by Dr. Shavers’ statement that “Under Indiana law, however, Notre Dame is not the complainant in these matters and so is not in any position to drop or dismiss the charges.” That sentence is half-true and half-false. Notre Dame is the complaining victim of the alleged trespass. Whether to dismiss the charges, of course, is for the prosecutor to decide.
Dr. Shavers states that “Notre Dame officials have been in regular contact with the prosecutor’s office on these matters, and, in consultation with the University, the prosecutor has offered Pre-Trial Diversion to those for whom the May incident was a first-time offense. As described by the prosecutor, this program does not require the individual to plead guilty or go through a trial; rather, the charges are dropped after one year so long as the individual does not commit another criminal offense. We understand that most of those arrested have chosen not to take advantage of this offer and obviously we cannot force them to do so. In essence, the choice of whether or not to go to trial belongs to the defendants.”
Pre-trial diversion could change their status as convicted criminals. But it is only because of the actions of Notre Dame that they are treated by the law as criminals in the first place. Notre Dame continues to subject those defendants to the criminal process. If they entered pretrial diversion they would each have to pay hundreds of dollars in costs, which would amount in effect to a fine imposed on them, with the concurrence of Notre Dame, for praying. Most of the 88 are in straitened financial circumstances. The imposition on them of such a fine would be a serious hardship. Instead, Notre Dame ought to state publicly that it has no interest in seeing those prosecutions proceed in any form and that it requests the prosecutor to exercise his discretion to dismiss all those charges unconditionally. Given the prospect of 88 or so separate jury trials, probably not consolidated, in cases involving potentially serious legal and constitutional issues, such a request by Notre Dame would surely be appreciated by the taxpayers of St. Joseph County.
Those 88 defendants were on the other side of the campus, far removed from the site of the Commencement. They are subjected by Notre Dame to the criminal process because they came, as individuals, to Notre Dame to pray, peacefully and non-obstructively, on this ordinarily open campus, in petition and reparation, as a response to what they rightly saw as a facilitation by Notre Dame of various objectively evil policies and programs of Notre Dame’s honoree, President Obama. Those persons, whom Notre Dame has subjected to legal process as criminals, are neither statistics nor abstractions. Let me tell you about a few of them.
Fr. Norman Weslin, O.S., 79 years old and in very poor health, was handcuffed by Notre Dame Security Police as he sang “Immaculate Mary” on the campus sidewalk near the entrance. He asked them, “Why would you arrest a Catholic priest for trying to stop the killing of a baby?” The NDSP officers put him on a pallet and dragged him away to jail. St. Joseph County Police were also there. I urge you to watch the readily available videos of Fr. Weslin’s arrest. If you do, I will be surprised and disappointed if you are not personally and deeply ashamed.
Such treatment of such a priest may be the lowest point in the entire history of Notre Dame. You would profit from knowing Fr. Weslin. Notre Dame should give Fr. Weslin the Laetare Medal rather than throw him in jail. Norman Weslin, born to poor Finnish immigrants in upper Michigan, finished high school at age 17 and joined the Army. He converted from the Lutheran to the Catholic faith and married shortly after earning his commission. He became a paratrooper and rose to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the 82nd Airborne Division, obtaining his college degree enroute. After a distinguished career, he retired in 1968. As the legalization of abortion intensified, he and his wife, Mary Lou, became active pro-lifers in Colorado. In 1980, Mary Lou was killed by a drunk driver. Norman personally forgave the young driver. Norman Weslin was later ordained as a Catholic priest, worked with Mother Teresa in New York and devoted himself to the rescue of unborn children through nonviolent, prayerful direct action at abortuaries. In 1990 at Christmastime, I was privileged to defend Fr. Weslin and his Lambs of Christ when they were arrested at the abortuary in South Bend. One does not have to agree with the tactic of direct, non-violent action at abortuaries to have the utmost admiration, as I have, for Fr. Weslin and his associates. At Notre Dame, Fr. Weslin engaged in no obstruction or disruption. He merely sought to pray for the unborn on the ordinarily open campus of a professedly Catholic university. The theme of Notre Dame’s honoring of Obama was “dialogue.” It would have been better for you and the complicit Fellows and Trustees to dialogue with Fr. Weslin rather than lock him up as a criminal. You all could have learned something from him. His actions in defense of innocent life and the Faith have been and are heroic. Notre Dame’s treatment of Fr. Weslin is a despicable disgrace, the responsibility for which falls directly and personally upon yourself as the President of Notre Dame.
