George Offerman
The arrests were the centerpiece of the weekend
Many pro life organizations came for the speech, and the media was already in place, due to the arrests. I had clarification of this because there were relatives of mine who happen to be in Denmark for this weekend, and saw me getting arrested on the news over there. I had several friends record the news over the weekend, and they covered many differing news outlets, and the arrests were shown for nearly four days. Many remarked how the most vivid image of the arrests was Fr. Weslin and him being carried off by the Notre Dame police. It was very shocking to the sensibilities of the faithful, and it was this event more than anything else during the weekend that triggered the response it got.
There were many pro life groups extremely critical of the arrests and of Randall Terry, and wanted to distance themselves from this event. However, it became such a magnet for bringing legalized child killing front and center, these same groups then jumped at the chance to get involved and are taking credit for the publicity this event received that they had little to do with creating. This was done while still condemning the tactics used by Randall Terry and the Insurrecta Nex team and many of these same groups who then called Randall Terry a ‘show hog’ for garnering the majority of the attention with the arrests, are now saying they were the main reason for the extensive coverage this event received.
What these groups don’t seem to understand is that arrests take the center stage due to the unjust nature of them. Signs, although important, do not garner attention from the media because signs are used in many locations, and frankly, are not newsworthy. When people are willing to put comfort, convenience and their good names on the line for a cause, others want to know about it. And despite the fact the pro life media resents the mainstream media, the mainstream media knows what is news, and know how to exploit a story for their benefit. The mainstream media, through their actions, made the arrests the centerpiece, because they know their audience, and know this is newsworthy. Randall Terry was not a ‘show hog’ and didn’t coerce any of the MSM to follow the story, the MSM did this all on their own because they know what is newsworthy, and the arrests met that criteria. The plane and the 2 mile long sign holding chain did not.
The aftermath of the arrests
Long after the speech and commencements and after the cameras were all shut off and packed away, 88 peoples’ lives were changed in a significant and an inconvenient fashion. We were now left in limbo by Notre Dame not letting go of the charges, and not attempting to persuade the prosecutor to drop the charges. We were chastised by many in the pro life movement, who accused us of seeking attention, and the purists and legalists were all defending the nebulous ‘trespassing’ charges, while ignoring the fact pro Obama supporters freely were walking around as we were being arrested. The alumni association, the Sycamore Trust, also discovered that two very controversial groups represented by the homosexual contingency were let go and not prosecuted for the exact same reasons we were arrested.
Notre Dame outright lied about this, as well as released public statements about our motives and intentions ‘to bring about chaos and possible violence’ as their reason to continue their pursuit of charges. We, as defendants, had to remain silent as we were openly slandered by Fr. Jenkins and Notre Dame, as commenting would have jeopardized our cases. Too many of the prolifers jumped on this bandwagon, and soon the ‘what you know that ain’t so’ crowd took control of the dialogue in condemning what we did. What was and still is true about us was we went on with peaceful intent to pray the rosary on a Catholic Campus to protest an abominable act that needed to be rectified. Most were grandparents and others who had never done anything like this before, and they have been misaligned by the university, many in the pro life movement, and most of the MSM.
Thank God for many of the worker bees and the few pro life organizations that had the integrity to back us up. Lifesitenews.com immediately jumped on this by starting a petition to have the charges dropped, and received over 17,000 signatures. Many of the ND alumni also came to our aid and began to publicly denounce ND and stopped donating to the school. Tom Dixon and the Thomas More Society represented us pro bono to negotiate for us. Overall, we did get the support from those who understood the need to protest this very unjust event, and did not get hung up on the ‘legalese’ of this, which many used as an excuse to do little to nothing. Shame on them.
Peace be with you
The vast majority of the ND 88 I had contact with stated they were there out of conviction, and many were willing to go to jail if necessary. The one thing our critics will never understand about this is the level of conviction each had when going on campus and the peace of mind most reportedly had before, during and after the arrests. There is no need to explain to the critics why we did what we did. We followed the orders of the Master, and if that is not clear by now, then it never will be. I know that I was at peace about going to jail, even up to one year if necessary. This life will be over soon enough, and there will never be another chance to do what is true and what is asked of all of us by our Savior. I am grateful, in the words of Fr. Weslin that I was ‘found worthy in the Master’s eyes’ to participate in this unjust event. That’s good enough for me.
