An Open Letter to Notre Dame

Newsweek Web Exclusive

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Driftingash @ 04/28/2009 10:03:18 AM

    Drop the sanctimony and religious b.s. so the world can take at least a baby step towards harmony.

  • Posted By: un_PC @ 04/28/2009 10:00:21 AM

    I admit I have never heard of this person but I would vote for her for President in a heartbeat. Her standards of morals and self sacrifice combined with her willingness to take a stand, and list of accomplishments equal a class act and out do Obysmal by a mile. Let???s make that a kilometer for you PC trolls. It would be an insult to her in every meaning of the word to be on the same stage as this miscreant piece of street trash.

    Her actions regarding this matter serve to shed light on the shallow nature of both Obummer and the President of Notre Dame. Each more interested in appearances than substance. Each more interested in personal gain than the institutions or positions they profess to serve. Each more interested in ceremony for ceremony???s sake; more concerned for themselves than the lifelong significance to those that the ceremony at hand celebrates.

    I find it particularly interesting that a society that is has been pushed for 50 years to be a model of inclusion and accept the trumpeting of individuality now has to make sure we all think alike. What we are witnessing is yet another stalwart institution of this country falling prey to the same winds of political correctness that have eroded virtually every aspect that lead this country to greatness. It is clearly time to re-evaluate our standards and practices ranging from mere ceremony to substantive issues as they have each evolved to be as nothing more than magnets to mouth pieces espousing mediocrity in the guise of inclusion at the price of free thought.

  • Posted By: un_PC @ 04/28/2009 9:59:55 AM

    I admit I have never heard of this person but I would vote for her for President in a heartbeat. Her standards of morals and self sacrifice combined with her willingness to take a stand, and list of accomplishments equal a class act and out do Obysmal by a mile. Let???s make that a kilometer for you PC trolls. It would be an insult to her in every meaning of the word to be on the same stage as this miscreant piece of street trash.

    Her actions regarding this matter serve to shed light on the shallow nature of both Obummer and the President of Notre Dame. Each more interested in appearances than substance. Each more interested in personal gain than the institutions or positions they profess to serve. Each more interested in ceremony for ceremony???s sake; more concerned for themselves than the lifelong significance to those that the ceremony at hand celebrates.

    I find it particularly interesting that a society that is has been pushed for 50 years to be a model of inclusion and accept the trumpeting of individuality now has to make sure we all think alike. What we are witnessing is yet another stalwart institution of this country falling prey to the same winds of political correctness that have eroded virtually every aspect that lead this country to greatness. It is clearly time to re-evaluate our standards and practices ranging from mere ceremony to substantive issues as they have each evolved to be as nothing more than magnets to mouth pieces espousing mediocrity in the guise of inclusion at the price of free thought.

  • Posted By: Driftingash @ 04/28/2009 9:59:19 AM

    Blah, blah, blah. These types of quibbles make me sick.

  • Posted By: Celtia @ 04/28/2009 8:06:03 AM

    wilder5121: I couldn't have said it better myself. Catholic "morality" is pretty damn selective. If it involves getting press that pleases their holy roller constituency they have a moral center. If it involves the possibility of giving up even one penny that they've so greedily and disgracefully earned they don't even have a spine. What a bunch of hypocrites. This is why we'd be better off without the Catholic Church! All it's ever done is cause misery.

    • Posted By: Bryan078 @ 04/28/2009 9:33:07 AM

      The Catholic church as a whole may fall under your description, but this individual woman is not responsible for all of that. She is following rules laid out some time in the past, and is being upfront about it. I could not care less who speaks at Notre Dame, but just because she cares does not mean she should be disrespected.

  • Posted By: alexpinca @ 04/28/2009 8:29:51 AM

    She entitled to stay home if she wants to, but it is insulting behavior toward the President of the United States. This is just another small example of why I left the Catholic Church years ago. Having said that, I don't think BHO should have agreed to place himself in a position where he could be insulted by the likes of that self righteous individual.

  • Posted By: GregHere @ 04/28/2009 7:07:06 AM

    .........................................The Catholics and Notre Dame are loosing 10 points in my book over this in my viewpoint.....I will be thinking of them with a little less respect after this!!!!

  • Posted By: wilder5121 @ 04/28/2009 5:57:12 AM

    Let???s see???she belongs to a church that burned ???witches??? alive a few hundred years back???was involved in the deaths of millions ???in the name of God??? throughout its history???used slaves to build its churches???looted, pillaged, and committed genocide of entire civilizations to build its mega-trillion dollar Vatican treasure???looked the other way while millions of Jews were murdered by Nazis???and where the fact that an epidemic of priests raping children was covered up for the past fifty years.

    And people are calling her ???principled??? for not appearing at Notre Dame?
    What a pathetic joke. You people thinking she has decency should go back to imagining Jesus riding around on his dinosaur. As has been stated before???you???re the LAST PEOPLE on planet Earth who should be lecturing ANYONE on morality.

