On Tobin and Kennedy, the question isn't 'why' but 'why now'?

Too bad that power corrupts. So many of these politicians build their political careers on the lives of the unborn. They seem to forget that this life is short and at their personal judgment they'll have to account for their actions. I wonder how many who have seen and abortion would be so quick to defend it.

The chirothecœ are off. Republican bishops are going to spank every Democratic politician who dares to obey her/his constituents rather than her/his ecclesiastical masters.

The Nativists of the 19th century warned against this very thing.

So, in other words, it is Represenative Kennedy who is using the Eucharist as a political weapon in order to score points that, he hopes, will allow for federal funding of abortion and an increase in the murder of unborn children. What a good Catholic, what a good man, he is.

May God forgive him for using His Sacred Body and Blood, freely given up for us that we might have life, as a tool of death. I can think of nothing more perverse.

Perhaps Mr. Kennedy did it for media attention. I'd never heard of him until now, and I doubt many others have either outside RI.

Afterall, there is nothing that gets you more media attention than to shriek "I'm being persecuted for my liberal stance!!"

Would that the bishops were that incensed about the two wars in which we are killing post-born persons and destroying their lands.

Revoke the tax exemptions on any religious congregation that preaches anything about politics.

They can speak all they wan't, but know that if they do political advocacy, they will no longer be tax exempt.

If “communion implies unity with the church” then Jesus too would have to be excluded from the Catholic Church. Jesus clearly broke with established Tradition again and again as is evidenced throughout the Gospel stories. Have I been mistaken in believing that Jesus came to unite people regardless of race, colour or creed? Was I wrong in thinking that Jesus is more concerned with our hearts than what is dictated by man? Am I in error to believe that Jesus would deny himself to me if I don’t subscribe to apostolic succession, forced celibacy, non acceptance of female clergy and gay or married priests, etc.? Should I refrain from communion because I do not practice birth control, believe that condoms are a viable option for those stricken or exposed to aids and living in poverty in Africa. Should I avoid communion because my heart does not always agree with the dictates of the Church? Must I be denied communion because I pose questions that may be contrary to Tradition, dogma or doctrine?
I often wonder what our Saints think about this Catholic institution. Particularly those who tried to bring change to the church but were condemned, jailed or excommunicated by the same church that later made them Saints. Similarly I think about the apostles and their immediate followers who did not have access to a church, were not exposed to any dogma or doctrine, and did not always agree with one another – did Jesus refuse his presence to them also?
Do we truly believe that for Jesus the word ‘unity’ meant conformity? Unity to me means ‘bringing together through diversity’! The Catholic church needs to again learn the true meaning of ecumenism and trust in the mystery of our unknowable and undefinable God!

Unless I am terribly wrong on background I really think that John Allen Jr. steped over the line on this defence of Bishop Tobin over Kennedy. First of all he seems to justify the Bishops on the grounds of orthodoxy (good)and implies "political"(bad) manouvering on Kennedy's part. I suspect the whole deal is political on both parts. Why Kennedy spoke, let alone its timing is irrelevant unless he agreed to Tobin's "request" and the circumstances remained stable. Certainly, if I were chastized by clergy or hierarchy because of any public stand that I felt was good and just, I would tell anyone who would listen. In my mind, the "orthodoxy" or sin component which might prevent the receipt of communion is debatable: is it is sin NOT to legislate agains sin? I have no obligation to enact, support or to lobby for a law against "fornication" which for all intents and purposes is "sin" by definition. The Bishop is being overtly political and attempting to defame Kennedy publically. Under such circumstances all gloves are off. If hierarchy attempt to autocratically blackmail government they better be individually spic'n span clean and confident that all their "brothers" are likewise.

Mr Allen contradicts himself...