As this chapter wraps up, those I continue to keep in contact with see what we did as the right and holy thing to do. There will be more battles that will require even more of us, and Notre Dame was simply a warm up exercise. We are constantly being called by the Master to reach beyond what we think we are capable of, and our only job is to respond in the positive: “Here I am lord, send me Lord”. What is next is more important than what was, and as far as I’m concerned, the ND 88 is finished. We may have a reunion some day, but we already lost one of our members, and some of the 88 have already declared they have no interest in attending any reunion.
Our prayer is that our efforts were not in vain, that they conveyed meaning, and started a process in which the Christian community was given a clear wake up call to get off the couches and kitchens across this great nation, and do something about the legalized child killing fields that are so prevalent. We will soon see if the ND 88 had this effect, and if so, real change will sweep this country and we will right a very evil wrong in our history, and thereby save ourselves and this country from judgment.
Showing posts with label life site news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label life site news. Show all posts
Friday, May 13, 2011
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
A TALE OF TWO COMMUNION STORIES
George Offerman
Life Site News ran a full transcript of their interview with Boston’s Cardinal O’Mally on the question of denying communion to pro abort politicians who claim to be Catholic. The following is the transcript as appears on the LSN site.
WASHINGTON, DC, February 18, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The full transcript of LSN's January 2010 conversation with Boston's Cardinal Sean O'Malley on denying Communion to pro-abortion politicians is as follows:
LSN: “A number of Catholics are concerned about Catholics who are pro-abortion and in politics. Some have said the bishops have to deny them communion. But in your estimation, what is exactly is the appropriate pastoral response? How should Catholics understand this?”
O’Malley: “Well I think that the only way that that solution should be invoked is if there were a large catechesis or if it was universal for the whole Church. You can’t have people doing things in one parish and another, you would only divide the Church hopelessly.”
[Although turning away at an aide's urging to leave the Basilica, the Cardinal returned to clarify that he was concerned about how to deal with pro-abortion Catholic politicians from the very beginning. O’Malley said he asked that question when John Paul II solicited input from bishops for the pro-life encyclical Evangelium Vitae.]
O’Malley: “... I wrote to him [John Paul II] and asked him to please give us very clear direction on how to deal with politicians who will be pro-abortion and will be Catholic. We have not had the kind of clear response that we need.”
LSN: “Do you think something coming forth in Canon Law - would that be helpful?”
O’Malley: “That would be helpful if they did it. But if it is not done – to make it look like it’s an individual bishop sparring with the people of particular parties is only going to divide the Church in a very terrible way. Then you’ll have some priest who will obey and others who won’t, other divisions of the Church, more scandal, and undermining the authority of the bishops.”
LSN: “So you think it needs a directive from the Pope or be made clear in Canon Law?”
O’Malley: “It’s the only way it is really going to work - this isn’t the only country that has this problem.”
Then we have a statement from Archbishop Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura that states very clearly, Cannon 915, which is the Churches instructions on safeguarding the administration of communion to those in public grave sin. This interview was done by Randall Terry last year while this group was in Rome Partial tramscript of the interview will be posted, with a site linking the full interview below:
Mr. Terry: For the umpteenth time, I and the others are asking, under Canon 915 what should or should not be done?
Archbishop Burke: The Canon is completely clear, it is not subject in my judgment to any other interpretations. When someone is publicly and obstinately in grave sin we may not administer Holy Communion to the person. And that, basically, for two reasons: number one, to prevent the person himself or herself from committing a sacrilege, and secondly, to protect the sanctity of the Holy Eucharist. In other words, to approach, to receive our Lord in Holy Communion, when one insists on remaining in grave sin, is such a violation of the sanctity of the Holy Eucharist, so that Communion must not be given to people who are publicly, obstinately, in grave sin.
Mr. Terry: And so does that apply to politicians of any party that are saying: "Yes, it’s okay to abort children" –to kill children?
Archbishop Burke: Yes, for someone who in any way contributes in an active way to the murder of innocent defenseless infants in the womb—children in the womb—from the very inception of human life, this is the greatest of sins. And such a person, until he or she has reformed his or her life, should not approach to receive Holy Communion.
Mr. Terry: And if they do approach, the person who is administering Holy Communion should say, “No.”?
