This is a very strange story. It appears that Mr. Kennedy is releasing this information now in a deliberate attempt to damage the Catholic Church and derail the USCCB’s attempt to make sure publicly funded abortions are left out of health care reform! I certainly don’t see any other reason for him to bring up a private conversation that occurred over 2 years ago.
It’s also rather sad how the media is covering this story. They are covering it like it’s a new action Bishop Tolbin just took- it happened over 2 years ago! They also seem to enjoy writing that Kennedy was “barred” from communion but from what I can tell the Bishop asked Kennedy not to receive communion for his own spiritual well being.
I am personally against Bishops publicly denying communion, it strikes me as political grandstanding which should be above the Catholic Church. But if a Bishop wants to have a private conversation with a high-profile member of his diocese it is certainly within his right, and should be kept private! If Patrick Kennedy has such a problem with the Catholic Church that he feels the need to damage it in public I do think he should consider looking elsewhere.
The thing that I just can’t understand is why the Kennedys or anyone else would want to be Catholic if their beliefs are not Catholic.Washington, DC – Congressman Patrick Kennedy, a pro-abortion member from Rhode Island, says Bishop Thomas Tobin has asked him to stop receiving communion because of his pro-abortion views. However, Tobin says the demand was merely a voluntary request that was issued two years ago and meant to be private.
lifenews.com/state4590.html
the Catholic Church is fanning “the flames of dissent and discord” by taking the position that it opposed the health care bills in Congress because of their abortion funding.As LifeNews.com has reported, Kennedy told CNS News
Which is precisely why as a rule I refuse to support any candidate whose religious views requires his/her voting based on such. I don’t want any individual injecting their religious views into the decision making process whether I agree with their views or not because ultimately it could have an negative impact on the American people. I want the politicians to make an informed decision based on legal, moral & ethical grounds; not on based on what their religious body dictates to them.Washington, DC – Congressman Patrick Kennedy, a pro-abortion member from Rhode Island, says Bishop Thomas Tobin has asked him to stop receiving communion because of his pro-abortion views. However, Tobin says the demand was merely a voluntary request that was issued two years ago and meant to be private.
lifenews.com/state4590.html
The statement in bold is self-contradictory. There is no morality or ethics without religion.Which is precisely why as a rule I refuse to support any candidate whose religious views requires his/her voting based on such. I don’t want any individual injecting their religious views into the decision making process whether I agree with their views or not because ultimately it could have an negative impact on the American people. I want the politicians to make an informed decision based on legal, moral & ethical grounds; not on based on what their religious body dictates to them.
When it comes to politics, religious views belong in a house of worship, in a forum or in a persons own house.
I know of Athiest’s who are people of fine moral & ethical character. Its not limited to those of religion.The statement in bold is self-contradictory. There is no morality or ethics without religion.
I am a former atheist. I can assure, an atheist has nothing on which to base moral or ethical decisions.I know of Athiest’s who are people of fine moral & ethical character. Its not limited to those of religion.
Thanks for your response.I am a former atheist. I can assure, an atheist has nothing on which to base moral or ethical decisions.
I believe that a bishop should first talk with pro-abortion politicians privately, and if that doesn’t work, then, since the politicians are public about what they are doing, the bishop should make the consequences public, so that scandal is avoided.I am personally against Bishops publicly denying communion, it strikes me as political grandstanding which should be above the Catholic Church. But if a Bishop wants to have a private conversation with a high-profile member of his diocese it is certainly within his right, and should be kept private! If Patrick Kennedy has such a problem with the Catholic Church that he feels the need to damage it in public I do think he should consider looking elsewhere.
If the person’s ethics and morality are such that they believe X to be true, then they must vote in that way. If Senator Catholic believes that the unborn child is a human being and that God commands us not to kill innocent human beings, he cannot then vote in some other way, because his morals and ethics tell him to vote against abortion.Which is precisely why as a rule I refuse to support any candidate whose religious views requires his/her voting based on such. I don’t want any individual injecting their religious views into the decision making process whether I agree with their views or not because ultimately it could have an negative impact on the American people. I want the politicians to make an **informed decision based on legal, moral & ethical grounds; **not on based on what their religious body dictates to them.
When it comes to politics, religious views belong in a house of worship, in a forum or in a persons own house.
Thanks for your response.If the person’s ethics and morality are such that they believe X to be true, then they must vote in that way. If Senator Catholic believes that the unborn child is a human being and that God commands us not to kill innocent human beings, he cannot then vote in some other way, because his morals and ethics tell him to vote against abortion.
Religion is not just for Sundays or home. What you seem not to understand is that religion is the basis of the world, we ignore it at our peril. You think God only made Sundays and homes? No, He created everything.
No, I understood your point. I just disagree completely with foundation of your thought. First of all, there was not supposed to be a separation of church and state; the first amendment forbids the federal government from establishing a church as the national church. England, you may recall, had a government-established church which many of the colonists escaped by coming here. The first amendment was to protect personal religion, not eradicate it.Thanks for your response.
The thrust of my post was to express my opinion regarding candidates running for political office mixing in their religious views as dictated by their house of worship.
To further that, this country was founded on the basis of separation of church and state, I believe that we need to keep religion out of politics and government. What works for one religious body may not work for another and if its policies or beliefs are forced on the unwilling, then it could open the door for further polarization between peoples of differing religious/moral views.
I hope that clarifies my earlier post.
Of course those fools will disagree. But what do they base their morality or ethic onb? Some changable. feel-good “I think this is right”, idea? Stop insulting our intelligence.Thanks for your response.
I’ll mention that to my friends and see if they agree with you although I have a suspicion that they’ll not be inclined to embrace your views but who knows? I don’t know if I don’t ask.
off topic.Thanks for your response.
The thrust of my post was to express my opinion regarding candidates running for political office mixing in their religious views as dictated by their house of worship.
To further that, this country was founded on the basis of separation of church and state, I believe that we need to keep religion out of politics and government. What works for one religious body may not work for another and if its policies or beliefs are forced on the unwilling, then it could open the door for further polarization between peoples of differing religious/moral views.
I hope that clarifies my earlier post.
Referring to the text in bold, that is not correct. The US Constitution stated that there would be no official religion. The idea of “church separated from state” was from the personal writing of Thomas Jefferson in the early 19th century.Thanks for your response.
The thrust of my post was to express my opinion regarding candidates running for political office mixing in their religious views as dictated by their house of worship.
To further that, this country was founded on the basis of separation of church and state, I believe that we need to keep religion out of politics and government. What works for one religious body may not work for another and if its policies or beliefs are forced on the unwilling, then it could open the door for further polarization between peoples of differing religious/moral views.
I hope that clarifies my earlier post.