The article is from Lifenews.com. It seems that Notre Dame President Fr. John I. Jenkins is intent on going through with this, and says he is honored by Barack Obama's acceptance. Like most who try to give cover to enemies of the faith, he says he hopes this will create an opportunity for "dialogue."
I think it is time that people stopped making excuses for Fr. Jenkins. Whatever platitudes or token gestures he may offer to satiate orthodox Notre Dame students, faculty, and alumni no longer give credence to the notion that he is genuinely interested in restoring the university's Catholic identity.
I, for one, believe that the university would be better off with a President who places the spiritual well-being of the students above the financial health and prestige of the university. It is time for Fr. Jenkins to resign. If he will not do so, then it is time for the Board of Trustees to remove him and replace him with someone who recognizes the true mission of a Catholic university. And if the Board of Trustees will not do so, then I think it is time for higher authorities to consider whether or not the University of Notre Dame should be allowed to continue to give scandal under the guise of a Catholic institution of higher learning.
I know that many of my friends who are either attending or have graduated from the University of Notre Dame will take exception to my stance on this matter; but there is no nuancing this scandalous behavior. Barack Obama is an enemy of the Catholic Church, and should never be afforded a forum by a Catholic institution to legitimize his anti-Catholic stances in the eyes of the faithful.
This is not a call to action on my part. At least, not yet. I am aware that a great many efforts are currently underway both inside and outside the Notre Dame community, and I am content for now to join my voice to theirs. However, I will not allow anyone to deceive me into thinking that this is anything less than a failing of moral courage and leadership on the part of Fr. John I. Jenkins, and any efforts now being mounted to protest Barack Obama's appearance at Notre Dame's 2009 commencement ceremonies must include calls to hold Fr. Jenkins accountable for this decidedly anti-Catholic action. Feel free to express agreement or disagreement on the matter. I would like to know where others stand on this. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I would agree with you if I thought that the Board would (or could) appoint someone better. Fr. Jenkins was, for all intents and purposes, the #2 choice of pretty much everyone orthodox on campus among those who would have had a shot at the job.
It is worth mentioning, though, that Mary Ann Glendon is the best Laetare Medal recipient in several years (in my opinion, Martin Sheen: Laetare Medal recipient may well be a greater affront to American Catholics than is Barack Obama: Doctor of Laws and Commencement speaker).
Agreed about Martin Sheen. The man is a shameless self-promoter and utter disgrace to all self-respecting Catholics.
Bishop Sheen must be rolling in his grave to have his name hijacked by someone so unfaithful.
Since when did it become Catholic to ignore anyone who disagrees with the Church on any issue. I'm not sure when the Church adopted the same mentality as a 2nd grader on a playground, but as a Catholic, it's really starting to piss me off.
So your solution, then, is to bestow baccalaureate honors and honorary degrees on those who disagree with the Church, especially on the most fundamental issues of the sanctity and inviolability of human life?
You do realize there is a world of difference between ignoring someone and denying them such honors, don't you?
Right, because an Honorary "Degree" is such a high honor for the President of the United States. Nobody is going to look at Obama's biography and go "wow! He got an honorary degree from Notre Dame!! He really was somebody." No, it was given to him because you give it to all commencement speakers. You're not mad about the Honorary Degree, you are upset that someone you see as evil is giving a speech to good Catholics, and that just shouldn't happen. I'm tired of people being written off because of one issue. I know I know, "the sanctity of the unborn innocent is the most blah blah blah," but do you seriously believe that everybody who supports abortion is the same as a murderer on death row?! Of course not, because those people don't believe that they are killing a human life. The only way that you will ever stop abortion is by convincing an overwhelming majority of the population that abortion is murder. How are you going to do that if you dismiss someone as soon as they identify themselves as "pro-choice" ? The ONLY way you will change people's minds is by a civilized dialogue, and NOT acting insane. The pro-life movement is shooting itself in the foot, because most reasonable people don't dismiss an individual person based on their views on abortion, but they will dismiss a person if they believe they are crazy, and a lot of the things the pro-life movement is doing right now is pretty crazy. Like saying Americans should ignore their president because he thinks differently than they do on ONE issue.
It's good to know that you have direct insight into my mind and know better than I do my real motivation for doing things. There is absolutely no irony in you presuming to know my mind and then turning around and calling me crazy. No. Irony. Whatsoever.