Archbishop Burke: Right. In fact, the Canon puts the burden upon the minister of Holy Communion whether it’s the ordinary minister which would be a bishop, a priest, a deacon—or an extraordinary minister—it doesn’t make any difference. It says they’re not to be admitted to receive Holy Communion. Normally speaking, in my experience, when I have spoken with, for instance, Catholic politicians who have insisted on supporting pro-abortion legislation and told them they should not approach any more to receive Holy Communion, in my experience they don’t. Now, where Bishops have not applied the Canon, often times it’s said that this will cause some kind of disorder at the time of distribution of Holy Communion. That’s not verified. It’s not using Holy Communion to make a statement at all, it’s simply respecting this most sacred gift we have - namely, the Body and Blood of Christ—which can only be received when one has repented of his sins. And I would also make the point—and I believe that it is true that on the contrary - those public figures—Catholics—who are consistently promoting pro-abortion legislation and policies—use reception of Holy Communion to try to justify what they are doing; in other words, to present themselves as devout Catholics, when in fact they are sinning against the most fundamental teaching of the moral law. [Thou shall not murder.]
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=32815
So here it is, two different versions of the same story, told by two high level prelates in the church and both are Americans and both have been exposed to the ‘pulse’ of what it is that Americans want and expect. One wants to argue that reception of Communion is an issue between the communicant and God, while the other believes there are external factors that should keep one from receiving if in grevious sin.
The catechism I grew up with, coupled with teachings from some of the professors loyal to the magisterial teachings, made it abundantly clear that a Catholic in mortal sin (grave sin now a days) cannot receive communion until they confess their sins and change their ways. There were no exceptions made, and it was incumbent upon the individual, that he also cease and desist in the sinful behaviors. Yes, it is up to the individual to obey the teachings of the church, but the church must first teach what is its doctrine of the faith, then enforce the doctrine. Unfortunately, the church is currently doing neither, and thus, appears to be contradictory and confused in its message.
When examining cannon 915, coupled with traditional church teachings, there really is no confusion on this issue. To receive the body and blood of Christ in the state of mortal sin, is another mortal sin, and a loving church would do well by not allowing one of the faithful to continue in further harming themselves spiritually, as well as adding to already scandalous behaviors. Contrary to many of the Bishops statements that denial of communion is a political and divisive move, it is actually an act of love towards those who are in grave error and need a gentle, but firm hand to guide them back to a state of Grace.
Life Site News ran a full transcript of their interview with Boston’s Cardinal O’Mally on the question of denying communion to pro abort politicians who claim to be Catholic. The following is the transcript as appears on the LSN site.
WASHINGTON, DC, February 18, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The full transcript of LSN's January 2010 conversation with Boston's Cardinal Sean O'Malley on denying Communion to pro-abortion politicians is as follows:
LSN: “A number of Catholics are concerned about Catholics who are pro-abortion and in politics. Some have said the bishops have to deny them communion. But in your estimation, what is exactly is the appropriate pastoral response? How should Catholics understand this?”
O’Malley: “Well I think that the only way that that solution should be invoked is if there were a large catechesis or if it was universal for the whole Church. You can’t have people doing things in one parish and another, you would only divide the Church hopelessly.”
[Although turning away at an aide's urging to leave the Basilica, the Cardinal returned to clarify that he was concerned about how to deal with pro-abortion Catholic politicians from the very beginning. O’Malley said he asked that question when John Paul II solicited input from bishops for the pro-life encyclical Evangelium Vitae.]
O’Malley: “... I wrote to him [John Paul II] and asked him to please give us very clear direction on how to deal with politicians who will be pro-abortion and will be Catholic. We have not had the kind of clear response that we need.”
LSN: “Do you think something coming forth in Canon Law - would that be helpful?”
O’Malley: “That would be helpful if they did it. But if it is not done – to make it look like it’s an individual bishop sparring with the people of particular parties is only going to divide the Church in a very terrible way. Then you’ll have some priest who will obey and others who won’t, other divisions of the Church, more scandal, and undermining the authority of the bishops.”
LSN: “So you think it needs a directive from the Pope or be made clear in Canon Law?”
O’Malley: “It’s the only way it is really going to work - this isn’t the only country that has this problem.”
Then we have a statement from Archbishop Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura that states very clearly, Cannon 915, which is the Churches instructions on safeguarding the administration of communion to those in public grave sin. This interview was done by Randall Terry last year while this group was in Rome Partial tramscript of the interview will be posted, with a site linking the full interview below:
Mr. Terry: For the umpteenth time, I and the others are asking, under Canon 915 what should or should not be done?
