Why Bishop Tobin is Truly Wrong

Please be honest.
If you agree with Winters, that promoting legal abortion is okay, while procuring an abortion is not, please say it would be oaky to promote legal child rape, provided one was not a rapist.

Or if there is a difference, please tell us what it is.

While none of us is worthy, the presumption is that we are all trying to understand God's will and, with the help of God's grace, to be converted more and more to Christ. If one is in a state of mortal sin, especially if one obstinately refuses to seek forgiveness and amend their life, that person should refrain from the sacrament because they are willfully separating themselves from the one with whom they appear to be in communion. Being asked to refrain from taking communion is a measure that is imposed in hopes that the person will see the error of their ways and seek reconciliation. I'm sure Bishop Tobin wants no part of politicizing the Eucharist. Rep. Kennedy is no different than anyone else, he just made the decision to make his case public.

"The other side of the altar rail".....What? Did I miss another "Back-to-the-past move, under the cover of darkness?

Personally, I think all the pro-choice politicians in America should be excommunicated. This is because our abortion laws are truly radical and these politicians are 100% dishonest. Other countries have abortion laws as well but they are not as radical as ours.

The Catholic pro-choice politicians here will say that this is the law of the land; this is the way the Constitution has been interpreted by our Supreme Court. All true but do these politicians beleive this is an honest interpretaion of our constitution? And if they do, then how about the human life amendment? Why aren't they on board there? They are simply pandering to leftists & feminists, period! They do not have the courage of their Catholic convictions.

If you think about it, the founding document of the nation, The Declaration of Independence talks about life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. It says that the citizens of this nation are endowed by their Creator with these rights. There you have it, the right to life. So how could the Constitution, a lesser document, deny a right contained in the founding document? I ask you? Only a Liberal could think it does. Some would argue that the right to life only applies to those born. Well, even if that were the case shouldn't this right extrapolate backwards and protect human life in its formative stages? Hmmmm?

Bishop Tobin is correct. The question is not politics but the Faith. Kennedy openly supports and votes for abortion contrary to the Catholic Faith. By doing so he puts himself outside the communion of Christ. To receive only further risks his soul.

The onus is on Kennedy, not Tobin, to change his position.

Dear Mr. Winters, I hope all is well?

I have some thoughts on your recent article on the Kennedy/ Tobin saga.

The Eucharist is definitely unity for Christendom. No one hates to see the communion rail become a war. As a conservative politically and orthodox Catholic, I too find it difficult to watch. Unfortunate as it once again shows the great disunity between Catholics.

Since the issue here is about abortion and communion, I just wanted to say that because Catholics believe it is actually Christ's body, then truth plays into it being protected as well as its unity for believers. On this aspect, I think people can talk around each other on what terms we are using to make our points. Since the bishops constitute the Magisterium, 890 of the CCC states that they guard all truth (all of what the Church teaches and believes). Therefore, each bishop guards truth. Also, as 886 says: "The individual bishops are the visible source and foundation of unity in their own particular Churches." Unity comes in more than one way, which I think you believe as well.

I also think you are putting limitations on the role of the bishop as someone who just sits in between "refusal" and "permission." Actually, the way your article is written, it confuses me as to what you think the role of a bishop really is. If he can deny communion to a Catholic who has been involved in something contrary to what the Church agrees with, then he must deny communion to them. This, I think is the issue really in that our bishops have been so quiet for so long that people cannot take a bishop admonishing a fellow Catholic. Deep within the majority of Democrats who are also Catholic, they cannot get over the issue of Divine Positive Law trumping any Human Positive Laws that contradict the Divine Law. (Do not even get me started on the Republican who calls himself Catholic.) I use this example because it is the bishops’ job to protect the communion rail from those who are in grave sin and public scandal (Kennedy situation) who demand the sacrament but have publically denied Catholic Doctrine or the authority of the bishops. That is why Mr. Kennedy deserves this situation and why the bishop is within his rights to do this. Sounds a bit mean, but then again the state of the Church these days shows that the sacraments need protecting (Heb. 13: 17).

