Note to Readers: this started as a response to an observation in one of the com-boxes, and grew into something more. - LD
UPDATE: I have fine-tuned this post. Changes in Blue - LD
I have been monitoring developments in the ND debacle pretty closely, and have seen nothing in the way of new argument. All I have seen is repetition of the old argument, peppered with greater or lesser doses of outrage and vitriol.
I have been especially disappointed with the many bishops' letters and statements.
Pastors afraid to discipline the pro-abort politicians in their own dioceses who blithely present themselves for Communion on Sunday and then vote to fund infanticide at home and abroad the next day, have complained to and fulminated against a priest who is not under any of their jurisdictions; what is worse, they carry their criticism of his actions right into the realm of condemnation - a realm into which the bishop under whose jurisdiction ND falls quite carefully and tactfully refused to enter.
There is also an appalling inconsistency in the condemnations, themselves.
Suppose Fr. Jenkins' decision is really worthy of the worst of the condemnation it has received, and that ND's standing to claim the title, "Catholic" in a meaningful sense has really been impeached; then Bishop D’Arcy is a coward – or worse – a hypocrite for encouraging Ambassador Glendon to do what he will not, i.e. attend the Commencement, and to accept an award that must be tainted with ND’s treachery.
Suppose Fr. Jenkins' decision is really worthy of the worst of the condemnation it has received, and that ND's standing to claim the title, "Catholic University" in a meaningful sense has really been impeached; how, then, can the Cardinal President of the USCCB coherently claim that the invitation ought to stand, simply because to dis-invite the president would be "bad manners"? If things really are as bad as those on the other side of this debate say, then we are engaged in an all-out war for the soul of Our Lady’s University; if so great and terrible a battle really is joined, then we really have moved beyond questions of etiquette and protocol.
So much for the arguments, such as they are, or at least seem to me.
There is a much more serious consideration, one that really is a matter of life and death
More to this: in behaving so ungraciously toward the President of the United States, they have burned bridges that needed to be there in order for the bishops to engage the President effectively in the REAL fights that there will be over conscience clauses and institutional exemptions.
Our ability to prevent the gratuitous destruction of real human lives at home has been seriously reduced – our ability to influence policy at the highest levels is effectively destroyed, and as a result, more people are going to die.
That is just what there will be at home.
A priest or a bishop gets arrested in China, Vietnam or North Korea? Which of the bishops will have the president's ear?
The rights of the Church in the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, the Caucasus, or South Asia need to be pressed? Who shall press the President to press them? Would the bishops then - now, as it were - rely on the president's upright sense of justice and native appreciation of the sanctity of life?
I could continue, but I will break off for now.