The Faculty Senate of Notre Dame inexplicably and horrifyingly voted down a resolution of support for either Father Jenkins’s participation in the March for Life or the recommendations of his Task Force on Supporting the Choice for Life, according to published reports.
They couldn’t even support the choice for life? Mind you, this was not a controversial or radically pro-life statement sent to the Faculty Senate for their up and down vote.
The Irish Rover reports:
The proposed resolution states, “The Faculty Senate affirms again Fr. Jenkins’ witness to the University of Notre Dame’s commitments both to intellectual inquiry and debate and to the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life; and by this resolution wishes to commend the ongoing public witness of Fr. Jenkins, his Task Force on Supporting the Choice for Life, the Coordinator of University Life Issues, and most especially Notre Dame students, to a culture of life.”
The resolution also asserts that it respects the “freedom of conscience of individual University faculty (and Faculty Senate) members who may disagree in whole or in part” with the Task Force. In addition to encouraging the university to implement the suggestions of the Task Force, the resolution “urges both the Coordinator for University Life Issues and the University administration itself to strive in all their programs and policies to be faithful to the full spectrum of Catholic Social Teaching.”
This tepid statement that even said it respected “freedom of conscience” was trounced 22-8 by faculty representatives so wedded to the destruction of life that they can’t stand considering the alternative of life.
Mind you, the Faculty Senate endorsed Obama being honored at Notre Dame.
Father Wilson Miscamble, C.S.C., the President of the Notre Dame Chapter of Faculty for Life, was quoted as saying:
The vote is a serious disappointment and hopefully does not reflect the views of the faculty as a whole. That the faculty senate failed to approve a modest resolution affirming Fr. John Jenkins’s witness to the sanctity of life is very sad indeed and reflects poorly on the faculty senate.
I think it reflects poorly on the entire school, doesn’t it?
While there are many wonderful things which occur at Notre Dame, how long can we say that it’s only the President or it’s only the Faculty Senate or it’s only this or that.
Project Sycamore suggests:
The radical shrinking of a Catholic faculty presence has obvious consequences for life issues, since non-practicing Catholics are far more likely to be pro-choice than the general population while practicing Catholics are far more likely to be pro-life.
Is it any wonder, then, that, as we have reported, a recent survey showed that the proportion of pro-choice students increases sharply while they are at Notre Dame to the point that there is no difference between Notre Dame graduates and the general population?
This is just one more worrisome turn at America’s most well known Catholic University. Let’s hope things turn around. But hope dwindles.
May 2, 2011 at 2:19 am
Good for the senate for realizing that not everyone has to agree. Good for them for realizing that not everyone has to feel pleased, that some groups want to impose views on others.
May 2, 2011 at 3:43 am
What a ridiculous comment, Duck.
If people don't want Catholic views "imposed on" them, they shouldn't teach at a Catholic universities. If they're not "pleased," they should go somewhere else, like, say, to one of the many secular universities–where faithful Catholic views are most unwelcome, and where a liberal orthodoxy is most definitely "imposed" on everyone possible.
You may have missed this little fact, but religious schools exist precisely so that they may create places where their views are accepted.
Notre Dame's faculty, unfortunately, seems to have missed that little fact too, in their haste to conform to the world.
Shame on you, Duck, for your intolerance of genuine freedom of religion. And shame on Notre Dame's faculty senate.
May 2, 2011 at 6:29 am
Nah, my comment was meant more for the fact, that the task force was not just for the college. It's findings would be cited and used by many groups outside the college to impose views on others. I congratulate the faculty senate for recognizing that, and not praising people who want to impose bias religious views on the general public.
May 2, 2011 at 6:35 am
On the note of me and religion, you don't know me. Don't even try to accuse me of being intolerant of religions. I just recognize that the faculty senate, realized that well wishing that task force would put their support behind a measure with no scientific factual support, and heavy religious bias, with the explicit purpose of being used on the general public. Good for the faculty.
May 2, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Soooooo, how can we still refer to Notre Dame as a "CATHOIC" institution of higher learning?
KM
May 2, 2011 at 2:24 pm
No surprise.
May 2, 2011 at 3:58 pm
the vote tally likely demonstrated a large number of the senate voting against the resolution's first paragraph and in favor of its second, and vice-versa. It was evidently drafted to fail while allowing an opportunity for each senator to hold forth. In that sense it was a perfectly drafted, luke-warm (remember Our Lord's words) writ of irresolution so typical of American academia. In its commonness, I am afraid that it was catholic without being Catholic.
May 2, 2011 at 5:43 pm
On the note of me and religion, you don't know me. Don't even try to accuse me of being intolerant of religions. I just recognize that the faculty senate, realized that well wishing that task force would put their support behind a measure with no scientific factual support, and heavy religious bias, with the explicit purpose of being used on the general public. Good for the faculty.
