Rep. Patrick Kennedy

Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin has barred Rep. Patrick Kennedy (son of the late Sen Edward Kennedy) from receiving communion because of his support of abortion rights.

Bishop Tobin

Tobin can prevent Kennedy from receiving communion within his diocese, which covers Rhode Island. It’s unclear whether this action by Bishop Tobin would would also exclude Rep. Kennedy from receiving communion in another diocese.

This festouche has been brewing for a few years. Back in 2007, Bishop Tobin wrote Kennedy, advising that:

“In light of the Church’s clear teaching, and your consistent actions, therefore, I believe it is inappropriate for you to be receiving Holy Communion and I now ask respectfully that you refrain from doing so.”

Tobin’s ire stems from Kennedy’s “consistent actions” which apparently have been his recent votes to continue supporting abortion rights.

A man, believed to be Rep. Kennedy in disguise, sneaks into communion at St. Bartholomew's

Rep. Kennedy faces a dilemma: condemned to everlasting fires of hell if he fails to partake in communion; condemned to the everlasting fires of hell if he does take communion. What’s a believer to do?

For someone as cunning as a congressman, this is easy. Who holds the trump card here? God or Bishop Tobin? Bishop Tobin will be dead in a decade or two anyway. But God?—well, he’s pretty much eternal. So, if the good congressman believes in God then he’d best fear Him more than he fears Bishop Tobin and find a way to sneak into communion.

And if Congressman Kennedy doesn’t believe in God, what can Tobin do to him other than cost him a few votes?

Kennedy has alternatives:

• He can put on a clever disguise and sneak into any Catholic church in Rhode Island. We’ve done the math. The chances that he’ll be recognized (or struck by lightning) are less than 10^-23 or just slightly better than the chances that Detroit will win the Super Bowl.
• He can sneak into a Catholic church in another diocese. Even though there’s wine in that chalice have you ever seen them check ID in a mass?
• He could bribe a priest and get him to serve communion.
• The Church could re-institute indulgences and shake Kennedy down for some serious money. (Odds are, this wouldn’t be the first time a Kennedy has paid the Church to look the other way).

"Uff course you realise vee heff vays of dealing viss you."

Of course the One True Church is not without alternatives. They could start checking ID’s at the door and stamping the hands of qualified communicants with purple ink.

Or the pope could institute a Eucharistic Gestapo, commissioned to ensure that all communicants have been orthodox in word and deed. Qualified communicants would be issued a certificate entitling them to receive communion. (Hmm, isn’t that sort of like the idea of a Mormon ‘Temple Recommend?’).

This week is the week that we have set aside a day to be thankful for the blessings we have received.  I have to keep reminding my children that this is not “Turkey day”, but Thanksgiving. We are not celebrating the turkey, just the blessing of having the turkey (all 17 lbs worth in my house).

These past few years have been difficult on many- we have war, recession, unemployment, H1N1, foreclosures and many other things that impact our lives.  For some people, they might find it a struggle to smile, and give heartfelt thanks this year. Now you might say, “but aren’t we supposed to give thanks in all things”?  Well yes we are, but in the real world, with real hurt and real struggle, being truly thankful at times is not just a matter of obeying a command.  To be truly thankful we often have to move past hurt feelings, grief, disappointment, unfulfilled dreams, a drained bank account, wayward children, lost jobs, ….  and discover in the middle of this pile the nuggets of God’s work to focus our attention on. That is not always easy.

This year has been a tremendous mixed bag for me. God has been so faithful to us, but He has been faithful in the middle of very difficult year. I could easily take the rest of this blog to tell you of all my struggles and pain- the passing of my mom being the hardest things I have ever endured- but that is life. Life has bumps, hills, potholes, sinkholes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods- just stuff and lots of it.

I like the lyrics to a song by Darryl Worley “Sounds Like Life to Me“.  

Got a call last night from an old friend’s wife
Said I hate to bother you
Johnny Ray fell off the wagon
He’s been gone all afternoon
I know my buddy so I drove to Skully’s
And found him at the bar
I say hey man, what’s going on
He said I don’t know where to start

Sarah’s old car’s about to fall apart
And the washer quit last week
We had to put momma in the nursing home
And the baby’s cutting teeth
I didn’t get much work this week
And I got bills to pay
I said I know this ain’t what you wanna hear
But it’s what I’m gonna say

Sounds like life to me it ain’t no fantasy
It’s just a common case of everyday reality
Man I know it’s tough but you gotta suck it up
To hear you talk you’re caught up in some tragedy
It sounds like life to me

Well his face turned red and he shook his head
He said you don’t understand
Three kids and a wife depend on me
And I’m just one man
To top it off I just found out
That Sarah’s 2 months late
I said hey bartender set us up a round
We need to celebrate

Sounds like life to me plain old destiny
Yeah the only thing for certain is uncertainty
You gotta hold on tight just enjoy the ride
Get used to all this unpredictability
Sounds like life

I particularly like the last part- the only thing for certain is uncertainty, you have to hold on tight just enjoy the ride, get used to all this unpredictability, sounds like life to me.  Life is uncertain. Life is full of situations that we wish never would have happened. Life is full of times we wish we could go back and change. Life is also full of beautiful times, beautiful things and beautiful people. Life happens, but in the midst of life we have to find the beautiful things to feed our faith. This is not sappy optimism or stick your fingers in your ears and pretend like nothing is happening, this is a deliberate choice to choose to focus my attention upon God and His goodness rather than the evils and pains of this world. It’s not as if we are not acknowledging our pain, I just choose not to stay there.