And the opposition to Obama is on a myriad of issues, and he is hardly a clueless person on the issue of what abortion does. He simply refuses to recognize the humanity of any unborn child, or any child born alive who was previously targeted for abortion. His views go well beyond being pro-abortion. They are indicative of Nietzchean style eugenics.
He supports embryonic stem cell research. The Catholic Church does not.
He supports the advocacy of birth control in sex education. The Catholic Church does not.
He supports the use of condoms to combat AIDS in Africa. The Catholic Church does not.
He has targeted Catholic hospitals among other conscientious objectors in trying to revoke the conscience clause that exempts those who are morally opposed to abortion from having to perform them or have to refer patients to those who do. That goes beyond disagreement with the Church. It is a trampling of the Church's 1st Amendment rights.
He is attempting to pass legislation to make it a "hate crime" to so much as criticize homosexual behavior, legislation that can be used to target Catholic priests or anyone else who has the audacity to state the Church's constant teaching against homosexual acts (and please don't try to pretend that opposition to homosexual behavior is tantamount to persecution of homosexual persons. That little fallacy grows tiresome very fast). This too is a trampling of the Church's 1st amendment rights.
His presidential appointments are a veritable who's who of anti-Catholic vitriol.
And last but not least among the things that I'll mention, Obama is taking this country in an increasingly more socialist direction with policy initiatives that slowly but surely divest individuals of the right to exercise their own free will and places more and more of the decision making in the hands of the government, and affront to the dignity of the human person that is also strenuously opposed by the Church. One case in point: all of the "environmental" regulations are aiming at forcing Americans to use energy according to strict government guidelines, despite the fact that the government is not the sole proprietor (nor should it ever be) of America's energy sources. And just another of the myriad cases in point: his recent legislation drastically lowering the limits for tax deductions on charitable contributions. These deductions were afforded to individuals so they could have more of a say in what causes their money served. Now increasing amounts of money are going to the government, to be spent however the government wishes, regardless of whether the people involuntarily fronting the money support the nature of the expenditures.
The objections to Barack Obama go well beyond just the one issue. I know this is not convenient knowledge to Obama supporters whose entire worldview seems to depend on their ideological opponents having tunnel vision, but it is the reality.
And I love the intro to your last post. By your logic, it is OK for a Catholic school to give an honorary degree to someone who opposes the central tenets of Catholic belief because it will get overlooked in the honoree's biography. I realize that the principle of the matter is a concept largely lost on moral relativists, but it matters a great deal to Catholics who actually care about their faith whether or not a person is given honors that imply support for said person's views.
Obama can address Catholics all he wants. But a commencement address is delivered to a captive audience, with no possibility for the dialogue that Fr. Jenkins dishonestly claims is the point of inviting Obama in the first place. If he is going to address a group whose faith stands in opposition to his moral views, Obama should have the moral courage to do so in a forum where he can be questioned about those contrasts.
And for all your anger at people criticizing Obama, you cannot seriously believe that a Catholic commencement address - the purpose of which is to inspire the graduates to faithfully live out their Catholic faith with the aid of their new-found knowledge - should be delivered by a person who has no knowledge or experience of living live as a faithful Catholic. It is patently absurd to suggest that opposing the extension of such an honor to one who is undeserving of it is tantamount to writing that person off.
One can and should pray for Obama. Constantly. But that does not preclude us from opposing his very anti-Catholic agenda, or from opposing the bestowal of an honor to him that is proper to far, far more qualified candidates.
You're right, I got off on a little rant there on my last post, to generalize that most of the pro-life movement is crazy is not true, and not something that I believe, although the more radical ends of the movement seem to be headed there. I am well versed in the Catholic Church's objections to Obama, and the reasoning behind it. But the fact remains that 54% of Catholics voted for Obama, despite the leaders in the Church doing everything in their power to make Catholics vote pro-life. My archbishop sent out a letter saying that it would be a serious sin to vote democratic. So why then are the majority of Catholics voting against their faith? I think that most Catholics simply don't identify with the pro-life movement, but do identify with the other social policies of the Obama administration. I don't claim to be an expert, but I am a Catholic, I do support Obama, and I am not unusual. In fact it seems to me that I am the norm. You can argue about the state of the Catholic Church in America, but if the pro-life movement can't even convince the faithful there is no way that it can succeed. Taking little issues like this commencement address and blowing them way out of proportion is one of those things that makes people dislike the pro-life movement. By trying to cast a shadow over the commencement address (that the overwhelming majority of students want to hear), you are hurting the cause. Notre Dame is, and always will be undeniably Catholic, but it is also a University, which (ideally) is a place of dialogue. Having the president give a speech and receive a token award is not the end of the world, nor is it a direct assault to the pro-life movement. Overreactions such as this cause more harm then good.
