Who Was Margaret Sanger?

Hillary Clinton recently received Planned Parenthood's "most prestigious" award; the Margaret Sanger Award. Hillary Clinton had only praiseworthy words for the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger. I'd like to analyze Clinton's acceptance speech in it's entirety in a later blog, but for this post I'd just like to highlight one of the quotes from Secretary of State Clinton.

"Now, I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision."

Clinton continues to praise Sanger in her acceptance speech, much to the pleasure of all those at Planned Parenthood who were in attendance. So who exactly is this Margaret Sanger person, and why is she so beloved by Clinton and those people at Planned Parenthood who named their "most prestigious" award the Margaret Sanger Award?

Margaret Sanger was born in the late 1800's to a poor Irish Catholic family, the 6th of 11 children. Her father rejected religious teachings and taught her to question everything. Her mother, who was a devout Catholic, was frequently pregnant and the young Margaret blamed too many pregnancies as the cause of her mother's poor health.

Her life experience led her to believe that pregnancy was the root of much of society's problems. She grew up in a large family that happened to be poor, and it greatly affected her. She thought that her work to promote birth control and finding ways to "help" women limit the number of children they had was a charitable mission. Maybe her intentions were not completely evil, but the effects have been devastating. Her ideas led to the eugenics movement. Nazi Germany’s racial policies and extermination of Jews and so-called “life not fit for life” were also influenced by the movement and the lead organization – the American Eugenics Society. She founded Planned Parenthood in 1916.

The mission for this organization was centered on population control and selective killing of innocent lives. "Family Planning" is not an accurate term to describe what Planned Parenthood has always promoted. Planning is something you do before taking an action. "Family Planning" is not actually planning anything at all. It is the action following a previous action. Often times the first action may not have been planned, but "taking care" of the first action is not a plan. Artificial contraception is not a plan, but an action that is contrary to the natural order of the human body. Natural birth control on the other hand can be considered family planning because it is not an action taken to prevent the natural order of the human body, but rather a mastering and understanding of the human body that will help families plan their future. Planned Parenthood was founded on principals contrary to Christian teaching and thought. The ideas of Margaret Sanger were intended (in her mind) to benefit society, but have had the exact opposite effect. Unfortunately, many of her ideas are widely accepted today and the culture of death appears to be gaining supporters.

Some quotes of Margaret Sanger illustrate her attitudes towards race and eugenics,

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members" (Sanger's letter to Clarence J. Gamble, 1939, December)

Margaret Sanger referred to immigrants and Catholics as reckless breeders, writing in her book, Pivot of Civilization, "[They're] an unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all." (Sanger, p.187).

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it," Margaret Sanger wrote in her 1920 book Women and the New Race (Sanger, p. 63).

So who was Margaret Sanger? I think her words speak for themselves. She is not only the founder of Planned Parenthood, but also one of the founders of a culture of death. Margaret Sanger and those who support a culture of death see life as a burden. They think that killing innocent lives will improve the lives of others. Hitler also thought this way. I wonder if Hillary Clinton would be honored to accept an award named after Hitler? Something tells me she wouldn't be, but were the views of Sanger and Hitler really that much different? They both supported the killing of innocent human life for the "convenience" and "wellbeing" of society. They found death to be the answer to solve most problems. I could go into much further depth about Margaret Sanger's life and how she formed her ideas and opinions, but I'll leave that for another day. Like I said earlier, I think Margaret Sanger's words speak for themselves. If you support Planned Parenthood, ask yourself what do you like about the organization? Do you look up to and praise the work of Margaret Sanger or does her eugenic and racist attitude sicken you? Is this the kind of organization that you want to be associated with? I don't ask these questions to condemn, but hopefully to get you to seriously consider these issues. Does "reproductive rights" improve a society or damage a society? What does "reproductive rights" really mean? I will talk much more about Clinton's acceptance speech and her support of Planned Parenthood. There are several comments that she made that I want to analyze and I hope you all check back to see what I have to say. I think we can learn a lot by listening to opposing views and their rationale, and hopefully once we understand our enemies we will be able to learn how to convert them to accept the truth. The mission might seem impossible at times, but anything is possible with God. God bless!

