Notre Dame Priests upset about Obama's Invite to Speak because of Abortion

Which would also explain why it was not funny.

 

dude pedophile jokes are always funny.

A pedophile is walking through the woods with a young boy. All of a sudden the kid grabs the guy's hand. "I'm scared," says the boy.

To which the pedophile responds, "You're scared. I have to walk back alone."

---

A pedophile walks up to the edge of a cliff. There is a little girl crying and looking down at the bottom.

"Little girl, what's wrong?" he asked.

"My mommy slipped off the cliff. Then my daddy tried to grab her and he fell off too!"

The two sit there for a while, contemplating the problem the young girl faced. Suddenly the man started to unbuckle his pants.

"What are you doing?" she asked

"Little girl, this just isn't your day."

---

What's a pedophile's favorite part of a hockey game?

Before the first period.

----

see? Always funny.

 

Enjoy your time at Clutchfans.

 

So do you have a problem with Catholics or are you just trying to be insensitive to the religious views of others?

Oh...before you start with the "i am debating and discussing" rhetoric, you are doing neither. You are mocking, which wasn't on the list.

 

Would these same priests support Joe Biden coming to the University to speak ?

 

That people don't use them isn't an argument for saying that they aren't effective at stopping AIDS. If the counter argument is that abstinence is better clearly that isn't working either.

 

Someone doesn't agree with your viewpoint, therefore they hate you/are insensitive to you? For the record, it's neither: I don't hate Catholics, and I'm not insensitive to their views. I just wish they were more sensitive to the views of others. For example, giving a decent man who happens to be pro-choice, a chance to speak and be heard on campus despite the fact that his opinions on one or two issues vary from your own. I'm sure that, given the chance, Obama might have many pertinents issues that he would love to bring to the table that he and the Catholic students at Notre Dame would agree upon. But because he's pro-choice, he's persona non grata? Makes no sense to me.

Again, stating an opinion contrary to your own = mocking? I think not.

 

You (along with King Cheetah) have missed the entire point. It's not about him coming to speak. It's about conferring a degree on him that says we emulate your stance on the laws, when the church doesn't. Just read this: http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.3768/pub_detail.asp

I'll quote some for you because you've been really lazy in this argument...

 

The point is, if both are not working, why should the Church support one it views as immoral; while the other one promotes sanctity and marriage. It's clear to see why the Church has made it's choice. You're free to disagree, but you can't say it's illogical or that if practiced it would work.

 

With so much hypocrisy accepted over the last thousand years why raise a stink over this?



ASUNCION, Paraguay — Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo admitted Monday he is the father of a child conceived while he was still a Roman Catholic bishop.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/6372309.html

 

I'm not missing the point, I just disagree. To vilify someone because of their standpoint on ONE issue, rather than they content of their overall character and/or their overall views is, in my opinion, pious judgmental narrow-mindedness at it's worst.

Oh, and in the original article, the ten priests did not specify that they objected only to the conferring of a degree, but rather to the invitation to speak at the commencement as well. I'll quote for the lazy (and what an argumentative phrase THAT is, by the way):

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/08/holy-cross-priests-object-obama-notre-dame-invite/

 

It's funny how some catholics view catholicism. I didn't find your opinion to be "mocking" in anyway. Mocking would be.... being "catholic" and not supporting your fellow catholic brothers in other countries, who struggle with poverty and opression by upper classes.

To me, abortion should always be last on the list of priorities and should basically be a non-subject. There is a lot of change to go around, and vatican city is a good place to start. Thank god that so many members of CRS and archbishops in our countries are so genuine towards causes that truly matter, and not as close minded as some of the rational catholic posters.

I can't wait until Archbishop Oscar madariaga becomes the new pope. It will be during his time that the conservative catholic will start changing his views or they can just convert to another religion. =)

 

Hey if you can show me where I endorsed the Holy Cross Priests' position I'd be grateful. I'm sorry I called you lazy, you just don't seem to be reading the links I've posted or addressing the main thrusts of my arguments.