Notre Dame has not been "undeniably Catholic" for a very long time. It still has a vibrant orthodox Catholic community, but the fact is that the school's leaders and a good deal of the faculty long ago repudiated their obligation to teach what the Church teaches in order to find favor with the secular world. In the process, they and many other colleges of dubious Catholic affiliation have done much to warp the faithful's perception of what the Catholic faith truly teaches.
The fact that 54% of Catholics did not see a problem with Obama's abortion views serves only as a testament to the abysmal state of catechesis in America these last 40 years. These people may be baptized Catholic, and some of them may even go to Mass on a regular basis, but that alone does not a Catholic make, and it is certainly nothing remotely resembling living a life of holiness and devotion to God. That comes with embracing the devout life - something we are called to do, as it is not only for priests and religious - and giving internal assent to the teachings of the Church established by Christ. And if any self-identified Catholic does not truly believe that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ, then they really have no business being Catholic. Catholicism is not a social club, and it is not a cultural affiliation. It is an identity, and a way of life.
You see, it is not acceptable to say that a person can support someone who vigorously opposes the Church's most fundamental teachings on the dignity of the human person and the inviolability of the Catholic faith because they might happen to support universal health care, carbon emissions restrictions, and minimum wage increases. For one thing, economic and environmental concerns take a backseat to life issues in terms of moral gravity because of the vast disparity between the intrinsic value of human life and the very secular notion of "quality of life," which is often (and quite erroneously) equated with the value of life. It would be akin to me saying something like I support a convicted child molester's right to teach elementary school because he knows how to communicate with children and can explain the subjects to them in an easy-to-understand matter. The teaching skills simply do not trump the propensity to prey on children in terms of giving such an individual the right to teach children. By the same token, what good is it to support a politician who supports universal health care for children, unlimited access to tutors and other educational services for children, and increased welfare benefits for children if that same politician denies these children the one right without which all of the above benefits are null and void? It doesn't do little Johnny much good to have access to all of these opportunities if he is denied the inherent right to make it out of the womb alive. And it does the Catholic soul little good to support a political agenda that calls for these things if that agenda also calls for a denial of the right to life from the moment of conception.
There are times when we are forced to choose between two candidates who oppose the Church's teachings on certain moral matters. This is when the "proportionate reasons" referred to by the Vatican in 2004 come into play. If you are forced to choose between two candidates who support abortion, then other factors become important in determining who one can vote for. But when one candidate clearly supports legalized abortion and pledges to fight to keep it so while another clearly opposes it and has a track record of restricting it whenever possible, then all manner of economic and environmental concerns become irrelevant. The abortion issue carries greater moral weight, and therefore trumps issues of lesser moral gravity.
Take the last election as a classic example. I can't stand John McCain. I find him to be a singularly insufferable and uninspiring politician. He supports embryonic stem cell research, which the Church opposes. But so does Obama, who recently opened the government treasury to support this life-destroying research. I didn't particularly trust McCain to be a big friend to the pro-life movement. On the other hand, I COULD trust Obama to be the mortal enemy of the pro-life movement, and to enthusiastically and aggressively pursue radical pro-abortion laws and executive orders that would set the pro-life cause back years, if not decades. I didn't care for many of McCain's economic initiatives. I didn't care for any of Obama's, and we are now seeing excessive government spending and takeover of private industry. Virtually all communist dictatorships started off in a similar manner, leading the nation down the gradual path of socialism. Once the government interferes with our ability to exercise our own free will, history proves that it does not so easily relinquish the power to make our choices for us. The more we are taxed, the less free will we can exercise over how our money is spent. The more intrusive "environmental" legislation that is passed, the less free will we can exercise in how to utilize our own private property. I am not a libertarian, not by any means. However, I do believe that a clear line exists between the rights and responsibilities of the citizen and the rights and responsibilities of government. People screamed to the high heavens about the erosion of their liberties under Bush. I do believe that Bush took liberties that blurred those boundaries. But what the Obama administration is doing now is working to obliterate those boundaries, and makes the entire Bush presidency seem like a government holiday. Not that Bush's critics are are speaking out about this. They are noticeably silent because they now have one of their own running things into the ground.
