I assume many of you are aware of the recent public controversies surrounding Congressman Patrick Kennedy and his public support for abortion, and his support for compulsory abortion funding (paid for by taxpayer’s dollars), in the up-coming health care reform bill, which the US government is trying to put through in different stages during this period. The US bishops have strongly opposed it.
CONGRESSMAN PATRICK KENNEDY
Bishop Tobin of Rhode Island has publicly told Kennedy that he should refrain from receiving Communion.
This whole story broke after the US bishops said that they could not in any shape or form support the Health Care Reform Bill while it contained mandatory financial abortion support.
BISHOP TOBIN
Then Kennedy accused the bishops of interferring in politics. So Bishop Tobin, come out and said that Kennedy is not a Catholic in good standing, and that he is going against the teaching of the Church, and against his Faith.
Kennedy then made public, correspondance from 3 years ago, that Tobin had had with him, regarding his non-reception of Communion. This brought their private correspondance into the public sphere.
Recently, Christopher Young, a candidate for mayor of Providence was arrested for questioning Kennedy on his support for abortion and his claims of being Catholic at a public forum.
Young asked:
“Why would you mandate Catholics to support the funding of abortion when it goes against our religious beliefs? It forces Catholics to fund abortions or serve a five year prison sentence,” said Young. “You make it a felony. This is not a free country. You are forcing people to support a bill that goes against the religious beliefs of the people of this country.”
Young was referring to the provision in the House health-care plan (HR 3962) that makes the IRS the enforcer of the health-care plan. It would also make refusing to carry health-insurance or pay an increased tax of 2.5 percent tantamount to tax evasion, a felony offense. House Republicans pointed out that citizens could face a maximum $250,000 fine or a maximum five-year prison sentence for such violations.
Good questions. Kennedy is selling his own Catholic brothers and sisters down the road. It reall shows where his loyalties lie.
Congressman Pat Kennedy is Senator Ted Kennedy’s son (who died earlier this year amid controversy over his funeral because of his own ardent support of abortion), and Pat continues the horrible Kennedy legacy, started by President JFK – his uncle – of public support for abortion, whilst keeping the family faith in the closet – so as to gain political advantage among American voters.
This was their famous axiom: “Our private beliefs, are not reflected in our public policy,” or words to that effect.
Cardinal Ratzinger has called this type of positioning “hypocrisy.”
“The tolerance that admits of God, as it were, as a private opinion, but refuses Him the public domain, is not tolerance, but hypocrisy.”
However, it wasn’t always so. The Kennedy’s started out in politics with a strong pro-life policy. See this excellent little historical piece recounting their political position with respect to abortion and the Faith.
The latest episode in the Tobin-Kennedy clash was on Fox-News where Tobin was interviewed by O’Reily (video-link), in which Tobin said quite forcefully in response to the typical statement that Congressman Kennedy should respect the diverse desires of the people that he represents, and the commitment that he made to his electorate:
“The most important commitment we can make is to our faith, because that defines our relationship with God. Nothing is more important than that. And if your job, your profession, your vocation, gets in the way of that, you have to QUIT YOUR JOB AND SAVE YOUR SOUL.”
Bravo Bishop Tobin, for standing up for Christ! Quit your job, and save your soul. Bravo! Have a watch of the video.
Cdl. Ratzinger:
“Having a clear faith based on the creed of the church is often labelled today as fundamentalism, whereas relatavism, which is letting oneself be swept along by every wind of teaching, looks like the only attitude acceptable by today’s standards.”
Let us pray for Patrick Kennedy, and for the souls of all the Kennedy’s who have allowed for and supported the horror of abortion to be perpetrated upon the American people, and upon many innocent children.
Let us also pray for more bishops like Bishop Tobin.
Yeah, I have to say that it is topics like this that get me a little hot under the collar.
This whole “faith in private; policy in public” rubbish – even when eloquently put forward by Martin Sheen in The West Wing – just doesn’t ring true with me. How can you honestly put aside some of the core, fundamental aspects of your Faith and still sleep at night?
I just don’t get it.
Does he honestly believe that there is some greater good here? Really?
As an aside, I do find the whole health-care debate in the U.S. a bit funny really. I mean, there is a lot of doomsday predictions about a public health-care option – like it’s never worked anywhere in the world?
I mean, we have one and the insurance companies haven’t gone out of business – far from it! The only result is that if people have no money to go private, at least they can wait in a queue and get their health sorted for free/via our taxes. 
How can that be a bad thing? Other than clauses like the one the good bishop has drawn attention to.
(By the way, how weird is it to see someone other than Chris with the first comment?
)
Hey Sis, great post
I wonder whether it is a good thing that we don’t have the same sort of public conflicts here in NZ! Perhaps it is only because we don’t have so many high-profile Catholic politicians or outspoken bishops.
With regards to the 2.5% extra tax, I wonder how enforceable the penalties would be if Catholics and other pro-lifers just refused to pay! Of course there would inevitably be hangers-on as well, who refused to pay only because they knew it would be impossible for the IRS to collect it, so it would seem to make sense even just at a pragmatic level for Congress to avoid rocking the boat.
illumina, custodi, rege et guberna
Given Chris’s shot across my bow recently, I thought I’d post a comment from Bishop Tobin that makes the same point I’ve made — much to Mr Sullivan’s dismay.
Can I get an “attaboy” for Bishop Tobin?!
PS You can become a fan of the good bishop on Facebook.
Scribe,
Exactly which Catholic belief (and I mean belief, not prudential judgement on a particular legislative Bill) has Congressman Patrick Kennedy expressed his disbelief in ?
If a politician disagreed with the Stupak amendment on prudential grounds (and the prudence of passing Stupak is debatable especially given the foreseeable consequences of going beyond what we have the numbers to win on) then that would not amount to disbelieve in anything a Catholic is required to believe.
God Bless
The US Catholic Bishops strongly support US Health Care Reform and they have done for decades. The Catholic position is that we support universal access to health care as a fundamental human right.
We need to keep firmly in mind that decent access to health care, currently denied to many millions on Americans, is also a pro-life priority for the Church.
Filia speaks of “Congressman Patrick Kennedy and his public support for abortion”.
I am not aware that Congressman Patrick Kennedy has ever publically supported abortion (although I’m sure the commentariat here will correct me if I am wrong).
I think that if someone supported abortion then they would be out of communion with the Catholic Church on that issue.
On the other hand, if a politician came to a different prudential judgement on a particular piece of abortion legislation to his bishop, then that is another matter entirely.
For example, the various ammendments proposed to the US Health Reform Bill wrt public funding of abortion are rather complex and controversial and it is not always very clear whether or not they do amount to public funding of abortion (which would be unacceptable).
According to lifesite news Bp Tobin wrote
It concerns me that this statement appears to deny the efficacy of the sacrament of Baptism as what makes a person a Catholic.
Let us be quite clear : baptism makes one a Catholic and even abortion supporters remain Catholics (although Catholics not in full communion).
I strongly disagree with the idea that politicians ought to be denied Holy Communion because of the way they vote on particular bills. Such bills are often matters of prudential judgement, not matters of faith or morals or Catholic dogma.
The gold standard for admission to Holy Communion remains that of Jesus, who admitted Judas even though he knew that Judas had already agreed to betray him.
God really does love his enemies, and we ought to also.
God Bless
Do you guys think abortion should be illegal? As in a criminal offense?
So doctors performing it illegally would be charged with murder?
And the woman charged with facilitating murder or something?
(genuine interest, not sneaky sidedoor attack)
Chris,
Kennedy supports abortion rights. Need I say more? He seemingly hasn’t even tried to be more nuanced about it.
I strongly disagree with the idea that politicians ought to be denied Holy Communion because of the way they vote on particular bills. Such bills are often matters of prudential judgement, not matters of faith or morals or Catholic dogma.
Well, no one is surprised you would disagree with that. You prefer the lowest possible bar for people to have to jump over. Tolerance is king; truth is a distant sixth.
Bishop Tobin is carrying out his duties in exactly the right way. He sought to correct Kennedy’s thinking on this issue privately. That’s what a shepherd does. He does what he can to save the immortal soul of a Catholic, and that includes requesting he not receive Communion while he is creating public scandal. Kennedy is to blame for this becoming a public spat.
Speaking as pro-lifer, the answer to that question is very clearly “yes”.
Abortion kills an innocent human being, thus robbing them of their right to life, and as such is a grave injustice.
Abortion should be illegal for the same reasons that murdering adults is illegal.
fishe,
The bigger question is do we think that abortion is murder. And I do.
It’s not my call what the justice system decides to do with those who commit murder, but I can’t for the life of me figure out how anyone can see it as anything other than murder? The only possible argument (from my point of view) would be limited culpability on the grounds of being mentally unfit.
But that would have to be a rare case. This is the willing taking of another human life – right? Really the only contrary argument is to argue that life begins at some stage other than birth…something that is scientifically false, right?
So, I think that abortion is murder, and therefore should be illegal, yes.
Chris,
Yeah, but this isn’t about love. God doesn’t love Kennedy any less because of his views, or his lack of courage in letting his Faith and beliefs trump his career. He doesn’t love him any less, and no one is claiming that He does.
However, the Church – in her wisdom and with the authority given to her by God – has said that you can’t go to Communion unless you are in a state of grace. And the good bishop is simply pointing out to Mr Kennedy that actively supporting this ammendment is not conducive to being in a state of grace.
Hence the “don’t show up for Communion” bit.
I really don’t see what the problem is here.
Kennedy supports abortion rights.
Precisely what do you mean by that ?
Does he think that it is a positive good to procure an abortion ?
Or does he merely think that treating those who have an abortion ought not to be subject to the death penalty for murder ?
I don’t prefer the lowest possible bar.
I prefer Our Lord’s practice at the last supper.
Because he knew what he was doing.
God Bless
James,
To determine Kennedy’s state of grace would be to judge him.
Mortal sin requires full knowledge.
It’s an unfortunate fact that many Catholics are simply ignorant of the moral evil of abortion.
God Bless
That’s not at all what Bishop Tobin’s statement implies.
Instead he is merely stating the truth that Baptism might get you in the door, but it doesn’t keep you at the party.
What you are failing to see here Chris is that there is a difference between a Baptised Catholic and a PRACTICING Catholic – and that’s the difference that Bishop Tobin is referring to here.
Sometimes they are and sometimes they aren’t – in this case it is very clear that this bill does pertain to a matter of faith and morals, and supporting the bill is support for the state funded murder of innocent human beings.
