Even as they agreed to postpone a planned face-to-face meeting that had been set for Thursday, Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas J. Tobin turned up the heat Monday on U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy over his “rejection” of church teaching on abortion, calling on him to enter into a process of conversion and repentance.
In a letter to Kennedy posted Monday on the Web site of the Diocese of Providence’s weekly newspaper, the bishop disputes Kennedy’s assertion that his disagreement with the hierarchy “on some issues” including abortion did not make him any less of a Catholic.
“Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does,” the bishop said in a letter issued just two days after Kennedy was among a group of minority lawmakers who attempted to block tough new restrictions on abortion that were added Saturday to the House’s health-care reform legislation.
“Although I wouldn’t chose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion,” the bishop declared.
Am glad the bishop is willing to stand up to the likes of the Kennedy family. However, Kennedys being Kennedys, he won’t convert and repent.
Well, what the Bishop says is perfectly true. The most hard-hitting point he makes about what Patrick calls his faith is the most revealing, as well, “Bishop Tobin raised the question: What makes Kennedy think he’s Catholic? ‘Your baptism as an infant? Your family ties? Your cultural heritage?’†Too many people make this mistake. I’m glad the Bishop is calling him on it, since it serves as a very important teaching moment for the readers of the newspaper, as well.
When I read; [i]”..Kennedy’s assertion that his disagreement with the hierarchy “on some issues†including abortion did not make him any less of a Catholic.”[/i] I couldn’t help but think of VGR’s assertion that theologically he’s conservative.
Isn’t there a Poverb about only taking counsel from one’s self?
Would we so quickly favor a religious figure meddling with a politician’s views if that religious figure were Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.?
#4 I suppose it would be appropriate if the politician professed to being a Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist and then took a political stand in contradiction of their own professed religious beliefs.
4. Religious figure meddling? Ember, there are some basic aspects of Christianity which your comment fails to grasp.
First, Christianity is a public profession of faith in Christ. It is private only in the sense that it is not subject to the government. Otherwise, it is an utterly public dimension of life. The central act of worship is called liturgy, or “work of the people.” Worship is public.
Second, Catholics hold that they are bound on matters of “Faith and Morals.” Christianity has always had a public moral code. See the Didache, if you like.
Third. Kennedy, a public figure made erroneous public assertions about the nature of the Catholic faith. It is the bishop’s public duty to set that record strait publicly, as he said.
Fourth, other denominations may not think it their role to teach on public policy or to assert doctrinal discipline, or expect their members to abide by moral teaching on the most grave matters. That is their problem. One should not project those standards onto the Catholic Church.
Here is a link to the letter in the Diocese of Providence’s newspaper:
Dear Congressman Kennedy
When Ted Kennedy was alive, did he think, believe, act, proclaim, vote, politic, legislate, and lead any differently from what we see in Patrick now?
Perhaps, Patrick would only need to wait till death to get the full Catholic honor as Uncle Ted did.
I still cannot understand why the Catholic Church did not use the occasion of Teddy Kennedy’s death to bring home the truth of what it says and teaches regarding what it really means to be a Catholic, and who is a Catholic in good standing.
There has to be one standard and one standard alone. Not one for the poor masses and another for the well-connected.
As much as I love and defend the Catholic Church, probably than most Catholics themselves, I still fail to see the wisdom of the Catholic hierarchy in speaking from both sides of the mouth in some instances. Saying one thing and doing the other. Come on, this is not the Anglican Church! Please be Catholic! Don’t play the Anglican Game! See where the Anglican Game has gotten us!
Follow up with Patrick and others who think they can dictate to the church, and let them experience the full weight of Church Discipline.
Case in point, where is the clarity in speaking so forcefully against abortion and letting a Catholic university get away with giving an honorary degree to an unrepentant proponent of the most horrific form (and all other forms) of abortion?
Fr. Kingsley Jon-Ubabuco
Arlington Texas
Re #4
Ember,
If a politician claimed to be a Muslim and yet said that it was OK to eat pork, I would fully expect him to be called out by his religious leaders. Being a politician does not give one a free pass in matters of religious faith.
When a public official says he is Catholic and that there is nothing morally wrong with killing children as long as they have not yet been born he should fully expect to be hammered by his bishop. The scandal is not that he has been publicly rebuked. It is that this has happened far too rarely.
IMHO (as a non-Catholic) Rep. Kennedy is an obstinate heretic who should be grateful he has not been excommunicated.
In ICXC
John
#8, Fr. Kingsley,
This is the way the RCC has always been — and not only with the Kennedys. It’s largely about power and politics, and has been since the Middle Ages. Back then, the Vatican had the monarchs in its pocket and, in return, would overlook or offer dispensations for all sorts of royal offenses if it suited Rome. If the pope hadn’t been imprisoned at the time and there weren’t such political tensions, I’ll bet he would have granted Henry VIII’s annulment. After all, he was honored as their Defender of Faith.
It’s always been amazing to me how the Kennedys could divorce and remarry in the Church, seemingly at will, while the average slob in the pews waited many years for an annulment. I was VERY pleased that Sheila Kennedy took the Vatican to task for declaring there had been no real marriage between her and Joe Kennedy and that he had “impediments.” As she correctly pointed out, the only “impediment” was the fact that he refused to keep his pants zipped around other women. I believe the Vatican finally did reverse themselves on that annulment, due to Sheila Kennedy’s vigorous protestations. Sheila is an Episcopalian, btw.