For Catholics, this guarding consists of protecting all the sacraments too. Paragraphs 893 and 894 of the CCC conveys this idea. After all, we are told in scripture that a bishop must rule in a respectful manner and be an upstanding man (1 Tm. 3).

I would be happy to discuss this further if you like.

Thanks,

Paul

"The posture of those who wish to employ Canon 915 in the manner first suggested by Archbishop Burke in 2004 and now by Bishop Tobin suggests that receiving communion is a kind of reward for a good voting record."

No, Abp Burke, Tobin, and others have been clear that to inform a Catholic obstinately opposed to Church teaching to not take Communinion is a charitable action.

These individuals who are so instructed would not be in a state of grace (due to their public persistent advocacy for abortion) and therefore would be committing sacrilege if they take the sacrament. This prohibition should drive any true Catholic to ommend their life and seek absolution through the sacrament of Penance.

This charitable application of this law also lets other members of the public know they would be in danger of losing a state of grace if they followed in the footsteps of Kennedy.

IT is unfortunate, yes, but sadly necessary.

To take communion or not to take communion is all a matter of where you are, who you are, and which cleric(s) you have on your side:

Papal Knighthood for a Pro-Abortion Catholic Politician

http://www.cardinalrating.com/cardinal_106__article_927.htm
Apr 05, 2005

The Catholic Herald recently carried an interesting item about Julian Hunte, a pro-choice Catholic politician in the West Indies who was awarded a papal knighthood Sept. 19. Hunte was made a Knight of the Grand Cross Pian Order. Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano bestowed the honor in a New York ceremony.

American Catholics will no doubt be struck by the contrast between the Vatican award to Hunte, and the refusal of some American bishops to allow pro-choice Catholic politicians to speak on diocesan property or at Catholic colleges, and most recently, to receive the Eucharist.

For anyone familiar with the patterns of Vatican diplomacy, however, Hunte's knighthood is hardly surprising. The Vatican's classic approach to political forces with which it disagrees might be dubbed "constructive engagement." The idea is that it's better to keep lines of communication open than to burn bridges. It's as important to encourage positive acts as to condemn negative ones; after all, Hunte was honored for supporting the Holy See in the U.N., not for his vote on abortion. Public excoriations may be momentarily satisfying, seasoned Vatican diplomats argue, but they rarely produce forward movement.

A senior Vatican official once expressed the idea to me this way: "Not every sentence of a heretic is heresy."

Yet the center of gravity in the Vatican is closer to constructive engagement than to public confrontation. That's one reason the American debate over pro-choice politicians and the Eucharist seems destined to remain just that -- an American debate.

Has God ever called sinners to do his work?

I simply cannot find it acceptable to deny the Eucharist to any person who holds the belief that Jesus Christ is, indeed, present in the consecrated bread and wine. No matter what other positions they hold on anything, it is the belief in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist that is central to our faith, and that belief alone is what is equally - or even more - important than a politician's stance on a public policy matter. I am convinced that the reception of Holy Communion should never be restricted, as Christ never refused his presence to anyone, even nonbelievers. I know that many of the bloggers here hold an entirely different view of this, but this is mine which I have thought and prayed a good deal about. I can appreciate the thinking behind such stances, but I do not find justification for them. Christ calls all of us to his supper, even those who would betray and deny Him. We should do the same.

I have to smile when I hear people say that we have to "protect" the Sacrament. All I can do is picture Jesus walking the hillside of 1st century Palestine cowering behind Peter and saying: "Protect me, Peter! Don't let that sinner touch me!"

Geez come on....As Jesus hung on the cross he didn't cry out: "Father, forgive them.....as long as they come grovelling (sp?) back to Me because of their sinfullness. And don't dare let them approach Me, until their souls are lilly white! Then We can reward them."

But if we are now returning to the pre-Vatican I and pre-Pius X approach to receiving Holy Communion, then I wonder how many Bishops have told Catholic politicians who have supported immoral wars to refrain from Communion; or Catholic Govenors who have allowed capital punishment to flourish in their states even though two popes and the Bishop's Conference have condemned CP?

