Glendon declines Notre Dame medal

Good for her. I'm glad there are a few people left in this county who stand by their convictions. I may not agree with her but I'm proud of her.

Coming from Harvard, you'd think she might be more open-minded. I guess even at great institutions in our country, there are faculty with very small minds.

I applaude Ms. Glendon for standing up for her Catholic beliefs. I too do not think it's appropriate for Notre Dame to award a Degree to someone who does not share our beliefs. Notre Dame has lost a lot of respect for bowing to the President.

Three cheers for this gutsya and principled professor. Too bad many other professors from liberal educational institutions do not feel the same way. She took an ethical and faith stand, and is sticking to it. By the way, would you accept the medal, knowing you were second choice, or third, and that you received it because a person of staunch moral perception turned it down? I would not.

Hurrah for Mary Ann Gledon!

Well aren't we full of ourselves and a whole lot more, particularly the stuff you want to clean off your shoes before you come inside. Grow up Mary Ann.

Good for her!

Notre Dame is hypocritical !!!!!

My goodness! It is a shame we have to insult each other because we can not or do not all agree on issues. Accepting an award that's meant to honor, not shame anyone. It is a silent slap in the face to those you don't agree with, which does no one honor. Respecting each others beliefs means compromise some of the time. You don't have to compromise your beliefs by accepting an award. You can silently protest, without making it a matter for the media. I am sure it was meant as a statement, but it comes off looking very petty.

She is a disgraceful American. How embarrassing for Harvard Law School.

Her point is totally reasonable and the letter is very classy - very Glendon. This is why girls should run the show (just kidding, but kind of not). She has the you know whats that Jenkins did not possess.

What a load of holier-than-thou horse crap! Where is your pious righteous indignation when your church, including the nazi at the top, protects sexually abusive priests? By the way, it looks as if you're wearing garments made of two different materials, which is clearly prohibited in Leviticus. Report to the parking lot for your public stoning.

I find it hypocritical that Prof. Glendon did not have the same reaction when the University invited Pres. Bush to speak. The Church is just as opposed to capital punishment as it is to abortion. Yet Pres. Bush (as Governor of Texas), oversaw more executions than any Governor, and subsequently President, in American history. Can anyone see this as an overtly political insult besides me?

If you are the next one asked to receive the award, ask yourself:

How "prestigious" an award can it be for a Catholic to receive it from a "cafeteria style Catholic insittution"?

I am so proud of her decision. At some point people of faith must stand up for their beliefs or we are lost as a society and a county.

You go, Girl!

She has served her country and her faith with honor and dignity, Congratulations!

What does it matter if you stand by your convictions if you choose not to accept others for their beliefs. It is time that Catholics and every other religion stop creating position statements that create opportunities to judge and define what makes a "good" person. Ultimately God will make the last judgement and we shouldn't try to do it in his place here on Earth.

Good for Notre Dame for standing by it's own important principles and realizing that times have changes and having the President speak is important and historic in nature.

Congratulations to Professor Glendon for "living" her beliefs and not being satisfied with simply expressing them. We have long forgotten that the Catholic Church was founded on the blood of so many martyrs that chose death, rather than compromising their beliefs. Failure to understand this put any believer at risk of falling for any temporary trend that does not pass the test used by the martyrs.

Cowardly. There's no reason to not award Obama a medal, since he is not in favor of abortion, but he is in favor of a woman's right to choose. For the Catholics to assume that they are the only religion in the world is short-sighted. Add to that the fact that Obama is Christian, not Catholic, and it seems that Notre Dame will be relegated to only Catholic speakers. If she is so offended, I recommend they send an appropriate Catholic in her place. I would recommend Stephen T. Colbert for that honor.

What an ironic week, two women one known for her political and legal knowledge, Professor Glendon, and the other for her beauty, Miss California, both stand as "lights on a hill" and give us cause to reflect on our own choices to either stand up for our beliefs or "hide them under a bushel"
I can hear the heavens ring "Well done, good and faithful servants"

It's appropriate that, in the picture, Prof. Glendon's nose is in the air....

Whether Obama, a non-Catholic, can be considered as someone "who act[s] in *defiance* of our fundamental moral principles" (whose? the Bishops'? All Catholics'?) is doubtful. Defiance is something more than not agreeing with you or acting in disregard of your belief. *Maybe* this could be said of a Catholic politician in a similar situation, but Obama does not stand under the authority of the bishops or of Catholic teaching. So Prof. Glendon doesn't really understand what she is quoting.

If this has anything to do with leading by example, then It's fortunate that the Catholics have a God who is far-more tolerant and forgiving than they are...

Interesting news. I side with Notre Dame.

INTEGRITY. Like it or not, she has it. At least someone still does.

I disagree with her broader conservative values, but this is a classy response to a potentially ridiculous situation. Well done!

Typical - MY god or NO god.

..."In order to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision, I will release this letter to the press"...

Nice to see she was willing to state what were her main motivations . As always religious autocracy is incompatible with a free and modern society.

Good riddance to her, and all who would politicize the Catholic Church. Glendon and all of these Bush Catholics obsess about abortion, while ignoring Bush's volitional war on Iraq, which, let's remember, the last two popes opposed. Such moral compartmentalization suggests to me that this moral outrage is merely political. Hypocrisy.

So basically she is saying that the President of the United States, a person of strong faith does not deserve to be given an honorary degree, something people get for doing commencement speeches all the damn time. This lady, like most religous zealots of all stripes is out of her mind. Because the Cardinal of Bishops requests that you do something does not mean you have to. They are NOT a law enforcement authority and it was just a request. Norte Dame is a catholic university but it is still a private university and can choose to do as it wishes. This woman can also, but to say the President of the United States can not have an honorary degree because you do not like his civil stance on abortion is insane.

How can someone in office less than 100 days receive an honorary degree? Don't we have to wait and see?

Arafat got a Peace Prize. Gore got a Peace Prize. As a matter of fact I believe Gore beat out a Polish women who saved thousands of Jewish children during WWII. The woman being even more laudable than Schindler. And we have nothing to show from Gore or Arafat. Prizes earned and nothing accomplished. How very telling.

And now Obama is getting an honorary degree after covering up Christ's initials at Georgtwon
And

I'm absolutely speechless. How does Obama's stance on any subject compare to the tens of thousands of deaths caused by Bush's war in Iraq? Last time I checked, pacifism, compassion, and goodwill are supossedly Catholic teachings. Yet, Bush spoke at commencement when I was a student at Notre Dame, and, while there was a small protest over Bush's policies, there wasn't such public outrage as Obama's invitation has caused. Those who oppose Obama's invitation all say that his policies do not reflect Catholic teachings, yet they do not take the time to point out exactly what these conflicts are. I graduated from Notre Dame, and I welcome President Obama.

I guess being a woman does not automatically bestow magnanimity.

Catholic institutions "should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles"
Does this mean Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon would have problems speaking at ND had ex-President Bush or Vice President Cheney been receiving honors? Then again, "water-boarding" (defined as torture by the Holy See) probably doesn't qualify as "defiance of our fundamental moral principles" by Professor Glendon. What a bunch of oportunistic phonies!

This is the President of the USA, he is sworn to uphold the laws of the land!
If Prof Glendon puts the edicts of the bishops above US law than she should consider retiring from Harvard Law

There is so much hypocrisy in this country. Our recent president, who claims to be a religious man started an illegal war which so far has accounted for the death of over 4,000 Americans and countless Iraqis including many women and children.
Catholics who worry about abortion have little concern for those dying all over our planet because of war, starvation and greed. Further neglect and denial comes from the sexual abuse of numerous people in many countries including children. This is the Church who has a high moral standing to tell others what to do.
Obama is our president and in his first 100 days has done more good then Bush could ever muster including undoing much damage from Bush. It is time for the Catholic Church to join the 21 Century.

Right, becuase there are really a lack of people who stand by their convictions. Great point.

I find it ironic that she calls Obama uncompromising on the abortion issue, because the Catholic Church has been anything but uncompromising on the same issue. Thats called a double standard.

I agree with Glendon, what has obama done to deserve our respect. She on the other hand is of much greater stature. How dare Mr. Obama over shadow her medal. Of course, Mr. Obama supports the Supreme Courts reading of the consitution. Which is rediculous, the only law that matters is cannon law. Who cares about 200 year old pieces of paper that are the corner stone of the democracy in which we live. She on the other hand, was part of a far more moral administration that only condoned the use of torture. Of course Notre Dame was right not to consider this when choosing her because after all it was torture against non believers. Thank you Mary Ann Glendon

ha ha ha! catholics think their morals are something to be proud of?! what an awful religion. i guess omama doesn't believe in helping child rapists run from the law.

I wonder if Professor Glendon would have declined the Laetare Medal if President Bush had been invited to receive an honorary award: he is a man who promoted an unjust war that is contrary to Catholic teachings, and permitted torture, which defies Catholic moral principles.

Seriously, if she had any principles, would she have accepted a post from war criminals Bush and Cheney?

It is completely laughable that this woman thinks Obama acts " in defiance of our fundamental moral principles" yet seems to feel proud about working in the administration of George Bush, who condoned torture, war, bigotry. Bush left huddled masses exposed to wind and rain during Katrina, sent thousands of our men and women to be killed in an unrighteous war, and was just generally pretty dumb, to say it nicely. Obama, though not perfect (is anyone?), is at least reaching out, extending peaceful overtures to different parts of the world, trying to send messages of inclusion and peace. This letter is full of haughty, misplaced piety, but as a Recovering Catholic, who wishes I could embrace the church of my youth, I have come to expect nothing less from the Catholic Establishment. So many of us would love to return to Catholicism, but over and over again find that is basically has its head up its ass. Is there a more contrary religion out there? This letter just leaves me shaking my head. I applaud Notre Dame for offering an invite to Obama. ("a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church's position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice." I love this line!!! What a joke! Is she serious?!?!!? What a freaking hypocrite!!) Hypocrisy at its finest. Thanks, Mary Ann Glendon, for reminding me why I left the church, and letting me know that it is still doing backwards things and I shouldn't bother trying to return to it anytime soon. I'll stay a heathen for now, if that means supporting gay rights, wanting peace, opposing torture interrogation methods, loathing Dick Cheney, etc....
Off to sin.

OK, tell me one thing this smug, self-satisfied woman has done to deserve any award.

What an eloquent woman! Blessings to her for her good example!

It is unfortunate that Father Jenkins reaction was merely to award the Laetare Medal to another recipient.
In this day and age when so many Catholics are no longer 'practicing catholics'
it is unfortunate that a catholic university such as Notre Dame sets such an example. What possible reason could Father Jenkins have to choose President Obama - who says the United States is not a country of Christians, who's pastor for 20 years says God Dam America, over a devout Catholic such as Professor Glendon. I wish he would tell we catholics what his thinking is. Unless he just feels it's just a matter of "do as I say not as I do."

BRAVO! HOWEVER, I WONDER IF IT WAS WISE TO "SURRENDER THE FIELD" WHEN THE PROFESSOR HAD SUCH A RIPE OPPORTUNITY TO CONFRONT OBAMA AND THE MENGELE/ABORTION NAZIS HE REPRESENTS. AFTER ALL, THE LEFT HAD NO QUALMS ABOUT HAVING A SPEAKER INSULT PRESIDENT BUSH TO HIS FACE.

Standing by your convictions can be a good thing, but not when your convictions are based on religious and moral intolerance.

WHAT A WOMAN!!!! MORE POWER TO HER!!!!

It is a breath of fresh air in this stale environment of accommodation and to see an individual as Professor Glendon driven by her faith and principles and take a stand against the blatant hypocrisy of Notre Dame!

Oh, please. If they "should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles" then who are they going to find to honor? A disturbingly large percentage of Catholic priests themselves don't meet this qualification. I say good for Notre Dame for sticking with a HISTORIC President. And this woman doesn't deserve to be honored. Would she have refused it if John McCain had become President and was invited to speak? He is an adulterer, among other things, after all. The hypocrisy of the Catholic church knows no bounds.

That is courage and conviction. Thank you Ambassador Glendon, for your strong statement about principle. God Bless you.

Who cares.....next!

Well I can understand that she is upset due to the pro-choice views of our president and how it goes against the teachings of the Church...but what about an unjust war that the Church opposes, but many Catholics can find a way to excuse that illegal and unjust cause.

I'm sure Mary Ann Glendon is for the most part a fine person, but she is also a hypocrite. Saying a person like Barack Obama is defying some "fundamental moral principles" is ludicrious on the face of it. She served a person, George W. Bush, who is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths due to an immoral war started on the premise of deception and lies. I don't think one can get any more immoral than that, and thank goodness we have a humanitarian like Obama to clean up that evil mess and scores of others left behind by Bush. And she's backing a group of bishops that lied, deceived and tried to hide the sexual atrocities of hundreds of priests under them.

Thank God for Mary Ann Glandon a true believer in Jesus Christ teachings. We sure can't say that for Father Jenkins. Can we??

There is some implications in her statement that makes the current US president seem immoral--even to a extremist view, corrupt. Though her right to voice her opinion is respected, however, I believe it is unfounded and possibly biased towards religious/political ties. Let not the church nor the last presidential administration forget any of their hypocrisies.

Obama could learn a great deal from Professor Glendon, the most important of which is to maintain ones principles. Obama, much like Bill Clinton, made every decision based on polling data. In a attempt to serve his own vanity and maintain high approval ratings Obama flip flops repeatedly. A perfect example is the torture issue. First no to releasing memos, then yes, then leave it to the justice department to decide prosecutions.
Obama's principles are far too "flexible", not good for forming ones foundation.

who the *%$# cares

Glendon might as well have said "If I can't see the game played MY way, I'm taking my archaic, backwards-thinking ball(s) and going home."

A digressive Christian NOT getting a prestigious award from an institution of higher learning? Maybe, as evident by her reaction, she really just doesn't deserve it.

Why not decline to give anyone the honor? That was done when a prominent Catholic in the 19th century refused to receive it. As it turned out, he was a convert who had decided very early that he would never receive an honor from the Church he humbly adored.

This is simply political and is a shame. The republicans advocate for the death penalty and that doesn't inspire outrage. Last I checked the Vatican also disapproves of the death penalty. Anyways many, many, many people support the holding of Roe v. Wade not because they have a pro-abortion stance. It is simply that the state has no business to regulate a private patient doctor relationship.

Professor Glendon has exhibited a trait that is sadly rare in America today - a committment to principle. She deserves an award superior to the Laetare Medal.

Good job Professor Glendon!
Thank you for standing up for your beliefs.

Sad that the Pope should dictate the terms of free and full discussion of issues

Another long standing tradition from a prestigious institution dies. It does matter who they give her award too, the morals and traditions are lost. Hopefully, the next person in line to receive the award will have the same character as Mrs. Glendon

A woman of conviction. What a refreshing individual. Whether you agree or disagree with the situation she stands for principals that we have long thrown away in trying to be politically correct. Shame on Notre Dame for using the graduation of their students who worked so hard for this event. They are using it as a forum for balancing discussions on moral issues. The President of Notre Dame should be asked to resign. It is an honor to have the President of the United States at your commencement but not at the sake of your students.

It's nice to know that principles still matter to some people.

May all of those who are on the side of life for the unborn take the same bold action and speak with clarity concerning these issues. I admire you, Mary Ann Glendon.
Thanks.

oh snap! she burned ND! ND should have fixed this issue right away, instead it has become a bloated controversial mess.

The U.S. Bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions "should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles" - are these the same guys who said after Obama was elected that any Catholic who voted for him had committed a mortal sin? Give me a break. Yes, it's commendable that this woman is standing by her convictions, but more commendable I think that Notre Dame is giving the medal to someone else.

Interesting. Professor Glendon is concerned that "by association," her brief participation in ND's 2009 commencement would imply her approval of a number of viewpoints and/or positions which she finds morally objectionable.

Left unsaid is whether or not her extended association with the Bush Administration implies a tacit approval of the many failings of that sad institution.

Was Glendon just as disgusted that the University bestowed the honor to President Reagan, a supporter of the death penalty?

If consistent wouldn't the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops also request that Notre Dame refuse to grant degrees to those graduating seniors who do not support all of the official positions of the Catholic Church? Certainly many do not. An honorary degree shouldn't demand more. The Laetare Medal on the other hand is award given in recognition of outstanding service to the Roman Catholic church and society that illustrates the ideal of the Catholic Church. Ms. Glendon is an ideal recipient and should be proud to accept the honor.

Good luck to Notre Dame in finding another devout Catholic willing to accept this award now. There will be a lot of pressure from the Catholic hierarchy not to do so.

Way to go! Finally, someone who is standing up for what is right and just in the world. God Bless!

This is a sad situation all around, but Glendon has made the right decision. Many of us are cheering her moral fortitude.

Just another single issue, religious wing-nut. Kudos to other open minded members in academia who understand the need to value the entire persona not just one misguided religious doctrine.

I seriously doubt Ms. Glendon will be playing a bigger harp in the hereafter.

Finally, a person with integrity and she teaches at Harvard-how unexpected. What is wrong with Notre Dame? Jenkins gives the lamest of statements and rushes to replace Ms Glendon so as to cover the embarrassment instead of realizing that she is right. What a slippery slope of compromise our Catholic institutions are on. It was heartening that the usually liberal B.C. did not join this particular down-hill toboggan.

I agree with her decision and I think Barack Obama should cancel as well. This would show the world that we have two people of principal.

That is great. Stand for what you believe! I am also proud of this woman.

Did we need any more proof that the Catholic Church is so out of step with American society in 2009? And what nonsense: A day for joy for graduates? Since when? If that was the case, why would any university invite anyone to make remarks? If it was about joyous celebration, dear ambassador, the students would be using the money devoted to buying your precious award to buy kegs of beer. Give me a break. Such pretentiousness. Very nice to see the church show such tolerance, which was Christianity's hallmark so long ago. Yes, that's what we need: more jealous religions in the world. Thanks for fanning the flames, ambassador! Now, when are you going to start attacking all of the Catholics like me who don't follow every order from the Vatican nor its bishops?

Two women, one a law professor and the other a beauty pageant contestant standing up for their conservative values without attacking the left. I wonder what has happened to the American male? It appears that our mothers and sisters have more brass gonads. PALIN IN 2012 doncha know?

Father Jenkins should be supporting Professor Glendon...she appears to be the one that has the ethics, morals and values! She definitely "sets the bar high".

Pah!
Standing by one's convictions is not a virtue!

The Catholic Church talks conveniently of the sanctity of life - but its own history has been bloody.

It would seem that she declined to give her opposition to President Obama in a forum where he could offset it, but has no problem with using the media to put her opposition forward when he has no way to comment. This seems like she's trying to be both noble and sneaky at the same time - I'd like her to pick one or the other...

Mary Ann Glendon has provided her students and her nation an astonishing example of the meaning of integrity.

Notre Dame, Georgetown and Boston College are the Ivy League of faith based colleges. Now, Notre Dame at least, has become Bob Jones University with a miter.

God bless her. Nice to see someone with convictions.
She has more courage than Joel Osteen and Rick Warren.

I am not a Catholic but look at the response from Notre Dame to Professor Glendon as just another example of the spineless direction our country is headed. No one wants to stand up for anything anymore except liberal viewpoints and when someone does they are dismissed as a nuisance. What is that all about? This is a Catholic University and should be EXPECTED to stand up for it's values and beliefs, just as any religious university should! The Catholic Church is becoming the laughing stock of religion in our country. How very sad.

I have to say I respect Mary Ann Glendon for making this difficult decision in support of her convictions. I also respect that she made her official letter declining to accept the honor available to the press, so there will be no question or controversy over why she declined.
It is a shame that we have differences of opinion that drive people apart in this country, but to express our differences in a civil manner is far better than the alternative means used in the popular media.
I also do not agree with her, but I most certainly respect and admire her.

I am so sick of Catholics thinking they are the only religion in the world. And yes I know ND is a catholic school, but they felt it fine to invite the President. Get over yourself.

Someone with sound principles and willing to act on them. How refreshing.

Ms Glendon,

Please advise as to how you feel about the 50+ years of child molestation cover ups that the Catholic Church has implemented to shield pedophile priests?

"Should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles"

Why then are you not speaking out against Cardinal Bernard Law's quick jettison to the Vatican?

Your choice / stance seems partisan and hypocritical

-Boston1

God bless you. You have shown that turning down the Laetare Medal in this circumstance reveals a dedication to the heritage of humanity far greater than accepting it would have shown. Whoever they select to receive the medal in your place cannot possibly be more deserving than you.

Integrity
Good for her , It is to bad that it take a women to show us who has the guts and the integrity and to stand for what is RIGHT were the Church is scared to stand on the truth.
This is the death of Notre Dame when they can not determine between what is right and wrong. Ask a 3 year old child they can tell you but as be become so called wise in our own eyes we are actually fools. Why would you want to get a education at such a college
Glendon , you have a story, write a book I will love to hear from you.

Mary Ann Glendon a person with whom I share that Catholic Faith. She is a wonderful example of a patriotic and courageous person. I have admiration for her decision to avoid the podium with a man who does not respect human life.

Thanks you very much for your Christian example

Crazyness. Some are so far out of touch and yet others choose to stand by them. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground for those too far to the left or right. God help us. We seem unable to help ourselves.

Glendon should be on Obama's cabinet. In her one little pinky she has more integrity than all of Bambam's appointees put together.

I see. Glendon has no problem working at Harvard, which provides abortion services at its Women's Health Center, but won't share a stage with Obama?

Weak, very weak move on this professor's part. Professor Glendon could espouse her beliefs unfettered at this prestigious event but instead she chooses to take her ball and go home like a silly child. Her actions are not about convictions. She is a passive-aggressive grandstander. As Lincoln said, though passions inflamed, they must not break the bonds of our friendship. This country needs people who are willing to all come to the table in these difficult times, not play pissy games.

When the catholic church was protecting clergyman for decades who were abusing hundreds of children they broke faith with their members - little wonder the Catholic church if falling more and more into insignificance, when the LDS and Pentacostal faiths are surging - this attempt to hamper public discourse will only hasten their downfall, to the delight of its critics.

It is truly unfortunate that intelligent, well meaning people use the Holy Bible as justification for petty biases and bigotry. It would be such a relief if conservative Christians taught people to think as act as Christ, rather than about Christ.

"fundamental principles of justice?" What the heck is she referring to? This President is one of the most level-headed and fair-minded representatives of the American voting public that we have had in a long time. His multi-cultural background qualifies him for a broader sense of what it might take to adequately interface with world entities. Without predjudice.

Thank you, Professor Glendon. Your example of consistent forthright espousal of basic principles should clarify and empower those who value life and faith.

Professor Glendon fails to explain how she justified being part of an administration that was directly responsible for thousands of deaths, through a war that it started on false pretenses. How could she work for a man who promoted the death penalty and executed more prisoners than any other governor? Pro-life is pro-life, Professor; you can't pick and choose your favorite lives to save (unborn baby, good....Iraqi citizens and soldiers, bad!) In your words, a commencement is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families...then why would you make such an obviously political statement?

Where were all these so called "pro-lifers" during Bush's 8 years of torture, kidnappings and civilian massacre? Mary Ann, don't let the door hit your ass on your way out.

I have been dismayed that Notre Dame has chosen to honor a President who is so unabashedly Pro-Choice. That having been said, I am proud of any Roman Catholic who, in this day and age, places their beliefs above the slavish "American Idol" mentality of so many, including the administrations of some of the Church's finest institutions of higher learning.

Professor Glendon obviously is referring to the issue of abortion. Those who insist the fertilized egg is a human being from the moment of conception need to support that view by also demanding that when pregnancy is determined a Certificate of Conception, or something similar, be issued and if a live, healthy birth does not happen in a normal time frame an investigation be initiated to determine where that missing person is or why they are not healthy, no different than if that person had already been born. The fertilized egg can't be considered a human being for some purposes and not for others. How many will be willing to put their children in that position of responsibility or threat of penalty?

God bless you for having the courage of your convictions, Dr. Glendon.

So prejudice and bias are still prevalent in this country.

Too bad. I wonder if Glendon would behave the same if Obama had been a white person. Racism is very very bad, and Glendon is just being racist.

Fine, if she doesn't want it then refuse forever to offer it to her for any reason ever again. A woman has a right to decide EVERYTHING that happens with her own body, abortion included. If this "woman" thinks that others have a right to dictate what happens to her then fine, so be it, but neither she nor anyone else has the right to decide about what one does to or is right for ones own self...abortion included.

Dear Professor Glendon, How does it feel to be entrapped in the kind of thinking that cannot tolerate the thoughts of others, reached conscientiously from their own perspective? How do you survive in an academic climate with your conscience intact?

Notre Dame:
Shame on you for lowering your standards and allowing the Anti-Christ to spew his rot and venom on your campus.

She's teaching at HARVARD? And she believes a University that benefits greatly from the taxpayers (as Notre Dame and Harvard do through donations generating charitable write-offs, federal grants, and federal student loans, for example) should be dictated to by the Catholic Church? The award she deserves may be the Torquemada Prize for conflating the church and the state, academic freedom with my-way-or-the-highway. Shame on her, on Harvard, and on Notre Dame!

" That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution's freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes,"

Yeah, she want's to be the one who controls who Notre Dame invites and engages to have serious debate.. LOL..

Nice lady..

Thank goodness people in the public eye are still able to stand up for their moral convictions, even if they go against the liberal media. Ms. Glendon, I wish you the best and thank you for taking a stand.

She clings so adamantly to her supernatural beliefs, and needs so badly for the bishops' authority to be heeded. Perhaps her self-righteousness masks fear.