The other “criminals” stigmatized by Notre Dame include many whom this university should honor rather than oppress. One is Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, who has become pro-life and a Catholic actively trying to spread the word about abortion. Those “criminals” include retired professors, retired military officers, mothers of many children, a Catholic nun in full habit, Christian pastors, several Ph.Ds, and Notre Dame grads. They are, in summary, “the salt of the earth.” They came, on their own, at their own expense, and not as part of any “conspiracy,” from 18 states. They came because they love what Notre Dame claims to represent. They themselves do represent it. But one has to doubt whether Notre Dame does so anymore.
Clearly, Notre Dame should do all it can to obtain the dismissal of those criminal charges. This has nothing to do with one’s opinion of the tactics of rescue at abortuaries. It is simply a matter of you, as President, doing the manifestly right thing.
Please permit me to speak bluntly about your announced purpose to participate in the March for Life and to “invite other members of the Notre Dame Family to join me.” Notre Dame should have had an official presence at every March for Life since 1973. But until now it never has. Notre Dame students, with the encouragement of Campus Ministry, participate in the March but the University, as such, has not done so. To put it candidly, it would be a mockery for you to present yourself now at the March, even at the invitation of Notre Dame students, as a pro-life advocate while, in practical effect, you continue to be the jailer, as common criminals, of those persons who were authentic pro-life witnesses at Notre Dame. When the picture of Fr. Weslin’s humiliation and arrest by your campus police was flashed around the world it did an incalculable damage to Notre Dame that can be partially undone only by your public and insistent request, as President of Notre Dame, that the charges be dropped. In my opinion your attachment to the March for Life, including your offering of a Mass for Life, could give scandal in the absence, at least, of such an insistent request to dismiss those charges. Your decision to present an official Notre Dame presence at the March could be beneficial, but not in the context of an unrelenting criminalization by Notre Dame of sincere and peaceful friends of Notre Dame whose offense was their desire to pray, on the campus, for the University and all concerned including yourself. If you appear at the March as the continuing criminalizer of those pro-life witnesses, you predictably will earn not approbation but scorn—a scorn which will surely be directed toward Notre Dame as well. As long as you pursue the criminalization of those pro-life witnesses, your newest pro-life statements will be regarded reasonably as a cosmetic covering of the institutional anatomy in the wake of the continuing backlash arising from your conferral of Notre Dame’s highest honor on the most relentlessly pro-abortion public official in the world.
In conclusion, this letter is not written in a spirit of contention. It is written rather in the mutual concern we share for Notre Dame—and for her university. I hope you will reconsider your positions on these matters. Our family prays for you by name every night. And we wish you success in the performance of your obligations to the University and all concerned.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Rice
Professor Emeritus
Notre Dame Law School
Forgive me, but I'm so sick of thanking people for the bare minimum. I'd have some words for Father Jenkins, but they wouldn't start off with: "First, permit me to express my appreciation for the expressions of support for the pro-life cause in your September 16th 'Letter concerning post-commencement initiatives.'"
Gee, Father, thanks for not supporting the murder of babies! Golly gosh, you're swell.
Is this how far we've devolved that the president (a priest) of the University of Notre Dame has to be thanked for his hollow words in support of life?
Posted by: Thomas | Monday, September 21, 2009 at 05:28 PM
On a side note, does anyone know who the professor on stage at the commencement was who stood but refused to applaud when Obama crossed the platform? I wonder about him every time I see that otherwise infuriating video clip.
Posted by: Thomas | Monday, September 21, 2009 at 05:50 PM
To Thomas: Many, many thanks! Your insight has been a bur under my Catholic saddle for a long time. Speaking to the Obama/Notre Dame love fest only: if we believe that you cannot be poorer than dead; and if natural law, supported by the Church, says that abortion, etc. is the worst abomination extant; why, in the name of the God Who made those murdered ones, do we give any credit to the likes of Fr. Jenkins?! As others have said, Hitler built roads and gave people jobs. The abortion industry is killing the poor just as readily as the rich. How does that advance the poverty "discussion"?