How many Bishops have been told by the Pope to refrain from Holy Communion until they publicly confess to hiding, aiding and abetting Pedephiles in their dioceses? How many "good, outstanding" citizens have called for the excommunication of Catholic politicians who (wrongly) support abortion rights but are themselves guilty of adultery, fornication, tax evasion, cheating customers, etc., etc.

If we're going to use the Eucharist to "wake people up," let's do it across the board.

For all the Tobin and Burke fans out there, consider this:
Rep. David Obey, from my home state of Wisconsin, was targeted by Burke when he was bishop of La Crosse. Rep. Obey voted in favor of the Stupak Amendment to the health care bill. If Burke had had his way, Rep. Obey would not have been in a position as a respected, veteran liberal to help pass the Stupak Amendment, which was a pro-life victory by any measure.

St. Paul gives us the correct response. When the bishop of Corinth, who was a convert from the cult of prostitution in Corinth, began to moonlight at the pagan temples and creating real scandal St. Paul wrote his famous tome to the Corinthians. Nowhere does he deny communion to anyone but rather implores them to consider what they are doing because "that is why so many of you are ill or have died". He didn't play God but rather warned them of the consequences of their behavior. The problem is that Tobin, Burke et al. want to play God, they want to lord it over others, especially powerful politicians. Instead, Tobin should have done what St. Paul did and warn Kennedy of possible consequences of receiving communion with "grave sin" and let the Lord take it from there. However, I guess it's a stretch to think that Burke or Tobin are going to even remotely fill St. Paul's shoes.

Michael,

Thank you for moving the discussion beyond the traditional dualistic arguments. It is unfortunate that more do not grasp the truth of the following: "certainly it is not difficult to think of a variety of reasons why, in a pluralistic culture such as ours, a member of Congress would think that there is no practical way to apply the Church’s teaching in civil law without violating other important principles."

MSW will be surprised that I actually agree with him. Bishop Tobin is truly wrong in that he did not go far enough and ex-communicate Mr. Kennedy.

Go Bishop Naumann,Burke and Tobin!A bishop willing to stand up to the Kennedys...watch out the sky may be falling.I cant say how disappointed I am in Cardinal O Malley.He must be from the Cardinal Egan school of bishops.But wait Cardinal Egan did tell Rudy not to take communion so he was not all that bad.Well some of the worst bishops in the country will soon be gone...Mahony,Clark,Hubbard,Steinbock, and Tod Brown.I hear Favalora is pretty bad too.So at least we can look forward to their departure.Thank Heaven for the appointment of Archbishop Dolan.Hopefully these diocese which have suffered under leftist crackpot leadership for so long will get bold orthodox men to begin the long process of reform.

It only seems fair that NCR would publish Bishop Tobin's letter to Rep. Kennedy. Here it is...
He published his letter to the Congressman in the ”Rhode Island Catholic” in his regular column entitled “Without a Doubt” which can be found on the website of the “Rhode Island Catholic” at http://www.thericatholic.com/opinion/detail.html?sub_id=2632

Dear Congressman Kennedy

BY BISHOP THOMAS J. TOBIN

Since our recent correspondence has been rather public, I hope you don’t mind if I share a few reflections about your practice of the faith in this public forum. I usually wouldn’t do that – that is speak about someone’s faith in a public setting – but in our well-documented exchange of letters about health care and abortion, it has emerged as an issue. I also share these words publicly with the thought that they might be instructive to other Catholics, including those in prominent positions of leadership.

For the moment I’d like to set aside the discussion of health care reform, as important and relevant as it is, and focus on one statement contained in your letter of October 29, 2009, in which you write, “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” That sentence certainly caught my attention and deserves a public response, lest it go unchallenged and lead others to believe it’s true. And it raises an important question: What does it mean to be a Catholic?

"The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.”

Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does. Although I wouldn’t choose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church. This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents.

