Kennedy and Tobin: "Why now?"
John Allen has a few interesting thoughts about the
Patrick Kennedy-Bishop Thomas Tobin communion clash:
I have no insider scoop to offer, but I can summarize here what I've been saying on-air: the most interesting question about the story isn't so much "why," but "why now"?
That is, there's no mystery about why Tobin took this step. It's the same logic that has led a handful of other bishops to issue similar edicts to other pro-choice Catholic politicians: communion implies unity with the church, and if you can't accept a core principle of Catholic morality such as the right to life, then taking communion is a sham. One can, of course, debate the theology of that conclusion, or the pastoral wisdom of policing it. The majority of American bishops have not gone this far, mostly because they don't want to turn the Eucharist into a political weapon. But in any event, the terms of debate are reasonably clear, and have been for a long time.
The meaningful question thus becomes, why is a step taken almost three years ago just coming to light now? The answer would appear to have everything to do with the current national debate over health care reform, a debate in which so far the bishops have been fairly important players.
The revelation came from Kennedy, not from Tobin, in an interview with a Providence newspaper. I don't know why Kennedy made the disclosure, but it could be as simple as that he was asked. I've seen it happen with public figures before: they don't plan to make a statement about something, but if the question comes up, they feel obligated to answer it. (The pope's comments on condoms en route to Africa are a classic case in point.)
On the other hand, Kennedy has a deep reservoir of political savvy swimming in his gene pool, and it's impossible not to notice that there are at least two clear political objectives to be served by revealing Tobin's disciplinary act now:
• It's reminder that the bishops don't speak for a unified Catholic bloc when it comes to abortion policy. The political translation is that a legislator doesn't have to worry about losing all 67 million Catholic votes in America if they don't back the bishops' line.
• It creates a PR headache for the bishops, because it shifts the terms of debate from the merits of the pro-life argument to the bishops' tactics in suppressing dissent. In a culture that prizes tolerance, anything that makes an institution look intolerant usually hurts its image, and therefore its political effectiveness.
Check out
the link for much more.
There are any number of ways of interpreting the fall-off in Catholic statistics (both priestly vocations and lay membership) after the institution of the English Mass, but one of them is the sudden discovery of what one has been saying all these years without knowing it. Has anyone explored this issue?
Marian ...
Not sure that's entirely accurate.
Most missals printed before Vatican II provided the faithful with a translation of the prayers, alongside the Latin.
Anyone paying attention knew what they were saying.
Dcn. G.
It also, shows thaat the decrease in the number of priest is directly coincides with the changing of the Mass into English from Latin.
It was actually delayed slightly from that. It coincides most closely with the promulgation of Humanae Vitae.
That's the problem with attempting "scientific experiment" style statements about what historical events correspond with what other events and claiming causality. There are lots of things going on at the same time, and you can't repeat the "experiment" by running the same time over and over under different scenarios.
If you're interested, find yourself a copy of Henri Fesquet's "The Drama of Vatican II", first published in 1966. Fesquet reveals that "the crisis in vocations" was actually a topic of discussion among the fathers of the Council. Fr. Jean Pin, a Jesuit scholar, was invited by some of the bishops to give a presentation on "The Crisis of the Priesthood." Fr. Pin began by insisting that, "There is such a crisis. The vocation shortage is critical." This was 1965 and was not the first or only time at the Council that the shortage of priestly vocations was discussed.
Richard any % of abuse is too much. Abuse is a learned cycle and therefore the priests have taught others to abuse. How anyone can defend the catholic church for this is beyond my belief. We are talking about a Catholic that refused communion to Kennedy. Not the other denominations. God and only God is the judge.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.