Since the ascent of the Democrat Party began in 2006 I’ve noticed somewhat of an awakening in the leaders of the Catholic Church. They have always been staunchly pro-life but have traditionally been reluctant to call out even the most blatant pro-abortion politicians who call themselves Catholic.
The latest dust-up is between Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), son of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, and his Bishop Thomas J. Tobin. Curiously, this row actually started over two years ago, when Tobin asked Kennedy not to take communion because of his support of abortion rights. No one really knows why Kennedy decided to make it public now but it seems to have something to do with Catholic leaders refusing to support health care unless protections for the unborn are included (see Stupak Amendment in the House’s version of health care reform). Regardless of the reason, Bishop Tobin seems more than willing to oblige:
Since our recent correspondence has been rather public, I hope you don’t mind if I share a few reflections about your practice of the faith in this public forum. I usually wouldn’t do that – that is speak about someone’s faith in a public setting – but in our well-documented exchange of letters about health care and abortion, it has emerged as an issue. I also share these words publicly with the thought that they might be instructive to other Catholics, including those in prominent positions of leadership.
For the moment I’d like to set aside the discussion of health care reform, as important and relevant as it is, and focus on one statement contained in your letter of October 29, 2009, in which you write, “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” That sentence certainly caught my attention and deserves a public response, lest it go unchallenged and lead others to believe it’s true. And it raises an important question: What does it mean to be a Catholic?
“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.”
Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does. Although I wouldn’t choose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church. This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents.
In his letter to Tobin, Kennedy excuses his support of abortion rights as acknowledging “the existence of an imperfect humanity.” Tobin pulls no punches in responding:
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.
(Side note: the “imperfect humanity” excuse seems to be pulled directly from his dying father’s plea to the Pope for absolution after a political lifetime of egregious violations of Church teachings. He didn’t really seek atonement. There was no act of penance. Just a flippant “Eh, we’re all human, right?”)
It should be said that the Church remains a staunch supporter of health care reform…as long as those most innocent among us are protected. I strongly disagree with the Church on their support for government-run health care but I recognize their rights to lobby for such reform.
But the Church’s conditional support is not enough for some folks. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) has decided Catholic Bishops should be excluded from the debate:
I expect political hardball on any legislation as important as the health care bill.
I just didn’t expect it from the United States Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
Who elected them to Congress?
Who elected ACORN to Congress? Who elected NARAL, SEIU, UAW or AARP to Congress? Does Ms. Woolsey really want to go down that road? Apparently so:
And this political effort was subsidized by taxpayers, since the Council enjoys tax-exempt status.
When I visit churches in my district, we are very careful to keep everything “non-political” to protect their tax-exempt status.
The IRS is less restrictive about church involvement in efforts to influence legislation than it is about involvement in campaigns and elections.
Given the political behavior of USCCB in this case, maybe it shouldn’t be.
Such hypocrisy! When a member of Congress visits churches it is, by definition, political. Woolsey isn’t the only politician jumping in. Two of the Democrats seeking to replace Rep. Kennedy’s father in the Senate have decided the Church needs to shut up:
“It seems to me a little bit ironic that a church that was willing to overlook the victimization of many, many children over several years is now turning around and saying to people who are good Christians, good Catholics, that, ‘You can’t join this,’ ’’ Attorney General Martha Coakley, who is Catholic, said during a campaign forum broadcast last night.
Said her rival, US Representative Michael E. Capuano: “And they wonder why people stop going to church.’’ Capuano, who is Catholic, then ticked off issues on which he disagreed with the church, including abortion rights, same-sex marriage, and prohibitions against the ordination of women and married men as priests.
Coakley bringing up the victimization of children by priests is more than a “little bit ironic”. It’s disgusting:
The dispute over the Catholic Church came on a day when Coakley was forced to defend her role in a 1995 probation agreement, in which her office investigated claims that the Rev. John J. Geoghan inappropriately touched three grade-school brothers and made lewd telephone calls to their home. The Globe reported yesterday that, rather than prosecute, Coakley agreed to grant Geoghan a year of probation in a closed-door proceeding.
