It’s pretty easy to say “Give up your tenure and go where you will find what you are looking for.”  Sometimes, witness to one’s faith entails suffering.

Agreed.  But, making that decision isn’t so simple when other considerations—like those of family, financial obligations (a mortgage, for example), and the like—must also be factored into the equation.

The situation presents an authentic ethical dilemma, one that confronted a former Associate Professor of Government at Georgetown University, Patrick Deneen.

In a letter published at Front Porch Republic, Deneen said with regard to Georgetown University:

…Georgetown increasingly and inevitably remakes itself in the image of its secular peers, ones that have no internal standard of what a university is for other than the aspiration of prestige for the sake of prestige, its ranking rather than its commitment to Truth. Its Catholic identity, which should inform every activity of the community, from curriculum to dorm life to faculty hiring, has increasingly been cordoned off to optional activities of Campus Ministry.

Describing his experience, Deneen wrote:

In the seven years since I joined the faculty at Georgetown, I have found myself often at odds with the trajectory and many decisions of the university.  In 2006 I founded The Tocqueville Forum as a campus organization that would offer a different perspective, one centered on the moral underpinnings of liberal learning that are a precondition for the continued existence of liberal democracy, and one that would draw upon the deep wisdom contained in the Catholic humanistic tradition.  I have been heartened and overjoyed to witness the great enthusiasm among a myriad of students for the programming and activities of the Forum.  However, the program was not supported or recognized by the institution, and that seemed unlikely to change.  While I did not seek that approval, I had hoped over the years that the program would be attractive to colleagues across disciplines on the faculty, and would be a rallying-point for those interested in reviving and defending classical liberal learning on campus.  The Tocqueville Forum fostered a strong community of inquiry among a sizeable number of students, but I did not find that there was any such community formed around its mission, nor the likely prospect of one, among the more permanent members of the university. I have felt isolated and often lonely at the institution where I have devoted so many of my hours and my passion.

So, where is Professor Deneen headed?

The University of Notre Dame (UND).

However, Deneen appears not to be headed to South Bend blinded by all of the UND hype.  He wrote:

I don’t doubt that there will be many battles at Our Lady’s University.  But, there are at least some comrades-in-arms to share in the effort.

UND hired Deneen, he wrote, because they regard him as “someone who can be a significant contributor to its mission and identity, particularly the Catholic identity of the institution.”

Although considerations like these are not typically a criterion for hiring at Georgetown as Deneen noted, The Motley Monk would humbly suggest that even in those institutions where they are, there’s quite a distance between espousing those ideals and translating them to pedagogical lessons in every classroom, dorm, and student activity.

For Professor Deneen’s willingness to witness to the importance of an institution’s Catholic identity in name and in fact, The Motley Monk offers a “call out” and “both thumb up.”

To read Professor Deneen’s letter, click on the following link:
http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2012/01/why-i-am-leaving-georgetown/

To follow The Motley Monk’s daily blog, click on the following link:
http://themotleymonk.blogspot.com/

The peaks of Notre Dame history are shrouded in the mists of war.

Father Hugh O’Donnell, President, Notre Dame-1941

I think it was in 1964 when I read my first book on the Civil War, The American Heritage Golden Book of the Civil War, and I immediately thereafter developed a life long passion for the subject.  Over the intervening 47 years, I have read hundreds of books on the War.  Truth to tell, more than a few of the books I have read on the Civil War have left me with a ho hum feeling, not telling me much that I haven’t read many, many times before.  I am therefore always pleasantly surprised when a tome on the Late Unpleasantness can give me lots of new information, and such is the case with Notre Dame and the Civil War, by James M. Schmidt.  Mr. Schmidt, knowing of my interest in US Catholic Chaplains in the military, was kind enough to send me a review copy, and I am glad that he did, as he has brought forth facts and new pieces of information about Notre Dame and the Civil War that I have not read elsewhere.

