Patrick Kennedy, His Bishop, and Being "Catholic"
There's an interesting article today about the public rift playing out in Rhode Island between Patrick Kennedy (son of the late Senator) and his Bishop, Thomas Tobin. Apart from its visibility, there's nothing all that new here (at least by recent standards). This quote from the Bishop did stand out to me, though:
If you freely choose to be a Catholic, it means you believe certain things, you do certain things, Bishop Tobin said on WPRO, a Providence radio station. If you cannot do all that in conscience, then you should perhaps feel free to go somewhere else.
The casual dismissiveness of the Bishop's attitude really struck a chord with me, because it reminded me of so many conversations I've had with conservative Catholics, both in the comments section here, and in other (mostly on-line) exchanges at other sites.In recent years, I have, more than a few times, been asked to explain why I do not "go somewhere else." Most of the time, my disagreements with the hierarchy have centered around the Church's treatment of contraception (particularly in the context of HIV prevention) and homosexuality, though I also have had occasion to disagree with the weight some bishops have assigned to the abortion issue (as well as the aforementioned issues) as against other questions (such as the environment, economic justice, war, torture, etc.). Over the course of my adult life, the public face of the Church has become increasingly distant from my own political beliefs and priorities. The days seem long past when the USCCB could publish a document like Economic Justice for All, or when I could (as I did when I was about 8 years old) march with my local archbishop (Hunthausen) in a nuclear freeze protest at the Bangor submarine base. We on the Catholic left need to face the fact that the Church's hierarchy simply feels much more comfortable with the political agenda of the Republican Party than it does with that of the Democrats. Abortion, stem cells, and opposition to gay marriage just matter more to most of the bishops than universal health care or workers' rights. (Hence the full episcopal press on the Stupak amendment, followed by a pretty stony silence on the merits of the reform bill itself.)Given the face the Church increasingly presents to the world, part of me agrees with Bishop Tobin when he says that to call oneself Catholic while rejecting this constellation of views and priorities is a form of "false advertising," particularly when I have no intention of turning my back on views (e.g., that an HIV positive husband can and should use a condom when having sex with his wife) that my conscience tells me with no equivocation are correct. And yet -- to my occasional discomfort -- I continue to call myself "Catholic." I attend mass at my parish every Sunday. I even bring my kids, much to the confusion of my Hindu wife, who frequently wonders out loud why I would pass on this sort of conflicted existence to the next generation of the Penalver family. I share her bewilderment, and yet I find that I cannot do otherwise. I certainly cannot see myself suddenly changing my path and attending services at the Episcopalian parish around the corner from St. James.This is a long, very round-about way of getting to the point of this post. Bishop Tobin's attitude towards being Catholic -- accept teachings X, Y, and Z, or go to another institution that does not affirm them -- strikes me as nothing if not supremely un-Catholic in its ethos. I've always (probably unfairly) associated Protestantism with the sort of "shop around or found a new denomination" mentality implicit in Tobin's casually dismissive remark . In contrast, I have always felt my identity as a Catholic to be far too organic and deeply rooted to be jettisoned because of my disagreements with the hieararchy, however important the issues. (To be clear, I'm not saying that all Protestants approach things this way. Indeed, I suspect that many Protestants have an equally deep connection to their particular denomination, or at least, to the idea of being Protestant.) Being Catholic is not just about the way I relate to a laundry-list of authoritative teachings or to the bishops or to my parish priest (who I really love). It's also about how I relate to my mom and dad, my two sons, and (before they died) my grandparents; even how I relate to my identity as a Cuban-American. This conflict between Catholic officialdom and Catholic identity is probably as old as the Church itself. It's certainly endemic within Latin American Catholicism -- I think here of Jose Marti urging campesinos to baptize their own children rather than pay a priest to do it for them, not to mention all the travails of the Theology of Liberation. It's all very messy -- like a big, extended family with lots of crazy uncles and embarrassing second-cousins. And, in my mind, this messiness is very distinctively Catholic. I'm not trying to make any deep theological point with this -- I just want to challenge the wisdom of bishops being so quick to urge people to leave for greener pastures and expressing such cavalier attitudes about who counts as Catholic, and why.UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan comments on the Patrick Kennedy situation. Here's a taste:
I am struck by the emphases of the American hierarchy these past few months. On health insurance, there is far more public emphasis on preventing anyone who wants to get an insurance policy from the new government-run exchanges from getting an abortion (even if she pays for it herself) than on the core principle of health care as a human right (in Catholic doctrine).I can see that both principles are valid, but the intensity of the campaign against one compared with the lackadaisical interest in the other seems unbalanced to me. The hierarchy's growing fusion with fundamentalist Republican politics is becoming harder and harder to ignore. They can turn a blind eye to state-sanctioned torture, and to the suffering of those without healthcare, but when it comes to ensuring that gay couples are kept stigmatized or that non-Catholic women can't have access to abortion in a secular society, they come alive. There are times when it appears the only real issue for the Catholic church is abortion.
- All
- Editor Featured
You've hit the nail on the head, Eduardo. Something horrible has happened over the past 2 decades, and it results from the increasingly cozy relationship between Catholics and evangelicals. Instead of extending the breadth of Catholic social teaching to them, we have instead seeing a narrowing of our own focus, so as to keep up the common cause. I lay the blame with people like Neuhaus, Weigel, Novak etc. And more and more bishops are buying into it.The real problem is that many bishops seem increasingly swayed by this position. I've been told by people in the know that the USCCB is more divided than ever before, and debates can get quite testy. What strikes me, as someone who did not grow up in the US, is how the US Catholic church is increasingly divergent from the global Catholic church. You don't see this rigid with-us-or-against-us mentality in other countries, which we all know reflects a Calvinist more than a Catholic ethos. As Henri de Lubac says, Catholicism is about unity, whereas Protestantism is all about dichotomies. Perhaps this is a latter-day Americanist heresy?I know that Catholics in Europe, including very faithful Catholics, scratch their head over the reaction to Obama, especially in the wake of shameful silence on the war and torture policies of his predecessor. The problem is, the right has the numbers. Those of us who call ourselves Catholic progressives and who take our faith seriously are dwindling. How do we revrerse that? That is the question.
Morning's MinionI too am from the 'Here comes everybody' Joyce school.However about your lament..,...'The problem is, the right has the numbers. Those of us who call ourselves Catholic progressives and who take our faith seriously are dwindling' This is mistaking load noises for numbers. The right does not have anywhere nesr the numbers their writings and noise suggest. I'm reminded and see a connection about how the right, with US help, chased the elected government out of Guatamala in 1954. They used load speakers, radio, rumbling noisy trucks and so with very few won the day. The right has that victory in their DNA now.. That's why their mantra in their church dealings is ' If you don't like what were doing .. get out' To All progressives.. stay, struggle and never bug out. It's called keep the faith..
You're from St James? I love that parish!
O! and Eduardo... when they tried to repeat that small manned, noisey attack on Cuba.. it was not so successful to say the least...
