Friday, March 29, AD 2024 7:58am

USCCB Issues A Statement of Support For Bishop D'Arcy

Bishop John M. D'Arcy

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

0 0 votes
Article Rating
30 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DarwinCatholic
Tuesday, June 23, AD 2009 1:33pm

I wonder if, now that the entire USCCB has voted on this resolution, people will stop claiming that the ~80 bishops who spoke out against Notre Dame’s actions at the time were some sort of partisan hack minority.

John Henry
Tuesday, June 23, AD 2009 1:39pm

“A sad testament to the co-option of the USCCB by Republican partisans…” will probably be the editorial gloss from the usual suspects, followed by more faux hand-wringing about “civility”, which, as practiced by its proponents, rarely involves a good faith attempt to respond to legitimate criticism.

It is nice that the USCCB decided to recognize Bishop D’Arcy. I thought his firm and temperate response to the Notre Dame controversy was a model for other bishops.

Michael J. Iafrate
Tuesday, June 23, AD 2009 8:21pm

How soon we forget!

D’Arcy was one of the more moderate of those who expressed concerns about the Obama visit. Some of you even called him a coward! Now you’re spinning this as you wish. I commend the USCCB’s recognition of his leadership. In doing so, they have expressed their solidarity with HIS view, not the views of the mosr radical, Republicatholic bishops.

CT
CT
Tuesday, June 23, AD 2009 8:54pm

Michael, I think it’s you who are spinning. Bishop D’Arcy could not have been more clear in his position that Notre Dame was wrong to honor president Obama and that in doing so, they violated the 2004 Bishop’s statement (both statements are available on the diocese website and the one interview he gave is available on youtube). His response was direct and prayerful. I read all the bishops statements and I didn’t see any who said anything markedly stronger than Bishop D’Arcy. Maybe I missed it. Can you point me to the bishops you think are the “radical republicatholic bishops” and which parts of their statements went so far beyond Bishop D’Arcy that the USCCB’s statement of support can’t fairly be said to apply to them also?

John Henry
Tuesday, June 23, AD 2009 9:03pm

D’Arcy was one of the more moderate of those who expressed concerns about the Obama visit. Some of you even called him a coward!

Michael,

I have no recollection of such a statement by anyone on this blog. As far as I know, I am the only one who (gently) criticized any of the bishops, and that post suggested Bishop Olmsted had been too harsh with Fr. Jenkins (a view I later revised as more Bishops spoke out). I praised Bishop D’Arcy’s response as striking the perfect balance; certainly, no one called him a coward. Please either produce a link or retract the accusation.

https://the-american-catholic.com/2009/03/26/bishop-olmsted-accuses-president-jenkins-of-disobedience/

Rick Lugari
Tuesday, June 23, AD 2009 9:31pm

As I recall the debate the only thing negative and disrespectful said about any of the bishops were from people who called them Republicatholics and the like because they spoke out against a Catholic college honoring a vehemently pro-abortion politician who happens to be a Democrat. Those who supported the bishops were called partisan hacks who don’t understand what true Catholicism is – strikingly similar to Schiavo affair when the enlightened Catholics told us that Terri’s supporters and the many vocal bishops simply didn’t understand. Now the USCCB, albeit a late, gave voice, just like the Vatican did – thought at least in the Schiavo case Pope John Paul II and the Vatican were speaking out all along – but the arbiters of true Catholicism ignored all that too.

jh
jh
Tuesday, June 23, AD 2009 10:25pm

Rick

Thank you for combating the revisionist history

Michael J. Iafrate
Tuesday, June 23, AD 2009 10:36pm

I read all the bishops statements and I didn’t see any who said anything markedly stronger than Bishop D’Arcy.

This is simply absurd. D’Arcy was about the tamest of the bishops who spoke out. This, jh, is revisionism.

Dale Price
Dale Price
Tuesday, June 23, AD 2009 10:45pm

Now, now, now–don’t confuse the excitable lad with facts. He expects neologisms like Republicatholic actually mean something to others, which is almost endearing.

About the only truly intemperate statement was from Bishop Bruskewitz, the exception which proves the rule.

Jay Anderson
Wednesday, June 24, AD 2009 7:25am

“Republicatholic bishops”

Like I said, self parody. Who needs “i” when you have the real iafrate?

S.B.
S.B.
Wednesday, June 24, AD 2009 8:34am

D’Arcy was one of the more moderate of those who expressed concerns about the Obama visit.

What a hack. So a “more moderate” response was D’Arcy’s boycott of the Notre Dame graduation, along with his prayer for “Our Lady to intercede for the university named in her honor, that it may recommit itself to the primacy of truth over prestige.”

After your behavior over at VN, no one in their right mind thinks that your positions have anything to do with fealty to the Church. Your comments are dripping with contempt and intellectual pride whenever anybody in the Church suggests disagreement with your precious political positions.

Pauli
Wednesday, June 24, AD 2009 11:38am

Michael J is the embodiment of the axiom that being on the left means never having to say you’re sorry, either for baseless accusations or for a bad memmory. There does seem to be a catholic modification to his leftism; he generally tells those he disagrees with to merely “shut up”. This is vastly better than the Che Guevara supporters on youtube who say they are going to kill me.

