Providence Bishop Thomas Tobin has publicly asked Rep. Patrick Kennedy to stop taking communion with the Catholic Church due to his support for abortion, confirming that he asked Kennedy to refrain from communion in a private discussion in 2007. The confrontation became public after Kennedy revealed the 2007 conversation. The move could embolden other bishops in barring public officials from the sacrament, particularly in light of the health bill’s protection of abortion services.
Kennedy touched off the public spat in an interview with the Providence Journal when he revealed Tobin’s ban due “the positions that I’ve taken as a public official.” Tobin was clearly upset about the disclosure, stating that it was “pastoral and confidential.” He stated “I am disappointed that the congressman would make public my request of nearly three years ago that sought to provide solely for his spiritual well-being.” While Tobin may feel that he has caused to ban Kennedy, I find it a bit curious that he would first ban a man for his public positions and then be angry that Kennedy publicly discussed the ban with his voters. If the cause for the ban was Kennedy’s public work, he was more than within his rights to raise it with his voters and fellow Catholics.
The bishop is promising more public exchanges if Kennedy continues to speak out: “I have no desire to continue the discussion of Congressman Kennedy’s spiritual life in public. At the same time, I will absolutely respond publicly and strongly whenever he attacks the Catholic Church, misrepresents the teachings of the church or issues inaccurate statements about my pastoral ministry.”
Other leading Catholic leaders have faced similar moves by local priests over their votes in Congress, here and here.
For the full story, click here.
It seems Edwards son is making a name for himself about the same time frame. He has a right to his opinion as much as the Bishop, because this was a personal matter it is this mans prerogative to make public or not, not the Bishops. However becuase of other personal issues it seems to me that the Bishop was attempting to emotionally blackmail Patrick. Or it seems that the time frame is about the same.
Hopefully this young ma will have learned his lesson about alcohol and drugs as a “practicing Kennedy” but only time will tell. His actions and law enforcement involvement in his life are telling different story’s to the same end.
On a personal level I hope he cleans up. On a spiritual level that is a decision between he and his conscience. I think that this is really about the National Health Care and Abortion.
I just found a nifty article that should send some people over the edge with the RI RCC.
“Priests Protesting Vatican Visitation of Women Religious Orders.” It appears that the sisters have been accused of assisting with abortions and with the support of the menly priest that also support investigation of priest abuses.
The Bishop must be boiling…..
Professor Off Topic
Here is an unusual twist on children not going to see the non custodial parent.
“Go to jail or spend time with Dad”
Selected out of article.
The judge sends him to “juvenile detention” center, just because he does not want to “visit” with his father! A “contempt of court” charge! What’s MORE important? A contempt of court charge, or the emotional trauma this child is forced to endure??? It will only made this child more bitter, more rebellious, more non-compliment, so really nothing “positive” gets accomplished.
Link: http://justicewinds.blogspot.com/2009/11/go-to-jail-or-spend-time-with-dad.html
More traditional.
WI: Judge jails mother over daughter’s refusal to visit father
On November 12, Marinette County Circuit Court Judge David Miron sentenced a mother to 30 days in jail for her daughter’s repeated refusal to comply with court ordered visitation with her father. Loraine Tipton was immediately taken into custody following the contempt hearing.
Link: http://www.nowpublic.com/world/wi-judge-jails-mother-over-daughters-refusal-visit-father
This one makes a better read.
“I have no desire to continue the discussion of Congressman Kennedy’s spiritual life in public. At the same time, I will absolutely respond publicly and strongly whenever he attacks the Catholic Church, misrepresents the teachings of the church or issues inaccurate statements about my pastoral ministry.”
*****************
“Strongly” and “publicly”? That’s a pretty fair description of the auto de fé . Welcome to the the Thirteenth Century.
It’s funny that the door to this nonsense was opened by the fundamentalist Protestants who worried that Catholics would set up a theocracy. Instead, they decided to shred the Constitution and tell lies about the roots of American democracy. The Kennedys used to be able to basically buy off the Church hierarchy, now they have a Bishop who is both emboldened and defanged. A Churchthat’s in hock up to its eyeballs because of pedophile scandals is in no position to be throwing its weight around like this.