Many Protestant denominations in the country were ripped asunder North and South by the Civil War and the decades of turmoil leading up to it.  Not so the Catholic Church in America.  As a global Church, it was not unusual for Catholics to find themselves on different sides in civil wars or national conflicts, and there was never any threat to the unity of the Church in America.  Individual Catholics fought bravely for both the Union and the Confederacy.  The Catholics of Notre Dame, except for a few students from the South, were whole heartedly for the Union.

Even before the Civil War, as Mr. Schmidt brings out,  Notre Dame students were preparing to fight.  Two student military companies were organized in 1858, part of the craze for militia companies, well drilled, in fancy uniforms that swept the nation in the late Fifties.  It was fun being a part time soldier:  drills, nice uniforms, parades, pretty girls cheering on the side lines.  Many of the students of course were soon to have first hand knowledge of darker aspects of military life.

Schmidt skillfully relates the fever to enlist in the Union army that swept through the students of Notre Dame after Fort Sumter.  Along with their students, Notre Dame priests also served as chaplains.  Most famous among them was of course Father William Corby, who marched and fought with the Irish Brigade and who gave them mass absolution on the second day at Gettysburg before they charged into battle.  The book relates the adventures of Father Corby, but also relates the stories of other Notre Dame priests who served as chaplains, including Father Paul E. Gillen, Father James Dillon, Father Joseph C. Carrier and Father Peter P. Cooney, all of whom will be featured in posts in the future.

The Sisters of the Holy Cross of Notre Dame also got behind the war effort.  Sixty of the Sisters would serve as nurses during the war.  The role of Catholic Sisters as nurses in the Civil War is one of the great largely unsung stories of the War.  Usually nursing Protestant soldiers, the Sisters, through their bravery, skill at nursing and simple charity and kindness, often turned fairly anti-Catholic men into friends of the Church and not a few converted to the Faith.  Mr. Schmidt gives these heroic women their due.

Students and alums of Notre Dame are followed through the war:  young Colonel William Lynch who heroically led the 58th Illinois at Shiloh where he was wounded, and who would end the war as a brigadier general at the age of 26;  poet Timothy E. Howard, a private in the 12th Michigan, who also was wounded at Shiloh and lived after a long recuperation;  Sergeant Frank Baldwin who died for the Union at Stone’s River;  Lieutenant Orville Chamberlain of the 74th Indiana who earned a Medal of Honor at Chickamauga for his heroism.

While the focus is on the battlefield, the book also keeps an eye on the functioning of Notre Dame during the war.  Here the central figure is Father Edward Sorin, founder of Notre Dame and President of Notre Dame.  Father Sorin comes across in the book as possessing both the innocence of a dove and the wiliness of a serpent and was a formidable priest,  just what Notre Dame needed during that time of trial.

This book is a small gem, only 144  pages in length.  Anyone interested in the Civil War and/or Notre Dame, or who simply would like to read a very well written history on a fascinating subject should pick this up.  Go here to Mr. Schmidt’s blog to read excerpts from the book, and to learn about how he researched the book.  I find this type of “backstory” about a book fascinating, and I am glad that Jim Schmidt has put in the extra effort to bring this type of additional detail to his readers.

Fr. Norman Weslin, O.S., at the complaint of Notre Dame, was arrested in May 2009 and charged as a criminal for peacefully entering the Notre Dame campus to offer his prayer of reparation for Notre Dame’s conferral of its highest honor on President Obama, the most relentlessly pro-abortion public official in the world.  The University refuses to ask the St. Joseph County prosecutor to drop the charges against Fr. Weslin and the others arrested, still known as the ND 88 although one, Linda Schmidt, died of cancer this past March.  Judge Michael P. Scopelitis, of St. Joseph Superior Court, recently issued two important orders in this case.

The first order denied the State’s motion to consolidate the cases of multiple defendants.  That motion would have denied each separate defendant his right to a separate jury trial.  The order did permit consolidation of the trials of twice-charged defendants on the separate offenses with which that defendant was charged; a defendant charged, for example, with trespass and disorderly conduct would therefore not have to appear for two trials.  Judge Scopelitis also denied the prosecution’s attempt to force each defendant to return to South Bend for each proceeding in the case, which would have coerced the defendants to abandon their defense.  Instead, the Judge permitted the defendants to participate by telephone in pre-trial conferences.

