The war of words between the Catholic bishop of Rhode Island and US Representative Patrick J. Kennedy escalated yesterday when Bishop Thomas J. Tobin criticized him for disclosing a confidential request the prelate made in 2007 to stop receiving Holy Communion because of his stand on moral issues.
I'm genuinely confused here about something: the confidentiality question. On the one hand, the bishop says (rightly) that these kinds of discussions should be kept private--between a bishop and a member of his diocese about his reception of the sacrament. The Boston Herald said that Bishops Tobin "confirmed the order but fervently denied having discussed it with anyone other than Kennedy."
On the other, he wrote a public letter in his own newspaper discussing these same issues. Clarifications welcome here.
James Martin, SJ
It doesn't follow that it is "heresy" for a Catholic politician not to follow his bishop's political strategy for dealing with abortion.
http://www.memorare.com/liturgy/atf.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_propio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-propio_30061998_ad-tuendam-fidem_en.html
The truth about the self-evident, fundamental,unalienable Right to Life, that has been endowed to each one of us from our Creator is not a political issue to begin with.
Thus it would also be obstinate to continue to deny the fact that it is the Government's responsibility to secure each individual's Right to Life, to begin with.
He wrote to the Congresman almost 3 years ago... in private. He is doing his duty as bishop and was doing it without fanfare or publicity.
Tobin is no Burke!
The Bishop is badly advised, since until there is a bill with reasonable chance of passage, the Congressman's position on abortion generally and Roe v. Wade specifically is of no importance at all, since abortion was not legalized through legislative action and because the constitutional (not the moral) reasoning behind Roe is sound.
The denial of communion to an individual who, in the most public way possible, has demonstrated he is for abortion on-demand is a private matter. It is a matter of conscience for the Bishop and for the Communicant.
However, Rep. Kennedy made this dispute with the bishop a public affair when he declared that he is no less of a Catholic when he publicly defies Church teachings. This is openly undermining Church Teaching in as much as:
a) The Church has definitively taught that Abortion is gravely evil.
b) On matters of faith and morals Catholics must bring themselves to an assent of Faith.
c) If one defiantly rejects a doctrine, one is to some measure choosing to separate himself from the Church.
One of the Bishop's primary callings is to be the principal teacher for his diocese. So when a public figure makes an erroneous statement that may lead the Faithful into error, he must publicly address it. Mr. Kennedy made this a public issue and forced the Bishop to respond lest he neglect his sacred duty.
Why Mr. Kennedy chose to reveal still more of the dispute he is having with the Catholic Church is between himself and God.
1. In 2007, after private conversation and correspondence, Bp. Tobin suggests that Sen. Kennedy not present himself for communion until he can better reconcile his actions and his professed beliefs. We don't know what else the letter said because (cynically, frankly), Kennedy released only the portion that seemed to best fit his argument about a pushy hierarchy.
2. Fast forward to the middle of last month, on top of the USCCB letters, Bp. Tobin sends personal letters to each state representative in the House, urging them to include pro-life language in the House health care reform bill.
3. Either in response to the USCCB letter alone or both letters, Kennedy tells cnsnews in a video-taped interview that if the Church opposes health care reform because it doesn't protect the unborn (not his words, obviously), then the Church isn't really pro-life. Also includes the old canard about abortion being a red-herring.
4. Bp. Tobin calls out Sen. Kennedy a day after the interview, saying he is "a disappointment" and that he owes the Catholics an apology. Pretty strident words, obviously, and most likely spoken out of ongoing frustration (we know that Kennedy has been an issue for Bp. Tobin for at least two years at this point).
5. Sen. Kennedy responds publicly by saying, among other things (I paraphrase): "Just because I am pro-choice doesn't mean I'm not Catholic, just an imperfect human."
6. Nov 12, Bp. Tobin writes in the diocesan paper that Kennedy's persistent ignoring of Church teaching on abortion can't be "chalked up to an imperfect humanity:" it is clearly a choice and one part of his political platform (which, frankly, seems like a fair point).
7. Sen. Kennedy now reveals the portion of the 2007 letter which is being read as a communion "ban."
Ever since language from the 2007 letter was released by Sen. Kennedy, Bp. Tobin has bent over backwards to make it clear that he has spoken about the letter to no one. Indeed, as an AP article from about 16 hours ago indicates, insofar as the Bp. says he might be inclined to give a talking to to any Priest in his diocese that would give communion to Sen. Kennedy, it seems clear that not even the clergy were alerted to the contents of the 2007 letter.