People often imagine that heresy is this darkly sinister ideology that anyone can spot from a mile away and avoid. Nothing could be further from the truth. The very essence of heresy is that it contains many elements of Catholic truth, and those who promote heresy like to claim support for those Catholic ideas while at the time inserting into their ideology some notions very different from authentic Catholic belief and practice. The hope is that the authentic aspects of Catholic belief will overshadow the non-Catholic ideas, and that those who subscribe to the heresy will swallow the truth and the lies whole. Some heresies are far more subtle than others. And certain ideologies promoted under the banner of Catholic truth are so radically different from authentic Catholic teaching that they in fact constitute apostasy. The fact is - and few people like to hear this - that to excuse an agenda that opposes the most fundamental right to human life and that represents an assault on the dignity of the human person is to go well past heresy and approach apostasy. There's a reason people say you cannot be both Catholic and "pro-choice." Not recognizing the inherent right to life from the moment of conception strikes at the very heart of what it means to be Catholic. To relinquish a belief in the inviolability of human life in favor of some ill-defined "right to choose" is to lose one's Catholic identity.
And let me head you off now regarding the red herring of capital punishment and war. We can debate the merits of those issues, though they do not carry the same moral gravity as abortion because they are not considered intrinsically evil as abortion is (in other words, unlike abortion, the Church does maintain that there are circumstances under which war and capital punishment can be properly exercised), not to mention the fact that the sheer number of lives lost to abortion exponentially outnumbers was and capital punishment combined. Besides this, Obama is on record as supporting both (then opposing, then supporting again).
I am aware that an invitation was extended by Notre Dame to Bush to be a commencement speaker while he was President. I would not have opposed his invitation as vigorously as I oppose Obama's because his views on life issues were far more consistent with Catholic teaching. That said, I do not think he would have been a suitable candidate to address the graduates at commencement. Had he or any other non-Catholic politician addressed the university in another forum - with the possibility for dialogue - that would have been different. But a university that supposedly promotes Catholic values should invite someone that actually lives by such values to address graduates, given the fact that one of the primary purposes of a commencement address at a Catholic university is to inspire graduates to use their new-found knowledge to go out into the world and live and minister to others according to Catholic moral principles. Any honors to be given out should also only be reserved to someone who meets those qualifications. Barack Obama meets none of these requirements, and is in fact the exact opposite of what commencement speakers and honorees in a Catholic university should represent. That the majority of the students want to hear him speak only serves to further accentuate the fact that they are in dire need of hearing a speech given from a solidly Catholic perspective, because if they go out into the world and promote warped values with their knowledge, they will only do violence to the Church's mission.
As I said before, I am well aware of the Church's teaching, probably more than most Catholics. I understand the arguments, and I understand the Theology behind the pro-life movement. The only point I am trying to make is that the pro-life movement, as it exists today, is something that a Catholic cannot identify with. I looked out my window today to see a plane dragging a banner with the picture of an aborted fetus. Threats have been made to make the commencement ceremonies of hard working Catholic students into a circus. These actions are being taken against Catholics. These are not actions that unify Catholics behind a cause. Prayer rallies, good, march for life, great, flying pictures of bloody remains over campus, and ruining what should be a joyous ceremony are actions that make people ashamed to identify themselves as "pro-life," or even Catholic.
You may understand the theology, but in your words and actions you indicate that you do not take that Catholic theology to heart.
Given the fact that the abortion rights movement goes to ridiculous lengths to mask the truth of what abortion truly is, I find that sometimes a stark reminder of what happens to its victims is in order for a society that has been largely desensitized to the plight of the weakest among us.
And, with all due respect, it is an absolute joke to assert that a Catholic can in good conscience support Barack Obama but not the pro-life movement. It is the kind of statement that only someone with absolute apathy towards the plight of the unborn can make with a straight face.