You're not intolerant of other religions, you just deeply resent it when religious types speak up in a way you disagree with. That you object to an anodyne statement which respects differing opinions speaks volumes. As does your nonsensical "no scientific factual support" standard of approval. Yes, "scientific factual support" is necessary for an approval of faculty resolutions. By that standard, the "Hurray Obama!" resolution also would have been right out, as would anything this side of "Celebrate Algebra Month."
And "heavy religious bias"? Another knee-slapper, as Atheists For Life would be happy to tell you.
Keep on quackin'–it's pretty funny watching you tie yourself up in knots.
–Duck Season.
May 2, 2011 at 6:40 pm
Fr Jenkins CSC reaps what he has sowed.
May 2, 2011 at 7:02 pm
To the person who used Duck Season as their name… You must be a hunter or enjoy witty quips with language. Usually I enjoy that sort of thing, I hope your purpose was humor and not violence.
Touche on the Hurray Obama resolution. I have nothing to defend that with.
As for my previous comments I do not tie myself in knots. You just seem angry, that I can use logic and reason and still disagree with you. Funny how that works. Not everyone agrees, even when we logically and with reasoned factual arguments make our case. It's just the way life is.
May 2, 2011 at 7:25 pm
To the person who identifies as waterfowl:
"Usually I enjoy that sort of thing, I hope your purpose was humor and not violence."
Oh, please. Adding passive aggression into the mix doesn't improve your debating skills. If you genuinely perceived it as a threat, (1) you aren't as dedicated to "reasoned factual arguments" as you claim, (2) you didn't watch enough Warner Brothers cartoons (especially "Duck! Rabbit! Duck!") as a child and (3) you really are a duck.
OK–back to your arguments again. Ah, yes–faculty senate resolutions have to be based on matters requiring "scientific factual support." Says…you. Or is there something in the rules of order for the Notre Dame Faculty Senate that I am unaware of? Yes, I'm being caustic, but your argument makes no sense whatsoever, and is nothing more than an "ick" reaction looking for a post hoc justification.
2. You strenuously object to the faculty of a *Catholic* university expressing pro-life sentiments–even one that expresses respect for opposing opinions. Another ick reaction looking for a rationale. So, you respect religious expression to the extent you agree with it? Notre Dame has First Amendment rights to the extent you approve of the exercise/statements in question. That's tolerant…how?
May 2, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Duck is my nickname. I'm not fascinated by waterfowl. Damn near every rugby player on the planet has or is waiting to get a rugby nickname. That one is mine.
As for my posts, I don't object to Catholic unversity expressing pro-life sentiments. All I did was praise them for having the courage to stand up and say they disagree with the "task force" which would have been used outside the school as part of the Pro-life machine.
I am not being passive aggressive in my comment about duck and duck season. I am very much anti-violence, and very much a fan of witty comments. I was merely stating that I hope your username is of the latter and not the former. That's not passive aggressive behavior, that's just being honest.
As for the scientific factual support, I was not refering to the faculty senate resolutions. I was refering to the "task force" lacking that. As for the rest, see my above comment about the faculty.
If you must know, I don't have a problem with people having pro life or pro choice views. I don't like it when either side tries to impose their view on others through violence, force or bullying.
May 2, 2011 at 9:27 pm
First of all, the Task Force's mandate applies to *Notre Dame's* stance on life issues. Your argument that it would somehow be "imposed" on others is badly informed, paranoid, or the result of some misreading only you can explain. In any event, your understanding is unsupported by "reasoned factual arguments."
Here's an interim report on the Task Force:
http://newsinfo.nd.edu/news/14371-notre-dame-task-force-on-life-makes-preliminary-recommendations/
The claim there's a "lack of scientific factual support" for a series of recommendations regarding Notre Dame policy is borderline nonsensical, especially since you refuse to point out just where it fails in that regard.
Again, your argument boils down to a knee-jerk hostility to the position being taken. Somehow, you read the initiative of a Catholic university to strengthen Catholic witness regarding life issues into "impos[ing] their view on others through violence, force or bullying." How does the Task Force's work, aims or interim goals contribute to any of that?
That is illogical and unsupported by anything apart from antipathy to the message. You're reading things into it as a result, just like the way you see threats from cartoon references (P.S. the correct rejoinder would be "Rabbit Season!").
May 2, 2011 at 9:39 pm
Do I really have to explain everything? Bloggers and organizations such as American Life League, 40daysforlife, Jill Stanek, Abby Johnson, and all of the numerous other groups out there, JUST LOVE to cite a University study. That is where I state truthfully that what the task force does will be taken out of the university and used by the pro-life machine. That part of the argument being clarified, it hopefully shouldn't take much logic to realize that groups that try to impose their religous views (IE Catholics for life) on secular state matters (IE whether or not abortions are legal) would be imposing a religious view on the general public. So, people who have the free and legal right to recieve an abortion, should not have to be harrassed, stalked to their cars, blocked entry from the clinic, and or get harmed in assailants attempts to harm clinic staff, all in the name of "religious freedom" and "saving souls".