Eduardo, I'm extremely sympathetic to your dilemma ... I'd think that every thinking Catholic experiences, and struggles with, the sorts of tensions and conflicts that you describe.Regarding the dispute between Bishop Tobin and Rep. Kennedy - the public nature of the dispute is regrettable. I'd rather see them have lunch once a month to have an extended conversation about these differences, because to my way of thinking they touch deeply on what it means to be a Catholic.I do think that Catholic identity is more than, 'my mom and dad were Catholic, and I went to Catholic school'. "I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church" covers a lot of territory with a lot of possible points of conflict. Utlimately, there does need to be adherence to core beliefs and submission to legitimate authority. There also, IMHO, needs to be generous allowance and space to allow people who struggle with some of these aspects of Catholicism to work out disagreements and try to find a reconciliation or accommodation that doesn't result in getting drummed out of the church. I've mentioned this before: as long as a person is trying to work out the problems, they should continue to be given a chance. It's when they've stopped trying, and refuse to start trying again, that the statement "I am Catholic" can be untruthful.Just my very humble opinion.
The most interesting sociologist of religion, in my view, is John Murray Cuddihy, who in his wonderful book No Offense, talked about how American culture turns every faith into a denomination. I think Protestant denominationalism is indeed at the heart of the bishop's reply.
You make some very good points Eduardo - thank you so much. Everyone wonders about things and has doubts sometimes. But you (I do this also) keep trying and trying to keep an open heart and mind and to understand. That is why, in spite of everything you mention, you teach your children so (i.e. you are raising them Catholic); because regardless of your doubts, you have faith. I think also, that it is important to distinguish between inviting someone to leave and preventing or repairing scandal. However I do not see where the Bishop made that distinction. Also of course, Catholicism is not a club or political party, it is the one Holy Church established by Christ Himself. It transcends time and is guided by the Holy Spirit to guard and present the eternal truth. And so if someone does not agree with it, while in a democratic society (as bishop points out) he is free to leave, the fact of the matter is that for the sake of his eternal sould, the person ought to stay and try to change his heart and mind accordingly.A simple example is if someone explains Ohms Law, but you do not like part of it, or refuse to believe part of it, you are free to do so. However Ohms Law remains correct and the non-believer remains incorrect.In defense of the good Bishop, when people who are in the public eye claim to be Catholic and then claim to agree with things that are so obviously not Catholic, I think you and most folks can agree that is a big problem. The Bishops wording might have been a bit off, but he is correct to try and address the issue.People and societies change, but Truth does not. Among many, many other things, the Catholic Church has always taught that abortion, contraception, and gay marriage are wrong; that has not changed.To me, a lot of Protestantism involves changing the truth to fit society at any given point in time. For example prior to Henry VIII, the Church taught and everyone accepted that divorce was neither legitimate nor allowed. After old Henry of course, Protestants accepted the notion that while divorce was regrettable, it would be allowed. Nowadays Protestants hardly blink at divorce. Rather than keeping the ideal (the truth) the same and forever striving to live up to it, they simply moved the ideal, lower and lower. The result in our time? Divorce is common and is not any sort of scandal.And so while the bishops wording could have been better, he is correct to note that it is at least intellectually dishonest for one to say he is Catholic, and then publicly espouse views that are so blatantly contrary to Catholic doctrine.Thanks again Eduardo -
"If you freely choose to be a Catholic, it means you believe certain things, you do certain things, Bishop Tobin said on WPRO, a Providence radio station. If you cannot do all that in conscience, then you should perhaps feel free to go somewhere else.Spoken like a true protestant. I didn't freely choose the Church. I was blessed by the Grace of the Holy Spiriit at Baptism to make that choice. The Church chose me. I have nowhere else to go.
This post rubbed me the wrong way. Please let me try to explain.Perhaps it would be helpful to focus on the point of contention between the Bishop and the member of his flock. The topic is MURDER. Kennedy wants to be able to say that he doesn't have to agree that allowing the intentional killing of innocent human beings in the womb makes him a bad Catholic. And the Bishop rightfully reminds him, that yes, the commandment against murder matters, and you cannot allow the intentional killing of the innocent and be quite so self-satisfied with your spiritual standing. THIS IS THE BISHOP'S JOB. It is not the Bishop's job to make you feel good, or connect you to your ethnic identity, or to reaffirm your own personal opinions or political allegiances. It is his job to make sure you are not led into mortal sin and thereby be denied communion with God in the next life. And the Bishop rightfully points out that if you want to be the sort of guy who allows this murder of innocents to happen, and indeed, the sort of guy who wants to use taxpayer money to ensure that it happens, then yes, you are broken in communion with Christ and his Church, because you have knowingly broken God's commandments. And if you don't see that ensuring that murder happens is a problem qua Catholic, then yeah, you might want to go somewhere else, because you are really, really confused. To take this stance is not to be dismissive or cavalier; to the contrary, it is to be a courageous witness to a basic moral truth. Murder of innocent human beings is not to be tolerated, and yet it happens everyday in this country that tiny humans are killed and thrown into the trash bin because people like Kennedy have worked their hardest to make sure that mothers have the "right" to kill their unborn babies. People can disagree about the wisdom of big government healthcare, troop surges, defense spending, etc. But we are not allowed to disagree about the intrinsic evil of the murder of innocent babies in utero. This strikes me as such a basic point, I find it strange that I so often have to repeat it. Also, I find it telling that you trade in a completely self-determined notion of what it is to be "distinctively Catholic", one rooted in your own personal experience. It is certainly not a notion of Catholicism I can share. I would have thought that if one wanted to know what it meant to be a Roman Catholic one might actually look at what the Church teaches, not one's personal experiences, whether these are rooted in nationalistic or familial ties or not. When I think of what is "distinctively Catholic" things like praying the rosary and the sharing in the sacraments come to mind. I am not trying to "discredit" your experiences, whatever that would mean, but only to point out that your reasons for identifying as Roman Catholic struck me as both shallow and theologically suspect. One last thought: it is a strange irony that a Bishop is accused of being a "Protestant" for making that quintessentially Catholic move of drawing a principled line in the sand on matters of right belief and action. The Catholic Church has never, ever taught that it is OK to decide for yourself whether or not the commandments apply to you, nor has it ever taught that you can be a good Catholic and seek communion while in a state of what the Church determines to be mortal sin. To ever imply otherwise is dishonest.
We seem at times to have forgotten the principle of "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity." None of the things the bishop brings up as making one "Catholic" (as though baptism itself is meaningless) are revealed or defined teachings, but instead are specific approaches to deal with a secular reality based on a moral issue.So I would say to such bishops, if you cannot accept the fact that baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ and that we have freedom of conscience and liberty in interpreting teachings that are not revealed or defined, "You are welcome to go elsewhere."Why should the laity be the ones who have to leave?
