But ... but ... but Notre Dame is playing for the National Championship, and that’s ALL that matters! Therefore, Fr. Jenkins should keep his job in perpetuity.

/s

Dont’ forget the rapes: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2012/12/04/why-i-wont-be-cheering-for-old-notre-dame/

Notre Dame delenda est.

Pat, while I really enjoy most of the posts that you and your brother put forth, I really do not understand your vendetta against the University of Notre Dame.

Yesterday, on CMR, Matt posted a poorly-researched hypothesis on what this organization would be and I responded in the comments that followed with quotes from the ACTUAL pastoral plan (http://friendsandallies.nd.edu/) that highlighted it in the context of the Catechism of the Catholic Church - Namely that the organization will be open not just to homosexual students, but to heterosexual students as well.

It will promote and teach “the call to chastity [that] represents a divine invitation to develop relationships characterized by equality, mutuality, and respect, qualities of a deeply spiritual nature, beckoning us “to follow and imitate the one who has chosen us as his friends, who has given himself totally to us and allows us to participate in his divine estate” (CCC, 2347)

Just today, the Bishop ENDORSED this plan and how it will serve a group of CATHOLICS who are struggling with a real temptation.  While this student group is intended to foster sympathy, support, and understanding, there is nothing about acceptance of sinful acts and choices.

Indeed, this group is striving to be an example of how we as Catholics can help our brothers and sisters who are struggling with a very difficult cross to bear and as an opportunity to preach the Catholic understanding of sexuality - as the title of the whole pastoral plan is “A Pastoral Plan for the Support and Holistic Development of GLBTQ AND Heterosexual Students at the University of Notre Dame”

Pat, I agree.  I’m praying the Holy Father goes after Catholic universities and schools like he did catholic charities.

Please read Bishop Rhoades’s statement on this matter.

I don’t know if the Chapel at West Point is Catholic or what.  But, West Point is in NY, one of the homes of legal same-sex marriage.  Therefore, West Point may have been obligated (or felt that way) to host the SSM.

Rhoades’ full statement is as follows:  One of the essential characteristics of a Catholic university is “fidelity to the Christian message as it comes to us from the Church” (Pope John Paul II, Excorde ecclesiae). In its recently released Pastoral Plan, the University of Notre Dame clearly affirms its fidelity to Catholic Church teaching on human sexuality by affirming that “sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman” and that “the deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” It affirms the teachings of the Church on the commandment and vocation of love, the virtue of chastity and its expression in friendship, the importance of self-mastery, and the call to holiness. The Planaffirms Catholic teaching that men and women who have homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.  It is vitally important that the Foundations of the Pastoral Plan, which express Notre Dame’s fidelity to Catholic teaching, inform and guide the implementation of the Plan, including the vision, programs and activities of the new student organization that is being formed. The Pastoral Plan states that “the organization’s purpose arises directly from the University’s Catholic mission and its aspiration to create a community where all may flourish and feel welcome, where we aspire to an even deeper understanding and appreciation of Catholic teaching, and where the human dignity of each Notre Dame student is valued.” It is my hope and prayer that the rich Catholic teaching on sexuality, teaching that serves the true good and happiness of the human person, will be embraced by the students and all involved in the implementation of the Pastoral Plan. I hope that the organization will be helpful in providing support for the students, thus preventing the experience of isolation and alienation which are “risk factors for an unhealthy life, including unchaste behaviors” (USCCB, Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination). I also hope that the Pastoral Plan will be of support to all students at Notre Dame in living a chaste and holy life according to the teachings of Jesus and His Church.

As a current ND graduate student, I saw the announcement with dismay. But that is somewhat alleviated by the response of Bishop Rhoades (here: http://blogs.nd.edu/psa/2012/12/07/bishop-rhoades-statement-on-nd-pastoral-plan/) . Our Bishop is by many counts a good egg.

But it’s important to look carefully at his statement. He welcomes the pastoral plan that’s been formulated. But he’s clearly not naive, and knows that organizations are staff and activities, not mission statements. Hence his admonition that the new org at ND adhere to the plan, and be helpful to queer,etc individuals while still remaining faithful to Church teaching.

I can’t help but think that any activities organized by this group will be one part queer social mixer, and another part a way of legitimizing and giving the stamp of Our Lady to their mode of conviviality. But maybe I’m too pessimistic.

One thing that does bother me - there has been a perfectly one-sided pressure from the student leadership groups and professors to ‘approve the gay group’. There is no organized student or faculty opposition. And who would join such a group, if it were organized? There are many opponents of the gay rights agenda here. But speaking up, attaching your name, has repercussions. For one thing, most of the faculty are pretty liberal here. And in some departments (like mine) extremely so. Do you really want to be known in your department as the only person to be ‘anti-gay’? And many of us hope to enter PhD programs outside ND one day, and work in academia. Needless to say, it won’t help in the future to have such a thing come up in a google search. It would be quite an act of daring to take a public stand against the gay rights agenda, even at ND. And that’s pitiful.

Notre Dame had lost its Catholic identity years ago, before Fr.Jenkins came on the scene.  I do agree he has been nothing but detrimental for the institution. I have had Catholic friends graduate from Notre Dame who have had their Catholic identity turned upside down as a result of this education. If a child of mine expressed interest in Notre Dame, I would pull out the Newman Guide and have them choose a REAL Catholic college! Just because an institution wins a National Championship, does not mean it deserves any acknowledgement in my book.

There was a similar group here at my (Free Methodist) University that for several years sought official club status.  While seeking club status they were allowed to meet on campus on a sort of “probation” to test the waters.  It was supposedly meant to help foster acceptance and understanding of gay/lesbian students. A place that they could feel safe to talk about their issues.  Heterosexuals were also allowed to participate.  But in practice what it turned out to be was a forum for “homo-phobe” bashing and pushing for the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle on campus. So I imagine it will be similar with this “support group” at ND.

Let’s be clear - Notre Dame is establishing an organization, under administrative direction and control, to provide support to gay students at the University from the perspective of Catholic teaching on sexuality.

This is NOT an organization that will advocate for non-Catholic ideas about sexuality. This is NOT an organization that will support or enable sin.

It is, presumably, an organization that will provide emotional and educational support to persons with SSA as they struggle (against tremendous difficulty) to live lives in conformity with Catholic teaching and will do so in a way that brings to them the fullness of Catholic teaching and not simple lists of dos-and-don’ts.

The article linked quotes extensively from some random crank from an organization of bitter alumni who basically says (in summary) “yeah, the university says that this will be done in conformity with Catholic teaching but I don;t believe them because, well, just because dammit and listen to me because I’m REALLY angry and serious.” That’s all well and good, but unless I missed the part in the Catechism where it indicated that the teaching Magesterium of the Church is invested in the Sycamore Trust then I fail to see why I should listen to the individual quoted any more than I listen to anyone else from the countless letterhead-and-a-fax-machine organizations that stand ready to dish out angry quotes to reporters looking to gin up controversy.

The Bishop in whose diocese Notre Dame resides is also quoted in the article making the very reasonable point that the organization in question is a fine thing as long as it abides by the principles under which it is being established.

I believe this is what is known as the camel getting its nose under the tent. “SD” couldn’t be more naive than than to think that “This is NOT an organization that will advocate for non-Catholic ideas about sexuality. This is NOT an organization that will support or enable sin.” Nonsense. This is nothing more than a ruse to push, perhaps subtly at first, but eventually full-throttle, the “gay” agenda. At best, it will encourage SSA students to wallow in their “gayness,” not confirm them in chastity. Jenkins and the ND administration have been around higher ed long enough to know exactly where this is going. As for the good bishop, well, we have seen far too often how our shepherds seem to have the wool pulled over their eyes by those with radical political agendas.

Research published in medical journals in the National Library of Congress, (include Frontiers of Neuroendocrinology April 2011) consistently reveal that variable hormonal levels in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy permanently affect child’s neural circuitry for sexual orientation and gender identity to express on a spectrum between straight and gay, same or opposite gender. A little extra testosterone secreted from the adrenals during early pregnancy affects the baby girls’brains causing nearly half to be lesbian, a tenth to be transgender. Also, a girl twin baby simply sharing the womb with a boy co-twin, in which some of his testosterone from his amniotic fluid gets into her blood, causes about one fifth of girl co-twins to be lesbian. These girls also have the bone structure and physical coordination of boys, so they are good in sports, and thus the stereotype.
The opposite is also true: a bit less testosterone than usual in a boy’s blood during early pregnancy can make him gay or transgender. If a boy’s mother has delivered many older brothers before him, which caused her to make blocking antibody to his male proteins, resulting in about one fifth of boys with many older brothers being gay. Many of these boys have phonation, gait, physiology and linguistic and visual arts skills slightly more like girls, and thus the stereotype.
Most homosexuals and most heterosexuals believe that they had no choice to be how they are because they were born on the far ends of the spectrum. They can firmly claim they were “born that way.” But, for some straight and gay folks, it WAS and IS definitely a choice for them because they were born closer to the middle of the biological spectrum between straight and gay: they are simply bisexual. Their orientations don’t change from straight to gay when they date different genders, they simply have brain wiring that attracts them to both. All orientations are hard-wired prenatally and none can change it. It is all biological and innocent, and not contagious or changeable.

From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is a normal sexual orientation; homosexual relationships are normal relationships.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists, National Association of Social Workers, Child Welfare League of America, North American Council on Adoptable Children have endorsed civil marriage/adoption for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental, physical health and longevity of couples, and having two parents (of any gender) provides greater health, legal/financial security for children. Research confirms that children develop perfectly normally. Even the American Academy of Anthropology has issued a policy statement that says access to civil marriage by same-sex couples will not harm our social order.
Visit the websites of these non-partisan, national professional and certifying associations for their policy statements and view their rationales based on published scientific research.
If we don’t listen to professional experts on national family health and welfare, then we are simply voting our religious beliefs or personal bias into state and federal laws, and harming the families of gay and lesbian couples, especially those with children.

Even if you don’t like gays and same-sex marriage how does their behaviour affect you?  What makes you think that their sins are greater than yours?  How do you think Jesus would have treated them? Do we really think that by demeaning them they will go away?

What would Jesus do? Homosexuality is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance. The key word in that phrase in VENGEANCE. It doesn’t take a degree in anything to know that it is an abnormal sexual perversion. Biology takes precedence over what the mind wants do with the parts of our body. It’s all about pleasure, which is a byproduct of sexual reporduction. If the act of reproduction was not pleasurable, people would not reproduce. Think about it: If intercourse was not pleasurable, in fact, if it was slightly painful, would there be homosexuality? Probably not.

@Woody -
I think your comment, however well intentioned, may be phrased a little strongly. Homosexuality is not a sin, the homosexual act is. Many, if not most, homosexuals do not choose homosexuality, and its psychological genesis is not understood. Unjust discrimination against homosexuals is forbidden. The only question here is whether forbidding an openly homosexual community on campus consitutes unjust discrimination. I don’t think it does - in fact, I think the prudence of example should be that the Church does not encourage homosexuality, so the group shouldn’t have a campus presence, but that is an opinion of mine, and I understand the argument.

This is directly from the catechism of the Catholic Church:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.“141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is 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.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Oh, where to begin…

First, no “studies” I’m aware of have proven that people are formed in the womb with an orientation to the same sex, or both sexes, that affects only their brains and not the reproductive organs. The reason no studies show this is because the studies are nonsense and are aimed at fools to get them to believe pro-homosexual, bi-sexual,transgender, etc. propaganda so that people think they were born that way and can’t help it. A “gay gene” was proposed -that fell by the wayside. Now, they’re latching onto the “hormones on the brain” hypothesis which will also fall by the wayside, but not before the propaganda about it has been absorbed by some people who don’t use their brains and rely on questionable studies as being the truth.

Think about it. Are we to take seriously the radical idea that hormones that directly affect the reproductive organs go whacky during gestation leaving the reproductive organs completely normal, and yet that those same whacky hormones that bypass the reproductive system settle in the brain instead and make people crave the same sex, or both sexes, or make them think they’re not the sex their DNA says they are?

I guess we can apply the hormonal brain hypothesis to any category of behavior then, can’t we? Alcoholics, pedophiles, murderers, etc. can’t they all claim whacky hormone levels made them who they are?

Its clear that no matter what the University does, some people will attack her for it.  Again, to be clear (and SD does well saying so), ND is not embracing sin or sinful acts, they are creating a support system for kids who are struggling to live as faithful Catholics. The best evidence I see that ND is in the right here is that no one seems happy about this.  The “I’m more Catholic than you” crowd is up in arms at the mere acknowledgement that there are Catholics who struggle with this temptation.  The gay left is up in arms that the group requires chastity and promotion of Catholic teaching, calling it discrimination under the guise of acceptance (while they fail to note that ALL Catholics are called to chastity).  I’d say this is a clear indication that ND is doing something right here.

I STILL find it beyond belief that a diocese in Canada STILL uses Notre Dame as it’s basis for studies for the diaconate.  What is the bishop thinking?  God will not be thwarted…but how many more good men would have joined the ranks had a true university been used for it’s studies?
Shame on Fr. Jenkins.

Crucify him! Crucify him!

To say one wants to be pastoral and Catholic, is one thing.  To do it is actually another.  Notre Dame’s actions have not matched their words in the past, so it is reasonable that that will continue.  Ask yourself, how many ND grads do you know that are faithful to the Catholic church in all teachings?

@KT
I’m not sure your comments were directed at my post, but, in the event they were, all I did was summarize the CCC and then quote it so that the reader could verify the accuracy of the summary. The psychological genesis of homosexual orientation is not understood, and some people are born with that proclivity. It’s in the catechism - I didn’t make it up.

@Trebert: you have many false assumptions here due to your acceptance of biased research. Namely: 1. The study designs you quote utilized sample sizes that are too small to draw scientific conclusions. Not all infants exposed to these hormone levels become LGBT. 2. The APA, Pediatric Association & other acamedies you named have been changing the definition of many disease states upon pressure from special interest groups; not necessarily due to new research. The APA came under pressure to re-write the DSM-IIIR in the 1970s. It was disputed then as gay marriage is now. 3.The scientific community represses research that doesn’t align with the social agenda of our day. A historical, unbiased study by sociologist Mark Regenerus shows poor outcomes on kids raised in gay homes. Mark’s study followed straight protocols for study design. He was censored, persecuted, & finally exhonerated. Google that study for yourself. 4.Read the Holy See’s pontifical council on the negative effect of same-sex, de-facto and free unions upon society. Why not get a second opinion? 5.Please drop your judgemental language assuming faithful Catholics are anti-gay.

At first the announcement of a gay club at ND was disturbing. Then when I read Bishop Rhoades comment I thought I understood it better and that it was actually a good thing. But then again I had this feeling that no matter what anyone was saying, what we will end up with is a “gay club”. Members being students who are gay and unrepentantly will live the gay life style and this club might further that. I think the school president should make it perfectly clear that sodomy is a mortal sin and that the school does not condon it. Membership in the club must be based on fidelity to the precepts of the Catholic faith and the 10 Commandments. But then again, what about non Catholic students? The devil is always in the details.

I am dismayed by this post, and by the tenor of many of the comments.  Notre Dame has issued a pastoral plan firmly rooted in Church teachings on homosexuality, including the politically incorrect insistence that homosexual persons remain chaste.  The Bishop is on board.  So-called progressives are dismayed.  And yet there are those who are, literally, more Catholic than the bishop, and who are convinced that nothing good can come from South Bend.  We are a faculty family who were recruited to Notre Dame to enhance its Catholic mission.  We do not hesitate to speak to Fr. Jenkins and other members of the administration on these issues.  We were deeply disappointed by the Obama debacle, but have been encouraged by other signs of a stronger Catholic identity at Notre Dame.  Our children are students who have not, in fact, lost their faith by coming into contact with other students and faculty whose formation was less solid. To our fellow parents who have confidence that they have properly formed their children—Be Not Afraid to send your children to Notre Dame.  If they lose their faith on this campus, with a chapel in every dorm and more than 100 Mass opportunities each week, they would surely lose it in the real world after graduating from one of the tiny uber-Catholic bunker schools blessed by the Newman Guide. 

Brava, ND Mom - finally, someone else who gets it

I am a Catholic Christian and also have something of ‘Prodigal’ retreived from the mire by the Holy Spirit outlook on my Faith. Not too long ago, I came across the term “Negative Reinforcement” in opposition to “Positive Reinforcement”. This ongoing war on Homosexuality being in the headlines everyday has produced the effect of validating the cause of the ‘Oppressed’ GLBT community. Instead, we Catholic Christians would be far more effective in acheiving the goal we seek by living in the New Testament with the New Covenant Commandment (To love God with our being and Love our neighbor as ourselves) brought to us by Jesus Christ himself in which there is NOT A SINGLE NEGATIVE as opposed to 9 ‘Thou shalt nots’ of the Old Testament Ten Commandments.

Would the ‘Prayers of a just man/woman avail much’ if we prayed in a quiet place without ‘babbling’ instead, for the salvation of the GLGBT or whatever we or they themselves label themselves to be?

It appears that the Notre Dame administration worked with their Bishop Rhiades to develop the “Pastoral Plan”.  It’s not very intelligent to think the plan came only from Father Jenkins.  Bishop Rhoades has the reputation for being a truly Orthodic Catholic religious. WWJD.  Is it best to do something, or rather do nothing?  God Bless Our Lady’s University

gay is evil. but dysfunctional celibacy is good.  and of course child molestations by priests must be discreetly covered up. and persecute women religious in the church because they arent obsessed with abortion, bith control and gays and do the real work of christ.  and of course the self flagellists in opus dei are good.  fortunately the fate of father jenkins is not tied to a german pope who joined hitler youth and a foreign power like the vatican. father, keep on doing the work of God, loving all.

The explanation that I posted about the real causes of homosexuality reflects tested and proven medical observations and facts. I am well aware of any conflicting views about the causes of homosexuality. To dispel any doubts I can only recommend doubters contact recognized and established medical organisations listed in my original posting.  It does not help to dismiss the subject if you do not provide established medical/psychological evidence to the contrary.
 
