Thursday, March 28, AD 2024 4:48am

"I can assure you of my prayers for your conversion, and for the conversion of your formerly Catholic University."

bishop-fabian-bruskewitz

Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska, a personal hero of mine, sends a letter to Jenkins that is blunt and to the point regarding Obama Day at Notre Dame on May 17, 2009:

April 3, 2009

The Reverend John Jenkins, C.S.C
President, University of Notre Dame
400 Main Building
Notre Dame, IN 46556

Reverend and dear Father Jenkins,

Permit me to add my name as well to the long list of Bishops of the Catholic Church who are utterly appalled at your dedication to immorality and wrong-doing represented by your support for the obscenity called “The Vagina Monologues” and your absolute indifference to the murderous abortion program and beliefs of this President of the United States.

The fact that you have some sort of past connection with the State of Nebraska makes it all the more painful that the Catholic people here have to see your betrayal of the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.

I can assure you of my prayers for your conversion, and for the conversion of your formerly Catholic University.

I am,
Sincerely yours in Christ Jesus,

The Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz
Bishop of Lincoln

0 0 votes
Article Rating
56 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Henry
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 6:26am

I think this type of rudeness is disappointing and counter-productive, particularly coming from a Bishop.

Flambeaux
Flambeaux
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 8:33am

The world would be a better place if more bishops had the candor of Bp. Bruskewitz.

Paul, Just This Guy, You Know?
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 8:59am

As I noted on my own blog, Deus caritas est, but God is also Truth.

I fail to see any “rudeness” in His Excellency’s letter.

paul zummo
Admin
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 9:01am

I think this type of rudeness is disappointing and counter-productive, particularly coming from a Bishop.

Pardon my rudeness, but stuff it. While you might think moderate tempered mealy-mouthed reactions are what’s going to suddenly make people see the light, the rest of us applaud the fact that some Bishops have suddenly found their voice and are willing to call out those who aid and abet the culture of death.

I’m frankly more disgusted by people who wag their fingers at those who raise their voices above a whisper.

Henry Karlson
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 9:12am

The problem with the letter is

1) Notre Dame has not lost its Catholic status, so the letter itself is mirepresenting the status of the university. If it had lost its status, this would be a proper letter to make. When it has not, then it only hurts the point the Bishop makes. It is always important to be honest and not misrepresent the situation by exaggeration.

2) It’s also dishonest in saying President Jenkins is indifferent to abortion or the beliefs President Obama has on abortion. It’s over-the top.

3) Should we use this line of reasoning, as exemplified in the letter, it would turn on upon the Catholic Church and end up calling the Church not Catholic for its historical mistakes and indifference to many crimes against humanity which it turned a blind eye to when regimes did them (such as the Spanish Inquisition). It’s really absurd, and poor ecclesiology.

John Henry
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 9:13am

Sorry to draw your ire, Paul(s). As I’ve said before, I am glad that bishops are addressing the issue, particularly Bishop D’Arcy and Cardinal George. The question is how to address it, and perhaps by temperament or whatever I prefer a lighter touch than the episcopal version of ‘I can only pray for you, you miserable quisling.’ I don’t like that style in com-boxes, and I’m not a fan in public discourse.

Furthermore, I think he overstates his case; I don’t think accusing Fr. Jenkins of ‘absolute indifference’ is entirely fair, although I do think Fr. Jenkins has shown he does not place a high enough priority on the protection of unborn life. And Notre Dame is not a ‘formerly Catholic University,’ as much as it is one that is struggling with what it means to be Catholic. I’m not sure such harsh dismissals aid it in that endeavor. At a general level, I’d say there are different models for engagement; the prophetic is a legitimate model, but it’s not the only model, and I’m not sure it’s the best one here.

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 9:44am

I agree that any indifference charge is unfair. But what is really “over the top” is conferring an honorary law degree on the legislator who led the effort to stop Illinois’ protective born alive legislation.

Mark DeFrancisis
Mark DeFrancisis
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 9:48am

The bishop’s letter is unfortunate, both in its unbecoming tone and its untruth. Any productive point he could have made is lost in gross exaggeration and seemingly foul temper.

What puropose can it now possibly serve, other than a personal, narcissistic one? Is this what prophetic witness entails or constists of? I too think not.