Prayer Request

I have a prayer request. My wife is 36 weeks pregnant. She had a doctor's appointment today and the baby looks healthy, but she is in the breech position - Her head is up high and her feet are down low. Doctors informed Shelly that if Julie does not turn her head down by next week we have 2 options. 1) we can schedule a c-section (which we would strongly prefer to avoid if at all possible). Or 2) they can do a procedure called an External Cephalic Version - They try to physically move the baby's head down to the right position. Shelly and I are not sure what the best option is at this time. We've been discussing our options and are going to do some research on c-sections and on this other procedure. We just want to do what is best for mom and for baby. I ask that you remember our family in your prayers. I ask that you pray for the health of Shelly and Julie, for the wisdom of Shelly and I to make the best decision, and if it is in God's will that Julie will turn all by herself so that we won't have to make this tough decision. Thank you for your prayers and God bless!

Thank You Archbishop of Denver Charles Chaput!

Archbishop of Denver Charles Chaput is a man that I look up to with great admiration. He is not shy to speak the truth despite receiving a lot of criticism for speaking up on occasion. He is an inspirational leader in the Church and I hope fellow bishops and clergy follow his lead. I have read Living the Catholic Faith, written by Chaput and it is excellent. He has also written a book named Render Unto Ceaser. That book is on my short list of books I want to read (unfortunately my list of books is growing at a rapid pace and I'm a slow reader). Chaput recently delivered an OUTSTANDING speech at the Hands-On Conference Celebrating the Year of St. Paul, which was hosted at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit. I have copied the article from CNA and pasted it below. The archbishop's words are directed toward Catholics, but they are applicable to all Christians. I hope you all take the time to read his words and reflect on them. I hope his words motivate you as they motivate me and give me comfort knowing that we do still have some great moral leaders and teachers. God bless you Archbishop Chaput and God bless you all!
-----
Catholic ‘complacency’ shares blame for country’s failures, Archbishop Chaput says

Detroit, Mich., Mar 21, 2009 / 12:32 pm (CNA).- Archbishop of Denver Charles J. Chaput delivered a speech on Saturday reflecting on the significance of the November 2008 election. Warning that media “narratives” should not obscure truth, he blamed the indifference and complacency of many U.S. Catholics for the country’s failures on abortion, poverty and immigration issues.

He also advised Catholics to “master the language of popular culture” and to refuse to be afraid, saying “fear is the disease of our age.”

The archbishop’s comments were delivered in his keynote address at the Hands-On Conference Celebrating the Year of St. Paul, which was hosted at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit.

Having been asked to examine what November 2008 and its aftermath can teach Catholics about American culture, the state of American Catholicism and the kind of Pauline discipleship necessary today, Archbishop Chaput said:

“November showed us that 40 years of American Catholic complacency and poor formation are bearing exactly the fruit we should have expected. Or to put it more discreetly, the November elections confirmed a trend, rather than created a new moment, in American culture.”

Noting that there was no question about President Barack Obama’s views on abortion “rights,” embryonic stem cell research and other “problematic issues,” he commented:

“Some Catholics in both political parties are deeply troubled by these issues. But too many Catholics just don’t really care. That’s the truth of it. If they cared, our political environment would be different. If 65 million Catholics really cared about their faith and cared about what it teaches, neither political party could ignore what we believe about justice for the poor, or the homeless, or immigrants, or the unborn child. If 65 million American Catholics really understood their faith, we wouldn’t need to waste each other’s time arguing about whether the legalized killing of an unborn child is somehow ‘balanced out’ or excused by three other good social policies.”

Offering a sober evaluation of the state of American Catholicism, he added:

“We need to stop over-counting our numbers, our influence, our institutions and our resources, because they’re not real. We can’t talk about following St. Paul and converting our culture until we sober up and get honest about what we’ve allowed ourselves to become. We need to stop lying to each other, to ourselves and to God by claiming to ‘personally oppose’ some homicidal evil -- but then allowing it to be legal at the same time.”