Geoghan’s was one of the most public cases when abuses in the Church began coming to light.
The Catholic Church has every right to admonish it’s political members for their public positions. They generally keep the admonishment private but since Kennedy decided to make the disagreement public they are certainly well within their rights to respond publicly. The Catholic Church is very clear on the issue of abortion. There is no politically-motivated wiggle room. If Rep. Kennedy is unwilling to accept the tenets of the Church perhaps it is time he find a new home.
{ 50 comments }
Words are insufficient to convey the contempt I have for Lynn Woolsey. She is simply despicable.
Good post, Hammie.
#1 Took a while. Thanks for the links, btw.
This Coakley character is a piece of work, too. Sure hope she doesn’t end up in the Senate.
Just like all the other Liberal policies and ideas.
“We (Libs) shouldn’t have to change our beliefs, YOU (church, Conservatives, Republicans) should change YOUR beliefs to what WE (Libs) want.”
Just like the 2nd Amendment issues. Conservatives want people to be able to protect themselves – but don’t DEMAND that EVERYONE have a gun. Liberal don’t like guns – so NOBODY is allowed to have a gun.
Such blatant (bleeping, bleep, bleeeeeeping, bleeptiy-bleep bleep) hypocrisy.
Good for Bishop Tobin. Not that many decades ago, it would have been Kennedy’s words that would have been scandalous. Now, liberal Democrats are trying to put the Church on the defensive for daring to stand by its doctrine.
With this Pope, and bishops like this, I can’t imagine political gangsterism like suggesting revocation of tax exempt status is going to have much effect.
Woolsey is seepage with feet.
I think the Catholic Church needs to get much tougher on the pro-abortion politicians; they need to formally excommunicate them, as the Church doctrine dictates. It really is not that complicated, what part of “life begins at conception” do you not understand??? I have many beefs with the Catholic Church, on this issue however, I am in full agreement.
Here, here Bonecrusher – exactly my sentiments. Do what should be done and there is nothing that Congress could say about it. There would not be a problem, except that Queen Nancy, the Kennedy’s and a host of other Catholic lites would be bannished from the communion rail and have to go to a Lutheren church or somewhere they might be wanted, Of course I did not mean to diminish the good name of my Lutheren brothers in Christ. Sorry about that boys!
bonecrusher & johnny833 – The finality of excommunication is something I feel should be used only in extreme cases. I’m not saying the Kennedy’s and Pelosi’s of the world don’t meet that definition but I’m comfortable with their respective dioceses’ making those somber decisions.
I’m very encouraged that the Church leaders are finally not just remaining silent when it comes to these heretics. Silence is tantamount to tacit approval.
And it’s not just Catholic leaders that need to step up, as johnny points out. Another encouraging sign is the ecumenical Manhattan Declaration:
Amen!
I’m surprised (and disappointed) that, given his strong pro-life credentials, our own Cardinal DiNardo is not yet a signatory to the Manhattan Declaration.
There’s a name for Catholics who willfully choose not to follow the Catechism and other teachings of the Church: Protestants.
Like hamous, I think that excommunication should be reserved for especially egregious cases. We all need to remember that the souls of those who, by their own actions, foster and cause grave scandal in the body of Christ are exactly as precious as the souls of the aborted babies, regardless of what the owners of those souls happen to do with them. The bishops are the vicars of Christ in our time and place; they have the responsibility of shepherding their flocks, guiding them toward righteousness.
This is the ultimate question when pondering excommunication. Is the body of Christ helped or harmed, as a whole, by forcing a person away from the ecclesial community?
Indeed, late to the party are the Bishops and Archbishops, but they finally made it in speaking out. Yea for the Manhattan Declaration. While they’re at it in commenting on health care reform protection for the lives of the innocent and powerless, they need to speak louder about the elderly.
What was not done before the election cannot be taken back; they were largely silent in the face of information about Obama’s support for abortion and infanticide. Let this be a meaningful learning experience all the way around.