I agree. It's refreshing to know that people not only have opinions but stick by them no matter what. I'm very proud of Professor Glendon, the medal is a wonderful honor but she can't accept it under the circumstances it is being awarded, I say good for her.

As a 1982 graduate of Notre Dame i applaud Prof. Glendon for her decision to stand up for her moral beliefs. It is sad that Fr. Jenkins is not of the same moral character. This scandal has done tremendous damage to our university and Fr. Jenkin"s response further deepens it.

Maybe the Commencement speech topic should be "Intolerance and its Religious Forms."

Diversity of ideas can either let us evolve and learn, or cause wars, genocide, inner city gangs, etc.

Sad for the students at Notre Dame to not hear you both speak.

Emotions add a third dimension to any situation; no one can deny emotions as they are real. M.A. Glendon has based her decision on emotions and they cannot be denied; that is her choice. But, when I look at the situation analytically, it seems to me that the president could have addressed the students and she could have accepted the award without further ado. Mr. Obama is the president and his presidency should be respected and acknowledged by others who may disagree with his views; much as I did during the George W. Bush presidency - with whom I found myself in almost constant disagreement. Good for her and good for N.D.

Views from the Dark Ages, founded in the language of the Inquisition are best left in Boston anyway. Thank you for declining to visit Mary Ann, please just stay where you are and keep thinking backward, it suits you.

If those opposed to the president's positions want to be taken seriously and not ignores by the American public, they need to disagree with class like Glendon.

Roman Catholic Americans have been put into a difficult position by their leadership: they cannot be good Catholics if they allow non-Catholics to make decisions about contraception, abortion, withdrawal of life support, homosexuality, the death penalty, etc. on the basis of their own religious beliefs rather than those of a denomination to which they do not belong. The hierarchy does not allow Catholics to allow anyone else to follow the teachings of their own faith or the dictates of their own conscience!

What a dilemma for people living in a pluralist society. All the rest of us can do is keep them from gaining enough power to impose their particular teachings about how life is to be held sacred by legislative or judicial force.

Good for her, Hussein should be ashamed of himself for his position. I don't understand ,unless it is some pay-off, why this guy would be worthy of a degree from any University at this stage of the team . This guy has been in office for 100 days,spent most of the time running all over the world embarrassing America. Wait until he has done something before we give him the keys to the world !!!
Thank you Professor Glendon for stand for something !!!!

It is a strong message and one from a woman of conviction. The letter was eloquently written and to the point. I hope ND,Georgetown and others wake up and get the message bigtime. I am glad there are still some leaders with backbone.

I'm not catholic, but it's nice to hear people stand up for what they believe in. Thanks for the good example.

typical of another trust fund hippie who is funded by republicans. Nice mid-life crisis move! now go to the islands and deal with your pent up frustrations the right way.

It is shameful that they invited or offered an honor to someone like Mary Ann Glendon in the first place. Why would we want the minds of young Catholics exposed to her heretical ideas anyway?

Perhaps they can instead invite someone who pays attention to promoting the actual teachings of Christ, as seen in scripture and the teachings of early Church fathers like Augustine, Jerome, and Aquinas, rather than their own personal right wing social agenda.

Amen!

Wow I am truly amazed at her at her strength to stand by her her beliefs. I was raised in a Catholic/ Baptist household and while I am not a Catholic I agree that it is strange for Notre Dame to bestow this on someone who goes against their beliefs and standards as a Catholic school even going against the U.S. Bishops position. I also believe that they picked Mary Ann Glendon because she deserved the Laetare Medal and as such it should be reserved for her. Just because she chose to stand by her beliefs and not falter as Notre Dame did isn't a good enough reason to just find another recipient - it lessens the meaning of the medal.

This is an interesting situation. It is nice, for a change, to see someone stand up for their principles. Although, I am not quite sure if it is her own principles she is standing up for or the Catholic Church's. I do wish that more principled Catholics showed up to protest all the pedophile priests. I didn't hear too many calls for excommunication for them (just move them from parish to parish) but I did hear calls for excommunication for Catholics who support a woman's right to choose. I am assuming that it is the abortion issue that Ms. Glendon is referring to when she refers to "fundamental moral principles..."

I will say that Notre Dame was wrong to use Glendon as a 'counter balance' to the President without first discussing this with her. My guess is that the university found itself in a defensive posture and tried to mollify those who feel that the President's position on human rights, like a right to choose, is at odds with the Church's position.

I think that the university did a great thing by bringing the President to their commencement proceedings. While I respect the decision that Ms. Glendon has made, it clearly hurts no one but herself. Neither the students nor the president are likely to notice her absence.

The real issue i

Wow, I am very impressed. For once someone shows integrity and followed her values. I am not "pro or against" her position but I really liked she stuck to her principles and acted accordingly. The letter is so well written!

I agree with Delois Rowena, good for her for standing true.

I nominate Sister Joan Chittister for the Laetare Medal.

I am dissapointed with Notre Dame for going against the Catholic Church's policy for bestowing an honorary degree to a man, Barak Obama, that supports the legalized disposal of innocent human beings. I applaud Mary Ann Glendon for her stand, and recognize her as my spokesperson on this issue. She deserves much more than what Notre Dame could present her. Shame on you Notre Dame.

Seems like she has a cork blocking a certain material substance that is rising to her brain and causing a disfunction. I would think that she want her views heard to counter balance his views. But I guess in her world there is only room for 1 side.

AMEN.

You go girl! Wow. I am very impressed with this woman. Too bad there are too many politically correct people in this world. It is refreshing to see a person of conviction.

good thing it's not Bush he'd have her sent to gitmo for disrespecting him

Old coot.

Yes, good Catholics, don't speak out against the execution of innocent prisoners, mostly by Bush when Goverenor, and the rest of the our 3000+ already born and living troops, plus over 100, 000 INNOCENT Iraq children and civilians. What happened to the one innocent prisoner in Georgia who even the Pope asked be commuted....HE WAS KILLED!

And, of course, there are all the pedophiles sitting in the esteemed audience at Notre Dame...that's o.k., emotional killing is o.k. for the rest of one's life!

I agree with Professor Glendon's enviable stance for what she believes in. As a Catholic institution Notre Dame, by its actions, fails to uphold the principles it is committed to. Rev. Jenkins should be concerned about the implications of his dichotomous action, especially at a such siginficant moment in his graduates life.

Is the President of Notre Dame a politician or a pastor of his flock?As a long time supporter of Nortre Dame ( our Lady), I am dismayed.

Father Jenkins ( Notre Dame U.) states that " it is our intention to award the Laetare Medal to another deserving receipient ." Any deserving candidate so nominated should not accept if indeed his/her acceptance is viewed by NDU officials as a counter balance to President Obama's remarks... Hooray for Mary Ann Glendon... Pray for her and Notre Dame U officials, for they have been blinded by the charisma of our president.

All this controversy over a simple Honorary degree makes me realize why I am no longer a practicing Catholic.

Sanctimonius old coot. Did she admonish Bush about the needless war he dragged the Nation into and the subsequent 4000+ deaths of our young people, not to mention the horrendous carnage inflicted on the Iraqui people.

There are LOTS of people in this country who stand and live by their convictions every day often while being socially abused by the current Catholic hierarchy. Glendon is no hero. She's merely a proponent of a very conservative view of Catholicism - arguably one that does not respect a number of basic principles of social justice. She might be sincere, but sincerity doesn't make right. I should note, I am a practicing Catholic and a graduate of two Catholic Universities.

Type your comment here... Ms. Glendon's reaction is an example of the narrowmindeness and intransigence inherent in religious attitudes, whose compassionate and comforting pretensions are debunked by her actions. While standing up for ones principles and convictions is an essential part of communication, the inability to connect with and co-exist with people who have different beliefs and views is a large part of the problem in a world where so much conflict is wrapped up in religious trappings.

Wow, a woman of good moral character and integrity. It seems that we are living in a society where the immoral are a majority. We moral minority must stand for what is right and not for what is in. We need to remember "One Nation Under God" and "In God We Trust". God bless Professor Glendon.

I think Dr. Glendon, whom I know and respect deeply, has chosen an unexpected but correct path.

If Jenkins' hope that a dialogue is what's supposed to occur for the students, faculty and parents on graduation day, this set up for Obama then Glendon to hash that out, in the hopes of some kind of point/counterpoint, is simply not practical, much less likely to occur in a fruitful manner. Commencement should be a celebration of the achievements of its graduates, not an effort to orchestrate some kind of balanced debate that, according to the Church, has very clear delineations. The Church is clear on honorary degrees. ND doesn't care. She should. If this was a debate on campus, it'd be a different story.

It seems clear from the letter though that what really pushed Dr. Glendon to decline is the spurious and transparently cynical PR maneuvering by Jenkins' and Notre Dame in trying to spin and play down this contraversy, something they only brought on themselves.

Dr. Glendon and President Obama did not invite this contraversy, Notre Dame did. And the bravest one, by far, is Dr. Glendon.

"I do not plan to make any further comment on the matter at this time."

Let's hope she sticks to that self-imposed decision. Instead of, you know, appearing at various fund-raising efforts on behalf of the Church or conservative causes, and other vehicles (talk shows, radio programs) for which she will be paid handsome fees. Nice way to grandstand and duck the issues, by the way, while making her stance appear so principled.

250,000 dead Iraq's! No one from the Bush years should receive anything but jail time!

What a silly, vain woman. Her childish reaction makes it obvious that she never should have been selected for the medal in the first place.

Well done. Not many of us would be able to reject this prestigious award because of our beliefs.

Oh, puh-lease! George Bush, lying through his teeth, for what reason God only knows, to drag us into a war and to be personally accountable for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, fits her definition of someone who holds "our fundamental moral principles ..." at heart? This woman needs to seriously get a grip!

I am neither in US, nor a Christian., but I agree with Delois Rowena wholeheartedly, with a caveat being "in this world" instead of "in this country".

I also agree with her decision. In a world of floating values, it is hard to find those who go beyond political correctness to act with their conscience. Shame on Notre Dame for falling into the politically correct pit.
I am not a catholic and it isn't important that I have different views, what is important is that she is taking a stand and I'm sure there will be a price to pay but I know that a woman of her stature has weighed the cost.

Her and Ms. California. Congrats to both of them

Honorary degrees should only go to warmongers. Few years ago the Pope apologized for the role the church played in the slave trade and colonialization of Africa. Slavery is one of the "fundamental moral principles" this lady is talking about.

>>>

I find professor Glendon's line of reason falls short.. A settled position is enough for her to turn off her reasoning capacity, never noticing that settled positions are crashing and burning all around her- capital markets, manufacturing- all those stuck on settled positions and notions of how the world works continue to apply yesterdays solutions to todays problems- accelerating our global economic decline.

Second, 'disregarding a Council of Bishop's request from 2004' which was a blatant political swipe at the field of national and state candidates threatening republican control of House, Senate and White House that year is a smart move because, wake up, its not 2004. Its 2009- you are acting from yesterdays paradigm and clearly did not deserve the honor offered you.

Professor Glendon dishonors Notre Dame and herself with this unreasonable cause to decline a great honor so she can smear a great President.

Her decision to send a political message leveraging the great honor offered to her by Notre Dame to attack both the University decision-makers and her President is a sad reflection on Harvard University and her affiliates.

Another example of the church interfering in state and government politics. Her statement, and I quote in part, "that request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institutions freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a catholic university should disrespect it"

Lady..why it chose to "disrespect it" is because it chose not to accept your and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops's request that the university "should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles."
That request coming from a corrupt church that protects it's preditory homosexuals in DEFIANCE OF OUR FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES.
Wake up lady!

American Catholics are the biggist hypocrites -- I say this speaking as one who was raised Catholic. The dirty little secret is that most American Catholics routinely practice birth contol, which explains why so few of them no longer have such huge families. Yet you will never hear a priest or bishop criticize their parishioners for this practice, or refuse them communion. Instead, they leave the outspokeness for the political arena. Which indicates that they don't really care if people practice birth control in reality -- they just want to appear as if they care. The Church has always been about window dressing.

Professor Glenden, Thank you. You have stated in a few words what has been swirling in the mind, conscience, and soul since Mr Obama became President. The first thing he did in Office was to reverse the Bush Ban on obortion moneys being availabe around the world. The United States doesn't just kill babies here, we now pay for them everywhere. Notre Dame should be ashamed of themselves. A Catholic school doing such a thing. I thank God for you Ms Glenden.

Notre Dame should be decertified as a Catholic university.

Powerful!!!! Actions speaks a thousand words.

Let the President show he is worthy first, by establishing a track record of good decisions and actions. Then Notre Dame should take granting a degree into consideration. Why jump on a bandwagon that may still lose a wheel or two??

I believe that the two Catholic Universities, Nortre Dame and Georgetown, having covered the symbols of Jesus for Obama was equivalent to denying Jesus' existence. Like Peter, they will hear the cock crow, but won't repent has Peter did. They wil ehar the cock crow all the way to Hell with Obama as he and universities like them take this country down. God Bless America and not these universities. I for one, combined with the pedophlia acts and now this, will never go to a catholic church again. I'll still pray daily but now will call myself a spiritualist. AMEN!!!!

Peter J. Barthuly (Gloucester, MA)

A Wingnut coaching her partisan attack in "fundamental principles of justice." This coming from someone who didn't mind associating with war-makers and torturers in the Bush administration.

Another example of the Catholic church showing that it's parish should recognize that God doesn't make the rules around here. The Pope also said that the proliferation of condom use will not reduce communities risk of contracting Aids. Bunch of geniuses working over there, let me tell you.

You're doing a great job at playing the mindless sheep, Mary. Congratulations.

The attitude in her note is expressed by her nose in the air photo also - "settled positions" that are not supported by even half the church are not settled - indeed a Pope declaring that he is infallible was not Church doctrine until 1870 - and what if that declaration was wrong" - what if "Peter is the rock" does not imply infallible. Cardinal Newman famously responded with his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk defending the 1870 decision by asserting that conscience, which is supreme, is not in conflict with papal infallibility. Forced pregnancy is against my moral Christian conscience. The good Cardinal Newman was wrong - just as the Pope is wrong in this case - and Bush's Professor Mary Ann Glendon is both wrong and arrogant in her assumption that the pope's extension into politics of his political interpretation of a women's role under Christ's teachings is "infallible".

Approaching heroic virtue. Well done.

Finnally a person who actually says what they believe and is not a sheep following popular belief!!!

....politics...politics...politics such a shame.

An interest personal angle I don't know whether will be reported. President Obama had her as a professor at Harvard Law in the late '80. First year property.

Are people really still Catholic? That just seems so hard to believe in this day and age. Who cares what a group that looks the other way when it members engage in child molestation thinks about anything?!?! Moral principles?

Thank you, Prof. Glendon!!! It is only by taking a courageous and clear stance that identity will be restored to Catholic universities. The deconstruction of conscience encouraged by weak, spineless presidents will be quickly ended by leaders like you who love veritatis splendor.

The Obama People's wrath will be terrible, their retribution swift.

Professor Glendon should be as concerned about the abuse the priest have been guilty of and the thousands that have not come forth. How many lives have been ruined and destroyed over the years. The church has always been aware of this. Yet it has not done anything but move the predators to another location. And they talk about the sanctity of life? What about all these lives.

Congratulations to Professor Glendon for declining the prestigious Laetare Medal award from Notre Dame and may this serve as an example for other candidates also to refuse to appear. Professor Glendon now belongs in the company of some other great women such as Hildegarde of Bingen and Eleanor of Aquitaine.
Perhaps now, in his wisdom, Rev. Jenkins will withdraw his invitation to President Obama, but not doing that, at least insist that symbols of Catholicism not be hidden or removed as occurred during the president's appearance at Gaston Hall at Georgetown University.

Don't forget the word "catholic" means universal, and that is what Glendon and her comrades at the "Holy" See dream of, their, thank "God", unachievable goal of restoring the power of Rome, err, I mean Catholicism, to its former glory through the brainwashing of poor, impoverished, uneducated and sadly ignorant citizens of Latin America and Africa.

How sad the level of Historical knowledge has dropped to the point where anyone would give a pass to the utter hypocrisy of a "religion" which came to its power on the slaughter of millions and now, in 2009, tries to kill millions more by spreading AIDS on the orders of a former Nazi ... what a nice bunch of folks! go Obama!!!

Maybe they can get the most high reverend Jeremiah Wright to speak. He can tell us what materialistic devils we all are and how he was discriminated against when he actually had to park his Mercedes in a parking spot instead of leaving it right in front of the door like he does at the grocery store. Obama can sit in back and do the amen chorus. He can always disavow it later and all will be forgiven.

I find the attitude of ND primitive form of censorship. How can we respect the integrity of a graduate of an institution that does not allow people to form their own opinions without censorship. I would question their leadership ability. Wonder if they have any history courses at ND? Lot of good lessons about this sort of thing in world history.

I do not think Professor Glendon's decision in regard to the Laetore medal will hurt either the reputation of Notre Dame or that of President Obama. If she had decided to turn down the ambassadorship offered by President Bush a few years ago because that President's moral stands and ethical positions were repugnant to her I would consider her present position a more significant issue than I do.

How can a lawyer say that the Church can forbid an institution from inviting speakers with whom it disagrees AND that this prohibition in no way interferes with that institution's right to invite whom it will to speak? Or can she say that because she is a lawyer? Or because she is a Catholic?
Maybe Notre Dame should invite Bernard Cardinal Law, the protector of pederasts now in hising at St. Mary Major in Rome. The Catholic Church wouldn't object--the pope is hiding Cardinal Law from justice, Catholic hypocrisy is an abomination.

Bert

Just wonder how the individual receiving this years Laetare Medal will fell now that Glendon has passed - I'd imagine he/she will just be 'sloppy seconds.'

She sounds like she has a really high opinion of herself. People consumed with self aggrandizement really annoy me.

She has the right to her view point. Her steadfastness in that decision is admirable. And the University has a right to their view point. Their steadfastness in the decision they've made is also admirable. The resulting stalemate does nothing to progress any debate on morality or on the relative difference in a publicly legislated morality versus an individual morality of free-will. So - I'm not sure we've progressed anywhere on this issue. Which is a recurring theme in the United States. We can't agree. We can't agree to disagree. But we can flame political fires occasionally, to the benefit of no one. With legalized abortion, more fetuses die. With illegal abortion, more pregnant women seeking abortions die. Neither answer is perfect.

Hate and intolerance at the highest level, one more reason why young people are waking up to the truth. Baby boomers need to realize that they have failed the people of this world through their selfish, arrogant and ignorant selves. Equal rights for all. Peace

Good for her? Are you crazy..... She is just being a racist PIG like anyone else who opposes Obama from receiving a Honorable Degree.. Obama should reject the degree and the rest of America should examine what message Catholic schools are sending to our children. This is as stupid as Ex-President Bush making the remark, "Your either with us or against us."

In Fact, all students across the country, Catholic or not, should be pissed about this.

Whatever. I personally think Obama should be the one to decline, as the Catholic church and Notre Dame have both demonstrated such hypocrisy and represent dogmatism and ideologies that specifically forbid thoughtful change and planning in ways that would benefit mankind. It is time to stop preventing contraceptive use, for example, that could prevent both overpopulation and life-ending disease among the poor. Time to stop using fear (of the unknown) to control the actions of people who pile money into the institution. Thankfully, many compassionate Catholics and other Christians are turning away from the heavy-handed dogmatism and being more thoughtful and helpful to the real world and real people of various faiths. There are too many problems to be solved to be running on "faith" in anything other than our own thoughtful abilities to adapt and endure, rather than teaching people to simply trust authority and behave like sheep.

Sure - good for her for standing for what she believes. Hopefully, clearer and more public definitions of positions of leaders will help the rest of the world understand what these leaders all really think. This can only be good for society as more moderate folks reject the extreme ideologies (on both ends of the spectrum), religious or political.

Congratulations to Father Jenkins for his response. There has been far too much divisiveness created in the name of religion. A university is supposed to honor well-considered, even if opposing, points of view. Her letter spoke volumes about the long road ahead in combating bigotry.

A brief statement from her would have sufficed. Her statement ran too long, and is indirectly inviting of scrutiny. While I am glad she is standing by her convictions, it was unnecessary to release a statement to the press. The statement is inviting of discussion and query from the press. She is making an attempt to start an uproar by issuing this haphazard statement, and then stating that she is no longer issuing any comments on the matter.

It is unbelievable that with all of this outcry Notre Dame is still going ahead with giving Obama an honorary degree. Allowing a pro-abortionist to give a commencement speech at a Catholic university is outrageous enough, giving that pro-abortionist an honorary degree is disgraceful.

Kudos to you, Professor Glendon! Thank you for not only reminding Notre Dame University of the Catholic church's (and your) moral values, but also to keep them!

Although not a Catholic myself, I agree with her stance. I also concur with Delois Rowena in that it is good to see people standing for their beliefs and not necessarily choosing popular opinion.

I don't understand the lack of concern when President GW Bush sent 19 year old "kids" to their death in a war of choice - Iraq. Where are all the people that protect the unborn but allow the living to die for a political cause? Very two faced and I'm glad Notre Dame has the spine to acknowledge a President who indeed has accomplished what just a short time ago would be unimaginable.

Her loss.

Good for her. I'm glad there are a few people left in this country who believe reproductive decisions should be made exclusively by celibate males and those who follow their dictates with phalangist obedience.

I agree with Delois 100%. It is refreshing to see people stand up for their principles even if I do not agree.

Yes, good for her for standing by her convictions. With a storied career such as hers, who needs yet another prestigious award. But moral certitude is a dangerous thing and it is regretful that Ms Glendon feels that Obama, only 100 days into his administration, has already acted "in defiance of our fundamental moral principles". I say thank God that he is the President of the United States of America, is looking for common ground and is not just pandering to one side or the other.

A standing ovation for Ms. Glendon! More people need to follow her example and stand up for their convictions, beliefs and values instead of allowing the "public opinion" to be the only voice heard.

I'd be more moved having the first African American president at my commencement than this woman. With all do respect for her work, I find that there are so many other more important issues than "offending" the Catholic church. Oh well, it's her loss really, I don't think the graduates will care.

-a Catholic

I am so impressed at the leadership that Mary Ann Glendon has shown with her courageous decision. She has a standing ovation from me! Father Jenkins on the other hand should be ashamed of himself.

Hear, hear! A woman of principle. And an example that I hope is not lost to the students of Notre Dame. I am not Catholic and I think that Father Jenkins and his administration are trying to garner favor with the President.

Oh good Lord! here's a prime reason our forefothers provided for the seperation of church and stateand why the catholic church is failing and closing parishes all over the nation. Stupid remarks, Bad choices, and the failure to lead people to Christ instead of trying to interfere and control all aspects of a persons life. It did not work when the pope used to practice war on nations for the church and it will not work now. Teach people about God, Christ, and the way to salvation. God gave man freedom to chose and never authorized the church to threaten, manipulate, or intimidate his children. If the church would do the job Christ asked Peter to do, and stopped trying to interfere in their lives, more people would stop and think about what choices they really have.

I wonder if mankind will ever be able to evolve out of the antiquated religious mores. Look at every major conflict in the world today and you'll find religion is at the heart of it.

Imagine how far we could evolve as a race if we could get past the guilt/fear-based religions.

One would think with the advances in science and logical thinking we could put religion where it belongs: in the past with blood-letting, burning witches and a flat earth.

A very courageous and principled lady. No doubt their will be attacks on her decision from the Obama worshipers.

I applaud Mary Ann Glendon for her decision, and I think Notre Dame will be hard pressed to find a more deserving recipient for the Laetare Medal. For the University to imply that, as she points out in her letter, having her speak at the Commencement ceremony would somehow balance things out, for one thing admits something inherently problematic about Obama's presence there, and for another puts Ms. Glendon in an unfair position. Clearly she doesn't want to temper the blow to Catholic sensibility that Fr. Jenkins has delivered by wishing to extend an honorary degree to President Obama. Something should strike us as wrong about that situation! I completely agree with her: I too am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university would disregard the clear request of the Bishops – a request that didn’t come out of nowhere, but was carefully discerned and made consistent with 2,000+ years of Church teaching. Whatever happened to the virtue of obedience?

Maybe the Commencement speech topic should be "Intolerance and its Religious Forms."

Diversity of ideas can either let us evolve and learn, or cause wars, genocide, etc.

Sad for the students at Notre Dame to not hear them both speak.

Dear Professor Glendon:

*Have you ever helped parents who raise profoundly retarded children (and who knew this beforehand)?

*Have you visited group homes on Christmas and seen the loneliness of retarded citizens?

*Have you volunteered to help clean the state facilities where retarded children often live?

*Have you used your "bully pulpit" to ask parishes to do more for the developmentally disabled?

BTW, "why do you look at the speck of dust in another's eye when there is a beam in your own?." Our Lord supercedes the bishops.

Earl L. Yaspurgo

There is no substitute for standing your ground and abiding your convictions. I salute her decision to sacrifice her own personal prestige in order to reconcile her principles. Professor Glendon has shown the greater moral character. Most of us could take an example from that.

"A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families." Yet she sees no problem pulling this publicity stunt to add to the absurdity and further detract from the graduating class...

Are you kidding? What a self righteous person. She has a problem with the NEWLY elected President of the United States? Self righteous, pompous, sanctimonious and holier than many, are just a few of the adjectives that come to mind.

Mary Glendon's glass house had better be made with shatter proof plastic, as she is really placing herself on a high pedestal for the "word" to see.

A Christian? Open your heart Ms. Glendon.

In this case, it is amazing to see the intellegence and peace in the comments above by those people in support, and the ignorance and hatred in comments against. It shows the character of a human beings. If you want to have true debate over issues, leave your hatred at home.