M.Z.
M.Z.
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 10:14am

To preface my comment, I think his book “A Shepherd Speaks” is one of the best books out there. In many ways I think he has been a model of a bishop, providing clear leadership in exhortation and practice. If I’m not mistaken, he has been responsible for setting homes for unwed mothers and has done good things with the education system. I think this letter though is a pretty clear example of why he hasn’t been moved beyond Lincoln despite his many gifts.

Paul, Just This Guy, You Know?
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 10:28am

When conservatives speak, people always worry so much more about how a thing is said than about what is said.

But let liberals riot, and we’re asked to “understand.”

It gets old.

I disagree that the letter is over the top. Notre Dame has set itself at odds with Church teaching, and Fr. Jenkins has refused the correction offered him by scores of bishops, and the superior of his own order.

If I had 30+ bishops telling me publicly that I was wrong about something, I would surely be moving to correct my error, not releasing statements to justify it.

M.Z.
M.Z.
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 10:33am

That is why you have recanted your support of the Iraq War, ended your crusade against illegal immigration, and myriad of other things I take it.

c matt
c matt
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 11:13am

Fr. Jenkins is a grown man and the President (or whatever, not sure of exact title) of a major university. I seriously doubt he is stupid. Which leaves the impression that he is indifferent to O’s views or at least does not feel strongly enough against them to withhold the honoray degree and opportunity to speak.

Overly nuanced approaches are what have gotten us to this point in the first placed.

Michael J. Iafrate
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 11:23am

Unbelievably rude, condescending, and untrue.

Where did you find the text of the letter, out of curiosity? It’s, in fact, so rude my immediate reaction is to suspect that Bill Donahue (or Donald McClarey!) wrote it!

S.B
S.B
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 11:29am

And we all know how scrupulously Michael avoids any trace of rudeness and condescension in his own comments.

DarwinCatholic
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 11:34am

Michael,

You’re so shocked by what you consider rudeness that you immediately accuse two people, by name, of forgery?

What tender sensibilities you do have…

paul zummo
Admin
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 11:35am

That is why you have recanted your support of the Iraq War, ended your crusade against illegal immigration

Yes, because all those things are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Oh wait, no. That’s only what you told yourself to convince yourself that voting for Obama was a-ok. Whatever. Some people on this thread have clear consciences. Others, well, less so.

paul zummo
Admin
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 11:36am

Unbelievably rude, condescending, and untrue.

Wow, like every comment that michael has ever made. Bishop Bruskewitz must be a personal hero of yours.

M.Z.
M.Z.
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 11:39am

Paul,

The standard the other Paul gave was, “If I had 30+ bishops telling me publicly that I was wrong about something, I would surely be moving to correct my error, not releasing statements to justify it.”

Michael J. Iafrate
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 12:19pm

And we all know how scrupulously Michael avoids any trace of rudeness and condescension in his own comments.

I can be rude, and yes, condescending. But I don’t lie.

Wow, like every comment that michael has ever made.

Show me a comment in which I have lied.

You’re so shocked by what you consider rudeness that you immediately accuse two people, by name, of forgery?

T’was a joke!

Michael J. Iafrate
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 12:45pm

Bruskewitz always tells the truth as he sees it with the bark on.

Sounds like Rush Limbaugh with a mitre.

DarwinCatholic
Reply to  Michael J. Iafrate
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 12:45pm

Show me a comment in which I have lied.

As I am sure you are clever enough to know, this is something of a tricky thing. To show that you have lied I would have to show that you said something untrue, knew it was untrue, and intended by saying it to decieve people.

So for instance, while I recall you on various occasions of having said that I don’t care about the poor, don’t care about people after they are born, worship war rather than God, etc., it would be hard to make the case that you didn’t believe these to be true at least in whatever rhetorical sense in which you meant them.

However, in this same sense, it is doubtless the case that Bruskewitz is saying that Notre Dame is “formerly Catholic” and that Jenkins does not give sufficient priority to abortion in a sense which is true in regards to what he believes to be the case. He is not, for instance, trying to decieve people into thinking that Notre Dame is not accredited as a Catholic university. (That would be lying.) He is stating, we must presume accurately, that Notre Dame’s actions represent an abandonment of its Catholicity and a lack of interest in the unborn.