When my mom passed away this past April, I was devastated. It has taken me a whole lot longer to move forward than I could have imagined. The hurt was deep. My mom has always been a source of strength for me and knew how to encourage me at just the right time in just the right way. She showed me how to live life, even in difficult times, with grace and resilience.  I not only lost my mom, but a great part of my support. I had the wonderful privilege of speaking at her service. As we closed the service in prayer these words flowed across my lips that I had no idea would come, but I will never forget. “Lord, I wished this day would never come. I would have wanted another day, another week, another year, another lifetime with my mom… but Lord I am so thankful today for every day that you gave me with her. My life is so much richer because you blessed me with her…”.  That is the one thought that has really helped me- “my life is so much richer because you blessed me with her”. 

No one promised us on this side of heaven that good things last forever, in fact the Bible tells us that this world, and all that is in it, including us, is passing away. But drawing from that well of pain emerged a beautiful thought, I have been blessed. I did not earn it, deserve it, work for it, God placed this beautiful and strong woman as my mother, and I am thankful. Now I could choose to focus on what I don’t have anymore, her presence with me, but death is unfortunately a part of life. I can fuss at the unfairness of it all. I could wallow in misery saying no one understands me. But my experience is not uncommon to the normal course of life. Death comes. It is a part of living in this world. If I would let it, the bad things of this life could drive me into depression, anger, sadness, helplessness… but that would not be living a life of faith. Faith focuses on God’s work, even when life seems dark and oppressive.

I suppose we could spend our short time here in misery and frustrated, like much of the world does, because it does not have enough, it can keep what is has and it can’t figure out how to maintain perfect happiness… or we can see that the world is an imperfect place, face our troubles, thumb our nose at the devil and give God thanks for what we have in this world and beyond.

Here is what I mean… my wife is not perfect, but I am eternally grateful that God has blessed me with her and her many ways of blessing me and encouraging me;  my kids aren’t perfect, but I am thankful for them and grateful God has given me the opportunity, and privilege, to parent them and see them grow into young men and women; my finances are far from perfect, but I am grateful for what i do have- we have not gone hungry a single day, the roof is over our head and the heat is on;  my health is not perfect, the pill bottles in the bathroom tell me so, but I am grateful I have the health to experience this life God has given me and serve Him; I am not where I wanted to be at my age, certainly not where I envisioned myself being, but I am grateful for what I look around and do see in my life; and mostly… I am not perfect, but God still chooses to love me, forgive me, have patience with me, comfort me…. yea, I could choose to be miserable because this world is an imperfect place (and by the way, one reason the world is imperfect is because you and I are in it), but I would rather look up and be thankful for all that I do have.

Can I maintain perfect happiness in this world- no, and Jesus even told me so…

John 16:33 (NLT)

I have told you all this so that you may have peace in me. Here on earth you will have many trials and sorrows.  But take heart, because I have overcome the world

Notice the surety with which Jesus speaks- you will have trials and sorrows, not may have, could have, or it’s a possibility… you will have. This life is going to put it on all of us, so how we respond is an individual choice. In our hard times we can choose to throw our pity party, we can wallow in our PLOM syndrome (Poor Lil’ Ol’ Me), we can throw a temper tantrum and roll on the ground… or we can choose to rise above. Make the choice that Jesus made.  So where do we see Jesus giving thanks in His difficult times? Look at this verse…

Luke 22:19

And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me”

As Jesus faced the cross and was, in His last moments, teaching His disciples about the meaning of His death, He gave thanks. Thanks for what? Thanks for the fulfillment of God’s plan. Thanks for the relationship that was going to be born through this pain. Thanks for the faith that many would show in Him. Thanks for the eternal difference that He was about to make… But that also meant that He was going to endure suffering, and He thanked the Father anyway.

Now you and I will probably never face a cross, but the example has been set for us. Even in the difficulties, find the places and pieces to be thankful for.  Our common human experience tells us that we all are going to experience difficulty, some maybe more than others, but as Christians we also share a common truth- God is good.  Take some time this week to journal or think about just how good God has been- not how difficult life is- and you will have a happier Thanksgiving. 

I pray that this holiday will be filled with blessings for you and your family and that as you reflect on the goodness of God in the midst of your life, that your faith will be lifted and your joy more full.

I’m a little too tired to really want to comment on them, so here are just a few links from CNN I found interesting.

Of Religion and Politics:
Italy debates public crosses
Kennedy abortion debate puts religion, politics back in spotlight

Of Science and Politics:
Hacked e-mails fuel climate debate
New marine life discovered (ok ok this is just science)

——————————————————————————————

I wonder if Representative Patrick Kennedy could eat the Jesus Toast?

F**king theocrats. 