The second order upheld the subpoena issued by Thomas Dixon, ND ’84, ND Law School ’93, the able attorney for the ND88, to compel the pre-trial testimony by deposition of William W. Kirk, who was summarily fired by the University on June 14^th from his position as Associate Vice-President for Residence Life.  The details of Bill Kirk’s firing were analyzed by Prof. David Solomon in the Irish Rover of August 31^st.  Judge Scopelitis’ order is limited and permits defendants to “inquire as to why William Kirk no longer holds the position of Associate Vice-President, Resident Life, at the University of Notre Dame.”  The University and the prosecution had strenuously resisted any attempt to have Mr. Kirk deposed although he is willing to testify under subpoena and at the eventual trials of the ND88.  Nor is the University willing to have the President, Fr. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., and relevant senior officials, above the Notre Dame Security Police, deposed.  Mr. Dixon wants such pre-trial testimony to explore the seriously discriminatory, illegal and unconstitutional character of the University’s actions against the ND88.

Judge Scopelitis’ orders move the case along.  But they unavoidably leave a few questions unresolved.  Why did the University try to prevent the deposition of Bill Kirk and why is it unwilling to agree to such testimony by senior University officials?  What is the University trying to hide?  Perhaps it is the unprecedented and discriminatory character of the University’s treatment of the ND88.  In his statement of April 30, 2010, Fr. Jenkins reiterated Notre Dame’s position that, “the University cannot have one set of rules for causes we oppose, and another more lenient set of rules for causes we support.  We have one consistent set of rules for demonstrations on campus—no matter what the cause.”   That statement is untrue.

On March 8-9, 2007, the Soulforce Equality Ride conducted a “gay rights” demonstration on the Notre Dame campus.  Six demonstrators were “arrested,” taken to the campus security building and photographed.  They were then driven by campus police to their hotel.  “We never heard another word,” said Delfin Bautista, one of the demonstrators.  “It was just a setup to get us off campus.”  Their trespass notices, incidentally, were stamped with the signature of William Kirk.  On March 26, 2007, Catholic Worker protestors demonstrated on campus against ROTC.  Nine trespass citations and three trespass notices were issued.  One demonstrator, George F. Arteaga, was taken to the county jail.  The next morning he was told by a guard, “We’re letting you go,” and was released.  The trespassing and disorderly conduct charges against him were dismissed by the prosecutor’s office and no further proceedings occurred against any of the demonstrators.

Those 2007 events were recounted in the South Bend Tribune, May 1, 2010, and in several very extensive letters written in February and March, 2010, to Fr. Jenkins and Dennis Brown, University Spokesman, by William H. Dempsey, President of the Sycamore Trust.

“I tracked down,” wrote Mr. Dempsey to Fr. Jenkins on March 11, 2010, “four persons who had been involved: two Catholic Workers (one a priest) and two Soulforce members.  They confirmed that the demonstrators had in fact been arrested—one read the citation to me—and that this was the last they had heard of the matter.”

Mr. Dempsey’s conclusion is an undeniable indictment of Notre Dame’s position:

“The short of it, then, is that Notre Dame is not enforcing ‘one consistent set of rules for demonstrations on campus—no matter the cause.’  Heretofore, it evidently has exercised a discretion appropriate to the circumstances.  The result of adopting an inflexible stance respecting the ND88 is truly bizarre.  The University acts with tolerance toward pro-gay and anti-military supporters but severity toward pro-life supporters.”