That's another aspect of this thing that is ridiculous, the timing and the way it was announced. Basically if students want to protest or say something against it they have to organize everything right during their finals push (I know this because I've been up to 4 almost every night last week in meetings). If we don't organize some rally against it it looks like we accept it, and then there really has been no debate or discussion outside of the disgruntled alum writing in and the smart aleck newspaper editor who fight back and forth in the paper. Personally, I think the decision to invite as a commencement speaker was imprudent and sends the wrong message (there, you have me backing the Holy Cross Priests). That's just my personal opinion though, and technically it would have been fine to have him as just a commencement speaker without the degree. When you give him the degree though, the whole thing changes, and a lot of people are upset about that. Student body is probably somewhere around 60/40 (for it, which would be way different at any other school) right now, and alumni are probably 80/20 against it. Practically speaking it has created a divide in the school, another reason I just can't fathom the choice.

Weigel's piece hits the nail on the head.

 

There are a few instances where the Catholic church has been hypocritical of what it teaches, but it shouldn't tear apart all the good it has done for people over thousands of years.

There are a few popes that were pretty evil in my opinion but it shouldn't take away from the churches very solid foundation which has done of a lot good.

I only say that you can find some dirt from any group that's been around that long and has had so many people take the reins and abuse their power. In the few hundred years since the U.S. began we've gone through a hell of a lot of horrible politicians. The same is true from other countries, and true in this very present. These are hundreds of millions of lives we're talking about here. In other nations we're talking over a billion. Some with a much longer history than the U.S. We're talking about tyrants, dictators, businessmen and corporations from other countries, and other religions whose hands have been dirty at some points as well. Point being is nobody is perfect.

 

And this is where we disagree: Wiegel believes that Obama is a person not to be emulated, based on his opinion on abortion. A Wiegel can paint it as something more about his policies in general, such as school vouchers etc., but the fact is people aren't protesting about school vouchers. They aren't even really protesting that much about stem cells. It's about abortion. Roe v. Wade all over again. And to dismiss a person like Barack Obama because your opnions differ on one issue (or even two issues) and ignore the multitude of issues where your opnions coincide and where you could work together to make progress is short-sighted and counterproductive.

This is the Catholic church grandstanding to further their attempts to take away a woman's right to choose.

 

Except that when they vote for the Democrat in 4 out of 5 elections, it does suggest that they tend to vote Democratic. So no, it doesn't directly contradict my statement. You picked the one exception to create a false reality in the hope that no one would call you out on it. The question is why you needed to do that to defend your point?

 

Which doesn't exist cf. any thread on abortion here and abortion jurisprudence.

And why would the Church not fight for this if they truly believed it? Would you expect no uproar on having Governor Wallace speak and be honored? Of course not. It's perfectly valid for the Church to be upset about the University's actions. As far as I'm concerned, Obama's using the school to court Catholics, and ND is letting him do it.

 

Nothing that you have posted says that condoms don't work. It says that people aren't using them enough. The problem is with getting people to use them not that condoms don't work to prevent AIDS.

 

And they voted Republican in 3 out of 3 elections before that. So in the past 8 elections, 4 vs. 4. My main point was that you made a really broad generalization about how Catholics vote. You'll actually find your numbers, when you dive into them, are quite different. For instance, practicing Catholics (the ones who go to Church) more often than not vote Pro-Life, which is usually Republican. Catholics in the South vote very different from Catholics in the North. The basic point is, no they don't just block vote for Democrats as you seem to imply, most recently in 2004, clearly not voting Democrat.

 

The quote states that attempts to get people to use them, no matter how big the campaign has been, have not been successful. The real issue obviously is culture. So if you have to change a culture, I think the Pope's way to do it is more effective, helps build a better society, and helps people get into heaven which should be his ultimate goal.