Introduction: N. T. Wright’s New Testament Foundations for Ecclesiology

The starting point, the a priori, for any ecclesiology must be an understanding of the Church as the people of God, an eschatological community that exists for the sake of those not yet apart of said community. N.T. Wright lays out the three primary criteria that defined the church in its first few decades, it was essentially baptismal, Eucharistic and disciplined.[1] Wright continues, “The problems which arose in relation to the care of the needy, particularly widows, are most readily comprehensible if we envisage the church, not as a part-time voluntary organization of the like-minded which left normal social and familial attachments unaffected, but as a group with definite boundaries.”[2] The question then becomes what are the boundaries that define the people of God? How should the church understand itself and what would a definitively “charismatic” ecclesiology look like? These are the questions that will be attempted to be addressed in a brief and admittedly shallow treatment, for the sake of space.  Perhaps the two major theological voices in modern ecclesiology and ecumenism are Volf and Küng. By synthesizing these voices into a duet perhaps a definitive and constructive “charismatic” ecclesiology can be ascertained and thus expressed.  The most pressing issue to face the church over the next hundred, or so, years will most likely not be issues of morality or politics but of ecumenism and the church’s self-understanding.[3]

Volf’s Participatory Ecclesiology

Primarily, Volf wants to equate the church with the expression of charisms, “Wherever the Spirit of Christ, which as the eschatological gift anticipates God’s new creation in history, is present in it ecclesially constitutive activity, there is the church.”[4] While this does not necessarily validate the expression or it’s experiential interpretation, it does make room for otherness inside of the community (which is an idea to be explored later). Volf will go on to try and transcend the disagreement between Free Church and Episcopal models of ecclesial criteria for what constitutes a church, unfortunately his definition borders on the overly subjective and begins to side more with the Free Church suppositions.[5] He states directly, “the presence of Christ is not attested merely by the institution of office, but rather through the multidimensional confession of the entire assembly.”[6] The consequence of this statement is the striping of any Sacramentology to the foundation of mere communal confession of faith, not an objective reality.[7] While Volf’s experiment in ecclesiology is right minded and often correct in its aims, the way in which he answers key issues is at the expense of history and ecumenism for the higher church traditions. What is needed is an understanding of the activity of the Spirit that is not objective solely or subjective merely.

Acknowledging the objectivity of the Spirit’s work within the subjective experience and expression is imperative. Room must be made for the work of the Spirit to communicate objectively through otherwise subjective means. Ultimately these experiences and expressions will be misunderstood, misinterpreted and misappropriated, but that does not mean we discard or devalue them. Volf’s disdain for Episcopal authority is directly related to his witnessing its abuse in the Balkans during the late eighties and nineties.[8] What is needed, in order balance Volf, is to embrace theological otherness within the community as a charism. Ecclesiological self-understanding as the community that embodies the objectively subjective work of the Spirit is a priori to a healthy ecumenism and view of the universal as well as local church.

Hans Küng’s Pneumatological Ecclesiology

Kärkkäinen makes an observation about Küng’s ecclesiology that is important. “As a real church, the faith community is composed of sinful men and women and it exists for sinful men and women. Küng’s view comes close to that of Luther, who regarded the church as the community of sinners. Therefore, the communio sanctorum as communio peccatorum is always in need of forgiveness…”[9] This self-perception on the part of the church is essential in that it requires self-criticism, self-criticism that lends itself to a more open ecclesiology, one that makes room for otherness inside of the community. Otherness inside of the Christian community is not only a self-evident fact of the current state of world Christianity as Volf points out[10], but can also be understood as a virtue, which Küng is rightly advocating.[11] When otherness is embraced in ecclesiology, not simply in a vague superficial manner but as ontologically legitimate otherness, it demonstrates two things. First, its mimics and reveals the identity of the church as the image of the Trinity, which is the argument of Ware[12], Lossky[13] and Zizioulas[14]. Second, it shows the church in her glory as the redemptive community that accepts and embraces the strangeness of the other.  Küng argues that without this ability to embrace the otherness that exists inside of the universal church in a real way there is a loss of legitimacy, or genuineness, in the ability to embrace the otherness outside the boundaries of the community.[15]

The natural consequence of accepting otherness as ontologically legitimate in ecclesiology is the ability to not only co-exist but also to enter into dialogue through common language, dialogue that leads toward communion. The goal of any ecclesiology with any legitimacy is not simply the defense of one’s theological system or traditions, as is all too often the case[16], but toward real familial communion that recognizes one Lord and one Baptism.

Küng, not unlike Volf, is explicitly interested in defining the church in terms of the ministry of the Holy Spirit.[17] Kärkkäinen notes, “Küng. . . emphasizes the fact that the Spirit of God who indwells the church is no ‘obscure and nameless power’. . . but is the concrete presence of God in Christ and derivatively in the church. . . the Spirit is the earthly presence of the glorified Lord in the Church.”[18] Küng goes onto to exposit the “charismatic structure of the church” paying much attention to issues of ecclesiastical authority and the tension between the laity and hierarchy. [19][20] The pertinent portions of Küng’s treatment lie in his persistence toward the oneness of the Church.[21] By placing his definition of the church in strictly Pneumatological terminology, Küng proves himself light years ahead of much of his ecclesiastical colleagues, He also provides the linguistic framework for a holistic charismatic ecclesiology, one that, hopefully, places the charismatic-Pentecostal understanding of the charisms within the linguistic traditions of the historical, sacramental church.

A Proposal for a Charismatic Ecclesiology

The cardinal issue in defining a distinctly charismatic ecclesiology will be with the definition of what constitutes a charism. Charisms, almost without exception, have essentially been hijacked by the Pentecostal tradition and its subsequent offspring in the last century. Rather then accept a rather narrow definition of charismata the definition must be broadened, to the presence of the Holy Spirit in the expression of the Church that is pointing to an eschatological reality.  This understanding of charismata is supported not only by Küng[22] and Volf[23], but also Moltmann[24], Stronstad[25] and even Barth.[26] If considered seriously and examined thoroughly the broadened language defining what a charism is, and by consequence what it means, lends itself towards a mutual vocabulary between the sacramental and charismatic churches.

