'Disconcerted' Kennedy bites back [CN-USA]

[redrosetea]

Call me naive; but I’m still trying to figure out what Congressman Kennedy thought he was going to get as a response when he made the statement that he made to the press. Why the surprise?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

He was looking for attention and a atta boy from like minded people who profess to be a catholic…then do as they please

 

[mark_a]

Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy has described comments by Providence Bishop ThomasTobin questioning the congressman’s faith because of his stance onabortion and health care reform as “very disconcerting.”

More…

Three cheers for the bishop!!

 

[dachsiemom]

Three cheers for the bishop!!

I second this. Like all the Kennedys, Patrick is interested primarily in advancing his political career above upholding morals and values in line with the Catholic church. He got the exact response that he deserved and should of expected. Perhaps he thought be was above public admonishment. Too bad more Bishops don’t have the courage and backbone to stand up against other so called Catholic politicians - Pelosi, Kerry, etc.

 

[JReducation]

I second this. Like all the Kennedys, Patrick is interested primarily in advancing his political career above upholding morals and values in line with the Catholic church. He got the exact response that he deserved and should of expected. Perhaps he thought be was above public admonishment. Too bad more Bishops don’t have the courage and backbone to stand up against other so called Catholic politicians - Pelosi, Kerry, etc.

With all due respect, I have to be faithful to my own vocation and come out in defense of our bishops. Mr. Kennedy’s situation is very different from that of the other politicians that you mentioned. Mr. Kennedy publicly attacked the bishops and falsely accused them of not caring about healthcare and of not being pro-life. He did this in the public forum. His bishop had to respond to him in the public forum.

To-date, not other Catholic politician has attacked the bishops in public. They have sustained the position on moral issues. This is true. But they have not charged the bishops with not caring about God’s people. Their argument has always been that they feel compelled to separate their public service from their Catholic life. Their positions are positions of poorly formed consciences. In these situations, the bishops can deal with them in the private forum, without anyone knowing that they have ever spoken. We do not know about conversations between these politicians and the bishops and we will never know, not fromt he bishops. Pastors do not share this information with the general public.

They may not have spoken at all or they may have had long and extensive conversations. But we will never be told about those conversations. There is a pastoral policy that cannot be violated. You may never discuss conversations aboiut conscience. You may not even mention that you have had them. This applies to bishops, priests, deacons, religious, laity, spiritual directors, pastoral counselors and anyone involved in ministry.

Let’s not be too quick to condemn bishops for what we cannot prove. That’s not fair. Again, I say this with all due respect. But as a Franciscan, I am not allowed to move along while a bishop or bishops are questioned. St. Francis was very clear that one of our roles in the Church was to defend the bishops and model submission to them under any situation, even if it seemed that the bishop was sinning. A bishop is always the successor of the Apostles. That trumps everything else that they do or fail to do. Our holy Father said that we must live in awe and veneration of the apostolic succession that is maintained by the bishop and without which we have no Church. We have a moral duty to model this fidelity for the laity to follow. This has nothing to do with the holiness or sinfulness of a bishop. It’s about his apostolic identity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Nordar]

With all due respect, I have to be faithful to my own vocation and come out in defense of our bishops. Mr. Kennedy’s situation is very different from that of the other politicians that you mentioned. Mr. Kennedy publicly attacked the bishops and falsely accused them of not caring about healthcare and of not being pro-life. He did this in the public forum. His bishop had to respond to him in the public forum.

To-date, not other Catholic politician has attacked the bishops in public. They have sustained the position on moral issues. This is true. But they have not charged the bishops with not caring about God’s people. Their argument has always been that they feel compelled to separate their public service from their Catholic life. Their positions are positions of poorly formed consciences. In these situations, the bishops can deal with them in the private forum, without anyone knowing that they have ever spoken. We do not know about conversations between these politicians and the bishops and we will never know, not fromt he bishops. Pastors do not share this information with the general public.

They may not have spoken at all or they may have had long and extensive conversations. But we will never be told about those conversations. There is a pastoral policy that cannot be violated. You may never discuss conversations aboiut conscience. You may not even mention that you have had them. This applies to bishops, priests, deacons, religious, laity, spiritual directors, pastoral counselors and anyone involved in ministry.

Let’s not be too quick to condemn bishops for what we cannot prove. That’s not fair. Again, I say this with all due respect. But as a Franciscan, I am not allowed to move along while a bishop or bishops are questioned. St. Francis was very clear that one of our roles in the Church was to defend the bishops and model submission to them under any situation, even if it seemed that the bishop was sinning. A bishop is always the successor of the Apostles. That trumps everything else that they do or fail to do. Our holy Father said that we must live in awe and veneration of the apostolic succession that is maintained by the bishop and without which we have no Church. We have a moral duty to model this fidelity for the laity to follow. This has nothing to do with the holiness or sinfulness of a bishop. It’s about his apostolic identity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I love that video!

 

[Stylites]

The problem was created by Mr. Kennedy himself. He decided to take the bishops to task in the press, because of their position on abortion and healthcare reform. The moment you take your disagreement into the public forum, you’re going to get back a public response.

Had Mr. Kennedy voiced his concerns in the privacy of his home, the parish or even the bishop’s office, the bishop would not have responded in public. He could’t. He’s not allowed to do so.

But Mr. Kennedy opened up Pandora’s Box by making a public statement about the bishops. Now he has to bite the bullet.

I don’t follow you here, JR. A politician who publicly votes for abortion is already in the public spotlight, and his bishop ought to be allowed to speak out about it regardless of whether the bishop’s authority was publicly called into question. Granted, I haven’t followed this dust-up between them as much as I should have.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

There are, as it were, two sinful acts involved here. The first sin is to support abortion. The second sin is to deny that this support is sinful. And it is this second sin, even more than the first, that is the worse potential source of scandal - leading others to sin.

Certain homosexual activists have put themselves in the same position. It is sinful, against the virtue of chastity, to engage in homosexual acts. But to assert that it is not sinful to do so is a potentially much more harmful sin to the community of believers, whether or not the asserter actually participates in the acts (a “supporter,” as it were).

Public action is not called for with respect to most sinners. But where there is scandal, or the risk of scandal (in the theological sense), then it becomes necessary. And Kennedy, by openly and prominently claiming that he can do what he does without jeopardy to his communion with the Church, has certainly caused scandal.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[JReducation]

I don’t follow you here, JR. A politician who publicly votes for abortion is already in the public spotlight, and his bishop ought to be allowed to speak out about it regardless of whether the bishop’s authority was publicly called into question. Granted, I haven’t followed this dust-up between them as much as I should have.

The point is that the Holy See has made it very clear that clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) are not allowed to publicly call into question an individual’s conscience. They are allowed to say that their vote for an abortion law is immoral, because the law is immoral. But they cannot publicly say that the person is not a good Catholic, by name. That has to be done in the private forum. That’s why some bishops have called some of these politicians in to their office for a one-on-one talk.

But when one of them, who is Catholic, charges the bishops with being less Catholic for whatever reason, then that person has taken the issue of cosncience into the public sphere. These liberates the clergy to respond through the same medium.

In essence, no clergyman can challenge any Catholic politician’s faith in public, unless that person puts himself into such a position in public, as Mr. Kennedy has done. The reason is simple, the Church has always held that conscience is sacred and it must be dealt with in a respectful manner. Therefore, it must be done in private.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF