Thanks to the decision of Fr Jenkins and his misguided supporters to gleefully reward this villain against life with an honorary degree and allow him to spout his poisonous words and thoughts to our children, we can comfortably cross Notre Dame off of the list of schools that our children will attend. Together we will find truly Catholic institutions, those that honor the sanctity of life, for our children to receive their education and our support.

Some recent commentary on the Notre Dame debate has included opinions about what Jesus might or might not do. It makes for interesting reading, and I would like all of us to recall what Jesus actually DID ... as taken from Eucharistic Prayer IV: ... "In fulfillment of your will, he gave himself up to death; but by rising from the dead, he destroyed death and restored life. And that we might live no longer for ourselves but for him, he sent the Holy Spirit from you, Father, as his first gift to those who believe, to complete his work on earth and bring us the fullness of grace."

During this Easter season, and as we make our way toward Pentecost, let us all reflect on what Jesus DID for us. And stengthened by the Eucharist, may we live and work in our troubled world as transformed people ... loyal to Jesus.

Thank you for your insightful and balanced article on the Notre Dame controversy. Thank God there are still some sane voices representing the Catholic view on this and other political issues. I am appalled at how prevelent political ideological discourse has become in our discussions on religious issues about which we don't all agree. This hate-filled rhetoric must stop or it will tear the church apart. To borrow a fundamentalist saying, "What would Jesus do"? I don't think he would sound like a lot of the commenters to this article of Brian Cones.

Fr. Jenkins says, "You cannot change the world if you shun the people you want to persuade”. He presents a false choice of awarding honors or shunning. The essence of the criticism of Fr. Jenkins’ decision to honor the president by choosing him as the speaker, and awarding an honorary Doctor of Laws degree is simply a call for Catholic institutions to practice integrity. To live out their beliefs and refrain from giving awards and/or honors to those who deny the Truth, deny Natural Law, and deny the fundamental right to Life for innocent babies. We can and should talk with the president and many others with whom we disagree in appropriate forums allowing an exchange. This can be done without awarding honors, don’t you agree? And we should do so in ways that aren’t in direct violation of USCCB directives. Do you disagree? If so, why?

Bryan, your main arguments seem to be that Catholics have earned, over generations, a hard-won place in the public square; that we should welcome debate, dialogue and engagement; and that we should not relegate the Catholic voice and richness of Catholic faith to the political ghetto.

Yet at issue here, and shameful, is a one way, non-exchange. A receiving of Obama’s dubious “wisdom” by Notre Dame graduates. Have we Catholics, along with our fellow citizens, not already heard his voice for two full years of campaigning? Where’s the debate, the president’s willingness to hear and answer the Catholic position? It is as if Notre Dame has relegated fundamental morals to her own liberal academic ghetto in exchange for short-lived, worldly prestige (in some eyes) bestowed by the visit of a president. Catholics who fought for a place in the public square would be gravely concerned with how their efforts have been squandered by Catholics too timid to make Catholic arguments; who value political influence above advancing the truth; and by those who would give the hard-won footing to those who contradict Catholic teaching.

Notre Dame is choosing not just to listen without being heard, but to award an Honorary Doctor of Laws degree to a politician who’s activism in expanding the legal right of women to deny the most fundamental of all rights to their unborn children is a blatant, erroneous refutation of Natural Law. Not honoring him would somehow harm Catholicism’s place in the public square? Due respect, this isn’t a defensible position you’ve staked out.

Regarding Catholic elected officials you write, “How their Catholicism affects their politics is and will continue to be open to vigorous debate”. Several Catholics in public office bring to mind the phrase “the truth is not in them”. They actively misrepresent Church teaching, refusing to lead, articulate and defend the Catholic teachings they claim to follow. Their voting records and actions in many cases do not back up their claims to be Catholic. In the vigorous debate, a very strong case can be made that Catholicism doesn’t affect their politics at all. And faith without works, is dead. What we don’t need in the public square is dead faith.