"In purely political terms, one could argue that the best friend of the liberal position on abortion inside Catholicism has been the handful of hard-line bishops who ban people from communion, as well as a small circle of ferocious pro-life activists who impugn the Catholic credentials of anyone who tries to find common ground. Distaste for those tactics is fairly widespread, even among Catholics who see themselves as 100 percent pro-life, to say nothing of reaction outside the church."

...any Catholic who sees himself as 100% pro-life, as well as anyone who has any common sense at all, realizes that there is NO common ground on abortion. I did not say Mr Allen is dumb, notice he is smart enough not to define what that common ground might be, since there is none!

I pray that Rep. Kennedy will restrain himself at least enough to avoid starting a public discussion over the penance that he received the last time he went to confession.

What I, as a Protestant observer, do not understand is why US Catholic Bishops do not "out" all the Catholic elected officials - local, state and national - who support capital punishment? I have never seen a church official chastise a politician for his or her support of the death penalty. Why not?

First of all, Tobin is not being pastoral, he is being absolutely political & is probably looking for a promotion. His diocese should lose its tax-free status and the Bishop thrown out of his seat for meddling in politics, attempting to enforce his own views of politics down a democratically elected official Kennedy's throat who has to answer to his constituency and his own conscience before God and his nation. Tobin wishes that Kennedy would deny his own conscience. That's not going to happen. Warring with him is a sign of immaturity on Tobin's part, but it probably gives him status among conservative circles who hate anyone who doesn't agree with them. Hate. They hate the Kennedy family. They did not show any respect to them at Patrick's father's funeral. These are "fellow Catholics." Where does all this hate come from? Where is their peace, joy, love, longsufferings, kindness, goodness, self-control, while these conservatives point their finger at Patrick Kennedy?

Tobin is abusing his religious freedom, which has become the popular thing to do against those who have a different opinion. Tobin is abusing his power and using it as a weapon in denying Communion along these lines and this is a form of bribery, an evil deed and is a scandal. It has nothing to do with Jesus Christ.

And John, the chattering classes are only chattering because there is so much chattering. It seems that the view is that the louder one is the more will hear. But many who claim to hear, do not hear, only wish to silence those who dissent from absolute powers and the evil will of authoritarian dictators in religious garb.

I think there is an important distinction missing from much of the discussion and analysis of this news item. It is this whole idea of 'taking' communion. Speaking of the Body and Blood of Lord this way seems to imply that it's 'yours for the taking' or that you should 'take what is rightfully yours'.

More properly understood, I think, is the concept of the Eucharist as a gift. In fact, the literature of our faith is rife with many writings on the Eucharist as a gift. (Quite recently, the bishops of the United States published a document called The Real Presence of Jesus Christ
in the Sacrament of the Eucharist: Basic Questions and Answers (2001). It is full of language that refers to the Most Blessed Eucharist as a gift.) Most certainly, it is a gift of God to His people. And as everyone knows, gifts are given, but they are also received. They are not 'taken'. You properly receive a gift and then offer thanksgiving for it.

If Catholics would popularize this proper understanding of Holy Communion, I think the Congressman Kennedys of the world would perhaps come to different conclusions about their participation in it.

One other small thing... When bishops ask politician-members of their flock to refrain from receiving Holy Communion, it is NOT the particular bishop who is 'turning the Eucharist into a political weapon'. Most often in these public cases, politicians are receiving Holy Communion while clearly supporting intrinsically evil acts. They put themselves forward as 'good Catholics' in perfect unity with the Church precisely to gain favor with certain elements of the Catholic electorate. It is they who are truly using the Eucharist as a political weapon. And the bishop, in an act of mercy, reminds the erstwhile communicant that by receiving in this manner, the Catholic politician puts his eternal salvation in jeopardy.

I had an older Wesleyan woman with whom I am friendly congratulate me this morning on Bishop Tobin's stand. She kept repeating "Amen!" and "Praise the Lord for men like him" so at least among faithful Christians, the Bishop's reasoning and stand is understood and supported.