Every now and then, some bishop in the RCC will spout off about a Kennedy, or Pelosi, or Biden but it’s all just lip service and amounts to nothing.
TEC maintains a lobbying presence in Washington, does it not? The way people live their lives in each and every way is the proper province of religion.
RE: “Would we so quickly favor a religious figure meddling with a politician’s views if that religious figure were Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.?”
The bishop is merely pointing out his church’s standards and pointing out that Kennedy does not belong in that church. That’s not “meddling” — it’s upholding membership standards.
We could do with a whole whole lot more of that.
“When Ted Kennedy was alive, did he think, believe, act, proclaim, vote, politic, legislate, and lead any differently from what we see in Patrick now?”
No, and neither did his niece Caroline, who once stood up at a Democratic National Convention as a keynote speaker and defended a “right to choose”–what you may not be noticing here is that they are/were all “under” different bishops…maybe those of Boston and NY didn’t have the guts to take them on.
This one does…kudos to him…
ember (#4)
The First Amendment was not designed to keep religion or faith out of government. It was designed to keep government out of relgious or faith issues.
If I professed to be Islamic and publicly said that Jesus was the Son of God or publicly professed that God was a Trinity of Persons but unity of being, then I would expect my Imam to correct me.
If I professed to be and Orthodox Jew and taught that Jesus was the incarnation, I would expect my rabbi to correct me.
I have no problem with a leader from any faith tradition correcting members of that tradition. I don’t even have a problem with faith leaders pronouncing on various public issues based on the traditions and teachings of their faith. If the local Islamic Council and local Orthodox Jewish organizations want to lobby to outlaw the sale of pork, then more power to them! I doubt the law would get passed, but they are free to try.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Three cheers for Bishop Tobin!
teatime (#10),
Thanks for pointing out the notorious case of how Joe Kennedy got an unjustified annullment. You’re right, of course, that his case was a scandal. But I do think you over-generalized about the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. Yes, there was WAY too much corruption among the Church hierarchy back then (the infamous Medici popes from Florence, etc.), and widespread outrage against that was a major contributing factor to the Reformation’s success. But it’s unfair to paint the whole church leadership with that ugly brush. Then, as now, there were both good guys and bad guys in high places.
But if you’re suggesting that the whole medieval Christendom system itself was inherently prone to corrupting the Church, I’d have to agree with you there. Thank God, we live in a wholly new social situation, a post-Constantinian world, where we finally have the chance to avoid at least a lot of the fatal compromises that the marriage of church and state, or the alliance of the church with the wealthy and powerful, inevitably fostered.
David Handy+
Passionate advocate of post-Christendom style Anglicanism for our new post-Constantinian western world
8. and 10.
I have found the soft approach of the Church in the 70’s as vexing as any. But, rather than heaping criticism on the Church’s head precisely at a moment when she does the right thing, I am grateful.
It does seem to be common in Anglican settings to bash the Catholic Church at precisely the moments it deserves some praise, as if to say, “well, they’re still horrible.”
Ironically, it makes no sense for Anglicans to raise such criticism against the Catholic Church when it has a remarkable record of clarity in its teaching and for continually publicly responding to the moral decline of our present times.
Please do let me know which church has done a better job at clarifying its teaching and bringing its teaching to the public square.
Teatime (#10),
Is the original story really about all of Catholic history? Might your comment be exceeding several boundaries, such as the topic itself not to mention historical accuracy.
Personally, I welcome valid, responsible criticism of the RCC (and I believe some might be called for where the way the Kennedys have been treated by the RCC is concerned), but statements such as “This is the way the RCC has always been” and “Back then, the Vatican had the monarchs in its pocket” (tell that Thomas Becket) are — to put it as gently as I can — not accurate, not responsible, and not relevant.
“(tell that Thomas Becket)”
Not to mention Henry VIII.
Good for Bishop Tobin! It is about time.
Teatime, not to in any way defend Boston’s tribunal system (which had been known for not treating any of its petitioners very well, not just Sheila Kennedy), but I don’t believe the Kennedys get special treatment in regards to annulments. In fact, given the standards the RC church has for what constitutes a valid marriage, and given what is public knowledge about the state of the marriages within that family, I’d hazard to say that very few of the marriages in that family were even putatively valid. I don’t think that annulment was necessarily “unjustified” – though I think that they should have probably prohibited him from ever being allowed to marry again!
I think the bishop was well within his right and in fact is obliged to respond if someone who is RC publicly voices opinions on matters such as abortion that go against RC teaching. It is part of the teaching authority of the bishop to correct an RC who is publicly causing scandal. It was Kennedy who asserted that he was not “less of a Catholic.” The bishop was simply responding – and you may note that the response was published in the diocesan paper, not the local newspaper. It seems to me to be a measured response to a politician’s rather erroneous understanding of what it means to be RC!
#10: Teatime’s reading of history is, er, just a tad inaccurate. If one had to generalise (never a good thing), it would be far truer to say that the whole mediaeval period in the West was characterised by a battle between Church and State for the independence of the Church.