Let us assume that Fr. Jenkins had been unaware of what happened in 2007 on his watch.  But when he restated on April 30^th the University’s claim of equal treatment for all, he was aware of Mr. Dempsey’s investigation and his demonstration of the falsity of that claim.  Yet he restated that claim without qualification and without any mention of those 2007 events. Neither Fr. Jenkins nor any other University official has apologized to Fr. Weslin and the ND88 for its misrepresentation of the University’s policy and for its disparate treatment of them.  Nor has Notre Dame sought to rectify that injustice by asking the prosecutor to drop the charges.

How can we explain this vindictive treatment of the ND88?  Permit me, first to tell you a little about those targets of the University’s wrath.  Fr. Weslin was 79 and in very poor health when he was arrested at Notre Dame and literally dragged off the campus on a pallet.  Born to poor Finnish immigrants in upper Michigan, he joined the Army after high school.  He converted from the Lutheran to the Catholic faith and married Mary Lou before earning his commission.  He became a paratrooper and rose to Lieutenant Colonel in the 82^nd Airborne Division, earning his college degree en route.  When he retired in 1968, he and Mary Lou became active pro-lifers in Colorado.  In 1980, Mary Lou was killed by a young drunk driver whom Norman personally forgave.  Norman later was ordained as a Catholic priest, worked with Mother Teresa and devoted his life to the rescue of unborn children through peaceful, prayerful direct action at abortuaries.  In December, 1990, I was privileged to defend Fr. Weslin when he and his Lambs of Christ were arrested at the South Bend abortuary.  One does not have to agree with the tactic of direct, non-violent action at abortuaries to have the highest admiration, as I have, for Fr. Weslin and his associates.  He is a hero of the Faith.  Notre Dame should have given Fr. Weslin the Laetare Medal rather than throw him in jail.

The other “criminals” stigmatized by Notre Dame include many whom this university should honor rather than oppress.  One is Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, who has become pro-life and a Catholic actively trying to spread the word about abortion.  The ND88 include retired professors, retired military officers, mothers of many children, a Catholic nun in full habit, Christian pastors, several Ph.Ds, and Notre Dame grads.  They are “the salt of the earth.”  They came at their own expense, and not as part of any “conspiracy,” from 18 states.  They came because they love what Notre Dame claims to represent.  They themselves do represent it.  But it is doubtful that Notre Dame does so anymore.  The leaders of Notre Dame ought to be deeply ashamed of their continuing persecution of such people.

In response to criticism of its honoring of Obama and its persecution of the ND88,  Notre Dame has commendably taken pro-life initiatives, including Fr. Jenkins’ leading of a Notre Dame delegation to the March for Life.  It was the first official Notre Dame participation in that event since its inception in 1974.  In a discordant note, however, Fr. Jenkins went to the March while he was, by his own choice, the intransigent jailer, in effect, of pro-life witnesses whose “crime” was that they sought to pray, peacefully, at and for the University of Notre Dame.

Nothing in this article is meant to disparage those reactive pro-life initiatives Notre Dame has taken, including the recent appointment of Mary Daly as coordinator of University Life Initiatives.  Fr. Jenkins and other relevant Notre Dame officials are acting in what they see as the best interests of Notre Dame.  But to what extent is Notre Dame serious about its pro-life commitments?  Why do they impose such unrelenting persecution—an apt word—on pro-life witnesses, especially in light of their non-prosecution of pacifist and “gay rights” protestors and their reliance on the brazen falsehood that they “have one consistent set of rules for demonstrators on campus”?

Perhaps a clue may be found in Angelo Codevilla’s new book, “The Ruling Class.”  Dr. Codevilla, who received his M.A. at Notre Dame and is professor emeritus at Boston University, demonstrates that we are governed by a political and cultural “ruling class,” characterized by its “insistence that people other than themselves are intellectually and hence otherwise humanly inferior.”  (57-58.) A comparable ruling class dominates the academic world.  Since the misbegotten 1967 Land O’Lakes Declaration which asserted the autonomy of “Catholic” universities from Church teaching authority, Notre Dame has striven to become an accepted player on the periphery of that academic “ruling class.”   As former president Fr. Edward A. Malloy, C.S.C., said at the 1993 Board of Trustees meeting, “we think we should have greater input into national policy decisions and into ethical preparations for decisions.  We think we’re capable of operating in the same world as the Ivys, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Duke, Southern Cal and Northwestern.”  So. Bend Tribune, Feb. 15, 1993, p. B1.