As long as Kennedy openly advocates abortion he excludes himself from the Communion of the Church and is endangering his soul. Bishop Tobin is simply stating what Kennedy is doing to himself and Tobin is just doing his job.

Where exactly do you stand, sir, on these issues? From your note, it's hard to be certain you hope for the bishops to be orthodox and to teach orthodoxy.

You state, "For those on the pro-choice side, all of this is obviously a bit unsettling." Is that a mere statement of fact, to which the best Catholic reply is "Glad to hear it; they should be unsettled" -- or is it an expression of sympathy, a preference that events which unsettle the pro-choice lobby should never occur?

You go on to add:

"In purely political terms, one could argue that the best friend of the liberal position on abortion inside Catholicism has been the handful of hard-line bishops who ban people from communion..."

Well, possibly not. Such actions disgust some and thrill others.

If those that are thrilled (faithful Catholics and a lot of Protestant Evangelicals and Fundamentalists) outnumber those disgusted (dissenting Catholics and secularists) then perhaps it is a beneficial political move. If the converse is true, perhaps it is a harmful political move for the bishops.

But only perhaps, because a secondary question follows: Let us say that the number of folk disgusted outnumbers those who are thrilled. So? Do those numbers translate into votes of some kind? Votes for or against some policy or other? Votes which the Catholic bishops will need later on, and had better not alienate now? Is that the reason the bishops need to work so hard not to offend?

To put it another way: If the Catholic bishops of the United States were, as a matter of common course, to always excommunicate those who in the exercise of political office bring scandal, in a prolonged and unrepentant way, then...what? What is it that the bishops hope to achieve in American politics, which might be sacrificed by such a move? What is it they hope to avoid, which might happen as a political consequence?

I ask, because if a serious policy change is not at put risk by the bishops' actions -- and I see no evidence of any such thing -- why, then: The only thing the bishops lose by their recent actions is mere popularity. Since popularity qua popularity is far, far down on the priority-list of a bishopric -- and encouraging orthodoxy far higher up -- this is a cost any faithful bishop will be willing to pay gladly, and faithful Catholics will cheer them on.

"...as well as a small circle of ferocious pro-life activists who impugn the Catholic credentials of anyone who tries to find common ground."

Hmm. There are perhaps such folk, although I am unaware of them. But if they exist, and are not mere chimerae, then they represent a very tiny sliver of the folk who are encouraged and heartwarmed by the bishops' recent actions.

In THAT group, the majority have no problem with folk who try to "find common ground" while retaining intellectual integrity and faithfulness to Catholic dogma. All very well.

Or perhaps you meant "find common ground" by sacrificing intellectual integrity and/or faithfulness to the Church's teachings? In that case it is not "a small circle" with which you must contend, but rather the Body of Christ.

(Not a fight I'd pick, myself.)

The title reminded me of the immortal words of Senator Robert Kennedy, who while many people hearing how bad things are asking why, imagined how things might be and asked "Why not?"

The question "why now" also reminds me that we know let slide without comment the 46th anniversary of the public execution of our Catholic president, focusing instead upon this relative, and I ask "Why?"

Let us read once more altogether as lectio divina James Douglass's great JFK and the Unspeakable, and learn again to speak, to imagine a world of peace, and of justice, and to ask "Why not?"

I agree with the premise of the article. It appears that it was a "political" move to publicize the letter. That's what politicians do! Of course, "why now?" is NOT the key question regarding this conflict. The article simply deflects the real issue here: The Bishop is putting the church in the crosshairs of the constitutional separation of church & state...My faith encourages a personal relationship with Christ. Fortunately, that distinction lessens the need for a hierarchal structure created for men - by men. The Bishop would have been wise NOT to play in the "political" sphere. His mistake was in forgeting Christ' adomonishment: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars..and to God, the things that are God's".... Writing a formal letter of rebuke--to a sitting Congressman--based solely on his legislative position--supporting the current law of the land--is the spiritual equivalent of playing in Caesars sand box.