As for Martha Coakley in MA, I shudder to think she might be distant kin to me. My maiden name was Coakley, but we were a Wisconsin family.
#7 and 8 Just so that there is no misunderstanding, I was raised Catholic and left that faith a long time ago for a host of reasons. In the last few years I have found many examples where the teachings of the Catholic Church are in direct conflict with the Scriptures, Volume 1 also known as the Old Testament and Volume 2. That being said, and I do not intend to debate the above in this post, the Catholic church is correct in that there are absolutes in what is and is not sin. Taking the life of an innocent person is sin, Exodus 20:6, thou shall not murder. There is no rational basis for the belief that life begins at any other time that conception. Kennedy, Pelousy, et al who advocate and legislate otherwise are in direct conflict with foundational Catholic teaching. It is the duty and responsibility for the Catholic clergy to prohibit Communnion AND, if there is no repentance, to excommunicate the offenders. If you cannot draw the line there then there is no line to be drawn. . . . . why bother to have any rules or codes of conduct at all?
#8 Paul was pretty clear on what should be done:
1 Cor 5:1-5
Immorality Rebuked
5 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. 2 You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.
3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
NASU
1 Cor 5:6-8
6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? 7 Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
NASU
Those who refuse to walk in The Way after being confronted with their sin (willful disobedience) are like bad leaven or cancer. They need to be removed from the body until they repent or they will wind up poisoning the body.
Proslepsis
I guess that also means that every Catholic who practices “artifical birth control” (uses the pill, condom or any device) should also leave the Church immediately. After all Pope Paul VI clearly labled that an unacceptable and morally wrong practice that violates Natural Law and the teachings of the church in 1965. Seems like there are millions of Catholics who have violated that teaching of the Church.
#12 WUSRPH
Since I have never heard of anyone in the Catholic Church being denied communion because they had used preventative birth control, it might be the Church makes a serious distinction between preventing a conception as opposed to ending the life of an unborn child.
Of course, huge, fundamental dissimilarities in those two acts would probably escape a discerning, steel-trap mind like yours.
I find it amazing how focused on the Catholic Church non-Catholics seem to be. I seldom hear the same, ahem, “focus” being turned on the Baptists or Episcopalians.
#12 The Church is above all pragmatic and seeks the long view recognizing that man is imperfect. Sex for procreation instead of pleasure is one of those internal squabbles that while dogmatic is not high on the list of sins.
From a RC standpoint life begins at conception and yes, most chemical means abort the zygote and yes the church in the past has refused communion for adherants who use this a public means of family planning. It’s now in don’t ask don’t tell mode. It pops up occasionally in proposed legislation permitting health care workers to not dispense BC pills if it conflicts with their ethics.
I’m not sure why there’s a perception that the Church is waking up, this has been an issue as long as I remember with certain Bishops raising the issue (Kansas?) for many years. As it’s primarily a Bishop perogative and ultimately a pastoral issue, discrete shopping around usually resolves the issue. In Representative Kennedy’s case (barring new developments) Bishop Tobin denies that he has given instructions to not accept Kennedy’s communion.
Two other interesting points, the Church got snippy a number of years ago about Protestant efforts to drive the issue. They found it annoying that some groups were faulting the Church for their long term views on priestly transgressions and abortion.
The other point is back to that long term view thing, the majority of the Supreme Court is Catholic, is anyone seriously suggesting the Church excommunicate them for their rulings favoring the Constitution over Church teachings?
You neglected to mention their stance on immigration, IIRC someone equated the United States Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) with Catholics for Abortion.
The wisest words I have read so far. The Church moves at her own pace.
#13 texpat
). Many forms of contraception (the Pill, IUD’s) work by preventing a fertilized zygote from successfully implanting on the uterine wall. These are the forms the Church has the most problems with. Other forms work by preventing fertilization in the first place (diaphragm, condom, sponge, foam, NFP), so they are much less problematic.
