SOUTH BEND, Ind. — Two years have passed since President Barack Obama’s controversial appearance at the University of Notre Dame. The university’s decision to invite the pro-abortion president to speak at the 2009 commencement exercises and receive an honorary doctorate was met with protests from a number of bishops. And people came to northern Indiana from all over and held rallies on and off campus. Nearly 90 protesters were arrested for trespassing.
Now, at the behest of Notre Dame, Saint Joseph County, Ind., prosecutor Michael Dvorak has dropped the charges against the “ND 88,” as the group of protesters has come to be known (one has since died).
The defendants and Notre Dame moved to settle their differences by means of an “Agreement Not to Sue,” which included two press releases to be issued once the prosecutor officially dropped the charges. That happened May 5.
The agreement states that it was during the course of discovery proceedings where Notre Dame officials were subpoenaed by the ND 88’s counsel that prospects of reconciliation were discussed.
The final agreement was not the first attempted. Key ND 88 figures could not sign the first draft in good conscience and pushed for changes, which Notre Dame accepted.
The university agreed to rescind and cancel all trespass notices, which means the defendants can now visit the campus in the future. The defendants agreed to not sue the university. The ND 88 and their counsel have stated they believe they had clearly identifiable civil claims against the university and the county, including violations of their civil rights (freedom of speech, religion and association) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (and Indiana’s Constitution), as well as state law claims for false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. They never filed any charges, however.
Technically, it was not in the power of Notre Dame to drop the charges. However, the prosecutor had little reason not to honor their request, and it relieves the legal system of time-consuming and costly jury trials. The agreement affirms that it is “not an admission of any liability or wrongdoing by any of the parties.”
In his May 5 press release, Notre Dame’s president, Holy Cross Father John Jenkins, wrote that he was “sincerely pleased” that the charges have been dismissed.
“From the start, everyone involved in this difficult matter has been in complete accord on the sanctity of human life, and we all remain committed to continuing our work to support life from conception to natural death,” Father Jenkins stated.
The Thomas More Society, which had defended most of the 88, simultaneously issued its own press release.
“This is a big step forward and a victory for the pro-life cause,” said Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the society. Brejcha praised Father Jenkins for his attendance at the March for Life in Washington, in 2010 and 2011 and for “the creation of new and significant pro-life initiatives on campus.”
The Thomas More Society statement noted that “those who share pro-life convictions may differ on tactics and approaches, but they best serve their sacred cause when they work together to secure the common good for all human beings, born and unborn alike, rather than carrying on as courtroom antagonists. … The parties remain in profound disagreement over the 2009 Commencement, but after prayerful consideration, they have decided to put their differences behind them, to cease battling in court, and rather to affirm a commitment to the fundamental proposition that each and every human life is sacred, from conception until natural death.”
While it remains to be seen whether Notre Dame will again honor a prominent outspoken supporter of the legalized killing of children in the womb, it is clear that the university has significantly strengthened its support for the right to life. Notre Dame spokesman Dennis Brown detailed various steps the university has taken to strengthen its pro-life commitment. These moves include participation by Father Jenkins in the annual March for Life in both 2010 and 2011, the creation of an institutional statement affirming the university’s commitment to the defense of human life in all its stages, the adoption of principles for the university’s charitable activity, support for conferences, consultations and courses on life issues, and the appointment of Mary Daly (who led a student protest against Obama’s appearance called ND Response) as coordinator of pro-life initiatives.
Reactions
The principal figure behind the events that led to many of the arrests was Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue and a Catholic convert. Upon hearing the news that Obama would be invited, Terry and his family temporarily moved to South Bend in an RV. Terry orchestrated daily protests in front of the university.
Bishop John D’Arcy, who was the ordinary of Fort Wayne-South Bend at the time, publicly disapproved of Terry’s tactics and discouraged the faithful from joining him. Instead, Bishop D’Arcy lent his support to ND Response. He appeared at a campus graduation day rally sponsored by ND Response, which drew about 2,000 participants and strengthened the spiritual core of Notre Dame. Graduation day brought many other protesters. Some ventured onto campus and were arrested.
Monica Miller, director of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society, considers the May 5 settlement “a huge victory for our witness.” She said that “Notre Dame has made some effort to strengthen its commitment to the right to life of the unborn. I know there’s a lot of work yet that still needs to be done.”
Miller noted that Notre Dame “has never apologized for having Obama there, and we’re beyond asking them for that apology at this point.” Having exhausted other efforts, Miller emphasized that coming onto campus to witness “was a last resort when Notre Dame was not listening to us.”
