A few thoughts

Nobody is claiming Hesburgh is infallible, but Reilly's piece is, true to my understanding of what he typically does (the more inflammatory the claim, the more the extreme right wingers open their wallets for his group), a breathless jeremiad.

One easy to pick out example is him noting of the documentary that "It’s not even acknowledged that 83 Catholic bishops publicly opposed the Obama honors." No shit it's not acknowledged - why in God's name would it be when Hesburgh wasn't ND's President when Obama was invited and hadn't been for more than 2 decades? While the invitation from a decade ago continues to be an obsession of the likes of Reilly and Randall Terry, he tries to tie it in here as some count against Hesburgh without there being any basis for it.

And we have different views on Land o Lakes. If people find Notre Dame to be so heretical, then they can attend one of the schools that has the "blessing" of the Cardinal Newman Society like Franciscan or the University of Dallas. I know people that went to some of the schools on their pure list (of which Notre Dame is not included) - they all would have attended Notre Dame in a heartbeat if they could have gotten in. Would you want your kids to go to one of those schools over Notre Dame? Do you wish you had gone to one of those schools instead? The school somehow lost its soul by climbing into the ranks of a top 20 national university? Really?

Do you really think the school would be better off today under the control of bishops, many of whom recent history has shown, were such poor stewards of their own dioceses that they spent decades moving around pedophile priests who were then free to rape more children? I think the overwhelming majority of alums would say no. But moving out from under their control is reflective of ND losing its soul? Come on...

I think the piece posted by GK was at least reflective of the pros and cons of Hesburgh from a conservative perspective. I don't agree with all of it, but can see an attempt at a balanced approach showing that Hesburgh, as you correctly note, "was not infallible". This piece certainly did not ever intend to take a fair view.

First of all, let me be clear, I am very proud of

my Notre Dame degree and would not trade it for anything. Whether or not my children go there is another matter, based on their own desires and out of control costs. Though at this stage of the game, I think it is fair to ask the question "Is an ND (or any private school for that matter) education worth $75k/year (and rising)?"

I don't know how long you have been here on NDNation, but I have been here since the early days and was one of the CFC signers. I don't say that to brag as if I think that makes me important, but to emphasize that as stakeholders, my fellow alumni and I wanted to ensure ND stayed true to it's tri-fold mission. Catholic identity was one of those.

Point by point:
-I don't follow the Newman Society, I only vaguely know that they have a Catholic college ranking system and are labeled by most to be "conservative". So I am thus unfamiliar with this Reilly guy, and wasn't attempting to suck up for him. What got me was the "right-wing" moniker. I am sick of the Catholic faith being described as "right wing" and "left wing". I just want to be Catholic. Period.

-At the time, I was vehemently against the Obama invite, and Fr. Jenkins' embarrassing handling of it (the dialog that never happened), and equally embarrassing attempt to smooth it over by playing Ms Glendon only to have her turn down the Laetare medal. However, I've moved on from continually bringing it up. Water under the bridge. Now, if the Hesburgh movie was also about events that occurred after his retirement but they left that part out, then that is indeed a glaring omission.

-Notre Dame is not like Georgetown or Boston College, schools that are actually embarrassed about their Catholic roots (e.g., Georgetown covering crucifixes). But again, as stated above, as a stakeholder the whole point is to prevent ND from coming to that end. There must be vigilance and oversight.

-The problem with American Catholic Education (and Catholicism generally in recent decades) is that it forgets that the Catholic (true Christian) religion is a both/and religion. Jesus was 100% God and 100% man, not 50/50. Love God and love your neighbor. The cross has both a vertical pole (pointing to God) and a horizontal beam (pointing to fellow man). We have been focusing so much on the Corporal Works of Mercy (though many probably forget they are called that; feed the hungry, water the thirsty, clothe the naked, visit the sick, shelter homeless, visit imprisoned, bury the dead) that we have as a whole neglected the Spiritual Works of Mercy (to instruct the ignorant, counsel the doubtful, admonish the sinners, bear patiently wrongdoings, forgive offenses, comfort the afflicted, pray for the living and the dead)

Instruct. Counsel. Admonish. Those 3 require robust, unambiguous teaching of the true Faith. As Chesterton says "The difficulty of explaining “why I am a Catholic” is that there are ten thousand reasons all amounting to one reason: that Catholicism is true. " Not because it feels good, or makes me happy. If it isn't true, and is just one self-help program among many, then it isn't worth anything, and certainly not worth a sacrifice on a cross.

As for the bishops, my opinions on them have been known, and I have no blind obedience to the guilty. But the Church has always been in the hands of sinful men, and is a great mystery. One difference is, back when there were pedophiles among the clergy (and there have been scandals before indeed), we could trust the Inquisition to imprison them or burn them at the stake.

Thanks, and some responses

I figured you were proud of it and where it's gotten you - based on prior posting I think you have a PhD and work in a lab, and I'm sure the degree helped you with getting into a good graduate program. I do wonder whether the University would have risen to its current level (that you and I as early to mid 2000s grads have benefited from professionally) if it was still under the direction of the clergy in the same way it was pre-Land o Lakes. I don't think so and I think LoL helped elevate the school academically.

I've only been on here for the past 4 years or so I don't have your tenure. Perhaps that's why its not clear to me what the CFC is/was.

I agree that the faith shouldn't be right wing or left wing but I think we can agree that there are right wing and left wing groups that operate within or alongside the faith. I think a further look at Reilly and the Newman Society shows that both are right wing and I stand by my characterization of them as such.

W/r/t the Obama invite - as you note, you were opposed to it and Jenkins' handling of it. We disagree, but that's fine. But why in God's name would it be relevant to critique Hesburgh for the Obama invite besides as a way of getting a swipe in at a person and place that Reilly doesn't like? It's not relevant - again, why I saw the piece as a right wing hit job. As I noted, other articles posted had a balanced take and while critical of Hesburgh, didn't bring in the Obama invite as some sort of gotcha.

And I know you're no defender of the bishops, but isn't that all the more reason to support a declaration that brings a school that we both love and have benefited from out from under their thumb?