For those that compare a soldier to an unborn child.
One has a choice, the other does not.
This is a fact.

As one who is, and always will be a Catholic I find it frustrating that the ambassador who worked with in and for one of the most moraly corrupt administrations in the history of the USA would take this position. She has quickly forgotten that George Bush defied and ignored the special envoy of Pope John Paul the second Cardinal PIO LAGHI, when he came to Washington and told the President that war with Iraq would be a disaster and would cause a religious Civil War. When G. Bush tried to hide behind his opposition to abortion the Cardinal told him he was not there to discuss that ,but the invasion of another country. Does the ambassador want to join the "igloo Catholics" who wish to hide from the world and keep themselves warm and fuzzy by proclaiming their opposition to abortion and forgetting the many other moral evils that the the last few Popes have constantly called to our attention? evils such as poverty, WAR and other kinds of violence such as slavery abuse of women etc etc. OR does she subscribe to the "Taliban Catholic " view that the only sins are the sins related to sexual things. The attitude of too many Catholics today ,too often resembles the terrorists in that they refuse to even discuss any other moral issues than Gay marriage and abortion. This includes unfortunately, too many Cardinals and bishops in the USA. gone are the days of the "Jadot Bishops" who were open and intelligent theologically in their opinions. e.g. Nuclear weapons. They might do well to learn from the Bishops in other catholic nations throughoutthe world especially the Asian and European hierachies. The late and great Cardinal archbishop of Vienna wrote a small book entitled "Open to God ,Open to the World" that deals with many of the problems afflicting our world today. Maybe it should be REQUIRED reading for the bishops of the USA before they start hurling their excommunications around. Finally the ambassador should know that since Richard Nixon thru Ronald Reagan and Two Bushes started their quest for elections by opossing abortions that the number of abortions in this country has declined in a very small number, a new approach is certainly necessary. Too me it is much more important to be a Catholic than to be a citizen of the USA or a Republican or Democrat. Cardinal Koenig also said we must never stop talking to each other for then nothing will be accomplished. By declining this award you missed an opportunity to talk with President Obama, that is if you really wanted to dicuss these issues with him.

Professor Glendon,
Thank you for taking a stand and making a public statement on these important moral issues facing our nation. You have perhaps declined a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to balance the podium, as it were, against a sitting president. However, your public letter assumes a position of much higher status and importance -- thank you for making this important statement.

She has the right to her view point. Her steadfastness in that decision is admirable. And the University has a right to their view point. Their steadfastness in the decision they've made is also admirable. The resulting stalemate does nothing to progress any debate on morality or on the relative difference in a publicly legislated morality versus an individual morality of free-will. So - I'm not sure we've progressed anywhere on this issue. Which is a recurring theme in the United States. We can't agree. We can't agree to disagree. But we can flame political fires occasionally, to the benefit of no one. With legalized abortion, more fetuses die. With illegal abortion, more pregnant women seeking abortions die. Neither answer is perfect.

A rare example of leadership. The administration of ND can learn from her - but I doubt they will. They're probably trying to track down Douglas Kmiec or some other secong-stringer to "honor" with their now-devalued award...

Anyone else remember that before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Pope sent an emissary to Washington, D.C. to inform President Bush that such a war would be "illegal and unjust"? Mary Ann Glendon had the chance to take a principled stand on behalf of the Catholic church against the war, but she instead chose to *work for* that president. So I would respect Prof. Glendon's view on abortion, but instead I find the hypocrisy of her selective self-righteousness nauseating.

This is beautiful. I wonder who ND will get to accept the Laetare Medal in light of both the whole fiasco and with the knowledge that they are only receiving an award because the deserving recipient declined it. I suppose they'll find some opportunistic "pro-life" Democrat like Sen. Casey.

Standing up for your convictions can be a good thing, except when your convictions are based on religious and moral intolerance.

"If you don't play by my rules, I'll take my 'football' and go home." Amazing, simply amazing.

How dare she be rude to Lord High Obama, Scourge of the Unborn.

What is wrong with her?

Too bad after Obama apologized pathetically in Europe, he didn't realize he could win over a big number of Americans. All he has to do is stop pushing abortion like it's a public good, like education and traffic lights.

With all the above ignorant comments, I know why I vote Republican.

Who cares? Maybe she would be best served getting a medal from one of those close-minded bible colleges in the south.

I repeat...if Professor Glendon really wants to support her conviction she will demand that a "Certificate of Conception or Personhood" be issued when the fertilized egg is determined officially recognizing the existence of that person. Anything happening to that person would be no different that if they had already left the womb. Absent that level of commitment just says they are a person for some purposes and not for others, a view that supports no principle.

It is a matter of Catholic doctrine that all authentic teachings come from two sources:

1. scripture
2. the traditions of the early church

On abortion, it is clear that it is nowhere mentioned in scripture, and the dominant Church tradition is that it is not murder, and that human life does not begin before birth (which agrees also with orthodox Jewish belief as described in the Talmud). There are still a few early teachings against abortion, that we should avoid harming even a potential human life, but there is nothing to justify the radical position of Mary Ann Glendon that Obama, who is committed to reducing abortion, is in "defiance of our fundamental moral principles".

Those who agree with Mary Glendon on this are certainly free to have their own opinions, but I wish they would stop lying and calling themselves Catholics. There is nothing Christian at all about their right wing social agenda.

I wonder how you clowns applauding her would have reacted if she declined the medal because she doesn't think Mr. Obama's policies jive with Zeus, King of Olympus.

Get over yourself lady.

Congratulations, Professor Glendon for standing up for your principles. It's quite obvious that Notre Dame chooses to exercise flexible ethics. The down side is that Harvard is now conspiring with "The Boston Globe" to have you removed from your position at the school.

How come this does not work both ways? If she can stand up to Notre Dame for not being Catholic enough, what about giving up her law license rather than participate in a profession that is also inherently fraught with teachings contrary to the Church? How can she obey two masters?

A hugh thanks to Professor Glendon for defending our faith. Maybe her convictions will save some lives.

Never heard of this woman, couldn't care less about her opinions. Good riddance I say. Where was she when Cardinal Law was ignoring the exploding sexual perversity and predatory behavior of the Church's priests? Wonder if her nose is out of joint because a spectacular brillinat profoundly decent US President will surely be the star, not her. Get over yourself Glendon and get your nose down from the height you apparently think you inhabit.

This has nothing to do with principle. It is politics.

Glendon does her Irish step dancing to the tune played by the American bishops, that noble bunch that allowed their priests to prey upon innocent children.

Glendon, free thyself from the embrace these black souls!

I applaud Mary Ann Glendon's moral backbone. I'm sorry for Notre Dame's lack of it in the face of Obama's desire to eliminate citizen's rights to not patricipate in abortion and other morally offensive practices.

The USA isn't any different then any other country -- there are the folks who believe and the folks who don't..... the only difference is we have the right to voice our objections.

She is not wrong just as you are not wrong for being insulted or angered by her very polite letter.

If Catholics want individuals that support abortion rights to be penalized for their views I would expect consistency and expect the same Catholics to penalize politicians that support the death penalty. I personally don’t think either should be penalized but believe this inconsistency is deemed permissible for political reasons alone.

another story proving the wisdom behind the seperation of church and state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

Thank you Notre Dame. If the Catholic Church is to survive someone needs to show them the way.

What an opportunity lost-for a leading Catholic to confront the leader of the free world and try to engage in the "beginning" of a dialogue about an important issue we as Catholics care deeply about. Not one life will be saved by this action. It is simply "hard ball" by the Bishops. I pray each of us can do something constructive to help women make the right choice for life rather than engage in meaningless rhetoric.

A fine day for the Notre Dame Class of 2009. A commencement address by a great man who will be remembered as one of the great Presidents. And they don't have to sit through an award given to the sanctimonious right wing Ms. Glendon. Oh, HSZebra - when has the President "pushed abortion"? Can we get some dates, places, quotes? Facts? And on that "apology", Obama said the following on April 3 in Strasbourg: "In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." Where are the factual inaccuracies in that statement?

Mary Who? What's in your moral closet? Another hypocrite. Tough to side with anyone here. Catholic institutions or holier than thou people like her. How many of you knew what this medal was before this article? Do we really care?

"As one who is, and always will be a Catholic..."

Idiot.

What does she think about Bush and Bernard Law? Torture, loss of tens of thousands of lives, child abuse?

Zero respect for this woman if she hasn't taken a similar stand against them.

The Catholic Church and its lemmings are completely out of touch with reality.

Thank you Prof. Glendon.

She's a class act! Good to see someone today stand by her beliefs.

I was rather shocked when I read the spin coming out of ND that Glendon was going to be "balancing" the speaking lineup. I wouldn't have expected her to be willing to be used as a political pawn like that, and I'm glad to see she's not. I think the best outcome would be for several other nominees to refuse the award, and then for Obama to stiff Jenkins in the end by coming up with an excuse to not show. He deserves it.

Glendon's position is hers to take. She and Notre Dame both believe in a God that does not exist. Why are non-Catholics bothered by anything either one of them do.

It's stunning how a simple story of someone sticking up for their values turns into a Bush bashing opportunity for the vapid unthoughtful partisans.

"The Church is just as opposed to capital punishment as it is to abortion."

No, it isn't.

uhmmm all these catholic school except non-cathlolic student. and arn't we cathlolics supposed to be tolerant of other people's Religions? And arn't all the basic underlying fundaments of the major religions the same? It is pretty remarkable she stood her ground but i dont really agee. If Notre Dame had on only Catholics in their school and they dicided to give and honorary degree to a non-Catholic then i see a serious issue.

Ms. Glendon is a "company man." She obviously got a call, or several calls from headquarters. She says she won't comment further on the issue outside of what she wrote in her declination. But you wait and see: she will springboard her action into publicity as soon as the commencement is completed. She so wants to be a bishop herself, and, sadly, she'd be be a perfect member of the college because, as I said, she is a "company man." What is with this throw-away comment that she had to throw out the draft of her speech after she learned the president would be on the dais with her? Is she saying she didn't have the resolve to speak her mind even if the head of state was within hearing? Or is this also about the fact , as she admits, that her name and presence were to be used by Notre Dame, without her prior consent, to counterbalance criticism of its intended award to President Obama? Ms. Glendon: let's hear your original speech.

As an atheist, I am offended because these people ignore the real problems of our society. In fact, they create a lot of these problems that we have.

I second Chicagoguy's comment- too bad such a brilliant (or so we thought) mind, has to be so closed. Let's hope Notre Dame gives the award to someone really deserving of it this time. Her loss and her closed mind - she is not to be applauded but instead - embarassed at her narrow mindset.

Peter Rizzi - Nothing stunning about it. These people hate the Church, hate religion in general and will seize any opportunity to spout off.

Just received a call from my agent. Looks good for turning my "Young Goodman Brown" property into a flick. Is Glendon available to play the part of Goodye Cloyse? Looks -- and sounds! -- perfect for the part. Also, would love to have that guy Bernard F. Law front and center in the coven scene. Check with Glendon for contact info -- she probably has has him on speed dial.

Professor Glendon is a hypocrite. She supports Bush and Cheney who lied about the "imminent threat" of WMDs in Iraq raining down on US cities, and won't support the POTUS who believes the war in Iraq was wrong? Where is her moral outrage? Catholicism is a dying religion and thank god for that! Who really cares about a crappy medal from Notre Dame that no one ever heard of or cared about?

My, 249 comments and still counting.

Bottom line for Notre Dame will indeed be the bottom line, grants and gifts to the institution. The Jesuits have always been an independent bunch so hopefully won't be impacted by an already weak giving environment.

"I will release this letter to the press"

Grandstanding, nothing but grandstanding....

Meanwhile, Cardinal Law and many other "see no evil, do nothing to prevent the evil" types are relaxing in Catholic Church owned mansions, enjoying their retirements.

Frankly, the only sticking with "convictions" that I want to read about are convictions with prision sentences associated with them.

Good for her! I presume that she also did not participate in the war-monger meeting in the Bush White House or ever set foot in Texas, the execution capital of the world. Cafeteria Catholic indeed.

I'm very proud of Ambassador Glennon for being "at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it (the 2004 request).

But where is the US Conference on Bishops standing up for their own request?

They are the one who said that Catholic Institutions, "should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles" nor should such persons "be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions."

Why aren't they openly proclaiming that Obama, by his actions and positions, is the epitome of who was intended in the above mentioned "request" and that "Father" Jenkins is disgracing his vocation?

While they are all men, it is Ambassador Glennon, a woman, who is showing them how someone with b***s acts.

Come to think of it, it's not surprising that the US Conference of Bishops needs such a lesson!

"Her point is totally reasonable and the letter is very classy - very Glendon. This is why girls should run the show (just kidding, but kind of not). "

Everywhere but the Catholic Church?

George Carlin said it best: Did you ever notice how all the anti abortion people are people you wouldn't want to (bleep) in the first place???

God bless Prof Glendon for standing up for her beliefs. It this day when attacking the Catholic Church has become the newest pastime, Professor Glendon has shown a great deal courage in publicly declining this award.

The comments on this board are absolutely disturbing. Just because Prof. Glendon doesn't not agree with Obama's abortion policies doesn't not make her a racist. That is offensive. Too many people on the left have taken this fascination and worship of Obama too far. It is absolutely ridiculous and juvenile to scream racist everytime someone dares question dear leader. It makes me sick that a few people on this board accused her of racism. Grow up and start thinking for yourselves instead of being mindless lemmings led around by Obama.

Also, let clear up a few things about the Church. Someone said that the Church is opposed capital punishment. That is FALSE. The church permits the use of capital punishment in rare cases. It depends on the nature of the crime and how much of a danger the criminal continues to be.
Other have brought up over and over the Iraq war. Yes the pope did speak out against the war, but that was never an official church teaching. While I agree with Pope that the war was wrong, the Pope was really just stating his opinion. Comparing this statement to official teaching on abortion is like comparing apples to oranges. Church oppostion to abortion is an official teaching.
Finally, many keep bringing up the church sex abuse scandal. While you are so eager to keep bringing that up, why don't you also bring up the abuse case among politicians, teachers, police officers, other religions, scout leaders, etc. You will find that the chuch pales in comparison to others groups. Because the media has a twisted fixation with the Catholic Church, the higher rate of abuse in other groups has gone ignored. When ever the church dares to say anything that is not politically correct or contradicts dear Obama, the PC crowd starts screaming about the scandal again rather than have a rational debate.

>> The Church is just as opposed to capital punishment as it is to abortion."
>
> No, it isn't.

Hundreds of posts before someone pointed out this simple fact. Capital punishment is a question that Catholics can disagree on. Abortion is not.

If she and the Ultra righ faction of the Catholic Church are so concerned about the value of life, where was their voice as a million Iraqis died over the past eight years? She's a bitter partican. Her loss.

Note to all the self-identified Catholics (and others) who don't know the difference between abortion and either warfare or the death penalty: the Catholic Church does not oppose warfare and the death penalty in the same manner in which it opposes abortion, because abortion is, by definition, the intentional killing of innocents, whereas warfare and capital punishment can be justified under certain circumstances as means of societal self-defense against violent assailants.

States, by their nature, possess the right to kill either enemy combatants or individual violent criminals in the execution of their obligation to defend their citizens from serious harm. Moral constraints apply, including the principle of last resort, but even the killing of innocents - as tragic as it may be - is not morally condemnable unless their killing is intentional, due somehow to negligence, or reasoned to be disproportionate in its evil to the good achieved by the action.

In other words, mistakenly killing an innocent in either warfare or capital punishment is tragic, but not necessarily immoral. The same general principle applies to cases where innocents caught in harm's way are killed in warfare, though the requirements of morality are stricter there than they are in cases of accidental killing or mistaken identity. In warfare and capital punishment, the morality of killing is determined by circumstance.

Abortion, on the other hand, fails the morality test 100% of the time, because the victims targeted for killing are known beyond any doubt to be innocent. There is no such thing as a right to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Case closed.

just gives me all the confirmation I need that denouncing my catholic religion upbringing was the right move. Religion divides people. This whole thing is a perfect example. Even from our "supposed" best and most intelligent.

For those who do not think Obama has a pro-Abortion Agenda, the following compilation is from www.lifenews.com :

Post-Election / Pre-Inauguration

November 5, 2008 - Obama selects pro-abortion Rep. Rahm Emanuel as his White House Chief of Staff. Emanuel has a 0% pro-life voting record according to National Right to Life.

November 19, 2008 - Obama picks pro-abortion former Sen. Tom Daschle as his Health and Human Services Secretary. Daschle has a long pro-abortion voting record according to National Right to Life.

November 20, 2008 - Obama chooses former NARAL legal director Dawn Johnsen to serve as a member of his Department of Justice Review Team. Later, he finalizes her appointment as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of the Legal Counsel in the Obama administration.

November 24, 2008 - Obama appoints Ellen Moran, the former director of the pro-abortion group Emily's List as his White House communications director. Emily's List only supported candidates who favored taxpayer funded abortions and opposed a partial-birth abortion ban.

November 24, 2008 - Obama puts former Emily's List board member Melody Barnes in place as his director of the Domestic Policy Council.

November 30, 2008 - Obama named pro-abortion Sen. Hillary Clinton as the Secretary of State. Clinton has an unblemished pro-abortion voting record and has supported making unlimited abortions an international right.

December 10, 2008 - Obama selects pro-abortion former Clinton administration official Jeanne Lambrew to become the deputy director of the White House Office of Health Reform. Planned Parenthood is "excited" about the selection.

December 10, 2008 - Obama transition team publishes memo from dozens of pro-abortion groups listing their laundry list of pro-abortions actions they want him to take.

Pro-Abortion Presidential Record - 2009

January 5, 2009 - Obama picks pro-abortion Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine as the chairman of the Democratic Party.

January 6, 2009 - Obama chooses Thomas Perrelli, the lawyer who represented Terri Schiavo’s husband Michael in his efforts to kill his disabled wife, as the third highest attorney in the Justice Department.

January 22, 2009 - Releases statement restating support for Roe v. Wade decision that allowed virtually unlimited abortions and has resulted in at least 50 million abortions since 1973.

January 23, 2009 - Forces taxpayers to fund pro-abortion groups that either promote or perform abortions in other nations. Decison to overturn Mexico City Policy sends part of $457 million to pro-abortion organizations.

January 26, 2009 - Obama nominee for Deputy Secretary of State, James B. Steinberg, tells members of the Senate that taxpayers should be forced to fund abortions. Nominee erroneously says limits on abortion funding are unconstitutional.

January 29, 2009 - President Obama nominates pro-abortion David Ogden as Deputy Attorney General.

February 12, 2009 - Obama nominates pro-abortion Elena Kagan to serve as Solicitor General.

February 27, 2009 - Starts the process of overturning pro-life conscience protections President Bush put in place to make sure medical staff and centers are not forced to do abortions.

February 28, 2009 - Barack Obama nominates pro-abortion Kathleen Sebelius to become Secretary of Health and Human Services.

March 5, 2009 - The Obama administration shut out pro-life groups from attending a White House-sponsored health care summit. Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion business, made the invitation list as did other pro-abortion groups.

March 9, 2009 - President Barack Obama signed an executive order forcing taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research.

March 10, 2009 - Obama announces the creation of a new foreign policy position to focus on women's issues. He names Melanne Verveer, an abortion advocate, to occupy the post.

March 10, 2009 - Reverses an executive order to press for more research into ways of obtaining embryonic stem cells without harming human life. The order Obama scrapped would have promoted new forms of stem cell research.

March 11, 2009 - Obama signed an executive order establishing a new agency within his administration known as the White House Council on Women and Girls. Obama's director of public liaison at the White House, Tina Tchen, an abortion advocate, became director of it.

March 11, 2009 - Obama administration promotes an unlimited right to abortion at a United Nations meeting.

March 11, 2009 - Obama administration officials deny negative effects of abortion at United Nation's meeting.

March 17, 2009 - President Barack Obama makes his first judicial appointment and names pro-abortion federal Judge David Hamilton to serve on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

March 26 - President Obama announced $50 million for the UNFPA, the UN population agency that has been criticized for promoting abortion and working closely with Chinese population control officials who use forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations.

April 7 - The Vatican has rejected three Obama ambassador nominees because of their positions in favor of abortions.

April 7 - Obama has named pro-abortion law professor Harold Hongju Koh as the top lawyer for the State Department.

April 7 - Put more abortion advocates on his White House advisory council for faith-based issues.

April 14 - Obama administration releases document that claims pro-life people may engage in violence or extremism.

BRAVO!!!

Finally a Catholic standing up for Catholic principles!!!

BRAVO!!!

"Also, let clear up a few things about the Church. Someone said that the Church is opposed capital punishment. That is FALSE."

Wow. Someone needs to re-read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

"If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person."

How ironic that her mantle of intellectual identity is tied to Harvard, where the ideal would seem to be an open forum of ideas/beliefs. Doubly ironic is that she teaches law here in the United States, where our Constitution is built on the separation of organized religion from the execution of the laws of the land that apply "equally" to us all.

As a (fading) Catholic and a human being endowed with the ability to think and consider ideas and viewpoints across the spectrum, I have come to the conclusion that unbending dogma is directly responsible for death and suffering on a massive scale over the past many centuries. Unfortunately, the vast majority of this dogma is related to one God or another supposedly making it OK for one group of people to do horrible things to other groups of people, etc.

As far as I am concerned, this is just another example of the sort of narrow-mindedness that has aided humankind in getting to the point where it is today.

If Notre Dame wants to bestow an honor on anyone - it's Notre Dame's business. However, I think the reaction of Professor Glendon indicates, in her case, that she was clearly the wrong choice for the Laetare Medal in the first place. This honor is defined by Notre Dame to be bestowed upon a person "...whose genius has ennobled the arts and sciences, illustrated the ideals of the Catholic Church and enriched the heritage of humanity."

To enrich the heritage of humanity, one would think it would be imperative to possess tolerance of others' ideas and beliefs, even if you do not agree with them.

Further, you would think, to be an educator capable of ennobling the arts and sciences, one would have to be open minded and thoughtful as it relates to what others do with things like bestowing honorary degrees.

Everybody involved here is better off for her withdrawal.

I guess this is why you don't bring up religion on first dates.

Reading the comments expressed in this thread displays those who oppose the Catholic Church in an extremely poor life.

I have never been affiliated in any way with Catholicism, and generally have a negative view of Catholic beliefs and the Church's history.

But I found Professor Glendon's letter eloquent in expression and admirable in content.

Shame on Notre Dame for debasing their award by using it as a political ping pong ball.

To the extent that there are serious concerns about the behavior of the Catholic Church, the comments in this thread go a long way towards portraying them as the isolated concern of a handful of petty bitter individuals.

Why is this country so afraid of anyone that mentions the name of "GOD". When will the "Left-Wing" start to tolerate those that have different views. They speak about tolerance, but only embrace it when it benefits there viewpoint . The "Right-Wing" and "Middle" have been tolerating this small percentage of complainers and whiners forever. Tolerance is a 2-way street!!! I'm also amazed at how ignorant some of these comments are too. This is a CATHOLIC COLLEGE..so yes there is no separation between it's teachings and religion!!! Religion is the core of the teachings at Notre Dame, it is the whole point of going there. So to have your graduation speak given by B.O. who has no regard for the innocence lives of babies and then award him as well...it is a slap in the face to its graduates!!! These are fundamental beliefs of the Catholic faith, if you don't agree with them don't become Catholic! It's a free country believe whatever you want...that's what makes the U.S. so awesome. How dare you tell Catholics they don't have the right to be angry, the school is privately funded by Catholics!! What is all this rhetoric about Bush, (pro-life) he spoke 3 yrs before the U.S. Bishops made their request in 2004. Also, the big difference between having an abortion and receiving the death penalty is: for the Death Penalty you are tried in court and have the ability to defend yourself. Who defends the helpless innocence babies? We as Catholics should respect B.O. as our president, however, there is clearly a conflict with our fundamental beliefs to award him an honorary degree from N.D. I hope our president demonstrates integrity and class by declining his invitation, the graduates deserve better.

What a wonderful letter, classy and articulate, calling it exactly what it is. Good for you Prof. Glendon, Obama is not worthy of this Catholc Honor. Remember, it is a Catholic honor, and to invite such a person as Obama to speak, let alone get any honors at a Catholic Institution is horrific. Shame on the president of the college for his high and mighty way circumventing the Church, and shame on Obama for his stance on killing the innocent, but of course, he'll only blame Bush for that, too!

"States, by their nature, possess the right to kill either enemy combatants or individual violent criminals in the execution of their obligation to defend their citizens from serious harm. Moral constraints apply, including the principle of last resort, but even the killing of innocents - as tragic as it may be - is not morally condemnable unless their killing is intentional, due somehow to negligence, or reasoned to be disproportionate in its evil to the good achieved by the action."

Is it morally wrong for me to hope you and yours get caught in the crossfire of your digusting rationalization of murder?

what a lot of rock tossing by the left. Ms. Glendon, as an advisor to the Council of Bishops and former ambassador to the Vatican, obviously has strong Catholic principles. These are, of course, derided by the left.

At a time when they are going nuts over the waterboarding of terrorist leaders, how do liberals then reconcile their position on partial birth abortion with their concern for human rights?

Funny. Bush had a "anti-abortion" agenda for 8 years. Were you moaning about that one? Doubt it. That's just 'right' and 'family value' oriented isn't it?

Right to lifers are loud and glib. But not when it comes to raising the children they seek to protect. Who cut funding for welfare? Who established "no child left behind" but then wouldn't fund it? Who? Republicans that's who.

Best of all, our myriad of priests calling for the santity of life. Men who personally know nothing of raising children. Go IRISH! I'm proud this institution does not bow to Rome.