That which defines the meaning of a sacrament and that which defines a charism are not mutually exclusive. Both only hold meaning in an eschatological sense, and if understood as being objective within their subjective contexts because of the ministry of the Holy Spirit (as explored earlier), the two have a tremendous amount in common. Ultimately the classical argument about the distinction between the two has to do with the effects of each. With the sacrament being a means of grace conferred for the personal sanctification[27] of the participant and the charism being a means of grace by which the Spirit effects the work of the church through but not necessarily in the life of the participant.[28] The difference, in reality, between the two understandings? Semantics.  The commonality between the two definitions is uncanny; both are the activity of the spirit in the life of the church for salvific purposes that point toward an eschatological hope and reality caught between the “already” and “not yet.”  If the commonality is truly present between the two realities then the ecclesiological consequence is that the sacraments are to be understood as charisms and the charisms, conversely, become sacramental; the barriers between ecumenical belief, rhetoric and praxis breakdown.

Last, the church must be understood as “for the sake of the non-elect.”[29] A church ceases to be The Church when it’s charismatic/sacramental expression loses its missional presupposition and purpose.  A church is only The Church in so much that its primary self-understanding and orientation is focused on the culture and community in which it is particularly located.[30] Once this breaks down it becomes just another cult among the plethora offering personal spiritual salvation in the history of Greco-Roman mysticism.[31]

[2] Ibid. 448.

[3] Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology. (Dovers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 231.

[4] Volf, After our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 129. While such a definition of the church is valid, what is needed is a more thorough and yet broad understanding of a charism then Volf seems willing to consent to, which will be explored later.

[5] Ibid. 133-135.  Volf defines the ecclesiality of a church it terms of Matthew 18:20, while ideal and true, it does not constitute a complete definition of the church as it does not seem to acknowledge any sense of objectivity in the activity or experience of the community.

[6] Ibid. 152.

[7] Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology. (Dovers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 137.

[8] Hedges, War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning. (New York, Anchor Books, 2002), 56.

[9] Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology. (Dovers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 105.

[10] Volf, After our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 140-141

[11] Küng, The Church. (New York: Image Books, 1967), 230.

[12] Ware, The Orthodox Church. (London: Penguin Books, 1997), 308.

[13] Lossky, Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1976), 176-177.

[14] Zizioulas, Being as Communion. (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997), 15.  Interesting to note that all three contemporary Orthodox theologians embrace a view that theirs is the true church and yet have the ability, seeming theological mandate, to embrace those not inside the eastern church in a way beyond the typical ecumenism in the west. See Anglican-Orthodox dialogue and communion.  The Moscow statement of 1976, the Dublin statement in 1984, and the Cyprus agreed statement presented at Lambeth 2008 as “The Church of the Triune God.” Also see Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue by Kallistos Ware.

[15] Küng, The Church. (New York: Image Books, 1967), 169.

[16] Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology. (Dovers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 231-232.

[17]  Küng, The Church. (New York: Image Books, 1967), 215-18.

[18] Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology. (Dovers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 109.

[19] Küng, The Church. (New York: Image Books, 1967), 239-247.

[20] Ibid, The Church: Mandated in truth. Trans. Edward Quinn, (New York; The Seabury Press, 1979), 50-51.  This passage particularly deals with the interaction between the Magisterium and laity and tries to lay out a possible future interaction. An interesting read but not overly pertinent to the current discussion.

[21] Ibid, The Church. (New York: Image Books, 1967), 353.

[22] Ibid, 215-18.

[23] Volf, After our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 129.

[24] Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit. Trans. Margaret Kohl.  Munich: Fortress Press, 1993.  294.

[25] Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1984. 81-82

[26] O’Grady, The Church in the theology of Karl Barth. Washington: Corpus Books, 1968.  250-268.

[27] The Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Image Books, 2^nd edition , 1995.

[28] Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1984. 73. Stronstad makes a strong and clear argument for the purely vocational understanding of the “baptism of the Spirit.”

[29] Wright, The New Testament and the People of God. (London: Fortress Press, 1992), 334, 447.

[30] Volf, After our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 141-147.

[31] Wright, The New Testament and the People of God. (London: Fortress Press, 1992), 152-166.

The pledge card sits on silver-plated tray,
Reproachful because I don’t want to give
To priest who won’t hear me, won’t see me stray
From husband’s love because this faith’s a sieve
That holds nothing, means less, and is nowhere.
As others walk in two straight lines Sunday
For communion, I sit alone and stare
At stained glass, stained self watching the relay
Of host and cup; or blue-veined hand on cane
Tottering back down the aisle to steady
The woman I might have become. Refrain
Of centuries-old hymns, and I’m ready
To die for my sins. I will not repent
Of sweat-soaked hours that left us both well spent.

Rep Patrick Kennedy

Some of the feedback was quite….interesting.                                                 

Beverly noted “No. Priests can’t deny Communion to anyone, & that’s that. Wanting everyone to be able to have any legal medical procedure isn’t wrong; it isn’t a mortal, (breaking one of the 10 Commandments), or even a venial sin.” Can you repeat that Beverly?

And perhaps the most disgusting from Jeff  ”No. If this bunch of law evading pedophiles wants to deny communion to politicians who disagree with their views, or use their influence to sway political debate, they can start by giving up their tax exempt status.”

You see, the far left despises the Catholic Church.  For good reason. If you are a movement hell (sorry) bent on promoting abortion, same-sex marriage, moral relativism, and the secularization of the country, you definitely do not want any goodwill directed toward the Church.