It may surprise some that the Roman Catholic Church until recently held a much more compassionate view on the subject.  The popular post Vatican II catechism ‘A New Catechism’ (1969) talks about homosexuality in these terms” It is not the fault of the individual if he or she is not attracted to the other sex.  The causes of homosexuality are unknown”. The same catechism then concludes with “The very sharp strictures of Scripture on homosexual practises (Gen 19; Rom.1) must be read in their context”.  It should alarm all faithful Catholics to note that paragraphs 2357-2359 of the current Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), lacks the vital mention of one particular word ‘LOVE’.  ‘Love the sinner but not the sin’ was the popular phrase used by many Christians.  That alone should at least satisfy those who will continue to condemn, harass,bully and punish committed couples who sexual orientation is different from ours. When we use the catechism as a weapon rather than a tool to bring healing we will have lost our trust in God’s incredible mercy and unconditional love. If there is any truth to Jesus’ call to ‘love your enemies’ than here we will find your challenge.

I am reminded that when the Jewish rabbis first contemplated recording their oral tradition into the written form, more than 3000 years ago, they considered that a written text could encourage inflexibility and a backward-looking orientation, whereas the spoken word and the ever-shifting currents of human thought made the Word more sensitive to changing conditions.  Love does not recognize ‘attack’ it can only heal.
 
Allow me to ask again . . . . .  if we don’t like gays and same-sex marriage how does their behaviour affect us? What makes us think that the sins of homosexuals are somehow greater than ours? If not, why do we highlite their sins in the catechism? How do we think Jesus would have treated them? Do we really think that by demeaning them they will go away?

Maria,
You wrote, “Ask yourself, how many ND grads do you know that are faithful to the Catholic church in all teachings?”

Good grief, I don’t know any Catholics (ND grads or otherwise) who are faithful to all Church teachings. 

Guess I’m not hanging out in the right circles.  I was under the impression that all of us, because of our humanity, are sinners…

To Cat Lady and KT - about Trebert’s comments on the causes of homosexuality.  Trebert is wrong on a lot of stuff but right that bad hormone exposure in-utero causes some homosexuality.  Just because not all homosexuality can be explained completely by wrong hormone exposure during development does not mean those studies are wrong which show some homosexuality is caused by such hormone imbalances.  FYI, unlike Trebert, I am with the Church on the homosexual issue.

Now we are discussing who the worst sinner is? How about the question that really gets the majority of the administration and faculty in a quandry: HOW CATHOLIC DO WE HAVE TO BE!?  Don’t we do enough to earn the title Catholic(with a capital C)? Do we have to do everything the Church teaches? Can’t we just interpret the dogmas the way we want to interpret them; after all, we have a theology department. And what about OUR ACADEMIC FREEDOM?
And what about the money? What kind of money will Notre Dame make off this decision? From the federal government, from philanthropic organizations, from alumnae? One thing ND learned from Father Hesburgh, it’s all about the money.  “Academic freedom” brings in big bucks.

“How do we think Jesus would have treated them?”

What He DID say was “go and sin no more.” Furthermore, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life” and “deny yourself, take up your cross and follow Me!”.  He didn’t say “I’m okay, you’re okay, we’re all okay!”  He said “Follow. Me,” to say nothing of “learn from Me, for I am meek and humble of heart. 

In addition, and this is crucial: “I am the vine, and you are the branches.  Remain in me, and you will bear much fruit. . .”  Those who do not remain in Christ wither up and die and will be cast into the eternal fire.  “For, without Me, you can do nothing.”  That is as much an invitation and a challenge to those with same-sex attraction as it is to those without it, and God gives the same means of grace to them as to all of us to live a life of chastity:  namely, the Sacramental Life of the Church.  This is why “My yoke is easy, and my burden light.”  Christ comes to draw all men to himself, and we are all being asked to carry our crosses and follow Him.  He does not make this impossible for our brothers and sisters with same-sex attraction;  in fact, He enables them no more and no less than anyone else.  By the way, Jesus also said, “live in My love.”

Again, homosexuality itself, as in the orientation, is not a sin, as others have pointed out, and which the current Catechism points out.  But the homosexual ACT is (because it’s not just a matter of “what gays do,” but any sexual activity between two people of the same sex.  That would include, say, Madonna kissing Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera on prime time TV; whether any of them self-identify as “gay” or not is irrelevant.  I would think that girl-on-girl mud wrestling in front of a bunch of leering guys thinking that “hot” would also fit into this category).  And I suspect that CCC 2357-2359 doesn’t mention the word “love,” because the Catechism discusses this in its opening sections as per basic Catholic beliefs.  The Catholic Church does not teach that sex is sinful.  Rather, she teaches that abusing it is.  A disordered desire is one that is directed away from its true ends.  For that reason, lust is a disordered desire, and fornication is grave matter.

One places the Church’s teaching on homosexuality within its larger teaching of sexuality and its purposes in knowing, loving and serving God and loving one’s neighbor as one’s self.  What, after all, do we even think “love” is?  Love without the Truth is no love at all, and it is false compassion—one should be very, very wary of the idea that “love is whatever you want it to mean,” because it is self-serving, and most certainly opens one’s self up for abuse as well as an excuse for abusing others:  if one accepts that love is whatever we want it to mean, then by what recourse can one argue that one deserves better while being treated like garbage or taken advantage of by someone else?  Is love also just about “feelings—warm and fuzzy or even hurt”? 

God is the standard for true love.  He loves those with same-sex attraction no less, and they are also made in the image of God;  He died so that they may also be saved in his Cross and Resurrection (which the Catechism also points out:  that they, too, can merit eternal salvation).  ALL human beings have lives, talents, and sexuality that are gifts from God (and which therefore come with the attendant responsibility of asking Him how best to use them for His glory, because we will all have to render a strict account to God in the end).  ALL are therefore to find their true identities in Jesus Christ, Who is True God and True Man.  Chastity is required of everyone, and celibacy for those whose state in life require it is no booby prize.  There’s actually something really freeing about knowing that sex is a good thing without assuming that one “needs” it in order to be happy, to love someone else, or to function.  When the world constantly tell us that “no, you can’t (be chaste)!” because it’s supposedly “too hard,” Christ and His Body, the Church, tells us “yes, you CAN!”

So many of us lecture others on how Jesus would be loving (not “judgmental like You People”), but seem to avoid the issue of what love actually is, namely that love is about truth and God’s salvation of us.  Plus, whenever we resort to “WWJD?” we often tend to forget Who Jesus Truly IS and what He’s doing right now, to say nothing of how He loves us.  Furthermore, love is not something we “have,” acquire, and possess;  it is something that we are commanded to do, and involves a whole lot more than “finding your special someone,” getting married, and having sex.  This last bit, by the way, is what enough people without same-sex attraction have made an inane hot mess of.  Let’s be honest here.  Anyone who doubts that and the fact that most of our casual understandings of love are silly, superficial, selfish, and counterfeit need look no further than our popular culture.  Certainly, the Church calls us—whether we have same-sex attraction or not—to ponder why we should even want any of that when we can have God, for God is Love.  Those with same-sex attraction in the Church are in good company.

Loyal son—-All that is needed is a crack in the door.  You are looking at just the beginning…. You sound as naive as all those good clerics and theologians that, in their trust, thought the aftermath of Vatican II would go as they intended, rather than become the destructive highjacking that, in fact, has placed God’s Church, and so many of its members, in spiritual jeopardy.  As far as your defense of Jenkins, you CAN’T be serious—-or paying any attention.  The Obama debacle (another example of Jenkins’ moral blindness) will live in infamy.  Get real “loyal son”: it’s about the money!

If I’m naive for believing the Bishop and the University when they quote the Catechism and take control of a situation (rather than allow the student group autonomy to become what you fear), then so be it.  But as someone who has lived and worked at the University, I know Her well, and trust in this action.  Again, what I find amazing is how no matter what ND does, certain people go out of their way to find fault.  This situation? “Oh, ND is just pretending to follow the magisterium” Suing over the HHS mandate?  Somehow these same authors found fault with that.  Again, the attitude of the “I’m more Catholic than you crowd” is amazing.

Let me guess:  Fr. Jenkins himself plans to give the inaugural sermon, challenging this group with “Chastity and Catholic Beliefs”—at the intermission of “The Vagina Monologues”?

Trebert,

All lust is disordered including heterosexual. The Catechism defines lust as disordered desire. Chastity is a gift of the Holy Spirit. The proper integration of sexuality in a person, body, mind, and spirit. A training in self-mastery and human freedom. Passions are neither good nor bad in themselves, but are judged on their integration with reason and will in acting them out.

There is a difference between genetic pre-disposition and genetic determinism. What one experiences and what one does.  For Catholic teaching to change, it would have to be proven that the LGBTQ people are in fact a different species of human when it comes to sex, or that pre-determined inclinations always lead to pre-determined specific sexual activity i.e. homogenital acts.

This has not been proven. Nobody is singling out gays. The sins against chastity are listed in the Catechism.

O. wallace,

The only thing I agree with Trebert is on being charitable. Explaining what the church teaches with charity, rather than name-calling like the opposition does.

I was happy to hear from ND mother defending the school. It sounded much more hopeful since the Obama debacle, but I don’t understand why they would not open a branch of COURAGE, a Roman Catholic group of people with SSA, who are struggling to live a chaste life in accordance with the Church’s teachings. I agree with those who think this could easily devolve into a pro-gay lifestyle, straight-bashing group. God bless you. Susan Fox http://christsfaithfulwitness.blogspot.com

Loyal son—-If you believe in the Catholicism of the crowd, you are in more trouble than you can imagine!

Ron - not sure where you’re going with that. I’m talking about the University helping kids who are struggling to live as faithful Catholics while fighting temptations and shock that there are people who still see fit to criticize that hope.

It is most surprising that some people have stated that ‘I am wrong about homosexuality ‘.  Should it not be said that the following worldwide recognized medical organizations are wrong instead?  Among them are:  The American Psychological Association, The American Academy f Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists, National Association of Social Workers, Child Welfare League of America, North American Council on Adoptable Children, etc., etc.,

To those who take exception to these recognized organizations it is best you take it up with them – not me I’m not the expert.  You have every right to express your beliefs in the Catholic Church, but charity and common sense suggests we first do some honest research.

The catechism is quite clear about separating the ‘act’ from the person.  But somehow we seem to be unable to separate the two, and today it has become a kind of hysteria reminiscent of the witch hunts.  Ask yourself what it has to do with our faith if we use it as a tool to condemn rather than a means of bringing healing and loving our neighbour? So great is this hysteria that it has resulted in deep divisions within nations, people and even families.
 
As a church teaching this hysteria has only a recent history.  In the Roman Catholic Church it began in earnest in the late eighties with the publication of the 1993 catechism administered through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – formerly the Office of the Inquisition. This same office has used its political influence at the U.N. by refusing to sign a declaration that decriminalizes homosexuality. To date the Vatican remains the only country(?) in the western world to do so.  In the meantime there remain many countries elsewhere where homosexuality is punishable with imprisonment, torture and even death.  Unfortunately, in North America the hysteria has resulted in much needless pain and suffering as well as numerous suicides.
     
Finally has anyone considered that if church teachings did not single out homosexuals we would not be having this conversation? 

It is most surprising that some people have stated that ‘I am wrong about homosexuality ‘.  Should it not be said that the following worldwide recognized medical organizations are wrong instead?  Among them are:  The American Psychological Association, The American Academy f Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists, National Association of Social Workers, Child Welfare League of America, North American Council on Adoptable Children, etc., etc.,

To those who take exception to these recognized organizations it is best you take it up with them – not me I’m not the expert.  You have every right to express your beliefs in the Catholic Church, but charity and common sense suggests we first do some honest research.

The catechism is quite clear about separating the ‘act’ from the person.  But somehow we seem to be unable to separate the two, and today it has become a kind of hysteria reminiscent of the witch hunts.  Ask yourself what it has to do with our faith if we use it as a tool to condemn rather than a means of bringing healing and loving our neighbour? So great is this hysteria that it has resulted in deep divisions within nations, people and even families.
 
As a church teaching this hysteria has only a recent history.  In the Roman Catholic Church it began in earnest in the late eighties with the publication of the 1993 catechism administered through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – formerly the Office of the Inquisition. This same office has used its political influence at the U.N. by refusing to sign a declaration that decriminalizes homosexuality. To date the Vatican remains the only country(?) in the western world to do so.  In the meantime there remain many countries elsewhere where homosexuality is punishable with imprisonment, torture and even death.  Unfortunately, in North America the hysteria has resulted in much needless pain and suffering as well as numerous suicides.
     
Finally has anyone considered that if church teachings did not single out homosexuals we would not be having this conversation?

It is most surprising that some people have stated that ‘I am wrong about homosexuality ‘.  Should it not be said that the following worldwide recognized medical organizations are wrong instead?  Among them are:  The American Psychological Association, The American Academy f Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists, National Association of Social Workers, Child Welfare League of America, North American Council on Adoptable Children, etc., etc.,

To those who take exception to these recognized organizations it is best you take it up with them – not me I’m not the expert.  You have every right to express your beliefs in the Catholic Church, but charity and common sense suggests we first do some honest research.
The catechism is quite clear about separating the ‘act’ from the person.  But somehow we seem to be unable to separate the two, and today it has become a kind of hysteria reminiscent of the witch hunts.  Ask yourself what it has to do with our faith if we use it as a tool to condemn rather than a means of bringing healing and loving our neighbour? So great is this hysteria that it has resulted in deep divisions within nations, people and even families.
As a church teaching this hysteria has only a recent history.  In the Roman Catholic Church it began in earnest in the late eighties with the publication of the 1993 catechism administered through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – formerly the Office of the Inquisition. This same office has used its political influence at the U.N. by refusing to sign a declaration that decriminalizes homosexuality. To date the Vatican remains the only country(?) in the western world to do so.  In the meantime there remain many countries elsewhere where homosexuality is punishable with imprisonment, torture and even death.  Unfortunately, in North America the hysteria has resulted in much needless pain and suffering as well as numerous suicides. It has created needless division within nations, people and many (Catholic) families. 
Finally has anyone considered that if church teachings did not single out homosexuals we would not be having this conversation?

“...then so be it” just might be the operative words!  However, you might be too close to the situation to see it clearly—-and dispassionately.  For my part, I stick with the “crack in the door” or “camel’s nose under the tent” analogy.  Personally, I don’t trust the Orthodoxy of Jenkins or the University for a minute when it comes to matters of Catholic faith and morals.  I just don’t believe that that’s what they’re about. (Their tact lies in the fact that the Catechism, as well as the Bible,can be selectively interpreted to support most any Cause, however deviate.)  I firmly believe if Notre Dame could drop its Catholic identity, it would in a “New York minute”.But it knows, only too well, the damage that that would cost in terms of money and prestige.  In the meantime it waits for the Catholic identity itself to change so it can operate in greater comfort.  (No doubt most of the Faculty considers itself “Progressive”, even among the dwindling number of Catholics.) My opinion: Notre Dame has become a secular university traipsing around in religious garb.  Check your history.  It all goes back to Land o’ Lakes and the Rockefeller Foundation—-and money.  At least they got more than 30 pieces of silver.

“The Bishop says its OK!” Yes, and look at the current lack of clarity in the Catholic Church on this issue. Really, you have to be out of your mind if you think something called a GLBT Support Group is going to be designed to help people live sex-free lives. Tellingly, nowhere in any statement I have read does anyone call homosexual acts a sin or a homosexual orientation as undesirable. You would never know from the write-ups that the CCC has very harsh words for it. I laugh when I read the problem with gay sex is its not open to life: if that is our argument, what about most of the couples who practice birth control. I guess they are just like gays, right? Brother. The war for moral truth right now is being waged both in personal lives and in rhetorical exchanges. On the latter front this episode clearly counts as a loss. I am waiting for them to invite Ellen as their first speaker. “Why Gay is OK”: I can see it now. As for Jenkins, he is transparent. As for the Bishop, good intentions don’t compensate for ignorant endorsements. I wonder how many orthodox Catholics who have kid struggling with SSA would want them attending a GLBT Support Group?

Father Jenkins is running with the buzzards during the week, and trying to fly with the eagles on Sunday!  When he appointed a council to review the gay and lesbian movement with regards to Notre Dame, he proved he has early onset dementia.  Here is a good analogy.  Benjamin Netanyahu giving Mahmoud Ahmadinejad an honorary degree from Hebrew University of Jerusalem is like Father Jenkins giving Obama an Honorary degree from Notre Dame.  Wait, it gets better.  Imagine Benjamin Netanyahu approving a Hezbollah organization to have offices next to Israel’s Prime Minister.  If anyone believes that Obama or left-wing organizations are not trying to destroy our Catholic beliefs and principles, you must be smoking dope in Washington.  As a graduate of Notre Dame, I was taught a very important rule that has a great influence on success.  It is simple, “you will become your environment”.  Father Jenkins is creating an environment that fosters anti-Catholic rhetoric.  Therefore, he must be trying to uproot the fundamental traditions of Catholicism.  I don’t fault Father Jenkins, I fault the Catholic organization as a whole for allowing one person to hijack the culture of a Catholic organization.  I love Notre Dame but not more than God.  Father Jenkins, follow Pope John Paul II philosophy instead of the radical environment you have fostered.  LIVE IN THE TRUTH!

Reading the comments I am reminded of a story that I heard on EWTN. It involved several Islamic exchange students who were attending a Catholic University in the Mid West. Prior to their arival, the students removed all crucifixes from the class rooms. Re: they didn’t want to offend the Islamic students. One day, long after the exchanged students arrived, a Moslem student asked one of the Catholic students-what happened to all the crucifixs that hung in the classrooms? The student replied” we removed them because we didn’t want to offend you. The Moslem student replied:We knew this was a Catholic University when we agreed to be exchange students. Likewise we expect you to be Catholic. Lastly if you came to our country as an exchanged student we would never remove our religious symbols to accommodate you. My point: Catholic Universities should be Catholic. There are gay people who, although they struggle, try to follow the churches’ teachings on this issue. Likewise they don’t believe in gay marriage. They expect The church and it’s institutions to be a beacon of truth and hope.

“Our Lady” loves ALL her children, gay or straight. As for Priests who molest children, Bishops who protect and defend them, and the Church that criticizes those who refuse to sweep THAT sin under the rug, well, she probably loves them, too. And, she would probably tell them to remove the beam from their own eyes before condemning young people who have the courage to say, “Yes, I’m gay.”

When I was a child in elementary school the good Xavierian Brother Gabriel told me that the Jesuits were a very special group of men and that they swore an unquestioning obedience to the Holy Father in Rome. What happened with that?

@Trebert - The church still holds a compassionate view towards homosexuals, and the current catechism’s wording is not substantially different, as I’ve already pointed out.