Archbishop Burke: The Canon is completely clear, it is not subject in my judgment to any other interpretations. When someone is publicly and obstinately in grave sin we may not administer Holy Communion to the person. And that, basically, for two reasons: number one, to prevent the person himself or herself from committing a sacrilege, and secondly, to protect the sanctity of the Holy Eucharist. In other words, to approach, to receive our Lord in Holy Communion, when one insists on remaining in grave sin, is such a violation of the sanctity of the Holy Eucharist, so that Communion must not be given to people who are publicly, obstinately, in grave sin.
Mr. Terry: And so does that apply to politicians of any party that are saying: "Yes, it’s okay to abort children" –to kill children?
Archbishop Burke: Yes, for someone who in any way contributes in an active way to the murder of innocent defenseless infants in the womb—children in the womb—from the very inception of human life, this is the greatest of sins. And such a person, until he or she has reformed his or her life, should not approach to receive Holy Communion.
Mr. Terry: And if they do approach, the person who is administering Holy Communion should say, “No.”?
Archbishop Burke: Right. In fact, the Canon puts the burden upon the minister of Holy Communion whether it’s the ordinary minister which would be a bishop, a priest, a deacon—or an extraordinary minister—it doesn’t make any difference. It says they’re not to be admitted to receive Holy Communion. Normally speaking, in my experience, when I have spoken with, for instance, Catholic politicians who have insisted on supporting pro-abortion legislation and told them they should not approach any more to receive Holy Communion, in my experience they don’t. Now, where Bishops have not applied the Canon, often times it’s said that this will cause some kind of disorder at the time of distribution of Holy Communion. That’s not verified. It’s not using Holy Communion to make a statement at all, it’s simply respecting this most sacred gift we have - namely, the Body and Blood of Christ—which can only be received when one has repented of his sins. And I would also make the point—and I believe that it is true that on the contrary - those public figures—Catholics—who are consistently promoting pro-abortion legislation and policies—use reception of Holy Communion to try to justify what they are doing; in other words, to present themselves as devout Catholics, when in fact they are sinning against the most fundamental teaching of the moral law. [Thou shall not murder.]
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=32815
So here it is, two different versions of the same story, told by two high level prelates in the church and both are Americans and both have been exposed to the ‘pulse’ of what it is that Americans want and expect. One wants to argue that reception of Communion is an issue between the communicant and God, while the other believes there are external factors that should keep one from receiving if in grevious sin.
The catechism I grew up with, coupled with teachings from some of the professors loyal to the magisterial teachings, made it abundantly clear that a Catholic in mortal sin (grave sin now a days) cannot receive communion until they confess their sins and change their ways. There were no exceptions made, and it was incumbent upon the individual, that he also cease and desist in the sinful behaviors. Yes, it is up to the individual to obey the teachings of the church, but the church must first teach what is its doctrine of the faith, then enforce the doctrine. Unfortunately, the church is currently doing neither, and thus, appears to be contradictory and confused in its message.
When examining cannon 915, coupled with traditional church teachings, there really is no confusion on this issue. To receive the body and blood of Christ in the state of mortal sin, is another mortal sin, and a loving church would do well by not allowing one of the faithful to continue in further harming themselves spiritually, as well as adding to already scandalous behaviors. Contrary to many of the Bishops statements that denial of communion is a political and divisive move, it is actually an act of love towards those who are in grave error and need a gentle, but firm hand to guide them back to a state of Grace.
Monday, February 22, 2010
REVERBERATIONS OF THE SCANDAL IN THE VATICAN
George Offerman
An article out of Life Site News has recently reported that several members of the Pontifical Academy for Life are fearing for the future of this organization, due to the scandal that occurred last year, when the head, Archbishop Salvatore Fisichella openly chastised fellow Archbishop Jose Cardosa Sobrinho of Olinda and Recife, Brazil for outright ex communicating Doctors and other medical professionals that performed abortion on twins from a 9 year old mother who had been raped.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/feb/10020802.html
Archbishop Fisichella blasted Archbishop Cardosa Sobrinho for his decision, and Archbishop Fisichella essentially went along with the international media in their condemning the Brazilian Archbishop for his move. This ended up causing great harm not only to the hierarchical position of Archbishop Cardosa Sobrinho in his own diocese, but a greater scandal to the Church at large, by sending a clear message that upholding the clear mandates and teachings of the church are forbidden, if they cause tension and conflict.