Commenting on society’s attitude towards Catholic beliefs, Archbishop Chaput said, “we have to make ourselves stupid to believe some of the things American Catholics are now expected to accept.”

“There’s nothing more empty-headed in a pluralist democracy than telling citizens to keep quiet about their beliefs. A healthy democracy requires exactly the opposite.”

Noting the 2008 presidential campaign’s “revealing” focus upon the candidates’ “narratives,” he said the campaign seemed not to involve facts, but rather “story-telling.”

“Of course, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with story-telling -- unless the press and other news media themselves become part of the story-telling syndicate; in other words, peddlers of narratives in which facts are not told because they’re true, but rather become ‘true’ because they’re told by those who have the power to create an absorbing narrative,” the archbishop explained.

In such a state, he warned, real power does not rest with the people but with those who “shape the structure of our information.” He linked this situation with Pope Benedict’s critique of the “dictatorship of relativism.”

The archbishop also connected this relativistic spirit to St. Paul’s appearance at the Aeropagus, recounted in the Book of Acts. At the Areopagus, a prestigious place of debate for Greek philosophers, “Nearly anything was tolerated, so long as no one claimed to have an exclusive and binding claim on the truth,” the archbishop explained.

He then quoted Acts 17’s description of the Areopagite mindset: “All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new.”

“It’s worth paying attention to that description. There’s no mention of truth,” he commented, noting that when St. Paul preaches the truth “he’s mocked and despised and his preaching is a failure, at least in the short term.”

“Paul’s failure at the Areopagus is a good lesson for the times we face now in America,” the archbishop said. “When Catholics start leading their daily lives without a hunger for something higher than their own ambitions or appetites, or with the idea that they can create their own truth and then baptize it with an appeal to personal conscience, they become, in practice, agnostics in their personal lives, and Sophists in their public lives. In fact, people who openly reject God or dismiss Christianity as obsolete are sometimes far more honest and far less discouraging than Catholics who claim to be faithful to the Church but directly reject her guidance by their words and actions.”

Noting that Paul mastered the language of the popular urban culture of his time and used “every technical resource, tool and environment at his disposal,” Archbishop Chaput extensively quoted Pope John Paul II’s 1990 encyclical Redemptoris Missio, which also discussed St. Paul at the Areopagus.

“If Paul felt so fiercely compelled to preach the Gospel -- whether ‘timely [or] untimely’ -- to a pagan world, then how should we feel today, preaching the Gospel to an apostate world?” he asked, answering that the love of Christ must “impel” Catholics forward.

“Catholics in America, at least the many good Catholics who yearn to live their faith honestly and deeply, can easily feel tempted to hopelessness,” he concluded. “It becomes very burdensome to watch so many persons who call themselves Catholic compromise their faith and submit their hearts and consciences to the Caesars of our day.”

But Archbishop Chaput closed by encouraging Christians to remember the words of Jesus:

“In this world you will have tribulation. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”

Notre Dame Students Respond

Several students at Notre Dame have voiced their displeasure at Obama's invitation to speak at their graduation. They composed a beautifully written response that can be found at the website below. It's sad that the president of a university can overshadow so much good that is taking place at Notre Dame. I still believe that this can be a perfect opportunity to make a statement and to educate the public about Catholic beliefs. Maybe, just maybe we can teach some Catholics what it truly means to be Catholic. Visit the website and click on the press release for the complete letter.

Notre Dame Response

Several other Catholics are speaking out as well. Below is a letter written by Virginia House Member Robert Marshall to the president of Notre Dame. This letter was so beautifully and masterfully written I had to share this with you as well. I found this in Judie Brown's blog from American Life League. God bless!

--

Reverend John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
President, Notre Dame University
400 Main Building
Notre Dame, IN 46556

Dear President Jenkins:
I write to you as a Catholic, an l8-year legislator and as a graduate of Benedictine Belmont Abbey College regarding your invitation to Barrack Obama as a Commencement speaker.

You claim that Notre Dame's invitation for the President to address graduates "should in no way be taken as condoning or endorsing his positions on specific issues regarding the protection of life, such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research."