The problem arises when you associate compassion with prudent approval. It’s one thing to say that a homosexual commits a sin no different that that of the average teenage boy. However, it is a different matter when it comes to a Catholic university recognizing a public organization on campus simply because of it represents homosexuals. Would you then also support a “young masturbators” club that encourages its members not to masturbate? I doubt it, because support of the organization is akin to supporting the philosophy that “Everybody does it, so we need to accept it.”

Prudence is the issue, not homosexuality.

Spiro—

You should be aware that the V Monologues have not been presented at Notre Dame for several years. The production was moved off campus when the students were unable to find an academic department willing to sponsor it.

Susan Fox—

Courage is indeed a wonderful group, and there is a local chapter off campus with a CSC chaplain.  But Courage is intended as a confidential support group for students struggling with same-sex attraction.  The new organization at Notre Dame will be open to all students and will have a broader scope of activities than does Courage.

The most obvious answer is the likelihood that the good father is also gay - inactive or active!

Read Ralph Martins new book on who will or will not be saved.

Notre Dame is walking on verrrrrrrrrrrry thin ice

With all due respect, Father Wade, Ralph Martin is not the Pope. He is a Catholic trained theologian, who, in this case, has written an OP-ED book. We are not required by the Church to accept his teaching as dogma (or anyone’s, save the succession of Popes). Perhaps you agree with Mr. Martin’s opinions, but that doesn’t mean that all faithful are bound to them. I prefer to read what Pope’s have actually written in encyclicals, and educate my conscience accordingly.

It is still permitted, as a Catholic, to believe that there is a possibility of a hell with no one in it. You can’t even say that Hitler is in hell. In fact, it would be contrary to Church teaching to say “I know Hitler is suffering for all eternity,” because ONLY GOD knows the hearts of men. You can talk about probability all you want, but that’s it.

Seriously, on the day all this started I read about that day’s saint, Ambrose: “In 384 when Symmachus, the much-admired pagan prefect of Rome, petitioned the Western court to restore the Altar of Victory in the Roman senate-house, arguing that not by one path alone could the great secret of universal truth be attained, Ambrose successfully replied there was one such path, that of the Christians.”  Would not Doctor of the Church Ambrose have instructed Fr. Jenkins and his accommodating bishop, ‘We preach one clear, welcoming Faith.  We do not build confusing temples (subsects), thinking, ‘We’ll get THEM to come, and here we’ll evangelize THEM’?

Tom R said: “It is still permitted, as a Catholic, to believe that there is a possibility of a hell with no one in it.”

This is not true.  Sacred Scripture states explicitly that at least some people are in Hell.

The men of Sodom and Gomorrha, for instance, as St. Jude the Apostle tells us: “As Sodom and Gomorrha and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.” (Jude 1:7, DR Bible)

And Judas Iscariot is in Hell: “But woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed. It were better for him, if that man had not been born.” (Matthew 26:24)

What Christ said here is only true if Judas was damned.  If he went to Heaven, or even if he burned in Purgatory for billions of centuries, he would still eventually make it to Heaven, which would mean that it WAS better for him to be born, contrary to what Our Lord said.

Also: “Those whom you gave me have I kept: and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition: that the scripture may be fulfilled.” (John 17:12; see also Acts 1:25).

And Pope Pius II condemned the proposition that all Christians are saved (Denzinger 717).

Many saints also saw people in Hell in private revelations, such as Sr. Lucia of Fatima, who saw real human people burning in the flames. 

It’s sad that Catholics have imbibed this false idea that “Hell might be empty,” because it is false, and the Church has never endorsed or taught it.

Please read Bishop Kevin Rhoades statement before you start circling the wagons of righteous indignation.  I trust Bishop Rhoades on this one.

It’s easy to assume that someone (Fr. Jenkins in this case)  is acting out of some secret agenda, “speaking with forked tongue,” etc when they make a decision you feel is bad.  (And You may be right, and have good reason, to be worried. That’s besides the point.)  However, you have no right to outright assume that Fr. Jenkins is acting for the purposes of directly subverting the University or the Church.  You do not know what is going on in his head.  You do not know about any of the interactions Fr. Jenkins has had with this group or how the group will act in the future.

You have a right to be worried,and to think Fr. Jenkins has made a bad decision, but you have no right or evidence to assume that Fr. Jenkins is acting out of anything other than goodwill for the Church or those individuals involved. You are not in his head, nor do you know the state of his soul.

I agree with the above comment.  You should read the Bishop’s statement.  He seems to be on top of this, concerned, yet handling this in a way that respects all involved.

Father Jenkins, sometimes you can be so open-minded that your brains fall out.

Michael,

Hypocrites we all are self-diagnoses is the key. The church has sinners, sinners can repent. Those who claim there is no sin, will be lost.

“Proud with their sin”? It’s not a sin to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgeneder or queer. It may be a sin to have sex outside of marriage, but it is NOT a sin to be who and what you are. Shame on you.

John P,

The human mind can easily imagine an activity and try it out. The result will be pleasure or distaste. We might be pre-disposed towards something, but this does not meant that we are born with these objects pre-determined. It would have to be proven that pre-determined inclinations always result in pre-determined actions such as homogenital acts. The difference between genetic pre-disposition and genetic determinism.

This is one of the most ignorant articles I have ever read.  The spirit of Notre Dame is all about community.  We are a family here (as cheesy and cliche as that might sound - it’s true.)  The students of ND have been petitioning for the recognition of an GLBTQ group on campus for years now.  As an ND student, I could not be more proud of Father Jenkins’s courageous progressive decision.  I take more pride in being a student here everyday as the ND community works towards finding truth, love, honor, and success.  Love thee, Notre Dame.

The concern is whether or not these groups will hold to Catholic teachings, in a Catholic school.

As to the origins of homosexuality, I am surprised by the total refusal to even mention let alone take seriously the thesis asserted in Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Chapter One.

Mark,

The argument being made is that it applies to gay-gang rape rather than to consensual sexual acts. Even if this were the case, scripture still condemns all lust.  Jesus restored marriage to between a man and a woman, in the Genesis model, and said marriage was the only place for sexual activity.

ND student—-Community sounds nice.  And, Service sounds nice too.  But when these are based on PRIDE and SUBSTITUTION, they lose their worthiness. Group narcissism and a crowd mentality threaten the individual’s proper attitude to his God and his true Christian mission, ie., “working out his salvation, in fear and trembling”. Notre Dame loves to talk about “family”.  I just wonder how much it has done in recent years to support the REAL family, that unit which the Church truly needs to grow and survive.  It appears to me that Notre Dame’s vision (much publicized) is so broad that it is more political, and self-serving, than supportive of the heart of Christian Culture, the nuclear family.  This Notre Dame “family” of “truth, love, honor and success”, OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH, self-contained and self determined,  originating in South Bend, Indiana, sounds worse than “cheezy and cliche”; it sounds downright arrogant and, from a Catholic perspective, heretical.

If homosexuality was caused by a hormonal imbalance how simple it would be to cure or would that then become a “hate crime”? Could women then decide to have an abortion based on the health of the child? Oh, what a conundrum for the progressives!  Women’s rights over gay rights.

When I read that, I thought exactly the same thing. Remove Jenkins, or become a secular institution. It’s really that simple.

I have read many of the comments about this issue. There must be chances of babies being born with these tendencies; genetics are part of our life, babies can “inherit” personality, and other genetics from their
parents.
Several years ago, a female member of my bowling league, who was married and had children, suddenly decided that she wanted to be a lesbian. Did she “inherit” that genetic from her Mother??
Several of these comments mention “testostarone”.  Have any of you seen the ads pushing a drug that will enhance a males testostarone?
If this is true——will it create homosexuals, lesbians, bisexual, etc.??
Perhaps we can develope a drug that will reduce or eliminate these
genetics.
I do not want to see these people segregated. I served in WWII and there were men in the service of our country with these tendencies. They were
not ignored; just asked by the person they had approached, to go on their way.
They very likely performed their duties as well as any of the “straight” soldiers. 

Loring

I do not want to post a comment.
Loring

This priest should have been gone yesterday! AnyCatholic Institutionthat supports this kind of nonsense needs to have Catholic removed! ENOUGH ALREADY!

God Bless

How long is it going to take the Bishop of the Diocese, who has the governing authority over priestly faculties, to sit down and have a serious talk with Father Jenkins?  Father Jenkins has shown total disrepect for the USCCB over the years, has allowed the “Vagina Monlogues”(a vulgar ditribe on lesbianism) to be performed for severval years.  Unfortunately, behind it all, not just at Notre Dame, but also at over half our Catholic Universities and Colleges the refusal of the Diocesan Bishops to enforce the “Mandatum” from Blessed John Paul II promulgation of Ex Corde Ecclesiae.  According to the Studdents for Morality on Campus we have 112 Catholic Colleges and Universities with gay and lesbian clubs or societies operating on campus.  Why are we mimimic society rather than transforming it by the Teachings of our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith.  We need Bishops who can walk in the footsteps of St. Augustine with the moral courage of St. John Fisher. We have have had and have excellent role models in Bl. John Paul II and in Pope Benedict XVI.  In this “Year of Faith” will it be that or will Jesus words haunt us; “When the Son of Man comes will He find Faith on earth?”

Deacon John M. Edgerton
Tarpon Springs, Florida

By the Bishop’s logic, stating that the homosexual relations are sinful covered all Catholic obligation.  So I can say to my son, “relations with your girlfriend in our house is sinful.”, let them sleep together, and all is well because I stated the teaching?!  That isn’t any Church teaching I grew up with and it is not a teaching Jesus advocated. I would be in a state of sin for letting it take place in my home. They would be in a state of sin for sleeping together and dishonoring their mother and father.  The university is allowing a support group to support the disorderd inclination and temptation to sin! They are in a corporate state of sin for allowing the group on campus and for the forseeable damage to students and others on campus. They are enabling and I would go so far as to say preying on vulnerable souls who are counting on them for direction.  This is ludicrous and not even a little subtle attempt to loose the sin of homosexuality.

Pat Archbold - Great article and as a gay catholic I agree with your article.  I struggle everyday with who I am, but formost I am a child, catholic child of the most high Jesus Christ, therefore, marriage between the same sex is a sin, and I dont agree with it. We as Catholics must adhere to the fathers will and the Popes direction.  There is no cafeteria catholics, etiher you are or you arent.

Corey—-Your courage, honesty and faith are commendable and worthy of great admiration.  May you always be open to God’s grace and remain strong in your faith, which is all that really matters.

Tom R, CCC 2358 was corrected because it erroneously implied that sexual inclinations are immutable.
http://www.scborromew.org/ccc/para/2358.htm
“This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.”
(It is important to note that this statement was written during a period of Time when disordered sexual inclinations of any nature that sexually objectified the human person were recognized to be destructive.)

As the mother of a daughter who struggles with a same-sex attraction, I know my daughter has an emotional problem as the result of a perfect storm. It is because I Love my daughter, as I Love all my children, that I want her to develop healthy and Holy relationships and friendships that are grounded in authentic Love. I have great respect for Father Jenkins and believe that he desires to address this difficult issue in light of our Catholic Faith, and Bishop Rhoades will be a great asset to ensure that the guidance this organization receives will be consistent with our Catholic Faith. I respectfully request that this group view one another as God desires them to be, not as objects of sexual desire, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transexual, polysexual…but as men and women, called to Holiness, and thus communion with God, to reflect authentic Love. For this reason, the erroneous document Always Our Children, which is in direct conflict with the teaching of The Catholic Church in regards to those who are struggling with a disordered sexual inclination, should be permanently removed from the U.S.C.C.B. Website, as it continues to cause confusion for those who are attempting to overcome unwanted sexual desires.

@Michael
Cardinal George Pell (Archbishop of Sydney) said the following, and I quote:
“We Catholics generally believe that there is a hell. I hope nobody is there. I certainly believe in a place of purification. I think it will be like getting up in the morning and you throw the curtains back and the light is just too much. God’s light would be too much for us. But I believe on behalf of the innocent victims in history that the scales of justice should work out. And if they don’t, life is radically unjust, the law of the jungle prevails.”

Why did he “hope nobody was there” if we wasn’t allowed to? He was not rebuked for saying this because he was not wrong. You have interpreted a scripture passage as literal that may or may not be meant to be literal. When the Church teaches that the passage is meant to be taken literally, I will do so, but as of now, no one that I know of can say with certainty that ANYONE is hell, because no one knows the hearts of men except God, and only he can pass judgment.

@Nancy D.
As far as I can tell, I posted the same quote you did, with the same wording, except that I posted the whole of 2358, not just one sentence. Are you saying the preceding sentence has been removed? I don’t believe so.

Don’t forgot this quote:

Father Jenkins said “I am confident that this multifaceted, pastoral approach represents the next step in advancing our efforts toward this aspiration for our GLBTQ students.”

I don’t care WHAT anyone SAYS is the founding documents for this group, unless it is actually tied to an official organization of helping Catholics come to terms with living a celebate lifestyle (if their self-understanding is homosexual), or to learn to leave the lifestyle, then, from experience, and lots of it, the group’s ultimate agenda, in practice, WILL BE nothing short of full-acceptance of the gay lifestyle at ND and to rubberstamp it for all. 

I dont’ know Father Jenkins, but if his agenda is off-the-Catholic-mark, to put it mildly, as appears to be, don’t doubt this for one minute that this subtle ploy is nothing less than underminding the Catholic teachings.  I pray Bishop Rhodes stays connected, monitors and corrects where necessary!

Tom R—-It would seem to me that God would be pretty inefficient if He created a place that, in effect, is useless.  Where does that leave Satan?  And the Fall?  More phantasms?  And who is it that continuously mentions Hell in the Gospels?  Is Jesus trying to play ‘mind games’ with the Jews?

The denial of this cornerstone of the Faith is ridiculous! And the denial of 2000 years of Tradition and Scripture, itself, only demonstrates the pride and arrogance of the Present Age.

Why does modern man try to complicate Christianity beyond belief? (Because, for us, action/ material need precedes belief?)  Remember the original disciples, for the most part, were simple people.  I think if Christ were given the choice between the simple man and the “deep thinker”, he would take the simple man every time.  Children.  Remember, it is for such as these that the Kingdom is made.

It is not a denial of the Faith to hope, or even believe, that no one is in hell. Why do you sidestep the statement of Cardinal Pell, who hopes that no one is there? You don’t address that precisely because it doesn’t make sense to you. However, there is no teaching of the Catholic Church that requires us to believe that anyone is in hell. You are certainly allowed (I would actually say encouraged) to believe that hell has a lot of damned souls in it, but you are not required to.

As to where that leaves Satan, how should I know? He was not a mortal, damned for all eternity, he was a being not subject to death. It is possible that his choice could be eternal, I just don’t know. You are correct that Jesus mentions hell in the Gospel. However, Paul says he died “once, for all.” What does that mean? Is that a mind game? Did the resurrection of Jesus accomplish the objective of saving all of mankind, or not? If not, did God fail in his purpose of sacrificing his only son? That can’t be.

We are all sinners. You may believe there are sinners who, in fact, have made the eternal choice. I hope, like Cardinal Pell, that is not the case. I’m allowed to, and will continue to do so unless someone with the authority to do so tells me I may not. That someone is the Pope. I haven’t seen him comment on these forums.

No Christian should be against gays, etc., we are called to love all…!!! 1Cor. 8:1…‘KNOWLEDGE’ puffs up, but love builds up…All Christians should support CHASTITY, inside and out of marriage…!!! Same sex attraction is common…what we do about it is not common…!!! Love God and be known by Him…He will lead you to TRUTH…!!!

Tom R—-It somewhat baffles me that people, in this case, Cardinal Pell feel a need to declare that they “hope no one is in Hell”  Personally, I think that that is between God and the individual.  What I hope is that all come to believe in Jesus Christ and His Church—-and, I might add, live in accordance with that belief.

Yes Christ died for all.  In effect, He opened the gates of Heaven for all to enter and share Eternity with the triune God.  But that does not mean that all will take advantage of his redemptive act. Salvation is conditional.  And man, after all, has free will.  This is another cornerstone of our Faith which stretches back 2000 years. —-Oh, no God didn’t fail; but, perhaps there will be men who do.

Ron A.
I’ll take that as, “Well, an archbishop said that, and I’m baffled by it.” Do you have any authoritative encyclical on which to base the fact that Catholics are not allowed to believe in a hell with no one in it?

I am confident that if the real reason for this group was to help homosexuals live as faithful Catholics, there would have been outrage and opposition to the group from the faculty.  The absence of such outrage is perhaps the most indicative signal of what type of group this is going to be.

@Trebert

So you are saying that gayness is a disease that needs to be cured?  If so I hope medical science finds a cure for it very soon.

Tom R—-What I take as authoritative is the admonition of Paul: We must all work out our salvation IN FEAR AND TREMBLING.  Encyclicals???  Who needs encyclicals? I refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1034 & 1035.  Also, count up the number of times Jesus refers to Hell in the New Testament!  Now THAT would be “MUCH ado about nothing”!

By the way, I’m not baffled by WHAT the Cardinal said, I’m baffled by his NEED to say it.  And, I question why.

Ron A.
I can believe in a hell with no one in it. That’s why Pell hopes for such a thing, and why the catechism doesn’t mention it in 1034 and 1035, which I have taken the liberty of quoting in their entirety:
IV. HELL
****
1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: “He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.“612 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.613 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”

1034 Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.614 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he “will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,“615 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!“616

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.“617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
****
Thus, it’s possible (perhaps doubtful, but possible) that no one has met the conditions that will merit the eternal fire. I fervently hope no one has, as does Cardinal Pell. THAT’s why he felt the “need to say it.” It would be inhuman not to have such hope. By the way, let’s scrutinize the passage quoted in 1033:” Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” By that standard, St Paul would be in hell - he was a mass murderer. Note that the scripture passage referred to doesn’t mention anything about repentance for murder. That’s clearly not the case.

There is no such thing as “Catholic accreditation” at the University to be taken away.  So at least write knowledgeably.  Who cares what ND does?  It is but a very, very, very few students that attend the school anyway.  Why not just find a College that suits your needs and focus on it?  ND isn’t going to change because of what a Bishop or a Blogger says, so just ignore it.

And by the way, you posters who are referring to the Melinda Henenberger columns ought to be careful who you are lying down with.  She is probably the most hyper-feminist, pro-abortion writer at the Washington Post.  And that no small achievement!

Tom R, you quoted the erroneous statement. I referred you to the corrected one and explained in my statement why CCC#2358 was corrected.

