Dear Congressman Kennedy

[CradleCath]

An exerpt from a letter written by Bishop Thomas Tobin to Ted Kennedy’s son:

Dear Congressman Kennedy:

“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” (Congressman Patrick Kennedy)

Since our recent correspondence has been rather public, I hope you don’t mind if I share a few reflections about your practice of the faith in this public forum. I usually wouldn’t do that – that is speak about someone’s faith in a public setting – but in our well-documented exchange of letters about health care and abortion, it has emerged as an issue. **I also share these words publicly with the thought that they might be instructive to other Catholics, including those in prominent positions of leadership. **

For the moment I’d like to set aside the discussion of health care reform, as important and relevant as it is, and focus on one statement contained in your letter of October 29, 2009, in which you write, “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” That sentence certainly caught my attention and deserves a public response, lest it go unchallenged and lead others to believe it’s true. And it raises an important question: What does it mean to be a Catholic?

“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does. Although I wouldn’t choose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church. This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents.

For example, the “Code of Canon Law” says, “Lay persons are **bound by an obligation **and possess the right to acquire a knowledge of Christian doctrine adapted to their capacity and condition so that they can live in accord with that doctrine.” (Canon 229, #1)

There’s lots of canonical and theological verbiage there, Congressman, but what it means is that if you don’t accept the teachings of the Church your communion with the Church is flawed, or in your own words, makes you “less of a Catholic.”

The tide is turning more quickly than I expected…Cafeteria Catholicism is DEFINITELY on it’s way out.

There’s quite a bit more in this letter & it’s worth a read:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9180

 

[imkingdad]

I sincerely hope you are correct on Cafeteria Catholicism becoming outdated but don’t hold your breath.

First we need to see some actual excommunications of these deficient politicians by determined & gutsy Bishops. So far Its been all the politicians way. Bishop’s score is zero & stilling waiting.

There are far too many Catholic in name only (CINO) politicians who arrogantly flaunt the teachings of the Church in Every diocese in America. On the brighter side we have recently ( last couple years) begun to see some of our more Traditional / conservative Bishops take up this gauntlet & begin to take action. Now if only the USCCB & Rome will press for the necessity to actually do something other than provide lip-service then perhaps we can begin to correct this scandal in our Church.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

The tide is turning more quickly than I expected…Cafeteria Catholicism is DEFINITELY on it’s way out.

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by that. IIRC, RI is the most Catholic state in the country and Kennedy gets elected by sizable margins every time.

 

[Bailey2]

“Cafeteria Catholicism” is when people who say they are Catholic pick and choose what, out of the entire ball of wax, they want to believe. In the case of Kennedy, he claims to be Catholic but he advocates abortion rights… which is not Catholic teaching. Other ways “Cafeteria Catholics” act is choosing not to go to mass because they don’t feel like it on a particular Sunday when the teaching is we must attend. This is what is meant by “Cafeteria Catholic”.

Is that practice of Catholicism going “out?” I’m not sure I agree with that unless one thinks only in black and white: you are “in” or “out,” saved or damned. As I have posted elsewhere (probably making many enemies), my journey to a full acceptance of the whole ball of wax was a long process of small compromises along the way. So I tend not to judge people as either “faithful” or “cafeteria” because as far as I am concerned, I was Catholic all along… just one giving an honest struggle with all the emotions associated with that. Catholics Come Home is a perfect setting for working through that…so is a good spiritual director. The bishop was offering the second to Kennedy in the person of himself.

So that’s my two cents; bottom line, I don’t differentiate. I just pray those, who on the outside look like the label “cafeteria,” are filled with the grace to be open to the Spirit of Conversion. But I loathe labels since they tend to drive those struggling Catholics away. I will become very verbal however, if like Kennedy, a person publicly speaks in such a way that will lead others astray or prevent them from their journey to the truth.

 

[CradleCath]

I sincerely hope you are correct on Cafeteria Catholicism becoming outdated but don’t hold your breath.