Notre Dame appears to be governed by academic ruling class wannabes.  The operative religion of the academic and political establishments, however, is political correctness.  Activist opponents of ROTC and activist advocates of “gay rights” are politically correct.  Activist pro-lifers, such as Fr. Weslin and the ND88, are not.  For Notre Dame’s leaders to show respect for the ND88, let alone apologize to them and seek an end to their prosecution, as they ought, would be to touch a third rail of academic respectability.  It would not play well in the ruling academic circles.  What would they think of us at Harvard, Yale, etc?  Notre Dame has expressed a worthy desire to be a pro-life champion.  If they really mean it, the first step must be a public request by Notre Dame to the prosecutor to dismiss unconditionally the charges against the ND88.  Without such a rectification of an injustice inflicted by the University, Notre Dame’s otherwise commendable pro-life initiatives are merely cosmetic, a defensive covering of the institutional anatomy.  The ND88—and Notre Dame itself—deserve better.

Professor Charles E. Rice is Professor Emeritus on the faculty of Notre Dame Law School.

Reprinted with permission.

Hattip to Ignatius Insight.  Father Norman Weslin, arrested at Notre Dame for protesting Obama Day, faces trial on October 1.  Notre Dame has refused to drop the charges.  Now that Father Jenkins is trying to get some pro-life street creds,  perhaps a good place to start would be to drop the charges against Father Weslin. 

An open letter from Dr. Charles E. Rice, Professor Emeritus of Notre Dame Law School, to Fr. John Jenkins, President of University of Notre Dame:

Open Letter to Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., President, University of Notre Dame

September 21, 2009
Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
President
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, Indiana 46556

Dear Father Jenkins:

Professor Fred Freddoso has shared with me the response on Sept. 17th by Dr. Frances L. Shavers, Chief of Staff and Special Assistant to the President, to Fred’s email of that date to you asking that Notre Dame request dismissal of the charges against the persons arrested for trespass on the campus in relation to the honoring of President Obama at Commencement.  Dr. Shavers responded on your behalf to Fred’s email because, as she said, “the next few days are rather hectic for [Fr. Jenkins].”  I don’t want to add to the hectic burden of your schedule by sending you a personal message that could impose on an assistant the task of responding.  I therefore take the liberty of addressing to you several concerns in the form of this open letter to which a response is neither required nor expected.

First, permit me to express my appreciation for the expressions of support for the pro-life cause in your September 16th “Letter concerning post-commencement initiatives.”  I know, however, that in a matter as significant as this, you will appreciate and welcome a respectful but very candid expression of views.  In my opinion, the positions you have taken are deficient in some respects.

In your Letter of Sept. 16th, you rightly praise the work of the Women’s Care Center (WCC) and of its superb leader, Ann Murphy Manion.  I commend you on your statement that the WCC “and similar centers in other cities deserve the support of Notre Dame clubs and individuals.”  Your praise of the WCC and similar efforts, however, overlooks a practical step that Notre Dame, as an institution, ought to take.  That would be for you, on behalf of Notre Dame, to issue a standing invitation to the WCC to establish an office on the Notre Dame campus to serve students, faculty and staff if, in the judgment of the WCC, that would be desirable and effective.  Such would give practical effect, right here at Notre Dame, to your words in support of the WCC and similar efforts.