  • Posted By: southerncal @ 04/28/2009 5:39:59 AM

    Notre Dame is being stupid. Did they not see this coming? While BO would do anything for "spot light" time because he's a media whore on pretty much any stage, others actually have principles. I respect Mary Ann Geldon for holding her ground, and I have nothing but contempt for the misguided clowns leading Notre Dame.

  • Posted By: thebob.bob @ 04/27/2009 6:45:08 PM

    The Pope is feting Great Britain's Prince Charles in Rome. Prince Charles is a divorcee who holds many views counter to the positions of the catholic church. The disrespect shown to the POTUS by the catholic extremists should embarrass catholic's world wide. I wonder how they feel about all the horribly violent and gory Mel Gibson movies now that he has come out as an adulterer and divorcee.

    The only ones who can stop religious extremism are the moderate coreligionists. Silence is de facto support.

    • Posted By: Lorib @ 04/27/2009 8:36:09 PM

      How abouit Judge not lest ye be judged. It looks like that would be a great thing for the people on this blog to consider.

      • Posted By: FlandersFamily @ 04/28/2009 5:19:47 AM

        There you go again, Lorib. You are missing the point of the comment you are replying to.

  • Posted By: bluegyro @ 04/27/2009 6:52:34 PM

    Ms. Glendon was ambassador to the Vatican in the final year of President George W. Bush's administration. How curious that despite the Bush administration's support of the use of torture, responsibility for the loss of thousands upon thousands of Iraqi and American lives, not to mention the trampling of our Constitution, none of these actions apparently rose to the level of defying Ms. Glendon's "fundamental moral principles" enough for her to refuse her services to Mr. Bush, whereas support for a women's right to choose apparently crosses that moral line. I find that a curious set of moral priorities which provokes in me more revulsion than admiration.
    The brouhaha about Obama speaking at Notre Dame exemplifies for me the reason for the loss of respect many have for established religion nowadays. In the era of civil rights, many churches led the way in a struggle for a more just world, and gained the admiration of many outside of established religion; as well as, I expect, more members in the process. In the last 8 years, however, religious leaders in the news have been mostly fundamentalists marching in close step with the Bush administration, in blatant disregard of the morality of its actions. I know that many religious leaders were not in accord with those actions, but countervailing voices were sorely missing from the public arena. Whether that was primarily because they did not press the issue sufficiently, or because the media was not interested in any but the most simplistic and sensationalistic remarks from religious leaders, I will leave for others to determine. In any case, the consequences of that moral vacuum is now apparent in the vain struggles of institutions such as the Catholic church to regain the moral high ground they abandoned so long ago. As long as they continue to sidestep any of the more pressing social concerns such as of those victimized by bad economic or environmental policy or practices, by domestic abuse, by poor education or other forms of rights deprivation; of immigrants; of victims of American military and economic policy-- they will continue to find themselves more and more marginalized as a force within society.

    • Posted By: Lorib @ 04/27/2009 8:38:29 PM

      this sounds like liberal political views that are pushed at everyone no matter what the subject was originally.

      • Posted By: FlandersFamily @ 04/28/2009 5:15:37 AM

        Lorib, actually bluegyro is thinking larger thoughts that your brain, judging from your remarks in this thread, clearly cannot conceive. Your loss if you cannot debate the argument on its merits instead of simply labeling and mudslinging. But I don't suppose my words will make any difference to you--your mind was made up (for you) a long time ago, apparently. It is a sad thing that the Catholic Church is retreating into the past, and is being directed by its most extremist elements.

  • Posted By: boomer43 @ 04/28/2009 4:11:57 AM

    If BO were an honorable man HE would cancel his acceptance to be the speaker at the graduation ceremony.

  • Posted By: Grizzled @ 04/28/2009 1:24:25 AM

    Apparently, Ms. Glendon's concern for "fundamental principles of justice" only extends to the unborn. Her actions reek of "selective morality", where the abortion issue trumps discussions of the RC Church's immoral treatment of women, of its active and continuing enabling of abusive priests, and of its coddling of unapologetic nazi racists. Judge Learned Hand must be spinning in his grave.

  • Posted By: neal74 @ 04/27/2009 10:04:51 PM

    from MarySKahle - "My conscience tells me that because Republican candidates have repeatedly been indifferent and inattentive to the moral issues of poverty, hunger, homelessness, peace, racism, that I must vote for candidates like Barack Obama, whose policies include solutions to those problems."

    Nice work looking up and directly quoting instruction from the USCCB then deliberately and knowingly disobeying them. Being "indifferent and inattentive" is a far cry from the active support and endorsement of crimes against humanity.

    I won't however, be defending the Republicans. However, I wish just once that we (the American people) could get a candidate that is in favor of social justice at all levels and not just one level or another.