Typical catholic HYPOCRITES. It is ok to have speakers that favor the DEATH PENALTY - but not to have speakers that favor the RIGHT TO CHOOSE. Nice to know such open minded people are out there educating out young people.

An excellent example of moral courage - wether you agree or not - we all learn from it. TMG

Remember Prof Glendon departed a Catholic institution, BC Law, for the bright lights of Cambridge in a New York second. I guess the views of the Harvard faculty were unknown to her at the time...or since. Anyone who is both a Bush appointee, a Vatican supplicant and a dinner companion of Cardinal Law has been "honored" enough.

1. ND calls Glendon in December to tell her she's getting the medal 2. ND calls her later to say Obama will speak (her letter says she's OK with that) and honor him (her letter says she is not OK with that). 3. ND cites her and uses her name in a news release supporting Obama's honor stating that her speech will balance his honor. 4. She says not so fast and thanks anyway. 5. ND says it will have another recipient teed up in time for graduation in three weeks. Now ND looks ridiculous. Obama should stay home or risk catching the awkward virus ND has at graduation.

Thank you Fr. Donahue for your post. If our clergy had the courage as a whole and insight as you do, the state of the courtry's Catholics would not be in the regrettable shape that it is in. Please keep posting !

Not a Catholic. Not even a religious person. But I do apploud her for standing for her believes, morals and principals. We need more people like this in this country.

Thank you, Ms. Glendon, for erasing any lingering doubt I may have had about leaving the Catholic church.

Having differing beliefs is one thing, but intolerance is dangerous. Don't be fooled by people who mask intolerance with belief. It's alright to have strong convictions but to accept others. Religions and avid follows are notorious for not understanding the distinction and it has caused many of the major problems throughout history.

It is unquestionably hypocritical that Prof. Glendon did not have the same reaction when Notre Dame invited G.W. Bush to speak. The Catholic Church is just as opposed to capital punishment as it is to abortion. Yet GWB favors capital punishment and oversaw numerous executions as a Governor, including the execution of mental defectives. There's nothing wrong with expecting Catholic institutions to follow Catholic dogma, but Glendon is the worst sort of cafeteria Catholic to single out abortion but not capital punishment.

Jesus was tolerant and would have stood by our president despite their disagreements. As a Catholic, I try to practice the greatest lesson taught by our Savior, the golden rule.

Catholic colleges award degrees to people of all faiths all the time. I attended Catholic school my entire life and there were always children of different faiths in all my classes. So what is she trying to prove, honestly?

Is the Catholic faith the foundation of Notre Dame or a fence built around it to keep other ideas out? Can Catholicism stand up to ideas that it disagrees with or is it too fragile?

When the Catholic Bishops said in their statement, "should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles," were they including every single action? If so, then everybody is left out - we are all sinners. If not, then which actions are bad enough to be shut out? Impure thoughts? Impure acts?

This is all a pretense played at by modern-day pharasees.

I would like to know how many unwanted children has Ms. Glendon adopted, with her strong belief this would seem to be the only right thing to do.

The picture says it all.

I admire principle but this struck me as a tad sanctimonius.

The hypocrisy of the Catholic establishment continues unabated. "Give to Ceasar that which is Ceasar's" has been the guiding principle of the Catholic Church in its long history of dealing with right-wing politicians ... be they democratically elected in a parliamentary democracy, or authoritarian dictators with no democratic mandate. And yet, when its someone on the left, the standing president and commander-in-chief receives nothing but the grossest disrespect from those who otherwise so unambiguously extoll the virtues of obedience to authority and love of country. Those who heap such disrespect upon the lawfully and democratically elected head of state show their true allegiance. They should be treated as traitors, and minorored by the NSA no less rigorously than others whose religion is also alleged to come into conflct with loyalty to the state.

Sure, abortion is evil and the Church is right in witnessing against it. But we Catholics are also taught that capital punishment and aggressive warmongering are evil. Would Glendon and the Bishops Conference protest if Notre Dame gave an honorary degree to a warmonger like GW Bush or someone who favors and signs-off on the death penalty? Is there only ONE moral evil in our time? For the past generation, the political right wing has so thoroughly co-opted U.S. Catholics on the abortion issue that a lot of us can't seem to think straight.

what a shame. professor in a law school and cant stand others beliefs. nobody has to be a catholic or a believer to breath in this world. stunned.

I remember the days when we kids had to cross the street to avoid passing a local Protestant Church. If crossing the street were impossible we had to bless ourselves and go by as quick as we could.

The Catholic church is as much of a farce today as it was fifty years ago.Bunch o pretentious hypocrites,

"Is it morally wrong for me to hope you and yours get caught in the crossfire of your digusting rationalization of murder?"

Yes, it is. And if you had the sense to understand it, you would realize that, far from rationalizing murder, I was actually explaining the difference between murder, and killing in self-defense. I'm sorry you don't understand that difference. I'm also sorry that you reveal such a murderous heart yourself, in your contempt toward me and my family. That's pretty sick. I hope you repent of it before you die.

All she appears to be doing is grand-standing and spreading Obama-hate. I doubt the world cares one hoot for her views. She should just stay away. May God grant that she never requires any life-saving stem cell therapies in her later years.

Let's face it --- no one has ever accused Notre Dame of being a Catholic anything anyway...

Evidently she isn't acting out of courage for noble convictions, but out of cowardice for her ignoble bigotry; shame on her and on the unHoly See -- the sooner this world is free from the hypocrisy of religion the better it will be for life on this planet (human life included).

OMG! Whoops, HER God.

Mary Ann Glendon translation:

Oh, boo hoo! You aren't playing by MY rules, so I'm going to take my ball and go home! So there! Wah!

There goes the value of my ND diploma. Seems like any Tom, Dick, or Mary can get a Laetare Medal.

Obviously, she takes her faith seriously, unlike Biden, kerry, ted kennedy, et al. Good for her. Political correctness and liberals may be succeeding in villifying those who dare to not think like they do, (the California beauty contestant), but she is correct to stand on her principles.

Folks, you're missing the point: ND faked right, went left and now wants a time out because they dropped the ball. If you're Barack Obama, you're hoping for an urgent matter or a state funeral to come up to allow you to cancel.

I would ask Ms Glendon is agreeing then with the Catholic church means to agree with all the blood spilled throughout history, the Inquisition, the endless thirst for power and money reigning over an empire of lies and hypocrisy. Then I would definitely choose the opposite way.
Ms Glendon, I am glad you are rejecting the award, definitely is not for you, you are not ready to embrace new ideas and lead with love and compassion.
The era of tyranny of the Catholic church is long over.

Petu Sforza

Congrat Glendon on doing the courageous thing. I'll be selling $1 raffle tickets for my Notre Dame starter jacket and the lucky winner will be able to burn it in my fire pit. The proceeds will go to the county Right to Life.

CAN'T WE JUST KILL THE GLOBE?

IF WE ALL STOPPED BLOGGING HERE AND COMMENTING IT MAY HASTEN THEIR DEMISE.

I think South Bend will be struck with the Swine Flu. Jenkins and Obama will be running for the toliets. Those who boycott the graduation will be spared.

Athanasius - great to hear from you again, KEEP POSTING PLEASE.....

The death penalty-war vs. abortion comparison is absurd on its face, but that's how the left operates, in deceptive, inarticulate, and mostly ignorant assertions about Church teaching. But, as Paul Simon once wrote in his lyrics ... "a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest...."

Wow, what a bitter, emotionally immature woman. At least Obama has the chutzpah to invite people like Rick Warren to participate in his inauguration. Just because you have differing viewpoints, doesn't mean you shun people or fail to recognize the good things that they do. Glendon needs to loosen up.

Seems like ND has again exposed contradictions among Catholics at all levels. Glendon is walking contradiction. Perhaps we can learn more of her in the upcoming trials of former Bush appointees.

in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. Bishops--to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church's position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.

I can't believe what I'm reading here, she can't be serious with the above statement, does she know we are from Boston? JUSTICE, please, when I read this all I could think of was Law, he did more damage under the watchful eye of the chruch than any outside influence would ever dream of. Good, stay away and pray for justice.

Bravo Professor Glendon !!!!

Capital punishment is not an article of faith like abortion, the killing of the innocent. Still, because of his disregard of the Holy Father's plea not to wage war in Iraq, George Bush was not deserving of an honorary degree either at a Catholic university.
St. Vincent college in P.A. so honored President Bush and had to put up with the inevitable dissent. The point is that there are more deserving recipients of honorary degrees at Catholic colleges than these two men. What happened to the vetting process?

Ms. Glendon claims Mr. Obama is "an opponent" of the Catholic Church. I do not believe that disagreeing with the Church's beliefs, having a different set of beliefs, or having no beliefs at all makes one an opponent of the Church. She may choose to decline the award; but she damages her protest by impugning others because they do not agree with her personal beliefs.

This is another victory for moral relativism, I applaud Ms. Glendon for having a code and living its beliefs. The new code of justification that starts with "In these trying times we can't presume to know what is right and wrong" has brought us to where we are today. You do not have to agree with the Catholic Church to appreciate a person who stands by her convictions.

I understand the temptation of some conservative Catholics to hold this woman up as some sort of hero but the first part of her letter really makes me wonder whether this was a matter of faith or a matter of ego. Maybe it's my general cynicism or maybe it's a bias against "Harvard-types" (fyi. that photo isn't helping) but for all her eloquent language, I still can't get past the idea that she's really withdrawing because she doesn't want to be upstaged by the President.

Ms. Glendon has a right to bow out and she did so with kind words and respect. The university was right to continue on. Who on that campus has not sinned? I suppose for many of you Obama haters that it would be okay if Bush showed up to replace him? Sure, let the guy who made a decision that wound up killing thousands of babies in Iraq, and tortured completely innocent people Gitmo and Abu, have a place front and center at ND. Obama will do more for poverty related issues in 2 years than Bush could ever imagine to do. It will lead to more babies living than did during Bush years. And ask yourselves..."when did Reagan/Bush/Bush ever reverse Roe v Wade?". You folks act as if the Republicans actually worked on your behalf (after using you for your vote) to reverse abortion laws.

Read "Theology and Sanity" by Frank Sheed, if you want to know anything about what the Catholic Church teaches and why.

Or just continue to blather on with your intolerant ignorant hate...

What Ms. Glendon did was courageous and, in truth, the only principled thing to do. Way to go, Ms. Glendon!

All I see here are more sheep complaining about a non-Believer to the other Messiah's great illusions of Change and Hope.
You all do realize that fifty million people voted for McCain, right?

ps, george bush didn't release the swine flu into the population either.

Folk get all up in arms about someone who isn't sufficiently anti-abortion, but they haven't the same problem when someone is pro-war (which is pretty anti-life, isn't it?). Torture and mass killings are OK, but abortion disqualifies someone from speaking? Give me a break.

"Religion is the opium of the people". As with all addictions , it clouds the mind of rational judgment.

Thank you Professor Glendon, for having the courage to stand firm in the face of a guaranteed backlash of political correctness. I wish you had stayed at BC Law, since you were one of the few faculty members there who actually cared about teaching in the late 70's. Unfortunately BC compromised itself years ago, and now tries desperately to reclaim its Catholic identity.

I wonder why it was not equally incumbent upon Ms. Glendon not to work for an administration which practiced torture, executed citizens, and started two wars. The Catholic Church is just as explicit about it's desire to protect the lives lost in those situations, too. Talk about not noticing the log in your own eye!

If the Catholic academic institutions do not discourse with those of differing opinions, then who in the Church will? Is there a better suited agency or affiliation than learned believers?

Typical Harvard ego at work here. Honorary degrees are handed out like Candy to the best and the brightest and to the utter fools and comedians. for this Harvard Professor to somehow put herself above the opinions and views of a standing US President is ludicrous. Harvard people are not smarter than most, they are just more arrogant than most.

Bravo Ambassador Glendon! Your position makes a profound statement.

You must remember this is a Catholic University that only has so much time and energy at its disposal. With the University choosing to ignore the morality issues core to the faith, then there is little time left to do damage control. All of this takes away from the graduates - it should be thier day. Using this issue to Catholic bash only highlights the fact that the University is doing more harm than good by entering into ill conceived actions. It isn't that the President is an underserving man, it is that his views differ in a radical way to the Church's view of life issues.

"Shame on the president of the college for his high and mighty way circumventing the Church, and shame on Obama for his stance on killing the innocent, but of course, he'll only blame Bush for that, too!"
Posted by Father Raymond Donohue April 27, 09 04:21 PM

Tell us, Father - did you vote for Bush, the killer of tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians? Bush the torturer? Bush the executioner? Did you vote for McCain, who expressed a desire to remain in Iraq for 100 years regardless of the cost in human life? Did you vote for Reagan, who supported the murderer Pinochet in Chile, or the right wing government in El Salvador that had Archbishop Romero murdered? Whether or not you're a priest, given your right wing leanings, you are hardly in a position to lecture anyone on matters of morality, certainly not on the matter of the taking of innocent life. Barack Obama has spent a lifetime showing himself to be a more compassionate and decent human being, a far more genuinely pro-life human being, than the anti-choice (sorry, but conservatism has morphed into a death culture, one that is most decidedly not pro-life) "devout" modern-day Sadducees who populate your right wing world.

I love our Catholic faith and our Church but for the life of me could never understand how Republican Catholics could turn a blind eye to the Bush administrations policies especially the diabolical "Doctrine of Pre-emption". Opposition to abortion did not serve as a counterbalance to the grevious errors and attitudes of the past 8 years. Obama I think will be a fine president however as a Catholic I reject abortion and don't understand how Leftists can justify FOCA which denies the freedoms of choice and conscience (indeed incurs penalties) that they claim to uphold. I agree with Ms. Glendon's decision and think her rationale as a Catholic is sound and anything but narrow minded. Were ND a state or seculr insttution that would be a different matter but it is not therefore honoring an individual whose stance condradicts Catholic dogma is an act worthy of condemnation.

Yet she neglected to mention Bush's atrocious record on human rights, war, and torture...things that our current President is trying to change. Either the church has their priorities mixed up, Notre Dame doesn't have any idea what to do, or Ms. Glendon is a narrow-minded thinker willing to accept the actions of a failed Peresident. On second thought, they all fail at the basic principles espoused by Jesus. Way to go to all parties!

Good for Ms. Glendon. How hypocritical for Notre Dame to invite a President to speak when his moral convictions or lack there of are in such conflict with the very church it represents. The problem with this country is that the populace lacks the intelligence and common sense to see the difference between capital punishment and abortion. You can't have it both ways.

Open letter to Mary Ann Glendon,

Dear Ms. Glendon,

Your level of hypocracy betrays you claims to honest and concern for life. Under George W. Bush you were perfectly fine with the whole scale murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani peoples. When it comes to bombing living human beings with families, the poor, the elderly, orphaned children and the handicap with 5,000 bombs being dropped out of the tail end of transport planes, you are a supporter of mass murder.

Your claims to righteousness are false and an embarrassment to any thoughtful catholic.

Would you please explain "honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles" in relation to the church's position in publically humiliating and excommuicating a 9 year old girl and her family in Brazil for their decision to all the 9 year old girl who had been raped by her step-father and let pregant with twins that would have killed her if she decided against the abortion. The cardinal in Brazil publically tortured this family in front of the whole country rather than offer them comfort and support during a very difficult decision.

Perhaps your self righteous notion of "honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles" would be more open to going back to those good old days when girls in my neighborhood had to us coat-hangers to perform abortions on themselves in public restrooms or crossing boarders to get abortions in Tia Juana by untrained men pretending to be doctors, leaving some young teenaged girls damaged for life or even dead from the infections or from hemoraging from internal wounds.

This medal needs to be awarded to those of greater moral principles than your own. And Notre Dame should be ashamed of offer it to someone such as yourself. YOU DON"T DESERVE IT. So thanks for turning it down.

Fr. Donahue -

Just so you know, ontheleft is a disenfranchised former Catholic who has demonstrated profound inner turmoil and confusion about the mission of the Church. He cannot post anything without referring to Bush or Cheney, and cannot intellectualize the difference between the unfortunate deaths that occur during war, and the intentional killing of the unborn through a procured abortion.

Try to forgive him for his rants. Your post is right on, and as you know, if you have a differenct opinion or position than that of the left, they become attack dogs. Thank you Father, for being here. And thank you for your service to the Church. I have forgiven onthelft weeks ago, and continue to do so, even since last week when he said I was "not human" I hope you will join me Father to pray for his conversion. God bless you Father Donahue.

A basic tenant of the Catholic faith is to challenge and question your faith. It is in this way that one's faith grows and is strengthened. It is the American tradition of democracy that we also question and challenge ourselves and those who govern us. It is in both of these traditions that Notre Dame has chosen an American who inspires and challenges us to speak to the their graduating class of 2009.
Silencing those that hold differing views is counter-productive and does not promote better understanding and resolution of issues in the secular world.

Kudos to Notre Dame for standing up for these values.

"We have long forgotten that the Catholic Church was founded on the blood of so many martyrs that chose death, rather than compromising their beliefs."

We have not forgotten that or that It was also founded on repression and fear antics.

Too many cheers this decade for those who "stand by their beliefs" no matter how divisive. The real world awaits those who do not analyze and adapt with greater information and less suspicion. May we all be enlightened enough to engage rather than isolate or fellow man.

I agree with the person(s) who have suggested she was motivated in her action primarily by her ego (putting aside any debate over the morality of her behavior). For a strongly egocentric person like Glendon there is no such thing as bad publicity (which includes this blog, ironically). A better way to deal with someone like that is to ignore them -- but the media has never been in the business of ignoring attention grabbing egocentric individuals, hmmm... :)

Kudos! Don't cave to the wieners!

ontheleft:

"Barack Obama has spent a lifetime showing himself to be a more compassionate and decent human being, a far more genuinely pro-life human being, than the anti-choice (sorry, but conservatism has morphed into a death culture, one that is most decidedly not pro-life) "devout" modern-day Sadducees who populate your right wing world."

I am formally asking that all serious Christians who view this blog to include ontheleft in your daily prayer (which I hope also includes all who post, including me on this Board.)

While not agreeing with all of her views as I have understood them over the years, I admire Professor Glendon. Notre Dame is a Catholic institution of higher learning and she is a practicing Catholic. She has the right to express her distaste for ND's recognition of a politician (yes, he is just a politician, not a demi-god, messiah, or something like that) who promotes practices which are counter to Catholic teaching. This should be absolutely uncontroversial, but the hatred so many people on this board and elsewhere feel toward the Church will not allow them to see that. Guess what? The Catholic Church, which grows every year, will be here long after The Globe goes out of business & Obama is out of office. Gnaw on that.

When and why do we have to inject religion into politics?
They should not be required to go hand in hand!
The Catholic church has no business dictating politics, when, they have allowed child molestation to continue within their church. Protect the newborn, and molest them when they are older? They need to enter into the 21st century.

It is disappointing, but unsurprising, to see all of the un-Christian and anti-Catholic comments here from right-wing supporters of Ms. Glendon.

The simple truth is that abortion was fairly common in the time of Christ, and he never said a word against it. The idea that support for criminalization of the procedure is required of Christians or Catholics is such a distortion that it ought to be considered heretical.

While it is true that the church currently does take a strong position against abortion, the position that abortion is the taking of a human life is not supported by either scripture or the longstanding tradition of the church. Thus, it is not an authentic Catholic teaching. Historically, the very idea of "simultaneous animation" is clearly an innovation of the 17th Century.

And yet, some of the same who invoke official church doctrine on this issue, I see here minimizing at the same time official teachings on other issues, such as the Iraq War. On which, Cardinal Ratzinger, then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said "A preventive war is not in the catechism", and the US Council of Catholic Bishops said "We find that war with Iraq would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for overriding the strong presumption against the use of military force."

I would suggest that those who wish to follow authentic Christian teachings should pray that he help them to open their hearts and minds to the actual words and teachings of Christ, in the gospels, rather than attempting to put their own political prejudices and bigotries into HIS mouth and our church.

being an ambassador is highly political. the professor has probably shared a stage with a variety of heathen in her day. how peculiar (and telling) that she chooses to rebuke the president but probably has not said a word about any of the others (!) including her old boss, George the Lesser (actually, the Least)! Can anyone say "HYPOCRITE"???? This would be funny if it weren't so sickening. It's truly the most appalling thing I've read in years, completely disgusting. This woman worked for one of the most immoral presidents we've ever had, who approved torture, completely tainting the image of the U.S. for decades to come. And yet, and yet: the professor has nothing to say about that. What a disgraceful human being. The only good news is that on the day of commencement, millions will tune in to hear how the president responds to this hypocrite's appalling attack. and what an easy speech to deliver against such hatefulness. the president will show her and all the hateful Americans who have commented here what the words "humility," "decency," "integrity," "morality," and "compassion" mean. what a sad commentary on the country today that he has to make such a speech.

The arrogance of most of the Leftist commentary here is remarkable. And these folks fancy themselves such exponents of tolerance and diversity. ‘Nuff said.

I'm puzzled by people who consider the advocate (President Obama) of killing of babies who survive abortions as a "compassionate and decent human being".

****The idea that support for criminalization of the procedure is required of Christians or Catholics is such a distortion that it ought to be considered heretical.****

The idea that the weakest elements of our society deserve no protection of the law is such a distortion that it ought to be considered heretical.

Obama maybe many things but "defiant" is not one of them. He has not stood up an attacked the Catholic Church on any aspect of its creed and has been supportive of it on many issues. The good professor's remarks do not make sense in this case.

I definitely agree with some earlier posts, if anyone has been defiant it was Bush.
He executed record numbers as governor of Texas (may they secede once and for all) and in prosecuting the unjust war in Iraq, both policies the Catholic Church
has traditionally opposed but gets very little credit for.

Mary Ann Glendon... a simple,Thank you!

Many of the critics of Prof Glendon's site hypocrisy in holding support and promotion of abortion as a greater sin than supporting war, the death penalty or failing to fight for social justice: this is a very confusing issue for even the most faithful of Catholics. Archbishop Dolan explained in a NY Post interview that abortion is always an intrinsic evil: “There are some issues where the Church has weighed in, that one must be very sensitive to the morality of some issues, but they’re not intrinsically evil. An intrinsic evil means that something is always and everywhere wrong.”

Good for her...she stands by her morals and priciples...things that that the liberl left seemingly are bereft of. To have a inept, phony like yobama who has decimated this country financially and soon morally in just 100 days of incompetence speak to a group f tomorrows leaders is just sad. This is a guy who lies, makes poor decisions, doesnt value life and is all about him....witness yet another prime time speech this week...guess what you fraud...we are tiring of your act...such low rated rags like CNN and the tImes may like you but its an act thats growing old. Good for her and just ignore the intolerant, ignorant left..I dismiss these clowns as just human garbage...and sleep well at night...tata

"It is a matter of Catholic doctrine that all authentic teachings come from two sources: 1. scripture 2. the traditions of the early church"

ROFL!!!!! oh, ...wait...wait...wait... ROFLMAO!!!!!! OK, OK...I've stopped shaking...

Ummm, acerimusdux, if this statement of yours were actually true, then where would the early Church have gotten its own authentic teaching from?

It's one thing to think you know better than the Catholic Church what the Catholic Church teaches, but don't spew your ignorance on the world OK? A teacher of Catholic doctrine you are not.

to all those good Catholics who say they admire how principled and "classy" this stand is, even if they themselves are not as conservative as Glendon, please bear in mind that Glendon is on the Board of the Catholic League.

the Bill Donohue Catholic League?

yes, that Catholic League.

Obviously this woman is very smart but it's shame she and the Catholic church have the common sense of a nine year old from the early 19th century! It's time she and the church realize that changes occur and even they have made concessions throughout history,if not, all of you Catholics that support her better not have had pre-marital sex,let alone "covet thy neighbor's wife", divorce, or kill because you are as hypocritical as your religon.

"I find it hypocritical that Prof. Glendon did not have the same reaction when the University invited Pres. Bush to speak. The Church is just as opposed to capital punishment as it is to abortion. Yet Pres. Bush (as Governor of Texas), oversaw more executions than any Governor, and subsequently President, in American history. Can anyone see this as an overtly political insult besides me?" AMEN !
Zack Patrick she must be a cafeteria Catholic.

Translation: I will not share the stage with someone who supports a woman's choice to have an abortion.

But I will be happy to share a stage with someone who supports:
-Death Penalty
-Torture and the violation of the Geneva Conventions
-Cutting government funds for social services to the poor
-Use of violence to advance politcal and economic interests (ie. Iraq)
Her principled stand is the epitome of "cafeteria Catholicism" and a joke.
Final question. When she was ambassador to the Vatican did she share the company of the American fugitive and enabler of child molestation, Bernard Law?

Perhaps she just knew that compared to Obama, her speech would be inferior, and she didn't want to look bad.

Good for Ambassador Glendon for sticking by her convictions. Since Notre Dame is so anxious to court President Obama and give credence to his positions, maybe they should give him the Laetare Medal.

Shame on Notre Dame for compromising its morals.

Bush killed thousands of people but its OK to have him at a commencement. After all he only killed 1000's and they were mostly over 18. She is pathetic and she should have informed ND about her decision way before hand. If her convictions albeit contrary to the MAJORITY of us Catholics (that voted for Obama)where so entrenched she would have announced it earlier, but has chosen to use this as a platform to further divide the Catholic Church and separate its members. She is a professional politician NOT a reputable representative of academia. You don;t have to work at Havard to figure that out!

With regard to those who say Bush presided over executions when he was governor of Texas is misleading. The Texas Governor has no power to pardon condemned prisoners; that rests solely with the Board of Pardons.