Tom R—-It’s clear to me that we’re out of sync on this issue.  I guess, as in most subjects in theology, it ultimately comes down to faith.  It does seem to me, however, to be a subject of immense importance.  I don’t think we want to be wrong on this one.  And it goes far beyond the personal—-think Fatima Secrets. As for me, considering that God is a God of Justice, as well as a God of Mercy, I’ll stick with that great thinker Blaise Pascal and his “Wager”.

@Nancy D: Got it, thanks for the correction. It is significant, and will cause me to rethink this issue.

Ron A.—Fatima Secrets?  Leave that to the carnival barkers.  Pascal’s Wager?  Now that’s one to live by!

Ron A.
I’ll stay in synch with an acknowledged conservative leader of the Church, who hopes, as I do, that “no one is there”. Thanks for the discussion.

At Ron A. (and moderators),
Please delete my last post. It is not in the spirit of civil discourse, and I apologize. I got caught in the moment. Again, to Ron and the moderators, my sincerest apologies.

To ND student: Spiritually speaking the LGBT students want to go into a burning building.  Some will make it out. Some will not.  Your family member is taking an eternal life-threatening step trying to reinforce their disordered attraction rather than embracing the life-saving opportunities all around them on campus.  They have rejected Jesus’ promise that “Whatever you ask in my name, believing that you have received it, I will do for you if it is in accord with my Father’s will.”  They also do not understand the nature of sin.  Sin is easiest overcome if it is rejected early and outright.  That is a spiritual truth.  The Catholic College president has an obligation to their souls.  He is putting them DEEPER into identification with this sin by allowing this group.  I can’t imagine a scenario where Christ helped soomeone identify more firmly with the sinful parts of their nature.  He showed Matthew and Mary Magdalene that they COULD overcome anything with His help. The same with all those He healed.  It seems Fr. Jenkins doubts.  God is the answer.  His ways are not man’s ways. They are much better. Fr. Jenkins is choosing man’s way it seems.  If your family member wants to make a self-destructive move, like running into that burning building do you help them make it or say “Sorry, if you are going to choose self-destruction I will not make it easier for you.”  If what is written by Pat Archbold is true, Fr. Jenkins action builds the burning building and sets it on fire for them to run into.

According to Christ, to look at someone as an object of lust is, in fact, a violation of God’s Commandment regarding lust and the sin of adultery. I believe Father Jenkins desire is to help create an environment where men and women can learn to develop relationships and friendships that respect the inherent Dignity of the human person, although in order to be respectful, we cannot identify persons according to sexual orientation, to begin with.

In order to have an inclination towards an act that is ordered to that which is Good for the sake of the other, one must begin by recognizing that any act, including any sexual act, that does not respect the inherent Dignity of the human person, who from the moment of conception, has been created in The Image of God, equal in Dignity, while being complementary as male or female, is not an act of Love, and thus is not a reflection of Love.

ND Student - Thank you for posting in support of Fr. Jenkins and Notre Dame.  You make me and my fellow alums proud.  Don’t lose that spirit!

Tom R:

“Why did he [Cardinal Pell] “hope nobody was there” if we wasn’t allowed to?”

I don’t know why Cardinal Pell hopes that Hell is empty, since no one who is familiar with the Scriptural and papal teachings which I cited can legitimately hope for such things.  Cardinal Pell probably isn’t the best source to go on these questions, since in his recent debate with Richard Dawkins the cardinal stated that atheists can go to Heaven, whereas St. Paul (Hebrews 11:6, Romans 1:20), the author of the Psalms (Psalm 52/53:1), and Our Lord Himself (Mark 16:16) all deny this.

“He was not rebuked for saying this because he was not wrong.”

No, he possibly wasn’t rebuked because many members of the hierarchy are far more liberal than Cardinal Pell and therefore might agree with his error.  Further, it’s simply unreasonable to think that if something goes unrebuked by a pope then it must be OK.  John Paul II kissed the Koran (a book which blasphemes Our Savior) and asked St. John the Baptist to protect Islam, but Benedict XVI never rebuked him for doing so.  Following your reasoning, since these actions weren’t rebuked, that must mean doing those things was OK (which is obviously false).

“You have interpreted a scripture passage as literal that may or may not be meant to be literal.”

TomR, Christ said that at the Last Judgment, He will tell the damned to depart into everlasting fire (Matthew 25).  Was that just a metaphor?  Was He using terrifying descriptions of people burning in an eternal fire just to joke around?  Did every saint, Doctor, Father of the Church, preconciliar pope, ecumenical council, and the entire Catholic world for 1900+ years…did all of them get it wrong?  Really?  Do you really think that Judas Iscariot is now frolicking hand in hand with Francis of Assisi in Heaven?  Do you think that our filthy, immoral world, filled with baby-slaughtering, porn-addicted, contracepting, blaspheming, unbelieving pagans…do you really think that all of these people are on the straight and narrow path that leads to Heaven, which Our Lord said few would even find (let alone persevere in) (cf. Matthew 7:14)?

If you believe that, then I don’t know what I can say to you.  If every saint in Heaven and 2,000 years of Catholic teaching can’t convince you, I certainly won’t be able to. 

” When the Church teaches that the passage is meant to be taken literally, I will do so”

The Church has taught so.  As I already mentioned, Pope Pius II CONDEMNED the proposition that all Christians are saved.  It is CONDEMNED to believe that all Christians make it to Heaven, which means the opposite (some go to Hell) is true.  Further, I believe the Council of Trent taught that when the Fathers of the Church are unanimous on a point of faith or morals, their consensus is a witness of Tradition and therefore an infallible point of Catholic Faith.  And I don’t know of a single Church Father who believes that Hell might be empty.  I think you’ll actually find that most think that the majority of men are eternally lost, which is various saints (St. Alphonsus, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Leonard of Port Maurice, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Louis de Montfort, St. Anthony Mary Claret, etc.) seemed to believe. 

It makes more sense to believe that all of these saints, who ALL believed that people are certainly in Hell, had a better understanding of Catholic teaching than those who think Hell might be empty.

God creates people as heterosexuals. There are NO studies that prove the hypothesis that people with disordered sexual appetites were born that way. It is a behavior which develops during early childhood development due to an incorrect patterning after the wrong role model and sometimes attachments to objects, which is why those with disordered sexual inclinations claim that as far back as they can remember they always felt that way.

God created us male and female, to live in relationship as husbands, wives, fathers ,mothers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters…, we were not ordered to live in relationship according to our sexual inclinations or our sexual orientation, which would be a violation of God’s own Commandment regarding lust and the sin of adultery. There are many factors that contribute to the formation of disordered inclinations, including disordered sexual inclinations, and not all theses factors occur during early childhood. For example, who can deny that the contraception mentality that sexually objectifies the human person and thus promotes promiscuity is not a major contributor to the acceptance of certain acts that demean the inherent Dignity of the human person?

You’re welcome, Andrew. 

None of us know the truth about what is right, sinful, or what God wants for us.  We’re all still trying to figure it out.  But this is the way it is…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlVBg7_08n0

Say I’m young, naive, and this pop-culture video is seriously misguided or whatever you will but, I think this video evokes strong emotions and realities of society.  It’s not easy being GLBTQ.  These students need support.

@Michael,
We are not going to progress. My thoughts on what purgation from a merciful God entails are so different from yours that it isn’t really worthy of further discourse. I hope no one is in Hell, and I’m allowed to, as is Cardinal Pell. You, as far as I know, are not in a position to correct either Cardinal Pell or myself on matters of theology. We just disagree, and that’s that.

@KT
There may be a study that supports the notion that homosexuality is epi-genetic. http://io9.com/5967426/scientists-confirm-that-homosexuality-is-not-genetic—but-it-arises-in-the-womb
The entire study will appear online at The Quarterly Review of Biology later this week and go by the title, “Homosexuality as a consequence of epigenetically canalized sexual development.”

Since this is an unpublished study, at this point, I would await seeing the study at the end of the week. No one knows what it really says, yet.

Are you suggesting that genes are responsible for our sexual inclinations and thus anyone who engages in sexual acts that are demeaning and do not respect the Dignity of the human person does so because of genetics?

Certainly not. The statement was made that there are no known studies that demonstrate that someone is born gay. I said, there MAY be such a study, but we don’t know, because it’s not been published, although will be very soon. The data have to be reviewed by competent scientists before anyone can know the value of the study.

Even the current version of the catechism (thanks again for your correction) states:  “Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained,” so I think the study does merit scrutiny.

If science provides reasonable evidence (presumably in the aforesaid paper), that the cause of homosexuality in some of the population is due to epigenetic, gestational events, we should ignore that evidence, and say it’s wrong, because the Church says so? I’m guessing the answer must be yes, but accepting such an answer goes against my scientific inclination. I’m a chemist by training - we’re trained to believe data that explains the facts. Sometimes we’re wrong, and a better model emerges, but it’s always based on the data available.

Posted by ND Student on Tuesday, Dec 11, 2012 12:40 PM (EDT):

You’re welcome, Andrew.

None of us know the truth about what is right, sinful, or what God wants for us.  We’re all still trying to figure it out.  But this is the way it is…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlVBg7_08n0

Say I’m young, naive, and this pop-culture video is seriously misguided or whatever you will but, I think this video evokes strong emotions and realities of society.  It’s not easy being GLBTQ.  These students need support.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No person must be “GLBTQ”. Those are contrived political labels. No person should apply such labels to themselves.

“Certainly not.” It is important to note that from the moment of conception, we exist in relationship as a son or daughter, not according to sexual orientation.

What we do know, is that although there are various types and degrees of disordered inclinations, some more difficult to overcome than others, we do have, with The Grace of God, the ability to overcome any type of disordered inclination if we desire to develop healthy and Holy relationships that are grounded in authentic Love, and thus are respectful of the inherent Dignity of the human person.

ND student, Andrew ignores the teaching and just says good for you sticking up for your president.  Do you see that?  He isn’t interested in admitting to the Truth of the Church teaching or countering something he thinks is incorrect, he is just ignoring it all.  That isn’t a wise course. There IS a truth and YOU have an obligation to seek it out and learn it. God HAS told us how He expects us to behave and it is not a mystery. Christ’s teaching is in the Bible and also in Church tradition.  Where did you ever get the idea we don’t know what He expects of us or what is sin?  Three of His apostles speak about the sin of homosexual relations and they are very clear.  Yes, it is difficult to be different.  Now are you going to help keep them bound or help set them free?  Forming a group that supports homosexual relations and the lie that they can never overcome this or be happy without it is not only heretical to Catholic teaching, it is not loving or kind or compassionate or at all helpful on their journey of faith.  We all have crosses and this cross is no greater than many, many others.  We need to give each other the courage and faith and hope to keep embracing and walking toward the One whose love is all healing, Jesus Christ. If you want to form a student group that encompasses all kinds of students who want to support each other on the journey to God, that would be great and hopefully they will find they have much more to offer than their sexuality, but if these kids have walked away from anything that might ask them to grow and change, they have walked away like the prodigal son and we shouldn’t be helping them live their “life of dissipation” (as Christ put it), but looking on the horizon for them to turn back to us.  Please don’t get caught up in the emotional side of things. The favorite tactic of the enemy is to use passions. The passions don’t lead us to truth. They lead us to bad decisions.

Back off Pam - You don’t know anything about me and you should be ashamed of yourself for making a judgement on my motivations. 

You say:

“Forming a group that supports homosexual relations and the lie that they can never overcome this or be happy without it is not only heretical to Catholic teaching, it is not loving or kind or compassionate or at all helpful on their journey of faith.”

Who said the group supports homosexual relations?  That’s right, nobody did.  You don’t know me, you don’t know ND Student, you don’t know what the new group’s plans are, you don’t know Fr. Jenkins, yet you feel free to act as if you are an authority on all things you don’t know a wit about.  It’s partially not your fault.  We’ve developed this blogosphere where no one knows each other by name any longer - no one has met each other - yet we feel free to foist our ill-informed judgement on all manners of people and situations.

I chose to comment to ND Student out of respect for him as a grown up and a person of dignity and intelligence.  I suggest you take stock of yourself and see if you have the capacity to do likewise.

Pam—-A very thoughtful, loving and well articulated post.  I would only add that most of the great thinkers throughout the history of Western Civilization—-many not even Christian—- would certainly dispute the statement: “None of us know the truth about what is right, sinful….”  And this certainty would be based on the recognition of a “Natural Law”.  That, however, is probably not a concept much discussed at Notre Dame anymore.  That is, not since 1968.

To the posters who lament that the Bishop isn’t “taking charge” of Notre Dame or other Catholic Universities.

1)  The Bishop has NO authority over the University of Notre Dame or other schools that are sponsored or owned by Religious Orders.  He can’t take away their right to call themselves Catholic, and he certainly can’t shut them down.

2)  Do yourself a favor and actually read Ex Corde and the Mandatum.  The Mandatum requires that a teacher of Catholic theology not teach “as Catholic” that which is in disagreement with the Church.  It doesn’t mean a teacher can’t disagree with Catholic teaching, just that he can’t mislead on what the Church itself says.

Ron A. - how many classes have you attended at Notre Dame since 1968?

Andrew—-With all due respect, that’s a silly question.

Andrew, “Back off?”  Hit a nerve, did I? I didn’t judge your motivations, I highlighted what you left out. And it has already been established in the article that the group is “supporting” and promoting acceptance of the lifestyle - those “out and proud with their sin.”  What your motives were in responding to ND are known to God.  In wisdom, ND has to consider all the possible motives that may have influenced you and weigh your praise accordingly. No I won’t “back off” but I do forgive you.

Ron A. - it is a rhetorical question to a silly statement

Pam - the term “out and proud” is nowhere to be found in the ND statements.  That is something made up by this homophobic blogger.  No where and in no way does ND state to be in support of the “lifestyle.”  In FACT, what ND DOES say is “...share Church teaching and encourage thoughtful campus dialogue.”  SHARE CHURCH TEACHING - get it?  I believe in dealing with the truth.  Try and go to the ND statements and think for yourself.

Establish a new support and service student organization for GLBTQ students and their allies that will produce activities consistent with Notre Dame’s Catholic allegiance and commitments. Though not a club or a political advocacy group, the organization will be open to any student.
Launch a new advisory committee composed of designated undergraduate and graduate students, staff and faculty, to replace the Core Council and provide guidance to the vice president for student affairs on questions, concerns and needs of students in the Notre Dame community who identify as GLBTQ.
Appoint a full-time student development staff member who will oversee awareness and education programs for all students that will emphasize Notre Dame’s goal of inclusion, share Church teaching and encourage thoughtful campus dialogue. This individual will participate as a member of the new advisory committee and serve as a liaison between GLBTQ students and campus offices that already provide support, such as the Gender Relations Center, Campus Ministry, the University Counseling Center and the Institute for Church Life. The staff member also will serve as the appointed adviser of the new student organization and work closely with its elected student leaders, and meet regularly with selected theological and pastoral consultants. The hiring process for this position will begin immediately, and student leaders will play a role in the selection.

As someone who respects Father John and believes he only desires that young men and young women, as sons and daughters of Notre Dame, be viewed for who they are in the light of God’s Love, I respectfully submit that because we know Christ would never refer to any person as an object of sexual desire, please refrain from referring to any person as if they were the object of a sexual inclination, even if they insist on identifying themselves or someone else as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transexual, polysexual… for to do so, demeans the inherent Dignity of the human person, who, from the moment of conception, has been created in The Image of God, equal in Dignity, while being complementary as male and female, to reflect Love.

Andrew, You can not seem to dialog without the judging you claim others are doing. As a Blogger for the National Catholic Register, Mr. Archbold is probably held to some standard.  While the statement is clearly geared to shock value, I will give him the benefit of the doubt on whether he researched it enought to make such a statement. And Homophobic is a word made up by homosexuals. I have never liked it.  It is a word meant to put down anyone who sees the sin in the sin. As to that thinking for myself thing, some things jump out in your statements (assume they aren’t Notre Dame’s because they aren’t in quotes).  Since the onslaught of the liberal agenda I have taken to reading things more critically, taking note of not only what is said but how it is said and what isn’t said.  For instance here are some things that jump out at me: “GLBTQ and their allies”  HUH?  Allies in what? Who are their enemies? What’s the war? It’s a Catholic University - as in universal.  Are we dividing or uniting here?  Notre Dame’s “Catholic allegience and commitments”  HUH? Sounds like a very watered down version of Catholic identity and its corresponding beliefs and duties.  “emphasize Notre Dame’s goal of inclusion” HUH? Danger Will Robinson!!!  Including who or what? Including Satan? Including all his minions? Hopefully including those who believe the teaching of the Catholic Church unless your inclusion is the same as Boston’s? Again it’s a CATHOLIC university.  All are included who don’t exclude themselves.  “Thoughtful campus dialogue” of what?  How we don’t really believe Church teaching because it makes some people sad and feelings are really all that matters or because we don’t really know it well enough to know what a tremendous treasure we posess, capable of overcoming all sinful inclinations?  “campus offices that ALREADY provide support (four listed)”  HUH? Are we so solicitous of all groups on campus or have we an idol here? Five groups for one element of campus is ALOT! These things raise alot of questions that should concern every devout Catholic who loves Jesus and their faith.

Andrew—-Quite the opposite.  Yours was a silly response to a rhetorical statement.  And I sense you recognized that.  Hence your response.

And because my statement was rhetorical, I’ll continue.  For clarification.  I come from a Notre Dame family.  My father went to Notre Dame, as did I.  My oldest son also went there and my oldest daughter would have, had we been able to afford two children attending at the same time.  Instead, she chose a better school.  So, let me just say, I have had a very strong interest and concern for Notre Dame for many years.

Trust me when I say I could write a book about the collapse of Catholicism at Notre Dame since the late 60s.  I’m not suggesting that anyone would read it; but, I could write it.  That said, this blog is not the proper place to elaborate as I might.  So just A FEW SALIENT POINTS which you, no doubt, will disagree with. When was the Land O’ Lakes conference?  1967?  This was a real opportunity for Hesburgh to show some courageous Catholic leadership for his school, for other Catholic colleges and universities, that certainly must have held him in esteem, and for the Church at large—-at a time when it needed support badly.  Instead, he flinched!  He, in effect, set up his own little magisterium, turned the governance of the University over to the laity and flung the doors open wide to Lyndon Johnson’s government money.  But not without cost! (The government can be a demanding creditor.)  And then, subsequently, there was the Rockefeller money.  (This is a huge story which can’t be developed here.)  Suffice it to say, the Rockefeller Foundation was a leading proponent of birth control and eugenics.  So Notre Dame was gracious enough to host conferences for both the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations. The results of this support, I believe, have much to do with the great divide in the American Church today.  (Speaking of divide—- I won’t even broach the Progressive’s spin of Vatican ll, N.D.‘s involvement, and the horrific aftermath of that!)

With the lay board and its secular perspective, money has become even more important that ever.  Non-catholic professors have become the norm.  And, although the trappings are there, religion has taken a back seat.  The invite and honor to Obama is illustrative of the new Notre Dame.  And there’s much more…dissident theology professors (like the department dean), openly atheistic theology profs, queer festivals, vagina dialogues….

Notre Dame has gone big on this concept of Service.  I wonder if this isn’t a palliative for them.  Because they have lost the sense of holiness which, from an individual standpoint, to be authentically Christian, must always precede service. To me, Notre Dame HAS lost its soul—-and either hasn’t come to grips with that or recognizes it would cost it far too much to admit it.  Either scenario is dishonest.

“Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”  Mt 19:23 Methinks what applies to individuals applies to universities.  One of the resulting dangers: PRIDE. And Notre Dame has a surplus of that!

Matthew 5:28

We have become so conditioned that we no longer realize that referring to a human person as an object of sexual desire (GLBTQ) is a sin, to begin with.

Any act, including any sexual act, that does not respect the personal and relational essence of the human person, created in The Image of God, as a reflection of God’s Love, is not an act of Love. God created us to live in relationship as husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters…,

Such is the language of Love, from The Beginning.

A prior poster is correct in rejecting the concept of the self-labeling of people according to their sinful sexual cravings. God created us male or female and nothing else - not bisexual, not homosexual, not transsexual. These are all sinful behaviors, NOT identities, that reject His plan for us. Do we see any other group of people that commit sins of Lust, such as adulterers, claiming that this is their “identity” and clamoring to have an organization at Notre Dame that will pamper them in their sin and smooth it all over, maybe even help them to commit the sin by way of false compassion?

Catholics have heard so many times that only the homosexual, bisexual, etc. ACT is sinful. In the Confiteor in my 1961 Missal it reads, “I confess to Almighty God…that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.” It is very clear that acts (deeds) are not the only way to sin. Doesn’t it take a lot of dwelling on sinful thoughts to embrace an identify that is sinful and have pride in it?

According to a prior poster, the Catholic group Courage which helps those struggling with sin remain chaste is already available to Notre Dame students. This new organization appears to be the camel’s nose under the tent to soften students up to the sexual perversion agenda.

What if all of the GLBT student came out in Catholic owned and operated colleges and universities? What if they formed a group to support one another and educate the campus community? What if several of those GLBT students were in relationship and have adopted a child? The only agend these GLBT students have is being allowed to be open about who they are. The university is simply requiring GLBT students to fake their identity in order to be accepted. You might break up meetings, but you will not break the GLBT persons who attend RC colleges and universities. When asked what Jesus would do? Jesus would welcome them with open arms and
accept them as he does all persons?  you respond “reject these sinners.” Stop this harrassment and sinful behaviour on your parts and get back to educating your students.

At Ron:
Wait a minute. This is also posted on Mark Shea’s blog.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2012/12/things-i-dont-get.html
Here, the priest (Fr. Barron) specifically says we are not required to believe that anyone is in hell. Is he in error? What’s going on? Is the belief that there must be at least some populace in hell opinion or doctrine? This is not a trolling question, but has great implications for my faith?

Ron A. - 

My association with ND runs deep as well.  My wife and I both graduated (I was actually in the Seminary my Sophomore & Junior years).  Her parents and aunts and uncles (one a Trustee Emeritus) went there (and SMC) as well as her 7 siblings and cousins.  I have a son who graduated, one who is a Sophomore, and three more at home who dream of enrolling in the next few years.  I have 4 nieces and nephews graduated and 3 currently enrolled and more to come.  I have served on Advisory Councils for both ND & the CSC.  When my father passed away a few years ago, 4 CSC priests traveled to my home in Northeast Ohio to celebrate his funeral.

Once I see a poster mention despair over the University inviting the President of the United States to give the commencement, I realize there is no reason to continue speaking.  They have no interest in actually hearing about what the University does to support and strengthen it’s Catholicity every single day.  They are not interested in how may Masses are celebrated every single day in dorms, Basilica, Crypt, Log Chapel, that Lauds, Vespers, Exposition and Adoration are available and attended every single day.  They want to tell you that the University’s student population is no longer majority of Catholic when in fact over 80% are.  They want to say, as you do, that non-Catholic professors are “the norm”, when in fact over 50% of professors are Catholic and the University has the only department in the world dedicated to finding and developing Catholic professors to a point where they have the credentials to staff an elite academic University.  They don’t wish to recognize that so many of the great science, math and engineering PHD’s in the world happen to NOT be Catholic at this point time.  They fail to care about the Alliance for Catholic Education developed and run by the University that has saved thousands of inner-city Catholic schools in America (of course those inner-city students don’t really count).  They damn Father Jenkins to Hell when he invites the POTUS to speak, but call it window-dressing when he files a lawsuit against HHS.  They won’t take the time to realize that the Board of Fellows is made up of 6 priests and 6 lay people.

The enemies of Fr. Hesburgh and Land O’ Lakes won’t take the time to actually read the Statement to understand it’s beauty and to realize that there is very little difference in what Land O’ Lakes and Ex Corde actually put forth.  Those enemies won’t give Fr. Ted credit for realizing that running a University of this size (in 1968 the operating budget was over 5 times what the entire Holy Cross order was) requires operational, managerial and organizational expertise that could never be developed within confines of a Religious Order.

Oh, I could go on and on with examples of how Notre Dame is spreading the Word and works of the Gospel more broadly and effectively than any other university in the world, but it is exhausting because people of your ilk have no interest in seeing the positive.  Your quote, “Notre Dame has gone big on this concept of Service.  I wonder if this isn’t a palliative for them.”, sums it all up perfectly.  You don’t think that Service matters as a Catholic or that is “palliative”?  Saving the lives of thousands in Haiti, East Africa, Latin America, etc. is “palliative”?  Funding and training recent graduates to rescue Catholic grade schools in the most desperate areas of America is “palliative”?

I find it incredibly depressing when I read posters here who degrade a genuine commitment to serve others, yet glorify those who are not interested in being part of the actual world and are “more Catholic” because they can cite references to the CCC.

If you care, here is an example of the University’s commitment:

An important aspect of Notre Dame’s aspiration to be a distinctively Catholic, preeminent research university is ensuring that its culture of inquiry is imbued with the lived experience of present-day Catholicism. The faculty is one of the most important resources in this endeavor. Ex corde Ecclesiae says that “…being both a University and Catholic, it must be both a community of scholars representing various branches of human knowledge, and an academic institution in which Catholicism is vitally present and operative.” To reach this goal, the University of Notre Dame seeks to attract and retain greater numbers of junior and senior Catholic scholars, scientists, and artists to research, create, and teach, because it recognizes that, according to Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., “the faculty is the core of every university’s academic community, sustaining and directing the intellectual dialogue that occurs within this community.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae also defines a Catholic university as a “privileged place for a fruitful dialogue between the Gospel and culture.” Therefore, Notre Dame insists “faculty members who are not Catholic are indispensable to the life and success of Notre Dame—in promoting scholarship, in building community, in provoking debate, in pushing for excellence, in ensuring diversity of perspectives. Non–Catholic faculty do exceptional work in teaching, research, and administration. They make us a better university. They also make us a better Catholic university, for they enrich our understanding of God, who is all inclusive, and our conversations about faith,” says Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C. Notre Dame believes that in order to engage all of human culture and experience, we must have seekers of truth who hold a variety of beliefs and opinions in our community.

A Sister Claudia Windal who states she is an Episcopal priest and mortician posted, “I am weary of the Holier than thou words of the Pope”, on Sept. 26th, 2012 at the National Catholic Register. From what I’ve read here of the history of creeping liberalism at Notre Dame it seems like a lot of CINOs there feel the same way. My hope is that this Pope will reign in schools like Notre Dame and others in areas where they have fallen away from Catholic teachings and embraced secularism.

Long live our Holy Father!

Sister Claudia Windal, You are just outright WRONG!  Jesus let the rich young man walk away.  He spoke of letting the prodigal son go off and He did NOT go in search of him but waited for Him to WANT to return and change. Jesus dejectedly watched most of His followers leave because they rejected His teaching on the Eucharist and He did not renounce it or tweak it or change it! Jesus said it would have been better if Judas was never born!  How can you be His spouse and not know Him?  All these students are being lead to believe a lie! They are being told of a false Jesus that will let students be in grave error and have everyone say they are not and all will be fine with their eternal soul! Jesus NEVER did that! EVER! He would welcome them all to Him and invite them to hear His Word and experience His love and THEY would change or THEY would walk away! Some of these students have had this experience and rejected Christ, but perhaps many of these students have never heard the Truth in love and of course we should always work to make that happen, but Jesus’ teaching does NOT change!!!!!!!!!  He is the same yesterday, today and forever.  Shame on you for leading the vulnerable astray and reinforcing their misunderstandings and error! No one is treating these students badly or rejecting ANY sinner.  The GLBT students who would openly reject the Church teaching and would live together and adopt children are doing all the rejecting of the power of God to overcome all sin or have never known God.  Exactly what group on campus says “no gay students welcome here?”  “no gay students should ever be involved in this program?”  EVERYTHING the university has is open to them but they are blinded and stifled and held prisoner by the obsession of GLBT and the huge chip that is placed on their shoulders by the agenda.  They are hurting and they are not being ministered to so as to heal and therefore they do not repent. The posters here who you object to are rejecting the SIN, not the students and that is a completely different matter which you as a sister should know full well!

@Ron A.
From Wiki on von Balthasar:
****
His most controversial theological assertions were that Christ deposited his divine knowledge with the Father before the incarnation (kenotic doctrine), the possibility that all people may be saved,[12] that Christ literally was “made sin”, and the idea that Christ experienced in Sheol after his death on the cross a state of abandonment from the Father worse than hell.

At Balthasar’s funeral, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) said, speaking of Balthasar’s work in general, “What the pope intended to express by this mark of distinction [elevation to the cardinalate], and of honor, remains valid, no longer only private individuals but the Church itself, in its official responsibility, tells us that he is right in what he teaches of the faith.”[14]

Balthasar has expressed some sympathy with a “hope” for salvation for non-Christians,[15] and even believes that it is possible that all human beings will be saved (but warns against asserting it).[16] Universal salvation, if it happens, would be the result of Christ’s “utter abandoment”.[17]
***
Thus, we may not assert that no one is in hell as definitive, but we are most certainly allowed to believe in the possibility. The above pretty much rests my case.

Pat Archbold, I respect this publication and those writers who contribute to it in order to witness to The Truth of Love. I personally know that Father John Jenkins is a priest who desires what is Good for all those persons, including those who are part of the Notre Dame Community and would not intentionally try to exclude anyone from hearing God’s Will for us as Revealed by His only begotten Son, Jesus, The Christ.

What is happening at our Catholic Institutions is a direct result of the spirit of false ecumenism that failed to recognize that only His Sacrifice, The Sacrifice of Christ on The Cross, through the Grace and Mercy of The Most Holy Trinity, can free us from our sinful nature and lead us to our Salvation. Perfect Love is desiring Salvation for one’s beloved.

The Catholic Church has always taught that at the moment of our death, we will see God face to Face in all His Glory, even those, who like The Good Thief, come late to The Fold.

To be Baptized in our Catholic Faith is to clothe ourselves in Christ, The Only Word of God. We are sons and daughters of God, through Faith in Jesus The Christ. Our call to Holiness, is a call to Love, as God Who Is Love, and thus the very essence of Perfect Love, defines Love.  The Sacred Heart of Jesus Has Revealed The Mystery of God’s Great Love and Mercy.There is no other definition of Love.

While we can thank God’s Love and Mercy for Purgatory, we know that some have rejected God’s Saving Grace, and have thus separated themselves from God for eternity. (Matthew 7:13-23, Matthew 25:31-46, John 15:4-7) Only God knows the name and number, but clearly it is not 0.

As the mother of a daughter who struggles with same-sex attraction, who Loves her daughter as I Love all my children, I know that my daughter is not fully to blame for her disordered inclination because I am a witness to the perfect storm that contributed to what I know to be an emotional- relational issue, not a biological issue. I trust that Father Jenkins will ensure this organization serves to challenge this issue as well as other issues of the day that have contributed to the sexual objectification of the human person, in light of our Catholic Faith because I know Father Jenkins believes that what God desires for each and every one of us, it that all our relationships and friendships are grounded in authentic Love.

Ron, if in dying we are restored in Christ, it certainly is not because Christ became sin, it would be because through God’s Saving Grace, we have been restored through Christ, no longer a slave to sin.

All things are passing, only Love remains eternal.

Andrew, with all due respect, to whom much has been given much more will be expected.
To award a Law Degree to a man who, although he is the first United States President of African-Irish-American descent, fails to recognize that Justice requires respect for The Sanctity of every Human Life, and respect for the Sanctity of Marriage and The Family, is a violation not only of The Spirit of The Law, but it violates the very principles upon which this Nation was founded, beginning with the self evident truth that at our creation, which is not when we are born, God has endowed every human being with our unalienable Right to Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness, the purpose of which can only be what God intended.

It does not surprise me that God, Who has been known to work in Mysterious Ways, lifted The Veil at Our Lady’s University, so that all who have been sleeping in Gethsemane may come to understand that despite what we may believe to
be good intentions, one cannot be autonomous and in communion with Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, simultaneously, least we wake up and find ourselves no longer clothed with The Word of God.

Andrew, I can only speak for myself, but it has been my experience that those of us who want to practice the whole faith are being squeezed out of service by the liberals who don’t want our influence out there. The methods include making the experience miserable by undermining whatever is done, slandering the character of the volunteer or making people wary or uncomfortable, setting snares with the hope of finding fault, harrassing and on and on.  Nasty stuff.  This is part of what makes it SO CLEAR this is not a movement from GOD. While service is good, without the true faith it is only social work Mother Teresa reminded us.  If it is OUR work and not God working through us, it is the illusion of doing God’s will.  Also our first priority should be to please God, not man.  I disagree that students are better off with non-Catholic teachers at a Catholic University if our first concern is their souls.  Especially in the hostile culture that surrounds Catholics every day, the students need to be firmly rooted in the faith.  As college students they are very vulnerable and it is a very formative time of their lives which many groups have used to lead the unwary astray.

@Pam - what kinds of service are these liberals squeezing you out of?

If I haven’t raised my child to be solid enough in his faith by the time he’s 18 to survive challenges presented on a college campus, then I have no one to blame but myself

Tom R.  You can believe a theologian or Jesus Christ.  I know who I choose.  As to why this is happening, you must be aware of the liberal agenda in society world-wide and the problems of homosexuality in the priesthood.  There are people who would like to influence a change in Christ’s teaching to get rid of a few very sticky wickets. If no one goes to hell then sin doesn’t exist and there are no consequences to following the most perverse or evil desire if we believe Christ has forgiven everything and we have no obligation to conform ourselves to Him through prayer and the sacraments and acts of the will. Sounds a lot like the wide road, not the narrow one. And the fruit of this thinking are all around.  Do you like what you see and hear every day on the media, in the workplace, in your own family?

Andrew, working with kids, teaching CCD or RCIA for example.  If you think most 18 year olds can stand up to the peer pressure or the influence of agenda-driven charismatic professors you are wrong.  I was raised by a devout mother and was entrusted to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts at a young age and was prayed for every day and did attend Mass each week so yes I did survive the college experience but most parents weren’t as devout as my mom and most kids don’t leave unformed by the world as opposed to God.

@Pam - so, not the kind of service work Mother Teresa was talking about.

Jesus welcomed sinners.  We are ALL sinners.  But Jesus did not leave a sinner in the same condition as He found them.  Jesus never said, “I’m okay.  You’re okay.”

All of us sinners must repent (that means change) after having recognized that we have sinned.  To embrace sinners, and to cause sin to be embraced and accepted, is NOT to have repented.  It puts one’s soul and eternal life in jeopardy.

We choose here and now.  We accept God’s word (i.e. Romans Chapter One) or we reject it.  We have that choice.  We can choose life with Jesus, or we can choose eternal death, without Him:  “If today you hear His voice, harden not your hearts.”

If we lead one of God’s little children astray (by poor teaching), it is written that it would be better for the person in error to not have been born.  Remember the millstone, & being thrown into the sea?  Scary stuff.

Teach truth because the consequence for teaching error is not for the faint of heart. “Depart from me, you doers of iniquity, I never knew you.”
That’s after they say, “But Lord, Lord!  We preached in your name!”

As Gomer Pyle would say, “Surprise, surprise.”

Pam
False dilemma. You can believe a theologian while still believing in Jesus Christ, as long as the theologian’s thinking is sound. Cardinal Ratzinger declared von Balthasar’s thinking as sound, although he did so prior to becoming Pope. As far as I know, he has not renounced his opinion of von Balthasar after attaining the papacy.

Why are you so hell bent on trying to convince me that there has to be someone in hell, when I am required by my Church to believe no such thing.

Just to clarify, I believe:

1) Evil is real.
2) There is a possibility that no one is in hell.
3) Relying on (2) for your salvation opens the door to the possibility that you will be in hell, even if no one else is.
4) I do not now, nor have I ever, asserted as fact that no one is in hell. I have said that my understanding of mercy requires me to believe that there is a possibility that no one is, and I hope for that possibility to be true.

Finally, no one that I know of declares von Balthazar to be a liberal theologian who is trying to infect the Church. Certainly Cardinal Ratzinger said exactly the opposite.