Which brings up my next question: are you by any chance affiliated with "We Support Notre Dame," Catholics United, or any of the other affiliated groups that identify themselves as Catholic but serve as left-wing apologists in general and (of late) Obama apologists in particular? And if not one of the above groups, then who?
I ask because, in my debates, I make it a point to identify myself, as I have every confidence in the inherent truth of my positions. I prefer that those who debate me extend the same courtesy. It tells me that the other person is equally as confident in their beliefs, and that the debate of ideas will be an intellectually honest one. Given past experience, I tend to doubt the intellectual honesty of those who hide themselves behind an alias during their debates. And debate with an intellectually dishonest person has always proven to be a waste of my time.
You are right on all counts. Absolutely. If you want to discredit my opinion because I am posting under a bogus email address than fine, but understand that I make it a point to hide my identity on everything that I do on the internet because frankly, I don't trust people I don't know either. And I am definitely not here because I am part of any of those groups you listed (if I was trying to look good would I really be posting under "the Pounder"). I will tell you this, I am a Notre Dame student, I am a well educated Catholic, and although I have lately found myself less in line with church teaching, I still have a profound respect for the Church and its morality. I am pro-life, although I would never associate myself with the pro-life movement because it disgusts me. In fact, perhaps the main reason I have moved further away from the church is because of the entire pro-life debate. I currently see the Catholic church as a one issue faith. Everything boils down to abortion. Please don't repeat yourself, I know the theology behind this, and you have already said it many times. But the fact remains that this is not a one issue world. The world is not divided into good guys and bad guys, it just isn't that simple. I don't know when the Church stopped listening to people, but now if you disagree with the church on one issue, you are no longer allowed to speak. Your opinion no longer matters. The point that I was trying to make was not that abortion isn't wrong, not at all. It was that the pro-life movement is driving Catholics away from the faith. When I tried to make this point, you repeated the same theology that I hear every single day. You refused to acknowledge that opinion and instead repeated yourself. When I continued to press the issue you attempt to discredit my opinion by saying I am not being "intellectually honest." It's a blog, I'm not going to tell you my life story. If you are looking for the reason that I am posting here, it is that I believe in open dialogue and the spirit of debate. I enjoy a good argument, and to your credit, apparently so do you. But it is apparent to me that the pro-life movement no longer wants a dialogue, but wants to wage a shock and awe war on anyone who opposes them. If that is what you want then go right ahead, but I know I cannot identify with this, and from my experience I am not alone. You can dismiss me as not a good catholic, or "apathetic to the plight of the unborn." But maybe I'm just someone who sees the world in shades of gray. People aren't evil because they are for abortion. They're opinions still matter even if they are wrong. You can't ignore someone just because they don't agree with you. The easiest way to piss someone off is by not listening to them, and this is the current tactic of the pro-life movement. But making people angry isn't productive, and it will just serve to make people more entrenched, more stubborn. The American pro-life movement is in trouble whether you want to acknowledge it or not, and it must change in order to survive. Otherwise it will be just one of those things that a lot of people yelled about for a while, and then just sort of went away.
Actually, Pounder, it is you who has repeated yourself ad naseum on the issue of "it's not a big deal to give Obama an honorary degree" and "abortion is just one issue among many." I listed several among a legion of reasons why Catholics have a moral obligation to oppose the agenda of Barack Obama, yet you keep pretending that I am only addressing abortion. I have stated that inviting Obama is not just my opinion. It is, in fact, the stated opinion of Notre Dame's Bishop, the individual named as this year's Laetare Medal (who was forced to decline the honor because Fr. Jenkins forced her to choose between a prestigious award and her moral convictions), the USCCB, and the Vatican, all of whom are in agreement about the fact that no Catholic institution should honor individuals who oppose the Church's most fundamental moral teachings. Note the plural. In Obama's case the most prominently contradictory position happens to be abortion, but he also opposes the Church on matters of contraception, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning, gay marriage, the rights of the individual vs. the rights of the state, the role of the Church in a free society vs. the role of government, and even the honor that is properly due to God vs. the honor that is properly due to Caesar, just to name a few. Abortion does take center stage in this debate because it strikes at the very heart of the Church's teachings on the inviolability of human life and the dignity of the human person, and for the myriad other reasons already stated throughout this thread.