John Cardinal O'Connor deliberately refused to invite democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton, then running for re-election, to the 1996 Al Smith dinner because Clinton refused to sign a bill banning partial birth abortions. He also declined to invite republican presidential candidate Bob Dole to avoid the appearance of favoritism. (Jack Kemp and Al Gore went to the dinner as vice-presidential candidates.)

Your list of moral issues on which Barrack Obama is at variance with constant Church teaching is incomplete and should have included Obama's endorsement of same sex "civil unions" with rights of marriage, homosexual adoption, opposition to a Federal Marriage Amendment, and support at the UN for decriminalization of homosexual behavior.

You attempt to make a distinction between honoring the president, as in awarding him a doctor of laws degree, and supporting his political views. But honor is the recognition with words and awards for someone who, in one or more aspects such as virtue, intelligence, integrity, etc., excels others. Such an award would be considered an act of justice. But there is no justice in granting a doctor of laws degree to one who wishes to place outside the protection and rule of law, an entire class of human beings who cannot defend themselves against unjust aggression.

In addition to Obama's support for the Freedom of Choice Act which would undo 35 years of court-tested state and federal laws which have saved lives, he favors civil and/or criminal sanctions against doctors, nurses, and medical personnel who would exercise their rights of conscience to refuse to participate in any manner in the unjust killing of a child before birth by abortion. This position alone should disqualify the president from receiving any honor from Notre Dame, let alone a doctor of laws degree.

The Catholic Catechism notes that anyone who promotes "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible to achieve” is guilty of scandal (Catechism of the Catholic Church #226).

You state another reason for your invitation is that President Obama is an inspiring leader … facing many challenges … he has addressed them with intelligence, courage and honesty.

During the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama said that deciding when human life begins is above his “pay grade.” (Virginia third graders are required to learn this simple fact.) Yet, Obama wasted little time issuing an order authorizing the destruction of embryonic humans apparently without attempting to resolve whether they are indeed created human beings. Nor did he seek to establish whether scientific process, including that conducted at Notre Dame, has eliminated any justification for using embryonic humans for stem cell research.

Mr. Obama further accuses those who oppose human experimentation of ideological bias and politics as he authorizes tax monies for this lethal research, which has demonstrated NO cures, NO therapies and NO long range clinical benefits! This is neither an example of honesty nor courage, but merely blind ideology.

Most curiously for someone receiving a broad welcome from a college president such as yourself, President Obama is seeking tax law changes which would make charitable giving to our churches and institutions like Notre Dame much more difficult and costly.

You conclude that you “cannot change the world if you shun the people you want to persuade, and if you cannot persuade them … show respect for them and listen to them.”

We respect the person of the president since he is made in God’s image; we respect his high office which derives from our venerable Constitution. But it is precisely because we have listened to the words of this president that we reject his Culture of Death policies which are inimical to the individual and common good.

We oppose and reject actions which give the appearance of indifference to evil and that is why we reject President Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame University.

Lastly, your actions make it much more difficult for Catholic lawmakers like myself to garner support for legislation upholding a Culture of Life, and against policies which degrade our culture and foster disrespect for persons. I urge you to reconsider your invitation.

Sincerely,
Delegate Bob Marshall

Theology of the Body Reflections - Thou Shall Not Commit Adultery

There are a lot of life issues going on right now. At least I won't have to worry about not having a topic to write about anytime soon. Despite all these current issues, I'd like to take the time to do another reflection on my readings on the Theology of the Body. The issue I'd like to discuss in my reflection today centers around the seventh commandment, thou shall not commit adultery. If you are following along with me, this reflection covers Chapter 2, Speeches 34 - 38.

JPII does a marvelous job explaining this section and I really don't have to do much interpretation, but more of just repeating what JPII said. Sometimes his words can be hard to follow because he was so knowledgeable and spoke in such intelligent language, but this section I found to be very clear. I had many thoughts as I read these speeches and I think I can make some good comparisons with what is going on in the world today. Some problems remain in society from age to age and sometimes new problems arise when old problems fade. We'll talk more about this shortly.