Posted by: Clarence Knutsen | Monday, September 21, 2009 at 07:45 PM
The letter by William Dempsey referenced by Mr. Rice above can be found in its entirety here:
http://allhands-ondeck.blogspot.com/2009/09/bill-dempsey-nd-class-of-1952-responds.html
Posted by: Mr. H | Monday, September 21, 2009 at 07:50 PM
Charlie "Relentless, Devastating, Accurate" Rice. My favorite line: "Notre Dame should give Fr. Weslin the Laetare Medal rather than throw him in jail."
ps: Thomas, and Clarence, I see your point (really, I do), but read Cicero on rhetoric, and you'll see Rice's.
Posted by: Ed Peters | Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 01:55 AM
Permit me to follow Dr. Peters: if Prof. Rice thinks it's a good idea to write a letter in a particular way, we should all think it's a good idea to write the letter that way.
Posted by: Titus | Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 05:35 AM
How do we get mailing addresses for these people in prison?
Posted by: David Charkowsky | Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 08:53 AM
Dr. Peters: I hear you and Prof. Rice. I'm not in Prof. Rice's situation and respect his judgment. That being said, my disappointment, sometimes anger, stands. Christ often stood in the face of power and told them the truth about themselves without apologizing in His "opening remarks". The alternative, it seems to me, is the kind of "Catholic" charade we witnessed at ND and the Kennedy funeral. I'll pray for a more peaceful mind.
Posted by: Clarence Knutsen | Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 09:18 AM
I recently had the honor to communicate with one of the 88. Professor Rice is good to have shared his letter because it provides a teaching moment for us all...let's hope and pray that it provides a true learning moment for Father Jenkins
Posted by: Bob | Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Another impotent man with no authority, Jenkins has reaped what he has sown.
Bring back the mighty men of old, the Priests with a good right hook.
Posted by: Lankester | Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 10:43 AM
We pray that something gets through to Fr. Jenkins. ...And the "complicit Fellows and Trustees", one of whom is my bishop, Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria, IL.
Posted by: David Volk | Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 11:22 AM
My intention wasn't to criticize Dr. Rice, but to show my contempt for Jenkins.
Posted by: Thomas | Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 03:06 PM
It's a fairly simple question - If you are truly Catholic, you believe in all that she stands for - the Church has not wavered in over 2000 years. The same holds true for our Catholic Institutions, they either support the Church 100% or they cannot claim to be Catholic. Christ did not come to earth to make everyone happy, he came to impart the Truth given by his Father, so that the Father's children may come to know Him. This can only happen by embracing and living the Truth of the Church even if it is painful.
Posted by: Ed Madigan | Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 09:05 PM
Link to video of Fr. Weslin's arrest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiz4tfjSuPc
Posted by: Seth T | Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at 06:52 AM
The magnificent pro-life film, "Thine Eyes" was supposed to film Notre Dame students, but I understand they had to be abandoned after the university's foot dragging. Instead, Benedictine College of Atchison, Kansas was featured as well as two other pro-life groups. Notre Dame missed a big chance to show how pro-life they really are, or maybe that's the way they wanted it.
Posted by: Francis | Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at 07:50 AM
Greetings Brothers and Sisters:
I would like to comment on a few things. First off, I think anyone who can read (and that's everyone)can tell that Professor Charles Rice essay is very well written. Secondly, Professor Charles Rice is a very respectable man. That being said, Father Jenkins is also a respectable man who truly believes in the sanctity of life. With that being said, I do not believe that being vehemently opposed to abortions in all cases, is more important than supporting socioeconomic programs for feeding starving children in undeveloped countries. I think Father Jenkins is one of many Catholic priests that is aware that making a certain action illegal, wont necessarilly do away with it. A great example would be Prohibition in the 1920's. Or laws targeting domestic violence. These laws had good intentions, but were not as effective as intended. With that being said,these laws still were somewhat effective. My main point with that, is that just saying you are opposed to something, and praying for it to change, wont necessarilly change things without action taken to reduce or eliminate its causes. Abortion is a function of an abortive mentality that many women have, in an un-supportive environment.
