Remember last week when dialogue was the whole point of having Barack Obama come to be honored at Notre Dame, according to the President of Notre Dame Fr. Jenkins.
So after the whole brouhaha started over Fr. Jenkins’ invitation to Obama, he agreed to meet with upset students to dialogue with them. But when Mary Daly, of ND Response, requested that the meeting not just be with a small group but in a public forum, Fr. Jenkins then wondered if maybe dialogue wasn’t all that it was cracked up to be and cancelled on his promise to meet with students.
According to an April 14 statement from ND Response, Fr. Jenkins replied that “conditions for constructive dialogue simply do not exist” and informed the students that they could disregard his earlier invitations to meet with him.
But wasn’t it Fr. Jenkins who defended inviting Obama by saying, “We are not ignoring the critical issue of the protection of life. On the contrary, we invited him (Obama) because we care so much about those issues, and we hope for this to be the basis of an engagement with him,” Jenkins said. “You cannot change the world if you shun the people you want to persuade; and if you cannot persuade them, show respect for them and listen to them.”
Well? Well? So Fr. Jenkins wants to change the world by “engaging” the world, but he doesn’t see the need to “engage” with his own students?
ND Response spokeswoman Mary Daly said the coalition “remains open to true and transparent dialogue with Fr. Jenkins on this issue.”
You can visit ND Response here.
April 17, 2009 at 8:56 pm
When all else fails to explain, go for the obvious: Jenkins is a liar.
April 17, 2009 at 11:13 pm
What is it with you people and the total inability to distinguish lying from other forms of malice? This shows that Father Jenkins is cowardly, not that he is a liar.
~cmpt
April 17, 2009 at 11:21 pm
A coward who goes back on his word (having established his cowardice, as it would appear we have), does so at the expense of the truth, and does so knowing this. That is a form of malice known as lying. One who knowingly engages in such malice would be called a “liar.”
April 18, 2009 at 12:50 am
David,
“A coward who goes back on his word… That is a form of malice known as lying.”No… no it isn’t. This demonstrates a lack of critical thought. A liar is one who “speaks contrary to his mind.” Unless Father Jenkins never intended to grant an audience to these students at the time when he promised to do so, he did not lie. And this is something you could not possibly know. I can fully intend to do a thing and promise you so at one time, only to change my mind later. If I do change my mind, that does not retroactively make me a liar. I hope you can understand this.
Now, you say that he went back on his word. I don’t think so, but assuming that he did, “going back on one’s word” is not the same as lying, as I explained above. It is another form of dishonesty to be sure, but it is not lying. Refusing to honor a promise is a moral hit or miss. The morality of it depends on the circumstances; sometimes is okay to refuse to honor a promise (such as if the promise was to do evil, when in fact you would also be bound not to honor it) and other times it would amount to venial or possibly even mortal sin to do so (such as if the promise was to God: a vow).
However, Father Jenkins is not going back on his word as far as I can tell. He promised to meet with the group of students. The students then tried to double down and insist on a public forum, and Father didn’t bite. It was perhaps a laudable move by the students, but Father is by no means obligated to honor a promise when the promisee refuses to accept the original terms of the promise. Now if Father is in fact refusing to honor even his original terms of a private meeting in light of these demands, then it becomes even more complicated, but I would say that Father Jenkins would be slightly morally culpable in such a case.
Not to be snarky, but please notice how much analysis I have done here to back up a simple claim. When you call somebody a liar, (a much bigger claim) you better be able to deliver on the moral analysis. I know you probably think I am making tedious distinctions, but precision in language is important, especially when you speak of clerics.
~cmpt
April 18, 2009 at 1:07 am
Christopher Michael:
I will concede to a more precise definition of lying, particularly with regard to intent. (Good one.) That said, it would be the very least to say that Father Jenkins has been less than honest with himself, and by extension, anyone else.
As to a change in the terms of a promise, it pales in comparison to the one that Father Jenkins has to consider, that of upholding the truth of the Faith in a Catholic university. This obligation is an important one — as you would say, “especially when you speak of clerics.”
April 18, 2009 at 1:19 am
David,
Please believe me when I say that Father Jenkins is clearly of several grave crimes and is probably subject to multiple censures, under both canon law and the constitution of his religious congregation, up to and including possible excommunication reserved to his Ordinary. I was by no means apologizing for him; just clarifying language. This man has enough to answer for to both God and men. We needn’t add things he hasn’t actually done.
~cmpt
April 18, 2009 at 1:22 am
I think we’re okay here. Clarity is good.
April 18, 2009 at 4:07 am
Shall we clarify monologues vs. dialogues for Jenkins? He thinks a commencement speech is a dialogue. That’s probably why he refused the students. I know he allowed the “Vagina Monologues” and I guess that inspired him to invite you-know-who for a dialogue, which is really a monologue.
April 18, 2009 at 3:32 pm
I think the accusation: is that his excuse for having the Fetus-phobic infanticider obama to the university: was in fact a lie: as proven by his refusal to communicate with students!
April 18, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Ok, so… then engage. Invite Obama to lunch and have a discussion, or write him a letter – but don’t lend credence to his actions by honouring him with a doctorate.
April 20, 2009 at 12:46 am
I guess that was Ricky’s point. That priest did not lie because he thought a dialogue was a commencement speech.