Your Letter announced your formation of the Task Force on Supporting the Choice for Life.  Rather than offer a detailed evaluation of my own, I note my agreement with the personal analysis of William Dempsey, ND ’52, President of the Sycamore Trust, calling attention to “the obviously deliberate exclusion from Task Force membership of anyone associated with the ND organizations that have been unashamedly and actively pro-life: the Center for Ethics & Culture and the ND Fund for the Protection of Human Life.  Nor was the student representative chosen from the leadership of the student RTL organization or from anyone active in last year’s student alliance protesting the honoring of the President, ND Response.  It is hard to resist the inference that this is as a move toward marginalizing the Center and the Fund, neither of which receives any University support the way it is…. Finally, it is unsettling but instructive that this announcement comes a day after Fr. Jenkins’ annual address to the faculty in which he described his goals for the year, which included increasing female and minority faculty representation but not a word about the most crucial problem facing the university, the loss of Catholic identity through the failure to hire enough Catholics to restore the predominance required by the Mission Statement.  This is a striking falling away from [Fr. Jenkins’] wonderful inaugural address.  The fact that ND did nothing to serve the pro-life cause until forced by the reaction to the Obama incident testifies to the fact that, without a predominance of committed Catholics on the faculty, any pro-life efforts launched under pressure will in time fade away.  The risk, and surely it is real, is that this initiative and the publicity ND is generating about it will deflect attention from the fundamental problem besetting Notre Dame….But I return to where I began: A project that deliberately excludes from participation those who have courageously manned organizations standing against the faculty attitude toward the pro-life cause ought to be regarded with suspicion.” 

My main concern in this letter arises from your statement in your Letter that “Each year on January 22, the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, the March for Life is held in Washington D.C. to call on the nation to defend the right to life.  I plan to participate in that march.  I invite other members of the Notre Dame Family to join me and I hope we can gather for a Mass for Life at that event.”  I understand that Notre Dame students have invited you to participate with them in the March.  The problem arises from an aftermath of Commencement.  On this I refer back to Chief of Staff Shavers’ response to Professor Freddoso’s request that Notre Dame ask dismissal of the charges against those arrested.  Dr. Shavers states that “these protesters were arrested for trespassing and not for expressing their pro-life position.”  That is misleading.  This is not an ordinary case of trespass to land such as would occur if a commuter walks across your lawn and flower bed as a short-cut to the train station.  Notre Dame is ordinarily an open campus.  Those 88 persons, 82 of whom are represented by Tom Dixon, ND ’84, ND Law School ’93, were arrested not because they were there, but because of who they were, why they were there and what they were saying.  Other persons with pro-Obama signs were there but were not arrested and not disturbed.  Serious legal and constitutional questions are involved, arising especially from the symbiotic relationship between the Notre Dame Security Police, who made the arrests, and the County Police.  This letter is not a legal brief.  Rather I merely note that it is disingenuous for Notre Dame to pretend that this is merely a routine trespass case.

The confusion is compounded by Dr. Shavers’ statement that “Under Indiana law, however, Notre Dame is not the complainant in these matters and so is not in any position to drop or dismiss the charges.”  That sentence is half-true and half-false.  Notre Dame is the complaining victim of the alleged trespass.  Whether to dismiss the charges, of course, is for the prosecutor to decide. 

Dr. Shavers states that “Notre Dame officials have been in regular contact with the prosecutor’s office on these matters, and, in consultation with the University, the prosecutor has offered Pre-Trial Diversion to those for whom the May incident was a first-time offense.  As described by the prosecutor, this program does not require the individual to plead guilty or go through a trial; rather, the charges are dropped after one year so long as the individual does not commit another criminal offense.  We understand that most of those arrested have chosen not to take advantage of this offer and obviously we cannot force them to do so.  In essence, the choice of whether or not to go to trial belongs to the defendants.” 

Pre-trial diversion could change their status as convicted criminals.  But it is only because of the actions of Notre Dame that they are treated by the law as criminals in the first place.  Notre Dame continues to subject those defendants to the criminal process.  If they entered pretrial diversion they would each have to pay hundreds of dollars in costs, which would amount in effect to a fine imposed on them, with the concurrence of Notre Dame, for praying.  Most of the 88 are in straitened financial circumstances.  The imposition on them of such a fine would be a serious hardship.  Instead, Notre Dame ought to state publicly that it has no interest in seeing those prosecutions proceed in any form and that it requests the prosecutor to exercise his discretion to dismiss all those charges unconditionally.  Given the prospect of 88 or so separate jury trials, probably not consolidated, in cases involving potentially serious legal and constitutional issues, such a request by Notre Dame would surely be appreciated by the taxpayers of St. Joseph County.