Cardinal Law of the archdiocese of Boston, other officials of the Catholic church, and some pastors in Massachusetts allowed pedophiles to remain priests–transferring them to different parishes once it was found out what they had done. Everything was kept quiet. Parishoners had no idea about the background of their “new” priests–some of whom were still allowed access to children.
Cardinal Law had to resign as archbishop of Boston once the story went public and lots of lawsuits were filed against the church–but he’s still a respected member of the hierarchy. In fact, he’s now in charge of a fine basilica in Rome.
These religious folks aren’t barred from receiving Communion. Many are still consecrating the host at Mass. I guess they’re not seen to be sinners like Kennedy.
Evidently the church doesn’t consider the sexual abuse of children a terrible–or mortal–sin.
mespo,
I agree. If it’s supposed to be confidential on the part of the priest, what part of “confidential” doesn’t he understand? The burden of keeping his mouth shut rests on the priest, not the congregate. Basically, this is blackmail.
The church really needs to have its tax exempt status pulled. They’ve racked up more than enough evidence to do so.
Also, this is clearly about the chruch’s war on women. They aren’t pulling communion for funding/starting wars or supporting the death penalty. I guess some parts of church doctrine or more equal than others.
Awww.
The poor old child molesters won’t share their punch and cookies.
I’m thinking “all of my love and compassion to everyone . . . except for those bastards over there” is not one of Jesus’ teachings.
Elaine,
Good point! This level of hypocrisy is really sickening.
Elaine I think the church probably does consider sexual abuse a mortal sin but a sin that one can receive absolution for. Any sex outside if marriage is a mortal sin to the RCC but you can confess it and go on and receive communion I guess they view criticism as an unforgivable mortal sin. No wonder i don’t go any more.
And let’s be clear about something else too.
The RCC isn’t in hock over anything. If one thinks that, one truly has no grasp on the financial scope of the institution. It’s the first multi-national corporation in many ways.
They are avoiding prosecution and damages owed. Fleeing not only justice, but truth and the very words of the book they profess to have a corner on.
The Pope will still be able to wear the silly hats and ride in the Popemobile even if they pay out every dime owed and justly due.
Jill–
“Also, this is clearly about the chruch’s war on women. They aren’t pulling communion for funding/starting wars or supporting the death penalty. I guess some parts of church doctrine or more equal than others.”
************
I agree. One has to keep women in their place, you know. Consider, too, how the church frowns on the use of contraceptives.
Swarthmore mom–
I was just being sarcastic.
The church may say the sexual abuse of children is a mortal sin–but in the collective eyes of the church, some mortal sins are less forgivable than others…especially where women are concerned.
Swarthmore mom–
P.S. I don’t go any more either.
Buddha,
That’s true. Unless abuse victims are able to go after the god-father and his many riches, the church is just fine and dandy. They only act poor to avoid paying damages for their “acceptable” sins against children, but financially, they are loaded.
What the church needs is some non-cannibal wafers. They’ll look just like the body of christ ones but they can be given out to whomever the priest doesn’t like today. No one but the priest will know who’s soul is so black that they can’t be a cannibal at the service.
Patrick Kennedy had a abortion?
Yesterday I heard an original composition called: Martyrdom of the Basiji. It was written in honor of the young boys and old men Khomeini asked to run over the land mines during the Iraq/Iran war. Once they had exploded the mines the strong men could safely run over the now cleared mine fields. He gave each child and old man a plastic key to carry as they entered the fields, so upon their deaths, they could enter the gates of heaven.
Religions are a death cult. Our society is a death cult. This is a link to a story of our military’s recruitment of kindergärtners. I put it here because 1. this thread shows the utter contempt with which the lives of children are held and 2. this is a day to call and tell the president and our congresss that we won’t vote/help them if they continue to support the death cult of war. They are giving plastic keys to our young people. It is reprehensible and they most be stopped.
