An Open Letter to Notre Dame

Perhaps she would prefer Sara Palin or ???Joe The Plumber???

Ron2009 , In my opinion your comment pretty much illustrates the confused guidance some people allow others to foist on them, ingrain in them, powerful and very ominous consequences. I will provide an example of some self-righteous beliefs, very well meaning, but ultimately wrought with human foibles that all men/women are subject to.

I point out that in American Society Pastors, Ministers, Evangelical, Bishops, Rabbi???s, etc??? have been and are very powerful voices in the lives of the people in our communities and our nation. They are present at weddings, funerals, Bible Studies, Inaugurations; just about anything important and we prefer that a person representing the Lord be present. To Bless, to guide, to teach, to comfort, etc???Intuitively we as a nation of people trust, admire and proffer a passionate belief in the knowledge, wisdom and guidance on our Religious Leaders.

Having said that, history teaches that from the beginning of recorded history the dangers of trusting without question the thoughts, words, deeds and motives of any and all people that proclaim they come in the name of the Lord. Before I go further I state I only no of the religion, church doctrine that I was raised in, Baptist. That is not to say that I believe that only Baptists have it right when it comes to knowing the Lord. I do not know other religious beliefs and doctrines such a Judaism, Catholicism, Zoroastrian, etc??? Yet I refuse to believe the Lord has chosen only them to know Him and His teachings.

In today???s society there are many examples of Religious Leaders that have sinned so profoundly, any ordinary person would recognize their actions as sin. Sins so ugly we want to get past them, and rarely think of their consequences. How long ago did the thousands of members of the Southern Baptist Convention apologize for their support for Slavery, Segregation, and Discrimination? Apology recognized. But what of the consequences of these powerful, influential people on their communities, years later; including today?

I hope individuals will consider these realities when they decide Ms Glendon is justified, got it exactly right when her written opinions have caused such controversy, divisions, and for some, an assumed acceptance of disrespect of others at Notre Dame and our President is justified.

It's too bad when a catholic university doesn't stand by it's creed. Of course, maybe somebody should have been doing that all along. The president does not reflect our views. If you can't find someone that does, to speak at your commencement, the lowliest janitor at Notre Dame could probably do a better job.

this defines the split in the church over mixing politics with religron. i think the president shold let them off the hook.

Aside from the actual point of view held by both Ms Glendon and Pres Obama, the University of Notre Dame is a Catholic school that holds certain values. Their values should not be so easilty swayed, should they? If they are able to bend their own values, then what of the values of the newly minted graduates heading out into the world? Should they hold firm to their values or be swayed when it is convenient? I think the University if sending a poor message here.

Aside from the actual point of view held by both Ms Glendon and Pres Obama, the University of Notre Dame is a Catholic school that holds certain values. Their values should not be so easilty swayed, should they? If they are able to bend their own values, then what of the values of the newly minted graduates heading out into the world? Should they hold firm to their values or be swayed when it is convenient? I think the University if sending a poor message here.

' "uphold, defend and protect the Constitution of the United States." One of its provisions is a woman's right to choose abortion under certain circumstances...;

Really? That's in the Constitution. I missed the part where Jefferson, et al, discussed abortion. Has it been intepreted to be Constitution? Currently, yes. But you go to far to say that 'One of its [The Constitution] provisions is a woman's right to choose abortion under certain circumstances.

The Catholic Church's moral and social doctrine challenges US Catholics to take positions and make choices that sometimes seem to run counter to our personal convictions. Recent documents from the Vatican and US bishops strongly insist that governments enact policies that preference the poor, conserve the environment and encourage diplomacy, while they strongly condemn artificial birth control, abortion, gay marriage and pre-emptive wars of choice.
What's a poor citizen to do? Can he/she be both a good Catholic and a patriotic American?
Elected officials must take a public oath to "uphold, defend and protect the Constitution of the United States." One of its provisions is a woman's right to choose abortion under certain circumstances. The official's personal views on the issue are irrelevant. It's more accurate - and less hysterical - to say that Pres. Obama does not actively support abortion, but is Constitutionally bound to uphold a woman's right to choose the abomination of abortion.
Inviting Obama to Notre Dame no more implies it supports his policies than Pope John Paul II supported Castro's policy of state torture when he visited Cuba. Same with Richard Nixon's dialogs with Breshnev and Mao, or Ronald Reagan's talks with Gorbachev. Nor did Notre Dame imply agreement with George W. Bush's violations of the Constitution, or the Geneva Conventions, or the Code of Military Justice when it invited him to a recent graduation.

I'm proud of my alma mater's decision to bring Obama to campus, and I find Prof. Glendon's decision not to attend to be little more than sour grapes over Notre Dame's refusal to cave to the conservative party line that has dominated its culture for so long. Goodbye, Prof. Glendon; you will not be missed.