I noted in a thread below the essay on conscience by the Center for Ethics at Santa Clara (available at NCR) today, that notes the difference between the ecclesial and personlist point of view.The problems of the episcopacy in approaching such matters is noted there and by sending forth a "my way or the highway" message, the Bishop reinforces the perception by personalists of arrogance and self importance which in turn reinforces the lack of credibility that the Bishop presents.Talking about the truth being alawys the same is a favorite of the ecclesials; while truth may be that as an abstraction it is often complex and we just see glimpses of a facet thereof and not the whole picture.Analogizing laws of science limps also, as most scientists I know think "laws" are generally the best explabnation of phenomena currently availble -e.g. how we understand micro and macrocosoms continues to grow and change.I agree with Morning's Minion that something awful happened over the past two decades as the evangelical minded have gained juice - though I don't think they have numbers, but they're good at cowing some folks who don't but their approach. The orthodox/"dissident" "cafeteria Catholic" or even "Commonweal Catholic" labels ar eexamples of this.What saddens me is we see continuing examples not only of the bishop Tobin approach (which I see as counterproductive) happening in parishes where loyal parishoners who have served for many years are releived of ministry or evn told they are "non-Catholic" by their pastor.As opposed to some who post here, i am not opyimistic about a future in which clergy act in this manner.
Eduardo--You might want to think on whether the presumption that the Bishop is being casually dismissive or cavalier is an uncharitable one. How do you know he hasn't thought and prayed long and hard over how best to help Kennedy? Perhaps, given Kennedy's backing out of their meeting, the Bishop reluctantly concluded that Kennedy is no longer serious about truly being Catholic, and the Bishop did not want Kennedy's actions to give scandal. I don't want to belabour this point but sometimes there is a tendency to assume the worst intentions in people we don't agree with.It might be interesting for you to approach your dilemma from the other side. I assume you believe someone is not Catholic merely because they claim to be. What would it take for you to conclude that a person who claims to be Catholic is not, in your opinion, Catholic? How does that compare with the Bishop's conception?
But we are not allowed to disagree about the intrinsic evil of the murder of innocent babies in utero. This strikes me as such a basic point, I find it strange that I so often have to repeat it.Jennifer,It seems to me that it is not so clear-cut as you make it. Is Kennedy's position that the Church is wrong on the matter of when life begins? Or is his position that in a secular society, Catholic lawmakers are not obliged to impose the teachings of the Church on people of other religions (or no religion) through civil law?
Excerpted from Andrew Sullivan post today titled It's Only Really About Abortion
I am struck by the emphases of the American hierarchy these past few months. On health insurance, there is far more public emphasis on preventing anyone who wants to get an insurance policy from the new government-run exchanges from getting an abortion (even if she pays for it herself) than on the core principle of health care as a human right (in Catholic doctrine).I can see that both principles are valid, but the intensity of the campaign against one compared with the lackadaisical interest in the other seems unbalanced to me. The hierarchy's growing fusion with fundamentalist Republican politics is becoming harder and harder to ignore. They can turn a blind eye to state-sanctioned torture, and to the suffering of those without healthcare, but when it comes to ensuring that gay couples are kept stigmatized or that non-Catholic women can't have access to abortion in a secular society, they come alive. There are times when it appears the only real issue for the Catholic church is abortion.
Jennifer -- Thank you for providing me with yet another example. Also, please insert tape on the inconsistent but always convenient equation of abortion to "murder."
Eduardo --If the conservative bishops have been led to their conservatism by some lay thinkers such as Novak and Weigel, perhaps some of the progressive laity can try to lead the bishops in the opposite direction. Someone here recently suggested that Commonweal start presenting thinkers on opposite sides of the issues. Great idea. If these were real debates it might teach us all something. The sic and non method of the medievals produced a lot of great theology. If only the bishops could learn to be more medieval.
Bishop Tobin is my bishop. It is difficult to love him. I feel rather sorry for myself and for all of us Catholics of Rhode Island. What can we do? What should we do when he makes his next move against Rep. Kennedy?
To me, a lot of Protestantism involves changing the truth to fit society at any given point in time. For example prior to Henry VIII, the Church taught and everyone accepted that divorce was neither legitimate nor allowed. After old Henry of course, Protestants accepted the notion that while divorce was regrettable, it would be allowed. Ken,What an astonishing and sweeping dismissal of about a billion or so Christians and their history! I don't have time to do in-depth research on divorce among Protestants, but here's something from the Lambeth Conference of 1908. It certainly does not display an "anything goes" attitude toward divorce even 300 years after Henry VIII lived.
Resolutions from 1908Resolution 39This Conference reaffirms the Resolution of the Conference of 1888 as follows:(a) That, inasmuch as our Lord's words expressly forbid divorce, except in the case of fornication or adultery, the Christian Church cannot recognise divorce in any other than the excepted case, or give any sanction to the marriage of any person who has been divorced contrary to this law, during the life of the other party.(b) That under no circumstances ought the guilty party, in the case of a divorce for fornication or adultery, to be regarded, during the lifetime of the innocent party, as a fit recipient of the blessing of the Church on marriage.(c) That, recognising the fact that there always has been a difference of opinion in the Church on the question whether our Lord meant to forbid marriage to the innocent party in a divorce for adultery, the Conference recommends that the clergy should not be instructed to refuse the sacraments or other privileges of the Church to those who, under civil sanction, are thus married.
Eduardo is correct that membership in Catholicism is more akin to a family than a club. That said, as a family therapist, I know that there are times when it is no longer possible to allow a family member to live in your home.Imagine the family who has an adult child still living at home who do not contribute to the well-being of their brothers and sisters. This older brother comes home at all hours, refuses to help keep the house, doesnt participate in family activities, ignores family rules and defies the parents authority all while continuing to enjoy the benefits of a free bed and a fridge to raid at will. All of this is bad enough, but suddenly the parents notice that the older siblings behavior is affecting the parents younger children, who are picking up on the defiant and self-destructive actions of the older brother. The parents in this metaphor have a choice to make. Eduardo and progressives like him, would have this family continue to enable the older brother in his destructive habits, leading not only to the familys collaboration in the older brothers destruction, but also in the familys toleration of the destruction of the family as his behavior becomes normalized and accepted by the other children in the house.This is codependent. Pure and simple. Worse, it contradicts the very definition of love which is to work for the good of the other. Rather that working for the good of the other, enabling leads to the destruction of the person and the family itself.By contrast, Bishop Tobin is making the difficult, and more loving choice, to challenge the irresponsible family member in a forthright, but still charitable way, to become a contributing member of the household (in the emotional, relational, spiritual and temporal senses) or, because the wider family cannot continue to support his destructive behavior, to feel free to move out of the house.Like a loving pastor, Bishop Tobin is giving the recalcitrant family member every opportunity to repent and reform, or giving that family member the freedom to find a home where he will be more comfortable and unable to wreak the same destructive influence on his brothers and sisters.If that family member chooses to move out of the house, he will still be family. Hell just be estranged family. Being family may be forever, but getting to live in the family home and sit at the family table is dependent upon a willingness to maintain certain responsibilities toward the family. Rep. Kennedy needs to take the advice of his uncle and stop asking what his family can do for him, and instead ask what he can do for his family.Or he can move out. His call.
On the contrary David; your post makes my point.Yes - In 1888 and seeming as late as 1908, with the exception of cases of adultery, that group did not sanction divorce. Now they do.As late as the 1930's, most protestant churches did not sanction contraception; now they do. In fact some Protestant churches are silent on abortion.As late as ten years ago, no Protestant denomination approved of gay marriage; now some do. Soon probably most will.My point was that unlike Catholicism, Protestantism does not remain constant, but instead bends to the will of the society of the day.Thanks David - that helped a lot!;-)
Gregory (and others) -- You'll notice that I am not commenting in the post on the merits of the Bishop's treatment of Patrick Kennedy, or even of the propriety of ever saying that someone is or is not Catholic (although, frankly, I have little interest in doing that). I am merely commenting on the quoted language, which struck me as significantly broader and glibber than necessary, but revealing of a mindset that is visible even (at times) in this thread.