Professor Glendon worked for President Bush. On her Harvard biography its lists that her interests are International Human Rights. What did President Bush do to advance Human Right? Exactly. This is a republican who is standing in line with her party.

The scholastic process encourages discourse. It encourages diversity in thought. Professor Glendon's actions lead to question if she believe that Catholic Universities and Colleges should suffocate diversity of thought.

acerimusdux (incredibly) wrote that "The simple truth is that abortion was fairly common in the time of Christ, and he never said a word against it. The idea that support for criminalization of the procedure is required of Christians or Catholics is such a distortion that it ought to be considered heretical." Really??
I am eternally grateful that His parents did not choose to abort Him!

Mass Politicians are billions in the hole and looking to raise sales taxes during the worst recession in 50+ years and nobody in this wacked out state cares or protests.........................Some religious lady from Harvard bad mouths the president and you get 354 responses; half from the People's republic of Cambridge who immediately draw a parallell to Iraq and the "war mean George W. started for his daddy" and half from Catholics and people praising her integrity. How bout we hold some of these complete hacks on beacon hill to a low level of integrity? How bout instead of wasting years of your life whining about some retired stiff down in Texas you focus some of your attention on the non-retired stiffs in boston. This state is the biggest joke in the union. I wonder if Deval will keep the lights on the bridge on tonight?

The US Catholic church, and their enablers, have no "fundamental moral principles", so Glendon has no clue.

Lecturing as to morals needs an about face - inbound. For one can say in regard to the "church" as a whole, and with a straight face, that rather famous quip of Christopher Hitchens: "no child's behind left". I think a good many Americans are still wondering why the "church" leaders aren't facing obstruction of justice, and other charges, given all the known pedophiles in their midst.

Obama should find a more sane, secular, and scholarly institution. One that would be honored with his presence.

Let the poor Glendon, so offended, speak. I will make the effort to tune her out.

I am so impressed by the courage of her convictions. She's just become one of my role models.

As a non-believing Catholic I find it funny that the opened minded liberals can be such bigots towards Catholics and Christians. Instead of spewing your hate speech maybe you should read Kevin Roose's book The Unlikely Disciple. Roose is the Brown U student who infiltrated Liberty University and found out that most of the students were - surprise - just like you an me.

I thought the Catholic Church was also against capital punishment?

Hmm.. lets see, the vice-premier of communist China, and George Bush, the Texas governor who signed the death warrant of 152 prisoners. Oh yes--both were commencement speakers and got honorary degrees

Question: if the pope knocked up a nun and asked Glendon "to take care of it", what do you think she would do?

Thank you!!! Praise the Lord we still have people who will hold our leaders accountable. You cannot be a Christian and go against the basic teachings of the bible. Wrong is wrong. We cannot be smorgaboard Chistians or Catholics, you either choose that road and follow it, or not. The Lord will not split hairs, so neither should you on your journey to Him. May God bless you Mary Ann Glendon, and may he please send us many more like you in our country's time of need.

Wow. Quite an impressive stance. Speaking of "fundamental principles of justice", I wonder where the Vatican is on torture? How about imprisoning and murdering innocent people? I'm sure Professor Glendon will be addressing those issues in her next installment.

Finally ...a refreshing voice of reason. I wonder what these liberal, illogical fools would think if Notre Dame gave a degree to someone who was staunchly and outwardly anti-homosexual. We all know that the liberals would come un-glued. So when a liberal uses the argument that they are all for "hearing the other side" you just need to laugh as I do. Liberals, especially Jenkins, are simply homo loving, baby killing machines! And who better to promote their agenda than the puppet they have in office right now.

Kudos to Professor Glendon for affirming Biblical teaching that affirms life and not checking her faith to appease the culture of death that permeates our culture.
Scripture states that the Lord hates "hands that shed innocent blood." Prov 6:17.
Professor Glendon's position places her in Good Company.

To equate capital punishment and abortion does nothing but show just how ignorant most people are about the Catholic fatih. You Obama worhippers are really a frightening group and trust me when I say that the Nazi's have nothing on you ideal worshipping goons.

Obama is nothing more than a puppet for the radical left. The media protects him and Jenkins worships him, all while the nut job liberals tell him what to do. Obama has no pride and Notre Dame has no class.

Let's remember the Catholic Church is an organization that actually "promoted" Cardinal Law after the abuse scandal. This woman has a lot in common with Cardinal Law: smug, self-serving, hypocritical. Another reason I am no longer a Catholic.

I applaud Mary Ann Gledon! I left the Catholic church years ago (the rape of children/cover-up and denial was the last straw) but how refreshing to see someone stand up for their convictions.
Maybe Shecky Obama can take a few shots at her in his speech. Btw...is it too soon for the President to fire Conan O'brien and appoint himself as the full time replacement for Jay Leno?

The liberals of this country are the most simple of all. If you love homo's, baby killing, sexual freedom to do whatever feels good and are anti-God ....they will love you. Any deviation at all from this core of beliefs and you are public enemy #1. It really is that simple and now they got Obama the puppet to execute their plan.

You miss the point:
"torture, war, bigotry" against preborn children is the primary Civil Liberties issue of our age. You're so into "a woman's right to choose" you never publish the rest of your statement ".....you and your man's child being ripped apart with no anesthetic or burned to death by chemicals because you believe you don't have the gonads to take care of your child". This is so fundamental -- and known by every human being -- that no one ever finishes the sentence.
The rest is hot air and politics.

Good to see that extortion is alive and well in the Catholic Church.

The real story / question is, who got to her.

One more Palinite in the land of the Lemmings!

Wow the wierdos are all out today..To Father Donahue. Have you read John XXIIII and his letter Pacem in Terris or heard of Pope Paul VI pleaing for peace before the UN "Never Again WAR. Perhaps you are too young or not a student of the history of the church. Perhaps you forget that it was our countyr that is the only country to use a nuclear weapon against another country. Perhaps you realize torture did not just start in Iraq but was practiced by the CIA and other government agencies. Perhaps you do not Realize That PopeJohn Paul II said that it was almost impossible to justify Capital Punishment given the means that nations have to ounish people in our times.. A question the fifth commanment is it not stated as THOU SHALT NOT KILL!!! Can we then say that it is wrong to kill a babyin a New England hospital but not wrong to kill another innocent baby in "SHOCK and AWE bombing in Bagdad. A Catholic bishop from another continent once told me we should stop calling people liberals or Conservatives ,right or left, but realy open=minded or close-minded.,because we have so many of this type on Both sides. I am opposed to abortion,War. capital Punishment, torture, gay marriage ETC. The late great Cardinal Cushing used to quote from Good Pope JOHNS words { We were not put on earth to guard a museum but to cultivate a growing garden of life.} The compassionate leadership of these two men and others like them is sadly misssing in the chucrh in the USAtoday where threatened excommincations are thrown around like Lollipops. At least Benedict XVI is trying to show an example by meeting with Muslim leaders and other leaders in the world . I think that Obama is doing the same Toobad our "Taliban Catholics " in this country are too American Republican or Democrat to listen to our Bavarian Pope who has suffered under intolerant leadership.

Hurrah for Mary Ann Glendon for refusing to participate in, and shame on Notre Dame for, honoring a prominent promoter of abortion.

OverThe Edge writes:
"ROFL!!!!! oh, ...wait...wait...wait... ROFLMAO!!!!!! OK, OK...I've stopped shaking...

Ummm, acerimusdux, if this statement of yours were actually true, then where would the early Church have gotten its own authentic teaching from?"

Well, laugh at you like, but it is standard Roman Catholic Theology. The origin of all authentic teachings are the Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. This is sometimes referred to as the Deposit of Faith. Consider this from the Second Vatican Council:

"Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church....It is clear, therefore, that Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls." Dei Verbum, n.10

or, from the First Vatican Council in 1870, in introduction, on the source of the authority of the council:

"This we shall do with the bishops of the whole world as our co-assessors and fellow-judges, gathered here as they are in the Holy Spirit by our authority in this ecumenical council, and relying on the word of God in Scripture and tradition as we have received it, religiously preserved and authentically expounded by the Catholic Church." (Dei Filius, Introduction:10)

The early Church would have gotten it's own authority from the same place. The Divine Revelation which came directly form the words and deeds of Christ himself, both as revealed in scripture, and as related by his Apostles through the Apostolic See.

Professor Glendon agreed to give a speech but later reneged because she didn't like the views of another guest. There is no “integrity” here. Can you imagine the job of the staff making speaking arrangements if they had to insure that all guest have the same political views? I'm sure Professor Glendon is very intelligent, but she demonstrated childish behavior; a poor way for an adult to act not to mention a professor. I trust she doesn't grade her students on their political views.

Ironically she is hurting her cause by passing up a platform to speak and escalating a controversy that is sure to increase the media coverage of the other guest.

This is in answer to Zack Patrick. Go back and do your homework. The Catholic Church does not hold the same contempt for capital punishment as it does for abortion. The church has very two different views on the two very different issues. Clearly you are just another liberal who thinks everyone should believe what you believe with no facts to back it up..
Good for you Mary Ann Glendon and God Bless!

The only good religion is a dead religion.

Another two faced egoist. If you believe that a woman's right to choose is wrong, then you should also believe that the DEATH PENALTY is wrong. When GW got his honorary degree, where was Professor Glendon? Saying nothing. What a HYPOCRITE.

As usual, pro-abortion people who have commented here, have muddled the facts to their own self-serving needs. Let's not get tied down to what is actually in black and white in the above article, but rather try name calling and speaking to subjects TOTALLY off topic. A person standing up for her convictions once she had been pushed too far. Hmmm, sounds like almost any American, or person, who I respect. I am inspired that someone, somewhere, without a collar, is standing up for the Catholic faith. Thank you, Mary Ann Gledon

A law professor deciding issues based upon her personal religion?
I not only would not give her the honor, I'd strip her of her law degree. I'm sick of people's personal agendas taking the place of any reasoning abilities they should have.

Well done Mary Ann. Your stand on this issue sends a strong message for those of us who believe that the leadership at Notre Dame has lost its way in regard to protecting human life.

You seldon see the kind of courage displayed by Professor Glendon today. What a strong women.

She had no problem being an appointee from Bush who has murdered thousands of innocent people, but can't accept this award because Notre Dame's request that a president that supports a women's right to choose come to the university??? I guess murder of Iraqi citizens is not unbecoming a Christian, but God forbid someone be pro-choice. Professor Glendon is a worthless hypocrite. She doesn't deserve this award. One more reason to leave the Catholic church to the cesspool it is.

I read this article and the only thing I got was a diminished view of Harvard Law School. I hope she gets the PIG Flu.

I am a Catholic and do not advocate abortion but voting strictly on that issue has caused us a great deal of grief over the last couple of decades. The morality of other policies of the last administration are still being questioned. In the not to distant past, the Church favored the party of President Obama for its support of the ordinary person. Does that person no longer deserve support?

I agree that Prof. Glendon shows courage in making this decision, and agree that she stands by her principles in doing so. Sadly, those principles are based on the teachings of a religion that, throughout history, has valued its teaching far more than its practice. Sexual abuse by priests and bishops is not at all a new situation -- please consider how many Catholic popes fathered illegitimate children in the past. Historians are discovering that the Holocaust would not have been possible without the collusion of Catholics, whose hatred of Jews fed into Nazi persecution. The current pope was a member of Hitler Youth! The church's recent hypocritical support of its disgraced priests and bishops trumps all of its teachings against abortion. It is a sad history, indeed. Mary Ann Glendon, an obviously intelligent elderly white woman, would have served her religion better had she kept silent rather than draw further attention to the flaws and hypocrisy of her chosen dogmatic faith, which, last time I checked, was still being ruled by old white men.

As a student of history, it is interesting how the American Catholic Church is now so willing to inject itself into the political debate, when in the Kennedy era the Church went to great lengths to separate itself from policy debates so as not to give the impression it "controlled" Catholic candidates. On the one hand, this seems to signify a greater confidence that anti-Catholic bigotry is a thing of the past. But one wonders whether the Church hierarchy's increased boldness will lead to a resurgence of anti-Catholic sentiment.

The point is very clear. Obama wants to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. He support s what we, as the Catholic Church do not support. Notre Dame, named for Our Blessed Mother, is a Catholc institution. It is a symbol, also, for Life, as Mary is and always will be a symbol of life. Bush was not invited. Bush has nothing to do with this. Obama was invited, and in direct opposition to the Catholic Bishops and our tradition and teachings, not to mention all the evil Obama intends to do if his plans are carried out in regards to our rights as Catholics, he is given an award by Jenkins??!! Obama will point at that award and laugh, "Look what I am doing and they still give me awards for it"! This is morally and ethically wrong. Why in the world would the Catholic Church award anyone for attacking them and their beliefs? If we look at the situation, Father Jenkins was responsible to the Institution and its Name, and he failed miserably. If he wanted to bring Obama to the College, do it during the year in the forum of a debate, so questions and answers could be asked. To invite him to a Commencement was a very poor choice, and unfair to the Graduates. Unless, of course, Jenkins plans to use this, as he says it is a teachable moment, to teach Obama and speak directly to him how we, as Catholics, view his position as morally, ethically wrong.

Notre Dame has made a major mistake with the invitation of BO; I will never look at Notre Dame as being one of the finest Catholic Universities in the world.

I am pleased that Professor Glendon made the decision she has made and wrote about it. It is IN YOUR FACE to ND.

I just wish the liberal lefties could see the world a little more RIGHT. It would make for better "change".

Thank you Mary Ann Glendon for standing up for your Catholic moral beliefs. It made more of a statement than to give your speech at the University! We are so disappointed in Father Jenkins that he disregarded his conscience and Catholic beliefs and not recind at least the honorary degree to President Obama. What a bad example for a President of a Catholic University!

Then they need to revoke Bush's degress. He started wars that the last 2 Popes have condemned as unholy.

As Prof. Glendon sensibly said, a three-minute acceptance speech (for her award) is not the appropriate venue to discuss or to imply compromise these serious issues. What's more, why should the desperate men involved use her prominence to "balance out" the circumstances. Sounds like some people are realizing they have egg on their face and expect her to wipe it off. I'm soooo glad -- on a number of levels -- that she declined. Most of all because of real principal and real justice. Afterall -- isn't the commencement for the enjoyment of the graduates and their families? Who hijacked this enjoyment?

I think she is absolutely correct. Notre Dame is probably ( rightly or wrongly) the College that is universely thought to be Catholic. To have the President speak would be fine. To be given an honorary degree from ND absolutely no. I graduated from St. Mary's ( the across the street Catholic Women's college) and I think it would be awful,

GO GIRL---I SAY THAT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT. IT MAKES ME PROUD TO SEE A PERSON STAND UP FOR VALUES AND PRINCIPLES. I AM ALSO PROUD TO SAY THAT I AM A DEVOUT ROMAN CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN.

Boy, the racism & hate are thick here today. When I was an altar boy those were not Catholic virtues, but this is a very different church. Its adherents are also different, and not better people.

Though I do believe ND bolloxed up the deal by not forseeing this, I disagree with her decision. And her timing. She wants a divorce from ND? Draw the line at having a commencement speaker who isn't preapproved by the Vatican and the bishops? OK. Whatever. Thanks for the feedback. It might have been nice if she'd have "got off the pot" a little sooner. She had to know about Obama's visit well before the recipient's name is traditionally made public, the fourth Sunday of Lent. She should never have let them announce it. Waffling? Torn? Mean? I'll say, "Calculated".

Comment # 384 is right on! Furthermore, she passed on a God-given opportunity to inform the President of the United States, a former student of hers, and the world of the dignity and importance of life from its beginning to its end. She missed the point when she thought she shouldn't use the occasion for "a brief acceptance speech (the right vehicle,) for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame's decision--in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. Bishops-" The real issue is the right of every human being to life, not a supposed disagreement with a position of the U.S. Bishops on who and how people who disagree with us can be honored.

Glendon's decision seems to imply how phony these awards and ceremonies have become. Her "reward" is her integrity. Ironically, her beliefs merely insulate her and her followers, marginalizing their significance. Good for Nortre Dame not to move on and ignore this woman. However, she is very good looking for her age.

What amuses me the most about all of the back and forth involved here is that Jesus most probably would not have accepted the Laetare Medal or an Honorary Degree in the first place.

He came to save us from sin not create occasions for it, which is why he eschewed human honors---another lesson not learned or practiced!

Let me get this straight. The representative to the Vatican of President George W. Bush -- who authorized an intrinsic evil, torture -- is now refusing an honor because she won't be seen on the same platform as Bush's successor, whom the Catholic Republicans believe supports another intrinsic evil?

Am I missing something here? Is this too deliciously laughable for words?

A clear demonstration of how polarized a nation the US has become.
I expected more from a professor of law, particularly a Harvard professor.
This does little to refute the prevailing world opinion that we are a nation
of zealots and fools.

mao-bama needs to do the right thing, show up with a pierced skull 3rd term foetus around his neck, set off the bomb vest, and yell allah ahkbar

religion is the opiate of the people.

Professor Glendon's smug look as captured in her photo says a lot about her willingness to accommodate another's point of view. I hope she isn't as dogmatic in the classroom as she seems to be when it comes to personal views on public issues. Morality, like the law, is subject to a reasonable amount of independent interpretation. I have to agree with her on one thing though; a commencement is no place to start an argument. Better that she decline her invitation than embarrass herself with a disputatious, self-righteous speech.

'Professor Glendon agreed to give a speech but later reneged because she didn't like the views of another guest. There is no “integrity” here."

Sure there is. Notre Dame was using her, without her permission, in it's public statements, in such a way as to imply she agreed with what Notre Dame is doing.

The lack of integrity is on the part of Notre Dame.

Liberals have one agenda and that is to cram abortion, homosexuality, sexually deviant behavior and anti-God slogans down the throats of this country. They don't seek the truth, they seek to grow their warped agenda, that's all! "How dare they complain about an honorary degree for Obama" they say, which is really saying "how dare they disagree with us". The liberal mind is tainted, gross and hateful, unless of course your a man who craves other men or a person that turns their head while babies are being mutilated, then you are open minded and truth seeking. It really is this simple.and they really are this sick!!!

Harvard still has such professors??
I am speechless.
Maybe there is hope for us yet.

What an amazing woman!! She could easily find recognition in the things of this world, but instead decides to follow the Truth and do what is right! Bravo!!
For the people who don't "get it" why Obama should not be given an honorary degree at Notre Dame, a Catholic University. Contemplate this.......A prominent black university giving a member of the KKK an honorary degree. It would never happen and no one would expect it to!

Watch out professor you have crossed the line. The liberal nazi's are now coming after you. How dare you speak your mind!!! Don't you know that women can only be pro-choice,pro homo, anti-God and worshipper of Obama. Get ready to be audited by the IRS and have move-on.org at your doorstep. Bad, Bad girl!!!

Good for Glendon! She wasn't told by Fr. Jenkins that Obama would be speaking, but Jenkins surely knew that Obama was the pick. He didn't tell Glendon, or consult his local bishop, because he knew they would object. He gambled that they would stay quiet for fear of looking rude. He gambled badly and it is backfiring.

Jenkins now has 20 days to find another medal winner. Whoever it goes to, he will be the Roland Burris of Catholicism.

Hey, that's it...give the medal to Roland Burris!

Boo hoo, wah wah wah, I'm Mary Ann Glendon and I'm putting my foot down, stomp, stomp, stomp. So poo poo on all of you.

My favorite? Your condoning the hypocrisy that is "That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution's freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes" Puh-leese!!! You don't fool us, Glendon, with a poorly constructed referential try at a seemingly reflexive and robotic 'voice of the church' diversionary tactic--it is clear that what really is happening is that you are ticked off that you have been overshadowed, the great last ambassador to the Holy See (one of the most bigoted, and dangerously intolerant 'leaders' on the planet). Give us a break, honey. The good Father is right--thanks for stepping aside so Notre Dame can honor a truly deserving candidate.

I thought that strong, articulate women were the standard that radical feminist were shooting for and yet you'd think that the professor committed murder from some of the reaction on this board. All she did was stand for something but since it runs contrary to leftist dogma she will soon be given Palin status which means she is now in the crosshairs of the mainstream media. She needs to understand the one great truth of the Nazi left in this country, If your going to speak your mind, it better not be contrary to our beief system.

Ms. Glendon is correct on this issue. Her response was well thought out, (unlike the responses posted here) truthful on the policy put in place by the
U.S. Bishops. She has the right to question why this policy is not being
followed, and the right not to participate. Oh, for a thousand professors
of her strength. There is a huge flaw in the mind set spreading over
America that it is acceptable for YOU not to agree with her, but she can not
do the same. I believe that more of us need to stand up for our beliefs in
basic issues concerning our lives and faith..

How dare you speak your mind professor, and how dare you standing for something other than sexual deviance or baby killing. The feminist of this country are outraged that you actually think for yourself instead of having them do the thinking for you. Shame on you!!

Mary Ann Glendon has epitomized that the Laity will be the salvation of the Catholic Church

Thank God for this lady. She has the guts to stand up for her beliefs. Just because a person is president does not make him a smart man...Obama is a bad joke, hopefully he will only last one term. Just about everything he has touched so far has embarrased our country. Yes, we have made some mistakes in the past but what other country in the world has been called upon over and over to keep world peace. To bad the impeachment process takes so long, it would be good if we could rid ourselves of this menace......Hopefully Ms. Glendon will run for public office.....I would vote for her.

To you liberal idiots who are saying she has no right to decline this honary degree. She has more of a right to decline hers than King obama has to receive his. It's a Catholic University and he should not have even been considered since his beliefs are not in accordance with Catholic doctrine. I suppose in your liberal minds it would also be acceptable for Adolph Hitler to receive a humanitarian award from the V.F.W.
P.S. Good riddance Globe!!!

Here is how the Obama thing will play out. First, the outcry will be so great that Jenkins will lose his job, then the homo's and liberals with bronze him as a forward thinking man of substance. The rest of us will remember him as a homo promoting/ self- serving jerk who destroyed the once good name of Notre Dame.

seems Mary Ann Glendon's is motivated by love and the critics by hate------people who love are happy, people who hate are miserably------you choose

response to: "328. Typical Harvard ego at work here. Honorary degrees are handed out like Candy to the best and the brightest and to the utter fools and comedians. for this Harvard Professor to somehow put herself above the opinions and views of a standing US President is ludicrous. Harvard people are not smarter than most, they are just more arrogant than most.
Posted by Dave April 27, 09 05:41 PM"
uh, duh, dave, and your t/potus being the most arrogant of them all, being a harvard grad himself. (and fyi one of his prof's WAS Glendon). get over yourself, dork, she is a woman whom had the courage to stand up for herself, her beliefs, her country and her church, -- and that's what is really bothering you, isn't it!

acerimusdux wrote:
"Well, laugh at you like, but it is standard Roman Catholic Theology. The origin of all authentic teachings are the Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition."

No, it is not - you are conveniently omitting a crucial point.

Did you even read the passages you quoted? They make it abundantly clear that Catholic teaching rests not only on Scripture and Tradition, but on the "three-legged stool" of Scripture, Tradition, and the magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church:

"It is clear, therefore, that Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others,"

When these councils sat, they did not meet to restate doctrines from ancient writings, they met to define and promulgate doctrine - authoratively.

Stop trying to pass yourself off as someone who knows Catholic doctrine - you speak on your own, and you have no authority (c.f. Jer 23:16-32).

Way to go Professor Glendon! As a Domer, I applaud your class and conviction.
200,000 worldwide abortions a day and almost nobody to call out the shameful advocates of such a holocaust of human innocence!

(I'm afraid that your prose may have been too complex for the illiterate anti-Catholic bigots on this site though. Next time you'll have to dumb it down for them!)

I, too, am a ND grad and support Notre Dame's decision to honor President Obama. Professor Glendon, of course, has the right to be outraged at Obama's views, just as I was outraged by President Bush's immoral war in Iraq, his gleeful promotion of the death penalty, his advocacy of the destruction of our environment, his anti-worker policies, and his shabby treatment of the poor - none of which apparently bother Glendon. Her overtly political decision to reject the Laetare Medal shouldn't be praised as heroic. It is simply a calculated act of selective moral outrage. There are other far more deserving folks to honor. Good riddance to her...

It is Notre Dame’s duty to un-invite Barry . . . not Barry’s responsibility to decline. Clearly, if he were a responsible person, he would admit he wasn’t even born in the United States and he would be living in Chicago still.

Prof. Glendon’s decision is the right decision.

Too bad she is unwilling to speak the truth publicly about how she knowingly permitted Mitt Romney to create (via the executive branch) gay "marriage" in Massachusetts AND laid the groundwork for California’s and Iowa’s “legalization of gay marriage via the executive branch.” There are some mistakes that just don't make a Harvard Professor look that good. There are some mistakes that are best left to private conversations.

With her patent narrowmindedness she should reflect on her position on Harvard Law School's faculty. As students in the fifties we were reminded by one of our eminent B.U. Law professors ,"" the Law often sharpens the mind by narrowing it."

The University of Notre Dame, a Holy Cross institution, was founded in 1842 by the Rev. Edward F. Sorin, a priest of the Congregation of Holy Cross...truth over prestige. BRAVO to Mary Ann. Catholics and Catholic institutions must stand by our beliefs or be marginalized. Social acceptance to the degree that is diametrically opposite my faith is not acceptable and should not be condoned by Father Jenkins or any other cleric, lay minister, or administrator of Catholic-based institutions.

The good Ms. Glendon is making more of a political statement than a religious one.
To suppose that President Obama is an "uncompromising opponent of the Church's position on issues involving fundamental principals of justice" ignores his committment to helping the poor, the children, protecting the environment, and standing against torture and other human rights abuses. It likewise ignores the previous administration's committment to the Iraq war, the death penalty, and
torture; all of which put it at odds with the Church.