Here’s the link: (duh)
http://www.truthout.org/1117091?print
this bishop is just embarrassing himself and the church.
abortion is a legal medical procedure and if Kennedy or any other catholic wants to work to keep a woman’s right to choose safe and legal, that is their right.
too bad if this bishop doesn’t like it.
Now we know why Governor Sanford is not catholic I suppose.
It is an amusing tangent that when JFK ran he had to specify that none of his decisions would be dictated by the Pope. The RCC in the US and in Rome, certainly did not dispute his rights on this.
The Bishop is obviously too busy avoiding lawsuits and protecting pedophiles to understand that he is setting up an argument against Catholics holding political office. It’s always the unintended consequences of stupid actions that tend to bite one in their ass.
Cardinal Egan criticizes Rudy Giuliani for taking Communion
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/04/28/2008-04-28_cardinal_egan_criticizes_rudy_giuliani_f.html
Hey, Rudy: Taking Holy Communion at the papal Mass was a sin.
An angry Edward Cardinal Egan pounded New York’s pro-choice former Mayor Rudy Giuliani from his Internet pulpit on Monday for taking the Eucharist at Pope Benedict’s historic Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral.
“The Catholic Church clearly teaches that abortion is a grave offense against the will of God,” Egan said in a statement on the archdiocesan Web site.
“Throughout my years as archbishop of New York, I have repeated this teaching in sermons, articles, addresses and interviews without hesitation or compromise of any kind.”
Egan said he had “an understanding” with the failed Republican presidential hopeful “that he was not to receive the Eucharist because of his well-known support of abortion.”
And yet the twice-divorced Giuliani, accompanied by his third wife, Judith, received Communion from a priest standing near the Pope on April 19.
“I deeply regret that Mr. Giuliani received the Eucharist during the papal visit here in New York, and I will be seeking a meeting with him to insist that he abide by our understanding,” he said in a statement.
Giuliani acknowledged last night that he had an understanding with Egan, but refused to elaborate.
Giuliani wasn’t the only pro-choice politician who received Holy Communion during the papal visit. So did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sens. John Kerry, Christopher Dodd and Edward Kennedy at Nationals Park in Washington
Q. 2. Under what circumstances can a Catholic priest deny someone the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist?
A. It can be denied under the following circumstances:
1. The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist cannot be administered to members of other religions, and
2. The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist cannot be administered to those who voluntarily continue to live in grave sin.
Q. 4. Where does it teach in the Catholic Church that the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist cannot be administered to those who voluntarily continue to live in grave sin?
A. This reference is found in Canon Law # Canon Law # 915.
Canon 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Q. 5. Is this supported by the Holy Bible?
A. Yes, in the First Letter to the Corinthians, it states:
“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworhty manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves.” [1 Cor. 11:27-9]
The non-Catholics are unworthy of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ because they do not believe in the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, nor in the real Presence of the Lord Jesus in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.
Catholics who live in grave sin, such as in common-law relationship, practicing homosexuals, those who have not been to Church, nor received the Sacraments for over a year, etc… are unworthy of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ because they are not in a state of grace.
As I have stated before the Vatican aka the “Roman” CC is the greatest franchise holder in the world. Fee sharing started with render unto Caesar what is Caesars.
Mike S.: “It is an amusing tangent that when JFK ran he had to specify that none of his decisions would be dictated by the Pope. The RCC in the US and in Rome, certainly did not dispute his rights on this.”
I remember it well, Mike. The Protestant ministers. led by Norman Vincent Peale did not want a President who would take orders from the Pope.
Nowadays, many Protestant fundamentalists would just love to see a Catholic President, and a lot of other Catholic politician, following the orders of the Pope and their Bishops.
And about that quotation above from St. Paul.
As Adlai said at the time, “I find St. Paul appealing, but Peale appalling.”
Is that the rhumba those angels are doing on the head of that pin? Holy shit. It’s the horizontal rhumba!