Actually the gold standard would have to be Saint Paul, who clearly teaches in 1 Corinthians 10 that “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons.”
fishe,
I think that abortion should be illegal, because it is the deliberate, intentional and direct killing of a human person and I think that is always wrong.
By abortion I mean a deliberately procured abortion, which is the Church’s definition. I do not mean an operation to save the life of the mother which may have the unintended consequence of loosing the life of the baby.
As for penalties, many Cardinals of the Catholic Church are on the record as acknowledging that women who choose to abort are very often in extremely difficult circumstances and therefore ought to be treated with some leniency. Very often the true blame lies elsewhere eg boyfriend or parents pressurising the woman to abort.
God Bless
in this case it is very clear that this bill does pertain to a matter of faith and morals, and supporting the bill is support for the state funded murder of innocent human beings.
If by “this bill” you mean the US Healthcare Reform Bill, then I disagree. A Catholic could support the positive good in that Bill (the provision of healthcare to 50 million Americans currently denied it) while opposing any provisions to publicly fund abortions.
If at the end of the day the bill did contain provisions to publicly fund abortion, which the politician had opposed, then I think he could in good conscience make a good argument to vote for the bill.
Catholic politicians like Bill English do that all the time when they vote (and in his case actually write) a budget which funds abortion, because they support the good in such a budget while opposing teh bad but recognising their inability to do much about the bad right here and now.
We’re not going to excommunicate Bill English for doing that and neither are we going to question his Catholicity. In fact, the Catholic Caring Foundation recently invited Bill English to speak at one of their functions.
God Bless
Chris,
I am aware of both of those facts – have written about them before as a matter of fact.
But surely that is what the good bishop is doing? i.e. Bringing to Mr Kennedy’s attention the fact that if he is supporting the legal funding of abortions, that is a grave moral evil and, unless he repents and actively tries not to do so again – i.e. withdraws his support – then he is not in a state of grace.
In other words, how are Catholics around the world going to learn of the moral evil of abortion if they see no consequence for the most public supporters of it?
BTM,
Re 1 Corinthians 10.
Yeah, but later in this passage St Paul advises “Eat anything sold in the market, without raising questions on grounds of conscience”.
the point of not eating meat sacrificed to idols is only to avoid offending the conscience of the overly scrupulous :-
God Bless
Chris,
So, He knew what He was doing when He gave the keys to Peter and said whatever is bound by him (and his successors) was the rule, right?
So, when the Church says abortion is bad and supporting it puts you out of communion with the Church, that’s the same as Christ Himself setting the bar there, right?
Glad we agree.
Chris,
So – let me make sure I’m understanding this – if this bill is publically funding abortions, then that’s not acceptable, right? Which means that politicians supporting it would be out of communion and penalties come into play etc etc?
So can someone who is closer to the bill explain if that’s what it is doing? Because then Chris agrees that Kennedy should not present himself for Communion, and we can all go home.
Bringing to Mr Kennedy’s attention the fact that if he is supporting the legal funding of abortions, that is a grave moral evil and, unless he repents and actively tries not to do so again – i.e. withdraws his support – then he is not in a state of grace.
James,
While the good bishop ought to educate the conscience of Mr Kennedy, in order for Mr Kennedy not to be in a state of grace he would have to have knowingly committed mortal sin.
If Mr Kennedy thinks that public funding of abortion is a good thing then he is wrong and against the teaching of the Church.
But that does not automatically mean he is not in a state of grace.
God Bless
Chris,
What do I mean by “Kennedy supports abortion rights”? I mean he has a 100% rating from NARAL, the radically pro-abortion lobby group, meaning any measure to make it easier for women to access abortion, he has supported it.
Hmmm, aiding and abetting murder. Surely even you see that’s not good, Chris.
So – let me make sure I’m understanding this – if this bill is publically funding abortions, then that’s not acceptable, right? Which means that politicians supporting it would be out of communion and penalties come into play etc etc?
Bill English as Minister of Finance is publicly funding abortions too.
Are you going to go after him, or is he immune because he a National MP whereas Kennedy is fair game because he’s a Democrat ?
God Bless
While the good bishop ought to educate the conscience of Mr Kennedy, in order for Mr Kennedy not to be in a state of grace he would have to have knowingly committed mortal sin.
Chris,
Seriously? Come on, man.
Bishop Tobin is informing Kennedy that what he has been doing is committing mortal sin. Kennedy can’t, unless he refuses to accept the bishop’s teaching authority, say he didn’t know he was committing mortal sin. Considering this letter was 2 years ago, he’s out of luck of the “Sorry, I didn’t know” defence.
Scribe,
I’m not interested in NARAL ratings because I think they mean very little.
I’m more interested in Kennedy’s actual position on abortion (which is what his Bishop ought to be focusing too – because the catholic Church does not have a dogma on how to vote on certain laws but we do have a dogma on the moral evil of procured abortions).
He may well have voted with NARAL not because he supports abortion but because agreed with other criticisms of the bills he voted against and supported other good in the bills he voted for.
If we are going to start condemning fellow Catholics and start denying them Holy Communion then we need to have VERY SOLID doctrinal grounds on which to do so. NARAL rating don’t make the grade.
God Bless
Chris,
????
I don’t follow you. If the bishop informs him that supporting abortions in this manner is wrong, then he has full knowledge, right? So, if he continue to support the abortions, and does so of his own free will, then there’s your mortal sin.
Right?
You make no sense in your statement there Chris – you simply prove my point.
Um…thanks?
Bill English as Minister of Finance is publicly funding abortions too.
Are you going to go after him, or is he immune because he a National MP whereas Kennedy is fair game because he’s a Democrat?
English isn’t changing the status quo or voting on whether or not abortions should get public funding. If there was a private member’s bill in NZ that sought to stop using public funds for abortions, Catholic politicians’ votes would be of interest.
And your party political crack is just nonsense. Pro-abortion politicians of all stripes are fair game; see the recent House race in upstate New York for the latest example.
When people run out of ideas, they play the political card. Or the race card (which doesn’t apply here).
Chris,
If one of our bishops looks at the budget (I guess, but that’s different to a law that’s being written right now, but anyway), and tells Bill English that what he is doing in writing said budget and supporting it is morally unacceptable on the basis of it being of grave matter etc. then he has the same full knowledge that Mr Kennedy has and should also not present for Communion.
This isn’t about politics – it’s about whether your actions meet the grade to step up and receive Our Lord.
Yeah – what Scribe said.
Bishop Tobin is informing Kennedy that what he has been doing is committing mortal sin.
In contrast, the Catechism clearly teaches that
If Kennedy did not have full knowledge, then he would not be in Mortal Sin.
There are any number of reasons why Pat Kennedy might not have full knowledge – for example he might think that Bp Tobin isjust being a right wing Republican out to get the Democrats. He’d (probably) be wrong to so think, but heaps of Catholics think like that.
There are also heaps of reasons why politicians may not have complete consent either.
Mercy, not sacrifice.
God Bless
I’m more interested in Kennedy’s actual position on abortion (which is what his Bishop ought to be focusing too – because the catholic Church does not have a dogma on how to vote on certain laws but we do have a dogma on the moral evil of procured abortions).
Pay attention, Chris. That is what he’s focusing on.
The bishop has met with Kennedy and spoken with him to ascertain his actual position. Based on the responses he received, he asked Kennedy to refrain from receiving Communion.
Everyone else gets it; why don’t you?
If the bishop informs him that supporting abortions in this manner is wrong, then he has full knowledge, right?
No.
All he has full knowledge of is that the Bishop told him that supporting abortions in this manner is wrong.
That doesn’t translate into his knowing that supporting abortions in this manner is wrong is what the Church teaches or that that supporting abortions in this manner is wrong is actually the truth.
He might just think that Bp Tobin is a right wing pro-Republican out to get the Democrats.
Actually, that does seem to be what he thinks.
God Bless
There are any number of reasons why Pat Kennedy might not have full knowledge – for example he might think that Bp Tobin isjust being a right wing Republican out to get the Democrats. He’d (probably) be wrong to so think, but heaps of Catholics think like that.
Chris,
In case you missed my comment above (#27):
Chris,
So, hang on Chris. Are you telling me that if I think that unborn babies are just clumps of cells and until they’re born they’re not human, then I don’t have full knowledge and am not committing a moral sin if I procure the abortion on those grounds?
Even if a “right wing Republican” bishop informs me – quite clearly – that I am wrong?
All he has full knowledge of is that the Bishop told him that supporting abortions in this manner is wrong. That doesn’t translate into his knowing that supporting abortions in this manner is wrong is what the Church teaches or that that supporting abortions in this manner is wrong is actually the truth.
Here’s some very simple advice for Patrick Kennedy.
1. Go and buy the Catechism of the Catholic Church — he obviously doesn’t have one. Heck, just get the Compendium if that’s easier.
2. Read it.
Simple.
OK…so it’s legally murder.
Now, the next part too please
I think we can safely assume it would continue illegally if it was made illegal tomorrow. So, we charge the doctors with murder. We charge all nurses/staff involved with facilitation of murder/whatever?
We charge the woman with? Same as nurses etc.?
In the trial do we figure out if someone ‘forced’ or persuaded the woman into the abortion? Charge them with?
Are you telling me that if I think that unborn babies are just clumps of cells and until they’re born they’re not human, then I don’t have full knowledge and am not committing a moral sin if I procure the abortion on those grounds?
Bingo. Yes. Exactly. You’ve got it !
God Bless
fishe,
Yup.
Also, how many years should the doctor get roughly?
Say if Clayton Weatherston received a sentence of a minimum of 18 years…what should a doctor who commits an abortion get? Remember, the jury found Weatherston guilty of murder for stabbing Sophie Elliott 216 times in her home.
Even if a “right wing Republican” bishop informs me – quite clearly – that I am wrong?
The sad reality in the Church today is that most Catholics have not reached the point of understanding that everything the Church teaches is true (at the level of truth at which it is actually taught – some things like the evil of procured abortion being infallible and other things more fallible).
We need to be careful not to assume that every other Catholics knows what we are very privileged to know.
I’d be surprised if Pat Kennedy actually knew his faith all that well. After all, he’s a politician, not a theologian.
With his family and political background I think we can cut him at least a bit of slack – anyone formed in that environment is very likely to have difficulty understanding the real nature of abortion.
God Bless
fishe,
Actually, abortion is illegal in New Zealand.