Andrew Sullivan is just plain wrong to say that the bishops have had a lackadaisical interest in health care reform. They have been among the leading advocates for what they rightly characterize as a basic human right. On November 6th they wrote Congress, in just the latest of many efforts on behalf of the effort to achieve enactment of universal health care coverage for everyone in the U.S., including for illegal immigrants: Our concerns outlined in this letter reflects our longstanding commitment to health care and our centuries old experience as providers of health care to all, especially the poor and the vulnerable. In that spirit we reiterate our Catholic tradition that teaches that health care is a basic human right, essential to protecting human life and dignity.Full text at: http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2009/09-228.shtmlThey also rightly see abortion as the denial of a basic human right that, at its core, is an issue of human dignity that encompasses all human beings at every stage of their development. While true that their thinking draws at least in part on Catholic doctrine, the belief that the unborn share the same human dignity as all other human beings is based on principles that transcend religious dogma and which are adhered to by people of many faiths and no faith at all. Read the writings of Nat Hentoff, a self-described Jewish atheist, on abortion for some of the most succinct, logical, and compelling statements about the false notion that the unborn lack human dignity.Im not crazy about what some bishops do and say, either individually or collectively. I think theyve handled the sex abuse scandal poorly, for example, but it appears that there are some who when they see or hear the word bishop, immediately act in Skinnerian reflex fashion and condemn whatever it is that a bishop or bishops have done. Bishop Tobin may or may not have handled the Rep. Kennedy issue properly, but he was right to comment about Rep. Kennedys views on abortion, not from a Republican perspective (I hope), but from a Catholic and human dignity perspective.
Gregory; I'll take your family analogy [which is over the top] and just limit it an oldest son saying 'I no longer want to attend Mass on Sunday'. How many have us have heard that? We gave religious freedom to our six at the age of 14 [high school freshman] and some took the freedom to not attend.. I hope too many on this blog, did not give their children the Orthodox Jewish 'your dead to me' statement. Mine are adults now and while not regular Mass goers they all still identify as Catholics..I suspect the the Roman Cardinals have extended families full of these 'nominal Catholics.. Maybe Rome knowledgeable David Gibson will comment?
Eduardo - well written and sympathize with you completely. Also, agree with Prof. Kaveny's comment - it appears to me that this incident is more Protestant ("protest") than Catholic. Yes, one part of being a bishop is to set boundaries - but there is a pastoral way of doing that - also, this communication should have been in private no matter what Kennedy may have done and no matter what the bishop's justification.Sorry - the bishop quotes numerous paragraphs from CCC. Others could quote different paragraphs on conscience, religious freedom, respect for the individual's decision before labelling it a sin - or less than catholic.Here is a link to a consideration of conscience that is fully catholic: http://ncronline.org/news/conscience-issue-separates-catholic-moral-camp...' also keep in mind that Kennedy is both a catholic and a catholic politician. He must legislate and vote respecting the pluralistic society we live in. Realize many see errors, etc. in the 1980's approach of Cuomo but he laid out a better more nuanced pastoral approach that Tobin has here.Here is another aspect of "big tent" catholicism that I still believe in:http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/company-we-keep
No, Gregory, this bishop of mine is neither charitable nor loving nor pastoral. He is, in a veiled way, threatening excommunication! If he truly cared about Kennedy's soul, he would remember that conscience formation is a lifelong endeavor, rooted in reading Scripture, praying, and practicing the virtues, helped by the prudent advice and good example of others, knowledge of authoritative teaching, and by the sacrament of reconciliation (to quote from the catechism, his favorite source of wisdom). He would take the long view and try to influence him over time by, for example, working with him on immigration, so as to gradually impress upon him his respect for all human beings; perhaps he would encourage him to read Scripture more, or discuss topics on which they could find common ground, or otherwise try to find some way to reach him. He would gradually win him over by gentleness.Instead he effectively is saying to him: either switch to pro-life, or leave the Catholic church. That is singularly unhelpful, and, as Jim hints, against the basic tenets of our faith: I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.
And - I forgot the main thing - besides such indirect efforts, above all he would trust the work of the Holy Spirit!
"To me, a lot of Protestantism involves changing the truth to fit society at any given point in time. For example prior to Henry VIII, the Church taught and everyone accepted that divorce was neither legitimate nor allowed. After old Henry of course, Protestants accepted the notion that while divorce was regrettable, it would be allowed."Now why didn't someone think to tell King Edward and Wallis Warfield Simpson?Or Eleanor of Aquitaine, whose husband, the King of France, divorced her?What Henry wanted and eventually got from "his" church, was an annulment, which, the last time I looked, the Catholic Church fully endorses. And dollars to doughnuts the Pope would have given it to him as well if Henry's Spanish wife's nephew hadn't been the same Charles V, the H.R. Emperor, who sacked Rome into oblivion not 10 years before and whose army was still occupying much of the Italian peninsula.
Obviously, inviting a Catholic to leave is not the right course, but I think it is also worth noting the comments were given as part of a radio interview i.e., not part of any prepared statement.This episode points out why after considerable private counselling simply denying someone like Kennedy Holy Communion would seem to be a better course. No words would need be spoken and it would not invite them to leave, but it would nonetheless let them know they are not in total communion with Rome.On another note, notwithstainding my history errors, you miss my point Barbara. The point is that regarding divorce, Protestantism "changed with the times". Rather than holding fast, they lowered their ideal, and today's Protestant denominations certainly do not forbid divorce. As I noted to David earlier, they did the same with contraception and are in process of doing something similar regarding gay marriage. In general, Protestant denominations tend to change with the times; Catholicism does not.
Gregory, thank you for information about the dysfunctional family and codependency.As a Catholic who decided to formally leave the Church of Rome, I did so because of what I saw as institutional/family dysfunction and the role of the (still) church-attending and dues-paying members in "enabling" continuation of ecclesial crap. I notified my pastor in writing that I would have no part in preserving the kind of church behaviors/artifacts so very much revered by B16.I left. I am still Catholic, however, in faith if not by affiliation. If the victims in a sick family do not confront their irresponsible or abusive member, the dysfunction will most assuredly continue. In the Church of Rome, this stuff is collectively known as the clerical culture.Continue feeding this dysfunction with weekly/monthly tithes, and the folks who get such monies will not change their behaviors.On a different matter, I see no reason to engage bishops like Burke, Vasa, Finn et al in some kind of dialogue. They were not promoted to the hierarchy for their pastoral ability. JPII appointed very conservative (some would say 'reactionary') ecclesial suck-ups in order to keep the rest of us ontologically deficient in line.
I have some very honest questions: Does anyone have a right to call themselves Catholic? Even if they hold basic theological or moral beliefs that differ from the Church? I.e., could an Docetist identify as a Catholic? What about a white supremacist? Are are we obliged to accept their identification?