Thirdly, I think it is important to note that within the Catholic Church there are various factions of prayerful people who may have serious and legitimate disagreements.This does not necesarilly undermine the strenght of the Church in fact it may strengthen it. One of the reason why our Church is so strong is because it is truly Catholic and embraces all that is good, and permits some pluralism. Many Popes have made positive comments supportive of dialogue within our Church.
And even within the Vatican, not everyone agrees on every little decision. I do not think it is fair to our Church for some of us to label others as "leftists" or make unilateral and alienating comments such as "you are either for the church or against it". This will certainly contribute to Disunity. something anthetical to what our Church stands for.
In conclusion, I think it's important for all Catholics to have respect for their Priests and Bishops regardless of were our priests and Bishops stand on certain political issues (assuming they are not blatantly pro-choice) or unless they go against our Church's most fundamental teachings. And that is why I urge you all to respect others as well, and their maybe imperfect opinions. We need charity and love for one another and rededicate ourselves to the common good.
With love, and respect
Camilo Vera
layman
Posted by: Camilo Vera | Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at 09:16 AM
Thomas--
Unfortunately, that "professor" who didn't clap is no professor at all, but a member of the Secret Service--watch some of Obama's other speeches (Arizona St., etc.) and you'll see the same guy there.
Posted by: BRH | Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at 10:22 AM
http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/go9LID8MV0W/Obama+Gives+Commencement+Address+Arizona+State/PDnXW8M6BTm
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/05/14/us/17obama2_600.JPG
First one is ASU, second one is ND. Does that "professor" look familiar?
Posted by: BRH | Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Thanks for the response, BRH.
Too bad that takes the total number of professors on stage with a Catholic pair down from one to none.
Posted by: Thomas | Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at 02:59 PM
Camilo,
Your entire response is a non sequitur. In his letter to Father Jenkins, Professor Rice is not questioning the legitimacy of attacking abortion from angles other than combatting its legal protection. He's merely imploring the President of the University to drop the charges against the 88 individuals arrested for praying on campus during commencement weekend. His case for dropping these charges is fairly convincing by my estimation. If Father Jenkins wants to be taken seriously by the Pro-Life movement, it behooves him to stop pursuing criminal charges against the very Pro-Lifers who sacrificed their time, energy and money to pray for the Catholic identity of Notre Dame and her commitment to the cause of the unborn.
Pax,
Patrick D. Roach
Layman
Posted by: Patrick | Thursday, September 24, 2009 at 03:25 AM
The State is pressing the charges, not the University. They
(the prolife porstesters were protesting without a permit)
broke the law, and they were asked to leave, and asked several times. In defiance of the law, they were arrested. I think the University was just following proper procedure. I hope my brothers and sisters that were arrested got fair treatment. i admire their courage, and wish them the best. As for Father Jenkins he is probably in direct communication with the prosecutos office, asking for leniency. Trespassing is a minor offense that statistically only carries punishments of small fines, warnings, a couple of nights in jail, or even just community service. They shouldn't twistthis punishment into sounding like a "secular crusade against them". That with be unfair and dishonest of us.
In Christ, love and peace:
Camilo
Posted by: camilo Vera | Thursday, September 24, 2009 at 02:22 PM
The protesters arrested were there as part of the Randal Terry movement who promised to 'turn the campus into a circus.' The pro-life movement must succeed, but it will not do so with such tactics. Notre Dame should support justice for those who not only violated the law, but those who continue to set back the pro-life movement with their self-absorbed and tone-deaf strategies.
Posted by: Charlie | Friday, September 25, 2009 at 05:46 AM
So now involvement in any pro life actions is dependent on everyone thinking exactly alike. Dr. Rice seems to be mixing issues. What a shame - just another set back on the world stage of how stupid people look.
Posted by: concerned | Friday, September 25, 2009 at 05:59 AM
Fr. Jenkins is not in "direct communication" or even INDIRECT communication with any prosecutor's office. To even begin to suppose otherwise is naivete beyond belief.