Chris,
I know you’re opposed to refusing Communion to anyone. We can safely that all the babies aborted won’t need to be refused Communion. Someone else refused them the most fundamental right we all have — the right to live.
1. Go and buy the Catechism of the Catholic Church — he obviously doesn’t have one. Heck, just get the Compendium if that’s easier.
2. Read it.
I wish it was that easy, Scribe.
If it was, our job would be SOOO much easier.
But the understanding of the truth of what the Church teaches is a grace given by God, and he has not seen fit to grant that grace to everyone.
Go argue with him about it. Seriously. Some good will come of such prayer.
God Bless
fishe,
The Catholic Church has no official position on what the punishment for any crime ought to be. That’s a matter for the civil authorities, not the Church. See – we really do believe in separation of Church & State
Catholics need to understand this point too – if a politician votes against harsh sentences for abortionists because he’s against harsh sentences (and not because he supports abortion) then such a position is not out of communion with Catholic teaching, because there is no Catholic teaching on what punishments ought to be.
God Bless
fishe,
Dunno. Not a lawyer.
The point is that it is murder – regardless of the age of person. Others here are better qualified than I to determine appropriate sentences etc.
Chris,
You are out of your tree my friend!
There is no way – NO WAY – you can really think that this is the case?!?!? Kennedy is not some uneducated, disconnected person. He is a Congressman, and there is no way you can honestly tell me that you believe that he is not fully aware of the Catholic teaching on this.
And even if he was at any point confused, given his upbringing, the good bishop has made it ubundantly clear just how wrong he is.
So he now has full knowledge. His pride or guilt or whatever may make him want to wish it away, but Kennedy is fully aware of what the Church teaches.
I can’t take you seriously if you honestly think this!
With his family and political background I think we can cut him at least a bit of slack – anyone formed in that environment is very likely to have difficulty understanding the real nature of abortion.
It’s amazing who you’re willing to cut some slack and who you’re not willing to cut some slack.
If we were to cut Kennedy some slack, it would have been two years back when Bishop Tobin was trying to educate him. How many people have bishops offering to give them one-on-one instruction on the Faith?
Kennedy knows the score and he is thumbing his nose at the bishop, the Church and ultimately God himself. He has lost the ability to ask for the benefit of the doubt.
It might be for political advancement, because we all know that people can’t make hay in the Democratic party without being rabidly pro-abortion. (And which political party should we be criticising, Chris?)
Someone else refused them the most fundamental right we all have — the right to live.
Yes, and its tragic.
But what is the answer ?
How are we going to turn the situation around ?
By laws and harsh penalties ? No.
By trying to deny Holy Communion to politicians who’s voting record we don’t like ? No.
The only way forward is continue with the hard work of providing the practical and emotional support needed by women in crisis pregnancies and to continue to patiently and respectfully persuade people of the great goodness and precious value of every human life. Good laws can help too (although Fishe is right that just passing a law won’t stop abortions).
A consistent ethic of life, as taught by the NZ Catholic Bishops, which also opposed wars and the death penalty and supports the right to health care and decent social services would go a long way too.
God Bless
Chris,
Well, God has given me some of that grace because I am crystal clear on the fact that the Catholic Church teaches that the Truth is that abortion is wrong.
Period.
End of story.
So, if you are one of those lacking the grace to understand this, then take my word for it instead.
chris, howdy bruvva
bishop tobin is warning kennedy that he shouldn’t receive communion because of the public scandal, not because he is absolutely sure that he is in mortal sin.
he hasn’t, isn’t, and doesn’t make that judgement
the bishop is saying: “your actions are out of step with the faith of the church, therefore, don’t go to communion, you’re not in communion with us; or your communion is seriously defective so as to prevent you from receiving communion”
tobin can say that, because the external actions of kennedy are so grave
(kennedy formally supports abortion; he believes that all americans should have access to murder their child, if they so choose to)
tobin can also say that it doesn’t matter really what his internal knowledge is, because he had had enough warnings from the church over 3 or more years, and is smart enough to understand what the church teaches on the matter, but has wilfully chosen to go against that (disobedience), therefore he is not a catholic in good standing
he has chosen, as a mature adult, to publicly oppose the church, and influence public legislation, in a very evil manner, on a matter of faith and morals
simple
by voting for (and intending to continue to vote for) a bill that directly forces all american’s taxes to go towards abortion,
thus meaning an increase in funding for abortions,
thus meaning MORE ABORTIONS,
then kennedy,
as a catholic politician,
is participatring in a grave moral evil (murder) to such a degree,
that:
(1) it creates large scale scandal, and
(2) it impairs his communion with the church,
…and thus with Christ, due to its grave moral character
and therefore he shouldn’t receive communnion
only God knows his complete culpability, but the Church has the authority, given to her by Christ, to judge the external forum (kennedy’s external actions), in matters such as these. if she doesn’t have that authority, then canon law is basically void, and then church can’t make any judgment at all in the name of Christ
sacrifce versus mercy
by the way, it is an act of mercy for tobin to correct kennedy
it’s a spiritual work of mercy to admonish sinners (look it up chris)
something which st francis of assisi often did
peace
Chris,
So, explain something to me then: if I am a vicious murderer who has just openly slaughtered a group of people, should I pay a harsh penalty?
dave,
re: #48 – YES, YES, YES!!!! There you go! Chris – go read that again and again, while I go take a lie down and something for my blood pressure!
James,
I’m delighted at your moral certainty about the evil of abortion.
But consider how you got there.
Did your family believe in abortion ?
Did you grow up all your life in a climate which supported abortion ?
Did you have some epiphany of faith experience ?
I think we can take it as read that your background and experience is quite different to that of Pat Kenendy.
Pray for him. One day he will get to where you are.
God Bless
A consistent ethic of life, as taught by the NZ Catholic Bishops, which also opposed wars and the death penalty and supports the right to health care and decent social services would go a long way too.
Chris,
Yes, we should oppose war and the death penalty and fight for decent social services and health care. But what use does a baby, killed in her mother’s womb, have for Working for Families or free dental visits?
fishe,
What sentence would you recommend for a drunk driver who kills a teenage boy at a pedestrian crossing?
kennedy formally supports abortion; he believes that all americans should have access to murder their child, if they so choose to
That’s a very serious accusation.
Can you substantiate it ?
God Bless
James,
Maybe this from dave morgan will help your blood pressure subside
God Bless
Lame, you guys avoided my slightly provocational comparison to a more conventional murder sentence!
It seems a valid point. It doesn’t seem right that an abortionist should get the same sentence as Weatherston. No?
You guys are wasting your time conversing with Sullivan.
Get outside and enjoy the sun.
Get outside and enjoy the sun.
It ain’t sunny in Auckland, Doc
Yes, but Chris, the moment that Bishop Tobin informed Kennedy that his support for abortion was wrong, and why it was wrong, Kennedy then has full knowledge and you can no longer invoke the ignorance clause.
Unless of course you are suggesting that Kennedy is mentally unsound, because that would actually mean that Kennedy is not guilty of a mortal sin.
Fishe,
Sentencing is about weighing the various harms caused by the crime, the motivations of the guilty party(s), and the circumstances surrounding and leading up to the crime.
Clayton Weatherston killed an innocent human being in a pre-meditated and cold blooded fashion and he used extreme brutality in carrying out his crime.
I would suggest that an abortion doctor has a lot in common with Weatherston in that his act is premeditated, cold blooded and brutal in that he cuts the baby to pieces and then sucks it out using a surgical suction vacuum.
chris,
read and weep chris (literally)
his voting record
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Patrick_Kennedy_Abortion.htm
if you can’t work out from this christopher, that patrick kennedy is pro-choice, ie, he wants all american women to have access to murder their child, if they so choose, and will vote to PROTECT and ENSHRINE that “right” in american law, then you don’t understand english
he should be trying to reduce abortion, not increase it !!!
if he votes for measures which will surely make abortion:
(1) more widespreead
(2) more easily avaiable
(3) more acceptable in society
(4) cheaper for the poor
then he is a formal supporter of abortion. period.
his voting actions have done and keep doing THE TALKING
(not matter what moral sophistry, or sutble double speak, he tries to employ through his long learned political experience and tactics, and obfuscating mechanisms)
this man is an agent of the culture of death. period.
he seriously needs our merciful prayers
let us all make a little pact to pray a decade of the rosary for him tonight, like filia has suggested
peace bruvva
Whoa.
That’s not quite correct, as the Church does actually oppose unjust or excessive punishments being meted out for criminal offending.
For example, while the Church doesn’t teach what the sentence for shoplifting should be, she would definitely oppose the violent beating of shoplifters in the public square.
dave,
Interesting that the link you’ve provided in #60 gives Kennedy a 30% rating from NARAL in 2003. Apparently he’s an improver, because he’s been racking up perfect scores in more recent years.
howdy
Apparently he’s an improver, because he’s been racking up perfect scores in more recent years.
so scribe, i don’t quite follow, he’s been voting more pro-life since then?
or does that mean thae he’s got worse?
on that link that i gave, he rated 0% pro-life by the nrlc (national right to life committee), indicating a continual a pro-choice stance
anyway, the ratings don’t mean much to me, he has shown through his voting record (looking at each vote on that list) that he isn’t pro-life
he has consistently voted for widening access to abortion, ivf, and other providers of death-on-demand
peace
fishe 36
“I think we can safely assume it would continue illegally if it was made illegal tomorrow”
but in NZ abortion IS a crime, it is illeagal and yes continues
the issue in NZ anyway is that the law is flouted by corrupt and greedy consultants and ignored by gutless politicians with no conscience and no Bishop to remind them that they risk eternal damnation!
the moment that Bishop Tobin informed Kennedy that his support for abortion was wrong, and why it was wrong, Kennedy then has full knowledge and you can no longer invoke the ignorance clause.
That doesn’t follow.
Kennedy would need to know that Tobin spoke the truth that abortion was wrong.
I imagine if Bp Tobin said the same to KiwiAtheist or Fishe here they’d be less than 100% convinced also.
The reality is that many Catholics don’t accept the truth of what the Church teaches on abortion, and on lots of other things for that matter.
I’m not sure that Bp Tobin getting into a public spat with Kennedy on this is likely to be very helpful in convincing him of the evil of abortion. It’s probably more likely to get his back up and entrench him in his position.
God Bless
Dave,
In your link it says that Kennedy twice voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions.
That indicates to me that he is actually against abortion.
I can think of a number of good reasons why a faithful loyal Catholic might vote against the NARAL line on several of the other bills. So I’m not convinced that his vote on those other issues proves that he is pro-abortion.
In fact, it seems to me that the opposition to Kennedy is very likely to be politically motivated as most of those attacking Kennedy here are known to be of the right of centre political persuasion (BTM excluded).
God Bless
if he votes for measures which will surely make abortion:
(1) more widespreead
(2) more easily avaiable
(3) more acceptable in society
(4) cheaper for the poor
then he is a formal supporter of abortion. period.
I don’t think that does make a politician a formal supporter of abortion as he may well have voted for those bills for other reasons or judged that they would not make abortion more widespread or more easily available etc (since when was it a sin to have a different opinion on the actual social effect of a proposed law?).
God Bledd
Imagine my disappointment — although not surprise — to venture back onto this thread and find three more head-shaking posts from Chris Sullivan.
I imagine if Bp Tobin said the same to KiwiAtheist or Fishe here they’d be less than 100% convinced also.
Maybe. But if you want to make a VALID comparison, you might say that it would be Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens speaking to KA or Fishe and them refusing to accept what their “bishops” said.
In fact, it seems to me that the opposition to Kennedy is very likely to be politically motivated as most of those attacking Kennedy here are known to be of the right of centre political persuasion (BTM excluded).
Have a look into the recent upstate New York House race (district 23) for evidence of how pro-lifers are politically colour-blind. And what about “Catholics Against Rudy”?
dave,
I was being facetious when I said Kennedy “improved”. He improved in NARAL’s estimation, so worsened in Catholic terms.
a prophetic typo Christopher #68?
“God Bledd”
Yes he did……
for our sins, for sinners, and for those led astray by false teaching.
a vote for a bill that had pro abortion indirect implications could be the exception but Kennedy is at the forefront and consistently ‘poor choice’, the Bishop is right to correct him.
God bless good Bishops!
er… Chris…
What you are doing is called MORAL RELATIVISM… I thought you know what’s that mean
chris, hi,
you’ve got to be kidding me.
that’s like saying that a senator who votes for torture in afghanistan 20 times, but votes against waterboarding-torture use in iraq 2 times, is anti the use of torture in war
chris, take your head out of the sand, and look at ALL the other voting records of pat kennedy, and not just that list that i linked to, but all the other votes since 2003
the man wants women to have access to abortion in 90% of situations, except partial birth.
that doesn’t make him pro-life, or anti-abortion, but pro-abortion in most situations
and because of these highly public actions, he betrays his catholic faith, his own humanity, and his allegiance to Christ, and thus should not present himself to receive Our Lord, unless he repents publicly and shows to the worshipping community a change of heart
remember, if he has gone to confession regarding this (which is doubtful due to his public defiance and rejection of correction by bishop tobin) then one of the conditions for true contrition, and thus absolution, is a firm resolution, with the help of God, to change his ways on abortion, and his voting stances…
none of this has happened in 15 years
the man is not pro-life, but pro-choice, which means, in this context, he wants american women to have access to abortion and murder their children, if they so choose to
that is hardly a catholic position towards the goodness and sanctity of life given to us by the Creator
scribe,
i thought so but wasn’t sure
so that shows us what he is about
chris, regarding #68
yes, as dei verbum has said, God’s heart did bleed for these sins of humanity, and for all the moral relativism, which OP-ter rightly indentifies in your comments
peace bruvva,
don’t forget the decade of the rosary for pat kennedy
Rosary said (I’m sure he needs it).
the man wants women to have access to abortion in 90% of situations
You haven’t proven that he does want women to have access to abortion because his voting record does not actually prove that. He may have voted on those bills for other reasons while actually not wanting women to have access to abortion.
That’s why we need to look at what Pat Kennedy actually thinks about abortions, rather than just at the way he voted on certain bills, which may have been influenced by other factors.
God Bless
Dave,
You do raise another very relevant point which is the inconsistency of all the noise about abortion versus the dead silence on other intrinsically evil acts such as torture and the killing of innocents in war.
Our position lacks credibility if we are continually and very publicly hounding Democrats for their weaknesses (which tend to be abortion, gay marriage etc) but we are silent on the weaknesses of Republicans (which tend to be torture, war, opposition to decent health care for all etc).
The impression the public gets is that certain bishops (who tend to be politically right wing and militaristic) are not consistent in calling politicians to account. Our actions then look like they are motivated by party politics and not Catholic social teaching.
The Church teaches that torture is intrinsically evil, but I’ve never heard any US Catholic Bishop haul any US politician over the coals for voting in favour of torture. Ditto for the killing of innocents in war.
It is essential that our pro-life position be consistent otherwise it lacks credibility.
And if voting for the public funding of abortions really is the issue some people have with politicians, then why are they silent on our own NZ politicians, like Bill English, who vote for budgets which earmark public funds to pay for abortions ? Bill English bears even more responsibility because he drew up a budget containing funding for abortions.
The answer is painfully obvious : Bill English is a National MP but Pat Kennedy is a Democrat.
God Bless
from Zenit
Rep. Kennedy ‘milked’ confrontation with Bishop Tobin for political reasons, expert says
(http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17923)
BOSTON, MASS., December 3 (CNA) – Representative Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) has decided to pull out of the Communion controversy after unsuccessfully “milking” his confrontation with Bishop Thomas J. Tobin, said Joe Fitzgerald, a political analyst from the Boston Herald.
Fitzgerald wrote: “Patrick Kennedy’s announcement that he’s ‘not going to indulge in this debate any longer,’ referring to his rejection of Catholic Church beliefs, was reminiscent of a strategy George Aiken floated at the height of the Vietnam War: ‘Declare victory and pull out!’ the late Vermont senator suggested.”
The Boston Herald columnist added that Kennedy was pulling out after “having milked his confrontation with Bishop Thomas J. Tobin for all it was worth after igniting it by indiscreetly disclosing a private communication he had received from the latter.”
“Kennedy, like other pols before him, thus discovered it was much easier to profess his faith than it was to actually practice it, so he decided to cast himself as a martyr.”
“Why not? There’s never been a better time to beat up on the Catholic Church. It plays well to malcontents and dissidents who’ve long resisted its teachings, and to activists and anarchists who resent its disapproval of their agendas,” Fitzgerald says.
It brings to mind a puckish thought from Ronald Reagan: ‘I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress’.”
Fitzgerald’s column is available at: http://news.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view/20091202immoral_society_perfect_host_to_kennedys_catholic_crusade/srvc=home&position=also
Christopher #75;
as usual you are a litle loose with your choice of words
CCC 2297 states torture is contrary to respect for person and for human dignity and indiscriminate killing ,,a crime against God and man but not all innocent deaths are intrinsically evil simply because they may be unfortunate and unintended consequence of war.
Abortion is different and deserves special attention as in every case of procured abortion;
it is always evil (CCC 2271)
you seem to be saying that because we dont speak up enough about torture and innocent deaths of thousands in war (which is untrue anyway as we are in fact very concerned) then we have to turn a blind eye to millions killed in abortion.
Incredible!… but a great comfort to the likes of Kennedy who may now lie straighter in bed.
Dei,
Pope John Paul II defined torture as intrinsically evil. It’s in the same moral category as procured abortion in that the Church teaches that both are always wrong, regardless of intent or circumstances.
But where are the Bishops hauling politicians over the coals for supporting torture ?
I am most emphatically not saying we ought to turn a blind eye to abortion.
I’m saying that our position on abortion would be strengthened and more easily understood and accepted if we were took a more consistent pro-life position which also strongly focused on the death penalty, torture, and war.
The Catechism teaches that the death penalty cannot be justified in the USA today yet where are the bishops hauling over the coals those politicians who have authorised it ?
God Bless
and the answer is equally obvious you will support a Democrat at any cost,even when he is actively pro-abortion, and even when he disobeys his Bishop.
Bill English has done more against abortion in NZ than many others. Your analogy is pathetic and demeans your argument.
Ha that’s prove your research is not deep enough
Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice
Issued by USCCB, November 15, 2000
Copyright © 2000, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Inc. All rights reserved.
Order Copies of This Statement
A Statement of the Catholic Bishops of the United States
We are still a long way from the time when our conscience can be certain of having done everything possible to prevent crime and to control it effectively so that it no longer does harm and, at the same time, to offer to those who commit crimes a way of redeeming themselves and making a positive return to society. If all those in some way involved in the problem tried to . . . develop this line of thought, perhaps humanity as a whole could take a great step forward in creating a more serene and peaceful society.
Link for the entire statement is here
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/criminal.shtml
again stop making up random facts… and
SHAME ON YOU
Bill English has done more against abortion in NZ than many others.
I agree, and that’s part of my point.
If a pro-life MP like Bill English can write a budget which publicly funds abortions without NZ Catholics getting up in arms about it, then maybe, just maybe, the principle of total opposition to public funding of abortions isn’t quite the communion buster that some Catholics are trying to make out it is.
God Bless
OP-ter,
The US Catholic Bishops are opposed to the use of the death penalty in the USA.
They run publicity campaigns against it.
It is clear from John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae that the Church thinks that there is no justification for the death penalty in the USA today, because it is obviously not necessary to defend human life.
God Bless
so… what are you trying to say when you make this statement then
“The Catechism teaches that the death penalty cannot be justified in the USA today yet where are the bishops hauling over the coals those politicians who have authorised it ?”
Post #78
A good discussion on this here;
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7390&CFID=22518985&CFTOKEN=31442103
you dont distinguish between legitimate interrogation and sadistic torture, this is not a black and white issue.
Abortion is different it is always wrong and we dont have to consider nuances.
It fllows that support for abortion is always wrong.
The same cannot be said for ‘legitimate torture’ and the death penalty
And also Chris…
In the case of Bill English, he did not received a letter from the Bishop of his diocese telling him do not receive communion… and you are not a Bishop
OP-ter,
I’m not sure of your point, but the US Catholic Bishops in the document you link to are very firm in their categorical teaching against the death penalty.
Given that excellent teaching, where are the Bishops hauling over the coals those politicians who vote for and approve the use of the death penalty ? What about those Catholic state governors who approved the use of the death penalty ?
God Bless
and again, in the case of death penalty, US Bishop did make a statement to show their disappointment of such act and asking those involve in such act to examine their conscience of doing so…
so your claim saying there are no Bishops in US stand against death penalty is quite offensive and I am demanding an apology because it offends me when someone who accuse a group of good Bishops for standing up what is right!
er…
That statement is clear enough right?
Also this?
It is clear from John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae that the Church thinks that there is no justification for the death penalty in the USA today, because it is obviously not necessary to defend human life.
Well maybe, Chris, those you criticise aren’t too smart. You know, like Patrick Kennedy, who you think might not be be fully aware that his support for abortion is scandalous and contrary to the Church.
Or are those who support the death penalty intelligent enough to read their Catechism and understand what their bishops tell them?
*inside jokes*
You know speak english how? understand what does it mean by “THE DEATH PENALTY OFFERS THE TRAGIC ILLUSION THAT WE CAN DEFEND LIFE BY TAKING LIFE”
OP-ter,
Yes, but where are the threats to deny Holy Communion to Catholic politicians who support the death penalty ?
Where are the bishops publicly taking them to task as Bp Tobin is taking Kennedy to task ?
Why are we so obviously not putting the heat on Catholic politicians over the death penalty as we do on abortion ?
Politics ?
God Bless
it is a private matter… you are NOT A BISHOP and you don’t know that!
Kennedy decided to make a PRIVATE MATTER public as shown in the article
THE BISHOP DID NOT initially PUBLICLY asking them to stop receiving communion…
CAN YOU READ ENGLISH??? I can translate the entire article to Chinese if you can’t read english
Chris,
Your line “we don’t know if Patrick Kennedy supports women’s access to abortion” is a lot of nonsense. He hasn’t even tried to deny it in this public back-and-forth. He’s tried to argue that supporting women’s rights (read “abortion”) doesn’t make him any less of a Catholic.
Said Kennedy: “the fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.”
The bishop did not concur saying Kennedy’s disagreement with the “hierarchy” — which is actually a disagreement with Christ — DID make him less of a Catholic
OP-ter,
We hear regularly of certain right wing US Catholic Bishops (and this issue seems to be one peculiar to the US and not found in the rest of the world) wanting to deny Holy Communion to politicians over abortion.
We NEVER hear of such bishops wanting to deny Holy Communion to politicians over the death penalty, or torture, or war.
That does not present a consistent pro-life position.
And that’s perfectly obvious to the public and it undermines our pro-life position.
I’m saying that we need to be consistent and scrupulously above party politics.
God Bless
Christopher
this argument is a nonsence.
are you really suggesting that Kennedy should be able to receive communion because others are doing bad stuff as well and not being punished?
this is something I would expect to hear in a primary school playground but surely we are above that?
Scribe,
Re 94.
That must be the weakest case for Kennedy supporting abortion I’ve ever read.
We’re still waiting for actual evidence that Kennedy really does support abortion.
God Bless
Dei,
Re 96: No, not at all.
I’m arguing that
1. Our inconsistency undermines our pro-life witness.
2. As Christ invited Judas to the Last Supper and gave Judas Holy Communion that we ought to follow Christ’s own example and practice.
God Bless
but how do you know this to be the case?
we only heard of this instance because Kennedy decided to make political capital out of it and released the private corrospndence and now he is running for cover!
I’m saying that we need to be consistent and scrupulously above party politics.
Chris,
You are the one making this about party politics. According to my trusty “Find” tool, neither Filia nor any of the first 22 comments mentioned Kennedy’s political affiliation.
I’ll say it again, slower this time.
T-h-i-s i-s n-o-t a-b-o-u-t p-a-r-t-y a-f-f-i-l-i-a-t-i-o-n.
ACTUALLY
ALL FOUR GOSPEL indicate that Judas actually left before the Institution of the Last supper as they talked about the betray just before the institution of the last supper, read Mark and Matthew and John if you want to cross reference me
Dei,
It’s not just the Kennedy case. There have been lots of others over politicians and abortions.
But we’ve heard none on the death penalty, torture or abortion.
Everyone knows this.
Kennedy decided to make political capital out of it
How do you know that ? Are you privy to his inner mental processes ? Do you actually know why he does what he does? You don’t because you don’t know why Kennedy raised the issue (more likely it was his reaction to the Bishops opposition to aspects of the health care bill).
You are judging Kennedy.
God Bless
ALL FOUR GOSPEL indicate that Judas actually left before the Institution of the Last supper as they talked about the betray just before the institution of the last supper
No, they don’t. Go back and read what they actually say.
St Augstine says that Judas received Holy Communion.
God Bless
come on chris, open your heart to the truth here…
i know you like to side with the under-dog and the little guy
it’s commendable, and has merit, in looking for a way to try to get him off the hook
but unfortunately, you end up denying the truth of things by doing that in such a serious matter as this
open your heart chris
if pat kennedy is pro-life, then why hasn’t he voted that way?
we don’t need to have it from his mouth, his voting records speak for him over 15 years – consistenly voting against life (truth, goodness), and for choice (aka, freedom and access to abort/murder)
peace bruvva,
and seek the truth of this matter, try to get past your own views and limited readings of things
open your heart & listen
Chris,
If someone accused you of being out of communion with the Church because of your support for women’s ordination, wouldn’t you deny that you held those beliefs?
Sorry, bad example.
If someone accused me of being out of communion with the Church because I supported abortion rights, I’d be defending my reputation and correcting the record. Kennedy hasn’t even tried to do that. To my mind, that IS compelling evidence.
Just a reminder of the story Dei Verbum linked to above:
*sigh* please give me the reference of where about St Augustine said that
As for my reference
John 13:21-30 Jesus foretold betrayal and Judas left
This is in Mark 14:17 has the discussion which is before the institution of the last supper in 14:22
using both reference, this indicate that Judas left BEFORE the institution of the last supper
Can you read english?
As usual, Chris comes out with a couple of real pearler red herrings in an attempt to back up his support of Patrick Kennedy.
One problem I think Chris, is that you see evrything through the lens of your political views as much as you Catholic views. To claim that Bp. Tobin is reprimanding Kennedy becuase he is a “right wing, Republican supporting ” bishop, in my view is insulting, and patently wrong; you are accusing the good bishop of your own failing. Specks and beams come to mind.
The other red herring, again politically motivated, is that Bill English is somehow at fault to the extent that Kennedy is because he is preparing a budget that includes funding for abortion. Bill English prepares his budget under the laws of this country. Sadly, abortion under a set of given circumstances is legal in this country, and English is obliged to follow the law – this funding, BTW, is under the umbrella of healthcare.
So in USA, Patrick Kennedy is speaking in favour of including funding for abortion in the proposed new law on healthcare in that country, in opposition to the Stupak ammendment, which require that no additional funding in the new healthcare legislation be permitted. This amendment is supported by all the USA bishops and any thinking faithful Catholic. Kennedy , along with many other Catholics in the US have put themselves in opposition to the Church’s teaching because of their support for abortion, and since Kennedy put their 2 year old spat into the public domain, the bishop had no choice but to proclaim the Church’s teaching.
Effectively, Kennedy has barred himself from communion, and ipso facto ex-communicated himself.
if pat kennedy is pro-life, then why hasn’t he voted that way?
He voted against partial birth abortion.
Twice.
According to your link, he rated 30% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record.
God Bless
Chris,
You’re a confused little bunny, aren’t you?
No, he wouldn’t. That’s not how it works. When he is told by a prelate of the Church that something is definitively wrong, and when this is backed up by the whole of Church history, and when everyone who knows anything about Catholics knows that we believe abortion is murder and murder is wrong, full knowledge is granted.
The conditions for mortal sin are not about accepting the teaching – they are simply that you must be taught. As a Catholic, he has to recognise the teaching authority of the Church. If the good bishop was saying something out of communion with the Church, then fine. But he’s not. He’s simply, personally reinforcing what the Church teaches.
Mr Kennedy has no defence on the grounds of lack of full knowledge. And you need to understand the difference between getting the Truth from an authoritative source, and accepting it. He’s got the first and now has full knowledge – the second is desirable but not necessary.
If, however, the world was topsy-turvy, and your interpretation was accurate, then there is no such thing as mortal sin and we can all go do whatever we want. Because all I need to do is argue that I don’t accept the authority of the teacher and then I can barrel on and torture and kill as much as I like, right? I mean, I don’t have full knowledge, so I’m sweet as.
that Bp. Tobin is reprimanding Kennedy becuase he is a “right wing, Republican supporting ” bishop
I never claimed that.
God Bless
Chris,
As for your whole “this is just the evil Republicans/National supporters”, you really need to change the record.
As I have stated many times on this blog, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I don’t agree with war, I think torture is a grave evil, and I think guns should be banned or at the very least controlled. So, from a Republican point of view, I’m a lefty, hippy, Communist-loving, Democrat, right?
But, I also am firmly pro-life, and I don’t believe that government can solve all problems, and I think that taxes should be spent very differently to how they are spent. So, for the Democrats in the room, I’m a Bible-thumping, conservative Republican.
Your labels on this whole saga are understating what is actually going on. You love to draw sides where they simply aren’t there.
I oppose the war in Iraq.
I oppose all forms of torture.
I oppose abortion.
Go on Chris – box me in!
You, mon ami, need to recognise that sometimes things aren’t a conspiracy, aren’t political, and aren’t just a matter of conservative and liberal. You criticise others for having an inconsistent pro-life policy because they aren’t anti-war enough for you. Or for being too conservative for not being as pro-union, social justice as you are.
Facts are facts mate – you are just as biased as those you criticise. Your bias is just a little more obvious.
This is not political. If there was an ammendment in this legislation calling for state-funded torture, then the bishops would rightly be telling any of those who vote for it to withhold themselves from communion…
…which, as dave pointed out (and you confirmed) they are entitled to do whenever scandal is being caused. So it has nothing to do with connecting Judas to the Last Supper, and everything to do with the authority given to the Church. If they say “no”, that’s it.
Glad you agree on that at least!
Op-ter,
Luke is pretty clear :
In John, Jesus refers to the psalm “who ate my bread” wrt to Judas which is a clear eucharistic reference in the context of the Last Supper.
The reference to St Augustine is in Ancient Christian Commentary on the Sriptures, one of the gospel volumes (foregt which one).
I used to think that denying Holy Communion to those who seriously violate Catholic Social Teaching was a great idea. But I’ve become convinced that it is absolutely not the way of Christ who teaches clearly that we are to feed the hungry (Mt 25, John 21).
God Bless
James,
Sorry, but you are just wrong on full knowledge.
To be mortal sin, a person must do what he himself knows is wrong, not what someone else told him is wrong.
JFK’s speech on being a Catholic President who wouldn’t follow Catholic doctrine has considerably muddied the waters which I think goes a long way to explain Kennedy’s confusion.
God Bless
JFK’s speech on being a Catholic President who wouldn’t follow Catholic doctrine has considerably muddied the waters which I think goes a long way to explain Kennedy’s confusion.
So now it’s his uncle’s fault? Seriously, Chris, you make yourself look more and more silly with each passing comment.
Patrick Kennedy shouldn’t need Christ or the Church or Bishop Tobin to tell him supporting abortion is wrong. It’s not Catholic teaching; it’s natural law.
Has he ever seen an ultrasound?
Scribe,
I’m still waiting for evidence that Kennedy actually does support abortion.
Got any ?
God Bless
chris,
exactly, it is just your private judgement on Scripture, which goes against the teaching of the church
so, in that sense, you’re in the company of martin luther are others like him
if you can’t accept the church’s authority on this long-held and taught fundamental teaching, but accept other things like ‘abortion is an intrinsic evil’ (you often use authoritative church documents to back up your position), then you are really a ‘pick and choose’ catholic, according to your own judgement – which is essentially a protestant attitude
you’ve made the faith into your personal assesment of things
Catechism 1124:
please try and adhere to it chris
i suppose that is asking a bit much because you also claim to be a jew, muslim, hindu, buddhist, and catholic, and i suppose protestant could easily be added into the mix
peace bruvva
chris,
there really is no point is giving it again (we’ve already shown that he is)
ground-hog day…
Dave,
There is no “long-held and taught fundamental teaching” on denying Holy Communion.
I can quote infallible papal documents teaching the grave evil of procured abortions but you cannot quote any infallible papal documents teaching the right to deny Holy Communion.
I would have thought that I was in good company if St Augustine agreed with me that Judas was given Holy Communion at last supper. I suppose that St Augustine’s interpretation was just a protestant private judgement too.
My view on this was formed by listening to the the US Catholic Bishops, most of whom do not support denying Holy Communion. I found they gave very solid arguments for not denying Holy Communion.
Believe me – this is not just my own private interpretation.
God Bless
Christopher 112;
John 13;27 At that instant after Judas had taken the bread, Satan entered him……”
It could be argued that this act wasnt eucharist ?
it dosent say he consumed (but he could have) but the connection is clear; Judas at that moment made a conscious decision to betray his Lord.
and was possessed.
also Corinthians 11; 27, Threfore amyone who eats the bread….unworthily is answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone is to examine himself and only then eat of the bread…because a person who eats without reognising the body is eating …his own condemnation That is why a good number of you are weak and ill amd a good number have died”
So the Bishop is not only right to avoid scandal but he has the interests of Kennedy at heart when he stops him committing spiritual suicide.
Pray for Kennedy!
chris,
sorry, i don’t beleive you
you show me where st augustine, or any other church father, or any bishop in the usa has said that because judas recieved at the last supper, therefore anybody can receive Our Lord regardless of their state of soul
show me!
judas is a bad soul mate to be taking as an example
therefore anybody can receive Our Lord regardless of their state of soul
I didn’t say that.
The Church and scripture teach that we ought to examine our own conscience (NOT the conscience of others) and then not receive until our conscience is clean (if we are in mortal sin).
She does NOT teach that we ought to examine OTHER CATHOLIC’S conscience and DENY THEM Holy Communion.
Refraining oneself is one thing. Denying another is something else entirely.
And if you guys can’t even provide any solid proof that Kennedy supports abortion then you’ve no basis on which to apply your own notions of denying him.
Dei’s idea that receiving the body and blood of Christ results in spiritual suicide is just preposterous. It is sin which causes spiritual suicide, not the body and blood of Christ. In fact, it is that very body and blood of Christ which will save Kennedy and it’s the spiritual food he needs on his journey. Deny a soul that and we could well end up being responsible ourselves for the spiritual death of that soul. And many other souls who walk from the Church in disgust at the way this is being handled.
God Bless
Chris,
Bishop Tobin doesn’t WANT to deny Communion to Patrick Kennedy. He wants a member of his flock to conform his thinking to the thinking of the Church; he wants him to repent. The consequence of failing to do so was a REQUEST for Kennedy not to present himself for Communion.
I’ll ask again, Chris. If someone accused you of being a supporter of abortion rights and you weren’t, wouldn’t you deny it vehemently?
Kennedy’s pretty much engaging in what we could now call the Tiger Woods defence.
wow still trying Chris…
“She does NOT teach that we ought to examine OTHER CATHOLIC’S conscience and DENY THEM Holy Communion.”
isn’t CCC1385 clear enough…
Chris,
well, if you read tobin’s comments that is exactly what he has asked kennedy to do
he has asked him to refrain – so what is your beef with tobin?
but that doesn’t change the fact that he does have the authority as a bishop, given to him by Christ, when the circumstances meet the church’s criteria (although he hasn’t gone that far in this instance) to deny somebody communion
tobin did everything exactly right in this situation:
- he communicatred with him in private, admonishing him to be more catholic and be more faithful to his faith and to Christ
- he asked him to seriously consider whether he should be going to communion
- and then asked him to refrain
so far, he hasn’t strictly denied him communion, but asked him to refrain
although, kennedy was dishonest, and claimed to the media that tobin had instructed his priests to withhold it from him, but that was a lie – tobin did no such thing
kennedy has shown himself, as scribe has mentioned, to be a shifty character
why hasn’t he come out and categorically shown that he is pro-life and in tune with the church?
he hasnt, and i n fact said this:
BISHOP TOBIN’s LETTER TO PATRICK KENNEDY
AFTER KENNEDY MADE EVERYTHING PUBLIC
let me quote tobin’s brilliantly worded key paragraph again
Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category – it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will; a conscious decision that you’ve re-affirmed on many occasions. Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an “imperfect humanity.” Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.
chris, as kennedy’s bishop, tobin has every resposibility given him by Christ, and therefore right, and even an obligation as a pastor, to write to, inquire about, and correct kennedy’s faith, if it is needed, and warn him of the dangers to his immortal soul if he continues down this path that he has freely chosen
tobin, could deny him communion as a pastor of the church, but he hasn’t yet
he has asked to to be more faithful and live up to his obligations as a catholic, and if he doesn’t changes his ways, then he should refrain from receiving communion
kennedy has been beligerant, obstinant, and disagreeable
if he truly was a sincere, and faithful, and humble catholic, he would say sorry for not living up to these things, and make a concerted effort to change
tobin has spoken privately in person with kennedy several times in the past, so i think that he would be in a much better position than you to ascertain whether kennedy is pro-life or pro-choice
let us trust this pastor shall we? he is being faithful to what the church teaches
peace
Chris,
Since you refuse to understand the difference between full knowledge and full acceptance, let’s go back on the point I thought even you conceded: public scandal.
You agree that the bishops are able to refuse Communion to those who bring scandal via their reception of it, right? Then they are well within their rights with Mr Kennedy, surely?
dave has to get MVP award for this thread. Your stuff is just gold mate!
Op-ter
CCC1385 clearly says that a person is to examine his own conscience, not that we are supposed to examine the consciences of others and then judge them and then deny them.
If Kennedy thinks he has done nothing wrong then he isn’t concious of a grave sin, is he ?
God Bless
Chris,
Sigh. I’ll try again.
No, that’s not what it means at all. Sin is not defined by the individual. If the Church says something is a sin, and you know that’s what the Church says, then you are “concious of a grave sin”.
Otherwise, it’s a relativisim argument. I could think that murder is not wrong, and then I’m not conscious of it being a grave sin, so we’re good. I could think that war or torture aren’t wrong, or that slavery or violence isn’t wrong – so in doing any of those things I’m excused because of what I think?
I don’t get to define what sin is. God does. The Church needs to tell me what sin is. Then I have knowledge.
Dave,
Other than the unproven claim of Kennedy’s alleged “rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion”, and the wisdom of getting involved in a public spate with Kennedy over this, I don’t have a problem with Bp Tobin’s letter you quoted in 124.
What I have a problem with is the position expressed by yourself, and others here, which goes well beyond what Bp Tobin has said.
God Bless
hahaha rad…imagine how boring this place would be without Chris. You guys would mostly agree on things and just squabble over some minor esoteric details of rites or something
You agree that the bishops are able to refuse Communion to those who bring scandal via their reception of it, right?
No, I don’t.
I think that more scandal, and I mean REAL scandal, the thing that encourages people into sin, is caused by the threats to deny Holy Communion.
God Bless
Sin is not defined by the individual.
No, but consciousness of sin is.
God Bless
Dave great post
Can 916; … anyone conscious of grave sin may not celebrate or recieve the body without previously having been to confession…….
and the responsibility also falls to celebrant….
Can 915; others who persists in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
God bless that good Bishop!
chris,
which is?
Chris,
And he has that. Consciousness means “awareness of something for what it is”. He knows the Church teaching. If he doesn’t accept it, be that on his own head. But that doesn’t remove his culpability now that he knows.
You haven’t answered my root question to your theory though, Chris. Are you saying that I can torture to my hearts content if I am not conscious of it being wrong, despite the Church telling me that it is?
chris, you don’t seem to understand the distinction between the internal and external forum
the church, or anybody for that matter cannot judge the internal forum
only God can judge that
however the external forum (words, actions, deeds) can be judged
when a person, continually and obstinantly, after admonition, correction, and calls to repentance, does NOT change their way of life, their actions, etc, which are objectively against Christ’s teaching, like pat kennedy, then the church can proceed to bar them from communion
why?
in doing so, she is not judging their state of soul
she is saying, you’re not in communion with us (at the level of will, and intelligence)
communion implies “one mind, one faith” on essentials
therefore, you can’t receive our communion
which is a communion with the Lord
mortal sin, and not being in a state of grace, is something that the pentitent decides on
the church does not judge that
however, she can judge the negative effects of the scandal if the person who is not in communion with the church (on essentials) approaches the communion altar
if she has warned and warned, and admonished, and corrected, and called to repentance a particlar person, or group, and they resist, deny fault, ignore, obfuscate, and lie about the situation, then the church absolutely has the responsibility, authority, right, and even obligation to deny communion to this person or that group
if what you are saying is correct then you have have to admit that if archbishop lefevbre thought he was doing the right thing in his conscience (and nobody can judge the conscience remember), then the church can’t excommunicate, punish, or do anything about it
how does the church judge such matters chris, if she can’t judge either the internal or external forum?
was archbishop lefevbre excommunicated or not?
could the church judge his communion with the pope?
was martin luther excommunicated or not? washe in communion with the church or not?
if you are to remain consistent in your line of reasoning, then nobody could ever know whether archbishop lefevbre, martin luther, or any other person, is in communion with the church – according to you the church cannot judge any of that – it is completely at the level of the conscience of the person – and that my friend is a protestant, relativist, completely subjective stance towards it
peace
Chris,
I must have missed something, because I haven’t seen a threat to deny Holy Communion at all? The bishop is simply informing one of his parishioners that he’s causing scandal and shouldn’t, therefore, present himself.
