Kennedy: Barred from Communion

[JenyEliza]

Bishop Tobin's ENTIRE RESPONSE to Kennedy:


Bishop Tobin responds to Kennedy l WPRI.com

Statement of Bishop Thomas Tobin in Response to Congressman Patrick Kennedy's Published Interview of November 22, 2009.

I am disappointed and really surprised that Congressman Patrick Kennedy has chosen to reopen the public discussion about his practice of the faith and his reception of Holy Communion. This comes almost two weeks after the Congressman indicated to local media that he would no longer comment publicly on his faith or his relationship with the Catholic Church. The Congressman's public comments require me to reply.

On February 21, 2007, I wrote to Congressman Kennedy stating: "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." My request came in light of the new statement of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that said, "If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to repudiate her definite teachings on moral issues, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the Church. Reception of Holy Communion in such a situation would not accord with the nature of the Eucharistic celebration, so that he or she should refrain." (Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper, December, 2006)

In the same letter I wrote to Congressman Kennedy, "I am writing to you personally and confidentially as a pastor addressing a member of his flock . . . At the present time I have no need or intention to make this a public issue." I also indicated, "I am available to discuss this matter with you in person at any mutually convenient time and place. I would welcome the opportunity to do so."

On February 28, 2007, the Congressmanresponded to me, "I have the utmost respect for the work you do on behalf of the Catholic community in Rhode Island. . . I understand your pastoral advice was confidential in nature and given with the best intentions for my personal spiritual welfare."

I am disappointed that the Congressman would make public my pastoral and confidential request of nearly three years ago that sought to provide solely for his spiritual well-being.

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 Churchmisrepresents the teachings of the Church, or issues inaccurate statements about my pastoral ministry. ,

As I wrote to the Congressman in February of 2007, and repeated in my public letter earlier this month, I am willing and even anxious to meet with him, to discuss these matters. My door remains open. However, it should be absolutely clear the Congressman himself has once again chosen to make this discussion a matter of public record.

In the meantime, I will continue to pray - sincerely and fervently - for his conversion and repentance, and for his personal and spiritual well-being. I wish him well.

Bishop Thomas Tobin

 

[del]

why did mr kennedy feel compelled to disclose this?

 

[Bfgrn]

"I believe in an America... where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source."

- John F. Kennedy, Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, September 12, 1960.

So, you didn't need to duck when the actual point flew over your head. This has absolutely no bearing on the discussion. The Church was not requestiong or instructing Kennedy on anything. He was instructed not to take communion because of his support for abortion. That is absolutely NOT instructing or requesting him to do anything - not surprized you don't see the difference.

Do you need an interpreter or a brain?

Maybe the priest should ask each parishioner their beliefs before giving out the sacraments... they don't ever refuse $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Modbert]

why did mr kennedy feel compelled to disclose this?

Because he's an idiot. I would say he fell off the wagon but I don't think so.

 

[The T]

why did mr kennedy feel compelled to disclose this?

It's a pertinent question. Only his hairdresser know for sure...

 

[JenyEliza]

Yes and no. There are *many* anti-Death Penalty Catholics. However there ARE Catholics who support the Death Penalty and they remain Catholics in good standing.

My understanding is that there is no official Church teaching AGAINST the death penalty, therefore the Faithful are free to support--or reject the DP.

Which is different to Abortion, where there IS an official Church teaching against Abortion.

Of course, I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

You enjoying all that spin of yours on the carnival ride?

Catholic Update - The Death Penalty by Kenneth R. Overberg, S.J.

Recent polls show that 75 percent of U.S. citizens favor the death penalty. Yet the U.S. Catholic bishops, along with many other Christians and Jews, have spoken out against capital punishment. Beyond polls and statements, powerful scenes dramatize opposing viewpoints: people protesting a death sentence with candlelight vigils, while others gather as if at a party shouting, "Kill the scum!"

The Catholic bishops of the United States have provided careful guidance about this difficult issue, applying the teaching of the universal Church to our American culture. Along with the leadership assemblies of many Churches (for example. American Baptists, Disciples of Christ, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians), the U.S. bishops have expressed their opposition to the death penalty. First articulated in 1974, the bishops' position is explained in a 1980 statement, Capital Punishment. Individual bishops and state conferences of bishops have repeated in numerous teachings their opposition to the death penalty.