The topic is adultery. Adultery has been around a long, long time. It was a huge problem back in the time of Moses; this was reinforced when it was listed as one of the ten commandments Moses received from God. Adultery is still a problem today and it was a problem in the time of Jesus. As JPII often does, he takes a look at a couple of different passages from the bible to help explain the deeper meaning of adultery. Let's take a look at the passages JPII quoted.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish but to fulfill" (Mt 5:17). This is one of the most important passages in the entire bible. In fact, it is the backbone of our Christian belief. We believe, as Jesus says here so clearly, that the New Testament fulfills the Old Testament. The Old Testament has many great writings and prophets, but much of the Old Testament teachings were (and continue to be) misinterpreted by people. Jesus came to fulfill the Old Testament. He came to speak the truth so that we might be able to understand the Old and New Testament. Jesus is the truth. What he says IS, so when he speaks all must listen. One of the teachings that was widely misunderstood during the time of Jesus (and still is today) was that of adultery.

"Because of the hardness of your heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so" (Mt 19:8). Once again we see Jesus appealing to the beginning. The beginning is how God intended things to be, not what they have become. Because God gave us the gift of free will, we chose sin and that sin has clouded our understanding of many things and led to the deformation of the Law. Divorce is something created by man not by God. God intended for man and woman to be joined as one flesh. Jesus says that "because of the hardness of your heart" did Moses allow divorce. Jesus explains how and by what means we can deform the law in our minds. He appeals to our hearts, not just our outside appearance or signs. Just as man deformed God's purpose for man and woman to become one flesh in marriage, so has man deformed the meaning and severity of the law against adultery.

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery'" (Mt 5:27). The Sermon on the Mount was directed toward listeners who were the Chosen People, people who had received the law from God. These people knew the law, but they did not really know the law. They knew the law as they came to understand the law, not as the law was intended by God. In the beginning, God made everything and it was good. God established the law from the beginning, and so the law created by the Divine Legislator, God, was all good. The law had been misinterpreted and Jesus points this out as we see in the following line spoken by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.

"But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Mt 5:28). Imagine what kind of reaction Jesus received when he spoke these words. He tells me that even a look is adulterous? This certainly wasn't the teaching they heard before concerning adultery. JPII explains how the Chosen People since the time of Abraham put into practice a "casuistic interpretation of the law". He continues, "The abandonment of monogamy… was dictated by the desire for offspring, for numerous offspring." Isn't this so ironic? It is to me. We are currently in a culture that looks down on people for having children. Instead of sinning out of a desire for children, we now see great sin in the form of preventing children through widespread usage of birth control, and we are even going so far as to killing the innocent child in the womb. The later issue is more disturbing if you ask me, but we'll tackle that issue several more times in later posts I'm sure. In Old Testament times, it was a widely accepted practice for husbands to have concubines who would give them children that his wife could not provide. Even the lives of some of the illustrious representatives of Israel after Moses such as David and Solomon attest to the practice of polygamy. Adultery was seen only as a man taking possession of another's wife, not the possession of other women in addition to their wife. So when Jesus speaks about adultery as being a sin committed in one's heart, it must have been a shock to many.

In the Old Testament, prophets used an analogy when explaining adultery. While the analogy is a good one; Israel was the adulterous bride when it worshiped false Idols and God was the groom, it was an analogy that helped one understand the seventh commandment but it failed to address the interpretation of adultery itself. An analogy is good, but it never fully explains that which it intends. For example, a common analogy for the Church is Body of Christ. While this is a good analogy, it does not fully explain the true meaning and role of the Church. The Chosen People of God understood the seventh commandment through good, but not complete, analogies. Jesus explained adultery by confronting adultery itself. This is hard for many people to accept or understand, but the truth is often hard for us to accept or understand. Jesus never said that following Him would be easy.