Tobin looked weak and weasely on Chris Matthews' show last night. Soooo dishonest to talk about laws that "encourage abortion".

And if he really thinks abortion is murder, then why isn't he man enough to say those who have (or pay for) abortions should be prosecuted? Fill up the prisons with women who have had abortions! Fill them with men who have paid for and/or insisted upon abortions. Execute the murderers!

As usual, the debate and discussion ignore the context in which the whole matter takes place: under Roe v Wade, no law may be enacted which criminalizes a woman or her physician for making the decision to abort. Period. End of question until the Constitution is amended, if ever.
Therefore, Congressman Kennedy cannot introduce a law to ban abortion. Abortion is and will remain lawful. The question is thus, given that abortion is legal, what shall Congress do on peripheral issues that may interact with lawful abortion.
Whether abortion should or should not be lawful is NOT at issue between the Bishop and the Congressman, whether or not either of them seems to think so.
I believe abortion should not be legal. For me and others who so believe, the entire situation is tragic. But Congressman Kennedy has no power to change that.
The Bishops do support health legislation and assistance to those who are down and out, whether or not legally present -- Christ was not an immigration law enforcer. It is unfortunate that supporting help for the poor (and these days the middle class is also poor) doesn't attract the same attention as the useless abortion debate.
If no one in the country had a financial obstacle to feeding their family, to getting and staying healthy, and to getting as much education as they wish, I expect abortions would slow to a trickle. At that point abortion might actually be frowned on by most everyone. But, hey, conservatives want to make the aborting mother and physician criminals, but heaven forbid that conservatives spend a penny on any other approach. Low taxes are preferable to saving babies, eh?

I wonder how many of the priest pedophiles were given letters to stop participating in saying the Mass or in receiving the Eucharist? Oh my, how hypocritical our Church has become. Let us remember the Principle of Proportionality or is that been banned too? Jesus was much more balanced than our hierarchical men seem to be...these men are acting out of a sad state of mind and an unbelievable arrogance. Let us pray for one another to be renewed in living the Gospel.

As a graduate student studying both Social Work and Theology I am acutely aware of the issues that bring a woman to that pivotal crossroads where she must choose between life and death. The complexity of this issue cannot be resolved by simplistic means, by judgments of right and wrong, good or bad. Life is precious, life is the reflection of God, yet for so many living in abject poverty life for them is a seemingly gray existence.

As a church we must ask ourselves what brings a woman to the realization that she must choose death instead of life? Pastors must meet people where they are at, they must take the time to enter into the lives of these women and understand their brokenness and their pain. As a society we must provide the basic necessities, such as health care, education, affordable housing so that life can be seen as a gift from God not a burden to be discarded.

I have worked with women who are so broken that they are empty shells, hallow and alone. My church tells me do not offer them birth control and then condemns them if they want an abortion. Yet my soul tells me, pastorally we must meet these women where they are at. I see how they have neglected and abandoned the children they already have. I am not advocating abortion as a mother of three I know how precious life is, however, I do not live in their world, their reality.

Yes the ideal thing would be for these women to not engage in sexual activity, to realize their beauty and giftedness from God. However, the ideal was shattered for most of these women at the tender age of 5, 6, 7, 8 and so on, when most of them were sexually abused. We are not dealing with the ideal any longer we are dealing with the reality of their lives. I am not saying the ideal can never be achieved. I am a Catholic and the Kingdom of God is what beckons me to work for a just and loving society. However, we must begin with those most in need; we must be Christ to them.

Let’s remember Bishop Tobin what John Paul II wrote in his encyclical on the Gospel of Life, “it would be moral for politicians to support a particular piece of legislation that allows for abortion, as long as this intended legislation was the best that could be achieved at this particular point in time and would hold the prospect of somehow reducing the perceived necessity of recourse to abortion (cf. EV #73-73).