So basically, if you don’t lie in your comments, then Bruskewitz is not lying, and if he is lying, then you often do.

Michael J. Iafrate
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 12:53pm

The bishop did not say Jenkins “does not give sufficient priority to abortion.” He said “absolute indifference.” He’s out to deceive.

e.
e.
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 12:57pm

“As I am sure you are clever enough to know, this is something of a tricky thing. To show that you have lied, I would have to show that you said something untrue, knew it was untrue, and intended by saying it to deceive people.”

Quite right —

This is something that even the great St. Thomas More himself had spoken quite eloquently in its regard during his unjust inquisition at Westminster, noting Aquinas own thoughts on the matter — in particular, the interoribus mortibus which no man is able to judge.

Henry Karlson
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 1:08pm

Also, when a Bishop says “X is not Catholic,” that has implications which are different from when you or I say it. Since a Bishop is the ultimate authority within their own jurisdiction, if they said that about an institution within their own jurisdiction, I would say it would have an effect, just like an excommunication or an anthema has had. Obviously there would be canonical issues, and could sometimes work to show a Bishop over-stepped their authority in doing so, but that would be decided under review, and their Bishop’s stand would have relative authority. However, when they try to say X is not Catholic to an institution not in their own jurisdiction, they are undermining the authority of another Bishop, and indeed, causing ecclesial scandal. This is, for example, caused great division throughout the ages when a Bishop acts beyond their proper authority (look, for example, to the ordination of Origen as an early example of where such mistakes can lead).

Michael J. Iafrate
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 1:14pm

Donald – I see no resemblance whatsoever. One involves a pastor being firm with his congregation, but speaking the truth. The other involves a relatively obscure bishop taking advantage of a shallow, buzzing news story in order to gain attention, attempting to out-do his fellow bishops in rudeness.

Dale Price
Dale Price
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 1:14pm

Let’s see:

Fr. Jenkins certainly hasn’t claimed the high ground here. He’s shown no qualms whatsoever about honoring and giving a free political podium to a man whose actions and words demonstrate a commitment to increasing the death rate of unborn (and even recently-born, the horror of it) life.

Moreover, he employs reasoning in defense of his actions that can’t be dignified with the term “casuistry” and refuses to engage the opponents of his actions in dialogue after promising to do so.

In other words, where exactly is the evidence that he does care about abortion? As in concrete actions, and not the usual attempts at verbal disinfectant and empty reassuring noises. If someone can point to a pro-life initiative by Fr. Jenkins as President of ND (or even before), then the Bishop’s accusation will be unjust, and the Ordinary of Lincoln should be presented with this evidence.

If not, well, President Jenkins got himself into this mess, and he shouldn’t have expected plaudits.

Gabriel Austin
Gabriel Austin
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 1:32pm

Mr. Lafrate writes:

“The other involves a relatively obscure bishop”.

A relatively obscure bishop? Where have you been for the last two decades?

That Fr. Jenkins had some sort of connection with the diocese of Lincoln surely gives Bishop Bruskewitz “standing”, as the lawyers call it to reprimand him.

Michael J. Iafrate
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 1:36pm

A relatively obscure bishop? Where have you been for the last two decades?

Well, I have not been intimately involved in the irrelevant circles of the Catholic Right, nor have paid much attention to whoever their episcopal heroes might be. Has Bruskewitz been a newsworthy figure in some way? I’ve not heard of him.

Gerard E.
Gerard E.
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 4:19pm

Mikey Mikey. So cute when you’re mad. Bishop B has been bad bold and boisterous for well unto a generation. Cries aloud and spares not. His comments about Father Jenkins were bang on the money. Funny how you get SOOOOO jumpy and personal on this that or other thing. Might wanna check your own self. Meanwhile Bravo Bishop B and keep on laying down smack.

Michael J. Iafrate
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 4:33pm

Mad? Jumpy? Personal? If you say so. Merely pointing out the obvious. Other than than, I’m chillin’ like Bob Dylan.

Michael J. Iafrate
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 4:34pm

Should read “other than that.”