In my view, Bp. Tobin has been unnecessarily caustic and incautious in his language. But bad behavior isn't really all that damning when compared to what appears to be a cynical attempt on behalf of Sen. Kennedy at alienating and manipulating the diocese.
BTW, Kennedy's first public comments were not directed at Bishop Tobin specifically.
The imprimatur has simply been handed down the line, as it were. This is understood, by some, as scandal. Now the Catholic Church must undo the scandal and provide education. To lead forth, we hope, into the Truth.
http://pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=58
Fr. Reese seemed to say he was not for dis-communicating politicians for their political stance. I agree with him.
The problem I seem to have with the Faith is that sometimes we sound hypocritical. We are often taught that God gives us free will to make decisions for ourselves. Yet, the Church also stress that we should vote for those that follow Church teachings. That I cannot understand. We are to evangelize to others in the hope that they will come into Communion with the Faith. We are not to force or coerce. This is one of the first question asked in Baptism. Yet here we are trying to force upon the country the teachings of the Church. That seems hypocritical to me.
I consider myself pro-life. If my wife attempts an abortion, I would fight it tooth and nail to the furthest extent. However, I cannot and will not force someone to believe what I believe, epsecially by pushing through legislation forcing someone to do so. This country was found on the principle that everyone's faith and beliefs were different and should be respected. These are creeds which we should all live by.
The congressman reported this to be true. The Bishop denied this and various news reports from the clergy in Rhode island confirm that no such instruction was made.
It strikes me that Bp Tobin is more of a loose cannon when he speaks than when he writes. He could have written a measured letter to Kennedy, then been much more threatening when (if) he spoke to him about it.
Confidentiality: why should Kennedy be bound to confidentiality? Speaking up in public about this is in bad taste, but confidentiality is a necessity on Tobin's side to protect Kennedy's privacy; not the other way round. There is nothing wrong with Kennedy disclosing private correspondence; (it would have been very wrong on Tobin's part to be the one disclosing it.)
Since Kennedy admits that Tobin wrote to him three years ago about his stand regarding the legality of abortion, it looks rather like Kennedy and Tobin, both, were a lot more reasonable than a number of bishops who made the abortion issue politically beneficial to the Republicans. However, it does give the impression that the bishop had been trying to circumvent the usual channels of how we citizens get our elected officials to do our bidding, given that there are constituents who do not share the Catholic Church's perspective on the sanctity of embryonic life.
If we assume that there is some endangerment to one's soul when one does not seek to outlaw one or another sin, then the bishop is just doing his job. However, if we understand that outlawing sins is not a good way to prevent them, then it is very difficult to grasp this concept that the bishop was protecting Kennedy and/or the Eucharist and/or other Catholics.
- When you write: "Has there been a decline in the great Society of Jesus as to intellectual giants", you are accusing Father Martin of intellectual weakness. It's an ad hominem.
- When you write: "will you apologize to Bishop Tobin for questioning his motives?", you are implying that Father Martin's text is offensive. I see that the post was not well prepared, but I do not see it as offensive.
- When you write: "I have read many of Father Martin's columns. He is usually not too kind to conservatives.", you are reacting to an accusation by attacking back, as in "But he does it too!". It may be effective as a rhetorical means in an argument, but it is sidestepping the question.
The discussion would be more interesting if we stuck to the topic of the post.
Focusing only on the pursuit of happiness, one might argue that the government is obligated to consider whether proposed laws are too intrusive before enacting them. Some people would think that any law that might be able to prevent abortions would have to be a law that is seriously intrusive.
Under the same principle, of course, the government is not able to insist that a woman not have the children she wishes. In fact, on some occasions, the ACLU has argued that State governments have become too intrusive when they insisted that public assistance recipients be required to used contraception.
Rep. Kennedy has no reason to avoid Communion, since his personal opinion on the issue has no impact. Until there is a bill in Congress that is reasonably drafted to protect the unborn - taking into account the privacy of families who have recently had miscarriages and exempting doctors from malpractice filings for fetal death during the time when miscarriages are likely to occur, the Representative does not have an issue to support or not support.
You cannot tell someone to avoid Communion for not supporting a non-existent piece of legislation - whether they be legislator or voter. If told to do otherwise, I will rely on my conscience on the issue and go to Communion anyway. Indeed, any prelate who tells me differently needs to seek both better legal advice than he is getting currently and probably needs to visit Cardinal McCarrick in Washington for the purposes of his own Examination of Conscience and reception of the Sacrament of Reconciliation.