For example, the “Code of Canon Law” says, “Lay persons are bound by an obligation and possess the right to acquire a knowledge of Christian doctrine adapted to their capacity and condition so that they can live in accord with that doctrine.” (Canon 229, #1)

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” says this: “Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles, ‘He who hears you, hears me,’ the faithful receive with docility the teaching and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.” (#87)

Or consider this statement of the Church: “It would be a mistake to confuse the proper autonomy exercised by Catholics in political life with the claim of a principle that prescinds from the moral and social teaching of the Church.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2002)

There’s lots of canonical and theological verbiage there, Congressman, but what it means is that if you don’t accept the teachings of the Church your communion with the Church is flawed, or in your own words, makes you “less of a Catholic.”

But let’s get down to a more practical question; let’s approach it this way: What does it mean, really, to be a Catholic? After all, being a Catholic has to mean something, right?

Well, in simple terms – and here I refer only to those more visible, structural elements of Church membership – being a Catholic means that you’re part of a faith community that possesses a clearly defined authority and doctrine, obligations and expectations. It means that you believe and accept the teachings of the Church, especially on essential matters of faith and morals; that you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish; that you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly; that you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially.

Congressman, I’m not sure whether or not you fulfill the basic requirements of being a Catholic, so let me ask: Do you accept the teachings of the Church on essential matters of faith and morals, including our stance on abortion? Do you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish? Do you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly? Do you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially?

In your letter you say that you “embrace your faith.” Terrific. But if you don’t fulfill the basic requirements of membership, what is it exactly that makes you a Catholic? Your baptism as an infant? Your family ties? Your cultural heritage?

Your letter also says that your faith “acknowledges the existence of an imperfect humanity.” Absolutely true. But in confronting your rejection of the Church’s teaching, we’re not dealing just with “an imperfect humanity” – as we do when we wrestle with sins such as anger, pride, greed, impurity or dishonesty. We all struggle with those things, and often fail.

Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category – it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will; a conscious decision that you’ve re-affirmed on many occasions. 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. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.

Congressman Kennedy, I write these words not to embarrass you or to judge the state of your conscience or soul. That’s ultimately between you and God. But your description of your relationship with the Church is now a matter of public record, and it needs to be challenged. I invite you, as your bishop and brother in Christ, to enter into a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance.

It’s not too late for you to repair your relationship with the Church, redeem your public image, and emerge as an authentic “profile in courage,” especially by defending the sanctity of human life for all people, including unborn children. And if I can ever be of assistance as you travel the road of faith, I would be honored and happy to do so.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas J. Tobin, Bishop of Providence

Yeah, Tobin!! Like Patrick Kennedy, Michael Sean Winters (the author of this piece)doesn't seem to understand the Catholic Cathechism--I think he must have skipped more than a few Sunday School classes. Catholics are not allowed to receive Holy Communion (which is the Body and Blood of Christ) if they are in a state of mortal sin. Certainly, promoting the murder of innocent human beings (i.e., abortion) is a mortal sin. That's what Kennedy does. Kennedy compounds the problem because, as a public figure who publicly criticizes the Catholic Church's stance on abortion, he gives "scandal" to the Church. Look the word up in the Catechism. Kennedy leads other souls astray thru his public opposition to Church teaching. Bishop Tobin is certainly within his rights to correct Kennedy and to ask him to stay away from Holy Communion while he is in a state of mortal sin and continues to create scandal. Tobin has guts. He speaks the Truth and we need more Bishops like him. Sorry Mr. Winters, but "cafeteria-style Catholicism" isn't real Catholicism. There's a word for a Catholic who disagrees with Church teaching, and that word is "Protestant."

I fully understand the principles underlying the sentiments of all the commenters, supporting Bishop Tobin's denial of the Eucharist to Rep. Kennedy. However, while this controversy continues to seethe (similar to the one involving Pres. Obama's appearance at Notre Dame), I continue to be befuddled by the lack of almost any public outcry from our Catholic pro-life movement over the glorious public send off bestowed on Rep. Kennedy's father by the Diocese of Boston and its Cardinal.