You continue to insist that you understand the Catholic theology better than most, but that hardly squares with statements like "I currently see the Catholic church as a one issue faith." This indicates that perhaps your Catholic formation has been especially lacking in the areas of moral and spiritual theology, because such a statement speaks of a tunnel vision that simply isn't possible in one who has been taught and has come to embrace Catholic theology as you claim for yourself. Please understand, that is not meant as a personal attack or a condescending statement, it is simply a testament to how ambiguously you present yourself. There is such beauty and consistency to the Church's teaching about God, man, prayer and devotion, holiness, and morality. That is why the Church's teaching on abortion is so paramount: without a proper understanding of the value of a human life relative to the rest of creation, and the right to life versus all other rights - be they real or imagined - there is no possibility of understanding the deeper dimensions of Catholic theology, especially as it relates to man's purpose in God's plan. The beautifully woven tapestry of revealed truth unravels before it can properly be studied and appreciated for what it is. The devil understands this all too well, which is precisely why he strives to belittle the importance of the abortion issue in the eyes of so many.
If you believe I am wrong in this, then I invite you, in good faith, to give specifics about where you differ from Church teaching, as well as to explain the extent of your pro-life beliefs. I do not ask this for mere edification. I believe knowing these things will better help me understand your conviction that there is nothing wrong with a Catholic institution honoring Barack Obama.
I can understand your not trusting people enough on the Internet to want to identify yourself. I never asked for your life story, though I appreciate your honesty in telling me you are a Notre Dame student and where you currently stand regarding your assent/lack thereof with regard to Church teachings. I never said you were intellectually dishonest, that was a non-sequitir conclusion that you derived on your own. Had I truly believed you to be intellectually dishonest, I would not have even bothered to check this thread for a response, since I would not have expected one.
I do, however, insist on people staking out their stance on matters before assailing the views of others. Those who post anonymously, as a general rule (meaning there are exceptions), tend to just snipe at other people's beliefs from the shadows while revealing nothing about themselves or their beliefs; and this destroys the possibility for a fruitful, intellectually honest exchange of ideas from the outset. It is for that very reason that I have striven to identify myself and my positions here and in my other posts, or when I introduce myself into debates elsewhere. I thank you for beginning to do that yourself, and hope that you can continue to give me a better grasp of your understanding and level of agreement with Catholic theology, for that seems to be at the very heart of this discussion.
As for the pro-life movement, bear in mind that it is preceded by the Church by nearly 2,000 years, and that the Church has held to its right to life convictions from day one. There are many different facets to the modern pro-life movement, as there are various groups operating independently of one another that will come together for special events - such as the March for Life - but generally work on different fronts the rest of the time. Certainly there are "shock and awe" types who don't want to engage in debate, though from my experience they tend to be in the minority and individuals like Randall Terry are generally not held in high regard by others who work for the pro-life cause.
That said, the same is at the very least true of the pro-abortion movement, though collaborative efforts between the different fronts of that movement tends to be a lot more common. And believe me, any apparent aversion to honesty debate among pro-lifers pales in comparison to the cult that is the pro-abortion movement. From trying to label pregnancy as a choice rather than as a consequence of a choice to repeating the tiresome mantra of "women's health," "women's rights," and "women's lives," the abortion rights movement has literally hijacked the English language to create common misconceptions not only about abortion, but about those who oppose it. That this has led to frustration among life-long pro-lifers who have given up on trying to have honest and open debate with pro-aborts who never stray from superficial talking points is beyond dispute.
I myself was present as a pro-life witness during the so-called "March for Women's Lives" in Washington, D.C. in late April 2004. Hundreds of thousands of pro-abortion demonstrators packed the streets in a display of vitriol, vulgarity, and lewdness that will be difficult to top in this lifetime. Good luck trying to have an honest debate with that crowd.
There are, of course, some on that side who will engage in debate. I have debated a few, and every one of the folks I debated held truly chilling views of the what truly makes a human being a human being, and what makes them valuable. I see much of Obama in these people. He does not merely fail to hold that all human life is sacred from the moment of conception, he holds that the value of human life is subject to the whims of other humans. Such a view simply does not allow room for the belief in a God from whom all human life derives its intrinsic value and to whom all judgment regarding who is and is not to be born is reserved.
If you want to better understand the increasing Catholic opposition to honoring a man like Barack Obama in a Catholic setting, you might want to start with that train of thought and see where it leads you.
Post a Comment