Archbishop Cardosa Sobrinho was correct in his interpretations of church teachings, and actually applied the proper Cannons to stop this atrocity. This Brazilian Archbishop was acting in faith and in essence, was chastised for doing so. There is though that this was done, due to wanting to ‘soften’ relations between the Vatican and the Obama Administration. If this is true, it goes to show how sin progresses and grows, as this election is having international ramifications.
Archbishop Fisichella’s ‘selling out’ is giving cause for the pro death camps to have hope in legalizing child killing in much of Latin America, including Brazil. This movement is being spurred on by the Obama Administration and others, with the intent to export our debauchery, and it now has the blessings of the Pontifical Academy for Life. This does not bode well for the pro life movement in general, and specifically the work to keep child killing illegal in Latin America, with the assistance of the Catholic Church.
This scandal continues to reverberate through out the Catholic world, as well as the pro life world. To have the top Prelate in such an authorative position undermine the authority of another Archbishop, as well as the church teachings is an abomination. And to do such, under the guise of ‘softening’ the relations between the Vatican and the Obama Administration, is the largest admission that the Churches teachings are negotiable and changeable, if it is seen important enough to do so.
What are we, as Christians and Catholics, supposed to make of this? Do we begin to make up our own rules now? Who has the authority to teach on issues of faith and morals? Are we obligated to listen to leaders, even if they are Bishops, when they are in error? These are now questions that are up for discussion, and the secular world now has a great amount of ammunition to shoot at an institution, that has lately shown far too many poor judgments and has had its share of scandals. This is only adding to them.
Where is the faith in the Jesus that we preach? Why are too many, in positions of power, staying silent on this matter? Where are the cries and demands for Archbishop Fisichella’s resignation? This man should be removed from his post immediately, and be taught the basics of the faith that he claims to represent. There aren’t words in the English language accurate enough to describe the treachery and betrayal that Archbishop Fisichella has dealt to the faith and the pro life cause. This is one of the moments that the verse from Mark 9:42 comes to mind: “Whoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone be hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea”
An article out of Life Site News has recently reported that several members of the Pontifical Academy for Life are fearing for the future of this organization, due to the scandal that occurred last year, when the head, Archbishop Salvatore Fisichella openly chastised fellow Archbishop Jose Cardosa Sobrinho of Olinda and Recife, Brazil for outright ex communicating Doctors and other medical professionals that performed abortion on twins from a 9 year old mother who had been raped.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/feb/10020802.html
Archbishop Fisichella blasted Archbishop Cardosa Sobrinho for his decision, and Archbishop Fisichella essentially went along with the international media in their condemning the Brazilian Archbishop for his move. This ended up causing great harm not only to the hierarchical position of Archbishop Cardosa Sobrinho in his own diocese, but a greater scandal to the Church at large, by sending a clear message that upholding the clear mandates and teachings of the church are forbidden, if they cause tension and conflict.
Archbishop Cardosa Sobrinho was correct in his interpretations of church teachings, and actually applied the proper Cannons to stop this atrocity. This Brazilian Archbishop was acting in faith and in essence, was chastised for doing so. There is though that this was done, due to wanting to ‘soften’ relations between the Vatican and the Obama Administration. If this is true, it goes to show how sin progresses and grows, as this election is having international ramifications.
Archbishop Fisichella’s ‘selling out’ is giving cause for the pro death camps to have hope in legalizing child killing in much of Latin America, including Brazil. This movement is being spurred on by the Obama Administration and others, with the intent to export our debauchery, and it now has the blessings of the Pontifical Academy for Life. This does not bode well for the pro life movement in general, and specifically the work to keep child killing illegal in Latin America, with the assistance of the Catholic Church.
This scandal continues to reverberate through out the Catholic world, as well as the pro life world. To have the top Prelate in such an authorative position undermine the authority of another Archbishop, as well as the church teachings is an abomination. And to do such, under the guise of ‘softening’ the relations between the Vatican and the Obama Administration, is the largest admission that the Churches teachings are negotiable and changeable, if it is seen important enough to do so.
What are we, as Christians and Catholics, supposed to make of this? Do we begin to make up our own rules now? Who has the authority to teach on issues of faith and morals? Are we obligated to listen to leaders, even if they are Bishops, when they are in error? These are now questions that are up for discussion, and the secular world now has a great amount of ammunition to shoot at an institution, that has lately shown far too many poor judgments and has had its share of scandals. This is only adding to them.