When is the last time the church denied communion to any of the many Catholic supporters of the death penalty?
Good point, QC. When was it last denied to a member of the Mafia?
Vince–
I think Jill got it right, too, when she wrote: “Also, this is clearly about the church’s war on women. They aren’t pulling communion for funding/starting wars or supporting the death penalty. I guess some parts of church doctrine or more equal than others.”
The church “fathers” have little respect for women–that is, unless the women are women of great wealth. The church believes having an abortion is a sin–yet it says it’s wrong for Catholics to use contraceptives. I’d hazard a guess that if these “guys in gowns” had to spend their fruitful years pregnant most of the time and had to raise and financially support a slew of children, they might have a different perspective.
Elaine,
You really make an interesting point about priests, children and the church. We already, in effect, know they would not support their children. They have abused thousands of children and they would rather pretend bankruptcy than offer a thin dime, let alone love and an apology for their cruelty.
The spat between Bishop Tobin and Rep. Kennedy hides the real issue, the completely predictable and increasingly overt efforts by religious groups to utilize faith-based initiatives as a mechanism for imposing religious doctrines on publicly financed programs. I defy Bishop Tobin or any other Catholic bishop to provide a coherent explanation concerning the circumstances under which Catholic politicians will be denied access to the sacraments. Forget Canon Law on this issue. The bishops are politicizing the sacraments by using them as a lobbying tool to influence voting on legislative proposals. There is no difference between Bishop Tobin’s actions and those of Archbishop Wuerl of Washington, D.C., who has publicly stated that the Church would have to withdraw from managing publicly funded programs for the poor if the D.C. City Council approves same-sex marriage. It was also Archbishop Wuerl who publicly stated that the ban on communion imposed by her local bishop on then Gov. Kathleen Sibelius for her support of abortion rights would continue when she relocated to Washington this past spring.
If the Catholic Church or any other denomination is to receive tax dollars in connection with the operation of public charities, they will have to comply with public laws. Religious groups have instead been pushing for various exemptions from the law. This is precisely why the concept of faith-based initiatives is fundamentally flawed and, in my lonely opinion, unconstitutional. Religious organizations are free to perform charitable ministries on their own dime. Tax funded social programs, however, should be run by public organizations. And efforts to permit tax dollars to be used to advance religious views should be uniformly and unequivocably denied.
Mike A.–
I’ll second that!
Jill, your comment about the Church’s “war on women” reminded me of Gloria Steinem’s famous observation that if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
“rcampbell
Patrick Kennedy had a abortion?”
===================================================================
Perfect!
If the politician doesn’t believe what his church believes, he should join a different church. There’s plenty that support abortion.
The Catholic Church hierarchy are such hypocrites. They flout the law when they hide felonious priests from facing charges in numerous child abuse cases, but yet they will ban someone from taking communion. Patrick Kennedy should just walk and take his contributions with him and watch the Bishop change his tune.
Mike A.,
I had forgotten that Steinham line. so true!
Simone: “If the politician doesn’t believe what his church believes, he should join a different church. There’s plenty that support abortion.”
Simone should be more careful with these charges. The bishop did not appear to say the politician “doesn’t believe what his church believes,” according to the report.
The politician and the bishop just seems to disagree on the political issue of whether or not the church’s views on morality should imposed by law on those who do not share its beliefs.
Before the 1960, the sale of contraceptives in Massachusetts was illegal. The Church supported the ban until 1960, even though it applied to non-Catholics. (Connecticut, in the Griswold case, banned the USE of them, if you can believe it)!
There was no excuse for that kind of high-handed behavior.
The church can preach to its members and others not to have abortions. It should be wary of its history in the United States, when other religions tried to impose their beliefs on immigrant RCs. They ordered protestant prayers in public schools, forcing creation of parochial schools. They imposed Prohibition on RCs, who saw no sin in drinking.
The bishop better study up on the role of religion in a tolerant, pluralist society.
This is not Spain in the Inquisition. It is not the Papal States before 1870.