Does anyone else see a contradiction here? Is it just me? Presumably, if I read the commenters correctly, Sen. Kennedy would not have been permitted to receive the Eucharist at his own lavish public ceremony (I note the TV cameras were not permitted to film any of the pro-choice Catholic politicians receiving Communion in front of (or from!)the Cardinal, I suppose to mitigate the scandal arising from this obvious contradiction).

Creating even more confusion was Cardinal McCarrick's eulogy at the graveside, where he read from the Senator's letter to the Holy Father, and from the Vatican's response. Not a peep about the Senator's neglect for the unborn for the bulk of his years in the Senate. Wouldn't this have been a perfect occasion for a "teaching moment" to all of us Catholics who are just trying to be model students and play by the rules? We can have the President of the United States eulogize the man in the middle of the Mass, but Catholics were told when he (or others who ran for office with similar positions)was running for office we could not vote for him. Nothing from the Church on how to sort any of this out.

I know we should not deny a Catholic funeral to someone in Sen. Kennedy's shoes. But this was not just some funeral! Yet we will deny the Eucharist to the Senator's son, because he has the same views as his father? If Sen. Kennedy had been an anti-Semite or a segregationist, the Diocese would not have touched this with a 10 foot pole. He was only pro-choice, so we can give him a pass.

Am I missing something? Help me out here.

JMD

Friend, Bp. Tobin may yet be saving Kennedy's soul from hell.

If St. Paul was right to order it, so overtly and strictly, in the Corinthian church (see 1 Cor 5), for a far lesser offense, how can Bp. Tobin be wrong, to do it so mildly and privately, for a greater?

There is absolutely nothing to criticize, and much to praise, in how the bishop has handled this matter. He has given comfort and encouragement to the faithful, who badly needed recent evidence that the bishops weren't treating the moral code of Christianity like a negotiable or insignificant thing. Now, in some small measure, they have it, and it feels like coming to the surface of a pool of water, after having been under for a long time, and feeling that one could not hold one's breath a moment more.

I too have some difficulty in following MSW's reasoning for why B. Tobin is wrong in his approach to Congressman Kennedy's obstinate approach to Catholic moral teaching on abortion. I can only assume that he would also reject the same approach taken by Bishops that excommunicated and denied communion to those Catholic politicians that attempted to prevent the integration of Catholic Schools and those that oppossed the abolition of slavery.

What is truly wrong is covering up altogether the 46th anniversary of the public execution of our first Catholic President and focusing only on this relative.

Read James Douglass's JFK and the Unspeakable
Again.

Well, this is certainly interesting commentary. I guess that the writers know the mind of God and know when someone is condemned to hell! Maybe a wee bit arrogant (pride being a sin and humility a virtue?), but, hey, when you're right, you're right...
What's missing in all of this discussion is the fact that pro-choice politicians are exactly that -- pro choice. They believe that women have the right to behave in accordance with the consciences. If we were living in a theocracy, run by the Catholic Church, then the law of the land would conform to the catechism of the Catholic Church. We live in a pluralistic society. Access to abortions should be limited to the extent that the majority believes it should be. Since Catholics believe that abortion is a moral evil, then Catholics should not perform or have abortions. Pro-choice politicians are not prommoting abortions, telling Catholics to have abortions,or inducing Catholic doctors to perform them.

The author of this article seems to suffer from the "traditionalist malaise". He is careful to display his traditionalist credentials that he chants the unworthy mantra in latin and defends the rigid catholic criminalization of abortion which labels everyone else as "proabortion". Then he begins to split hairs and disagrees with Tobin politicizing the Eucharist. The current administration of "the" church claims a divine right to authority in the public square and the right/obligation to wield it. Winters disagreed. Squeeze a right wing traditionalist and you find a "cafeteria" catholic, whether it is denying the results of one ecumenical council for an old one or denying an old pope for a new one, whatever.