This is witnessed by his response when my husband (as did many others) wrote him directly asking for him to step in and intervene in some way on these charges. He not only claimed he couldn't do anything, he spent volumes of words talking about all the GOOD "pro-life" things he's going to do--like joining the March for Life. Yeah, Father! You go, Father! You'll only be 27 years too late!
The state may be in charge of dealing with these "offenses," but the fact is, the "offense" was "trespassing" on Notre Dame's property. The property owner has the right and option to ask that charges be dismissed at any time. For Fr. Jenkins to claim that he has no power in this situation is at best disingenuous, and at worst downright insulting to anyone with a grain of intelligence.
Fr. Jenkins has used power he had no business using to defy his bishop; mere civil authorities shouldn't be so intimidating to this man that he can't step in and say, "Enough is enough." What does he have to fear? He's got the culture, and even the President of the United States, on his side already!
JB
Posted by: Janny | Friday, September 25, 2009 at 08:10 AM
I'm sorry, but anyone who truly believes that the administration of the University did not acquiesce in these arrests (if indeed it did not directly request them), or that it could not have prevented them if it wanted to, or that it didn't know it could prevent them, or that it couldn't get the charges dropped within 15 minutes if it really wanted to (forget about how), is just too naïve to be entrusted with the formation of young people. God bless you, Dr. Rice.
Posted by: Jerry Monroe | Monday, September 28, 2009 at 10:13 PM
Camilo,
I really don't see any reason why one can't be opposed to abortion and also be soncerned with other social ills. The two are not mutually exclusive. The unborn are among the most defenseless in our society. Fr. Jenkins, if you will pardon my expressing my opinion bluntly, is a hypocrite. I don't know what his inmost thoughts are, but I know that he is trying to cover all bases publicly. He wants to have it both ways. How can he honor Obama, the most anti-life president we have ever had the misfortune to have, and then march in the March for Life, especially since he has not done so before? How can he do that while the people arrested for praying on an open campus face prosecution? And Prof. Rice is absolutely right in pointing out that there were sign-carrying pro-Obama people on campus who were not arrested. President Obama is not my Messiah. Jesus is.
Posted by: Helen Reilly | Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 07:21 AM
I feel compelled to comment on something else Camilo said. The American Church is no longer strong; it has become weak. It is a straw, blowing in the winds of secular culture. The Pope and the bishops are supposed to be shepherds of Christ's sheep, leading and guiding them. The Vatican has made clear its position on abortion. There's no wiggle room there. Yet the Church in America has been talking the talk, but not walking the walk. The Church has allowed politicians who are very public and very radical advocates of abortion in all its forms to receive Communion, implying that said politicians are not doing anything morally wrong. This gives scandal to Catholics. The glorious funeral giving Kennedy honors worthy of Mother Teresa gave scandal to Catholics. Installing Cardinal Law, the great Protector and Defender of Pedophile Priests, a post of honor in a church in Rome, thereby getting him out of the way of prosecution by Boston authorities, gave scandal to Catholics. The Church is falling apart. We are supposed to have one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith. On the day Pope Benedict was elected, I saw an interview on EWTN of Cardinal Ratzinger by Raymond Arroyo. Ratzinger said the Church has to stand up for the truth and not be afraid to teach unpopular things, and if that drives people away, so be it; the Church would begin again with 12 people and a storefront if necessaray, just as Christ did with the Apostles. I for one am hungry for more of that fearless moral guidance, and hope to hear more of it from Benedict. One last thought: can bishops, priests, and even laymen possible think that Fr. Jenkins and Notre Dame did the right thing if they truly believe in Jesus? As those bracelets some of our young people wear say, "What would Jesus do?"
Posted by: Helen Reilly | Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 08:04 AM
The suave and apparent kindness expressed by Camilo, doesnt impress me at all. The typical use of terminology by, yes, leftists in the Church is so obvious in his first comment that one must have serious doubts about his true adherence to the Magisterium. He promotes 'pluralism' 'serious and legitimate disagreement.. that strengthen (the Church) it' and others. The matter dealt at ND was neither little nor simple. Fr Jenkins has lost respect from many true Catholics, with good reason.
Father N.Weslin treatment was shameful, unchristian, reproachable.
Posted by: Manuel G. Daugherty Razetto | Friday, October 02, 2009 at 06:32 PM