Michael J. Iafrate
Wednesday, June 24, AD 2009 4:32pm

Michael J is the embodiment of the axiom that being on the left means never having to say you’re sorry, either for baseless accusations or for a bad memmory.

What should I apologize for? I was against the idea of Obama receiving the degree from the beginning.

he generally tells those he disagrees with to merely “shut up”.

Prove it.

S.B.
S.B.
Thursday, June 25, AD 2009 8:48am
S.B.
S.B.
Thursday, June 25, AD 2009 8:53am

What should I apologize for?

For claiming that you were against Obama receiving an honorary degree, when in fact you ridicule the Bishops that you supposedly agree with as “radical Republicatholics.”

Pauli
Thursday, June 25, AD 2009 9:02am

Yeah, SB, that second example you posted is something I’ve seen more than once from him.

Michael J. Iafrate Says:
October 29, 2008 at 3:47 pm
S.B., shut up or you will be permanently banned from commenting on my posts. Understand?

I assume that smart people on the left resort to verbal bullying and intimidation because they know their arguments are weak. Some on the fringe right have the same tendency.

Michael J. Iafrate
Thursday, June 25, AD 2009 11:28am

For claiming that you were against Obama receiving an honorary degree, when in fact you ridicule the Bishops that you supposedly agree with as “radical Republicatholics.”

I was against Obama receiving the degree but I disagreed with the viewpoint expressed by your “heroic” bishops who went much further and said he should not be allowed to speak at ND and even went so far as to make judgments about Fr. Jenkin’s spiritual state. Surely you see that there is a difference.

In the first example you cite, S.B., I clearly did not simply say “shut up” as a way to end an argument.

Nor did I do so in the second example. In fact, “Pauli,” if you look at my comment in context you will see that was in fact S.B. who was engaging in verbal bullying. That’s his tactic as I’m sure you well know. I have no qualms about telling him to shut up when he does such things at my blog. But that is not the same as saying “shut up” in order to shut down an argument. Once again, you and S.B. must resort to mischaracterization in order to “win” an argument.

S.B.
S.B.
Friday, June 26, AD 2009 8:30am

It wasn’t verbal “bullying” to point out the obvious fact that you were making an astonishing claim (about starvation being caused by “deliberate policies of global capitalism”) with zero evidence to back it up (“click around the internet,” you said, when you turned out to be incapable of finding any supportive links yourself).

So you’re merely proving the point that leftists sometimes resort to verbal bullying (“shut up”) when their arguments lack logic or evidence.

Michael J. Iafrate
Friday, June 26, AD 2009 12:16pm

S.B. – Your bullying reputation is obvious to anyone who reads this blog or Vox Nova. But continue to claim otherwise. It’s nice to have a little giggle in the middle of a busy day.

S.B.
S.B.
Friday, June 26, AD 2009 12:24pm

People who say stupid things often experience it as “bullying” to have it pointed out.

Michael J. Iafrate
Friday, June 26, AD 2009 12:57pm

Ha! Two giggles in one day! You are too generous, S.B.

S.B.
S.B.
Friday, June 26, AD 2009 12:58pm

Addendum: People who tell outright lies in defense of unorthodox beliefs, and yet who derive enormous intellectual pride from their faith, often experience it as “bullying” to have that pointed out as well.

Pauli
Friday, June 26, AD 2009 4:48pm

Reading his stuff is kind of like looking at pictures of crystal addicts–it keeps most sane folks from going over to the left. At least I would hope so.

S.B.
S.B.
Friday, June 26, AD 2009 9:10pm

I was against Obama receiving the degree but I disagreed with the viewpoint expressed by your “heroic” bishops who went much further and said he should not be allowed to speak at ND and even went so far as to make judgments about Fr. Jenkin’s spiritual state. Surely you see that there is a difference.

Of course there’s a difference. But it says much more about your partisan idiocy, and about your willingness to put your own ideology above respect for the Church’s stewards, that you think a Bishop’s fierce opposition to Obama’s position on abortion makes him a “Republicatholic.”

Michael Iafrate
Friday, June 26, AD 2009 9:37pm

Please, by all means, prove that I am a “partisan.” I am, and have been, against the republicans and democrats for many years. You are just spewing filth, nothing accurate, nothing based in reality.

S.B.
S.B.
Saturday, June 27, AD 2009 9:15am

It’s not “filth” — just the obvious truth — to point out that you are unorthodox, as are some of your fellow bloggers. If you’re not intelligent or honest enough to admit that fact, that’s your problem.

Mark DeFrancisis
Mark DeFrancisis
Saturday, June 27, AD 2009 10:03am

Is partisanship equivalent to unorthodox?

It doe not matter here… SB is allowed to live out rather ungracefully his continued obsession with MI.

S.B.
S.B.
Saturday, June 27, AD 2009 11:26am

No, they’re unorthodox on several moral issues.

I’m not “obsessed.” Believe me, it takes but 30 seconds or a minute at most to type out an occasional comment. I spend far more time thinking about my family, my work, the book I’m publishing, the classical guitar album I’m making, and how to improve my squat form as I progress towards squatting 405. It’s just that when I read this blog, and I keep coming across obnoxious and asinine comments from unabashed dissenters who nonetheless have managed to convince themselves that they are the only true Catholics, I can’t help responding.

Discover more from The American Catholic

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

Continue reading

Scroll to Top