But before answering Jack’s question, I want to step back for a moment and look at the overall double-standard that has emerged for those who call themselves Catholic versus those who are of other faiths, namely Muslims.

The most obvious example of this, was the coverage of the recent and unfortunate massacre at Fort Hood. Nidal Malik Hasan, as all reports indicate, was a known Muslim and someone proven to have contacted Al Qaeda. 

Of course, MSNBC, progressive politicians and other liberal outfits have portrayed Hassan as one of the “Islamic extremists” who can’t be considered a characterization of the Muslim faith. They want to be “sensitive” to Muslims in the US and ensure that future stereotyping does not occur.

Chirs Matthews exclaimed “It’s not a crime to call Al Qaeda is it?” 

Dylan Ratigan echoed the defense of Hasan by saying “who cares what his religion was?”"

This type of language is an obvious attempt of the left to portray themselves as an accepting party  that doesn’t want to demonize anyone. Except those that are Catholic.

Let me remind you of the US Bishops molestation charges that gave the media a field day back in the early part of the 2000’s. Of course these disturbed individuals deserve everything that comes there way- sexual advances made on children is an irrefutable crime- but the manner in which the media covered it enabled the progressives to push their anti-Catholic agenda to a fever pitch.

The fact of the matter was that of the roughly 45,000 priests in the US at that time, there were estimates that 2 to 5% of them engaged in inappropriate behavior. Obviously, a horrible fact, but one that needs to be put into perspective.

The Department of Justice estimates that roughly 33% of girls and 14% of boys are molested before the age of 18. I bet CNN didn’t report that.

Now, imagine for a moment if Chris Matthews had defended the Bishops that hadn’t been convicted of any crimes. Ha! Thats almost as crazy as someone defending a killer who was in contact with Al Qadea. O wait….

Back to the topic at hand. Should priests deny communion to those who are pro-abortion?The question needs some dissecting before a sufficient answer can be given.

The real issue at hand is the appropriateness of Catholics to voice their faith-based opinions on issues that deal with public policy. 

As I will enroll at Loyola University of Chicago for a MA in Social Justice and Community Development (an obvious liberal program) this coming January, I anticipate enrolling in classes that deal with Catholic Social Teaching the most.  

Pope Leo XIII

Introduced by Pope Leo XIII in 1891 with his encyclical Rerum Nevarum, Catholic Social Teaching has become a controversial element of the Church ever since.

But what is so great about the Church is that it is alive, and constantly evolving. So, it is accepting of those who are considered both liberal and conservative.

For example, take Dorothy Day- a woman who gave her entire life fighting for issues dealing with poverty and social justice. On the other hand, take the present Pope, Benedict XVI-someone who would be considered by many a ‘conservative’ when dealing with Church teachings.

 Whatever your stance may be, there is room for all views. But there is no room within the Church to dignify a stance that promotes death over life. NONE.

So, is Rep Kennedy deserving of the Bishop’s decree?

Perhaps, but we need to realize that as Catholics, we view communion as the actual body of Christ. This is the beauty of transubstantiation. We become one with God and He becomes one with us.

That being said, it would be difficult to argue against the Priest, seeing how Rep Kennedy feels a womans right to choose is more important than life itself.

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

Canon Law Regarding Catholics and Abortion:

“Canon Law 1398 Catholics who have obtained an abortion, or performed an abortion, have excommunicated themselves latae sententiae (automatically by their very action) from the Catholic Church. They remain outside the church until the reception of the sacrament of Penance through a good confession.

“Canon Law 1329 Catholics who are accomplices in enabling and permitting the crime of abortion to occur, who without their assistance the crime would not have been committed, incur the same penalty.

“Canon Law 915 (an exception to receiving Holy Communion) “Others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

All bishops should follow their own Canon Law concerning their constituency and the abortion atrocity.

Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin sets the morally correct standard. He refused Patrick Kennedy the sacrament in Rhode Island.

Kennedy’s endorsement of child killing is abhorrent to God. It is abhorrent to the Roman Catholic ethical understanding of Scripture—the inerrant, infallible Word of God.

Kennedy favors killing womb infants. That is called “murder.” Female rights have no right to murder.

Therefore, the devil is in the process when mortals slay mortals who are in female bodies. That is not only how Tobin sees it; that is the way biblical believers understand divine revelation.

TV’s The View Whoopie Goldberg had a field day this morning when it came to her understanding of what the church does with its constituency’s views of right and wrong. With that, she went on her evangelistic diatribe about her understanding of Scripture.

She concludes that the Bible allows a human to do what he or she wants to do as long it is in keeping with that individual’s personal communication with God—no interference from churchly organizations or spiritual leaders.

On one part, she is accurate: a mortal can communicate with God and is served the consequences of that via accountability from that God.

But on the other part, she is so wrong. The God of the Bible does not have various moral codes for various persons depending on what they say they “hear” from God. God’s biblical standard is there as an eternal verity; it is not waffling to left or right, up or down.

Whoopie always has a good old time of it when trying to make deity out to be a Nice Guy on everything from communion altars to sex. In that she makes a lot of viewing friends for they likewise serve a deity who is totally into relativism, discounting absolutes.

However, Tobin is in line with the true understanding of Scripture when he holds the line on not permitting those who claim to be “Christian” yet murder to have Communion. They in no way have the ethical right to partake of the body and blood of Christ. That is atrocious in itself.

Think about it: Did Savior Christ suffer severe mistreatment on the cross in order to share His body and blood with persons who slay children? I don’t think so.