The Roman Catholic Church has never changed with the times? Many popes and church councils had condemned the taking of interest on a loan. The last pope to do so was Sixtus V in 1586. No pope or council has done so since and you will not find any such teaching in the CCC.Popes and councils allowed slavery and the ownership of slaves by Catholics as permissible until late in the 19th century. Leo XIII in 1888 condemned slavery absolutely and said that the church had always opposed slavery. Evidence?
Hi Ken, the Catholic Church changed with the times too. It now "concedes" that the sexual component of marriage is there for more than just reproduction. The Catholic Church has also revised (and expanded) the bases upon which it grants annulments.These might not have been as big or sweeping a change, but they are changes nonetheless.In addition, regarding other matters of Protestant dogma, it's useful to remember that not all Protestant denominations "legislate" via catechisms on things like contraception, and it is an overstatement to say that they "now" condone or permit it whereas formerly they did not. Most had no position one way or the other.
Please Barbera, I did not say Protestants "condoned" divorce or contraception; I said they no longer forbid them. First off all Protestants is a large group consisting of many denominations; of course I am speaking generally.Royal Spanish nephews and the hundreds (perhpas thousands?) of Protestant denominations aside; I think my point is clear enough.
Sullivan needs to lighten up and quit worrying.Stupak will be taken out and the pro-abortion provisions put back in. And not without some pushing by those on the left who are Catholic, as evidenced here.
Ken, the Church has always generously allowed divorce in the case of the Pauline and Petrine privileges.What Henry VIII asked for was not a divorce but what we today would call an annulment. The Church grants annulments for a long and ever-growing list of reasons.The reason Anglicans still have trouble with divorce is that they do not have our safety-valves."prior to Henry VIII, the Church taught and everyone accepted that divorce was neither legitimate nor allowed. After old Henry of course, Protestants accepted the notion that while divorce was regrettable, it would be allowed."Something like the reverse of this would be closer to the historical facts.Milton created shock in the Protestant world by calling for divorce (using biblical arguments); but he was not a typical Protestant." Nowadays Protestants hardly blink at divorce." True, but neither do Catholics. " Rather than keeping the ideal (the truth) the same and forever striving to live up to it, they simply moved the ideal, lower and lower. The result in our time? Divorce is common and is not any sort of scandal."Actually, the new ideal of same-sex "marriage" is a raising of standards; previously gays were seen as fatally consigned to a life of goofing around!
Jennifer, one of my problems is the inconsistency of the bishops. You say you cannot "murder" the innocent to achieve an end. What is the difference in "murdering', as you put it, the unborn and 'murdering the born. The bishops seem to have no problem with the "murdering" of the innocent everyday in Iraq, or the use of drones in Afganistan and murdering the innocent there. There not denying communion to those who vote to fund either of these wars. There not saying that all catholic soldiers must be conscientious objectors, or choose another religion; therefore, in my humble I see them allowing the "murder" of the innocent. As was mentioned above, in a secular society, can we impose our definition of when life begins on everyone. I think St Thomas had a different view of when life began.
What a wonderful post, Eduardo! I feel so similarly to you. Your voice is graced and prophetic and a gift to the Church. Thank you.
The days seem long past when the USCCB could publish a document like Economic Justice for All, or when I could (as I did when I was about 8 years old) march with my local archbishop (Hunthausen) in a nuclear freeze protest at the Bangor submarine base. We on the Catholic left need to face the fact that the Churchs hierarchy simply feels much more comfortable with the political agenda of the Republican Party than it does with that of the Democrats. I think that, perhaps because of your upbringing, you have a distorted view here. It seems to me more objectively true that 1) there are a literal handful (at most) of bishops who have made statements that lean Republican; 2) there have, in the past, been a few bishops who enjoyed the self-aggrandizing leftist publicity stunt; but 3) by far, most bishops seem to sympathize with the Republican party on abortion, gay marriage, and vouchers, and with the Democrats on immigration, minimum wage, health care, labor unions, the death penalty, torture, war, and welfare policy. On balance, this favors the Democrats.
Simplify matters by comparing contraception which easily 90% of Catholics practice. There is no loud noise except the hypocritical solution that this should be "handled in the Internal Forum." Be honest and throw everybody out. In other words it is no gain politically so we don't care. In Europe the pope makes very little mention of abortion because of the lack of political traction. In Americn W shamelessly politicked abortion with Carl Rove targeting it as a swing vote. Personally W did not care about the issue. Abortion is political. It is as clear as it can get. And certainly no one can say that the bishops pushed health care anywhere near the passion they are exploiting the abortion issue. They lost this past election. They lost in South Bend. The only thing they win is the favor of the Republican party. If all the gospel is not preached then the one issue is a fraud. Not to mention the millions of dollars the bishops are spending to prevent legislation which will reveal further coverups.
You make good points Studebaker.As for your question about killing innocents Andrew Savarese, it is very important and in fact is deeper that it might at first seem. An important thing to remember is that we humans cannot use the ends to justify the means.The Vatican leaves both the death penalty and declaring war as prudential judgements of the State. It has always held that because abortion is murder it is objectively wrong; a grave sin. A criminal has committed a crime, and sometimes one country attacks another. Those are two very important situations, and of course mercy and prudence should be employed. However the fact of the matter is that a little baby is the most innocent thing on earth, and the mothers womb should be safest place in the world for the child; it should not be his execution chamber.In recent years the Pope has advised that the death penalty only be used when it is the common judgement, that executing the criminal is the only way to protect society from him. Now in modern societies, we have a real means of protecting society from dangerous criminals and so if follows logically that the death penalty would not be necessary. It happens that most Catholics oppose the death penalty, but the pope has not declared that a doctrine of the Church. That means individual Catholics are free to think as they like on the matter.Regarding war; societies have a right to defend themselves from aggression. The Vatican has a just war philosophy, and the Iraq war did not pass muster. Nonetheless, declaring war is a judgement the Vatican leaves to the State. Still, neither Pope John Paul II nor Benedict XVI ever missed an opportunity to tell former President Bush that the Catholic Church thought the Iraq war was unjust.War is a more extreme example in that of course entire societies are drawn outside the bounds of normal morality. The extreme action within a war that comes to my mind in this regard is whether or not it was moral for the US to drop two atomic bombs on Japan. While under normal circumstances the ends cannot be used to justify the means, that once societies have gone over the edge and into war, nothing is normal and most of what happens next is immoral in one way or another and so - up to a point - all bets are off. Even in situations of defending oneself or society against a criminal, or defending the whole society against aggression (i.e., war), the ends still cannot be used to justify the means. However, while it is still objectively wrong to lie and kill, the question of guilt must include our own will.In situations like a hostage taking or a war, everything is already wrong, and we have been dragged against our will into an impossible moral quandary. And so while our actions (lying to or shooting the criminal, or dropping the A-bomb on Japan) are objectively wrong, because in fact we were been placed in those situations against our will, our culpability is lessened. Imagine then, the culpability associated with killing a baby while still in the mother's womb.Under normal circumstances, that is to say in the routine course of our daily lives, when we are not being stalked, molested or otherwise threatened by a criminal, when we are not at war fighting for the survival of ourselves, our families, our nation and way of life, under normal circumstances, circumstances where we have the opportunity and the responsibility to think and act with reason, the ends cannot be used to justify the means. Even outside of normal circumstances, while the ends still do not justify the means; because we have effectively been coerced, our guilt is reduced accordingly.And so these things are a bit involved; they do simply do not fit into one sentence, and cannot be explained on a bumper sticker.