Shamaal actually swerved into a bit of the truth regarding artificial contraception (even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then
#10 bonecrusher
It is the duty of the bishops of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, to tend their flocks. That means the entire flock, those who follow the teachings exactly, as well as those who have lost their way. See Luke’s Gospel 15:1-7.
Like I said above, every human soul is precious beyond speaking, even those who have fallen. It is our duty, all of us, to try to help our fallen brothers and sisters see the error of their ways. Is the best way to do that by shunning them?
#16 wagonburner
My thoughts regarding birth control, with cites, have been posted before, there’s nothing new. The fact is use of abortofascient methods of birth control are abortion. The Church also isn’t fooled by claims that chemical BC pills gel up the mucus so conception cannot occur. The Church has not struggled with the topic, they are emphatic; they are also pragmatic.
Funny, that’s near the same quote I remember the last time the Council Of Bishops commented on instructions from the SBC how to run their Church. I’ll have to go back and check my links.
Bull. You need to quit lying to bolster your flawed arguments.
#19 hamous
That was you?
And you are right, it was Catholics for Choice that was equated with the US Council of Catholic Bishops. My apologies.
So I guess this means that ACORN is Democrat Party.
BTW – You don’t do coy very well.
Pretty lame response hamous. I won’t remind anyone of Catholic Campaign for Human Development’s paying ACORN $7.5M for services.
Man up, you made a knee jerk response without having a clue what I was writing about.
The term for today is Cafeteria Catholicism.
Blah blah blah.
Anyway, I’ll take Squawk’s advice and just wish you and everyone else Happy Thanksgiving.
And a Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours, sir.
Sorry to bore you Protestants and others with inter-Catholic stuff, but to make the point clear to TexPat:
In the teachings of the Church, the use of artificial birth control by a Catholic is
a sin. This is not just a simple statement from an individual priest but the clear holding of Pope Paul VI in his Papal Encyclical Humane Vitae.
The effects of the sin can be removed by Confession, however, contrary to the belief of many Protestants and even of some Catholics about what Confession means to a Catholic ; a confession IS NOT VALID unless there is a sincere repentance and a dedication NOT TO COMMIT THE SIN AGAIN!
The Church recognizes that, because of the weakness of human nature, the sinner may commit the same sin again. HOWEVER, it can be held that, confessing the sin, while intending to continue to commit it by continuing the use of artificial birth control, means there is not a sincere intent and, thus, the confession is invalid.
According to Hamous (above) if you do not accept the Church’s teachings you should leave it. If that is the case, the same should go for those who are unwilling to accept the teaching on artificial birth control.
It is true that many priests have apparently quietly chosen to, in effect, ignore the teachings of Humane Vitae by allowing those without sincere repentance to continue receiving the sacraments. It is also clear, however, that if Paul VI is correct in his interpretation of Natural Law, those who continue to practice artificial birth control will have to answer for that on Judgment Day.
I could not accept the Church’s teaching—as expressed by Paul VI—on artificial birth control. As such, I am no longer a practicing Catholic.
(I, just as did a majority of the members of the Papal Commission he appointed to study the question, believed that it could be permissible under an argument based on “the totality of the circumstances”. Paul VI, on the other hand, held that since the practice interferes with the natural process of reproduction, it is a violation of Natural Law and thus not permissible.)
Ain’t theological hair-splitting fun!
Perhaps it’s everyone’s secret wish to share in a worldwide club with traditions, rules, a body of work and a legacy. Everyone’s heard of Notre Dame or Hagia Sophia. What do Protestants have to show? The Crystal Cathedral, ticky tack megachurches and the excesses of Oral Roberts.
If one doesn’t like the Southern Baptist Conference one can always go to the Baptist General Convention of Texas. Shopping around Diocese is a little bit trickier and you still have to hold to the basic tenets. For some folks like WUSRPH the venial sin associated with rubbers became too much. He’d be welcome in any Protestant Church.
Of course this secret desire thing is just a theory, it wouldn’t explain non gays amazing focus and fixation on the homosexual lifestyle …………………….