Those 88 defendants were on the other side of the campus, far removed from the site of the Commencement.  They are subjected by Notre Dame to the criminal process because they came, as individuals, to Notre Dame to pray, peacefully and non-obstructively, on this ordinarily open campus, in petition and reparation, as a response to what they rightly saw as a facilitation by Notre Dame of various objectively evil policies and programs of Notre Dame’s honoree, President Obama.  Those persons, whom Notre Dame has subjected to legal process as criminals, are neither statistics nor abstractions.  Let me tell you about a few of them.

Fr. Norman Weslin, O.S., 79 years old and in very poor health, was handcuffed by Notre Dame Security Police as he sang “Immaculate Mary” on the campus sidewalk near the entrance.  He asked them, “Why would you arrest a Catholic priest for trying to stop the killing of a baby?”  The NSDP officers put him on a pallet and dragged him away to jail.  St. Joseph County Police were also there.  I urge you to watch the readily available videos of Fr. Weslin’s arrest.  If you do, I will be surprised and disappointed if you are not personally and deeply ashamed. 

Such treatment of such a priest may be the lowest point in the entire history of Notre Dame.  You would profit from knowing Fr. Weslin.  Notre Dame should give Fr. Weslin the Laetare Medal rather than throw him in jail.  Norman Weslin, born to poor Finnish immigrants in upper Michigan, finished high school at age 17 and joined the Army.  He converted from the Lutheran to the Catholic faith and married shortly after earning his commission.  He became a paratrooper and rose to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the 82nd Airborne Division, obtaining his college degree enroute.  After a distinguished career, he retired in 1968.  As the legalization of abortion intensified, he and his wife, Mary Lou, became active pro-lifers in Colorado.  In 1980, Mary Lou was killed by a drunk driver.  Norman personally forgave the young driver.  Norman Weslin was later ordained as a Catholic priest, worked with Mother Teresa in New York and devoted himself to the rescue of unborn children through nonviolent, prayerful direct action at abortuaries.  In 1990 at Christmastime, I was privileged to defend Fr. Weslin and his Lambs of Christ when they were arrested at the abortuary in South Bend.  One does not have to agree with the tactic of direct, non-violent action at abortuaries to have the utmost admiration, as I have, for Fr. Weslin and his associates.  At Notre Dame, Fr. Weslin engaged in no obstruction or disruption.  He merely sought to pray for the unborn on the ordinarily open campus of a professedly Catholic university.  The theme of Notre Dame’s honoring of Obama was “dialogue.”  It would have been better for you and the complicit Fellows and Trustees to dialogue with Fr. Weslin rather than lock him up as a criminal.  You all could have learned something from him.  His actions in defense of innocent life and the Faith have been and are heroic.  Notre Dame’s treatment of Fr. Weslin is a despicable disgrace, the responsibility for which falls directly and personally upon yourself as the President of Notre Dame.

The other “criminals” stigmatized by Notre Dame include many whom this university should honor rather than oppress.  One is Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, who has become pro-life and a Catholic actively trying to spread the word about abortion.  Those “criminals” include retired professors, retired military officers, mothers of many children, a Catholic nun in full habit, Christian pastors, several Ph.Ds, and Notre Dame grads.  They are, in summary, “the salt of the earth.”  They came, on their own, at their own expense, and not as part of any “conspiracy,” from 18 states.  They came because they love what Notre Dame claims to represent.  They themselves do represent it.  But one has to doubt whether Notre Dame does so anymore.

Clearly, Notre Dame should do all it can to obtain the dismissal of those criminal charges.  This has nothing to do with one’s opinion of the tactics of rescue at abortuaries.  It is simply a matter of you, as President, doing the manifestly right thing.