In their 1980 statement, the bishops begin by noting that punishment, "since it involves the deliberate infliction of evil on another," must be justifiable. They acknowledge that the Christian tradition has for a long time recognized a government's right to protect its citizens by using the death penalty in some serious situations. The bishops ask, however, if capital punishment is still justifiable in the present circumstances in the United States.

In this context, the bishops enter the debate about deterrence and retribution. They acknowledge that capital punishment certainly prevents the criminal from committing more crimes, yet question whether it prevents others from doing so. Similarly, concerning retribution, the bishops support the arguments against death as an appropriate form of punishment. The bishops add that reform is a third reason given to justify punishment, but it clearly does not apply in the case of capital punishment. And so they affirm: "We believe that in the conditions of contemporary American society, the legitimate purposes of punishment do not justify the imposition of the death penalty."

This is not from the Pope. It is NOT official Church teaching.

Period.

Doggiebreath.

 

[JenyEliza]

So, you didn't need to duck when the actual point flew over your head. This has absolutely no bearing on the discussion. The Church was not requestiong or instructing Kennedy on anything. He was instructed not to take communion because of his support for abortion. That is absolutely NOT instructing or requesting him to do anything - not surprized you don't see the difference.

Except, it is instructing him practically to change his views on Abortion. We both know that exactly what the Church is sending as a message by doing this.

Personally? I have no problem with the church doing this because they are a private entity. However, if they do not want to be seen as hypocrites in this case, then ANY politician in support of the Death Penalty should be not allowed communion either.

No, Bishop Tobin is telling him that he can't continue to have things both ways....be a "Catholic in Good Standing" AND....openly support abortion.

The two are mutually exclusive positions.

Mr. Kennedy knows this. Has always known this. And has chosen to ignore these facts.

Unfortunately, the RCC has allowed him (and his entire family) to get away with something the rest of the Faithful could not and would not.

 

[JenyEliza]

why did mr kennedy feel compelled to disclose this?

He's stirring shit. And he's pushing boundaries.

Who knows why? What does he stand to gain from this? I don't know much about *this* particular Kennedy. Other than he is (apparently) a Rogue Catholic in poor standing.

 

[Modbert]

Here you go Jeny, spin this:

Ocala Star-Banner - Google News Archive Search

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/benedict_xvi/index.html

 

[JenyEliza]

Oh goodie....the Ocala newspaper.

THE OFFICIAL PAPER OF THE VATICAN AND Pope Benedict the XVII.

(you *do* know Pope Benedict wrote ALL the official Catholic policy for Pope JPII?) Or are you even Catholic Doggiebreath?

 

[Father Time]

"I believe in an America... where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source."

- John F. Kennedy, Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, September 12, 1960.

So, you didn't need to duck when the actual point flew over your head. This has absolutely no bearing on the discussion. The Church was not requestiong or instructing Kennedy on anything. He was instructed not to take communion because of his support for abortion. That is absolutely NOT instructing or requesting him to do anything - not surprized you don't see the difference.

Oh you're just splitting hairs. They're punishing him for his support of abortion. Now you punish people when you want them to change behavior so they may as well have written a formal request.

 

[Modbert]

Oh goodie....the Ocala newspaper.

THE OFFICIAL PAPER OF THE VATICAN AND Pope Benedict the XVII.

(you *do* know Pope B wrote ALL the official Catholic policy for Pope JPII?) Or are you even Catholic Doggiebreath?

I'm Catholic thanks for asking. The last two popes have specifically come out against the Death Penalty.

I quote you:

This is not from the Pope. It is NOT official Church teaching.

Period.

Doggiebreath.

Except this is from the Pope on two occasions. You have been proven wrong, admit it, move on.

 

[Modbert]

More evidence:

Overview of Roman Catholic Church teachings on social matters

Policies of religious groups towards the death penalty

"Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself, the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity 'are very rare, if not practically non-existent

And there hasn't been one time in the last forty years where I've seen the Church speak out in FAVOR of the Death Penalty for someone.

 

[JenyEliza]

Oh goodie....the Ocala newspaper.