No, that’s not what I said. I said you should consider leaving. “Perhaps” being the operative.
WagonBurner, while the Church needs to reach out to the lost, they also need to exercise discipline amongst their own. BoneCrusher hits on the head that “a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough”. This is to mean that when a member of the Church is in sin, they are to be confronted, not just once but numerous time and even by the church leadership. IF the Brother who is in sin does not turn from his sin and repent, the church is to shun them. It is clear cut. IF the church does not deal with it, that member will become a bad influence among the members. IT will lead to a compromise on one issue to another until you are left with a church that is not following the teachings and precepts of God but those of man. The result is the removal of Gods Blessings from that church.
While the church is called to shun sin, they are not called to tolerate it. The Church can reach out to sinners and have them attend church but they are not to be allowed to participate in leadership roles or rites. The question becomes at what point is a person held accountable for their continued actions/sins?
To address Shamaal’s point, it is not that the church has a fixation on the topic of Homosexuality. It is the Church has a fixation on the issue of sin. Not just one particular sin, all of them. IT is just that the issue of homosexuality has been pushed to the fore-front by the GLBT groups. It has become a issue at the fore-front cause you have had several denominations/congregations ignore God’s Word and openly flaunt and accept sinful behavior in the Church.
The protestors in RI this week seem to have a different view of Tobin’s debate, which is easy to understand. The diocese has had some major cases with huge financial implications and many families still do not feel justice has been served. If I was one of the victims of abuse in the Providence diocese, I have to admit that I would probably be much more likely to be of the mindset to despise Tobin rather than Woolsey.
WUSRPH has a good summation. It may possibly be the church that has a “steel-trap mind” in this regard as it is difficult to figure how they continue to equate birth control with sin in so many of the third world portions of the world. Africa specifically in my experience is hard to understand. If the church does make such a serious distinction between the sins then they ought to forget the “perhaps” and clarify that to the flock now, especially when it is of such a potentially major quality of life changing nature.
It was during the primaries that Tobin was after Giuliani on the same issue. Do we know how his Bishop has handled the debate with him?
If we followed Joseph Smith instead of the Pope we could always hope for an expediantly placed revelation to alter such scripture interpretations.
Giuliani’s Cardinal Egan has been silent on the matter.
I’ve never seen communion denied to anyone my entire life. I’ve seen people I know weren’t “in communion” receive communion. Divorced, cohabitation outside matrimony, politicians who have 100% NARAL ratings. Even some who aren’t Catholic. When you walk up to that communion rail you have a responsibility to make sure you are right with God. Ultimately you’ll have to answer, not your priest, for your actions.
But like I said above, I’m willing to let the Church leaders make a decision on this. I must say I wish they would follow in Archbishop Joseph Rummel’s footsteps.
You know when you look at this the Church allowed Geoghan to continue to molest, even after he had admitted numerous abuses to them. And for almost 30 years they enabled it, even providing him comfort when his troubles were weighing on him. In all honesty, that seems far more disgusting than Coakley’s plea deal especially considering the limited sexual contact that was testified to by the victims in that case. She probably should have brought it trial even if it was sure to fail just to bring public attention to the priest. But that is only becuase the Church itself refused to do anything to stop his abuse, only making efforts to hide it and protect Geoghan. What was the Church reaction and input to the prosecutor concerning the charges against him at that time?
The Church also has a responsibility to be right with God, perhaps an even bigger one than members of the flock. They clearly failed miserably in that rightness in the sexual abuse of children in both Boston and Providence. How will they answer to God for that ultimately?
So I’m not sure we should be so willing to allow Church leaders to make important decisions without any consideration of accountability. And with the tales from Ireland right now you might expect the Church to try and take a more humble and less attention garnering stance.
I’m not following your logic here. This post isn’t about the failings of the Church in regards to sexual abuse of children. Those failings in no way absolve the leaders of their responsibility to speak out against the ultimate abuse of children – killing them. They most certainly shouldn’t take a “more humble” approach.