Andrew, Your woundedness is showing. “So not the kind of service Mother Teresa was talking about.”???  I believe she did both corporal and spiritual works of mercy as I try to do.  Do you see how you sow division even in a comment like that?  Those aren’t the words of someone listening to the right Father.
Tom R :  Jesus words in Matt.7:13-14 “Enter by the narrow gate, since the road that leads to destruction is wide and spacious,and many take it; but it is a narrow gate and a hard road THAT LEADS TO LIFE AND ONLY A FEW FIND IT.”  In Matt. 8: 28-34 the demoniacs who Jesus allowed to go into the pigs asked,“What do you want with us, Son of God? Have you come here to TORTURE us before the time?”  And in Matt. 12: 31-32 Jesus says, “blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And anyone who says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but no one who speaks against the Holy Spirit will be forgiven EITHER IN THIS WORLD OR IN THE NEXT.”  And in Matt 12:41-42 “On Judgement Day the men of Nineveh will appear against this generation and they WILL be ITS CONDEMNATION, because when Jonah preached they repented; and look, there is something greater than Jonah here.  On Judgement Day the Queen of the South will appear against this generation AND BE its CONDEMNATION, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and look, there is something greater than Solomon here.”  Then there’s the parable of the wedding feast and those who were to busy to come and the one who did come and was too arrogant or disdainful to wear the wedding garment and he was tossed out “where there WILL be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”  And so many other verses throughout the new testatment.  Evil is real and there are certainly going to be people in Hell on judgement day because Christ has already said so.  The theologian theorized a possibility and did not state a reality and didn’t pretend to. I am not going to speak against the Holy Father.  I will say that John Paul II said the Church made a mistake in allowing homosexuals into the priesthood as the instances of sexual abuse by clergy became known to him.  And as you state there was no infallible statement made by then Cardinal Ratzinger.  How is it that the vision of Fatima, (approved by the Church as worthy of belief and where the children saw the souls falling into hell and did great penances to obtain grace for mankind), is so easily discounted, but a theory based on a supposition is so vigorously defended?  As to Divine Mercy, I have read St. Faustina’s book and the Mercy she refers to is in fact a great outpouring of grace to even the most hardened sinner to overcome sin!  It is not a blindness or overlooking of sin but actual GRACE infused in the soul to strengthen it to overcome ANY sin!!! The greater the sinner, the greater the right of the person to this mercy of God, this outpouring of His grace into them!!!  I was in very grave sin having left the Church for fifteen years and living according to the world and I received this grace! It is real and it is transforming and it is not something you can ignore or don’t see or feel or notice.  It is a THING, not a kindness or an overlooking a flaw, but a power like we read about in the gospels. Saying the Chaplet of Divine Mercy, especially at the three o’clock hour and especially on Fridays is a way of asking for this tremendous grace. It is wonderful that you realize the danger in relying on #2 (as you call it.) But not everyone is so wise or well-disposed and we need to keep that in mind. I don’t know Balthazar from a hole in the wall so I have no idea of his motives and assume them to be wonderful but I am not so naive as to believe that others aren’t looking for ways to use anyone’s ideas for their own deceitful ends given the current climate.  Peace and God bless.

Andrew and Tom a reply to your posts should be on the way. It was flagged as spam and is being reviewed by a moderator.

I would agree that Mr. Archbold’s statement that Notre Dame has an “un-Cathlic liar” when referring to Father Jenkins is harsh. But, I do agree with the sentiment that Father Jenkins, while he may be well-intentioned, is being unfaithful to church teaching. I’m a gay Catholic. I have several gay friends, and we have a respectful relationship, so I’m certainly not bigoted. I haven’t always been chaste, and still struggle with my sexual orientation, but have found a measure of healing through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. I certainly don’t know Father Jenkins, nor do I knowany of the faculty or students at Notre Dame. But I did graduate from Cabrini College in PA in 1990 with a degree in Special Education. I received an excellent education in my field, but even then, dissent was rampant. One of my theology teachers mocked the Virgin birth, openly supported contraception, and was essentially “pro-choice” on abortion. I was active in Campus Minisrty. At the time, our members, though primarily Catholic, included Protestants as well. We were engaged in many charitable works: mission trips to Appalachia, assisting the hungry and the disabled, as well as opposing the killing of unborn human beings. However, at one point our college newspaper ranan ad for a local abortionist. (In fairness, the ad simply identified him as a gynecologist, but it was well-known that his primary practice was abortion). Our Campus Ministry students, staff and most (though not al) of the nuns objected to the administration. Unfortunately, they removed the ad with tremendous reluctance, citing “academic freedom.” Worse still,most of the professors and many of the students were outraged. I recently visited the college website. While they still have a pro-life group, they also have a gay rights union.When I contacted the administration and respectfully objected, they at first were puzzled. Finally, they contended that since the “gay rights” group wasn’t funded, it was acceptable, even though it clearly was intended to endorse gay sex. Homosexuality is definitely a difficult matter to discuss, and it’s true that Christ never said anything on the subject. Of course, it’s equally true that he didn’t condemn slavery, even though the Romans kept slaves. Jesus was compassionate, but he did speak of the reality of sin. He showed righteous anger towards the money changers at the Temple, telling them that they were “turning my Father’s House into a den of thieves.” Would would Christ’s attiude be towards gay people? With respect, I’m sure he would be compassionate, but would also tell them (including me) to “go and sin no more.” With respect to Andrew, who seems to defend Notre Dame’s decision to have the President speak at their commencement. I’m a former life-log Democrat, now a registered Independent, since neither party fully reflects my views. I favor gun control, war only as a last resort, and government assistance to the poor, elderly, disabled, homeless, victims of domestic violence, substance abusers, and other vulnerable people. I also oppose the death penalty, and legal abortion (except in accord with church teaching re:the principle of “double efect). I was torn when voting this year. I agree that Obama has done some good (gradually withdrawing our troops from the Middle East-though Syria does have chemical weapons- and he did inherit serious problems from prvious GOP administrations. Frankly Romney was too conservative for me, but I did reuctantly vote for him. First, because I deplored the attacks on his faith. Of course, I agree that the Mormom faith has many tenets contrary to our faith. However, my late aunt was a Mormon, and she was a decent, loving woman, and not subservient to her husband. THe President’s Health care Act has the comendable provision of requiring employers to provide their employees with health benefits. However, despite his so-called compromise, it will force Catholic and other religious hospitals to dispense abortion drugs, According to a 6/16/12 AP report, one out of six Americans receive healthcare from Catholic hospitals. When our hospitals close-and sadly, they will-think of the resulting misery. Remaining hospitals will be overwhelmed by the elderly, disabled veterans, homeless, and anyone else in need of healthcare-which is all of us. It’s true that Romney was once “pro-choice.” But Biden also flip-flopped on abortion. When a Senator, he voted for the partial-birth abortion ban, and usually voted against federal fund for abortions. During the hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Bork, he praised him as a “fine jurist”, and pledged to vote for him, even if it upset “pro-choice” groups. Now, Mr. Biden favors the radical abortion platform of the Democratic party. President Obama was even wiling to shut down the federal government, because of his insistence on funding Planned Parenthod. Romney also flip-flopped on “gay rights.” However, even ex-President Clinton, with bipartisan suppost, signd into law DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act). Obama went from quietly supporting civil unions. Now he has directed his Attorney General to refuse to defenf DOMA before the Supreme Court. Without being judgemental-we’re all sinners- I would hardly consider Mr. Clinton to be a role model for respect for women, given the anguish he caused his wife and daughter during the Monica Lewinsky affair.    Our Church has its problems, but all faiths do. But Christ did say “you are Peter, and upo this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16: 13-19)I am far from a perfectcatholic,but I’d prefer to stand with Pope Benedict, even though his teachings are countercultural, as were many of the teachings of Christ (associating with tax-collectors, lepers, and Samaritans). Peace!    Respectfully, Tim Donovan   Folsom PA

Moderator, There was nothing in what I wrote that should delay its posting.  Hope it will be posted this morning.

Everyone should contact the Diocese Bishop Kevin Rhoades of South Bend.
He has the authority to revoke the name “Catholic” being FRAUDULENTLY used and advertised by Notre Dame, and has the responsibility to stop SCANDAL within his Diocese.
Notre Dame has consistently proven itself to be heretical and schismatic.
They do not use the “CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, Second Edition” as a required student text - so students will be ignorant of the TRUTH of what the Church teaches and why.
The Board of Trustees of each University is ultimately responsible since they hire and fire the President.
On the Vatican web site please read: 1) “Letter to Bishops on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons”; and: 2)“APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION of the SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II on CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES” which includes - “every Catholic University, as Catholic, MUST have the following essential characteristics….”.

ANNE - The Bishop CANNOT take Notre Dame’s right to call themselves Catholic.  We do not live in a Papal state and Catholic doesn’t have a trademark.

Notre Dame will never require the Catechism.  There are Colleges who do use the Catechism, and they are the ones for you.  No University has ever been more Catholic (seriously, in this world spreading the Gospel through great works) University in this world.  Not just a curriculum of rote memorization and teaching kids how to condemn everyone that they consider to be non-real-Catholics. 

Get over it

“the University has the only department in the world dedicated to finding and developing Catholic professors to a point where they have the credentials to staff an elite academic University.”

  Exactly.   Much of this work is below the radar.  It doesn’t make headlines, and most people who think they know what is going on at the University from the so-called “orthodox” Catholic blogosphere don’t know anything about this effort, and its very encouraging fruits.  Since Fr. Jenkins assumed the Presidency, the University has managed to lure top professors, who are also serious practicing Catholics, from the likes of Stanford, Harvard, NC State, Maryland, UVA, UNC.  Most of these academics left departments or universities far more highly ranked because they wanted the opportunity to enhance Notre Dame’s mission to be the best Catholic research university in the world.  This work also takes time, as part of its focus is on developing the next generation of serious Catholic academics—in a very real sense, we are helping to “grow our own” in an era when talented Catholics are far more likely to seek out professional rather than academic careers.  So, yes, Notre Dame’s percentage of Catholic faculty is not where the University would like it to be, but the current situation is the result of decades of neglect on this issue, and cannot be turned around overnight.  Tenure is an unfortunate reality that cannot be wished away, and some departments are dominated by faculty who are, sadly, hostile to the Catholic mission.  But there is a new cadre of younger, committed Catholics among recent hires.  Of the 20-odd members of my husband’s department, five can be found attending daily Mass on campus. 

Bishop Kevin Rhoades has stated that he believes that this new organization at Notre Dame will exist in light of our Catholic Faith. I believe that Father John desires that those who identify themselves as GLBTQ, will see themselves in The Light of Love, as God desires them to be, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers…
Let us Prayer that we have enough oil for our lamps, so The Light of Love, will shine through. Notre Dame, our Mother, Pray for us.

Tom R. - Catholics and others who call themselves Christians may NOT contradict the quotes of our Lord, Jesus Christ.  Contradictions basically call Jesus a liar.
In addition, those who think they know more than God commit the capital sin of Pride.
Hell will not be empty based upon Jesus’s statements in: Mt 7:13-14; Mt 13:41-42; Mt 13:47-49.
Please read your Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 1033-1037.  The footnotes will direct you to even more Bible passages quoting Jesus.
Any Catholic who denies the words of Jesus is a heretic and/or schismatic (CCC 2089.)
We must remember that our own ACTIONS (not temptations) of our own free will send us to Hell.
For quotes about the CCC from Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict, see “What Catholics REALLY Believe SOURCE” on the internet.  It also includes quotes on Church teaching regarding Homosexual behavior.

Andrew, go to the Vatican web site.  Search Code of Canon Law -
” Can. 300 No association is to assume the name Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority….”
” Can. 305 §1. All associations of the Christian faithful are subject to the vigilance of competent ecclesiastical authority which is to take care that the integrity of faith and morals is preserved in them and is to watch so that abuse does not creep into ecclesiastical discipline.
This authority therefore has the duty and right to inspect them according to the norm of law and the statutes. These associations are also subject to the governance of this same authority according to the prescripts of the canons which follow.”
” Canon 305 §2. Associations of any kind are subject to the vigilance of the Holy See; diocesan associations and other associations to the extent that they work in the diocese are subject to the vigilance of the local ordinary.”
YES, Bishops do have the AUTHORITY to revoke the name “CATHOLIC” from heretical and/or schismatic organizations of any type within his own Diocese.
If you remember, only a few years ago Bishop Olmstead revoked the right to use the name “Catholic” by a hospital in his Diocese.

Regarding Justice and the existence of hell, at the end of The Day, do not let your hearts be hardened like a “pillar of salt”. Those who desire to walk in The Spirit of Love, repent, accept God’s Saving Grace, and choose Life.

Anne
Your post is slander. What I have posted is within Church tradition. The work of von Balthasar, and it’s approval by the Catholic hierarchy establishes that beyond any doubt. I need no further defense than that. I AM a Catholic, and your pronouncement that I am not is of no consequence to anyone other than yourself.  In fact, your words contradict Canon law 227:
Can. 227 The lay Christian faithful have the right to have recognized that freedom which all citizens have in the affairs of the earthly city. When using that same freedom, however, they are to take care that their actions are imbued with the spirit of the gospel and are to heed the doctrine set forth by the magisterium of the Church. In matters of opinion, moreover, they are to avoid setting forth their own opinion as the doctrine of the Church.

You have clearly set forth a non-doctrinal opinion as if it were doctrine of the Church, which is forbidden. The opinion that it is possible that no one is in hell does not violate a single doctrine of the Church, and note that I don’t set forth as doctrine that one MUST hold that opinion. As I said, there are writings of competent theologians to support that case, and they have approval of the Church.

QUOTE: ” 15. We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses.
No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral.
A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin. ” - Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict).
See: “LETTER to the BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH on the PASTORAL CARE of HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS” - Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Vatican web site.

Tom rather than just making statements, please provide the document name, paragraph number and any other identifying information where the Catholic Church has stated that it is permissible to contradict the words of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
Contradicting Jesus is not in the “spirit of the gospel” as required by Code of Canon law.
I would like to review your source, and not just some theologian. Many theologians have been wrong/heretical or schismatic.
Until something is approved by the Magisterium or Muto Proprio by the Pope, it is not Church teaching.

Anne - if that’s a response, it has nothing to do with what I posted. I don’t disagree with any of it, by the way.

You have still slandered me, although it is slander of no consequence.

What words have I used that contradicted the words of Jesus?

By the way, are you aware that nearly all priests contradict the words of Jesus? Jesus said:
***
8 And he instructed them to take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bread, no haversack, no coppers for their purses.
9 They were to wear sandals but, he added, ‘Don’t take a spare tunic.’
10 And he said to them, ‘If you enter a house anywhere, stay there until you leave the district.
11 And if any place does not welcome you and people refuse to listen to you, as you walk away shake off the dust under your feet as evidence to them.’
12 So they set off to proclaim repentance;
***
Do you know of any priest that doesn’t take money or luggage with him when he travels? If your claim is he was speaking only to the 12, then you’re contradicting the institution of the priesthood.

Anne, thank you for this information. Unfortunately, The U.S.C.C.B. promotes the use of the erroneous document Always Our Children, which fails to make it clear that same-sex sexual acts, or any sexual act that does not respect the inherent Dignity of the human person is not an act of Love, and implies that our sexual inclinations are a given and immutable. I respectfully request that the U.S.C.C.B., remove this document immediately as God’s Grace and Mercy exists for all persons, even though some have rejected this Gift from God. I noticed Notre Dame has referred to this document even though it is not official Catholic teaching, as this document, although it remains on the U.S.C.C.B. website, was never approved by The Bishops. I respectfully request that The Letter To The Bishops Of The Catholic Church On The Care Of Homosexual Persons be adhered to, and that the title of the letter be changed to ...On The Care Of Men And Women Who Desire To Overcome Same Sex Attraction.

Tom - here is your quote: “It is still permitted, as a Catholic, to believe that there is a possibility of a hell with no one in it.”
This is false, by all Church teachings. (Opinions of individuals is not Catholic Church teaching.)
See Your CCC and please read the many footnotes which refer to the Quotes of Jesus regarding Hell and “many” will go there, while “few” will go to Heaven. Mt 7:13-14.
You stated that its ok to believe in the possiblity that no one is in Hell.  That is the opposite of Jesus’s teaching.  It contradicts: Mt 7:13-14; Mt 13:41-42; and many more Gospel quotes as referred to in the CCC footnotes.
CCC: 1033-1037 and referenced Bible footnotes.
The CCC is from the Church Magisterium.
CCC: 2089 for the definition of heresy and schism.
The words of Jesus are not debateable.
For the clarity of others who may read this - we send ourselves to Hell by our own actions (not temptations that we do not give it to), and by not repenting (being truly sorry) for offending God.

Tom, to say that Jesus was sometimes speaking just to the 12 does not contradict the institution of The Priesthood at The Last Supper.

Anne - the parables of Jesus are often debated.
I reiterate that until the Pope speaks to this issue, you have slandered me, and are continuing to do so. You are expressing your own opinion of doctrine as doctrine.
My references in defense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8zhnooySk4
as well as this piece by Mark Shea:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2012/12/the-hell-you-say.html

Tom you still have not given any references to actual Church teaching, but merely articles of other individuals.
Regarding my references to the CCC (which references the Bible in the footnotes).
The Magisterium which includes the Pope has already spoken.
“ The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved ... and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine,  attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture,  the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium.  I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. “  – Pope John Paul II.  (CCC pg 5)
“ In its very structure, the Catechism of the Catholic Church follows the development of the faith right up to the great themes of daily life.  On page after page, we find that what is presented here is no theory, but an encounter with a Person who lives within the Church.”  “It is in this sense that the Year of Faith will have to see a concerted effort to rediscover and study the fundamental content of the faith that receives its systematic and organic synthesis in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”  – Pope Benedict XVI (Porta Fidei, Moto Proprio Data)
CCC: “1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity.
Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.”

Nancy D.
When you can prove that any document is incorrect in any USCCB publication please contact the USCCB, with copies to Cardinal Dolan in NY, the US Papal Nuncio in DC, and the Vatican.
You can find contact info on their web sites or by searching the internet.
Please include copies of the inaccurate document; include violated paragraphs from the CCC,  or Code of Canon Law, GIRM (General instruction of the Roman Missal), Motu Proprio’s, etc as appropriate which proves violation.  Documentation is important.
(The CCC is best regarding Church teaching.)
Just publishing something on a blog does not mean it will get to the appropriate persons.
Thank you for your efforts.

Anne:
First of all, you yourself contradict the words of Jesus, who said:
If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than, having your two feet, to be cast into hell, 46 where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. 47 If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell, 48 where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.
Mark 9:42-48
Any mention of us choosing hell there? No, Jesuse said we are cast into hell, and an agent is required to do casting of any sort. Now, we know that’s not the way it works, because we are not as a religion, sola Scriptura based. If there is anyone in hell, he has chosen to be. He is not “cast” there. (You mentioned the choice yourself, and in so doing, contradicted Jesus’s words.).