First we need to see some actual excommunications of these deficient politicians by determined & gutsy Bishops. So far Its been all the politicians way. Bishop’s score is zero & stilling waiting.

There are far too many Catholic in name only (CINO) politicians who arrogantly flaunt the teachings of the Church in Every diocese in America. On the brighter side we have recently ( last couple years) begun to see some of our more Traditional / conservative Bishops take up this gauntlet & begin to take action. Now if only the USCCB & Rome will press for the necessity to actually do something other than provide lip-service then perhaps we can begin to correct this scandal in our Church.

Rome has spoken clearly:
ROME, March 4, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Some Catholic Bishops in North America seem to be on a different page from the Vatican when it comes to reception of Communion for Catholic politicians who support abortion. Since the controversy came to a head in the 2004 US federal election, most Catholic bishops in the US have either remained silent on the issue, or have made softer statements than the authoritative word from Rome: a word that has been re-affirmed many times and continues to be reasserted regularly.

Most recently, Francis Cardinal Arinze, speaking at a Catholic family conference in Ohio last November, referred to a letter on the subject sent by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, who said that such politicians “must” be “refused” Communion.

Video footage, posted recently by the conference organizers and made available on YouTube, shows Cardinal Arinze, the head of Vatican office of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, replying to the question of pro-abortion politicians and the inaction of their bishops. He said “You may have heard about the letter which the present Holy Father, as prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, sent to American bishops on that issue, so the matter is very clear.”

It’s the American hierarchy that has been silent about politians who vote for abortion rights for far too long.

You may recall, that in 2004, a letter from then Cardinal Ratzinger was hidden from the rest of the USCCB. by then president of same… Cardinal McCarrick.

EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo said, “In 2004, when the Bishops of the US were anguishing over whether to allow communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion laws, Cardinal McCarrick concealed a letter from his brother bishops. The missive was from the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then Cardinal (now Pope) Joseph Ratzinger. Had the bishops received the letter intended to help guide their debate, things might have gone very differently. The contents of that letter are still relevant, particularly now when dissenting Catholics have made grandiose pronouncements about what it means to be a Catholic in public life.”

The problem isn’t the fault of the Pope, it can be laid at the feet of the USCCB.
I find that during the past two years, some of our hierarchy have found their voice about pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians…regardless of what the “good ole boys” in the USCCB will say & it gives me some hope.

 

[Mijoy2]

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by that. IIRC, RI is the most Catholic state in the country and Kennedy gets elected by sizable margins every time.

There is an obvious reason for this. RI’ers just like Patrick Kennedy, are unaware that refusing to obey church teaching on matters of faith and morals makes them (in the words of Patrick Kennedy), less of a Catholic.

It’s my experience that the vast majority of catholics are unaware (or at least, uneducated in what this actually means and why) of this.

Catholics are not taught this anywhere throughout thier catechesis. Which of course makes them less responsible.

Isn’t it time the church stopped backing away from this off-limits dogma? In my opinion this is a sin of omission. What is the church afraid of, loosing parisheners? What is better a smaller church of true followers or a larger church of ignorant make up your own doctrine catholics?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

What Congressman Kennedy is missing it that the term Cafeteria Catholic was in years past called by its proper name, i.e., heretic. To be truly Catholic, one must believe all that the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church believes and teaches. Failure to comply with that removes them from being truly Catholic. By this measurement and by his own admission, he is not truly Catholic, no matter how much he thinks that he is. His statements also, because of his prominent position, place others in danger of being led astray. That burden would be his. He needs “a sit down chat with he boss”. That is if he has the intestinal fortitude to do so.

He remains in my prayers that he no longer, through pride, removes himself from the rank of being truly Catholic.

 

[CradleCath]

There is an obvious reason for this. RI’ers just like Patrick Kennedy, are unaware that refusing to obey church teaching on matters of faith and morals makes them (in the words of Patrick Kennedy), less of a Catholic.