Charles Rice, professor emeritus of law at Notre Dame and outspoken pro-life and marriage advocate, wrote in an email, “This is a very good development, beneficial to the university and all concerned. … The charges, however, never should have been brought. In 2007, the gay-rights and pacifist demonstrators arrested on the Notre Dame campus were not prosecuted. It would be appropriate for Father Jenkins to apologize publicly for the university’s indefensibly selective prosecution of the ND 88. We pray for Notre Dame and for our country.”
Mike McBride, one of the defendants, challenged, “If Father [Jenkins] was so ‘sincerely pleased’ at seeing our charges dismissed, then why didn’t he have the charges thrown out two years ago? In fact, why didn’t he ever listen to the outcry of 83 Catholic bishops, including his own, and cancel President Obama’s appearance?”
Joe Scheidler, national director of the Pro-Life Action League, who brought 165 protesters from the Chicago area to a demonstration on graduation day, said in an email, “I think this settlement of the ND 88 problem is a real plus for pro-life, the attorneys who worked for two years to bring it about, and possibly even for Notre Dame’s waning reputation.”
Register correspondent Thomas A. Uebbing writes from South Bend, Indiana.
Edward Pentin: Pope Francis, the Mafia, and Pro-Abortion Politicians
Comments
Post a Comment
President Obama is not “PRO” abortion, I don’t think anyone is. He is pro personal responsibility, and it is responsibility of the Church to teach woman their moral duty so they will choose correctly.
Dollars to donuts that Bishop Rhoades had something to do with Fr. Jenkins’ change of heart. When he was back in the Diocese of Harrisburg, Bishop Rhoades was squarely in Bishop Darcy’s corner and was one the first to come out supporting him. But his m.o. as a bishop is to work a bit more behind the scenes in his own diocese. Now that he’s in charge in Fort Wayne/South Bend, there’s little doubt that he’s been in quite a bit of contact with Fr. Jenkins about this situation. I would have liked to see something more from Fr. Jenkins, but the change in attitude is still encouraging.
Tom, As a former journalism teacher at ND, I give you a solid “A” on your article on the dropping of the charges against the ND88. I’d like to give you an A-plus, but the plus on my computer looks like a minus, and I don’t want you to think ill of me. Thanks for summing up that mess.
As a real Irish Catholic, I will never support Notre Dame in any way. My kids are in high school and wanted to look at that college, and I told them absolutley not. I will never allow them to look at that or any other Catholic college that is Catholic in name only - would rather send them to the best public college first. And, given the opportunity, I will spread the word to others. Bottom line, ND needs to apologize for supporting abortion over Catholic teaching and earn back the right to be called Catholic. This is a first step but many more steps are required. If enough people lose interest in sending their kids there, Catholic or not, I’m sure they’ll backtrack in a hurry.
Father Jenkins should be ashamed of himself, but he is probably quite pleased with himself, like most liberals of his generation.
There are some truly great Catholic universities out there. Notre Dame isn’t one of them.
What bothers me most is that they have the gall to carry the name of Our Lady. I guess that’s part of what first Saturday’s devotion is for.
I’m sorry, as far as I can see, this is all window dressing. Fr Jenkins et al treated these people shamefully. If they represented a secular university, this wouldn’t be scandalous or surprising. As it is, they claim to be Our Lady’s representatives and so the scandal they gave on 5/17/09 has eternal significance not to mention what they’ve put these 88 people through. For my part, I’ve done all I could during the last 2 years to encourage highschoolers to attend truly Catholic universities in lieu of CINO institutions which NDU apparently is.
Charles Rice, Professor emeritus at the South Bend institution* is quoted in the article, “‘In 2007, the gay-rights and pacifist demonstrators arrested on the Notre Dame campus were not prosecuted. It would be appropriate for Father Jenkins to apologize publicly for the university’s indefensibly selective prosecution of the ND 88 . . .’”
The University indeed chose to punish the pro-life demonstrators against abortion-on-demand supporter President Obama much more harshly than it did other demonstrators. One possible reason for this is that the pro-life demonstrators at the South Bend campus represented opposition to the favored policies of a sitting U.S. President who had been invited to speak at the University. Powerful political figures don’t appreciate being demonstrated against, and thus embarrassed and deprived of the adulation they feel is their due. The University wouldn’t need to be informed of this by the White House, and would take it upon themselves to punish those demonstraters whom it felt had brought embarrasment or discredit to an honored and important guest much more harshly than it would seek to punish demonstrators who had not embarassed a powerful political figure invited by the University.
——————————————————————-
* The University which once merited to bear the name of Our Lady, and, it is fervently hoped, one day will again.
So what happened to the recent ND faculty’s rejection of a resolution that ND has a commitment to a Culture of Life ?!?!?