Secondly, you confuse the hope that no one is in hell with the existence or non-existence of hell. I believe that evil is real, thus, hell exists. What I hope for, and may hope for, is that there is no one has made that choice.

Cardinal Ratzinger supported the man who first proposed this as a possibility without incurring the heresy of universalism, which is apparently what you’re accusing me of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Urs_von_Balthasar
You have chosen not to believe me. I’m OK with that. It’s not our approval of each other that counts. I’m done with this discussion, because it’s no longer furthering a sense of good will amongst our fellows.

@ANNE - A couple of points here:  First is that Canon Law means diddly squat to the American judicial system and there is no law that says a Catholic institution can only use the name Catholic if a Bishop approves it.  I’m sure you could make a case if the University was practicing wholesale devil-worship.  But as it stands today, a court would probably find that Notre Dame is more Catholic than any Bishop in the country.  And by the way, if Canon Law was recognized in a court in the United States, guess what else would have to be recognized - Shariah

Secondly, the Hospital in Phoenix was not required by any legal authority to stop calling itself Catholic.  The Board instead threw the name Catholic back at the Bishop and refused to call themselves Catholic.  In general Bp. Olmstead is considered to be quite a buffoon in his own diocese.

Thirdly, the Bishop knows that taking such a step against Notre Dame would be calamitous to his reputation and authority.  The very large majority of Catholics have a dismal respect for the Bishops since the scandal broke.  And other than the very conservative individuals who post on a board like this, American Catholics still view Notre Dame as “where the Church does it’s thinking.”

I know that all is heresy to you, but that is reality

Anne, I forgot to add this, verbatim from the catechism:
1058 The Church prays that no one should be lost: “Lord, let me never be parted from you.” If it is true that no one can save himself, it is also true that God “desires all men to be saved” (1 Tim 2:4), and that for him “all things are possible” (Mt 19:26).

I think that pretty much settles it. Why, in its Catechism, would the Church say that it prays for the impossible, that no one should be lost? Precisely because, for God, “all things are possible.”

Tom R. this is easy.  We pray for everyone so that God will give them the needed grace to repent and get to Heaven.
However, Jesus told us that “EVERYONE” will not choose and act wisely to get to Heaven.
His Church has no knowledge over which individuals will be saved and will not be saved- so we pray for all.
Jesus merely said “many” will not be saved, and that “few” will be saved.
See the Bible verses provided in the CCC.

Sorry Anne, but there are no qualifications to the prayer. We pray that “no one should be lost.” PERIOD. Are you saying the Church prays in vain?

Andrew, Canon Law has absolutely nothing to do with Civil Law.  Where did you get the impression that it did?
Canon Law is Church Law which does not have anything to do with the federal or local governments.  It can be found on the Vatican web site.  And there are Canon Lawyers.
The Church has more authority than you apparently think over “Catholics” and “Catholic Institutions”.
You are correct that we are not a Sola Scriptura Faith.  That is why everyone should read the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” which is from the Magisterium - Church teachings -
QUOTE: ” The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved ... and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY,
is a statement of the Church’s faith and of CATHOLIC DOCTRINE,
attested to or illumined by SACRED SCRIPTURE, 
the APOSTOLIC TRADITION and the CHURCH’s MAGISTERIUM.
I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. “  – Pope John Paul II.  (pg 5)

PHOENIX (CNS)—St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix can no longer identify itself as “Catholic,” Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted announced during a Dec. 21, 2010 news conference in Phoenix at the Diocesan Pastoral Center.
The Phoenix bishop issued a decree revoking the 115-year-old hospital’s affiliation with the Catholic Church.
In the decree, the bishop wrote that he could not verify that the hospital provides health care consistent with “authentic Catholic moral teaching.
Olmstead’s Decree against St. Joseph Hospital was written Dec, 2010.
Catholic Healthcare West (who owns St.Joe’s Hospital) did not withdraw itself from being called “Catholic” until Jan. 2012.  So that they could continue to perform abortions,voluntary sterlizations, etc for profit.
Bishop Robert F. Vasa of Baker, Ore., announced earlier in February 2010 that St. Charles Medical Center in Bend had “gradually moved away” from the church’s ethical directives and can no longer be called “Catholic”.
Neither of these medical institutions continue to advertise themselves as Catholic.

Anne:  I never had the impression at all that Canon Law had anything to do with Civil law - that was my point!  People keep saying, “oh, the Bishop should make him do this,” or, “the Bishop should make Notre Dame do this,” etc.  But he cannot MAKE anyone do anything.  If they are employed by him, he could certainly fire them, but he cannot MAKE the University do anything.  They have no fiscal or hierarchical stick to raise over their heads.  You might remember that D’Arcy took quite a while to come out against ND over the Obama thing.  He only did so when he had his resignation accepted by Rome and he knew he wouldn’t have to live in the same Diocese.

In fact I was just speaking with a priest who was kind of lamenting the same thing.  He had watched priests over the years walk away from their priesthood and virtually not even bother to tell anyone - let alone go through a laicization process.  A priest could walk away and get married in another Church the next day, and there was nothing anyone could do about it. 

I’m not saying it’s necessarily good or bad.  It just is what it is

If any Diocese Bishop decrees that a person or organzation is no longer “Catholic” per Code of Canon Law, the person or organization has the right to appeal to the Vatican (if they wish).
I think you are asking what can a Bishop effectively do - which is a different question.
If a Bishop puts out a formal decree, he can:
1) forbid the name of use of the name Catholic;
2) he could declare any Catholic who attends or teaches to be excommuncated latae sententiae (like Bishop Bruskewicz did regarding joining named heretical groups);
3) - but here is the real kicker - if a University was no longer permitted to use the name “Catholic” and continued to advertize itself as such on web sites and other recruitment tools - that would be a FRAUDULENT action.  Using the name “Catholic” to recruit students under false pretenses.
Any parent or student (after the Bishop’s decree was issued) would be able to sue for “fraud” in a civil court. It’s also called false advertising.

So the question is, since it is true that no one has the inherent right to profess to be Catholic while misrepresenting the Truth of our Catholic Faith (Catholic Canon 750), why are we living in the Time of a Great Apostasy, when those who have left His Church spiritually, have been allowed to remain within His Church physically, causing chaos and confusion, while leading many astray? I respectfully request that Pope Benedict XVI and those Bishops who are in union with him, make it clear to The Flock, that there is no division in The One Body of Christ. The Charitable Anathema exists for the sake of Christ, His Church, all who will come to believe, and those prodigal sons and daughters who, hopefully, will return to The Fold. I Pray this will happen sooner, rather than later, as I fear we may no longer have a place to rest our weary heads.

Good question Nancy D.
“Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.”
A few years ago Pope Benedict stated that our Church would be getting smaller.
St Paul also said - 1 Cor 5:11-13.
I would ‘guess’ to answer your question - that we must encourage all Diocese Bishops to enforce and adhere to Canon Law regardless of expected outcome.
Public Scandals by Catholics within the Church must be stopped.

Nancy D - tying everything together - this gets back to Jesus words as referenced in the CCC -
Mt 7:13-14 “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter it are many.
For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, those who find it are few.”
and
Mt 13:41-42 “The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.

The Gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter it are many, but that doesn’t change the fact that although at this hour it is late, it is not yet too late to turn away from the darkness and move towards The Light. Christ never said it would be easy, He only promised us it would be worth it.

Andrew—-I sincerely admire and respect your obvious love for your University.  And I, in fact, admire the University too.  I simply don’t believe its purported “Catholicism”. (And I don’t accept there that are two authentic Catholicisms in America: Orthodox and Progressive.)

Regarding your last post: As I see it, you skewed many of the points you made and, furthermore, seemed to apply to me many opinions that are, honestly, not there. I will only mention a few “problems” I have with your post because, frankly, I don’t have the energy to refute your lengthy and passionate post, point by point, when I am quite certain we are at an impasse.

I mention these because they are at the heart of the matter:
    1. Obama—it is not (and you certainly know this) that he was invited
      to speak! That in itself would have been fine especially consider-
      ing N.D.“s history with POTUS’ speeches.
    2. Masses, chapels, incense and candlesticks- how many students leave
      the University without their Faith? How many become “mainline”
      secular on all the “hot button” culture issues? How many accept
      Church dogma, or even think about it? 
    3. Faculty over 50%—barely. And how many of those are CNO? I know;
      I’m not to judge.
    4. Social Activism-not an exclusively Catholic endeavor. Plaudits for
      all the good and the accomplishments; but, from a Christian stand-
      point, not the top priority.

We are worlds apart.  And I would say faiths apart.  My concern isn’t Notre Dame.  My concern is the future of the Culture.  I truly believe we are facing a modern day Gehenna.  And the Catholic Church is in serious trouble. And I don’t think it’s because we’re not L(l)iberal enough!

Perhaps somethmg could have been done 60 years ago; but, it’s becoming quite clear that the leadership was not there, either within the Church or without.
Maybe it’s not too late.  But I don’t see Notre Dame as an important player.  Strange as this might sound to you, I think they’re too locked up in the past.

Just a couple more things: I misstated in my last post that a former DEAN of the Theology Department is a dissident.  I should have said the former HEAD of the Theology Department.  Father McBrien, of course was the public face of Notre Dame’s Catholicism for many years.  I know; don’t judge.

Also, in the post that started all this disagreement, you asked “rhetorically”: “How many classes did you attend at Notre Dame since 1968?”  Well, I never took the time to count them.  But I was in graduate school, studying Philosophy—-after 1968.

Your comment regarding West Point and the Short Gay Line was insulting to so many current and past members of the military.  I understand and agree with your opposition to gay marriage but I have to ask why you chose to offend our military men and women for a decision that they personally had nothing to do with.  I feel we should respect and thank them for the sacrifices they make for our freedom.

Is the following statement consistent with tradition?
Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgement. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves. All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure bluster, and it collapses. Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives become evident to us, there lies salvation. His gaze, the touch of his heart heals us through an undeniably painful transformation “as through fire”. But it is a blessed pain, in which the holy power of his love sears through us like a flame, enabling us to become totally ourselves and thus totally of God.

Tom, What are they referring to? Conversion? Hell? Final Judgement?  In conversion, The Holy Spirit reminds us of Christ teachings at times we have forgotten or been unmindful and that certainly can be painful and we do suffer and that’s why we have the Sacrament of Reconciliation, but there is a hell as we learn from the story of Lazarus in Abraham’s bossom and the chasm is not Christ.  It separates us and it can not be crossed.  Beware of anyone who wants to be “totally ourselves”.  That is NOT consistent with tradition but more in line with those who wish to justify remaining in sin.  Tradition is WE must decrease and HE must increase. We become more conformed to Him and we desolve into Him so that others see Christ in us because He lives so strongly in us.  We need to have a relationship with Christ now and not wait to look in His eyes at our death.  Theory is interesting but doing and living is superior I think.

It is always safest to adhere to the “CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, Second Edition” from the Magisterium, and refer to the corresponding Bible passages in the CCC footnotes.
The CCC is a great gift from the Church which allows us to accurately gage truth vs error.
Let the CCC guide us all.  As the Pope stated the CCC covers all Church Doctrine, Apostolic Tradition, illumned by Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium.
Theologians can be right; theologians can be wrong. There is no need for “speculation”.
There is also the possibility that we might take something out of context (of another author) and therefore misinterpret its meaning, so I personally would not comment on your quoted posting without reading the entire document/paper.
A few cannonized Saints (such has St Faustina) had seen Hell while still alive, and they never State that Hell has anything to do with Jesus or His presence in Hell.
CCC: ” 1057 Hell’s principal punishment consists of eternal separation from God in whom alone man can have the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs. “
Jesus said, and therefore the Church teaches that He will judge each of us.
My “opinion” is that this is justice since our sins put Him on the cross.
For more info about the CCC including quotes about it from Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict and including the Pope’s instruction for the Year of Faith regarding the CCC on the net search: - - - - “What Catholics REALLY Believe SOURCE”.

Anne,
You may read the entire document. It is called Spe Salvi, by Pope Benedict, and is located here:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html
(The fire that he refers to as the fire of Christ’s light is equated with something - read it. Also, read what he says about the parable of the beggar, Lazarus.)

So the question is, will this newly formed organization serve as a beacon of light that will lead others to The Only Way, The Only Truth, The Only Life of authentic Love? If we begin with respect for the inherent Dignity of the personal and relational essence of the human person created in The Image of God, and remain Faithful to His Word, we will end with respect for the Dignity of the personal and relational essence of the human person created in The Image of God. I am hopeful that this organization will exist to serve authentic Love.

“Maybe it’s not too late.  But I don’t see Notre Dame as an important player.  Strange as this might sound to you, I think they’re too locked up in the past.”

  We are all important players in the Church.  But, for better or for worse, Notre Dame will have a much bigger impact on the larger culture than will any of the tiny schools listed in the Newman Guide. 

  In many respects, Notre Dame is simply a reflection of the Church itself.  How many people who call themselves Catholic and attend Mass on a semi-regular basis actually know and believe what the Church teaches?  How many of their kids will keep the faith upon graduation from the parish school or CCD program?  How many Catholics happily voted for Obama? 

If many of Notre Dame’s graduates become “mainline secular,” it’s not because of the time spent on campus, but because of the time spent at home and the parish before they ever set foot in South Bend. 

Thank you Tom.  I found your quote in para 47.  Where the Pope states: “some recent theologians” and “but” etc.
In the Pope’s footnotes he references many paragraphs from the CCC.
However, the topic of most of our posts is - will EVERYONE get the Heaven.
The Pope never says they will, in fact he references CCC 1033.
QUOTE CCC: ” 1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: “He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.”
Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice.
This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”  UNQUOTE
Those who are interested should check out the link you provided, and read the Pope’s encyclical in entirety and then the CCC paragraphs referenced at the bottom of his writing.

All Catholic Universities are very important players in helping to save the Souls of students or driving them from the Church.
To say otherwise would mean that nothing learned is important.\
False teaching and bad example set by a University that advertises itself as “Catholic” is damaging to individuals and to society (causing Scandal and the loss of Souls).
The name “Catholic” means (to most parents and students applying) that the institution is in full communion with the Catholic Church.
All Catholic students will eventually affect their own children (future generations) and whatever professions the students eventally choose.
Therefore Faithful Catholic Universities and Colleges are not merely important but critical.
There is no excuse for not using the CCC as one required student text at each Catholic University and College.

Then you completely missed the point of Spe Salvi. I notice you only read the paragraph I provided, then try to dispute that paragraph with the catechism, written before Spe Salvi. Do you mean to say that the Pope himself cannot add to the deposit of faith?

Spe Salvi also addresses a problem I always had with the parable of the beggar Lazarus. You curiously omit that from your analysis. In that parable, I always assumed that the rich man was in hell. Spe Salvi specifically addresses that issue. The rich man, in the parable, is not in hell. Whether or not he will get there is an open question that remains unanswered. (Spe Salvi paragraph 44). Thus, the parable of the beggar Lazarus doesn’t answer the question.

The point of this is that you are stating your opinions of what the catechism says as doctrine. You don’t allow for the fact that you may misunderstand even a direct statement from it. The USCCB cautions against that, and cautions that the CCC is a reference tool primarily for bishops priests, and educators of the faith. Are you among that group, with specific authority from your bishop to teach from the catechism?
***
From http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-catechism-of-the-catholic-church.cfm

6. For whom is the Catechism intended?

The Catechism is intended, first of all, for bishops as teachers of the faith and pastors of the Church. They have the first responsibility in catechesis. Through the bishops, the Catechism is addressed to editors of catechisms, priests, catechists and all others responsible for catechesis. It will also be useful reading for all the faithful.
*****
For the laity, as I am, and assume you are, it is useful reading. It is not matter from which we should instruct others unless we ourselves have a full understanding of what it means. Typically, we should be specifically delegated by a bishop or a priest to actually teach from it.

I don’t believe you read all of Spe Salvi in that time. However, allowing for the possibility that you did, let’s review.

Is the rich man in the story of the beggar Lazarus in hell, and will he remain there forever? (Spe Salvi, p 44). No, he is not in hell, and the question as to whether he remains forever judged is left unanswered. I’ll bet dollars to donuts you viewed the catechism as saying the rich man was in hell prior to Spe Salvi.

At the time of judgment, who advocates for us? GOD. Interesting that an advocate would advocate against the majority of us.

These are not my words - they are the words of Benedict in Spe Salvi.

You are clearly not an educator appointed by a bishop to teach from the catechism, and neither am I. That is why we must be extremely careful not to sa that your opinion or my opinion is true or false. They are what they are - opinions based on our own interpretation of the deposit of faith. They are not doctrine, and merely saying “the catechism says x, so x must be true” doesn’t allow for the fact that neither you nor I has a full knowledge of the deposit of faith which the catechism can present in only summary form. That is why there is specfic instruction about it’s proper use: http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-catechism-of-the-catholic-church.cfm
***
For whom is the Catechism intended?

The Catechism is intended, first of all, for bishops as teachers of the faith and pastors of the Church. They have the first responsibility in catechesis. Through the bishops, the Catechism is addressed to editors of catechisms, priests, catechists and all others responsible for catechesis. It will also be useful reading for all the faithful.
***
It is not intended as a teaching tool for laity, unless specifically delegated by a bishop or, in cases where that is not expedient, a priest.

I usually smile when reading USCCB staff’s interpretations, since they sometimes leave out important information. Although I have seen your link before, thank you for bringing it to everyone’s attention.
This is whom the CCC is intended by the Pope himself, and exactly where you can find the quotes.  It is not only intended for Bishops, Priests and those who teach.
“….the Catechism has raised throughout the world, even among non-Christians, and confirms its purpose of being presented as a full, complete exposition of Catholic doctrine, enabling EVERYONE to know what the Church professes, celebrates, lives, and prays in her daily life.”  – Pope John Paul II (CCC - pg xiv)
and
“Through the harmonious and complementary efforts of ALL the ranks of the People of God, may this Catechism be known and shared by EVERYONE, so that the unity in faith whose supreme model and origin is found in the Unity of the Trinity may be strengthened and extended to the ends of the earth.”  -  Pope John Paul II   (CCC pg xv)
and
“ The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly is offered to EVERY INDIVIDUAL who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pet 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes”.  – Pope John Paul II   (CCC pg 6)
These quotes from the Pope and more are included on the site I suggested:
“What Catholics REALLY Believe Source”
http://whatcatholicsreallybelieve.com
You are right, neither of us teach - and that is why everyone should direct others to the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” for the TRUTH of what the Church teaches.
Don’t forget on the suggested web site is info on the Plenary Indulgence we all can gain during the Year of Faith which can include the CCC, and quotes from Pope Benedict’s Porta Fidei regarding the CCC.