    • Posted By: taino21 @ 04/27/2009 11:51:28 PM

      Ms. SKahle, either you are ignorant of your own history or just ignorant. Ms. SKahle, which was the party known as the white supremacy party? Which was the party that first use the KKK so blacks could not vote? Which was the party that created literacy tests to prevent blacks from voting? Remember that unitil the 60's the blacks that voted did not vote democrat. It was not until MLK made the deal with the Kennedy's that blacks began voting democrat. So to pretend that the Democratic party is the party of moral issues it is just a joke. Remember Brown vs. Board of Education? Which judge forced the governments hand? It was a Repubican appointed judge. There are many in the democratic party that call themselves liberals when they really are socialists and comunists. Even in comunist and socialist countries Ms. SKahle there is no equality, the people live in poverty while the politicians live the good life, hypocrites! By the way, I want you to show me which policies has mr. obama implemented that fight poverty, hunger, homelessness, peace and racism. By the way Ms. SKahle, in the 20 yrs. that I spent in the U.S. Military I was discriminated as much by whites as by blacks, so you see, blacks don't have a clean hand when it comes to racism.

  • Posted By: jmwynn @ 04/27/2009 7:34:20 PM

    I cannot for the life of me understand why we feel the need to blend religon with politics. Politics is NOT religon. God even says that things of the spirited cannot be governed - Gal 5:23. We live and work in a society with all different religons, political convictions, strange ideas, and thought processes. All of a sudden - now we want to segregate ourselves from everyone who doesn't think like us (and I'm always suspicious of this one) or look like us. I surely wish I could disassociate myself from the jack ass who is my boss, the jehova witness or the mormons riding around on bicycles who insists on ringing my doorbell, the creepy looking kid with a face full of zits wanting to sell me something. I surely could have done without listening to the drunk guy at the baseball game this past weekend thinking he was God's gift to all women, or the customer I met last week who took one look at me and went into her "I like Obama" rant I guess because she thinks all Black people think just alike - oh and by the way you guys can stop the "I have a Black friend" chant, too. We're not all that and neither are you. What I am saying is everyone - STOP thinking too highly of yourselves and accept one another.

    • Posted By: knight2king3 @ 04/27/2009 8:20:53 PM

      Does your 'accept one another' rule apply to those who have not yet been born? Where is their 'acceptance?' Would it apply to those who would seek to harm our nation and slaughter our countrymen? Would the same 'acceptance' be given to Hugo Chavez? Or bin Laden? Perhaps Fidel Castro?

      Or perhaps we could ALL use a lesson from Dr. King - 'if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.'

      • Posted By: jmwynn @ 04/27/2009 9:54:33 PM

        Sure does. The good and the bad live among us - that's why its God's job to judge.

    • Posted By: knight2king3 @ 04/27/2009 8:20:23 PM

      Does your 'accept one another' rule apply to those who have not yet been born? Where is their 'acceptance?' Would it apply to those who would seek to harm our nation and slaughter our countrymen? Would the same 'acceptance' be given to Hugo Chavez? Or bin Laden? Perhaps Fidel Castro?

      Or perhaps we could ALL use a lesson from Dr. King - 'if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.'

  • Posted By: Lorib @ 04/27/2009 8:28:16 PM

    You are showing your intolerance of others points of view. What a shame. There are alot of people that do care and if you don't, why bother to read the story. I will pray for you to find the tolerance to accept that there are two sides to every story.

    • Posted By: jmwynn @ 04/27/2009 9:51:40 PM

      So we are either conservative or intolerent? This is why we have a separation of church and state for ppeople who blur the lines.

  • Posted By: truonghpeter @ 04/27/2009 9:38:51 PM

    She is the one who lives with principle, morality, and faith, similarly to Miss California who was not afraid to give her opinions, and belief. Bravo!

  • Posted By: truonghpeter @ 04/27/2009 9:35:47 PM

    that's the person who live with his/her principle, similar to Miss California as well. Bravo for your brave.

  • Posted By: MarySKahle @ 04/27/2009 9:05:34 PM

    Ms. Glendon is very concerned about violating "rules" put forth by the USCCB, but she apparently has not read their most recent letter on "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship". In this document, the bishops outline every issue involving human life and dignity, from conception to death. These include addressing poverty, homelessness, war, educational opportunities, and hunger, along with abortion, stem-cell research, and euthanasia. In Part 1-34 the bishops say: "Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience.......... A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voters intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate's opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity." My conscience tells me that because Republican candidates have repeatedly been indifferent and inattentive to the moral issues of poverty, hunger, homelessness, peace, racism, that I must vote for candidates like Barack Obama, whose policies include solutions to those problems. My vote is not an endorsement of abortion, just as his prochoice position is not taken for the purpose of promoting abortions.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse