Now that’s a bishop!

I just had to look at data from the Gallup poll (I know, I know, its not a popularity contest), but Kennedy’s views are not uncommon among Catholics. 40% of Catholics believe that abortion is ‘morally acceptable – Gallup language’ which draws the lowest numbers. Ask if it should be banned in cases of rape or incest and the numbers go through the roof. The numbers of Catholics who support gay marriage, sex outside of marriage and divorce are at odds with Bishop Tobin’s views.
I bring this up because I don’t see Bishop Tobin going after his flock with the same vigor. Should he accept their money, forbid communion? Rhode Island is a very ‘blue’ state after all, perhaps an interdict for the whole state is in order.

I find it hard to believe that some one within the Church has finally called the infallible Kennedys. From Chappaquidick to abortion on demand I have never understood how the Church could stand silient.None of us are perfect but why do we keep electing people that won’t protect the unborn. There is no excuse for the Kerry’s , Pelosi’s and the like.How can a person who believes that murdering the unborn is okay, take Holy Communion and not be totally ashamed?
How can a Church that knows the position of these people give them Holy Communion? They are quite vocal in thier beleifs and yet we all let them slide?

DML in your ignorance you make the point of the Bishop; SCANDAL! One of the reasons “40% of catholics are ok with aboriton” is because of public figures like the Kennedy’s. When a public figure creates scandal, it is not only correct, but imperative that the Bishops speak out, as it has grave consequences “to the flock.”
This is NOT the case with private folks, unless of course they create a PUBLIC scandal.

If only abortionist were aborted it would be a self solving problem.

There’s a big difference between a disagreement over the morality of abortion and a disagreement over what the correct public policy toward abortion should be.
Does a law banning abortion make abortion go away? (Experience from the past says no.) Does refusing to spend public money on abortion make abortion to away? (Experience from the past says no.) Would effectively eliminating health insurance coverage of abortion make abortion go away? (Based on the above two experiences, a dubious proposition.)
Where the bishop does have the member of Congress on, however, is any sense of the public approbation of abortion. But public policy changes when public opinion changes, as the civil rights movement in our lifetime demonstrates. Loud, authoritarian assertions of the supremacy of the church’s teachings will not change anyone’s mind.

While I’m glad to see this, I truly hope that this message was delivered in person first .. and months ago.
There seems to be two camps among the bishops. There are those who endorse dialogue. They want to talk to pro-choice politicians and teach them the wrongness of their position. Then there are those who endorse consequences. They want to tell pro-choice politicians that they should not receive Communion or even deny them of it.
There are of course nuances to both camps and intermediate positions, but what I think we need is a true fusion of the two. The horse is out of the barn – there are already a lot of pro-choice Catholic politicians, and it has been tolerated for a long time – so we are going to have to lead it back.
I think that bishops need to go to these politicians .. literally go to their offices or homes, go meet them rather than calling them into the diocesan offices. (If the politician won’t receive them, then they need to summon them.) Our bishops need to begin with shepherding, with the approach of the dialogue camp. They need to teach and correct. They need to be persistent and be patient. They need to make it clear that as long as they reject Catholic teaching, they have removed themselves from Communion with the faithful and therefore should not present themselves for Communion. And they should keep it all private. It is fine to let people know that the pastoral process is going on, but not the details.
If the politician refuses to engage in this kind of process, or the pastoral approach does not lead to their conversion then the bishop should follow the more “consequences” camp. They should announce that they have tried to do. And they should make it clear that the politician has removed themselves from Communion, and since it has been done in such a public way, the bishop must respond publicly. I think that only then should the bishop deny the politician Communion until they reform.
I don’t think endless dialogue works. If there is no consequence for its failure, there is not as much motivation to make it succeed. But I think pastoral care requires that private correction and teaching must precede public consequences. It is not only more pastoral, compassionate and effective, it gives the consequences more legitimacy in the public square .. something we shouldn’t have to worry about, but do have to worry about.

In addition to RP’s sensible comments, I’d like to point out the oft-cited problem of thinking of Catholics as poor dumb sheep blindly following the Kennedys. Or some other leader.
If it’s an error when criticizing Bishop Trautman, it’s certainly an error here to suggest that it’s because of politicians that 40% of Catholics, who, though they might not procure an abortion themselves, do not have a problem with lifting a prohibition for others, and are therefore, stupid, as George Weigle puts it.
It might be suggested that rigorists themselves are partly to blame for the US having pretty much the most libertarian approach to abortion in the free world. With neighbors like anti-abortion extremists, why would anyone want to fuss with walking on their sidewalks?
While it is reprehensible that Mr Kennedy doesn’t seem to have a bad thing to say about abortion (just rolling on the commentariat’s momentum on that one) and no doubt many of his political opponents might wish for a smackdown on the soapbox of scandal, one must also consider the likely result of this public communication. We all know the representative can stick his tongue out, waggle his fingers near his ears, and generally tell anti-abortion folks to stuff it while blowing raspberries. He won’t lose his wealth, house, or freedom. He likely won’t lose his House seat. He might still even go to Communion. And the abortions will roll on down his street and ours. What will be accomplished? What little life will be saved?

As to the 40% of Catholics who support abortion, further polling shows that a very large majority of these catholics do not attend church once a week or more either. So they do not attend mass on Sundays and do not support the non negotiable position on abortion. Most also do not support marriage by their support of another non negotiable issue which is gay marriage. So why do they bother to pretend to be catholics? There are thousands of religions waiting for them. As to the USCCB, it is still a left wing liberal conference. The good news, as with the left wing women relgious groups is that they are getting old and dying out to be replaced by strong traditional priests, bishops, and nuns who will reform the reform errors from the spirtit of vatican II that were never ever there. The left wants to change the rules of the game without having the authority. They invented reforms not in Vatican II and invented the right of privacy and abortion rights out of the constitution when the words are not there.

Bishop Tobin’s letter should be on the syllabus for How to Be a Bishop 101, which should be mandatory training for every member of the USCCB.