First, who is “we”? Catholics? The government? And what “accountability” do they have with regards to abortion? Sounds like you just want them to shut up.
Occasionally one hears of Communion denied. Generally speaking though pressure is brought to bear by a senior official, In this case Bishop Tobin, In Giuliani’s case it was Cardinal Egan, in Governor Sebelius case it was Archbishop Nauman. I do not recall anyone instructing the parish priests to deny the Eucharist. Even in Rep Kennedy’s issue, Bishop Tobin denies that he issued those kind of instructions. Some judicious parish shopping usually solves the dilemna and there’s always the Diocese that contains DC.
IMO as an observer, excommunication isn’t even on the table nor is exorcism.
Regarding the seemliness of attempting to influence the political process, it’s a free country. I’m sure someone is weighing the pros and cons of needling Catholic politicians, perhaps there is a sufficient influx of RC immigrants to offset potential WASC losses. I do draw the line at supporting individuals or political parties. There’s something out whack in the parish in the link I provided.
The supposed elephant in the room is reconciling the Church’s response to the long term abuse of young boys in its care and their response to government policy. Personally, not being Roman Catholic, it is not my problem. The facts speak for themselves, the legal and civil courts function and besides, it’s a free country.
I just don’t understand why y’all keep trying to link the pedophilia cases with the Church’s stance on abortion. From a theological standpoint they are mutually exclusive. In the abuse cases the civil and criminal courts take care of that issue, as they should. Having an inside seat I can tell you there have been very real reforms within the Church as well. Those terrible abuses cannot and should not be used to silence the Church on its teachings.
Actually, Bishop Raymond Burke of Wisconsin did just that.
To: Shamaal
My leaving the Church was for much more than just a concern about what you consider a venal sin. Let’s just say that I was unable to do what Kierkegarrd said was the defintion of Faith.
Yes I meant Catholics by “we”. The failings of the church in their dealings with the use of religious authority as a doorway to the sexual abuse of children are inexcusable on so many levels (for me at least). I guess the issue is of moral credibility instead of mutual exclusiveness and it really comes down to whether or not it was your child or the child of a friend or relative that was one of the victims of the policies of the Church.
Apparently the Church feels as you do, as they did little to assist the prosecution of pedophiles in that period, and more disgustingly even less to stop the potential for them to repeat their abuses under their influence as men of the cloth. Those actions leave the overall moral credibility of their teachings in serious question, regardless of their postiion on abortion.
JFK has been our only Catholic President. What did he say about the influence of religion during the 1960 election when he faced so much bias for this religion?
During the 70s and 80s, when most of the abuse took place, the Church took its cue from “the authorities”. The reigning pop psychology at the time was to treat child sexual abuse as a mental illness that could be cured, not as the crime that it is. And as I mentioned the reforms within the Church, while painfully overdue, have taken place. Perhaps you’re correct that I would feel differently if I had been abused. But I grew up during the period when most of this happened. I was never abused. I don’t know anyone that was. In fact I have never met anyone that knew anyone that was.
But for at least the fourth time, none of that has any bearing on this thread. Protection of the unborn is a universal and fundamental cause and the Church would be just as wrong to remain silent about it as it was on sexual abuse by clergy.
You are seriously offering that as the reason the abuses in the Church continued for decades? The Church position was the eternal possibility of redemption and forgiveness of sins. And yes there have been changes.
The only bearing on the thread would be choice in the Church’s choosing what and whom to punish. In the twenties it was drinking, in the 1880s it was gambling in the 50s it was segregation. Good link (#30) incidentally regarding Archbishop Rummel’s actions, it should receive more publicity.
It’s a curious distinction though in declaring procured abortion a grave sin. The difference between abortion and procured abortion is a distinction to which I have not given much thought.
But I digress. So far the matter of of communion for legislators is left up to the diocese, as it is for opposition to health care, immigrant rights, gambling and other sundry issues. The politician who declares opposition to abortion, but votes for laws that reduce the need for abortions, free prenatal care for example, is off the hook. Sort of a don’t ask don’t tell situation. I suspect that is where the issue will remain.