I wonder what she teaches. Since she supported Bush's unholy wars. maybe she teaches Constitutional Law--Just like John Yoo. Talk about wasting faculty lines on hypocrites.

How refreshing it is to see that there are still people of principle left in the world. Will Notre Dame also cover up all references to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ when Obama ( who some have acted like is a 'Lord and Savior' himself) comes to speak like Georgetown did? Shame on Notre Dame, but as a once disillusioned Roman Catholic, I am not surprised. Rather than teach the message of Jesus Christ, the Catholic church has led the masses to believe in a system that preaches salvation through the sacraments alone. So, I can go to church on Sunday (if I want to ) lead a sinful life monday through saturday, but as long as I get all of my sacraments, and go to confession, I will be okay. It is a road that leads to ruin, or dissilissionment . I pray for our society.

GREAT MOVE MARY ANN !!! Live by example.......not by words.
You have done what NO ...."Liberal"......would even consider.
Thanks from those of us who care about standing for ones beliefs

Bravo to Mary Ann Glendon! With great wisdom, courage, conviction, open mindedness, and complete inclusiveness she has spotlighted the University of Notre Dame lack of honesty in their belief structure as an institution of higher learning.

As a faithful Catholic I could not be more encouraged and proud of this brave Catholic women.

Ontheleft:
You posted " Barack Obama has spent a lifetime showing himself to be a more compassionate and decent human being, a far more genuinely pro-life human being, than the anti-choice (sorry, but conservatism has morphed into a death culture, one that is most decidedly not pro-life) "devout" modern-day Sadducees who populate your right wing world."

If you seriously believe this, you are far more mentally unstable than I first thought. You need help because this infatuation with dear leader is not healthy. Go back and read post #270 here and then tell me if you seriously think Barry is pro-life. Look at his voting record before he was president and tell me if you think he is pro-life. He associates with known terrorists and you seriously think he is a decent pro-life human being? You keep screaming like a school girl about Bush and the Iraq war when Obama and the Democrats have the blood of 50 million abortions on thier hands. Don't you dare lecture me or anyone else on this board about morality when you gleefully support a so-called leader that has no problem telling you that your under-age daughter can get an abortion without your consent. Don't stand on your soapbox and preach about morality and the culture of death when you support a man who believes in partial birth abortion and that babies that survive abortion should be left to die. This arrogant individual you call a president admits that when life begins is above his pay grade, but has no problem pushing abortions and calling babies 'punishments' to thier mothers who have them.

I didn't support the war in Iraq, but I rather have a president who want's to eliminate cold blooded dictators overseas over a cold blooded socialist dictator in the White House.

What a woman!!! what an example of heart and courage to stand for her convictions! I applaud her...We need more like her! She deserves a far greater medal of honor!

...and Paulsons preceeding blog story is about why people are changing faiths. If it were not for Immigration, Catholicism would be dying even more quickly in the US. As older Irish and Italian families die off, their children will assimilate and leave the church.

Another embarrassment for American Catholics as the Bishops' plan to ally the Chruch with the Republican Party continues. It took Glendon many weeks to decide she had principles that prevented her from accepting the Notre Dame award! But she served an administration that fashioned torture as an instrument of state policy. Do she and the Bishops have any views on that?

Her point is well taken. She doesn't have a problem, necessarily, with Obama being requested to give the commencement speech at this year's graduation. It's the bestowing of an honorary degree on him at that ceremony that is the issue. In elite and political circles, honorary degrees are important. The institutions that grant them, impliedly, support and revere those to whom they are given. So, while Notre Dame showed restraint in not presenting Obama with a "doctorate," they are still leaving the impression that they favor him. Well, that approach is one of two things - appeasement (hoping for better policy later for kissing his tookus now) or an abandonment of principle. Either way - it's bad and this woman had the courage of conviction to bow out. Something Notre Dame might want to think about.

Glendon is true to the teachings of the Church on the sanctity of life. Jenkins has dishonored Notre Dame as a Catholic institution and should be fired.

Thanks be to God for this statement. It is going to be very difficult for her I fear because she will be ridiculed and reviled. Well, I say THANK YOU THANK YOU AND MAY GOD BLESS YOU. And the University of Notre Dame.

People who don't know anything about the Catholic faith sure do make a lot of anti-Catholic statements. Fact#1, abortion is murder and that is the issue here, whether or not a person who believes murder of the unwanted unborn(or just-born) is worthy of an honor. Many people are against abortion that are not Catholic, so it is not just a Catholic issue. Fact#2, the Catholic Church considers abortion an "intrinsic evil", wrong in every instance. War and capitol punishment may or may not be intrinsically evil, depending on the circumstance.

Mary - many of the ignorant (ontheleft, for example), cannot comprehend the content of your post in 448. Thank you for again pointing this distinction out.

Many leftie commenters decry Prof. Glendon for not wanting to "share a podium" with the President. Read her letter again, geniuses; what she is protesting is Obama receiving an honor from ND.

Many lefties, including alleged practicing Catholics, have commented that universities are for opening minds, dealing with different ideas and opinions, difficult moral issues, etc. True enough; but this is not one of those 'difficult moral issues' for Catholics with an informed conscience. Abortion is a grave evil, and under no circumstances permitted. Anyone who advocates it should not be honored by a (formerly) Catholic Univ. It is about as difficult as 1+1=2, or rather 1 (baby's life) - 1 (baby's life) = zero baby's life.

"Catholic conservative intellectual" = 3 synonyms.

Bosfla9 complained about judgmental conservative Catholics; if you read your Bible again(?), you would see that the prophets and Jesus came down hard against sin, too, so that the sinner might reform, before he/she has to meet Christ at the Last Judgment.

To all who compare waterboarding with abortion, big difference: they let you breathe again after the waterboarding.

"Menino and Matthews are both Catholics who support abortion rights." Last sentence of the Paulson article. Problem is, he added one too many words, the last one, "rights." Menino and Matthews are supporters of abortion, period. There are no such things as "abortion rights."

Catechism of the Catholic Church: 1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a "moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility":

"A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence."

1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."

And still no demand from those who insist that the fertilized egg is a human being from the moment of conception to authenticate that claim by also demanding that when the fertilized egg is discovered a Certificate of Conception be issued officially declaring the existence of that person from that moment, not from when it is born. All rights and protections would accrue to that person from then on. Absent that demand it would seem their claim is just lip service with no effective responsibility attached. Any comments?

"I didn't support the war in Iraq, but I rather have a president who want's to eliminate cold blooded dictators overseas over a cold blooded socialist dictator in the White House."
Posted by Rob A April 28, 09 09:16 AM

"Cold blooded socialist dictator in the White House."? Really, Einstein? Care to offer any examples of any of those statements? You supported Bush and Cheney - now they were utterly cold-blooded. And what type of socialist is Obama, Rob? There are a number of different types, you know. Give us some examples. And the dictator part - has he spied on American citizens, Rob? Your boy Bush did. Has he tortured, Rob? Your boy Bush did. Has he shredded the Constitution, Rob? Once again, your boy Bush did. So enlighten us with some proof of the absurd, I dare say, idiotic statement you just made.

And you do support the war in Iraq, Rob. You support torture. You fully support the right wing agenda. You're a bigot, a genuine homophobe, among other of your biases. And you don't get to lecture me or anyone else on morality. Or even humanity. Nice political bit your righties did on partial birth - leave out provisions for the life of the mother - let her die - so that the true pro-lifers - those on the left, not the right - would vote against it. Great way to use women's lives as a political issue, Rob. So tell us all how you're pro-life, OK? And first-term abortion's not murder, Rob. Ensoulment doesn't happen at conception - more likely at the end of the second trimester with independent brain waves. But you could care less about abortion - your war has caused any number of abortions, hasn't it? You just hate the idea of women controlling their own lives, rather than bitter old men like you. And you think I'm mentally unstable? Should we review some of your bizarre posts, in which you confused me with another poster, then, when corrected, repeatedly insisted that the two posters were one and the same person? You've exhibited a level of rage on this board that's really pretty unhealthy, Rob. But, hey, you're a moral kind of a guy, right? In your own bitter perspective, of course.

"seems Mary Ann Glendon's is motivated by love and the critics by hate"
Posted by Paul V Coleman April 28, 09 12:16 AM

Now THAT'S funny! And, Paul, if you're reading posts from your fellow "devout", your comprehension is, shall we say, lacking!

Congratulations, Glendon. What courage, and you have demonstrated the truth that "If one does not stand for something, they will fall for anything".

Boycotting Obama, who may be the most evil man in the world today and wants to expand the murdering/butchering of our preborn babies, take our funs away, destroy all private industry and instill total socialism, and stifle free speech, is wonderful of you.

If there was ever a reason to lament the educational system we have endured for the last forty years, the inane comments attacking Professor Glendon along with the absolutely stupid remarks ranging from everything from the war, to Bush to the history of the Church, are proof positive.

The issue here was why Notre Dame was trying to use Glendon as an offset to President Obama, given the negative reaction he would generate? Would she allow it? Se chose not to and her letter articulately expresses her reasoning, something I may say showed class, resepct for Church teaching, and dignity.

The pettiness, the hatred, the anger in many of the posts above are eivdene of a very tropubled people. Perhaps the stench of 50,000,000dead children has

OverThe Edge:

You are sadly confused and mistaken about the fundamentals of the Catholic faith. And you are also making unwarranted assumptions about me. I speak not on my own authority. And it is you who are selectively misreading the quoted passages.

The Magisterium is not part of the Deposit of Faith. It's authority extends to the interpretation of authentic teachings, which must originate in this deposit. You may want to check your catechism on this:

"Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith." (CCC 86; citing Dei Verbum 10 para 2).

I've already referenced the relevant paragraph from Dei Verbun above, but part of what I omitted, to keep it brief, was this:

"This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed."

Nice try though. So, how about we critically examine what Scripture and Tradition say about abortion? Lets start with scripture:

"The texts of Sacred Scripture never address the question of deliberate abortion and so do not directly and specifically condemn it" (Evangelium Vitae Ch. 3, par. 61.)

OK, then how about tradition? There are some clear condemnations of abortion there, but quite early on there are also distinctions made based on what stage of pregnancy. Moreover, the early Christian belief here seems to be heeavily influenced by Judaism, which held that the child was not fully human until born, but that the fetus had great value as potential life. Judaism too made exceptions for early pregnancy, for example "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day" (Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 69b).

Then we have the Apostalic Constitutions (about 350 CE), which clearly make distinctions based on whether the fetus is formed or ensoulment has occurred:

"Thou shalt not slay the child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. For everything that is shaped, and his received a soul from God, if slain, it shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed."

and Jerome around the same time:

"The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs" (Epistle 121, 4)

This view is supported by Augustine as well, and later by Aquinas, and seems to be the dominant tradition until at least the 17th century. In the 13th Century, Innocent III ruled that ensoulment occurred at the time of quickening. In the 16th Century, Gregory XIV determined this to be at 116 days.

So there seems to be a pretty strong tradition there for exceptions during the first trimester, when abortion was clearly not considered akin to murder. And Church tradition hardly seems to justify major changes in the law, when over 95% of abortions currently occur during the period of time in which they would have not been considered killing by early Christians, Church fathers, or medieval popes.

Professor Glendon is disingenuous. As an Ambassador working for the former president she was his spokesperson at the Vatican. She represented a a militaristic president who forged the lie that the war and occupation of Iraq was somehow good and moral. How then can she offer any implicit or explicit criticism of the current President's policy regarding a woman's right to control her body when her own hands are stained by the blood of uncountable dead Iraqis and so far thousands of dead Americans? If she actually spoke with integrity and honor she would acknowledge at least her own complicity in supporting the devastation of the Iraq war. It's good that she doesn't share the podium with the President. Her presence would merely bring shame and disgust to the moment.

Mary,

The Pope declared the Iraq war to be an "unjust war". Catechism #2266 says that the death penalty is "only justified when this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor" i.e., when life imprisonment is not possible.

The specific "circumstances" you speak of put the Bush Administration at odds with the church. That is the issue that Ms. Glendon is glossing over.

If you don't stand up for something, you stand for nothing. I am so proud of Ms Glendon.

Liberals are the biggest joke in America. I thought they loved strong women who think for themselves. We all know better and this message board is another proving ground for how ridicualous the liberal mind is. Its really very simple, if your not pro-gay, anti- child and anti-god the liberals have no tolerance for you and they will go to great links to trash your character. These people are really sick and I cannot wait until their homo promoting leader Jenkins gets thrown out of Notre Dame!

Hey all of you self consumed liberals out there, I have a question for you. Would you please compare for us the difference between water boarding and a late term abortion? I come to you because you all seem to be such experts on torture now and I am curious to understand if you see how foolish you really are. Thanks

This is pretty clear to understand no matter what you believe. "This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. Bishops' express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions "should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles" and that such persons "should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions." That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution's freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.

My favorite comment, thanks sis for stating this so elequently!!!! What an amazing woman!! She could easily find recognition in the things of this world, but instead decides to follow the Truth and do what is right! Bravo!!
For the people who don't "get it" why Obama should not be given an honorary degree at Notre Dame, a Catholic University. Contemplate this.......A prominent black university giving a member of the KKK an honorary degree. It would never happen and no one would expect it to!

There was a man once so closed-minded about the unique nature of his own identity that, even though it meant his crucifiction, he would not change his views; nor would he keep silent on the matter. I believe, in refusing Harvard's award that Dr. Glendon is insisting upon the rightness of, not her own views, but those of this man. It is not about political expediency and it is not about compromising to have greater power in another venue. If this man is "Lord" and "Savior" as Dr. Glendon's actions indicate, then it is a matter of obedience to a higher power. I am sorry that so few in this discussion seem to understand this.

Meh, no big loss.

Ontheleft,

Go back and read all of my posts. When have I ever defended Bush and Cheney actions? When have I ever defended torture? When have I ever said that I even voted for him? The answer to all of the above is I didn't. You insist on calling him my "boy Bush", yet I have never defended his actions or swooned over him like you do over Obama.

You are a twisted bitter angry old man who screams "bigot" or "homophobe" whenever someone disagrees with you. If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would know that homophobe is one who fears homosexuals. I don't fear gays. I think a better term is homotaedet, one how is disgusted by active homosexuality. You can't stand the fact that people like me will defend the Church and our beliefs against anti-Christian bigots like you. You can tolerate the fact that people like me dare to disagree with the all knowing Lefty and his god Obama. Keep name calling all you want. I will never be ashamed of my beliefs or made to feel guilty by people like you. Its easier for you to sit there and resort to name calling than it is to have a rational discussion. Grow up.

Prove to me that ensoulment happens at the second trimester. You can't. Prove to me that the war caused numbers of abortions. You can't. As for my statements about Obama being cold-blooded. Look at his abortion record. Anyone who looks at human fetus as callously as he has is cold blooded. As for him being a Socialist, under his administration the government is already owning huge stakes in banks, auto makers and other companies at unprecedented levels. He repeatedly spouted off about spreading the wealth and that the constitution did do enough for wealth redistribution. But I guess that is all acceptable to liberals like yourself. As for confusing you with another poster. It was an honest mistake considering all you liberal Obama disciples all sound alike and spout off the same nonsense. I don't have any rage. Its frustration from dealing with the unbelievable arrogance that comes from you.

"Freedom is not being able to do what you want, but the right to do what you ought."

Dear Mary Ann--a personalized beatitude from THE JESUS I NEVER KNEW:
I am blessed when, because of my loyalty to Jesus, others look down on
me, violate my God-given rights, lie about me with evil intent, or hurt me.
This world is not my home, and persecution blesses me because it is a re-
minder of the kingdom of heaven that awaits me not so far away. For "no
eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has pre-
pared for those who love him" (I Cor. 2:9).

Press on! I"m praying for you and for true revival in our land/the world, so that
biblical values will be the standard in the governments and among people.

Admiring your stand! A Lutheran sister in Christ, Lee

It looks like "steve" is another one who could use to brush up on his catechism, given the comments about "homo's" and disparagement of "homo loving" :

"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition." (CCC 2358)

I also applaud you for your courage and unwavering commitment to the Catholic faith and to life, the precious God-given gift that is being destroyed in overwhelming numbers, due to Obama's evil policies. We must pray hard for him, also.

And they say racism doesn't exist? Its a sad story that a prominent white woman fails to sepculate beyond the relilgious spectrum and decides to contribute to ignorant excuses.

Now, that is a woman!

it's really interesting to see how amazingly hateful the republicans and right wingers can be, spewing their venom with such ease here. it's truly disgusting. one wonders where they were when so many other public figures spoke at notre dame for commencement in the past. i looked at the list of former speakers - surely few if any were subject to such bile as obama is being. Jesus's words on the pharisees come to mind, "You know the law but you don't know the spirit of the law" or something to that effect. truly sickening.

Lee Gsellman, that is the most loving, Christian post on this Board. Thank you. If Mary Ann should read your post somehow, I am sure she would be very grateful..

Admiring your gentle Christ-like spirit...., KJR

Please note the comments made by those who disagree with Mary Ann Glendon. They are childish arguments and comments - insulting her person. Instead of insulting her why not look at what she said. Her argument is simple. As a Catholic University, you should never honor an individual who stands up for beliefs that run so contrary to the faith. This is a request from our Bishops, approved by the Holy Father. N.D. has decided to ignore this. Mary Ann Glendon was absolutely in her right to refuse any award from an institution that does not represent the Faith, the Church or the Teaching Authority of the Church.

Prof. Glendon implies that President Obama has acted in defiance of "... our
fundamental moral principles". Meanwhile she accepted a position, late in the
Bush administration, that says a good deal about her own fundemental moral
principles. As one who was extremely proud of America's choice of President in
2008, I am pleased that Notre Dame will be able to honor a less smug and self-righteous representative of the Catholic religion with the Laetare Medal.

It's plain to see, from some of the posts, that bigotry is still alive and well in the United States. People will continue to use the tragedy of the abuse scandal, the Crusades, and the Inquisiton as a place to hang their pathetically weak arguments. You'll never hear them mention the incredible education system that came from Catholics, or the amazing hospital system set up by Catholics, or the thousands of Catholic non-profits that help the sick, dying, and forsaken all over the world. They would rather say "pedophile priests" and "nazi pope" than Sisters of Mercy. The worst offenders seem to be disgruntled Catholics who think they can bash the Church "because I was raised a Catholic and know what it means to be Catholic." They want the Church to buy into the same worldly ignorance that they have embraced
This is most likely the main reason for attacking the stance of Mary Ann Glendon. Though far from being impeccable, she makes us look at our own lack of conviction, and we stand guilty in our own defiance.

In spite of the predictable intolerance of the Liberal bigots (as usual, they are open-mided only towards those who agree with them), the fact remains that a Catholic university should not reward a callous man who voted to prevent medical care from being administered to children surviving abortion. Murdering the unborn is evil from a religious, moral and scientific point of view. I admire Prof. Glendon for her principled stand. God bless her!

I applaud and admire Ms. Glendon for her strong conviction of faith! I wish more of us could be so strong. Notre Dame is supposed to be a Cathollic university and I am saddened that it has failed to uphold its beliefs and thumbed its nose at the Conference of Catholic Bishops, who in 2004 stated that Catholic Institutions should not honor those who actively promote a stance which is contrary to the church's fundamental moral principles. President Obama's postion on abortion is no secret and he has focused much of his legislation in the first 100 days to create abortion on demand. He stated that he would do this in his run for office. This is a Catholic faith issue and has nothing to do with politics - Notre Dame is a Catholic Institution and Ms. Glendon is a Catholic who is not supporting its decision. The Catholic Church's stance on abortion is clear and will not be compromised because it is the politically correct thing to do. As an active Catholic, I am proud of Ms. Glendon.

"And they say racism doesn't exist? Its a sad story that a prominent white woman fails to sepculate beyond the relilgious spectrum and decides to contribute to ignorant excuses."

Posted by Bella April 28, 09 06:24 PM

Out of the 479 comments so far, this takes the cake as the most inane, that Professor Glendon and anyone who agrees with her, because they vehemently disagree with President Obama, are racists! LOLOLOLOLOLOL!

Joe@6:50 pm chides that "republicans and right wingers spew venom," as if the left wingers on this blog spew honey. BTW, I am an Independent, because neither party completely coheres with the Christian faith.

Movingforwardbackward @2:21pm calls President Bush "militaristic." I sure hope so; that is his (and every president's) job #1, to be commander in chief of US armed forces, to protect our nation from attack. President Bush did an admirable job of defending the country after 9/11, although i did disagree with the necessity of attacking Iraq. He and others criticize Prof. Glendon for being Bush's ambassador to the Holy See, forgetting that ambassador's carry messages in both directions. I'm sure that the Holy See reiterated through her its opposition to pre-emptive wars as in Iraq.

movingforwardbackward wants a "woman [to have] control of her own body." Fine, who doesn't? But in the matter of abortion, there is also the body of another human person, the baby, whom the woman has helped to (but let's not let the man off the hook here) bring into the world, so she also bears responsibility for that person, and she should not have ultimate control, the power of life and death, over that body. Deliver the baby, give him or her for adoption, save a human life,
give the greatest gift of all to the adoptive parents, and go on with your life uninterrupted. Liberals think life is all about rights, rights, rights. But rights spring from prior duties and obligations.

Our Lady, pray for us.

Good for you Ms. Glendon!!

PLEASE READ......The mantra by the liberals on this board is that we who oppose Notre Dame for this invite are scared to discuss and hear other sides of the issue. Barrack Obama however has a 100% pro-abortion voting record which is a clear indication that he refuses any dialogue on the matter. Knowing this, these liberals expect us to engage with a radical who is incapable of hearing the other side of the abortion debate. They are so blinded and illogical that it is almost comical. I CHALLENGE ANY OF YOU GREAT INTELLECTUAL LIBERALS ON THIS BOARD TO ADDRESS THIS POINT,knowing full well that you won't touch it, because common snese escapes the liberal mind.

"The clearness of my conscience has made my heart hop for joy" --St. Thomas More

St. Thomas More is held in very high regard at Notre Dame Law School. Mary Ann Glendon, you are an amazing woman! I pray God grants me half of your intergrity, courage and wisdom.

Hey post #483, don't hold your breath waiting for an answer because they don't have one. Good post

Prof Glennon stood up for Christ - as we are all required to do and often fail miserably.

acerimusdux wrote: "The Magisterium is not part of the Deposit of Faith."

What an absolutely moronic thing to say. That's like saying the craftsman is not part of the building materials. Is that supposed to make sense? Do you not even understand the meanings of the words you use, and yet you would teach me what the Catholic Church teaches, even when you know full well that your fanciful extrapolations fly straight into the face of, well, of what the Catholic Church clearly teaches? May God have mercy on you!

The Magisterium is the teaching office of the Church, or Her capacity to authoratively express, in particular circumstances, the truth revealed in Jesus Christ. All authorative teaching (doctrine) comes from the teaching office (Magisterium).

Your premise from the outset has been to misrepresent Catholic doctrine by cutting the Church's teaching office out of the transmission of authentic teaching ("It is a matter of Catholic doctrine that all authentic teachings come from two sources"), when actual Catholic doctrine clearly states just the opposite - that all authentic teaching comes from one source: the Church's authoritative teaching office, which serves the revelation entrusted to it in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. It is surely not I that am confused.

Your stooping to employ things like Jerome's naive understanding of human generation as apologies for your murderous pro-abortion proclivities - as if Jerome would approve of abortion - are absolutely pathetic. You are a textbook example of a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing. You are living a dangerous fantasy when you think you can troll through ancient documents to tweeze and parse passages that can be made to seem supportive of your agenda, when the authentic teaching body of the Church emphatically and forcefully insists that abortion is utterly, unequivocally, intrinsically evil (and insists that it has always taught so).

If you seriously think that any orthodox Catholic, at any time in history, taught that it is morally licit to intentionally take the life of an innocent - in the womb or out - you are out of your tree. And trying to hijack their ignorance of how conception happens is not just lunacy, it is grossly dishonest.

Bravo, Prof. Glendon, for your act of courage! You have gained our utmost respect which Notre Dame's Fr. Jenkins has decidedly lost unless he finally shows some courage himself & decides to cancel the invitation to Pres. Obama.

Harvard Law school should FIRE Glendon. It is NO loss for Notre Dame that she refused to speak. Her rationales are INSANE and how a woman of SUPPOSEDLY intellectual acumen could be a part of such cerebral idiocy is hard for me to imagine. She has a problem with the termination of a pregnancy involving a FETUS but NO problem at all being a part of an administration which lied this country into a trumped up war, then tortured FULL term human beings or believes in the death penalty. She 's a HYPOCRITE. At first I thought Notre Dame was great to stand its ground but now I am SHOCKED that they offered that woman a medal. It is beyond any intellectual rationalization. She is an INSULT totocountry

"Harvard Law school should FIRE Glendon." says Natalie Rosen @6:45 am. Now there's some of that vaunted liberal open mindedness, freedom of academic inquiry and debate. They only like those values when the result is what they have predetermined.

Come, come now Natalie Rosen. Typical liberal response. If you don't like what a traditional thinks FIRE HER! I suppose you want Miss California executed as well?