THE OFFICIAL PAPER OF THE VATICAN AND Pope Benedict the XVII.

(you *do* know Pope B wrote ALL the official Catholic policy for Pope JPII?) Or are you even Catholic Doggiebreath?

I'm Catholic thanks for asking. The last two popes have specifically come out against the Death Penalty.

I quote you:

This is not from the Pope. It is NOT official Church teaching.

Period.

Doggiebreath.

Except this is from the Pope on two occasions. You have been proven wrong, admit it, move on.

I'll do no such thing.

I'm not wrong.

I have spoken with my Pastor about this very topic, as you might know, I have a very personal stake in the matter.

My Pastor has assured me that I am free to support the Death Penalty and that my salvation and standing as a Catholic ARE NOT in jeopardy because I support the DP or the execution of Lori Ann Smith's killer. He explained to me why (which I tried to relate in simplified terms, but guess I missed the mark).

Sorry. Not wrong. Not admitting such.

 

[Modbert]

Let's see, the Pope who is suppose to be the direct representative of God or your Pastor. Gee, that's a tough one there Jen.

Just admit you were wrong, as usual.

 

[Si modo]

BULLSHIT. The church is VERY clear on its position about Abortion. If you want to participate in Church given sacrament that church has EVERY right and RESPONSIBILITY to make sure you deserve said sacrament based on the beliefs and requirements of said faith.

But that is not my point, Gunny. My point was (which is now moot) the priest or bishop making a personal matter public.

REREAD what you posted, Kennedy made it public not the Church. The Church responded AFTER the fact. YOU posted the story did you even read it?

Uh, yeah. Thus my point is moot; thus my saying my point is moot. We've already been through this. Please read the previous posts.

 

[JenyEliza]

Let's see, the Pope who is suppose to be the direct representative of God or your Pastor. Gee, that's a tough one there Jen.

Just admit you were wrong, as usual.

This thread isn't even about the topic you are attempting to brow-beat me on.

If you want to do a DP/Catholic Church thread, go for it. Nobody's stopping you.

But I'm done with you.

I'm not wrong. I'm not admitting it. So kindly fuck off.

 

[Si modo]

RGS, she admitted she was wrong about that point. More than once. She initially objected because she thought the church made it public, but when she saw that it wasn't the church that made it public, she withdrew her objection.

Please post said withdrawal.

I don't see it.

Si Modo is still *very much* against what the Church has done here with Kennedy.

And Si Modo wasn't simply taking issue with "the Church" making this action public (which she finally, belatedly admits DID NOT HAPPEN).

She was taking issue with the ACTION ITSELF....

.....and she has NOT retracted.

Simply.....

.....................................Cringeworthy!!!

WTF is your problem? You really have comprehension issues. Stuff your straw up your tight ass, m'kay? If you can get it past all the methane expulsion, that is.

Thanks.

 

[Modbert]

This thread isn't even about the topic you are attempting to brow-beat me on.

If you want to do a DP/Catholic Church thread, go for it. Nobody's stopping you.

But I'm done with you.

I'm not wrong. I'm not admitting it. So kindly fuck off.

So now since I've proven you wrong, you slowly back away from the topic.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Pope

In virtue of his office as supreme teacher and ruler of the faithful, the chief control of every department of the Church's life belongs to the pope. In this section the rights and duties which thus fall to his lot will be briefly enumerated. It will appear that, in regard to a considerable number of points, not merely the supreme control, but the whole exercise of power is reserved to the Holy See, and is only granted to others by express delegation. This system of reservation is possible, since the pope is the universal source of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Hence it rests with him to determine in what measure he will confer jurisdiction on bishops and other prelates.

Hear that sound? It's the sound of the nail hitting your coffin in this case.

 

[Father Time]

RGS, she admitted she was wrong about that point. More than once. She initially objected because she thought the church made it public, but when she saw that it wasn't the church that made it public, she withdrew her objection.

Please post said withdrawal.

I don't see it.

Wow you are a hypocrite, I ask you to post a link on Obama declaring war on Palin when I couldn't find it and you refuse saying it's my job to find it. Now you want people to post links to Si Modo's withdraw because you can't find it?

The hypocrisy it burns.