Where is the faith in the Jesus that we preach? Why are too many, in positions of power, staying silent on this matter? Where are the cries and demands for Archbishop Fisichella’s resignation? This man should be removed from his post immediately, and be taught the basics of the faith that he claims to represent. There aren’t words in the English language accurate enough to describe the treachery and betrayal that Archbishop Fisichella has dealt to the faith and the pro life cause. This is one of the moments that the verse from Mark 9:42 comes to mind: “Whoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone be hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea”
Friday, January 15, 2010
RIGHT TO LIFE MARCH, FR. JENKINS AND THE ND 88
George Offerman
It seems that Fr. Jenkins is going to go through with his ‘schizophrenic’ plan to simultaneously show his ‘pro life’ side by showing up at the Right to Life march, and continue to press charges against the ND 88 for the crime of… praying the Rosary on a Catholic campus. Here are some plans of people who happen to agree that Fr. Jenkins is demonstrating some cognitive dissonance in his rather interesting behaviors.
First, Lifesitenews.com (not to be confused with life news and Steven Ertelt) has co-sponsored a petition to free the ND 88 along with Human Life International (HLI) and the Thomas More Society, which is helping to fund the defense lead by Mr. Thomas Dixon. Press release follows:
January 13, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On Wednesday, a petition to "Free the Notre Dame 88" was launched. The petition is co-sponsored by Human Life International (HLI), the Thomas More Society and LifeSiteNews.com. It is addressed to University of Notre Dame President Fr. John Jenkins, and urges him publicly to ask that the charges against the 88 pro-lifers who were arrested on the Notre Dame campus in May of last year be dropped.
"During the Obama scandal controversy, Fr. Jenkins repeatedly assured us that he and Notre Dame are 100% pro-life. Yet, now he is refusing even this tiniest of olive branches to these 88 pro-lifers," said HLI President and Notre Dame Alumnus Fr. Thomas Euteneuer. "Asking that the charges be dropped will cost Fr. Jenkins absolutely nothing, but it could save the ND88 from a protracted trial process, and possible jail time. As long as this situation persists with Notre Dame’s cooperation, how can Fr. Jenkins possibly expect us to take him seriously?"
Members of the ND88 traveled to South Bend in May to protest the university's honoring of Obama (whom pro-lifers have called "the most pro-abortion President in U.S. history") at its commencement. In many cases their "protest" took the form of walking onto campus and praying and/or carrying pro-life signs. For this "crime" they were handcuffed, arrested, and thrown in prison.
At the same time, witnesses report that pro-Obama demonstrators were allowed to roam free throughout the campus.
Now the ND88 are facing charges of trespassing, with a maximum sentence of up to a year in prison and/or a $5,000 fine.
"Notre Dame seriously tarnished its image as a pro-life institution when it honored President Obama earlier this year," said Tom Brejcha, Chief Counsel for the Thomas More Society, which is representing the ND88. "However, it is not too late for the university to restore its pro-life reputation. The first step in that direction would be to stop the persecution of these pro-life heroes by asking that the charges be dropped."
While Fr. Jenkins has responded to concerned pro-lifers by claiming that Notre Dame does not have the power to ask that the charges be dropped, Brejcha called such claims "flatly wrong."
"They always have the power to ask," he said, adding that Notre Dame's asking, "would have great weight with the prosecutor."
Brejcha said, however, that despite repeated requests Fr. Jenkins has continued to refuse to do so.
"It is important for pro-lifers to let Fr. Jenkins know that we have not forgotten what happened on his campus last May," said Brejcha. "We have not forgotten, and we will not forget as long as the ND88 are being forced to pay such a steep price simply for being pro-life."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10011304.html
Dr Monica Miller, one of the ND 88, has sent out a request for those who would like to show visual support for the ND 88 when Fr. Jenkins shows up. She also gives an update on the situation of the judge who had conflicts of interest in this case, in which the judge recused herself. Good news.
From Monica Migliorino Miller, Ph.D. Director of CPLS
www.prolifesociety.com
A Strategy and a Victory
FIRST THE STRATEGY: Free the ND 88!
Signs and Banners in support of the ND 88
Need to be visible at the March for Life!
Let's not forget that 88 pro-lifers, including your CPLS director, Norma McCorvey, Alan Keyes, Randall Terry, Jack Ames, Fr. Norm Weslin, Joan Andrews Bell and Sister Lois Marie-- with dozens of other wonderful, beautiful committed pro-lifers and lovers of God's truth were arrested on the campus of the University of Notre Dame last year, protesting the abomination of pro-abortion President Obama's commencement speech at a Catholic University.