God knows what is in our heart, and truth does not change as man's interpretation of the law changes. Unfortunately, since the original sin of our first parents, man has always tried to interpret the truth instead of accepting the truth. Man can discover truths revealed by God, but man can not create a truth. This desire to interpret a truth to suit our wants and needs is in our sinful nature. We must resist this urge, because we can't outsmart God. This does not mean that we should not use our brain. We have a brain for a reason. We should use our brain to help us discover the truth and to continue to learn more about our faith. God knows what is in our hearts and in our minds. Although we may not recognize it as such, our heart and mind is more often the culprit of sin than any action. Adultery is more than just cheating on your wife. Unmarried men and women can commit adultery just as well as married men and women commit adultery. Adultery is a denial of the original meaning of the body. Adultery is selfishness. Adultery is lust. Adultery is denial of a chaste single life and a denial of a monogamous married life. Adultery is a denial of gift of self and gift to self. Adultery is a denial of the sacredness of our body and the sacredness of others. If we think about adultery in these terms, we can better understand the theology of the body and the complexity and great challenge God presents us with the seventh commandment; thou shall not commit adultery.

If you haven't done so already, don't forget to sign the petition at www.notredamescandal.com to protest Obama's scheduled commencement address at Notre Dame. Also don't forget about the Provider Conscience Clause. For more news on these issues and other pressing issues please visit the sites I have listed in my recommended links. I am forming some really exciting ideas on ways that I can do more to promote the culture of life. I am in the early planning stage, but I fully intend to make this idea become a reality. More about this is sure to come so stay attentive. I am at peace despite all of the negative news I've been reading, because I know God is in charge. I can not bear the weight of all the sins of this world and nor can any other individual. We must speak up when we see wrongdoing, we must act on our faith, we must pray continuously and the rest is out of our hands. God will see our efforts and maybe through the grace of God we might be able to convert others to the side of life. God bless!

Comments On Bishop D'Arcy's Actions

Below are comments from people responding to the Bishop's refusal to attend the Notre Dame graduation. You can see my response to their comments at the bottom (The one that says Mike - That's me!) These comments were found on a blog I visit occasionally here.

5 comments:

anne said...

From NCR:
"The invitation to President Obama to be our commencement speaker should not be taken as condoning or endorsing his positions on specific issues regarding the protection of human life, including abortion and embryonic stem-cell research," said Holy Cross Father John I. Jenkins, president of the University of Notre Dame.
"Yet, we see his visit as a basis for further positive engagement," he said in a March 23 statement.

March 24, 2009 5:29 PM

St Edwards Blog said...

My comment would be this... and I do fear repeating myself, but I will proceed.

Just how do we ever expect transformation if we don't continue to invite people to the table?

Isn't that what real metanoia is? Was Jesus conversing with sinners, eating with them an endorsement of their actions?

I do see all that is potentially wrong with this invite, but I also see what could potentially go right too.

*sigh*

Fran

March 24, 2009 6:14 PM

Maeve said...

I do not understand how the cultivation of an atmosphere of hostility toward, and disrespect for, the President's views can in any way help to make him more open to the views of others. (I actually feel it may decrease what I think is the respect he now has for those views - even if he disagrees with them.) I also emphatically do not feel that an invitation by Fr. Jenkins to the President to speak implies an endorsement of all the President's positions. If Notre Dame had invited George W. Bush when he was President, would there have been Catholic objections? I think not, although I believe he holds some views that are not in agreement with Catholic teaching.

March 24, 2009 7:01 PM

Concord Carpenter said...

All very good pointsand I too feel similar, but the bishop is obviously not sacraficing his principles and is clearly not afraid to be a leader...
he teaches not only by his words — but by his actions.

The statement "by this decision it has chosen prestige over truth." lends me wnating to hear more from Fr. Jenkins.

March 24, 2009 8:47 PM

Mike said...

I fully support the bishop in this case. Those of you who have already commented are completely missing the point. There is a time and a place to engage in dialogue and this is not the time or place. Those of you who support this decision please tell me how this is an opportunity for further positive engagement. Is there going to be a question and answer session? How does this encourage Obama to change his radical anti-life/anti-marriage views? As Catholics we absolutely must stay true to our convictions and our faith. Whether ND agrees with all of Obama's positions or not is irrelevant. His very presence will be perceived by many, whether accurate or not, as the Catholic University's acceptance of Obama and his views. There are several other honorable men and women the university could have speak that would have views much more in line with what the University is supposed to be all about. Any "disrespect" shown to Obama in this case is tiny when compared with the disrespect Obama has shown toward the unborn. Every person deserves respect, but not every person deserves to be honored. I applaud the bishop for making his voice heard, standing up for what is right, and doing so in a very respectful and meaningful way. I pray that many more will follow his leadership. The pro-life community continues to pray for the conversion of our president, and that God bless and guide all our civil and religious leaders as they have so much influence on the lives of so many.