Catholics' (and others') divorce rates: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htmCatholics are near the bottom of the heap, but still amount to 1 out of 5 marriages.
Ken, thank you very much for your expertise. I really do appreciate it. It's just as I get older and try to measure our christianity against the Sermon on the Mount, more and more our actions get harder to understand. Sometimes it seems that we just pick and choose what strike out against as it fits the mores of the time.
The Vatican leaves both the death penalty and declaring war as prudential judgements of the State. It has always held that because abortion is murder it is objectively wrong; a grave sin.Ken,You seem to be classifying moral decisions into two groups -- those that are prudential judgments and those that are "Catholic no-brainers." Decisions about the death penalty are prudential judgments, and decisions about abortion are Catholic no-brainers. First, I would have to say that some Catholics seem to interpret "prudential judgment" to mean "if I think it's right, then it's right for me, and if I think it's wrong, then it's wrong for me." (I think that is exactly what recent popes have denounced as "moral relativism.") But taking the case of the death penalty, Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae said
It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
Granted he didn't declare capital punishment an intrinsic evil, but he didn't say, "It's a prudential judgment, and the Church offers no guidance." He set a very high standard. He said there must not be executions unless absolutely necessary to defend society, and he said considering modern penal systems, cases in which execution would be necessary are very rare, if not practically non-existent. It seems to me John Paul II has set the bar very high, and any Catholic who acknowledges the authority of Evangelium Vitae cannot make a prudential judgment about whether or they favor capital punishment. The presumption is against it. They must take every death penalty case individually and justify any execution by making a convincing case that the execution is absolutely necessary to protect society. On the other hand, there are decisions about abortion where the Church has enunciated certain principles unequivocally, and it is crystal clear that it is absolutely prohibited for a Catholic to procure an abortion, perform one, or assist in one. However, the current debate in health care reform is not about having, procuring, or assisting in abortion. It is, as I understand it, about remote material cooperation with evil and proportionate reasons. There can be no prudential decision about having an abortion. But there is no ancient Church teaching that dictates that voting for the Capps Amendment is intrinsically evil but voting for the Stupak Amendment is virtuous. Even if the final bill that comes out of conference has the Stupak Amendment stripped from it and significantly less anti-abortion language substituted, it still will be a prudential decision for Catholics whether to vote for or against the bill based on whether they see the good outweighing the bad or vice versa. In other words, the absolute prohibition of the "intrinsic evil" of procuring, performing, or assisting in abortion does not automatically translate into a vote one way or the other on health care reform. The fact that abortion is classified as an "intrinsic evil" is of little or no relevance in making a decision on all these issues. It is not sufficient to say (A) abortion is intrinsically evil, and (Z) therefore this bill must not pass without the Stupak Amendment. You have to include steps B through Y in the argument, something which I don't believe anyone has actually done yet.
Imagine then, the culpability associated with killing a baby while still in the mothers womb.Ken,Performing an abortion and subsidizing a person who buys insurance with abortion coverage that might very well never be used are two different things, but accepting for the sake of argument that it is evil to provide insurance coverage for abortion, please note the following from Politico:
RNC INSURANCE PLAN COVERS ABORTIONThe Republican National Committees health insurance plan covers elective abortion a procedure the partys own platform calls a fundamental assault on innocent human life.Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from Cigna. Two sales agents for the company said that the RNCs policy covers elective abortion. . . .
"simply deny him Communion"Ken --"simply"?????????You have no idea of where we progressives are coming from. Look again. But first realize that only God can truly judge consciences. You can t. Might I also be wrong about other progressives' consciences? Yes. But at least I don't claim certainty -- and neither should the bishops. And, yes, Ken, sometimes it is virtuous to admit that about some things we just can't be sure.
Ken:I'm with Ann. Indeed, I presume that denying Kennedy communion will be the bishop's next step. I have an idea for Lent this year: why don't you try fasting from communion for the duration of Lent.It's a sacrifice that will help you sympathize with the people in the world who are deprived of it, either because there are not enough priests, or because their local government is oppressing Christians, or because their local bishop is denying it to them. After you have experienced that you can speak again about it.
Claire --Thank you for your comments. I wonder if any of the bishops realize that their denial of Communion to so many people is just as wrong as its denial by governments. I suspect many do, but are fearful of disagreeing with Rome. When *will* they recover their sense of their own functions in the Church?As I write this the story is appearing on CNN, including the bishop himself saying those awful things. God help us. .
Granted [JP2] didnt declare capital punishment an intrinsic evil...David,Thank you for clarifying what the Church believes. However, as I read it, Evangelium Vitae does indeed declare killing to be an intrinsic evil, including capital punishment: This should not cause surprise: to kill a human being, in whom the image of God is present, is a particularly serious sin. Only God is the master of life! Yet from the beginning, faced with the many and often tragic cases which occur in the life of individuals and society, Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God's commandment prohibits and prescribes. There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God's Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one's own life and the duty not to harm someone else's life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence.The Encyclical goes on to attribute the evil to the one defended against, rather than the defender who actually does the killing. Capital punishment is an extension of that reasoning on self-defence.
Interesting post to a lapsed convert who still considers herself a Friend of Catholicism.It's clear to me that, in requesting that certain high-profile Catholics not present themselves for communion, the bishops are sending a clear message to all of us that it's not enough that we live Church teachings in our own lives, but that we are obligated to try to promulgate Church teaching through our choice of public officials. I do "get" the argument that if the Church's mission is to restore the Body of Christ, that involves promoting the teachings of Christ in every aspect of life, private and public. And a core teaching of the Church is to protect the defenseless, and you can't get much more defenseless than fetal humans. For conservatives, acknowledging the sacredness of human life, even at its most elemental stages, when it isn't even recognizably human, is the starting point of all social justice. So I think for many Catholics, that's why abortion is such a central issue, and I think it's somewhat unfair to call it an obsession. On the other hand, I think that enshrining Catholic moral teaching in secular law doesn't really restore the Body of Christ because it doesn't change the hearts and minds of those who oppose that teaching; it just forces them to accept it as law and deal with consequences.Nevertheless, I think my views are out of sync with where the Church is heading, and whether to receive became a very vexed question for me. I have no ethnic or familial ties to the Church (Raber, as a Germanitalian, can still scare up a few Lombardian relatives and so feels more connected). Receiving made me feel like a freeloader at somebody else's family reunion, to take up Greg Popcak's analogy.Getting out of the communion line was, frankly, a relief (and probably proof positive that I was never cut out to be a Catholic in the first place), and allowed me to look at ways I could continue my spiritual journey perhaps alongside the Church.Whether God will find this acceptable and allow me to run joyfully up the hill toward heaven like the soul's in the Purgatorio, I suppose I'll find out soon enough.