Fr. Jenkins, President of ND-- WHO ALLOWED THIS SCANDAL TO OCCUR-- WILL BE AT THIS YEAR'S MARCH FOR LIFE!
PLEASE CARRY A SIGN, CARRY A BANNER THAT SAYS: "FREE THE ND 88"
WE INTEND TO HAVE PROFESSIONAL SIGNS MADE AND DISTRIBUTED AT THE MARCH-- BUT YOU COULD JUST AS EASILY MAKE A SIGN OF YOUR OWN! MARCH NEAR THE NOTRE DAME CONTINGENT AND LET THEM SEE IT!
Will you carry such a sign and show your solidarity with those who very well may go to trial in 2010 and even go to jail for their witness to the truth? Please pass this memo on to other groups. Pass this memo on to other pro-lifers. LET'S MAKE THIS A SERIOUS SHOW OF SUPPORT!
AND NOW THE VICTORY:
On December 3, 2009, attorneys for the ND 88, Tom Dixon and Tom Brejcha, of the Thomas More Law Society, had hearings before Judge Manier. Many weeks ago our attorneys asked this judge, assigned to our case, to recuse herself, and she repeatedly refused to do so.
The pro-life attorneys were permitted to take their pleadings to the Appellate Court. We wanted this judge removed from our case because her rulings from an earlier case in St. Joseph County, that dealt with free speech rights at the abortuary in South Bend, were so afoul of the appropriate legal standards as to create evidence of her bias in the current cases. Also Judge Manier has ties to Notre Dame-- as her husband is on staff at the university-- which certainly should be seen as a conflict of interest.
On January 6th-- Feast of the Epiphany-- Judge Manier finally and unilaterally--without the Appellate Court having to force her--decided to recuse herself! So she's off the ND 88 case.
This is a great victory for the ND 88! We've started out the New Year with a great blessing. Much thanks goes to the hard-working and dedicated attorneys who have taken up the cause of the ND 88!
Now we must pray very hard that the case will go to a judge who will understand what we did, make fair rulings and DISMISS the charges against us.
SEE YOU AT THE MARCH!
Show support for the ND 88 by going to the lifesitenews site and signing the petition to free the ND 88. Also contact Dr. Miller for further instructions, and getting signs protesting Fr. Jenkin’s appearance at the march.
It seems that Fr. Jenkins is going to go through with his ‘schizophrenic’ plan to simultaneously show his ‘pro life’ side by showing up at the Right to Life march, and continue to press charges against the ND 88 for the crime of… praying the Rosary on a Catholic campus. Here are some plans of people who happen to agree that Fr. Jenkins is demonstrating some cognitive dissonance in his rather interesting behaviors.
First, Lifesitenews.com (not to be confused with life news and Steven Ertelt) has co-sponsored a petition to free the ND 88 along with Human Life International (HLI) and the Thomas More Society, which is helping to fund the defense lead by Mr. Thomas Dixon. Press release follows:
January 13, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On Wednesday, a petition to "Free the Notre Dame 88" was launched. The petition is co-sponsored by Human Life International (HLI), the Thomas More Society and LifeSiteNews.com. It is addressed to University of Notre Dame President Fr. John Jenkins, and urges him publicly to ask that the charges against the 88 pro-lifers who were arrested on the Notre Dame campus in May of last year be dropped.
"During the Obama scandal controversy, Fr. Jenkins repeatedly assured us that he and Notre Dame are 100% pro-life. Yet, now he is refusing even this tiniest of olive branches to these 88 pro-lifers," said HLI President and Notre Dame Alumnus Fr. Thomas Euteneuer. "Asking that the charges be dropped will cost Fr. Jenkins absolutely nothing, but it could save the ND88 from a protracted trial process, and possible jail time. As long as this situation persists with Notre Dame’s cooperation, how can Fr. Jenkins possibly expect us to take him seriously?"
Members of the ND88 traveled to South Bend in May to protest the university's honoring of Obama (whom pro-lifers have called "the most pro-abortion President in U.S. history") at its commencement. In many cases their "protest" took the form of walking onto campus and praying and/or carrying pro-life signs. For this "crime" they were handcuffed, arrested, and thrown in prison.