He’s not going to have the Swiss Guard bar him from going up if he wishes to wilfully disobey.
So, don’t get all hyped up about it.
By your logic though (has anyone Godwinned the argument yet?
), if the bishop of Berlin was saying that Hitler should not present himself for Holy Communion, is that a greater scandal than Hitler presenting himself for it?
You have a twisted idea of scandal I think. I think it is scandalous for someone to say that they disagree with what the Church teaches – on something so fundamental as abortion – and still have the gall to go up to Communion.
Christ said to the sinners “go and sin no more”, not “oh, you sin? That’s cool. Don’t change. No need to. Don’t even bother trying.”
dave,
re: #136 – another gold! What’s the medal tally so far?
Chris,
Please, please, PLEASE read what dave has posted re: internal and external forums.
chris, just to make sure that you don’t misread my words, when i said…
i am meaning, “we know she can’t judge the internal forum, but what if she can’t judge any forum? ie, the external forum?”
to add another example…
when a person goes to confession, the priest makes a judgement on behalf of the bishop that he is in commnion with and from whom he has received his faculties, he judges whether the person is contrite. without those faculties from the bishop, to make that judgement, the sacrament is invalid
the priest is judging the external forum here – that is manifested through the penitent’s words, and acts of contrition, and intention to improve
if the priest can’t make any judgment about that, then we’ve got a big problem
the priest never judges the degree of personal guilt in a person coming to confession, that is between the penitent and God. even the penitent can’t fully judge that.
but the priest can get a feel for the penitent’s “position” by what they explain in the confession, how free they were, whether they deliberately chose,…the objective nature of the act etc…and they the priest must judge, freom the external evidence, wether the penitent is contrite, and wether they have a firm resolution to amend their life
if they don’t want to – eg, a man who confesses adultery, but shows no intention to stop committing it with the woman (after the priest has enquired about what he is going to do to fix the situation), then the priest can indeed refuse absolution; that is a judgement he is required to make on behalf of the church, a judgment he makes on behalf of the bishop, who has given him the faculties to do so
otherwise, if there is no intention to amend one’s life, the sacrament can be abused, and used as a one-stop psychological cash-in shower, everytime a person sins, eg, “i’ll do it, and enjoy it, then go to confession…i’ll do it and enjoy it, then go to confession” (the sin of presumption of God’s mercy)
peace chris
It was a mistake to excommunicate Luther and LeFevbre.
The damage done to the Church by so excommunicating has been well in excess of the damage done by the initial doctrinal disagreements.
I am very pleased that the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI has recognised that by lifting the excommunication of LeFevbre.
Paul VI lifted the excommunication of the Orthodox Church too. Had he not done so, relationships with the Orthodox would not have thawed to the extent that they have following Vatican II.
Jesus excommunicated noone.
He even admitted Judas to the Last Supper
His ways really are better than ours.
God Bless
James,
If you haven’t seen the threats to deny Holy Communion to certain politicians then you must have been asleep for a few years !
God Bless
but do you believe that the church can make a judgment by which to excommunicate? that’s the question…
because what you’re saying is that church can never make any judgement because everything is internal in the conscience of a person (actually this is exactly what martin luther taught, so you’re in good company
)
dave,
If a person says he is sorry, we take him at his word.
If a person says he isn’t sorry or says he intends to do it again, then we take him at his word.
That’s not judging the external forum.
It’s just accepting the persons own judgement of his contrition and future intent.
The Church has got herself into many HUGE messes by trying to judge and excommunicate.
We need to learn from our mistakes, not carry on committing them.
God Bless
but do you believe that the church can make a judgment by which to excommunicate
Legally speaking, the Church has given herself the power to do that. Although that doesn’t mean the practice is correct – she once gave herself the power to do torture too.
As I have argued above, excommunication does WAY more harm than good.
I come back to Jesus’ practice and teaching
Didn’t he teach that we were supposed to forgive even if the sinner never repents ? I seem to recall Mark Shea doing a pretty good job on pointing that out.
Didn’t Jesus say we were not to judge others ?
Didn’t Jesus practice what he preached by inviting Judas to the Last Supper rather than excommunicate Judas ?
Didn’t Jesus say we were to feed the hungry not lock them out ?
I know that radical love is often hard for us humans to accept.
But we need to keep focusing on Jesus here – not man made rules and regulations.
God Bless
Chris,
Sorry, where did she do that?
Yep. But this isn’t about forgiveness.
And no one is judging Kennedy in the way Christ said not to.
The concept of excommunication wasn’t there at that point, but Judas wasn’t manifesting anything outwardly that showed he was out of communion. So, since excommunication is about being in communion with the Church, none of the other church leaders at the time could have excommunicated him anyway because he wasn’t outwardly manifesting what he was going to do.
So stop using it as an example because it has no relevance here.
And no one is locking anyone out here at all. So this emotive stuff just gets us away from the point.
Christ left the Church to the Apostles to govern in His absence. He in His Infinite Wisdom did this. Stop second-guessing God!
Instead, how about you respond to dave’s excellent points?
Legally speaking, the Church has given herself the power to do that. Although that doesn’t mean the practice is correct….
Just when you though things couldn’t get wackier…
…she once gave herself the power to do torture too.
Oooh, and burning at the stake too, Chris. You missed that out. Oh, and slavery.
As I have argued above, excommunication does WAY more harm than good.
Oh, the old “I said it’s true, so it is”. Which you seem to apply to yourself, but not the Church. Go figure.
James,
We are talking lockout.
The excommunicated are locked out out of the sacraments : both confession and eucharist.
God Bless
James,
God Bless
It looks to me as though Bishop Tobin is focusing on God-made rules and regulations!
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 1 Cor. 11:27
illumina, custodi, rege et guberna
The concept of excommunication wasn’t there at that point
Bingo! Excommunication wasn’t taught by Jesus, but later, by men.
but Judas wasn’t manifesting anything outwardly that showed he was out of communion.
When he met the Sanhedrin and offered to betray Jesus, that was an outward manifestation, and one which pretty soon became public knowledge.
Jesus knew that Judas had agreed to betray him, so if excommunication was the right thing to do then surely Jesus would have excommunicated ?
Jesus also told the apostles at the Last Supper than one of them was about to betray him – so, yes, the others knew too.
Jesus’ actions at the Last Supper in admitting Judas are entirely relevant here. Why do you think scripture records them ? It isn’t just to record what once happened but as an ongoing example to us here and now as to how we ought to act.
God Bless
Bingo! Excommunication wasn’t taught by Jesus, but later, by men.
Chris,
Have you heard of the three-legged stool? Look it up in relation to the Church.
You’re a Scripture fundamentalist when it’s convenient and more a fan of Tradition when that suits.
It has always been my understanding that when the Church pronounces someone to be excommunicated, it is indicative of a private reality, that is to say, that a person has already privately excommunicated him or herself.
So public excommunication, such as in the case of the heretic Martin Luther, is more about protecting the faith of Catholics who might be swayed by false teaching dressed up as Truth.
But isn’t the issue of excommunication a tangent? By avoiding the actual thread, Chris, as well as the excellent points made by the likes of Dave and James, does this mean you’ve conceded defeat?
I should also point out how you have previously condemned the Church for not doing enough to oppose Nazism during the Second World War, such as not publicly excommunicating Hitler.
cheers,
Chris,
Scribe is right – you’re taking a non-Catholic view of Scripture and neglecting the Tradition, which includes (through the power given by Christ himself) the ability for the Church to make rules which are binding in Heaven. So your “man-made rules” malarkey doesn’t diminish them at all.
Unless the man making the rules is you or I – i.e. people with no training or authority. Like, for example, your take on what it takes to be conscious of sin. Unfortunately for Mr Kennedy and others, it has no bearing on reality whatsoever.
Well, since you love to quote Scripture when it suits, let’s play your little game. Quote for me, please, the line in Scripture that shows that the apostles knew at the point of the Last Supper and before “receiving Communion” that Judas had been to the Sanhedrin.
Jesus knew everything about Judas and everyone else – comes with being the Son of God. So it’s a crazy argument to compare His vision and understanding to our own. Don’t even bother.
They didn’t know who though. So that’s got nothing to do with it.
What? So, we should go and persecute Christ because that’s what is in Scripture? And we should go and smite all our enemies, and wage war and all the stuff you usually criticise those who quote Scripture simply because it is in there?
I refer to my previous confused bunny statement and reiterate it. You’re getting so wrapped up in your own little mental exercise that your own logic and viewpoints are being compromised. Is anything true for you Chris? Or is it all negotiable?
Everyone,
For those who are a bit sick and tired of the Chris sideshow, let me just state a couple of facts and truths so you can go about your business clear on what is actually going on here, k?
1) Congressman Kennedy, by his own admission, holds a position which is contrary to the “hierarchy of the Church” pertaining to abortion and whether or not this should be legal and publically funded. He is basically saying that he is out of communion with what the Church teaches.
2) Given the public nature of his role, Congressman Kennedy has plenty of opportunity to cause scandal to the Faith by people associating his incorrect claims on abortion as being those of the Church which he proclaims to be a member of. The bishops are called on to protect the Church from such scandal, and that is what Bishop Tobin is doing by telling him not to present himself for Holy Communion.
3) The Church believes that life is sacred and that abortion is a grave moral evil because it violates that core principle.
4) The concept of full knowledge is one of the conditions required for a sin to be mortal. However, full knowledge is provided when one is made aware of what the Truth is by an appropriate authority (e.g. a bishop teaching the position of the Church). If the person continues to ignore said Truth, then they can do that, but they can’t plead ignorance anymore.
5) Anyone who jumps up and down about Christ allowing Judas to come to dinner at the Last Supper as being reason to allow everyone – regardless of the scandal they cause the Church – to present for Holy Communion obviously doesn’t have an understanding of the role of the Church in safeguarding our souls.
We now resume our normal craziness…
Chris,
Keeping my eye on Christ, as you suggest I see where He founded HIS Church on the rock of St Peter, said that He would be with the
church until the end of time, and that what ever was bound by the church on earth would be bound in Heaven or do you interpret those words in a way different from us?