"the bishops are sending a clear message to all of us that its not enough that we live Church teachings in our own lives, but that we are obligated to try to promulgate Church teaching through our choice of public officials."Exactly, they want us all to pray, pay and obey in order to expand their power base. Has nothing to do with high principle as we can see with amateur influence peddling antics of the bish in Brooklyn supporting the strongly pro-choice Bloomberg (who promises to send public money to Catholic schools, further enhancing the bishop's power base). Petty. Personally I think it's because the ones who are most likely to make bish are the ones who learn to suppress their sexuality by getting off on feeling powerful.
Some excellent posts and analyses....thanks to many for elucidating moral choices. This is a comment from the behavioral health field that sees Tobin's actions through the lense of psychology and family counseling:"In this entire piece of Bishop Tobin's there is no mention of Jesus, not one time, not at all. There is plenty of mention of the Church. The word Church is mentioned some 16 times. Church 16 - Jesus 0. Wow the Church in Tobin's view has just pitched a resounding shut out.I love Bishop Tobin's last sentence: "And if I can ever be of assistance as you travel the road of faith, I would be honored and happy to do so." Tobin has made it amply evident that the road of faith equals docile obedience to institutional authority. Someone should tell the good bishop that docile obedience to authority is not faith. It's childish.Why does the bishop think a Catholic in good standing has to be childish? In the first place this insults him as a pastor. It says that his pastoral authority is deficient in that he can't allow himself to interact with Catholics who form independent adult opinions. He can allow no other relationship between himself and his flock other than that of parent/child. Tobin doesn't promote or encourage adult faith, he serves only to enable pathological childish dependency. He demands this as the sign of a good Catholic. It says so in the Catechism of the Church. It also says a great deal about him.I don't know how much longer Catholics with an adult maturity are going to put up with this 'reform of the reform' because it doesn't seem to be just a call to reform. It's a call to return to a childish faith in which intellectually docile laity know nothing about what's good for them and parental clerics know everything. This reform seems to imply the catechism is the end all and be all of human wisdom and divine guidance.In the real world, adult children disagree with their parents all the time on key issues. Most families can accept these disagreements with out lessening the 'famliness' of the children who disagree. This ability is what makes good families healthy cohesive units. When disagreement causes rupture it's because someone hasn't grown up, hasn't matured, hasn't developed the ability to move beyond stereotypical roles, is still threatened by differing opinions and beliefs and sees the differences as a personal attack. They will then resort to personal attacks to defend themselves.I have some questions for Bishop Tobin. The Church you seem to want us to follow is a Church based on a childish notion of obedience. Not child like, just childish. It sees differing opinion as a personal attack on the Church, rather than a differing opinion. It is based in fear. It is sadly not Christ like. I don't understand why you fear letting us put Christ first, or why you fear letting us act with compassion and love before obedience to the catechism. Do you honestly think following all your rules is going to keep us safe from the devil, like leaving a light on in the bedroom allows small children to feel they are protected from things that go bump in the night?In the meantime the battle over health insurance for millions of the uninsured (people in the present) is still held hostage to future fetuses. Is it just possible that Representative Kennedy understands the needs of the present take precedence over the potential catastrophes of the future and that real live people deserve at least equal consideration and opportunity for life as potential humans? Or is this notion all too grey and complicated for the catechism
Jean--Very thoughtful and illuminating post. Hope the "soon enough" part was purely whimsical.
Another response to Tobin's use of quotes from the CCC as the basis of telling Kennedy that he is less than catholic which links to some others' comments:"The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the authoritative expression of the Catholic faith. This simply makes no sense. The Catechism is a useful if uneven compendium of Catholic teaching. It has little or no authority in itself (as does, for example, a dogmatic constitution of a general council, such as Lumen Gentium or Dei Verbum), but only in the sources or authorities to which it makes reference. It is not a confession of faith, and should not be used as such."
"In the meantime the battle over health insurance for millions of the uninsured (people in the present) is still held hostage to future fetuses."I don't think this is a fair representation of orthodox Catholicism, leaving politics out of it for a moment. I think orthodox Catholics would argue that their concern for human life in its earliest phases is exactly what leads to concern for humans who cannot afford life-saving health care. It's not either health care or life for the unborn, but both health care and life for the unborn. I think Kathy has made this point several times in previous threads.However, I would agree that the bishops often nod to abortion in so many of their statements about social programs such that the overall effect begins to sound like, "not unless it has an anti-abortion provision." Even Stupak's holding out for the no-federal-abortion-funding amendment frames the issue in either/or terms that I don't think really reflect his views as a Catholic or as a Democrat.Among orthodox Catholics who are also conservatives, you hear a lot of arguments about how, so long as no defenseless human life is actively destroyed--as in an abortion--God does not expect us to provide assistance to one group by forcing another group to pay for that assistance. And I don't hear too many bishops refuting this notion.In the local parish, they'll be happy to hold a fish fry, from which funds they'll donate half to your chemo or transplant costs. (They keep the rest for the parish, win-win!) After the fish fry, they're done with you until it's time to do your funeral lunch.
Quick point of clarification: I hasten to note that I have no idea how Kathy feels about health care reform and don't mean to impute opinions to her on any political issue specifically. Only that I've seen her note that framing debates in "either/or" rather than "both/and" distorts the orthodox view.
Mark, yeah, I'm nothing if not illuminating.
Bill DeHaas:Interesting analysis. But concretely Bishop Tobin is my bishop here and now. This entire blog discussion is pretty interesting to me, but it doesn't solve my problem. What to do about him?I can't bring myself to ignore him, but what else can I do with the words that come out of his mouth? I'd like him to change, but how could that happen?
I think it could be said that Tobin's "believe this or get out" attitude is a symptom of a very legalistic version of Catholicism that is widespread among conservatives. This is the same mindset that reduces orthodoxy to an intellectual check-list that one simply believes or not-believes.It can also be seen in the debates about voting, where conservatives see voting more as an endorsement of a person's beliefs and values rather than as trying to influence a certain social outcome or consequences. It's why they are so concerned with the rightness of the law and sometimes even seem to prefer its rightness over saving actual lives. This form of Catholicism also opts for legal solutions to spiritual problems, as if the law will make all things right, or as if spiritual evils were all rooted in law somehow. This kind of shallow Catholicism creates artificially black and white situations that make it easy to judge people and feel smug because "we believe the 'right' things", etc.So, yes, Tobin's remarks seem to be part of an ethos that is not sufficiently Catholic. I just wish Catholic progressives could get over their problems with the Church's teachings regarding sex.
"Id like him to change, but how could that happen?"Claire, are you by chance married? If so, you probably know that fixing other people, particularly those of the male persuasion, is an effort in futility.I suggest prayer and creative thinking.When nuns in Alabama were told by their bishop in the early 1960s that they could not participate in civil rights marches, they obeyed. However, the nuns took note of the fact that the bishop did not forbid them to pray with civil rights adherents before marches, nor to offer first aid to injured marchers who were barred from whites-only hospitals. If I recall a recent PBS documentary correctly, it was one of those Catholic nuns forbidden to march who patched up John Lewis' head after a cop had bashed it in.I'm guessing that in the history of the church, for every stupid remark made by someone in authority, there are a hundred unsung acts of holiness to mitigate it. That's why there are so many Catholics still!