It’s very hard to believe that someone as educated & knowledgeable as Patrick Kennedy is “unaware” that he has become “less of a Catholic” by his support of abortion. Politicians are, of course, automatically excommunicated the first time they cast their vote FOR abortion. If he was, uniformed, he can’t claim that he still is, after the letter from the Bishop. IMO., these pro-abortion politicians refuse to believe the truth because their political careers are more important to them than their souls…OR…& this is more likely, they use the “Primacy of Concience” doctrine…(Archbishop Pell in Australia has some interesting comments of “P of C”. My own favorite is “Primacy
of Concience is the most abused Catholic Doctrine in the whole history of the Church”.

QUOTE]It’s my experience that the vast majority of catholics are unaware (or at least, uneducated in what this actually means and why) of this.
Catholics are not taught this anywhere throughout thier catechesis. Which of course makes them less responsible.

 

[elts1956]

What Congressman Kennedy is missing it that the term Cafeteria Catholic was in years past called by its proper name, i.e., heretic. To be truly Catholic, one must believe all that the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church believes and teaches. Failure to comply with that removes them from being truly Catholic. By this measurement and by his own admission, he is not truly Catholic, no matter how much he thinks that he is. His statements also, because of his prominent position, place others in danger of being led astray. That burden would be his. He needs “a sit down chat with he boss”. That is if he has the intestinal fortitude to do so.

He remains in my prayers that he no longer, through pride, removes himself from the rank of being truly Catholic.

Is the term “heretic” or “schismatic”?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Is the term “heretic” or “schismatic”?

The term is heretic. A schismatic is one who has outwardly broken off from the true fold and goes a separate way.

 

[elts1956]

The term is heretic. A schismatic is one who has outwardly broken off from the true fold and goes a separate way.

Okay, maybe I am confused, but I thought in Evangelium Vitae Pope John Paul II stated those today who belong to a faith outside the Catholic Church are not considered heretics. Is Martin Luther a heretic? I am going to have to get out my trusty Catholic dictionary and look that up for my own education and to get it straight.

Never mind. I looked it up. So was Luther a schismatic AND a heretic? Off the subject, I apologize. Just would like to know.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Never mind. I looked it up. So was Luther a schismatic AND a heretic? Off the subject, I apologize. Just would like to know.

To my way of thinking, YES.

 

[elts1956]

To my way of thinking, YES.

:thankyou:

 

[OriginalJS]

The Kennedy political family is simply too powerful for the Church to confront and engage in either Massachusetts or Rhode Island. The Church engages heavily in political issues and has to pick its battles carefully or risk losing more authority. Politics isn’t pretty, but it is real.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

The Kennedy political family is simply too powerful for the Church to confront and engage in either Massachusetts or Rhode Island. The Church engages heavily in political issues and has to pick its battles carefully or risk losing more authority. Politics isn’t pretty, but it is real.

This may seem uncharitable but its the political truth: Patrick Kennedy is a nobody.
Yes, he wins elections because of his name but did you ever wonder why he never ran for office in Mass? Its because he wouldn’t win. Outside of his first election for the House he’s never faced a real opponent in RI. The Republican party doesn’t exist in RI outside of the governor’s office.
He purposely chose RI for his career because he knew once he got his foot in the door the democratic machine would keep him safe. He had a chance to run for Senate when the seat opened up and he smartly declined because he would have had to face a real opponent.
Without his father to protect him, he’s in real danger now. His usefulness to the party may almost be up. He hasn’t been a factor in most issues in the House despite the fact he’s been placed on some very powerful committees. He was previously useful for the party to trot out on the national scene but after a series of drug and alcohol related incidents he’s washed up.

Essentially, Patrick Kennedy can be taken on without losing anything. His father was a different story, but his father also never publicly attacked the Church so there was a kind of uneasy stalemate there. But Patrick wields no power, he’s the one who is used by others with the power and he’s becoming less useful to them by the minute…

 

[buffalo]

I am a good Catholic because I say I am. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

 

[JReducation]

Now that the news is out about the Bishop’s direction to Congressman Kennedy that he should not receive communion there is going to be an outbreak of jubilation on the part of some. Such an outbreak is inappropriate. Whenever a member of the Body is denied the Eucharist, it is a very sad event in the history of the Church, not a feather in the bishop’s cap.