Notre Dame Chooses Prestige Over Truth

Critics Blast Obama's Scheduled Notre Dame Commencement Address

I urge you all to sign the petition protesting Obama's scheduled commencement address at the University of Notre Dame. You can sign the petition here. There is one man who has been in attendance for 25 years, but will not attend this year's ceremony and that man is the bishop of South Bend, John D'Arcy. I applaud Bishop D'Arcy for his voicing his opposition with Notre Dame's decision. Not only is Obama going to speak, but he is going to be receiving an honorary degree. Everyone deserves respect, but not everyone deserves to be honored. Several "name-only catholics" defend Notre Dame by saying that this doesn't mean Notre Dame endorses all of Obama's positions and that we can't transform people without bringing them to the table. My response to this first of all is that Notre Dame is endorsing Obama when they give him an honorary degree. Secondly, what kind of table are we sitting at when Obama is the one giving the speech. Who is inviting who to the table and what kind of transformation can take place in this setting. We can not convert or transform Obama, only God through the Holy Spirt can Obama have a change of heart. There are other platforms and opportunities to engage in meaningful dialogue, but this is not the place or the time. I think Bishop D'Arcy explained the situation the best. Below are comments from Bishop D'Arcy. I continue to pray for our civil and religious leaders, that God my bless and guide them to teach the truth and work to preserve the dignity of every human person from conception to natural death. I pray that more will follow the leadership of Bishop D'Arcy and take an active role in promoting life and their Christain faith. Once again I encourage you to sign the petition in protest of Obama's scheduled commencement speach at Notre Dame. Thank you and God bless!
------

On Friday, March 21, Father John Jenkins, CSC, phoned to inform me that President Obama had accepted his invitation to speak to the graduating class at Notre Dame and receive an honorary degree. We spoke shortly before the announcement was made public at the White House press briefing. It was the first time that I had been informed that Notre Dame had issued this invitation.

President Obama has recently reaffirmed, and has now placed in public policy, his long-stated unwillingness to hold human life as sacred. While claiming to separate politics from science, he has in fact separated science from ethics and has brought the American government, for the first time in history, into supporting direct destruction of innocent human life.

This will be the 25th Notre Dame graduation during my time as bishop. After much prayer, I have decided not to attend the graduation. I wish no disrespect to our president, I pray for him and wish him well. I have always revered the Office of the Presidency. But a bishop must teach the Catholic faith “in season and out of season,” and he teaches not only by his words — but by his actions.

My decision is not an attack on anyone, but is in defense of the truth about human life.

I have in mind also the statement of the U.S. Catholic Bishops in 2004. “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” Indeed, the measure of any Catholic institution is not only what it stands for, but also what it will not stand for.

I have spoken with Professor Mary Ann Glendon, who is to receive the Laetare Medal. I have known her for many years and hold her in high esteem. We are both teachers, but in different ways. I have encouraged her to accept this award and take the opportunity such an award gives her to teach.

Even as I continue to ponder in prayer these events, which many have found shocking, so must Notre Dame. Indeed, as a Catholic University, Notre Dame must ask itself, if by this decision it has chosen prestige over truth.

Tomorrow, we celebrate as Catholics the moment when our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, became a child in the womb of his most holy mother. Let us ask Our Lady to intercede for the university named in her honor, that it may recommit itself to the primacy of truth over prestige.

- Bishop D'Arcy

40 Days for Life (Australia)

40 Days for Life is an international campaign. I encourage you to listen to this 8 minute audio clip from Australia.

Listen to the Audio Online (click arrow-shaped “Play” button to start):

Download MP3 (right-click to save file to your computer):

http://www.40daysforlife.com/blog/audio/brisbane.mp3