Claire - not sure I have good answers to your question. Would suggest that Jean has probably hit the nail on the head....remember, all church is local; focus on what you can do and not what you can not control.In Dallas, the diocese went through a long period from 1996 through 2008 with a bishop who basically subverted the law in court and testimony on a famous, early sex abuse case revolving around a priest, Rudy Kos, now serving life in prison in Huntsville, Texas. Key catholics met with this bishop in order to reach some type of agreement going forward so this trial could be ended and the diocese could heal. Per certain parties, this involved a promise by that bishop to retire. Yet, once the court case was finished, that same bishop never acted on his promise and denied it. The diocese limped for another 10 years - e.g. no big donors; pessimism about a diocese that more than tripled in that time period; stagnation in parts of the diocese in terms of building campaigns suspended, parishes not allowed to expand services, etc. This bishop's one group of supporters, Hispanic, were then betrayed by him when he sold the one historical school in west Dallas that represented the roots of Hispanic catholics - he needed the money to pay for the abuse settlement.In response, I focused on what I enjoyed in my parish; my kids and their catholic schools, etc. But, it is painful every time you see these bishops speak for the diocese; attend a confirmation, etc. where they continue to speak their old lines (ours was - "culture of death" which he endlessly repeated in every homily...ignoring his own participation and cover up as a form of the culture of death.)
Mark, yeah, Im nothing if not illuminating.Jean, Of course you're illuminating. You brighten the corner where you are.
It wasn't too long ago that some curial maven complained that educated catholics were confuding the faithful.Bill D. is right .The fact that a number of our Bishops are JCDs with a modicum of pastoral experience(and chosen for loyalty above all) underscores of Brian' point on the elgalistic approach often prevalent in US Catholicism.Claire, Jean's right - only think it could be worse - you could be living in Lincoln, Nebraska, for example.This gets us back to a former thread about what to do, though.Various groups continue to speak out, though they get written off (even by some here) as the Catholic left, but I think silence indicts us.
Somebody fire up the concertina! I feel a song comin' on! God loves you, David Nickol, cuz he gave you the gift to make other people laugh out loud.
Geez, I actually manage to compliment someone, which is really quite painful for folks like me, and she puts down husbands everywhere. Women!Bob--I imagine you really don't want to hear advice on tactics from me, but if you want my opinion on what the Catholic left should dolose the anger. It turns people off. Even a righteous anger can wear people down. I don't mean you personally, but the left in general.
Mark, I don't think there is anything to get angry about. Every person takes an issue. Examines it in accord with the teachings of Jesus, and guides his life accordingly. If the Bishops agree with him, that's nice, if they don't, and he's comfortable in his own skin, life merrily goes on. Next, one figures how he is going to worship in private and also in community, and once he's solved that problem, he's home free. Remember Micah- all Yawhweh wants is that we act justly, love deeply and walk in awe of the Lord. I think every adult has to find this way on his journey. Anger solves nothingl. It's a shame that the official seem to be heading toward the Council of Trent, but that's to bis a problem for me. That's sought of the comfort of getting old. The church is not going churn me up. I've been there, done that.
Now, Mark, let's not twist my words around. I did not put down HUSBANDS everywhere. I put down MEN everywhere, merely using husbands as an example of a specific group of men who seem impervious to improvement efforts made by women.God in his wisdom made men the way they are, so let God in his wisdom deal with them. Meantime, the Lord gave women telephones so we could call someone and have things hired done. Let himself worry about how he's going to pay the cable bill and keep his secret stash of contraband donuts stocked up after I get done paying the guy to paint those soffit-thingys under the eaves.Thanks to all for an interesting thread.
I admit that I am very glad that Bp. Tobin is not my husband!
Claire--Now I only say this in the interest of finding common ground, but I think we've found something you and Bishop Tobin agree on!
Mr Penalver- Your letter is what Air Force pilots call a "target rich environment". Where to start? First of all, typical of liberals, the world revolves around them. The church has not changed on matters of faith since the 60's, and I am not talking about the 1960's. Gay relationships are disordered. Birth control has helped spread disease and infidelity, as well as changing the cultural landscape of the earth. You say you are Catholic, I don't doubt that, but I don't know how you married someone who is not a Christian. I am sure she is a lovely person and wonderful mother, but that is confusing for the kids. You celebrate all, and embrace none. The church is not Republican or Democrat, it is Christian. You have to have amazing blinders not to realize which party more closely follows those values. You are a liberal who loves his faith, you need to choose God over secular progressive values. Your soul is at risk here. Lose the pride! Do you support abortion? If so, revisit that, it is barbaric and evil. Your party is doing all it can to spread it over the world. Please redirect and come back to the church, we love you and are worried for you! Take care, Kenneth
Ann and Claire The Bishop would deny the Eucharist to someone not as a punishment, but as a means to safeguard the persons soul, and as a way to guide them toward Christ.Saint Paul speaks of how when taken unworthily, the Eucharist brings condemnation on the recipient. This is where we get the doctrine that if one is in the state of mortal sin, one should abstain from Holy Communion. Holy Communion also is a symbolic sign that one is in communion with the Church. Obviously if Kennedy or anyone else is advocating for abortion or gay marriage, he is at odds with Church teaching and therefore, not in communion with Rome.Considering what is at stake then, it would be irresponsible for the Bishop to have not said anything.In conclusion, I read somewhere that the Bishop did request that Kennedy not present himself for Holy Communion.
Ken, I am on unfamiliar terrain here (I had never really heard of mortal sin before my daughter's CCD here in the US four years ago -- didn't know the concept was still current) but I'm assuming that Judas is the primary example of someone committing mortal sin, and, certainly, we abhor the idea of his attending the last supper and think he'd better have abstained. Still, he didn't get denied that meal. Christ didn't deny it to him "to safeguard his soul", did he?I cannot imagine "taking the Eucharist worthily" sorry; I only take it although "I am not worthy to receive Him". Personally I hope that the Eucharist is, or can be, a source of grace. It sometimes gives us the desire to be in better communion with the Church, and from there, change may happen.As to the Kennedy story, the whole thing was a disgrace. I think the Bishop said in a radio interview that Kennedy should not take communion, but did not actually forbid him, thank God. But I'm done discussing that until the next episode.
Claire, In fact mortal sin still exists, it still is a current concept.As to not being worthy to receive Him; I think that has to do with the story in the bible where a Roman soldier's slave was sick and he asked Christ to help. As I recall, the pagan Roman sent a messinger to ask Jesus' help and instructed him to say that while "I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, only say the word and my slave will be healed" at that Jesus healed the slave.And so our reciting the phrase "I am not worthy to recieve Him" does not exactly actually mean one is never worthy to go to Communion but rather, is an adaptation of that Bible verse.I think this has been a good discussion as well - both interesting and enlightening.Thanks to all.
To clarify a bit, it is worth noting the new English translation renders "Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed" as:"Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed."I think this helps us understand that the phrase is not so much about who can take communion, and is a more accurate rendering of the Bible story, with our soul taking the place of the servant in the story.
"Bishop Jobs has been created keeping in view of the IT-professionals. This site will help you""Professionals"" to quickly and efficiently locate many opportunities that exist.It's user friendly tool to help you match your own Specifications, Qualifications and Requirements."