Pope Benedict -  quoted below in Motu Proprio - Porta Fidei (re Year of Faith)
Please note his word “ALL”, not just Bishops, Priests, and others.
We are all called to evangelize, so to a certain extent we are all teachers.  To spread the faith accurately - we will find the answers in the CCC.
QUOTE: “ 11.  In order to arrive at a systematic knowledge of the content of the faith, ALL can find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church a precious and indispensable tool.
It is one of the most important fruits of the Second Vatican Council.
In the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, signed, not by accident, on the thirtieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, Blessed John Paul II wrote: “this catechism will make a very important contribution to that work of renewing the whole life of the Church … I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith.”  UNQUOTE

As long as you don’t profess to teach the truth, I don’t have a problem. If you want to say that “I don’t teach the truth, the catechism does, and here’s my interpretation of what the catechism means,” I don’t have a problem with that, either.

I’d appreciate an honest answer to a question I posed earlier. Prior to reading Spe Salvi, did you think the rich man in the story of Lazarus and the beggar, was in hell, and would you have stated that as a teaching of the Catechism?

N.D. mom—-I agree with all you say.  And you touched on what is precisely my point: Notre Dame’s enormous potential (and therefore, responsibility) to help form an authentic Catholic culture.  She shouldn’t be simply “a reflection” of what the Church is today.  Look around.  The Church, as it has come down to us for 2000 years, and the Judeo/ Christian culture at large are in serious danger.  If an attentive Catholic can’t see the dangers and the spiritual failures (enter Notre Dame?), they are, I believe, part of the problem.  We are not the Church Triumphant, we are the Church Militant—-and we really have a fight on our hands!  What is Notre Dame doing about it?

As I see it, Notre Dame has done much good; but, the good she does (from a Catholic perspective) seems to be almost exclusively in the material realm.  From her standpoint, I suppose, there she is safe—-pretty hard to offend doing ‘good works’; but, quite frankly, these efforts don’t necessarily involve much Christian faith.  After all, even the heathen love….

Tom R.  I don’t speculate, and neither should you.
Speculation is not important, and can even be harmful to others when using the media.
What is important is the CCC and its Bible footnotes, and accurately spreading the truth of our Faith to others.
Just quote the CCC and you will be accurate. Forget about all the unnecessary “what-ifs”, “couldas” “wouldas” and “shouldas”.  Speculation is silly.

Ron A. -

You are so phenomenally uninformed, wildly incorrect and blithely ignorant when it comes to what Notre Dame does and does not do, you make an absolute comic fool of yourself.

I would say that it is sinful the way you write with such willful arrogance, but then I realize that nobody cares what you think, you are without influence in the world and you truly don’t matter.

Anne,
You’re absolutely right, I shouldn’t have speculated. A direct question, then.
Are the following statemenst in accord with what Pope Benedict wrote in Spe Salvi?

Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.592 The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul—a destiny which can be different for some and for others.593

1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification594 or immediately,595—or immediate and everlasting damnation.596

Yes.  At the time of death we will be judged by Jesus.
Each of us will go to Heaven, Purgatory for purification (which is temporary), or Hell.
If any readers are interested, CCC 1031 & 1472 explain “Purgatory”.
As shown in the CCC relating to Purgatory for the specifically related footnotes see - about the cleansing fire - 1 Cor 3:15 and 1 Pet 1:7.

Anne,
Thank you for your answer. I agree with it, and nothing I’ve written in these comment boxes has said anything differently.

You have changed the nature of the debate. You have failed to provide evidence that Father Jenkins, with the guidance of Bishop Rhoades, does not intend to run this organization as any Good Father would, in The Light of our Catholic Faith. Although it is true that The University of Notre Dame should not honor any person, even if that person happens to be The President of The United States, “who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles”, because we believe these fundamental moral principles exist for the Good of all persons, not just Catholics, this does not change the fact that Our Lady’s University has a Great responsibility to be a Beacon of Light in the Days ahead.

Tom, Revelation is complete.  Can the Pope add to the deposit of faith? What do you mean?  Can he add to revelation? No.  Can he explain it? Yes. Also, I have just opened a Dhouay-Rheims Bible I had close at hand to reread the story of Lazarus, surprised I was so far off but, and I quote, “And it came to pass that the poor man died and was borne away by the angels into Abraham’s bosom; but the rich man also died and was buried in HELL.”  Luke 16, 22 Now the Holy Father says we must not look at this as the Final Judgement but as a story that lead to the Jewish understanding of purgatory but it is troubling that the word is explicitly used in this example and then it is used as “purgatory” by the Holy Father. So let me check my other Bible. Just did. Verse 22 in the New Jerusalem Bible reads, “Now it happened that the poor man died and was carried away by the angels into Abraham’s embrace.  The rich man also died and was buried.  23. In the torment in HADES he looked up and saw Abraham a long way off with Lazarus in his embrace.”  Again Hades. So I would like some more catechesis about how the word hell or hades can be used in both places and then be told it refers to purgatory. Now perhaps it is the preliminary judgement because there is a final judgement but it is clearly called hell and hades so I would like a more in depth explanation.  Spe Salvi is about explaining what the basis of this “hope” is and I don’t think anywhere he leads you to think you can willfully transgress God and then expect salvation, but he does give hope that you can have tried to be faithful and stumbled and be saved.
Nancy, Don’t you think by calling the club a club for GLBT students it is already off course?

Pam, I do believe identifying oneself or someone else as an object of sexual desire demeans the inherent Dignity of the human person and is thus a sin. We have become so conditioned that many do not recognize that identifying someone else or oneself as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual…is in direct conflict with God’s Commandment regarding lust and the sin of adultery. The name of the club should respect the Dignity of the human person, from the beginning.

Please Pray for those who are suffering as a result of the terrible and heartbreaking tragedy that occured in Newtown Connecticut today.

Nancy, Thanks for bringing up the need to pray for all those affected at Newtown.  I have, but can always do more.  And glad we agree about the name.  It is the “hope” and “faith” that is under attack with the modern culture.  Everything is impossible to overcome or how it is supposed to be no matter how far off course.  Having Tom (rather backhandedly) sneak in Spe Salvi, God took whatever his motive was and used it for good to remind us HOPE was one of Christ’s primary purposes in coming to us.

First of all, Nancy seems to operating under the assumption that I have supported establishment of a homosexual support group on the campus of Notre Dame, when I’ve stated exactly the opposite - prudence would indicate that a catholic university should at least not advertise such a group, if it has one. I see nothing wrong with such a group per se, provided that the purpose of the support group is to lead people to chastity. The concern is chastity, and prudent support of chastity. I don’t think that having an advertised group addresses that concern.

Pam - In the bible, a lot of different words in the original languages were translated as hell, and that is part of the issue you face when you say the catechism says “x” so “x” must be true. You have to know what the target, “x”, is and means in the context of the writing. (Even the Jewish concept of Sheol changed over time). Even though, as Nancy has stated, the catechism is a complete summary of the faith, it is not a complete exposition of the faith. A lot of history and theology went into the brief text that constitutes the catechism. Therefore, to completely understand the summary, you have to delve into the history of the Church and its apologetics. Very few of us have time to do that. We read the catechism, and try to stay current with encyclicals. So, when an encyclical from the Pope says something that seems to contradict my understanding, I recognize that my understanding is wrong, not the Pope.

I know that doesn’t answer your specific question, Pam, but the problem is I am not a trained theologian. Even if I were, I cannot speak for the Pope, so I can’t possibly answer your question honestly. I might lead you or others into error in the attempt to do so, in violation of Canon 227.

I’m sorry you feel that I entered Spe Salvi into the conversation “backhandedly.” That was not my intent.

I believe Father John’s intention is to let those men and women who identify themselves as GLBT know that a support group is being created at Our Lady’s University that will see these young men and women in The Light of Love, not as objects of sexual desire. The Language of Love precludes anyone from being identified according to sexual desire simply because The Word of God is grounded in authentic Love, to begin and end with.

Tom R.  There is a grave punishment reserved for those who change the words of the Bible spoken of in Revelation.  Listening to an audio bible recitation on Catholic radio I heard a line from one of Paul’s letters changed to remove the reference of a list of sexual sins including “sodomy” and replace it with just one phrase: “temple prostitutes” and knew it wasn’t right. We need to be aware of the times we live in. Certainly understanding evolves but our ability to translate those words was just fine and someone has tampered with them.  This tampering is movtivated by something and one fruit is acceptance of sins that have always been clearly delineated as unacceptable in the Bible.  In its essence the lesson of the story of Lazarus and the rich man is that the rich man is in torment because of how he lived selfishly and oblivious to the needs of others and Lazarus is in Abraham’s embrace because of how he suffered yet evidently was faithful.  That was the message intended for the listener, “the childlike” who were dear to Christ. When we are seeking to lead souls to Christ, do you think His method is to say, “Don’t be too concerned. Some eon you will arrive in heaven after much torment.”  I don’t and I don’t think Pope Benedict does either.  You have taken the paragraph out of context, the context that we must have HOPE in Christ’s love and power and promise.  And that Hope gives rise to a living faith that receives what it asks for among which is a converted soul.
Nancy D, That conflicting vision of the individual is the crux of the whole problem.  They are at an age where their sexual identity and libido is strong and any attempt to downplay or discourage their holding on to their sexual label is seen as a slam no matter how lovingly extended.  When they are ready to join a group most have crossed a moral line that makes them resent ideas to come back to the other side of the moral divide which is why the whole idea of forming a group seems destructive to me.

Pam,

I never said nor did I imply, “Don’t be too concerned. Some of you will arrive in heaven after much torment.” That’s simply a lie, with you putting words in my mouth. I did say the rich man in the parable of Lazarus the beggar was not in hell, and that what will happen to him on the day of judgment remains unknown. So did Pope Benedict, and in proper context. I think at this point, it is appropriate to quote Spe Salvi directly, without your improper paraphrase of what the Pope said. This is a direct quote, without your embellishment.

***
Jesus admonishes us through the image of a soul destroyed by arrogance and opulence, who has created an impassable chasm between himself and the poor man; the chasm of being trapped within material pleasures; the chasm of forgetting the other, of incapacity to love, which then becomes a burning and unquenchable thirst. We must note that in this parable Jesus is not referring to the final destiny after the Last Judgement, but is taking up a notion found, inter alia, in early Judaism, namely that of an intermediate state between death and resurrection, a state in which the final sentence is yet to be pronounced.
***

There are some who claim The Church is a “big tent” and thus there is no need to separate the wheat from the chaff, even though to profess to be Catholic, is to profess that they believe and are thus already converted to The Word of God. (Catholic Canon 750)

Do not let your hearts be hardened and turn from The Grace of God, least your heart become like a “pillar of salt”. No greater Love is this, that one desires Salvation for one’s beloved.

Tom R.  The Pope is using this story to make a distinction between the individual judgement of each person at death and the final judgement in an encyclical on hope.  It is still an issue for me because this teaching is not under infallibility and the story says that Lazarus CANNOT go to the rich man and the rich man CANNOT go to Lazarus and Jesus is telling the story.  So although I do not have a problem with what the Pope says, it seems possible still that the man is in fact eternally in hell. I believe in purgatory and pray that all those I love who are not in heaven are in purgatory but I am also aware that there are many sins so serious that do not have sufficient justifying circumstances that souls do go directly to hell.  The root of the problem for me is playing with words to widen the narrow road when Jesus’ intent is clear.  The Apostles who lived with Him and were taught by Him all taught that those men who would lie with a man as with a woman were handed over to their passions and were in grave sin.  Paul says this. Peter says this. And they are remarkably consistent in how they describe either men or women living in this state as being in grave sin.  They are not talking about temple prostitutes or only those who are promiscuous.  They are clear.  Society has understood that for two thousand years.  Now we have a high percentage of homosexual clergy who do not reject the sin because if they did they would not protect it.  They would expose it for the enemy it is.  They would excommunicate those politicians who call themselves Catholic and promote this sin and persecute believers. They would realize that, not relating to women as they should, they may not be really called to priesthood at all.  Just as women are not called to priesthood because Eve was the one who believed the Serpant and yet there are MANY extremely holy and devout women, so a man can be holy and devout and not called to priesthood because half (at least)of those they minister to are women and they look at women differently not with the love or complimentarity they should.  They also do not draw the macho man who needs conversion. Perhaps they look at everything sexually because of the disorder when a heterosexual can move beyond the sexual to the whole person.  They are objectively disordered and this does affect how they look at the world.  Now many of these men are actively seeking authority and they are studying the patriarchs and theology and we are hearing things from the altar that do not conform to the teaching of dying to self and words in the audio Bible are wiping out reference to the sinfulness of sodomy and on and on. Some future generation may be handed on a Bible that isn’t the Bible at all.  I see it and I am speaking up because it is anathema to me. Those who speak the Church teaching are being silenced or slandered into disrepute. Those who would love the person suffering from this disorder and bring them to healing are now “abusing” them and those who speak up for the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman are not welcome to bring their business to Boston.  It is enough.  Our kids are being preyed on from the minute they leave the safety of our own homes and we are letting it happen.  A Catholic University should have these kids so surrounded by love that they are too busy and tired to get caught in the snares of the evil one.  Making a group to reinforce a negative identity that is brought on mostly by grooming and trauma and rape is not anything Jesus would ever do.  He would call them away from it.  If they did walk off to the group He would go on spreading TRUE love and wait for them to see the difference and return.  He would not help them be lead to those who would use them.  Nancy is correct that the enemy sowed weeds in the field and the farmer did not want the weeds pulled until the harvest, but even the workers were aware of the weeds and did what they could to protect the crop. We need to protect the crop. We do not need to give miraclegro to the weeds.

Pam,
Believe what you will, just don’t put words in my mouth that I have not spoken. That’s my objection to what you wrote, and my objection still stands. My issues are not your issues, and you may not paraphrase my words to suit your own agenda. Either quote exactly what I’ve said, or opine on your own - don’t drag me into it and give others the false impression that I hold positions that are contrary to my beliefs. I believe there are such things as grave sin, as Hell, and as evil. Hoping no one is in hell is NOT the same as saying de facto that no one is in hell. As I’ve pointed out to another reader, the Church itself prays that no one is in hell, as shown by the Catechism , and I don’t believe the Church offers prayer in vain. Again, a direct, full, and in context quote from the CCC.
***
1058 The Church prays that no one should be lost: “Lord, let me never be parted from you.” If it is true that no one can save himself, it is also true that God “desires all men to be saved” (1 Tim 2:4), and that for him “all things are possible” (Mt 19:26).
***
God is capable of miracles beyond our understanding, and one of those miracles just may be a miracle of mercy. Perhaps you don’t believe that is possible, and it certainly is not for man, but I believe it is possible for God and I pray for it, just as the Church does.  That doesn’t put me outside of the faith.

No longer clothed with The Word of God, both Adam and Eve found themselves naked. At The Last Supper, Christ instituted The Sacrament of Holy Orders. Women cannot be priests, for the same reason they cannot be fathers. Only a male can serve in Persona Christi.

How to have a Great Apostasy, that if it were possible would deceive even the elect?
You allow those who are planting weeds to remain in His Church physically, having left His Church spiritually, in the Hope that we, who desire to follow The Christ,  there is no other, have no place to rest our weary heads.
“To Whom will we go Lord…”

The name for this new organization has yet to be determined.

Tom, It’s not all about you.  My comment was in reference to any attempt to lure people into being complacent with sin by leading them to believe there is no one in hell. And discussions about who might or might not be in hell lead us the wrong way.  Our goal is not to avoid hell.  It is to know, love and serve God. God’s mercy is great, but He is just.  And He has asked us to love even our enemies because He says, “Vengeance is mine.”  I know that He is Love and that as Love His ways are so far above our ways.  My concern is misleading souls by overselling mercy to everyone’s detriment and yes that can be done. One of its names is relativism and another is false compassion.  Sin exists.  It grows or is overcome by grace.  If it grows we are all harmed.  It is serious and we have an obligation to learn our faith and practice it.
Nancy D.  Christ said there would come a time when man would search from one end of the earth to the other to find the Word of God and would not be able to find it.  I am praying we are not at that time.  At least not on my watch, as they say.

And as a p.s.  Today we sang a song, “Holy Darkness”  and one of the lines really struck me as we try to find God’s Truth as regards homosexuality.  The line was, “Why do you doubt my power?”  To me that sums all our problems up in a nutshell.  With faith all ills are overcome or borne for the sake of the Kingdom. Nothing is impossible right here and now Tom.

Christ said, “And lo, I Am with you until the end of Time”. I will continue to Pray for those who suffer with a same-sex sexual attraction, that they will be able to be transformed through The Grace of God, and learn to develop healthy and Holy relationships and friendships that are grounded in authentic Love.

The honoring of Obama, in light of his being the only Illinois congressman to vote for the preservation of partial birth abortion, says it all about Father Jenkins.  His agenda is diabolical.

SegoLily,  When Jesus invited a sinner to visit with Him, Jesus did the talking, not the sinner.  That’s what’s so out of whack here. The invitation was to give the one in error a platform to spread the error, not to help the sinner see the light.

Pat A. wrote:“There is a whole segment of the student population that suffers from opposite-sex attraction and feel compelled to act upon that deep-seated drive even though they are not married.  What if these people formed a group to foster acceptance and understanding”....
That population already has a support group. It’s called the football coaching staff and Fr. Jenkins himself. The group that could really use support is the Notre Dame and St. Mary’s women who are preyed upon by those ‘compelled to act’. Two thus compelled played in that BCS game.

If you need one more reason to be ashamed of Notre Dame’s President, consider his quote recently in the Wall Street Journal “Civility is what allows speech to be heard” and then read Melinda Henneberger’s (Nat’l Catholic Reporter*) comments about Jenkins lack of response to the families of the young women assaulted and raped by his football players.
As the daughter and mother of ND & SMC alum I am sad to say I now agree with Ms Henneberger response to why she was not excited about the NCS bowl game.”... how many predators would have to be on the team before you’d no longer feel like cheering?” 
Jack Swarbrick cried for Teo, but Fr. Jenkin’s wouldn’t even give the parents of Lizzie Seeberg a “Sorry for your loss”.