Did Christ stretch His holy presence on Calvary, permit nails to be driven through His hands and feet, then endure the spear slice in His side to allow pious appearing church goers the honor to partake of the sacrament representing that redemptive offering?  I don’t think so.

Did Christ anywhere in His public ministry ever teach that slaughtering womb innocents is okay if it is not in a person’s life plan?  I don’t think so.

Would to God that more clergy kept the same biblical standard that Tobin keeps. All spiritual leaders in the Christian tradition should obey God, His moral base and instruct those under their care to do the same.

“Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an ‘imperfect humanity.’ Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members,” Tobin told Kennedy.

Stay the holy course, Tobin. Stay the holy course.

FOOTNOTE:

The Bible speaks of a fetus as a person, not simply tissue that can be discarded if found to be a bother or nuisance. Since the fetus is a person from the moment of conception, then the destroying of the fetus is killing a person.

“In the past, some people have mistakenly speculated that perhaps the body might be in the process of formation for some time, and then ‘God breathes a soul into it.’ They had it backward. The life that is present forms matter into a body for itself’” (Joseph Breig, “Life Forms Matter,” The Catholic News, Jan. 24, 1974, p. 8).

“Your hands shaped me and made me. Will you now turn and destroy me? Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again? Did you not pour me out like milk … and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life and showed me kindness, and in your providence watched over my spirit” (Job 10:8-12 NIV).

“Before I was born the LORD called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name…and now the LORD says–he who formed me in the womb to be his servant…” (Isaiah 49:1, 5).

“The word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations’” (Jeremiah 1:4-5).

In the following passages we note that personality is ascribed to the unborn.

“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that fully well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be” (Psalm 139:13-16).

“Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him” (Psalm 127:3).

Exodus 21:22-25 relates how Israel was to judge a circumstance relating to the death of the unborn:

“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”

All of the latter deals with unintentional hurt that comes to a pregnant woman; how much more will divine penalty come upon those who intentionally discard the fetus? The Gospel of Luke ascribes personality to the fetus within Elizabeth:

“When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit… As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy” (1:41, 44).

Mere tissue does not leap for joy; only personhood leaps for joy. The Bible regards the fetus as having personality. In Galatians, Paul speaks of himself as a person while still in his mother’s womb, but more a person consecrated by God for a holy mission (compare Jeremiah 1:5 for the same accent):

“But when God, who set me apart from birth, and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles…” (Gal. 1: 15-16).

Since the Bible regards the fetus as personality, then the aborting of the fetus is murdering personality.

Some verses from Scripture dealing with murder are then appropriate for study, such as Genesis 9:6: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” Also, read Exodus 23:7: “Have nothing to do with a false charge, and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty.” Note I Peter 4:15: “If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer…”

If the Republic returned to the biblical definition of personhood, we would defend every womb child.

John Adams said the following:

“Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

Andrew Jackson said the following:

“The BIBLE is the rock on which our Republic rests.”

Daniel Webster:

“If we abide by the principles taught in the BIBLE, our country will go on prospering.”

“For all the talk of freedom and self-determination, the abortion movement is at its heart a movement denying rights to a silent segment of humanity and soliciting public sanction, support and subsidy to its own cause” (Donald P. Shoemaker, ABORTION, THE BIBLE AND THE CHRISTIAN, Hayes Publishing Co., 1976, p. iv).

So I see that the Catholic church has decided to deny Communion to Patrick Kennedy due to his stance on abortion rights. Well done, guys, well done. In return, I hope the Kennedys turn Anglican and stop donating money to their local churches. After all, Patrick Kennedy earns his money by being a Congressman and campaigned in part on abortion rights, so there’s no way the church would want money that dirty, right?

It seems as though the Catholic Church doesn’t like Rep. Kennedy supporting a woman’s right to have an abortion. I am happy to be an atheist and not tolerate power-hungry “men of the cloth”.

* How can a Catholic clergy have enough power to judge and control the partaking of Holy Communion which is a personal matter?

From MSNBC…

A month of harsh words between U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy and Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin escalated Sunday when the bishop acknowledged asking Kennedy not to receive Holy Communion because of the Democratic lawmaker’s support for abortion rights.

The bishop’s attempt to publicly shame Kennedy on his abortion stance comes just a few months after the death of his father, Sen. Edward Kennedy. Tobin told The Associated Press that the younger Kennedy, who has been in and out of treatment for substance abuse, has been acting “erratically.”

Their dispute began in October when Kennedy criticized the nation’s Catholic bishops for threatening to oppose an overhaul of the nation’s health care system unless lawmakers included tighter restrictions on abortion, which have since been added to the House version of the bill. Tobin said he felt Kennedy made an unprovoked attack on the church and demanded an apology.

Finally, we have a clear message from one of our Lord’s Bishops on the scandal caused by Catholic politicians who publicly support abortion. Bishop Tobin has told Rep. Patrick Kennedy not to present himself for communion.

Bishop Tobin is doing his job; he is protecting the sanctity of the Eucharist, affirming the Church’s opposition to abortion and also being a true pastor to Rep. Kennedy, by making sure that he does not receive the Eucharist in an unworthy state.

Tobin’s letter to Patrick Kennedy in early November is a clear, firm pastoral letter from a Bishop who tells the truth like it is.  We praise our Lord for Bishop Tobin and his vigorous defense of our Catholic faith.

And on a larger level, he is heading off scandal before it does its deadly work, by making sure that wavering Catholics understand that one is NOT in communion with the Catholic Church, when dissenting against the Church’s teaching on abortion.