I read the word "Christian" in several comments here. I shudder at the thought that followers of Tobin consider themselves to be "Christian". Christians are followers of Jesus Christ. If you follow Jesus Christ's _teachings_ then Tobin is in direct conflict and many of the _rituals_ of the catholic tradition are also in conflict. Tobin's stance illustrates the self-righteous, controlling, egomaniacal and judgmental nature of the catholic religion and some of it's followers. Can you imagine Jesus saying... "Hey you don't agree with everything I am saying, yet you are trying to follow my words and you do agree with a lot of what I am saying. Too bad you don't agree 100%!!!! Just for that, no chance for redemption for you!!!" Tobin = the Eucharist Nazi ("Nazi", used in terms of the famous comedic episode of the "Soup Nazi" on Sienfield.) If you could see how the rest of the world sees your faith. Because of this I have lost all respect for your religion. It seems like a sham to control people, and I dare say it truly is.

Do you refuse to administer last rites to a dying man because you disagree with 10% of his decisions in life? I cannot believe people are agreeing with Tobin and then pat themselves on the back because they are such good Christians.

We do not know if the spirit/soul is present in the fetus. Let's say that it is present. Does God get confused when the spirit/soul in the aborted fetus returns to Him? Or does the spirit/soul go into the next fetus that pops up after the insemination of egg and sperm? I can't believe the hatred that these tiny little thoughts will create. The words I write will send some people over the edge and the reason? That I dared to speculate. This world is so tragic. I digress. To continue my line of reasoning let's say that the process works as I propose. Should we allow fetus of any trimester to be aborted? Probably not. It's a question of personal responsibility. For instance, how many people don't care that the get a STD? Some STD's go away with treatment. So why care? Yet people do care. Why do they care? If you can answer that question, perhaps that is the answer to why most responsible people attempt to avoid pregnancy altogether if they can not raise a child correctly.

"it is not difficult to think of a variety of reasons why, in a pluralistic culture such as ours, a member of Congress would think that there is no practical way to apply the Church’s teaching in civil law without violating other important principles"
Which is to say, there is no practical way to oppose abortion effectively in Congress, so long as the decision in Roe v. Wade remains standing. And, to overstate the case to make a point, overturning Roe v Wade ought not be obtained by appointing Joseph Stalin to the Supreme Court, as the lives of millions more could be a stake as a result.
Until there is a Constitutional Amendment that has a snowball's chance in Hell of being ratified by the necessary majority of States, there is little Congress can do by way of the stick of the criminal law. However, through the mechanism of the budget there may be much to do that will reduce or nearly eliminate abortion, by use of the carrot, not the stick.
I hope it will be shown that millions of babies can live, through public endorsement and support of pregnant women with birth, with raising kids, and with their hopes in life.

Praise be Jesus Christ now and forever! Bishop Tobin is an inspiring shepherd of Jesus our Christ. The Good Bishop is correct to point out the absolute sinfulness of Congressman Kennedy.

Congressman Kennedy needs to man-up and admit the Truth of his sins. Congressman you are no longer a frat boy whose daddy is going to buy your way out of hell.

Abortion is murder. Life begins at conception. Those who support the slaughter are guilty of mortal sin. Stop the HATE Congressman Kennedy NO ONE and I mean NO ONE in this world is believing your cry baby responses.

Be a man Kennedy. Respect the Good Bishop and his Authority delegated to him by Jesus our Christ.

Abortion is wrong. It does not matter how many times you cry publicly. Stop being Catholic if you can't handle the Truth!

Remember, it's not just Catholic teaching that abortion is wrong but that government has the burden of protecting the unborn. A reading of Evangelium Vitae shows this, especially paragraph 71

http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/__PS.HTM

What Mr. Winters fails to acknowledge is the dimension of scandal. Bishop Tobin responded to the scandal created by Rep. Kennedy's public stance. He did so privately with tact and respect. It is one thing to sin, have remorse, and approach the communion rail (e.g. yours truly); it is far different to disclose publically that one's sinfullness is not sin and then approach the communion rail. The church has every right to control the access to the sacraments with which she has been entrusted as well as the obligation to ensure that her teachings are clear and transparent. It absolutely does send a double message to allow public sinners to receive the sacraments, perhaps moreso if the sinner is a Kennedy and seen as a darling of the religion.