Please permit me to speak bluntly about your announced purpose to participate in the March for Life and to “invite other members of the Notre Dame Family to join me.”  Notre Dame should have had an official presence at every March for Life since 1973.  But until now it never has.  Notre Dame students, with the encouragement of Campus Ministry, participate in the March but the University, as such, has not done so.  To put it candidly, it would be a mockery for you to present yourself now at the March, even at the invitation of Notre Dame students, as a pro-life advocate while, in practical effect, you continue to be the jailer, as common criminals, of those persons who were authentic pro-life witnesses at Notre Dame.  When the pictures of Fr. Weslin’s humiliation and arrest by your campus police was flashed around the world it did an incalculable damage to Notre Dame that can be partially undone only by your public and insistent request, as President of Notre Dame, that the charges be dropped.  In my opinion your attachment to the March for Life, including your offering of a Mass for Life, could give scandal in the absence, at least, of such an insistent request to dismiss those charges.  Your decision to present an official Notre Dame presence at the March could be beneficial, but not in the context of an unrelenting criminalization by Notre Dame of sincere and peaceful friends of Notre Dame whose offense was their desire to pray, on the campus, for the University and all concerned including yourself.  If you appear at the March as the continuing criminalizer of those pro-life witnesses, you predictably will earn not approbation but scorn—a scorn which will surely be directed toward Notre Dame as well.  As long as you pursue the criminalization of those pro-life witnesses, your newest pro-life statements will be regarded reasonably as a cosmetic covering of the institutional anatomy in the wake of the continuing backlash arising from your conferral of Notre Dame’s highest honor on the most relentlessly pro-abortion public official in the world. 

In conclusion, this letter is not written in a spirit of contention.  It is written rather in the mutual concern we share for Notre Dame—and for her university.  I hope you will reconsider your positions on these matters. Our family prays for you by name every night.  And we wish you success in the performance of your obligations to the University and all concerned.

                    Sincerely,

                    Charles E. Rice
                    Professor Emeritus
                    Notre Dame Law School

Father Richard McBrien, Professor of Theology at Notre Dame, boy that comes as a shock doesn’t it, doesn’t think much of eucharistic adoration.  McBrien of course has been a fierce defender of the secular zeitgeist for decades, and has done his very best to wean generations of Catholics from anything in the Faith that would not pass muster at fashionable parties in academia. 

For myself I love eucharistic adoration.  I never have done it without feeling much closer to God.  Since John Paul II also approved of it in his letter DOMINICAE CENAE, I guess I will just have to bear up under the strain of being thought backward by Professor McBrien.  Father Z gives McBrien his patented fisking here. 

You know, tenured dissenters like McBrien have a real problem on their hands in the age of the internet.  It is very easy now for ordinary Catholics to have access to church teaching by a few clicks and read what John Paul II wrote:

“Adoration of Christ in this sacrament of love must also find expression in various forms of eucharistic devotion: personal prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, Hours of Adoration, periods of exposition-short, prolonged and annual (Forty Hours)-eucharistic benediction, eucharistic processions, eucharistic congresses.”

Of course Pope Benedict’s views are well known and are set forth here.  When we have such easy access to the words of Peter, it is much harder for Catholics to be bamboozled by flim-flam artists like McBrien seeking to distort the teaching of the Church in service of their personal agendas.  The modern world provides many challenges to the Church, but I think in the long run the internet may become a great advantage to the magisterium of Holy Mother Church.

Hattip to reader Rick Lugari.  The USCCB* has issued this statement of support for Bishop John D’Arcy, the Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend:

“The bishops of the United States express our appreciation and support for our brother bishop, the Most Reverend John D’Arcy.  We affirm his pastoral concern for Notre Dame University, his solicitude for its Catholic identity, and his loving care for all those the Lord has given him to sanctify, to teach and to shepherd.”

Bishop D’Arcy had been in the forefront of protesting Notre Dame honoring Obama on May 17, 2009.

* United States Conference of Catholic Bishops