Let’s pray that this incident is a spiritual and moral wake-up call for Rep. Kennedy, and that he repents and comes back to Holy Mother Church, who always waits patiently for stray sons and daughters to return.

Washington (CNN) — Rhode Island’s top Roman Catholic leader has asked Rep. Patrick Kennedy to stop taking Communion over his support for abortion rights, the diocese said Sunday.

In a statement issued Sunday, Providence Bishop Thomas Tobin said he told Kennedy in February 2007 that it would be “inappropriate” for him to continue receiving the fundamental Catholic sacrament, “and I now ask respectfully that you refrain from doing so.”

Kennedy, a Democrat, is the son of the late Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy and a scion of the most prominent Catholic family in modern U.S. politics.

In an interview published Sunday, Patrick Kennedy told the Providence Journal that Tobin had barred him from receiving communion and instructed priests in the diocese not to administer the sacrament “because of the positions that I’ve taken as a public official.”

Tobin, in a statement issued in response to the Kennedy interview, said his advice to the congressman was “pastoral and confidential,” and he was surprised that Kennedy chose to discuss it publicly.

“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,” he said.

See article: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/22/kennedy.abortion/

I’ve posted a blog at TulareCountyAtheists.com about Rhode Island’s Bishop Thomas Tobin and his recent order to deny communion to Representative Patrick Kennedy.  Kennedy recently voted against the Stupak amendment to the health care bill currently before Congress, and the Bishop decided that this meant Kennedy was supporting abortion in violation of the Church’s orders to Catholic politicians.  Read my blog here.

Rhode Island Bishop Thomas Tobin has instructed priests under his control to refuse communion to Representative Patrick Kennedy, on the same day as the 46th anniversary of the assassination of his uncle, President John F. Kennedy.  Since 2004, Roman Catholic Bishops have threatened to withhold communion from politicians who vote in favor of issues the Catholic Church has decided they should be against.

With this action, Bishop Tobin continues the Church’s march away from fighting poverty and oppression,  and towards shrill demagoguery over social issues like stem cell research, abortion, and same sex marriage.

Catholic services in Washington D.C. have threatened to pull out of the city, abandoning the poor, after the District approved legislation recognizing same sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.    Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington D.C. wrote an article in today’s (Nov 22, 2009) Washington Post that essentially says they will halt many of their projects if the law comes into effect (Congress must approve first).  Read the Bishop’s article here.

So now it appears that in the name of “religious freedom”, that no Catholic can have a political position that conflicts with the Church’s beliefs, and political jurisdictions that recognize or allow same sex marriage will be without the Church’s programs.  Essentially, if you won’t play by their rules, they’ll take their toys and leave.

I wonder what Jesus would think about that.  If he existed.

Communion article here.

I have gone before the Lord many times asking him for forgiveness. But, lately, my attitude has been different. While getting rid of guilt has been good, I want to be changed by Christ. Forgiveness, for me, isn’t good enough. Why? Cause I want to be better, I don’t want to hurt the Lord with my sin. I want to be a new person. As many times, I have wanted to be free from my sin, this is one of the things that I have been asking of the Lord. Not just forgiveness but transformation. Jesus help me live out a repented life, not just lip service to you. Lord, I know I am sorry isn’t enough if I am not going to follow through with changing. I don’t want to fake my relationship with Jesus Christ.

Bishop bars Patrick Kennedy from Communion over abortion

When I read this morning, I was like what? It didn’t make sense. I don’t agree with the Catholic Church on many issues, but I agree with them on this. If you aren’t going to commit to changing every time you fall, every time the Lord points out sin in your life, what’s the point of taking communion? He shouldn’t take communion if he is unwilling to deal with his sins. It becomes a ritual that’s pointless. And, now he and his friends want to make it into a political issue. This isn’t a political issues, it’s an issue about sin. The church is called to help those find Christ. And, this man wants to make light out of killing babies, then it’s an issue for the church to deal with.

It shouldn’t be an issue for the media.

I am currently reading “Twelve Quakers and Faith”. I like it and want to read more in the series.

Apparently it is Pamphlet 8, makes it sound like some arcane government document from the 1950’s.  Pamphlet is good, pamphlet means short, it is only 36 pages long.  This means it was cheap (£2.50 plus £1 postatage from the Quaker bookshop) and it is easy to read if you have kids running around.

Having said it is short and easy to read is perhaps doing it a disservice. Many of the ideas take time to digest and I rather think the point is to read and consider each point of view rather than race to the end like an express train.

I read it in a oner and raced to the end like an express train. Oh well.

When reading about other peoples personal experiences, I find I am always comparing them to mine, do I agree with their views? Is their world viewpoint the same as mine?  Do they use language I like or does it turn me off? I’m not necessarily sure this is a good thing, but it is what I do.

Personally I find too much mention of God, Jesus and long quotes from the bible just don’t do it for me. I turn off. I feel like I am being preached at.

So as always I found myself comparing my views to those in the book and unusually, I found myself agreeing with  “1″.

“so much of my belief was cultural as much as theological; implicit in it was church architecture, music and literature.”

This is true for me, I was brought up in the Church of Scotland. I love church music, the architecture. When I first heard of Quakers, I dismissed them out of hand as there was “no music”.

I now realise that I can enjoy religious music in all it’s forms but this does not have to be an integral part of meeting for worship. Anyway the whole Quaker idea is that your whole life speaks, not just the bit you do in church, so I can still enjoy religious music.  All this is a wordy way of saying is that my early belief was as much cultural as it was religious.