Not at all. I offered it as a contributing factor, not an excuse. But I’m done with your warped line of reasoning in trying to link these two issues. Continue if you want but you’ll do it without me.
I wasn’t the one who pointed out Coakley’s magnanimous act and deference to the Church as a moral weakness rendering any subsequent pronouncements scandalous.
Yeah, in its way I guess that is kinda warped.
No you weren’t. Coakley was the one who first made the same warped comparison you’ve been trying to make for the last three days. You just parroted her claim like a good little progressive.
Sorry, not guilty. I did not bring the topic up – you did. And it hasn’t been three days. You are creating a homo avenae and are becoming frustrated that I am not participating in Church bashing.
Stop fixating on that aspect of the topic; as I wrote before – it ain’t my problem.
And perhaps this is pointing towards your perception. The Church has always been pro-life, not just anti abortion. Womb to tomb, conception to interment not just the icky parts that mean the government can tell folks what not to do. And yes that includes birth control and quality of life and death penalties and no divorces and euthanasia. And the Church has been at the forefront from Father Berrigan, Bishop Rummel, Maura Clarke, Ita Ford and Dorothy Kazel and thousands of others who toil to make the world a better place. No wonder they talk about Americans being cafeteria Catholics.
And all some folks can say is Has the Church Had Enough?
Dude, are you even reading what I post? I said you didn’t bring it up. You just repeated Coakley’s assertions. And I didn’t bring it up except to link to her ridiculous and hypocritical statements.
Polly want a cracker?
Coakley’s office did put Geoghan away in prison seven years after the first case she had to deal with him in. At the time of the first case Geoghan had already admitted to the Church more than once that he had sexually assaulted children. What did the Church do in 1995 to stop his confessed ongoing abuse? Did they provide those confessions to Coakley’s office? To assail Coakley’s comments as “warped”, “disgusting” or “hypocritical” in comparison to the behavior of the Church seems an indefensible position.
In the handling of clerical child sexual abuse the Church has clearly shown that it is not infallible. The larger implications of that depend upon individual faith. But certainly the people that enabled the abuse should have been banned from communion for the same reasons as Kennedy. Were they? Tobin himself should be banned until he releases all the unknown names in the Church records of priests involved in sexual abuse of children. Has he done that? That is where the two issues connect, and where humility should come in.
You are correct though that perhaps members of the church that disagree should look at moving on to another. Depending upon your politics or religious viewpoint, perhaps the LDS/Mormon faiths which have a much more liberal right to life position, or the Protestant denominations which do not have the same record of child sexual abuse cover-up at such a scale.
Rrrrrr!
But it is about people not parrots. Perhaps this is where we disconnect.
Approaching this another way – Will we also see somewhat of an awakening of the Church leaders on issues that do not revolve around the Democratic party?
Pope Benedict faces demand to dismiss Irish bishops in child abuse scandal
Braaarrrck!
A good point.
You’ll have to excuse the noisy bird, he’s molting and only one offering in the cafeteria line doesn’t disagree with his digestion.
I would submit that the Church position across the board has been reasonably consistent, the difference being the weight given to their pronouncements by various political factions. Cardinal DiNardo and others would continue to lobby curtailing women’s choices regardless of whether they had publicity or not. They only have influence becasue one political party has declined to participate in the political process; such is the nature of politics. Should they get their way and change the private insurance industry’s offerings the Church will support HCR and the Cafeteria Catholics will line up behind the Protestants to rail about undue influence.
I guess that means you agree the Bishops involved in the Ireland cover-up should be denied communion for their actions in the same way Tobin feels it should be denied Kennedy for his position.
The focus on Tobin’s stand against Kennedy masks the bigger problem of the Church’s future influence on political and social issues. Today’s issue of The Post in Ireland has a report from Boston that sums it up.
Comments on this entry are closed.