Mike McBride, one of the defendants, challenged, “If Father [Jenkins] was so ‘sincerely pleased’ at seeing our charges dismissed, then why didn’t he have the charges thrown out two years ago? In fact, why didn’t he ever listen to the outcry of 83 Catholic bishops, including his own, and cancel President Obama’s appearance?”
Why do you THINK Fr Jenkins alowed Obama to get honored in the first place? Because he’s a scumbag of the “masters of the universe” and he’s not allowed to dishonor global scum, and he has no choice BUT to honor scum.
Notre Dame is not the only Catholic College to promote pro-abortion speakers. Each February Ohio Dominican college in Columbus, Ohio sponsors a political speaker for Presidents Day, and somehow all the prominent pro-life leaders are overlooked. Recent speakers were Elizabeth Edwards ( wife of John) a outspoken advocate of breast health and also pro-abortion; as well as Donna Brazille ( director of the Democratic Bill Clinton campaign) who professes to be Catholic, but again a pro-abortion Democrat.
Why do Catholic schools omit the dynamic prolife speakers? They are poor examples to their communities and their students. We can only continue to suggest and react it seems.
It was a very sad day when Obama was invited to speak at a catholic university from a man who is against the teachings of our church. I understand how a true catholics felt about this.
I wonder if any of these protesters will travel to DC to protest John Boehner’s commencement address at the Catholic University of America? Doubtful. I expect their understanding of “pro-life” is quite limited. I wonder if they care that Boenher’s budget will actually lead to more abortions in the U.S.
The proper term, unless you are just looking to inflame people, is pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Just like we call the other side pro-life, not “pro-bringing a child into a toxic living environment and having them be raised by an unfit mother/parents” or “pro-forcing a woman to give birth to a child conceived by rape or incest”.
The same article could have been written using pro-choice, and been the identical piece.
Those priests and others who do not subscribe all the catholic teachingscan leave the Church. There are some priests who work agaist Church.
It is OUTRAGEOUS that the President of the University was a “Do-nothing” until now. What a waste of time and energy. Professors, administrators, et al, need to have their priorities straight - learning MORALS - or they need to be ousted, and they can start over with all new leaders.
Those protestors could teach the current university muckie-mucks a thing or two. Not only is the university not “Catholic”, it isn’t even CHRISTIAN. The university needs an OVERHAUL.
Other developments at Notre Dame include the formation of The Notre Dame Fund to Protect Human Life, which is a pro-life restricted fund administered by a five person commitee of pro-life scholars. Activities of the Fund include support of the student RTL club, substantial funding for the student and faculty to attend the RTL march in Washington, and most recently the establishment of the Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life) award. The initial Evangelium Vitae award was made two weeks ago to Richard Doerflinger, RTL associate with the NCCB. The Fund’s activities are independent of those of the Notre Dame administration, but supportive of all campus RTL activities. Fund information is available on its website http://www.ndfundforlife.com .
“The proper term, unless you are just looking to inflame people, is pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Just like we call the other side pro-life, not “pro-bringing a child into a toxic living environment and having them be raised by an unfit mother/parents” or “pro-forcing a woman to give birth to a child conceived by rape or incest”.
No, the correct term is pro-abortion. Period. That is, unless you’re just looking to inflame the argument because, you see, that is exactly what you are advocating: You are for not allowing a child to live in peace in her mom’s womb = abortion. Let’s call a spade a spade.
As far as the whole “toxic living environment/unfit parent/rape & incest” arguments that get trotted out every time this topic comes up (Talk about ‘inflaming’), only the truly blind cannot see that LIFE is the premium value here. Your mom saw that fact & that’s why you’re here to state your opinion. Thank her.
Another commenter opined: “The proper term, unless you are just looking to inflame people, is pro-choice, not pro-abortion.”
Indeed. The objection to “pro-choice” is that the term evades naming the very procedure it advocates keeping legal and maintaining access to. In this, “pro-choice” resembles the “pro-states-rights” label from the mid-19th century. The Southern States wanted to be described as favoring the right of states to choose whether to allow the institution of slavery within their borders, and denounced the Northern states for denying them this “right.” No self-respecting Southerner would answer to the label “pro-slavery.” “Pardon me, I am *not* pro-slavery, sir! I am pro-states rights!”
If people don’t wish to be called “pro-abortion”, then perhaps they will appreciate my appellation: “supporters of abortion-on-demand,” which is accurate and which doesn’t shy away from the facts.
To Bill W
If I understand you correctly you think that noone should be born unless the world is perfect. Also that noone who was conceived improperly deserves to live. Given those parameters then you must think that noone should have ever been born, and therefore one could logically assume that you wish you had never been born. Is that true?