Shallom
I understand Aquinas had a theory as to why Our Lord allowed Judas to receive communion at the Last Supper (from the Summa).
“I answer that, Hilary, in commenting on Mt. 26:17, held that Christ did not give His body and blood to Judas. And this would have been quite proper, if the malice of Judas be considered. But since Christ was to serve us as a pattern of justice, it was not in keeping with His teaching authority to sever Judas, a hidden sinner, from Communion with the others without an accuser and evident proof. lest the Church’s prelates might have an example for doing the like, and lest Judas himself being exasperated might take occasion of sinning. Therefore, it remains to be said that Judas received our Lord’s body and blood with the other disciples, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), and Augustine (Tract. lxii in Joan.).
………………….
Reply to Objection 2. The wickedness of Judas was known to Christ as God; but it was unknown to Him, after the manner in which men know it. Consequently, Christ did not repel Judas from Communion; so as to furnish an example that such secret sinners are not to be repelled by other priests.”
But none of this seems to apply to Mr Kennedy in my opinion, whose voting record is very public.
The way to treat sinners as advocated by Our Lord is not, in fact, endless tolerance – see Matt 18:15-18.
“If your brother does something wrong, go and have it out with him alone, between your two selves. If he listens to you, you have won back your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two witnesses along with you: the evidence of two or three witnesses is required to sustain any charge. But if he refuses to listen to these, report it to the community (the Church), and if he refuses to listen to the community, treat him like a pagan or a tax collector.
I tell you solemnly, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
St Paul, in 1 Corinthinians 5 advises the church there to have nothing to do with a Christian having sexual relations with his father’s wife. “A case of sexual immorality that must be unparalleled even among the pagans”, the apostle exclaims.
St Paul draws a distinction between associating with pagans who practice immorality and Christians who do so. Referring to the latter, he states “You should not even eat a meal with people like that”. 1 Cor 5:12.
The Scriptural arguments would seem to side with Bishop Tobin, not with Mr Kennedy IMHO.
Chistopher is right! #144
I know
but really Jesus’ example is the one
So let Kennedy consume unworthily and he will either get sick (if he isnt already) and may even die or as in the case of Judas (who looked God in the eye), realise his mistake but because he dispairs of Gods mercy and probably demonic possession be driven to commit suicide.
Personally if I was Kennedy I would prefer the charity of Bp Tobin that seeks to correct me in christian charity, but Christopher is right this is simply being too easy.
We should defer to the ‘wisdom’ of sulivanism.
Your last suggestion in 156
Seems a wise move DV for chris thinks that he knows all… is even able to find fault with Popes ( fancy excommunicating and causing scandal !) better than bishops who suggest that a catholic cngressman refrain from Holy Communion ( a person he knows better than does Chris )… , better than our present holy father who will refuse to ordain women priests
shallom
Here’s the quote from St Augustine which OP-ter asked for
God Bless
Just for clarification DV, Sullivan is wrong on Jesus not teaching excommunication.
Matthew 18,15-18.
18:15. But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.
18:16. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.
18:17. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
18:18. Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
Not that this will mean anything to Chris Sullivan. He likes to lead arguments that form the shape of a snake. It might be fun, but one really needs to ignore his posts because they aren’t arguments at all, they are ill-founded opinions. And snakes bite eventually.
Bshp. Tobin has every right to be have the way he does. It is Patrick Kennedy who has bought this into the public arena but then he is just following the Kennedy family tradition.
Does that mean I’m an honorary publican?
(I’m already a heathen)
KA
And how are we to treat heathens and publican’s ?
By loving them as we love ourselves. As Jesus did, even eating with sinners.
Now, that’s a hard thing to do.
But it is nonetheless what Jesus calls us to do.
then he is just following the Kennedy family tradition.
That’s true. And I think we ought to cut him some slack for being formed in that tradition, one in which it is sometimes harder to see the truth of Catholic social teaching on issues of abortion.
God Bless
…………and the rich man replied master I have kept all these (commandments) since my earliest days.
Jesus looked steadily at him and he was filled with love for him and he said , “you need to do one thing more . Go and sell what you own and give the money to the poor….then come and follow me’
but Kennedys face fell at these words and he went away sad for he was an influential and wealthy congressman……….
Jesus looked around and said to his disciples how hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of heaven…..”
Dei,
Good point.
If we imagine putting ourselves in Kennedy’s shoes then I think we can see the difficulties he faces in his faith.
God Bless
chris,
i actually agree with you here, in a certan sense
it is true that the church is always about mercy – extending the merciful hand of Christ to everybody, especially her own troublesome children when they err
yes, chris, you’re absolutely right. we treat the tax collectors and publican’s like Jesus treated Matthew – with mercy, love, and openess. in fact, some intepretations of that Scripture passage think that Matthew is actually talking about himself, being treated with love and mercy – that is how we treat those who seem to be like that – on the outside, and continually making trouble
but chris, you’re being too narrow-minded in your approach to the WHOLE situation
you need to broaden your horison on the matter
you’re being too conservative in your approach to mercy
you’re only considering pat kennedy!
the church, and bishop tobin, isn’t just considering pat kennedy in her merciful gaze towards this whole situation
the church (embodied in bishop tobin) is also taking into account 4 other sets of people in her mercy and action in this situation
can you guess who they are?
(1) the innocent children that pat kennedy is helping to murder
(2) the vulnerable women that he is helping to procure abortion
(3) the wider catholic public in being confused and scandalised by his actions
(4) the wider community in being confused about what catholicism and her members stand for
you have to apply the attitude of mercy to all these people in a situation like this; anmd tobin is doing just that
if she corrects kennedy, and admonishes him, it is for his own good, from a merciful attitude, but also for the greater good of all these other people, especially the children who are being murdered due to his helping in his voting records.
the church wants their good, and for them to have life, and wants an authentic witness to the truth, which is emminently merciful
the church wants kennedy to have life too, and have it to the full (the life of grace) and so is trying to help him to be faithful, so that he can remain in grace, and that is truly mercy!
mercy is not weakness. it doesn’t just let everything go. that is one of the biggest misconceptions of mercy in today’s climate.
mercy is always remaining in an attitude of offering life toward another (no matter what they have done wrong)
God does this, by remaining faithful to His Fatherhood, and continually offering us life through forgivness in Christ, even after we have sinned. that is what mercy is: – a faithfulness to giving life to another, even when they fall and have sinned.
in that sense, we are all life-givers (in a secondary sense after Jesus) to our brothers and sisters if we offer them life after they fall and hurt us. we become source of life for them through forgiveness. Jesus is the ultimate Source of life for us through forgivness, and we can participate in that, through our offering of forgivness too, when others sin against us
so tobin here, is offering life (mercy) to kennedy by correcting him and reminding him of his responsibilities as a catholic politician in public life making decisions which affect others deeply.
kennedy wields great power here. so tobin is mercifully offering him a way back into communion with the church; he is offering him life, through giving him the truth. that is eminently merciful. tobin is helping kennedy. mercy is not weakness which says, “do what you want, and come to receive Jesus…”
mercy also implies that we receive it – it has a twofold dimension. God offers us mercy in Christ, but many refuse it.
tobin has offered mercy to kennedy, but kennedy has refused it. that is a problem for kennedy, because he his refusing the very life-line which can help him, and save him.
this is analogous to the sin against the Holy Spirit that Jesus spoke of. to refuse mercy, to refuse the live-giving gift of God – the Holy Spirit – is to refuse the offer from God of forgiveness; and that is unforgiveable, because one refuses forgiveness, and because God has an absolute respect for our freedom, he will not force us to receive his mercy, he will not force us to accept to be forgiven.
kennedy has put himself into an arrogant, and pride-filled position by refusing the mercy of tobin, and the mercy of Christ, offered through the church, the sacrament and sign of salvation
kennedy has been told what the church teaches and expects of him. if he refuses to listen, and does his own thing, then the church can say, “well, we’ve offered you the way back, we’ve offered you mercy, but you refuse…the ball is in your caught, but you should refrain from claiming to be a catholic in good standing, and please do no present yourself as such to the wider catholic community, because you’re not in communion with them, so please do not receive Communion with them…”
south sider, thanks for posting st thomas aquinas’ teaching on the matter. that makes it very clear – that because Judas was a private sinner in that sense (his intentions to betray Christ were hidden from others) Jesus did not publicly deny him communion – so as to set an example for his church.
but if he had publicly made known to everybody that he completely disagreed with Jesus and was going to sell Him out, then Jesus would have with-held it.
kennedy has made public his long-held intentons to continue to sell out innocent children to slaughter houses, then the church can deny him communion, until he repents
peace chris
yes, mercy is the way of the gospel, and mercy is being eminently enacted by tobin here.
ciao
Christopher #164;
It is Kennedy who says I can support abortion and still be Catholic in good standing.
Bp Tobib is properly pointing out that this isnt so. In doing this Bp Tobin is showing the way of true mercy.
God bless good Bishops
chris,
the irony is that you actually need to be more liberal in your approach to mercy.
being liberal, propely understood, as desiring to respect the freedom of others, and the freedom in oneself, to see the whole picture here (apart from your personal biases); liberal in desiring to respect not just kennedy’s freedom and background (poor upbringing, poor formation, and thus poor discernment), but also respecting the freedom and rights (liberality), of others in the whole situation: children, mothers, other catholics, and the wider society
this situation isn’t just about kennedy, but his position in public, and how it effects others
you’re being to narrow in your approach chris
peace
If kennedy walked in front of a bus tomorrow he would be judged by God for his actions. If so Bp Tobin may have touched his heart just in time to save his soul.
But if Bp Tobin had been complicit in Kennedys hardening heart that condmned him who have committed the greater wrong?
Christopher, from post #40:
You’re a software developer, I think?
‘I’d be surprised if Pat Kennedy actually knew his faith all that well. After all, he’s a politician, not a theologian”
all the more reason for Bp Tobin to take an interest?
Does anyone else feel that this thread is going around in an unending well worn circle or am I on my own with such a thought?
Well Fishe that is basically the point of this post. A Catholic who takes the slightest genuine interest in their faith will find all of their questions swifly answered. The Catholic Church is not vague about it’s teachings, nor it’s reasons for them. It is not vague about the manner in which it’s members who publically contradict it’s teachings should be dealt with.
There is very little room for us to disagree on anything. Certainly not on abortion rights and the Bishops actions were justifiably Catholic.
However without the voice of one calling out from left field we would miss out on the gems such as the post by South Sider.