Read the newspapers...most Catholics, by a pretty wide margin, favor Obama. Most Americaan Catholics, by substantial margins, think the Church's teachings on birth control are outdated. Most Catholics welcomed the reforms of Vatican II. Most American Catholics, by substantial margins, think the Church's enforcement of celibacy for priests is wrong-headed. Most Catholics, by substantial margins, think the Church discriminates against women. Most Catholics, by overwhelming margins, think the Church's hierarchy--especially in Boston-- coddled pedophile priests. Most Catholics oppose preemptive wars. Most Catholics recognize the death penalty as barbaric. Most Catholics understand Christ's message about the poor amongst us. Most Catholics abhor abortion but realize it's a complicated ethical dilemma at best, not suited for "one solution" answers. And most American Catholics stay away on Sundays...this woman is an extremist and a Grand Stander. . She should follow Father Drinan's example and quietly walk away.

It's great news that there are still those willing to stand up for what they believe. Congratulations to Ms. Glendon. While I think universities have a responsibility to present different sides of an issue the position of the Catholic Church on abortion is not something that can be debated. Their position is abortion is that is it the killing of a human life. As the best known Catholic university in the country ND has a responsibility to uphold that view. This is not the time for political correctness. It is the time to take a stand and ND should be leading by example. Unfortunately they are more impressed by someones position.

As I have read several of the posts, I am intrigued by the variety of views on the subject....such a shame that the children killed by abortion will never be given the chance to have their own voice.

As for Richard...the Catholics you speak of would be considered "non-practicing". For those of us who embrace the Church, we strongly disagree with you!

Ms. Glendon,

You have done exactly the right thing. I am so proud of you, and I wish you were our president.

And still no comment on the need to officially recognize the newly created person in the form of a fertilized egg by requiring a Certificate of Conception or Personhood as soon as a pregnancy is determined...that would incorporate all rights to that new person as well as responsibilities for its well being by the one carrying it. Demanding such would put teeth in your demand.

Richard - who cares with what "catholics" think? It is not a democracy, though many would like it to be. So, under your logic, the cesspool of secular influence should govern the Church? It will never happen, which is why, among other things, that the Vatican is a separate sovereign, not subject to any nation, or the United Nations, for that matter, or any other secular government.

"Freedom is not being able to do what you want, but the right to do what you ought."
Posted by Rob A April 28, 09 04:45 PM

Really, Rob. Well, where did you find that little chestnut? On one of the rightwing blog sites from which you quoted "news" about Rachel Maddow? Your talking points about "Obama=Messiah" are strictly right wing creations. So you didn't vote for Bush? Not in 2000? Not in 2004, after the devastating effects of his policies on war and torture were commonly known? You didn't vote for McCain, who would have continued those policies?

You have admitted your temper problems, Rob, in the midst of bigoted anti-gay tirades too numerous to mention. Anyone who disagrees with you is "anti-Christian", yet you are certainly one lousy excuse for a Christian, filled with bitterness and rage. It's really too bad that gays offend you, isn't it, Rob? That's why you had to confuse me with one of the posters who's gay - the idea that a straight happily married man could actually believe in equal marriage simply doesn't register with you. Your pitiful explanation above simply confirms what I said earlier about you. And it was you, Rob, who started firing off ad hominem attacks. I'm simply not one of those liberal types who refuses to respond to the likes of you in kind.

As for ensoulment, science indicates that independent brain waves occur at the end of the second trimester. Since we measure death - the vacating of the body by the soul - as the flattening of brain waves, it is more than logical to measure life by the emergence of them. You and your hierarchy maintain that ensoulment happens at conception. Based on what science or other fact, Rob? Prove that, in light of evidence to the contrary. And do you really believe that not one pregnant woman has been among the tens of thousands of deaths in the right wing war and occupation in Iraq? If so, you are delusional beyond measure.

And quote one instance in which Obama has shown any callous cold-blooded attitude toward fetuses. One quote, Rob. It was your side that tried to turn late-term into a political football by requiring that the mother die for their purposes. Remember? Obama, a far better Christian by the way than you and your ilk will ever be, has suggested that abortions will decrease as unwanted pregnancies decrease. What we nasty lefties like to call family planning and birth control. But you're opposed to that, aren't you?

By the way, is a graduated income tax Socialism, Rob? It certainly is a redistribution of wealth. isn't it? How about Jesus' dictate to give your money to the poor? Socialism? Here's a reality check - most Western economies are, in fact, mixed economies. Bits of capitalism and socialism, as it were. And this government has not nationalized so much as one bank, auto company or anything else. In the private sector, when you bail out a company, you own them. You get to dictate policy. If we're bailing out banks as a society, our representatives get to dictate conditions. Or do you think these institutions should just get these billions with no strings attached? But, further, Rob, since you maintain Obama's a Socialist, what kind of Socialist is he? And support your assertion with facts, not with right wing GOP talking points.

'Catholics' who approve of Obama are not practicing Catholics. One can not pick and choose which teachings of the Church suit them and still be a faithful Catholic.
Drema- Her action was neither a "statement" nor " petty". She is a faithful Christian doing what every faithful Christian should do- serve her properly formed conscience.
Ed Magowan- Check your facts. The Church is NOT as opposed to capital punishment as to abortion. Captial punishment CAN be justifiable. Abortion is NEVER justifiable.
Joe Deal- Probably the most ignorant thing I have ever read.

"Barrack [sic] Obama however has a 100% pro-abortion voting record which is a clear indication that he refuses any dialogue on the matter. Knowing this, these liberals expect us to engage with a radical who is incapable of hearing the other side of the abortion debate. They are so blinded and illogical that it is almost comical. I CHALLENGE ANY OF YOU GREAT INTELLECTUAL LIBERALS ON THIS BOARD TO ADDRESS THIS POINT,knowing full well that you won't touch it, because common snese escapes the liberal mind."
Posted by Steve April 28, 09 10:40 PM

April 2008 at a candidates forum:
REV. SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL HISPANIC LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE: "Senator Obama, the vast majority of Americans believe that abortion is a decision to be made by a woman, her family and her doctors. However, the vast majority of Americans similarly believe that abortion is the taking of a human life. The terms pro-choice and pro-life, do they encapsulate that reality in our 21st Century setting and can we find common ground?"

OBAMA: "I absolutely think we can find common ground. And it requires a couple of things. Number one, it requires us to acknowledge that there is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that's a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about. The second thing, once we acknowledge that, is to recognize that people of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what's right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ. And if we can acknowledge that much, then we can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion. And we've actually made progress over the last several years in reducing teen pregnancies, for example. And what I have consistently talked about is to take a comprehensive approach where we focus on abstinence, where we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children. But we also recognize the importance of good medical care for women, that we're also recognizing the importance of age-appropriate education to reduce risks. I do believe that contraception has to be part of that education process. And if we do those things, then I think that we can reduce abortions and I think we should make sure that adoption is an option for people out there. If we put all of those things in place, then I think we will take some of the edge off the debate. We're not going to completely resolve it. I mean, there -- you know, at some point, there may just be an irreconcilable difference. And those who are opposed to abortion, I think, should continue to be able to lawfully object and try to change the laws. Those of us, like myself, who believe that in this difficult situation it is a woman's responsibility and choice to make in consultation with her doctor and her pastor and her family. I think we will continue to suggest that that's the right legal framework to deal with the issue. But at least we can start focusing on how to move in a better direction than the one we've been in the past."

What part of that don't you get, Steve? Oh, you too, Danny? Which is the blinded, illogical part? Great intellectuals that you both are, and all that. Anything in there that needs explanation?

"And as Jesus reclined at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Jesus and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” Matthew 9:9–13

Professor Glendon, I see that in 1994, you were a signer of the document Evangelicals and Catholics Together.

Therefore, I expect this phrase to resonate with you:

"What would Jesus do?"

Did you forget to ask that before you shot that letter off?

Thank you for your witness and faithfulness to Our Lord and The Gospel, Mary Ann! You make me/us proud!

grantland1 - What would Jesus do?

He would do nothing to legitimize the idea of honoring an unrepentent enabler of the most heinous crime (slavery was once legal, and I am sure ontheleft would have supported it because he has used that justification for abortion) of abortion the world has ever seen. He would have told Obama to "go and sin no more". He would have counseled him on the sanctity of life from conception to natural death, and probably symbolically slapped him upside the head. Ambassador Glendon does not have the standing to do that, so she did the next best thing, the publically denounced the crime of abortion so as not to legitimize it. If she was EVER worthy of the Laetare Medal, she certainly became much more worthy, for which Jesus will one day say to her, "well done, my good and faithful servant".

To Gabriel (and all the other posters who are ready to deitize Mary Ann Glendon) : I am utterly dumbfounded why you are "proud" she rejected (just weeks before commencement ceremonies) a high honor that she prevoulsy agreed to receive from the University of Notre Dame. Her spitting in the face of one of the most prominent Catholic institutions in the country makes you "proud?" Her refusal to share the stage with the President of the United States makes you "proud?" Her insensistivity toward the views of other people makes you "proud? I query what else makes you "proud."

"That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what's right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ."

Get a clue "On the Left" ....that is what this is all about....our hearts tell us that the ONLY choice is to raise the child in a loving home, or let the child be adopted into a loving home! And if Obama was SO sensitive, why would he insult (and in my opinion, deliberately) the Vatican and Catholic Church with the recent suggestions he made for the next ambassador to the Holy See?

It is amazing to me that people posting on this site are ignoring the fact that Notre Dame is a CATHOLIC INSTITUTION. So we Catholics (at least, the real ones who accept that abortion is indeed murder) are supposed to accept, with open arms, a man who trashes a fundamental precept of the faith? Give me a break, this is absolute idiocy. Glendon is a brilliant attorney and scholar and knows that the First Amendment includes both the Free Exercise and Establishment clause. Obama will be violating the Free Exercise clause when (not if) he signs the Freedom of Choice Act making it impossible for Catholic hospitals to refuse to perform abortions. This president is a consitutional disaster.

Ontheleft:

I want to start off with a few facts:
FACT: I did vote for McCain.
FACT: McCain actually condemned the use of torture during his campaign more strongly than most other candidates because he had lived through it.
FACT: McCain used a figure of speech to state that he would leave troops in Iraq until the region was stabilized and not cave in to pressure from protestors to set a definite date for withdrawal.
FACT: I like the majority in this country did vote for Bush in 2004. He represented the lesser of the two evils. If the full scope of his torture policies were known to the extent they were sometime after the election, he probably would have lost. I don't condone torture and do not support what he did. I am pro-life because I don't support the Iraq war, torture, the death penalty, or abortion. Neither candidate in the past election would pass that litmus test. So again I voted for the one that represented the lesser of the two evils.
FACT: According to the Mayo Clinic, the heart starts beating in a fetus as early as the fourth week. Shortly after conception the embryo has its full dna which determine every characteristic of the baby. Your theory states that ensoulment starts with the brain waves. Death can also be measured when the heart stops. How do we prove that ensoulment begins with brainwaves, or the heartbeat, or when the dna is formed to create the person. We can't. That's when faith steps in. As for me, I rather err on the side of caution and believe that ensoulment begins at the earliest possible moment.
FACT: Obama voted against laws to provide care to survivors of abortions. Obama has indicated he would support FOCA. He even had his name as a co-sponsor on a previous version. Obama viewed a pregnancy as a punishment. During the campaign he said that he would support his daughter getting an abortion because he didn't want her punished with a baby.
FACT: All of Obama cabinet picks and advisors have been staunch proponents of abortion, some have even received awards from and contributions from planned parenthood..
FACT: Obama and his staff have said that reproductive care (aka abortion) should be included as basic care in any healthcare reform. If Obama was as pro-life and as interested in reducing abortion as you claim him to be, all his cabinet picks, votes, and statements speak strongly to the contrary.

My whole point about government control of these companies was that the government should not be in the business of bailing out these companies. The companies are collapsing because of bad decisions and greed. They should be allowed to feel the repercussions of thier actions and be forced into bankruptcy. I have already stated enough times evidence that Obama has Socialist beliefs.

Finally, you say that Obama is "a far better Christian by the way than you and your ilk will ever be". I don't know what kind of Christian he is or you are for that matter. It would be arrogant for me to judge that in either of you when what I do know is that I am not a great Christian, nor do I pretend to be. I have my faults and am not a good example of what a Christian should be. I don't pretend to have all the answers and I don't pretend to be some kind of authority on morality. I am a work in progress when it comes to my faith. Anyone who claims they are otherwise is being arrogant. That's why I don't make my decisions based on what feels right to me. I do my research and let my conscience be formed by my faith and the great saints and early fathers of the Church. I am not just talking about the Popes, but saints like Augustine, Aquinas, Paul and others. I fall far short of their example and their teaching of what it means to be a Christian. Call me whatever you like. Judge me as you see fit. I am not doing this to win your praise or a popularity contest. I do what I do because it is my Church and my faith and I will always defend it. I don't consider myself Democrat or Republican, right or left. I am Catholic and that guides how I vote.

I sent this input to the Notre Dame Alumni Association which I expect will go to Father Jenkins: The right response is “Ambassador Glendon is our pick, and we support her decision and will not find a second-tier receipient hanging out there somewhere. Due to the great respect that the Notre Dame family has for your moral courage, I will personnaly deliver your speech on the sanctity of life in absentia and place your Medal in a special case for all to see as a symbol for those with the courage of their convictions and beliefs. Thank you for your life of service to those who are in most need and least capable of protecting their own life.”

Thank you Professor Glendon for standing up our Catholic principles and your support for the unborn.

God Bless you Professor Glendon. You truly are a women to look up to, There are a lot of Priests, and Catholics, that can take a lesson from you.

This Protestant is brimming with pride over Amb. Glendon's principled stand. It is refreshing to see such a display of integrity in these evil days. I pray she serves as a model for believers everywhere as they defend their faith against the growing, emboldened opposition.

KJR, you mean like eating dinner with them?

And will that support for the unborn include demanding a Certificate of Conception be issued when the new life is determined to be in the womb? That, of course, would include all the protections that adhere to being a human being...and responsibilities. It's interesting that no one has commented on that concept.

Grantland1, though she aspires to be Christlike, she is not Christ, so having dinner with them would have a different effect, surely you can see that, and by the way, I am happy that you implicitly refer to Obama and his enablers as metaphorically similarly situated as the "sinners" in your analogy. Right on....

I am Catholic and a Notre Dame graduate and do believe that Obama, by espousing abortion, is a sinner - no argument there. If I had the chance I would love to engage him in debate on why I think he is a sinner (a sinner just like me by the way). I would also like to debate him on alot of other things he is getting wrong.

However, I believe he should be welcomed at Notre Dame and honored for the good work he has done that is CONSISTENT with Catholic principles. Being Pro-Life does not make one a Catholic, there are alot of other things that go into it, many of which I believe our current President has correct. Overall, I do not agree with him but he is an inspiration. What better person to send the graduating class off? The few students I know at Notre Dame are extremely excited that the President is coming to Notre Dame despite the differences between the President and those students.

Now, as to WWJD? One, my original (hidden) meaning was that the evangelicals were most likely the ones really stirring this debate and the Catholics tagging along should recognize this. Two, what does WWJD mean if not to do what Christ would do. I thought WWJD meant, use Christ as your example. Not, do only the things you think you could effect like Christ would? That would be futile. I think Christ would have spoken right beside President Obama.

I am indeed confused by the fact that one would purport to love Jesus but villify a man who is Christ-like in many ways but who is a sinner, (like everyone who has posted in this thread) despite, or maybe especially, in light of the the gravity of the sin.

Where do we draw the line? As many have referenced, President Bush was/is pro-death penalty. He spoke at Notre Dame. Some protested but not the same people who are protesting President Obama's visit. The death-penalty, while perhaps not the gravity of sin of abortion, is certainly against Catholic teaching in all but the rarest circumstances. In fact, I belive the Pope recently has pretty much said that in this day in age with the abilty to incarcerate, there are no instances where the death penalty should be allowed.

When it comes down do it the most important of Jesus's teaching is love God and love thy neighbor. He does not say, love thy neighbors, but only the ones who follow the one teaching of the Catholic Church that is the most political teaching of the day.

grantland1 - I have never met or spoken to an ND grad who wasn't a total quality person... that certainly remains the case.

I think you raise a logical argument, but very distinguishable on several levels:

1. This incident is not in a vaccum, nor can the vast majority of people understand the intricacies of the issues, particularly those "catholics" who do not understand their faith, or otherwise like to pick and choose what they want. The Obama appearance scandalizes them, because abrotion is intrinsically evil and can never be justified. There have been 50 million deaths since Roe in this country - and counting. It simply is not realistic to compare death during a war - no matter how tragic, to abortion. With regard to the death penalty and Bush, yes, he supports the death penalty, but the death penalty is not intrinsically evil, and in this country, it is administered under multiple levels of due process, and is rare based on the numbers of heinous crimes committed. I would also agree that in modern society, particularly in the US, there are enough resources to eliminate it.
But, again, it is not close to the holocost of abortion.

2. The idea that the Republicans are not sensitive to the poor or immigrants or these other red-herrings is non-sense. The approach is different. The liberals want to keep the poor and immigrants addicted to government welfare for political purposes - their own. Conservatives want these people to become totally free from government subsidies and become productive, tax paying, legal citizens. Why would anyone want anything different?

3. The local Bisphop, D'Arcy, has been very vocal about the issue. Where is the respect and/or obedience to that? Why should anyone be bound to anything with regard to Church teaching and authority when Fr. Jenkins bascially thumbed his nose at the Bishop? Not a good example, and as a ND grad, you should be very bothered by that. I know many ND alums who are outraged about this, and some have torn up their diplomas.

4. Obama's invite will only embolden his pro-death mentality. How many more babies will be murdered (by pregant women who will look at this as a further "pass" to have an abortion?) There is an implicit sanctioning of this culture of death by ND honoring Obama with a degree.

Fr. Jenkins can really show strenghth by recinding the invite. Ambassador Glendon is a hero, and she will suffer because of it, but like most who do, will be ultimately rewarded for her courageous stand.

There is an essential link between freedom and truth. Sacrifice one, and both are sacrificed. Abortion is a lie about authentic humanity. Abortion is an intrinsic evil. The Second Vatican Council defined intrinsic evil as "whatever is hostile to life itself" Guadium et Spes, 27. Catholics cannot stand with Christ, the Truth, and at the same time with those who take a stand for intrinsic evil, who promote the abortion lie. Those who seek to steal the truth about man seek to steal his freedom. There is no compromise with intrinsic evil. Truth and lies have no common ground. Mary Ann Glendon has chosen the better part.

I wrote Jenkins the day of his infamous decision and told him that this would create a circus and divide the Notre Dame community and the Catholic community so my question to him was why in the world would he do it? He put prestige over substance and now we have a divided community and a circus. No leader would subject thier commubity to this and yes I am saying that Fr. Jenkins you are no leader!!

Posted by Rob A April 29, 09 06:56 PM

Rob, McCain may have used the 100 years as a figure of speech, but he supported this war from the beginning, and he was not about to get out anytime soon, in spite of any stated desire to the contrary by the Iraqi people. Obama opposed the war at a time when 70% of Americans supported it. And Abu Ghraib was a well-know fact during the 2004 election. Hell, that even showed up on MSM sources. It was more than obvious that this was more than "a few bad apples", given any realistic appraisal of the Bush administrations lies in the run-up to the war.

On these so-called "Born Alive" bills, the right wing noise machine didn’t bother mentioning that Illinois law already requires that doctors provide medical care when live births occur during abortions. Obama voted against these bills because he saw them as clear attempts to undermine Roe v. Wade. The bills were also opposed by pro-choice Republicans and the Illinois Medical Society. Obama stated that he would have voted for the federal version of this bill, one which did not attempt to undermine women's reproductive rights. Frankly, the right wing has used this type of nonsense as a political tool - take a decent idea and use it to undermine a woman's right to her own body, then when it's voted down, use it against their opponents. They've played the anti-choice crowd quite well for decades now, but the last thing the GOP wants is to see Roe overturned. At least until it stops working for them. Of course, it now does seem to be no longer effective as a strategy.

Obama's appointments are appropriately pro-choice, and they are proponents of family planning. I'm sure you thought Bush's were appropriately anti-choice. Obama won, and by a staggering majority in both popular and electoral votes. He gets to govern as he promised he would, and that includes his promises to insure reproductive rights. If you are truly concerned about abortion, then you need to invest in complete sex education and family planning. "Just say no" and the rhythm method aren't going to do the trick. And, absolutely, reproductive health is part of basic health. Ending war and torture, ending childhood poverty, educating kids, saving the environment, providing health care, ending unwanted pregnancy - these are pro-life.

Now, other than dealing with a mixed economy, what are Obama's peculiar Socialist beliefs? Wealth sharing happens in government, and has for generations. Social Security originated in Bismarck's Germany, for example, and the progressive income tax is certainly a form of redistribution. As for bailouts - if they're going to happen, attach conditions. And re-regulate, to insure that no company can be "too big to fail". If that's the case, break the company up.

I am at a loss to undertand the a position critical of this fine woman. All te attacks are either ad hominum or just bald assertions. The lady was being used as a tool to support a decision she did not like, and her choice to decline to be a party to this circus seems so valid on its face that it needs no explaination.

Is "diversity of views" only good in if it agrees with the current flavor of political correctness?

Dear Ms. Glendon:
Thank you for standing for what is right! Jesus said "I did'nt come to unite, but to divide". To Father Jenkins I love for allowing yourself to be used as a instrument to bring the precious sacrement of his Holy Roman Catholic Church to the lucky ones blessed to know the truth, but allowing this President who is against life to speak at our Ladys university is a disgrace. All who oppose my view and the view of us who has prayed for and received the grace to know right from wrong, I will continue to pray for you. Again Ms. Glendon thank you and God has bleesed you.

Ontheleft,

I couldn't stop laughing after I read your last post. Do us all a favor and turn off MSNBC long enough for you to check your facts. Obama didn't win by a "staggering majority". I don't think anyone would call 53% to 46% in the popular vote a "staggering majority". Even the electoral vote was not staggering. For a good example of a "staggering majority", take a look at the election wins of Reagan in 1980 and 1984 and then Bush in 1988.

As for Obama and the "Born Alive" acts, go to this link for the truth: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html
Obama voted against them and then said he would have voted for the bill if its language matched the bill at the federal level. When the identical language was added to the Illinois bill, he still voted against it. During the last election he first tried to deny it and then he kept changing his explanation as to why he voted for it.

I honestly don't care what the GOP does. I don't vote along party lines. I vote for the candidate who most closely matches what I believe and the Democrats, especially Obama, are no where near there.

To all those on this thread who would use Prof. Glendon's decision to launch attacks on everything from Prof. Glendon herself, to President Bush, to Gitmo, to the Iraq war, and to the Catholic Faith itself -- nice try at all the diversions, but you embarrassingly miss the point. To a TRUE Catholic the issue of abortion is not about tolerance or political correctness; it's about the sanctity of life, and is as clear and non-negotiable as whether night follows day. And spare me all the talk about abuses by the exceptionally few, as though that justifies dismissing as invalid the faithfulness of the overwhelming majority through the centuries. Also spare me the talk about a woman's rights over her own body: what more proof do we need that a developing fetus is not part of a woman's body than the fact that it can and often does have a different blood type from the mother? Prof. Glendon is to be congratulated for adhering to the Truth.

Thank you Prof. Glendon. Real Roman Catholics appreciate you.

Although not a Catholic, I respect Professor Glendon's courage to turn down an honor rather than participate in the commencement. It is after all her choice to do so. It is interesting to me to see people bring in fabrications like Bush allowing people to live in misery after Katrina - last time I checked that was a state responsibility - and the governor (a Democrat) had responsibility for calling for federal assistance - which did not happen until much later than it should have. As for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars - we have not had a serious terrorist attack since 9/11 - mostly because those galvanized against the US were 'fixed' in military parlance to those countries rather than here.

Glendon should most certainly be commended. She gave up a so-called honor because she rightfully recognized ND was really using her so they could get away with honoring someone who holds views completely counter to what ND professes to support. Bestowing honor indicates high appreciation, which absolutely elevates the positions held by the recipient. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

The next person they choose will have to make the same choice: to be used or to stand up with integrity. Using people is wrong and letting yourself be used is supporting the using of people. ND should not stand for using people. That is the problem with Barrack Obama's who has committed himself to unwavering support of the ultimate using of people in his promotion of all types of abortion, at any age including if the innocent child was born alive during an abortion. How the next person respond will be interesting, but I suspect we will never know. ND will get a positive answer before they publicly ask, so there may be many more Mary Ann Glendon's we never hear about.

Mark - there was a report yesterday that they will not bestow the honor this year. My guess? They dared not honor another pro-death person OR there was no pro-life Catholic (it makes one wonder why there is a need to designate as such) who would accept. Ambassador Glendon is a shining example of heroic virtue!

And still no one will put responsibility where their claim is by demanding a Certificate of Conception be issued when pregnancy is determined and that that new person is protected by its citizenship from that moment on...as well as the responsibility to do everything possible to protect that person until it leaves the womb. I ask again...any comments? It would protect that life.

KJR,
Sorry it took me so long to get back here, very busy at the office, but I am enjoying our discussion.

I still do not think Jesus would shun President Obama. It seems contrary to His most basic guidance to us.

1. I am not sure what "intrinsic evil" has to do with it. I do not think the term "intrinsic evil" = "gravely evil." In this debate many people are throwing the term "intrinsic evil" around, but I think all that means is that that (1) the act is evil in and of itself and (2) that the motive for the act does not matter.

Thus, abortion is in an of itself evil and there can never be a justification for it. The Death Penalty may not be "intrinsically evil" in the eyes of the church because there may be some justification for it, e.g., the protection of greater society. However, when there is no justification, as the Vatican has recently suggested, then it is murder. In that case the death penalty is murder just as abortion is murder. They are equally grave sins.

"For many pro-life Catholics, the issue of voting and abortion comes down to this: what does one do if one thinks that the candidate more likely to reduce the actual incidence of abortion is also the one more committed to keeping it legal? The language of intrinsic evil does not help us here. Only the virtue of practical wisdom, enlightened by charity, can take us further." - M. Cathleen Kaveny; John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law and Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.