Instead of telling people who Jesus can come to, perhaps the Catholic church should ex-communicate the pedophiles in their midst including the bishops who should be tried as co-conspirators. God help them.

Why now? Because the primaries for who will run for Ted Kennedy's seat is about ten days away, and the election itself, about seven weeks.

Tobin seemed content to keep the entire thing a private matter, rather than be forced into doing something publicly. After all, the request made of Kennedy is two years old. Why now, and not then.

It wasn't Tobin who made the issue public, but Kennedy.

It seems that the church tends to not go looking for these fights.

After all, if they wanted to make a point, they would have done so when Pope Benedict XVI came to the United States and there was a large group of Democrats lined up for communion. Rather, the Pope chose to not make a public issue of the position taken by Catholic Democrats at that time, and it seems that most of the time, his Bishops in the United States follow suit.

Tobin chose to speak to Kennedy privately. Kennedy chose to attack Tobin and the church publicly. Both sides had a degree of political motivation, but it is Kennedy who is trying to run for a Senate seat in Massachusetts and I hate to suggest it, that politics and the attempt to gains some form of political traction might just have been on his mind at the time.

Theresa,

The word sin comes from an archerey term related to sine as in sine curve, It simply means to miss the mark. Abortion is always a sin as it misses the mark of what God wants for us. You would not abort your child. How can you let your poor sisters abort theirs. Have courage and ask for help from God and his Angels and Saints (especially Mary) who watched her own dearest Divine Son Jesus be aborted at the age of 33 on the cross for the sins of mankind. Draw upon all the powers in Heaven and on earth to help save these poor women from themselves and their self hating pasts. God does not hate them and we the Church must never scorn or belittle them for they are the face of our suffering Lord Jesus in the world. We must love them back into the bosom of Holy Mother Church and dry their every tear. But we must never give in to the accusations of the evil one who says their unborn children do not deserve to live. And even if they cannot care for their child there are so many loving couples and families who would love to adopt these children. There is no need to kill them. You are never alone and neither are these poor unfortunate women. They must all be told how much God loves them and desires them to to find joy in this life and come home to Him in Heaven one day for all Eternity.

Why is it that noone uses their real names on any of these so called Catholic blogs or when disagreeing with a Bishop's theology hark back to the statements of Theologians who lived in times when women were still treated as chatel. For example, most married women in ancient Rome were registered as legalized prostitutes because otherwise if they were unfaithful their husbands could legally kill them for their infidelity. The legal temple prostitute status protected them from this threat (lesser of two evils doctrine) as infidelity was rampant in ancient Rome.

Catholic Pro Lifer's for the most part want to protect unborn babies and their mothers an not criminalize or stigmatize the mother but nurture an love them as the children of God that they are. The progressives want to criminalize or at least fine (administer civil punishment) to anyone who does not agree with their poilicies IE does not want to be forced to buy health insurance. Conservatives on the other hand want to reduce and limit government in our lives, except in areas of national security. There is always the danger of too much government and the corruption that too much power seems to foster. We must always be vigilant for our freedom.

Also when defending pro-abortion politics why does the name Bush always seem to come up. What do his policies or mistakes in war or whatever have to do with the issue of abortion. Yes we should pray for the innocent victims of war and rage against war crimes. How does any of this mitigate the evil of abortion? Why are you labeling all Pro Lifers as republican? The issue of ending abortion is not political it is moral. Bart Stupak a Democrat was a hero of the Pro Life movement until he waffled under the progressive pressures of the Democratic leadership.

It seems to me that anyone who represents or insinuates himself to be a Catholic Clergyman only to spew forth the agenda of the far left is committing a grave blasphemy. The reason grave sins are grave sins is because they harm others, harm self and insult an Infinitly Good God. Grave sins are mitigated due to invincible ignorance which even seems to show up on this blog. Luckily we are called to hate the sin but love the sinner and instruct the ignorant. It is some of the "other" world beliefs that simply do away with the "sinner." May God have mercy on us all.