It was a great relief to become a Quaker and not have to say things like “he descended into hell…”

I agree. How can you recite the Apostles Creed if you don’t believe in it? Surely that is the worst form of hypocrisy? I have never taken Communion as I do not believe I am eating the body of Christ. I also fail to see how doing so would make me a better person.

I was a regular attender at a meeting in England. One week, a lady explained how she had been at a Church of England church. They were having communion and she had not taken part. She had been encouraged to go forward to the altar for a blessing. Again she had refused. I felt such relief when I heard this.  Here was a woman who I admired and seemed to share my same uneasiness at taking part in communion. Maybe my views aren’t so heretical after all.

In meeting, not all vocal ministry is directed specifically at me. So when someone speaks and it doesn’t hold any meaning for me, I remember the relief I felt when, one sunday the ministry did speak to me and I hope that someone else in the meeting is gaining the same benefit from the ministry that had no meaning for me. For me, that is the essence of how a Quaker meeting works.

Anyway, I have enjoyed reading this booklet and I will probably consider some of the other views in more depth. After all, how else do you learn?

• We’ll call today a tale of two Experiences.
• The first one was terrible and the second one was much better.
• Having only 50 minutes for the first one so we could get over to the communion service was just not enough time.
• Between only doing one song and then having to do things in a different order, I was all out of sorts by the time the message started.
• I was doing so much to try to rush through that I was all over the place.
• I feel bad for Ben Meyers who had to try to follow along with me on slides…good job Ben for doing the best you could with a bad situation.
• If you attended the first Experience, I again apologize and would encourage you to listen to the online version of the message so you get a better feel for what I intended.
• Hooray for two Experiences…without the ability to go back and do it over again, I’d have beaten myself up all week.
• The other thing that made today weird was I can barely lift my left arm…it even hurt to hold my bible like I normally do, so I just sat at the table the whole time to teach.
• Getting old sucks!
• On a better note, the communion service over in the sanctuary was great…it’s always nice to bring everyone together for something as meaningful as communion.
• A few of you asked about where to find the historical context of some of the things I shared today.  I have a pretty intensive computer program that helps spit out a lot of it, but you may also want to consider, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah and also the web-site www.followtherabbi.com.
• Without any guys singing today, it reminded me of when I first arrived at United and we were strictly a chick band…ah the good old days. 
• Had some friends in today from WV, MD  and WA (yep that is far away)…always nice to see peeps.
• Time for a nap and then dinner.

      This is probably going to get some media attention, so I decided that this would make a good first post.  To make a long story (article) short, a bishop from Rhode Island told Representative Patrick Kennedy to avoid communion, because of Kennedy’s beliefs on issues like abortion.  Bishop Thomas Tobin even asked priests to refrain from giving Rep. Kennedy the sacrament. 

So. That being said, I think it’s unfair for a church to discriminate against its followers based on political perspective.  Church is a place to worship, and worshipping together doesn’t mean we all have to agree.  A lot of my family is Catholic, but some of the Catholics are also Democrats.  You don’t have to fit one specific mold to be a “Good Christian”, or any other religion for that matter!  I’m sure I’m not the only one who has disagreed with my church’s or community’s stances on important issues!  If I were a bishop, in this situation (I’ll never get to be, though, seeing as I’m a girl– but that’s an issue for a later post), I’d extend some form of peace to the representative.  The Catholic church has been getting a ton of attention lately, and not all of it has been good.  I’m not exactly suggesting “lying low”, but the next piece of big news should probably be something positive.

To try to see from the other point of view, however, I can see how it would be difficult to know that you disagree so strongly with someone.  Plus, when you have enough power, you’ll barely hesitate to use it in a situation such as that.  I understand why the Catholic church does not let visitors of different religions take part in communion.  A lot of churches have an “Open hearts, open minds, open doors” policy, which I respect and half-agree with.  On the other hand, something you hold sacred is not something you want to share with someone who shuns the practice entirely.

Being my first post, I’m wondering now if I spelled anything incorrectly, if all the words were used in the correct context, etcetera, etcetera.  Aside from that, I’m wondering if, a) anyone will read this, b) they will disagree, and, c) if those disagreeing viewers will leave angry comments.

Please, leave (polite!) comments about this issue, and visit again!

To see the full article in its original context, please click HERE. The link will open in a new window.

Rep. Patrick Kennedy has been banned from receiving the Holy Communion according to a MSNBC story found here. The Rhode Island bishop  forbade Kennedy from receiving Communion within the Diocese of Providence, which covers Rhode Island, but he cannot stop Kennedy from receiving Communion elsewhere.

Why?

Because of Rep. Kennedy’s stand on abortion.

We’re a decade into the XXIst century and the Catholic Church is being inflexible on things that have greatly changed since the beginning of times and yet the Catholic Church cannot find a way to keep the pedophile priests in their ranks from raping and abusing children. They are pointing and singling out people who are working to make things better, to be more open and progressive but nothing is being done to punish the ones who have ruined thousands of lives. All the innocent people putting their trust in these people’s hands only to suffer from what they were supposed to be shielded from. Who’s the fcuking hypocrite? “Do what I say but don’t do what I do”? Bull! Let them start cleaning inside their own house before pointing, punishing and being holier-than-thou.

I am Catholic but the more it goes, the less I feel close to what they say. Which is a problem since I have a child who is in age now to start her religious education and I find it hard to begin talking to her with all this animosity I have for my own religion right now.

*sigh*

Till then…