At the same time, witnesses report that pro-Obama demonstrators were allowed to roam free throughout the campus.
Now the ND88 are facing charges of trespassing, with a maximum sentence of up to a year in prison and/or a $5,000 fine.
"Notre Dame seriously tarnished its image as a pro-life institution when it honored President Obama earlier this year," said Tom Brejcha, Chief Counsel for the Thomas More Society, which is representing the ND88. "However, it is not too late for the university to restore its pro-life reputation. The first step in that direction would be to stop the persecution of these pro-life heroes by asking that the charges be dropped."
While Fr. Jenkins has responded to concerned pro-lifers by claiming that Notre Dame does not have the power to ask that the charges be dropped, Brejcha called such claims "flatly wrong."
"They always have the power to ask," he said, adding that Notre Dame's asking, "would have great weight with the prosecutor."
Brejcha said, however, that despite repeated requests Fr. Jenkins has continued to refuse to do so.
"It is important for pro-lifers to let Fr. Jenkins know that we have not forgotten what happened on his campus last May," said Brejcha. "We have not forgotten, and we will not forget as long as the ND88 are being forced to pay such a steep price simply for being pro-life."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10011304.html
Dr Monica Miller, one of the ND 88, has sent out a request for those who would like to show visual support for the ND 88 when Fr. Jenkins shows up. She also gives an update on the situation of the judge who had conflicts of interest in this case, in which the judge recused herself. Good news.
From Monica Migliorino Miller, Ph.D. Director of CPLS
www.prolifesociety.com
A Strategy and a Victory
FIRST THE STRATEGY: Free the ND 88!
Signs and Banners in support of the ND 88
Need to be visible at the March for Life!
Let's not forget that 88 pro-lifers, including your CPLS director, Norma McCorvey, Alan Keyes, Randall Terry, Jack Ames, Fr. Norm Weslin, Joan Andrews Bell and Sister Lois Marie-- with dozens of other wonderful, beautiful committed pro-lifers and lovers of God's truth were arrested on the campus of the University of Notre Dame last year, protesting the abomination of pro-abortion President Obama's commencement speech at a Catholic University.
Fr. Jenkins, President of ND-- WHO ALLOWED THIS SCANDAL TO OCCUR-- WILL BE AT THIS YEAR'S MARCH FOR LIFE!
PLEASE CARRY A SIGN, CARRY A BANNER THAT SAYS: "FREE THE ND 88"
WE INTEND TO HAVE PROFESSIONAL SIGNS MADE AND DISTRIBUTED AT THE MARCH-- BUT YOU COULD JUST AS EASILY MAKE A SIGN OF YOUR OWN! MARCH NEAR THE NOTRE DAME CONTINGENT AND LET THEM SEE IT!
Will you carry such a sign and show your solidarity with those who very well may go to trial in 2010 and even go to jail for their witness to the truth? Please pass this memo on to other groups. Pass this memo on to other pro-lifers. LET'S MAKE THIS A SERIOUS SHOW OF SUPPORT!
AND NOW THE VICTORY:
On December 3, 2009, attorneys for the ND 88, Tom Dixon and Tom Brejcha, of the Thomas More Law Society, had hearings before Judge Manier. Many weeks ago our attorneys asked this judge, assigned to our case, to recuse herself, and she repeatedly refused to do so.
The pro-life attorneys were permitted to take their pleadings to the Appellate Court. We wanted this judge removed from our case because her rulings from an earlier case in St. Joseph County, that dealt with free speech rights at the abortuary in South Bend, were so afoul of the appropriate legal standards as to create evidence of her bias in the current cases. Also Judge Manier has ties to Notre Dame-- as her husband is on staff at the university-- which certainly should be seen as a conflict of interest.
On January 6th-- Feast of the Epiphany-- Judge Manier finally and unilaterally--without the Appellate Court having to force her--decided to recuse herself! So she's off the ND 88 case.
This is a great victory for the ND 88! We've started out the New Year with a great blessing. Much thanks goes to the hard-working and dedicated attorneys who have taken up the cause of the ND 88!
Now we must pray very hard that the case will go to a judge who will understand what we did, make fair rulings and DISMISS the charges against us.
SEE YOU AT THE MARCH!
Show support for the ND 88 by going to the lifesitenews site and signing the petition to free the ND 88. Also contact Dr. Miller for further instructions, and getting signs protesting Fr. Jenkin’s appearance at the march.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)