Charges? What charges?
I’m saying if you’re going to belong to something, you should stand behind it. Old fashioned loyalty. Be loyal. Yeah, that’s a ‘charge.’ lol
I’m not a politician but hypothetically if I were to support abortion in a public way, for example write a letter stating my stance in the newspaper, I too would be denied communion. Oooh like the Spanish Inquisition.
It seems Mr Treacy is having difficulty understanding the concept of separation of church and state. The fact that the Catholic is in politics just gets him in the news. Same as it did for Guilliani and Sebelius. And they are free to leave the Catholic Church if they don’t sort it out with their church leaders.
“I am disappointed that the congressman would make public my request of nearly three years ago that sought to provide solely for his spiritual well-being.”
The Bishop is just pissed he can’t influence public policy in secret by muscling a public official in private about his “spirituality”. I suppose when they pushing for the Stupak amendment in the middle of the night it was just spiritual advising too? Passing laws against non-Catholics?
Does anyone call to mind some men that were in direct disagreement with the church. Luther? Dante? Wesley? The list is endless.
If memory serves me correctly all but 8 of the “Edit of Worms” were eventually adopted by the Roman Catholic Church, this is to be distinguished from other Catholic Churches, like the Orthodox, South American. They left the church for many of the same stupid reasons.
Granted the press did not get around until about 1440 and most people could not read. I guess they still left a bad taste in other peoples mouth.
The charge was that the politician is a bad Catholic who cannot receive. That was the charge.
They are all politicians. The bishop is a politician trying to forward his cause, playing the communion card. Ridiculous. He is also a lousy politician.
They used to condemn Catholics to hell for charging interest. Then the morality all changed one day. How about all those guys burning in Hell for eating meat on Friday? Slavery was perfectly moral for Catholics until the 19th Century. No one was ever denied communion for owning, torturing or raping a slave, or splitting up a slave family. Chief Justice Taney, a racist who said blacks had no rights, was a devout Catholic. The Pope supported the slaveowners in the Civil War. Now, however, it is sinful to own a slave. Go figure it out and get back to us.
Simone cannot understand separation of church and state, since she wants her church to impose its beliefs on the state. That is not separation. That is establishment of religion.
And just where was that “support of abortion” anyway. There is nothing wrong with opposing abortion, but taking the position that a church’s views should not be imposed on those who disagree.
Would Catholics like to see their access to gambling and drinking made illegal by religionists who consider those activities immoral? No.
Their shoes are squeezing their feet. Hypocrisy.
Vince,
Do not forget that the Catholic’s were paid a handsome fee for each African slave transferred. Hell part of what caused the Texicans to split from the Mexicans was the tithes that were being extracted for the Catholic Church.
Do not forget that the Bishop is about as Political as any Congress person. The successful Bishops become Cardinals who are entrusted with running the financial affairs in the Vatican. Oh, by the way, who controls the European Commodity Market? Thought so. The fees extracted there is more than most American brokers would ever pay.
It is worth noting that Cardinal Bernard Law, notorious for his role in covering up child sexual abuse in Boston, takes communion every day in the Vatican without word one from the good churchman Tobin. Wonder how Tobin squares that at vespers.
Simone and the like are the big winners in this debate. They are driving away members by the millions.
The RCC has lost 30 million members in the US in the last 50 years, according to a Pew survey last year.
Thirty million.
Thirty million, in a population of about 300 million.
That is one of the biggest single religious cohorts in the country.
One of every ten Americans.
Ten percent of the Turley blog followers.
And the RC in the US blithely goes about rearranging the deck chairs as the band plays on.
Vince,
I disembarked from the RCC Titanic long before it hit the iceberg.
You said: “They are driving away members by the millions.”
I think the far-right conservative wingnuts are doing the same thing to the Republican party.
The reason the retard religious zealots don’t like abortion is that it prevents the birth of another kid for them to screw.
They don’t want to jeopardize the source of their sexual pleasure.
Evolution isn’t done, the religious retards are still here.