I respect professor Glendon's decision and her right to choose to participate in any forum about any issue religious, legal, economic or social. While it is true that she created no obvious disruption, it is equally true that her example sends a disturbing and disruptive message to Catholic and non-Catholic alike. For the devout Catholic she confirms that individual conscience must give way to the teaching of the church and do as you are told. For the non-Catholic her departure signals an unwillingness to engage opposing views, a sure prescription to keeping a closed mind. What is chilling about the professor's style of disruption is its subtle nature, which is often lost on those who overfocus on overt threats and assaults while ignoring or not perceiving the more covert and implied threat to all persons of conscience. As an individual, professor Glendon's act is her important expression of her faith. We all respect that. As a professor of Law at Harvard, she must be held to a higher standard above and beyond individual expression, for her example reaches far beyond the borders of her individual life. Thus her refusal to engage others with opposing views is a chilling admission of closed-mindedness cloaked beneath the age old religious belief to do as your told. Teachers, priests, bishops, police, doctors and any one who holds a position of power and authority knows that they will be held to a higher standard above the the individual or individuals they are priveldged to serve. One can not imagine professor Glendon applying that principle to others while excluding herself. Yet underlying her well written letter is precisely that!

The Catholic Church's moral and social doctrines challenge US Catholics take positions and make choices that at times seem to counter their personal convictions. Recent documents from the Vatican and US bishops have strongly insisted that governments enact policies that preference the poor, conserve the environment and encourage diplomacy, while condemning artificial birth control, abortion, gay marriage and pre-emptive wars of choice. Can a citizen be both a good Catholic and a patriotic American?
Elected officials must take a public oath to uphold, defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. One of its provisions is a woman's right to abortion under certain circumstances. Pres. Obama does not actively promote abortion, but is Constitution-bound to uphold a woman's right to choose the abomination of abortion.
Inviting Obama no more implies support for his personal and political positions than Pope John Paul II supported Castro's policy of state torture when he visited Cuba. Same with Richard Nixon's dialogs with Breshnev and Mao, or Ronald Reagan's talks with Gorbachev. And Notre Dame did not imply support for George W. Bush's violation of the principles of the Constitution, or the Geneva Convention, or the US military code of interrogation when it invited him to a recent graduation.

PROFESSOR GLENDON IS BEING VERY SELECTIVE. POPE JOHN PAUL EHE SECOND OPPOSED BUSH'S ILLEGAL ATTACK ON IRAQ THAT LED TO THE MURDER OF THOUSANDS OF LIVE INNOCENT CIVILIIANS. THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS HAVE STONGLY OPPOSED THE DEATH PENALTY THAT WAS STRONGLY SUPPORTED BY BUSH YET BUSH SPOKE AT NOTRE DAME. GLENDON IS THUS SELECTIVE HYPOCRITE.
DANIEL LYNCH A PRACTICING CATHOLIC

No use whining over Glendons decision. Liberals had no problems with a student who ''infiltrated'' Jerry Falwells LIBERTY University,nor have they evidenced any outrage when it was conservative speakers [ Tancredo at UNC and Horowitz at Columbia], who were threatened and assaulted by leftwinged student protesters. Glendon voted with her feet and did not create the disruptions now commonly seen on American campuses.

It has taken Glendon a long time to deciide she has principles! Or was she waiting until it was too late to get a replacemenent for her at the Notre Dame ceremonies? This is another embarassment for Catholics in the US as the Church tries to ally with the Reopublican Party.!

Seems like a lot of people on this board are forgetting that, as Americans, we have the right to stand up for what we believe. We can be Satanic, ultra religious, atheist, agnostic, we can be whatever we choose to be! So why come to this board and bash those that choose to accept the Catholic religion and embrace it fully? This woman is standing up for her moral beliefs and refusing to take part in something that she feels goes against her moral beliefs! Last I knew, this is her right, whether you agree with her or not..? I find it sad that those of you who stand up for democracy and your American freedoms, can get on this board and be so narrow-minded and judgmental. What she is standing for makes perfect sense.

If PETA were holding a rally, would they invite Elizabeth Hurley, and ask her to please wear all of her fur and leather belongings, so they could present her with an award? It goes against what their group stands for, and one of their members would surely speak out and refuse to participate. How is this any different?

I hope Obama is worth it because it seems to me that either way, the President of Notre Dame is going to pay a heavy price!!

I respect this lady for standing up for what she believes in and not bowing down!!

If the doctrine of your church maintains that it accurately reflects God's stance on an issue, and you consider yourself a member in good standing in your church then that doctrine MUST have some affect on the way you live your life and the things you are willing to support. If that doctrine does NOT affect your life then there is a word that begins with hopocr..... that accurately describes your life. I applaud Mary Ann Glendon for actualy walking the walk and NOT just talking a talk. And shame on Notre Dame for causing the whole thing by not walking the walk it purports to support by calling itself a "Catholic University".