Barring Kennedy from the Sacrament
Because he supports abortion rights, a view in conflict with Roman Catholic teaching, Patrick Kennedy is now being banned from taking communion. What is your take on this?
Do you believe in such "church discipline"?
Will this complicate other parishes? (Anyone know?)
Washington (CNN) -- Rhode Island's top Roman Catholic leader has asked Rep. Patrick Kennedy to stop taking Communion over his support for abortion rights, the diocese said Sunday.< In a statement issued Sunday, Providence Bishop Thomas Tobin said he told Kennedy in February 2007 that it would be "inappropriate" for him to continue receiving the fundamental Catholic sacrament, "and I now ask respectfully that you refrain from doing so."
I might be one of the few Catholics who comment on this.
If he sent a private letter asking the senator to refrain from communion, I think the bishop is dutifully pastoring one of his own. He can't do this for every person in the diocese because he does not know the hearts and minds of every person. But this senator very publicly vocalizes arguments against this teaching of his Church and its bishops.
I couldn't watch the CNN clip because the host was engaged in sophistry - claiming to know the bishop's intentions and accusing the bishop of legislating from the cathedra/pulpit. What I think the bishop was trying to say was that, as bishop, he has to protect the faith and morals of the people in his diocese. Of course the bishop can't make an authoritative statement on the morality of every piece of legislation - he is not a statesman. But he can impose Christian discipline on statesmen under his authority if he believes they are separating themselves from the Body of Christ.
Here's a relevant quote from C.S. Lewis:
"People say, 'The Church ought to give us a lead.' That is true if they mean it in the right way, but false if they mean it in the wrong way. By the Church they ought to mean the whole body of practising Christians. And when they say that the Church should give us a lead, they ought to mean that some Christians - those who happen to have the right talents - should be economists and statesmen, and that all economists and statesmen should be Christians, and that their whole efforts in politics and economics should be directed to putting 'Do as you would be done by' into action. If that happened, and if we others were really ready to take it, then we should find the Christian solution for our own social problems pretty quickly. But, of course, when they ask for a lead from the Church most people mean they want the clergy to put out a political programme. That is silly. The clergy are those particular people within the whole Church who have been specially trained and set aside to look after what concerns us as creatures who are going to live for ever: and we are asking them to do quite a different job for which they have not been trained. The job is really on us, on the laymen. The application of Christian principles, say, to trade unionism or education, must come from Christian trade unionists and Christian schoolmasters: just as Christian literature comes from Christian novelists and dramatists - not from the bench of bishops getting together and trying to write plays and novels in their spare time."
Nance (#28) wrote: "I would point out that the issue at hand is not one of a disagreement over 'how to best eliminate abortion.'"
What is the issue at hand? (not a rhetorical question)
I corresponded some with Doug Kmiec, Patrick Whelan and Vickie Kennedy during the POTUS primaries when I was the co-founder and co-owner for romancatholicsforobama.com - all of whom are now board members and/or officers of its successor
Catholics for Obama
and who have providedCatholic Questions and Answers on Abortion
. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is also on that board.Where, then, does Patrick Kennedy differ in substance with them regarding the issue at hand?
John #30 - The difference is Obama is not a Catholic?
Luke (#31) What I was wondering, in particular, was what specific position Patrick Kennedy took on which pieces of legislation or even in position statements that occasioned the Bishop's 2007 letter. I was thinking that Vickie Kennedy's position, for example, might shed some light on same. Also, I was trying to highlight how people might variously describe different legal and political strategies, a practical concern requiring one's prudential judgment, even while holding the same moral positions, employing, instead, one's moral reasoning and judgment. Again, all related to the most effective approaches to take in our pluralistic society with the aim to reduce and eliminate abortion. For example, in addition to supply-side approaches there are also demand-reduction strategies. Of course, strategies are not mutually exclusive, one vs another, but can be pursued on a broad front, some more likely to work than others (based on sociologic data from other countries throughout the world, which have employed various legal and political remedies).
Luke, great blog! And where Thomas Merton is concerned, I am with you on that all the way (even with my great fondness for CS Lewis, also). If you are interested in networking with other Catholics in the emerging church conversation, please feel free to join our new network at
Cathlimergent
. All are welcome!"Where, then, does Patrick Kennedy differ in substance with them regarding the issue at hand." Since it is true that error begets error, the question should be, what are the fundamental errors that can be found in the substance of Patrick Kennedy's argument that can be seen in those of his kindred spirits? Since The Truth does not depend on location, the Catholic Church does not distinguish between Public and Private Morality. The Truth of Love is the same, yesterday, today, and always.
Canon 751 of The Catholic Church states: "Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt after Baptism of a truth which must be believed by Divine and Catholic Faith." Thich includes God's intention for Respect for the Sacredness and Dignity of every Human Person, and Respect for the Sacraments, including Marriage and The Eucharist. It is obstinate to continue to deny the fact that our Constitution, that "Government instituted by Men", is built upon the self-evident, fundamental, unalienable, Right to Life, that has been endowed to each one of us from our Creator from the beginning, and that our Government was instituted to "secure" this fundamental Right to Life. Every one of the self-evident Rights that have been endowed to us by our Creator depends on protecting our Right to Life, to begin with. We can not transform The Truth, for any transformation of The Truth would result in error. The Truth, The Word Of God transforms us, which is why only The Word Of God, Who Is Love to begin with, can set you free.
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.