This is not to say that the bishop is wrong. He is right. But we must understand why he is right. Congressman Kennedy challenged the bishops’ fidelity to the teachings of the Church on life. He did so in a very public manner by taking it to the press. Therefore, he placed himself in a situation where he opened the door for a very public response. In this regard other politicians, including his father and Nancy Pelosi, to name a few, were much more prudent. They did not challenge the bishops’ moral character. They voted as they have, without attacking the bishops in public or the teachings of the Church. The Congressman crossed that line. Therefore, the bishop has the right to respond in a public manner.

All of this being said, it is not a triumph for the Church and we should not look at it as such. It is a very sad day in the history of the Church in the USA when we have to deny someone the Eucharist in such a public way. All of us should be saddened that this came to pass. When one member of the Church is disciplined in such a way, the entire body suffers. This is not the kind of action that the Church enjoys taking. It is like the parent of an adult child who has to tell that child that they must conform to the rules of the family or move out. It is done, because it is the right thing to do. Nonetheless, it is a very painful thing for the parent to do. The same applies to the bishops and to us who are Catholics. This is a very painful thing to have to do. We have to join together, not in a celebration, but in sadness and hope that this prodigal son will return.

Perfect charity does not rejoice in the punishment of another. On the contrary, it rejoices in the return of the prodigal sons and daughters of the Church and is greatly saddened when one has to ask one’s brother or sister to stop receiving the Eucharist, because their position is untenable. Let’s hope that such a position will not last long. Let us use our moment of grief and pain over the loss here to do penance for those who do not do penance, as St. Francis would say.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[mmm1]

Now that the news is out about the Bishop’s direction to Congressman Kennedy that he should not receive communion there is going to be an outbreak of jubilation on the part of some. Such an outbreak is inappropriate. Whenever a member of the Body is denied the Eucharist, it is a very sad event in the history of the Church, not a feather in the bishop’s cap.

This is not to say that the bishop is wrong. He is right. But we must understand why he is right. Congressman Kennedy challenged the bishops’ fidelity to the teachings of the Church on life. He did so in a very public manner by taking it to the press. Therefore, he placed himself in a situation where he opened the door for a very public response. In this regard other politicians, including his father and Nancy Pelosi, to name a few, were much more prudent. They did not challenge the bishops’ moral character. They voted as they have, without attacking the bishops in public or the teachings of the Church. The Congressman crossed that line. Therefore, the bishop has the right to respond in a public manner.

All of this being said, it is not a triumph for the Church and we should not look at it as such. It is a very sad day in the history of the Church in the USA when we have to deny someone the Eucharist in such a public way. All of us should be saddened that this came to pass. When one member of the Church is disciplined in such a way, the entire body suffers. This is not the kind of action that the Church enjoys taking. It is like the parent of an adult child who has to tell that child that they must conform to the rules of the family or move out. It is done, because it is the right thing to do. Nonetheless, it is a very painful thing for the parent to do. The same applies to the bishops and to us who are Catholics. This is a very painful thing to have to do. We have to join together, not in a celebration, but in sadness and hope that this prodigal son will return.

Perfect charity does not rejoice in the punishment of another. On the contrary, it rejoices in the return of the prodigal sons and daughters of the Church and is greatly saddened when one has to ask one’s brother or sister to stop receiving the Eucharist, because their position is untenable. Let’s hope that such a position will not last long. Let us use our moment of grief and pain over the loss here to do penance for those who do not do penance, as St. Francis would say.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Wow, thank you for your perspective & very wise reminder. I was feeling very grateful for this very courageous bishop, but I was perhaps a little TOO happy. Your points are well taken & very well presented.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Well said JR!!!

 

[Christopher68]

I expect politicians to engage in public fueds. I do not expect it of our church leaders. IMHO, Bishop Tobin has diminished his position by engaging in a public weeing contest with a politician.