It is one thing to have a view. It is one thing to stand on a public sidewalk and pray. It is one thing to urge your elected representative to listen to your point of view as the constituent. It is not acceptable to force your views on those who do not wish to listen/agree/be saved/or be followed or harrassed. It is not acceptable to use intimidation in order to prevent people from obtaining a legal procedure. That is what I meant all along, I'm sorry that your black and white worldview required me to be so damn literal in my words for you to understand.
May 2, 2011 at 10:48 pm
I can really tell you don't have a problem with pro-life views.
Explain everything? Not necessarily–but it would be nice if you'd answer a question instead of ignoring previous overheated rhetoric and consistent logical fumbling.
The problem here isn't one of my "black and white worldview." The problem is one of your reading comprehension and phobic reaction to the "pro-life machine" and the listed devil figures.
If you'd bothered to read the link I provided, your misconception of what the Task Force is and is not doing would be clarified. Your refusal to do so makes your ignorance willful. It's not some kind of scientific study–it is a Notre Dame program to see what Notre Dame can do to strengthen Notre Dame's approach to pro-life questions. As applied to Notre Dame. Period. Full stop. Your inability to understand that obvious, basic point is remarkable.
From that unobjectionable, indisputable fact–modification of internal policies–you conjure up the demons of the pro-life machine using Notre Dame's internal policies to "impose their view on others through violence, force or bullying." That's imaginative, I'll grant, but unsupported by anything other than your imagination.
"It is one thing to have a view. It is one thing to stand on a public sidewalk and pray. It is one thing to urge your elected representative to listen to your point of view as the constituent. It is not acceptable to force your views on those who do not wish to listen/agree/be saved/or be followed or harrassed. It is not acceptable to use intimidation in order to prevent people from obtaining a legal procedure."
I don't think I object to any of that (unless you have some definitions at play that I'm unfamiliar with). What you have refused to do from the beginning–and still refuse to do–is to show how such a grim scenario of force/harassment can be logically, factually spun from the Notre Dame task force's discussions/recommendations regarding internal policies and procedures.
You haven't even *tried.* You've simply assumed the worst, as you saw a possible threat where it didn't exist.
May 3, 2011 at 12:08 am
Dear mr/mrs whatever season, ur have no standing in this. U have not "debated" anything. You have tried miserably to turn a debate into a fight. U are nothing more than a childish bully. Perhaps u should go back to kindergarten and learn how to play nice with others.
May 3, 2011 at 3:52 am
Notre Dame has been losing its Catholic identity for awhile. It is very very sad. I used to want my kids to go there, but no longer. I'll take Ave Maria University anyday.
May 3, 2011 at 4:40 am
Duck, just curious, how many abortions have you watched? I know you escort into abortion clinics, and I know you think the baby is not a baby until she is born, but how many abortions have you watched? I can't watch because of the horror of the baby being ripped apart. But I do think if someone is so for something, they should watch it and know exactly what it is they are supporting. I find most of my pro-abortion friends have never actually seen one. I am not asking disrespectfully, I seriously want to know, how many have you seen? Can you watch that?
May 3, 2011 at 4:52 am
Duck, I only ask, because I can clearly see she or he is a human being. She has a heartbeat. she feels pain, she gets ripped apart and her heart stops beating. And there is Nothing, nothing in that moment that makes that right, nothing. Since you believe all life is sacred and we know from science that human life begins at conception, how can that not be sacred? Every new life begins at conception. This is an irrefutable fact of biology. It is true for animals and true for humans. When considered alongside the law of biogenesis – that every species reproduces after its own kind – we can draw only one conclusion in regard to abortion. No matter what the circumstances of conception, no matter how far along in the pregnancy, abortion always ends the life of an individual human being. Every honest abortion advocate concedes this simple fact. Now, that you are Pagan, I do not care, I am simply asking how can you advocate that these innocent children are killed? Denying the gift of motherhood to a woman, the gift of a child. I really really don't understand no matter how hard I try. The killing of the innocents, breaks my heart so so much. I think this is a big lie that we tell women. You can't do this, you can't be a mother, there is just nothing positive in that. Why do people choose EVIL over suffering?
May 3, 2011 at 5:18 am
First, yes sue, i've watched an abortion, not that it's any of your business. As far as how many, and how "I can stand watching them" I don't do so well watching them. But only for this very explicit reason, I tend to pass out at the sight of blood or anything underneath the skin. I have a weak stomach for the innards of biology. Dissection in class was the worst for me. Hopefully that'll give you the answer you obviously wanted.
Second, we don't know from science that human life begins at conception. In fact that argument is false. The catholic church teaches that life begins at conception, not science.
A child by definition has been born.
I don't deny the "gift" of motherhood to anyone. I just advocate for every woman to choose whether or not she wants to be pregnant.
As far as the choosing evil over suffering, please elaborate what you mean, so that I can respond better.
As for your other details, I can only assume you read my blog, which is great, thanks for reading it. Feel free some time to catch my fb page to discuss/debate more in detail sometime.