Robert, Bill W,
You can whitewash things all you like, but stating that Pres Obama promotes a pro-abortion view best represents the whole situation.
There’ve been many, many opportunities for Obama or others to demonstrate genuine interest in “choice”. At every turn, they’ve adamantly promoted the choice to abort.
You can’t proclaim the virtues of “choice”, then constantly proclaim the “virtue” of one of the choices, and remain credible.
Your intentions are—and have been—quite clear.
Raymond,
I’ll be truly saddened if the protesters go to DC to tell Speaker Boehner that he’s being a problem.
I’d say “pro-life” doesn’t end at the child’s birth. It also means that you take responsibility for your actions and act accordingly. You learn to take care of yourself. You do NOT ask the government to pay your bills.
Social welfare didn’t solve abortion when we tried; it won’t do so now either.
@Robert
President Obama is not “PRO” abortion??? Are you being sarcastic?
Obama’s pockets run deep with Planned Parenting dollars. His voting record and, well, everything he says, shows that he most certainly IS pro-abortion.
Remember the slogan WWJD? JESUS is NOT PRO- CHOICE! Shame on ND for prosecuting Pro-Life & ignoring LIBERAL protestors! God will not be mocked. I pray for those in authority at ND and all pro-abortion supporters.
Where is the apology from “NDResponse?” NDResponse cut a deal with Jenkins to be the “sole and exclusive” on-campus pro-life protest group. Anyone they blessed was allowed on campus to protest Obama. Anyone they fingered (such as the ND 88) were arrested or forced off campus.
There would have been no arrests if NDResponse had accepted all pro-lifers rather than picking and choosing.
Katherine,
Your post is unfair. NDRresponse did not “cut a deal” with Fr. Jenkins or anyone else to keep anyone off the campus. The student organizations involved in NDResponse simply followed the already existing rules for campus protests by students. And every event sponsored by NDResponse included a general invitation to people from off campus and indeed attracted lots of people from off campus.
So NDResponse did not force anyone off campus. To be sure, some people decided to mount protests independent of the NDResponse events. Of these, some also participated in NDResponse events; some did not. NDResponse had nothing to say in the matter. Nor, as far as I recall, did anyone in NDResponse applaud the university for the shameful way it treated the ND 88, either on graduation day or afterwards.
Alfred, you are wrong. They did “cut a deal” with Fr. Jenkins to be the “offical” protest group. Anyone they declared under their umbrella was okay and anyone they fingered as not part of their effort was subject to arrest. All NDResponse had to say is that the ND 88 were accepted as part of their efforts. But they wouldn’t.
Katherine, I don’t know what internet source you are getting your info from, or if you are just making stuff up. NDResponse had nothing to do with “fingering” anybody or with the arrest of the ND 88. They had no such authority. They cut no “deal” as you allege. Your wild accusations are untrue and unhelpful. But you did use good judgement, I admit, in withholding your name.
Real Catholics don’t support killing children or arrest blessed priests witnessing to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Wolves in sheep’s clothing!
There should not have been a reason to protest. This college, its facility and administration should be ashamed of themselves. If we could go back in time and it was Hitler, Mao, or Stalin in Obama’s position would they have welcomed them? Patted Stalin on the back or shook hands with Hitler? I do not see a difference here. Obama does not just support abortion he supports it up until the day of birth.
You people are an embarrassment to practicing Catholic! What is next the selling of indulgences…...
Katherine,
I stand by what I said. There was no way that NDResponse could have brought the ND 88 under its umbrella, as you put it. All they could do was to set up their protest events under the rules pertaining to student protests. Some outside protestors chose not to be bound by those rules. That’s fine; it’s a free country. But it was their choice to act in this way and not NDResponse’s. So NDResponse had nothing to do with their choice, and NDResponse had nothing to do with the university’s misguided attempt to deal with that choice.
This was issued by NDResponse prior to the speech, citing the authority they negotiated for with the Unviersity establishment. It’s pretty clear. You play by the rules they set, you are welcome to be part of their group and free to be on campus. Notice what happens if NDResponse gives you the “thumbs-down”. ”<u>NDResponse</u> reserves the right” to call security.
Concerning Signs and Graphic Images:
Any person willing to respectfully and constructively demonstrate their disapproval of the University’s decision to honor President Obama at commencement is welcomed to stand alongside students at this rally. Graphic images and signs not in keeping with the tone of this rally will not be permitted on Notre Dame’s campus. ND Response reserves the right to have individuals who do not follow student requests escorted from campus by security personnel.
I’ve been Catholic for 69 years and I was totally upset when I heard Notre Dame had invited Obama to speak. Whose bright idea was that?
I feel my Catholic faith has let me down regarding that decision.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.