2. I do not believe I said (I know I did not mean) that Republicans are insensitive to the downtrodden. I merely said that the Democrats way of approching many of these issues (immigration and healthcare) are more in line with what the Catholic Church teaches. For the record, I belive there are times when both approaches are good, but I lean towards "teach a man to fish."

I also do not believe liberals want to keep the poor and immigrants on government welfare anymore than I belive Bush invaded Iraq soley for his and his cronies profits - but that is just me.

3. I do not believe Bishop D'Arcy has any authority over ND. I belive Fr. Jenkins probably respect the Bishop (maybe not, I do not know their relationaship), but Fr. Jenkins has NO obligation to be obedient to the Bishop. Read closely, the Bishops have "requested" colleges not have Obama speak. I happen to believe they are misguided and, like it or not, are probably playing to their own "constituencies."

ND alums can be passionate, sometimes a bit too passionate - go read some ND football Boards. Anyone who would tear their diploma over this has made a mistake. Further, I know plenty alums who are supportive including two ND priests and former priests. Those types tend to be a bit more rational and less vocal.

4. I refer you to number 1 on this one.

I wil be curious to see if the Pope, a very conservative Pope, ever has an audience with our President. I do know the Pope congratulated President Obama. Was that an implicit endorsement of our President's veiws on abortion?

Again, this is political hoopla instigated by people who do not like Obama for reasons other than (but including) abortion.

O, and Glendon certainly must be a great woman, Notre Dame offered the LAtaere medal. She is just a bit misguided.

Why do liberals refuse to tolerate the views of others?. Catholics have always been fair game for slander and persecution and nothing will ever change. Ms. Glendon has the courage of her convictions; that being, her faith. Why can't she be allowed to stand up for the tenets of her Catholic faith without being vilified? Catholics have supported the oppressed for years - the poor in all countries, drug addicts, unwed mothers, orphans, disfigured, and illegal immigrants, when it wasn't "cool" to do so. Ms. Glendon's position should be accepted by non-Catholics - just as she accepts, but does not participate in, the beliefs of others including Barack Obama.

I was more than thrilled to find out that Prof Glendon declined Notre Dame's Laetare Medal and any catholic that does not see why this was a wondferful thing for her to do needs to take out the Catholic Bible and read it. or the Catechism of the Catholic Church.When we have to answer to God do not forget he will ask you not just what you did ,but what you failed to do. He said the Chuch would be at war and she is now like never before. The fack that Notre Dame is willing to give a award to some who wants anyone to be able to kill a baby at any time in the 9 months. I say Bless you Prof Glendon and thank you.

Grantland1 -

If you don't think intrinsic evil = gravely evil, you don't know your faith with regard to that point. Please refer to the Catechism for a refresher.

I'm not sure the Church defines anything more evil than abortion other than informed rejection of God.

You miss the point regarding Bishop D'Arcy. True, Fr. Jenkins does not "report" to him. But Fr, Jenkins is in the Bishop D'Arcy's Diocese, and Fr. Jenkins actions affect Bishop D'Arcy's diocese directly. Therefore, at a minmum, Fr. Jenkins should, out of respect for Bishop D'Arcy's very strong admonition, rescind, at the very minimum, the honorary degree to Obama.

The Obama invitiation is patently scandalous, as you are witnessing before your eyes. That, in and of itself, shows a profound lack of judgment, is causing division within the school and alumni base, and Fr. Jenkins should apologize if not resign because of this fiasco. He has wounded the Body of Christ, and his prideful stance continues to pour salt on the wound.

Of the Bishops who have opined, the vast Majority are strongly opposed. Does Fr. Jenkins know more or have more moral authority than they do?

MOST alumni oppose him

Notre Dame's stature has been diminished materially, and it is a sad day for Our Lady's university.

Grantland1 -

Of course I expect (and hope) the Pope has an audience with Obama. They are both heads of state, and I can guaranty you the Pope won't honor him, like Fr. Jenkins plans to. It is apples and oranges.

Mary Ann Glendon has chosen a very particular way to deal with an institution with which she has an important relationship. Because Glendon is one who looks far ahead, her choice must also be studied for what it shows about her prescriptions for American Catholicism and social morality across the board.

The questions are, what did she do - and what provoked her behavior?

In my view, in a thoroughly passive-aggressive, bishop-like way, she sought to punish ND, not by action, but by inaction that clearly communicated displeasure and disapproval. In her letter I found none of the "grace" identified by others.

Most of her stated reasons for the bailout I find unconvincing. Out of three reasons, the last two are easily dismissed, for reasons already aired here. It seems clear that "control" is the main issue, i.e., the control that the bishops tried, and failed, to exercise. I don't think this control can be neatly separated into church/state boxes, though it may have originated in one or the other. Indeed, the control issue may be best understood by considering the religious and the political together.

Let us consider what one of her one-time collaborators had to say about dealing with institutions at a low point for conservatism in 1999:

"I believe that we probably have lost the culture war.....in terms of society in general, we have lost. This is why, even when we win in politics, our victories fail to translate into the kind of policies we believe are important. Therefore, what seems to me a legitimate strategy for us to follow is to look at ways to separate ourselves from the institutions that have been captured by...enemies of our traditional culture. What I mean by separation is, for example, what the homeschoolers have done. Faced with public school systems that no longer educate but instead 'condition' students with the attitudes demanded by Political Correctness, they have seceded. They have separated themselves from public schools and have created new institutions, new schools, in their homes. I think that we have to look at a whole series of possibilities for bypassing the institutions that are controlled by the enemy....." from Letter to Conservatives by Paul M. Weyrich, February 1999

I wonder if this may be one of those strategic "separations" that Weyrich was hinting at?

OvertheEdge:

"when actual Catholic doctrine clearly states just the opposite - that all authentic teaching comes from one source: the Church's authoritative teaching office"

No,no, no. That is clearly incorrect. Authentic teachings never come FROM the
Magisterium. They may come THROUGH it, but never FROM it. You continue to misrepresent this, and completely ignore the point being made. No one with even a basic understanding of Catholic teaching on this would question as you have that it is a fundamental tenant that all authentic teachings come from Scripture and Tradition.

And I'll add, the Magisterium has been grossly in error quite frequently throughout history. Popes initiated crusades, and made them a matter of doctrine in that monarchs faced excommunication if they refused to participate. Galileo was tried on the basis of a Papal decree (De Revolutionibus) which held the heliocentric view was heretical. Gregory IX authorized the Inquisition and the use of torture. A series of Papal Bulls--Illius Qui (1442), Dum Diversus (1452), and Romanus Pontificus (1455)--authorized the beginnings of the African slave trade. The fourth Lateran Council in 1215 required Jews living in Christian lands to wear identifying clothing. In 1751, a Papal Encyclical (A quo Primum)instructed Christians in Poland not to do business with Jews.

The point of bringing up such past failings, of course, is not to distract or divert, as some above have charged, or merely to criticize the Church; the point is that the Magisterium is subject to such grave errors whenever it promulgates teachings which do not originate in the Deposit of Faith which has been handed on to it (i.e., in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition). This is directly relevant because it is the current situation.

In order to avoid addressing this, you seem intent on engaging in all manner of dishonesty, in responding with insults rather than reasoned argumentation, in distorting what has been clearly said, and in setting up straw man arguments. Neither I or Obama has ever said, for example, that abortion is not intrinsically evil. You are ignoring the plain truth of what I have actually said:

1. Christ himself was silent on abortion, though it was clearly practiced in his time.

2. Tradition teaches that abortion, at least in the sizable majority of cases where it occurs before there is a fully formed fetus, is not murder. The unformed fetus is not a human being, but a potential human being. This is not a selective reading and is not a result of "parsing"; it was the clear teaching of nearly 1500 years of Christianity, was inherited from Judaism, was present in Jewish Talmuds, was upheld by all major Church fathers, and endorsed by Popes.

Just because something is not moral does not mean it should be illegal. It strikes me as very dangerous to have governments enforcing punishment for sins against God, or the Church, or violation any merely philosophical precept. There are several commandements which are not enforced by the state and which should not be. The state does not meet out punishment for taking the name of the Lord in vain, for example, or for failing to observe the Lords day. You are obviously comfortable in wishing the power of government be used to interfere in the case of an offense against a not yet formed embryo. I'm not. It may be a sin to end a potential human life, but it is still absurd to claim government should grant the same legal standing to an unformed seed of a potential future citizen as it does to a to a currently living, breathing, thinking and feeling one.

You claim that Jerome's understanding is naive, yet it is far closer to what modern science teaches than your primative idea of conception is. A "seed" is in fact a very good analogy for what we now know occurs. With a seed, the blueprint is there from the beginning in DNA, but it does not become a plant until some later stage of development. We now know from medical science, that at about 5 weeks after fertilization, the embryo is about the size of the tip of an eraser and weighs less than an aspirin tablet. That is still very much like a seed. And it isn't until the beginning of the fetal stage of development that you begin to have something resembling what ancients referred to as a "formed" fetus.

You and others are of course free to believe if you like that a human life entiltled to equal rights begins at fertilization, but there seems to be little support for that notion in Scared Scripture or Sacred Tradition. And I haven't seen any effort here by any of these commenters to provide such support. And even those who do accept this notion are surely not required anywhere to consider this the only important issue in their politics, to the point of being unable to support even non-Catholic politicians who disagree.

It still seems rather perverse to me how many people seem to wish to make a defining issue of Catholicism a doctrine that was never taught by Christ and that is contrary to so much of Sacred Tradition. To quote scripture: "This people honoureth me with their lips; But their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men." (Matthew 15:8-9)

To those Catholics who voted for Obama in spite of his well known culture of death policies and promises, God help you, Knowingly voting for someone who can change society as our president and same party congress can is criminal and you know it. I am startled though by the revelation that a majority of Catholics do not even know of the ND controversy. What does that say about the intelligence of those Catholics who voted for Obama? Scary!!

Fifty-five active Bishops have condemned this invitation. To my knowledge, only 1 (a retired Bishop from San Francisco), has supported Fr. Jenkins.

Fr. Jenkins has demonstrated extremely poor judgment, and his pride, as is usually the case, will be the basis for his demise in his role. He has seriously injured his reputation (his flip flop on the V monologues did not help), but on the bright side, has awakened the troops. He has caused great scandal within the Church, and should be removed.

I repeat over and over...if the fertilized egg is a human being from the moment of conception a Certificate of Conception officially recognizint that person needs to be issued and if a live, healthy person is not born in a normal time frame an investigation needs to be initiated to determine where that missing person is or why they are not healthy. They can't be a human being for some purposes and not others. So far everyone refuses to address that aspect. I wonder why. It would be a concrete way of committing to that belief. Do any have the courage to broach the concept? Including Prof. Glendon?

KLR-

If I do not know my faith, at least I am in good company:

"But to say that an act is intrinsically evil does not by itself say anything about the comparative gravity of the act. Some acts that are not intrinsically evil (driving while intoxicated) can on occasion be worse both objectively and subjectively than acts that are intrinsically evil (telling a jocose lie). Some homicides that are not intrinsically evil are worse than intrinsically evil homicides. Furthermore, the fact that an act is intrinsically evil does not by itself tell third parties anything at all about their duty to prevent that act from occurring.

The following analyses and reflections may provide some clarity and further issues for reflection as we continue to debate the use and misuse of church teachings in the political realm.

1. “Intrinsically evil” does not mean “gravely evil.”

Reflecting Aquinas’s action theory, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that for an act to be morally good, it needs to be good in every respect. For an act to be morally wrong, however, any single defect will suffice. It can be performed for the wrong motive; if I give alms solely in order to earn fame, then my act is morally wrong. It can be performed under the wrong circumstances; it is entirely good for a newly wedded couple to consummate their union, but not in the church vestibule immediately following the ceremony. Most significantly for our discussion, the immediate “object” of the acting agent’s will can be disordered or defective. Because an act takes its identity primarily from its object, Catholic moralists say that an act with a defective or disordered object is “intrinsically” evil."

- Intrinsic Evil and Political Responsibility
Is the concept of intrinsic evil helpful to the Catholic voter?
M. Cathleen Kaveny | OCTOBER 27, 2008

Regarding Bishop D'Arcy, I belive you used the term "obedient."

"Peace Begins in the Womb"

To one of the previous posters, to say something should not be illegal because it is not moral is ridiculous. Our whole legal system is based on morality. Look at crimes like stealing, killing, lying, frauding, abuse, terrorism, drug abuse and more. They are crimes against morality. For example, one of the biggest growing crimes in America and around the world is possession of child pornography. This is a crime against morality,as is abortion.

Moe - you left out slavery. Many on this Board, under their current "logic" could have argued that it was the slaveowner has its "choice" to own the slaves, and that they were not going to impose their personal view on them.

grantland1

Why did you quote her? Why not go for the #1 dissenter from Notre Dame, Fr. McBrien?

You hold her "authority" above the Catechism and the Bishops (as well as its source, America Magazine).

Quoting her and America magazine as your authority vs. the 55 Bishops who have
opined or the Catechism is not persuasive at all:

"Notre Dame didn't need to do this to show its openness to 'dialogue.' And candidly, very few Notre Dame faculty members would accept from their students the kind of creative reasoning now being used to defend the invitation."
Most Rev. Charles Chaput, Archbishop of Denver

"You [Fr. Jenkins] dishonor the reputation of the University of Notre Dame and, in effect, abdicate your prestigious reputation among Catholic universities everywhere."
Most Rev. Daniel Buechlein, Archbishop of Indianapolis

"I would ask that you rescind this unfortunate decision and so avoid dishonoring the practicing Catholics of the United States, including those of this Diocese. Failing that, please have the decency to change the name of the University to something like, 'The Fighting Irish College' or 'Northwestern Indiana Humanist University'.''
Most Rev. Thomas Doran, Bishop of Rockford

"It is unconscionable to me that a Catholic university would bestow such an honor upon an individual who is so completely out of step with the Catholic Church's teaching on the need to protect innocent human life in its most vulnerable forms, even if that individual holds the highest office in the land."
Most Rev. Alexander Sample, Bishop of Marquette

"They made a big mistake."
Most Rev. Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York

grantland1 - why don't you support the Bishops of the Church on the matter?

KJR-

First address the reason I quoted the article, RE: "Intrinsic Evil" does not necessarily = "Gravely Evil" as you stated. Then I will address other matters in your latest post (which I have actually already addressed but it has now come full circle).

Please give me the quote in our Catechism that supports your position.

Are you actually trying to argue that a procured abortion is not gravely evil or otherwise mortally sinful? Is it a venial sin? A little "oopsie"? You are much smarter than that, grantand1, and you know better.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person -- among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.(71)

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. (72)

My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth .(73)

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish .(74)

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.(75)

2272 Formal co-operation in an abortion constitutes a grave offence. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. 'A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae' (76) 'by the very commission of the offence', (77) and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law . (78) The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

And so why not confirm that a life is created at conception by demanding a Certificate of Conception that officially recognizes that person from that point on?
There are, of course, responsibilities that go with it but a person is a person and should be treated as such, from the moment they become so. Any comments? So far none have ventured into that level of commitment.

I am all for it, Valjean - will you work with me to initiate the process in American society?

KJR:

My question is whether or not you now agree with me that "intrinsic evil" is not necessarily the same as "gravely evil"?

Something can be "intrinsically evil" but not a grave sin, and vice versa. True?

Yes or No will do.

KJR. My purpose has been to inject into the conversation a factor that includes real responsibility and consequences to support the claim being made...rather than just point/counterpoint recitations of passages here and there. If you agree it's yours to run with. I will have achieved my goal. grantland1...your view? Would someone ask Prof. Glendon her's? I think that would be of real interest.

grantland1 - why operate between the lines? Do you have examples, rather than some amorphous theory? The whole topic is abortion, which is intrinsically gravely evil, is it not?

ok, I'll take the bait. Yes, something can be intrinsically evil (any sin is intrinsically evil, isn't is - because it is contrary to God's will), like venial sin, but not intrinsically evil.

Regardless of the point you are trying to make, abortion is intrinsically AND gravely evil, wouldn't you agree? The Catechism certainly says so, and imposes an automatic excommunication for a procured abortion. In legal parlance, that is a summary judgment - without even having the ability to file briefs!! It doesn;t get more serious than that !

No Valjean, your goal was to marginalize the unborn by injecting economic and/or administrative convenience arguments into the discussion. At lease be honest about it.

errata - I meant to say "but not gravely evil" in the second paragraph of 551.

KJR. I wasn't trying to marginalize anything. I was trying to include substance behind the claims being made. If the unborn is a human being then that should be officially recognized. That's the agenda, nothing underhanded or hidden. Do you have a problem with being straight forward? Your response should deal with the concept, not something that tries to divert the focus to something else. Are you willing to support official recognition and protection for the new human being from the moment of their conception?...or not?

The way I see it, it all comes down to this: she is a Republican, President Obama is a Democrat.

Catherine. the most accurate post of 555 posts!

KJR:

In post 517 you used the term "intrinsic evil" to attempt to distinguish the Death Penalty from Abortion. Fact is, this is not a legitimate way to distinguish the two evils. Both are gravely evil.

You cite the Catechism for the proposition that abortion is a grave evil. Frankly, I do not need the Catechism to tell me that but since you refer to the Catechism, note that the Article which the abortion section falls under is:

ARTICLE 5
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
You shall not kill.54

Of course, it goes on about "innocents etc" but when it come to the death penalty this is what it says:

Legitimate defense
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65 2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow: If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility. 2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67 2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.NT

PRACTICALLY NON-EXISTENT. I am thinking the Pope would say, in the US, it is non-existent.

Point I am trying to make is that murder is murder, whether it is killing an unborn child, a horrible person in jail for life, an old person who is tired of pain, etc.

Remember too, this is discussion is NOT a debate about Abortion. You and I agree on that, or capital punishment, it is about whther or not Obama should be at Notre Dame giving a commencement address and receiving an honorary degree.

I happen to think that if YOU do not think it is bad to murder someone because "they are not innocent" YOU are the one being a cafeteria Cathoilic.

Further, I think it suports my point (and Catherine's above) that this whole damn thing is political. Maybe not to you and maybe not to the other well-intentioned pro-life people out there, but to the invisible hand that helps to shape people's opinions and get a certain number of votes for their candidate based on ONE ISSUE.

It is pretty damn easy to make abortion that one issue, because it is a baby. People running around ND's campus with a bunch of "bloody" babies in carriages certainly inspires more emotion than if the same people were draggin around effigies of 30 year old rough hewn scared up black men who have killed 20 people in the drug trade. Does not inspire alot of people to be for those.

I happen to think, however, that a life is a life and it is only up to God to decide when that life should be taken EXCEPT AND UNLESS there is an innocent life at risk.

Therefore, I think it is hypocritical (READ: "political") for people to protest Obama but not protesting Bush. Especially when Obama's policies are probably more in line with what the Church teaches than Bush's. And especially because of Notre Dame's role in the civil rights movement. Do a google search for Hesburgh and Martin Luther King and see what comes up. And Obama being the first black President, How friggin' perfect?

See the politicians and the news media (depending on what you watch/read or listen to) helping people to focus on one isssue. It makes their job that much easier.

In the end, what did Glendon have to lose? A medal? Wow, that took some courage! She will end up losing a medal but further solidfying her place in that flock of sheep who looks at nothing but abortion to decide how to vote.

Fr. Jenkins is the courageous one. He is the one acting like Jesus. He has so much more to lose. He has people calling for his head while his supporters, who tend to be a bit more rational and look at the big picture, well, they just are not as vocal. Yet, he refuses to back down. I say hooray for him!

And that's all I have to say about that.

KJR
If taking a life before God ordains it violates God's will and is a sin then is delaying his call the same? Is it a sin to seek or give medical care?

Your conscience is blurred grantland1, defending this decision. Sixty Eight Bishops condemned it, and 1 retired Bishop supported it. You are enabling the death of missions of unborn children with your support. You are the one politicizing this. I will pray for you.

Further, even if your red-herring discraction regarding the death penalty was valid, and Bush was as evil as you claim because he supported it, HOW DOES THIS JUSTIFY your support of Obama, who, by your argument, is equally evil? You can't have it both ways, grantland1. Since you support Obama, you either:

a) support him AND Bush (which makes your entire death penalty thesis moot;
b) you support both types of evil

You can't have it both ways.

Thank you, Dr. Glendon. This issue goes far BEYOND abortion. Please acquaint yourself with the works of Pediatrician, Meg Meeker:
"Epidemic; How Teen Sex is Killing Our Kids"
"Raising Kids in a Toxic Sexual Culture"
"Kids at Risk; How Teen Sex Threatens our Sons and Daughters"
and the very heartbreaking,
"Restoring the Teenage Soul; Nurturing Sound Hearts and Minds in a Confused Culture" Bless you.SOOOO much! Here's a link: http://www.amazon.com/Restoring-Teenage-Soul-Nurturing-Confused/dp/0966989406/ref=pd_sim_b_5

I commend Ms. Glendon for taking a stand consistent with her faith. I feel particularly touched as my great grandfather and namesake, Edward Preuss, was awarded one of the first Laetare medals and he too declined to accept it. He reasoned that much of his celebrity and recognition came from renouncing earlier literary works of his that he discovered were in error after his conversion to Catholicism and that it would be wrong to "profit" from this. I truly cannot understand how Notre Dame can allow this to happen. Is there any way I can obtain Mary Ann Glendon's e-mail address?

Normally I would applaud someone for standing up for their beliefs but this woman did nothing to protest the human rights abuses and fabricated wars of the Bush administration she served in. While she was busy trying to find bible passages about when human life begins perhaps she missed the clear edict not to kill anyone? She is a hypocrite like so many other "religious" people.

Many talk the talk, few walk the walk. Keep walking proudly Mary Ann Glendon! What an awesome role model you are. Thank you!

The decision to invite President Obama under these circumstances (commencement address, honorary degree) seems motivated by the desire for publicity on the part of the president of Notre Dame. Wouldn't it have been better to host the beginning of an open national debate on life issues with President Obama as the keynote speaker? That would have focused matters where they belong, on a new, more formalized, national debate. Americans need to learn how to think more precisely than we do at present and we need to understand the assumptions about life and culture underlying the pro-life and pro-choice polarities.

This degree of discipline in conscious thought and discourse was once the charge of academia to teach. Over the past fifteen years, however, there has been a profound deterioration in academia's purpose with the result that college presidents are, today, some of the most impaired individuals in public life, settling for publicity and sensationalism over the far more difficult and important responsibility of teaching Americans how to develop skills of rational thought and debate.

The saddest thing about this whole episode is that Notre Dame missed an opportunity to be a catalyst in forming a new public debate on life issues. Instead, the upper administration succumbed to drama and celebrity culture without even thinking of other alternatives resulting in deeper divisions than before..

Bush's " Heng em High" mentality was scary, and it's fair to raise the issue and comparison . However , Obama went on the offense with abortion rights after taking office ( Mexico city , closing in on Doctors and hospitals ' ethical stance for refusing abortion on demand etc...) . If he had maintained his campaign pledges to truly minimize the number of abortions , I don't think we would have seen this on the scale we are . Bush would not recive any warm reception there either. And while referencing the death penalty , then let obama support the reversal of roe V. Wade which would turn it back to the states , just like the death penalty .

On another note , regarding Biden and Georgetowne : I heard that georgetowne removed the letters " IHS" from Biden's camera backdrop on his visit . It may seem trite to some people , but something serious is being overlooked here.
" The master of the house does not have to hide his children or his things from the guest" . We do not and should not cover up and hide our sacred symbols to accomadate a guest in our own household. I once saw that in an Orange county church , where the sacred symbols were covered up in a blessed church , to accomadate others who did not or could not have them part of their service . They should have been offered the hall , I just can't figure out what some of these priests are thinking when they do this

Quite simply, the facts clearly show that Professor Glendon wisely chose not to erode her own character by compromising her integrity in this matter.

Her distinguished Harvard faculty colleague, Martin C. Mihm, M.D., Clinical Professor of Pathology, Harvard Medical School, gave the 2009 Commencement speech at the Duquesne University of the Holy Spirit in Pittsburgh, PA. Dr. Mihm's May speech was entitled "Circle, Truth, Integrity and Love", with a primary premise that integrity requires that one be honest to oneself. One who responds with integrity to truth builds his own character, whereas one who does not is filled with pride and erodes his character. If one is not qualified to go into a specific circle - because to do so would require him to abandon his values, then it follows that to do so would erode his character. Dr. Mihm further states that the impartation of truth to other generations, including the other principles he expounded, is an act of love.

Professor Glendon did not compromise her values and by so doing, not only manifests the integrity principles set forth in Dr. Mihm's speech, but demonstrated an act of love to Notre Dame, as well as, Harvard students, but also to the many folks who have been apprised of all the facts, and give credence to the values and expressions of conscience of other people.

Compare also the speech of Judge John T. Noonan, who gave the Laetere Medal address at Notre Dame, wherein he states "[b]y conscience, as you graduates of 2009 know, we apprehend what God asks of us and what the love of our neighbor requires. More than the voice of your mother, more than an emotional impulse, this mysterious, impalpable, imprescriptible, indestructible, and indispensable guide governs our moral life. Each one is different. You may suggest what my conscience should say, but you cannot tell me what my conscience must say."

Respect Professor Glendon for not abandoning her values, for being true to herself, and demonstrating her integrity to hundreds of thousand of others by her choice so graciously stated in her letter to Fr. Jenkins : "It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony."

Bravo! Well said. Let's not confuse the apples with the oranges.
What's true is true.