Henry Karlson
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 4:52pm

I bet most Catholics in the United States don’t know who he is, Donald. Just because he is popular within a certain internet crowd doesn’t make him non-obscure. People might know what their local ordinary is doing, but beyond that? Not necessarily.

M.Z.
M.Z.
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 5:02pm

The diocese of Lincoln is ranked 131st in the nation by Catholic population, having 89,000. ( http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/scus1.html ) The See has no historical importance and is one of the least important in the country.

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 5:03pm

Iafrate is obscure. Bruskewitz not so.

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 5:05pm

The American Catholic is obscure, as is Koss Nova. The diocese of Lincoln is obscure if you are a protestant living in canada.

e.
e.
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 5:10pm

“The See has no historical importance and is one of the least important in the country.”

Wasn’t Jerusalem likewise an obscure and insignificant province of the Roman Empire?

Yet, somehow this obscure backwater ended up being historically monumental.

Go figure.

M.Z.
M.Z.
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 5:11pm

Koss Nova

Eh!!! Did you come up with that one on your own? Wow! I’m so impressed!!!

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 5:21pm

MZ,
As a matter of fact, I did, several months ago. But its formation was undeservedly obscure.

DarwinCatholic
Reply to  M.Z.
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 5:21pm

The diocese of Lincoln is ranked 131st in the nation by Catholic population, having 89,000. The See has no historical importance and is one of the least important in the country.

I’m not really clear where all this argument about whether Lincoln is an “obscure” see is supposed to go — other than that some obviously agree with Bruskewitz’s opinions in re Notre Dame and others don’t.

The diocese itself is, as MZ points out, rather small. However it is known for having consistently high numbers of vocations, and I’ve heard about Bruskewitz off and on in national Catholic publications like OSV for a good fifteen years. I imagine that if one did a citation count of National Catholic Register, National Catholic Reporter, OSV, Commonweal, This Rock and America one would find significantly more mentions of Bruskewitz over the last 15 years than of anything going on in my own see of Austin, even though we have far more Catholics.

So aside from not seeing the relevance of the “obscure” accusation, I don’t really see that it’s true either.

Michael J. Iafrate
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 5:25pm

A google search would quickly disabuse anyone that Bishop Bruskewitz has been obscure.

I see. Because obscure persons and things tend not to show up on Google searches, right?

Wasn’t Jerusalem likewise an obscure and insignificant province of the Roman Empire?

Well, M.Z. and “e.”, I didn’t say anything about the man’s diocese being “obscure.” Most people have heard of Lincoln, Nebraska after all. But this bishop seems to be an angry, obscure one who is just looking for the latest “newsworthy” item to be outraged about so he can appear prophetic. I mean please; sending a priest that he doesn’t know a letter saying that he will pray for his conversion is pretty low. Who does he think he is? A combox participant at Vox Nova?

e.
e.
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 5:26pm

“That we have so many visitors in this thread from Vox Nova indicates quite clearly that you and your colleagues are well aware of who Bishop Bruskewitz is.”

I hate to break it to you, but that in itself doesn’t prove or pull the good bishop out of obscurity just because certain Vox Novan visitors happen to know him; unless, of course, such persons are representative of the entire Catholic population of the United States.

(The fact that this isn’t actually the case is, quite frankly, a relief.)

Michael J. Iafrate
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 5:27pm

That we have so many visitors in this thread from Vox Nova indicates quite clearly that you and your colleagues are well aware of who Bishop Bruskewitz is.

Why? We simply saw the latest hateful letter by a u.s. bishop and wanted to comment. Doesn’t mean we have a clue who this guy is.

e.
e.
Friday, April 17, AD 2009 5:39pm

Mr. McClarey,

“e., the fact that they are also the same individuals contending he is obscure rather disproves their point by the vehemence with which they are arguing about the letter from an ‘obscure’ bishop.”

Well, that wouldn’t actually be the first time that certain Vox Novans happened to engage in arguments that were, in fact, self-refuting! ;^)

Yet, to be fair though, although the Catholic crowds that roam around various Catholic foras may actually know of the good bishop doesn’t really give any actual indication that American Catholics in general would happen to know of him.

(About your last comment though about Catholic Anarchist, are you really surprised?)

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top