The Senator, the Cardinal, and the Bishop (among others)

"On the right to choose abortion, he was fully pro-choice. He supported the right of women who got their medical care from the government whether they were federal employees, in the military or on Medicaid to the same right of conscience that women with their own money or private insurance have.  And, on every other issue related to reproductive health and rights, he voted for women. How did this happen in this big, very pious Catholic family?  Theology played a part but Kennedy boys by and large did not go to Catholic schools. They went to the top prep schools and to Harvard. Ted spent only the eighth grade at a Jesuit prep school and went on to the Milton Academy. Had he gone to Catholic schools in the 1940 and 50’s abortion would not have been mentioned — it simply was not an issue much before it started to become legal in the late 60’s in the US. But there is something to be said for a good secular education in terms of developing respect for diversity." — Francis Kissling, former head of pro-abort Catholics For a Free Choice, from her essay, "Ted Kennedy: A Death in the Family" (Aug. 28, 2009)

"Over time, however, the roster of pro-life Catholic Democrats dwindled. As early as 1972 the Michigan Democratic candidate for the Senate, Frank Kelley, found himself pinned between Catholics eager to have him declare his opposition to abortion and women's groups warning him that if he did so, he would 'be publicly denounced by Democratic women all over the State.' In 1973 pro-choice activists could still term Senator Edward Kennedy's position on abortion 'thoroughly revolting.' Two years later, to the applause of liberal commentators, Kennedy led the fight against any effort to restrict federal funding of abortions through the Medicaid program" — John T. McGreevy, Catholicism and American Freedom: A History (New York, 2003).

In 1973, then, abortion activists had no qualms about denouncing Ted Kennedy's pro-life position as "thoroughly revolting." In 2009, however, it's difficult to find bishops and cardinals willing to use language nearly as strong or as obviously moral in describing Kennedy's three decades of supporting, advocating, defending, and funding abortion. It is, to put it mildly, disheartening.

Equally disheartening are the post-funeral comments of Cardinal O'Malley, whose post about Kennedy's funeral is filled with the strangely passive voice used by so many apologists taking up the "Kennedy was a Great (If Occasionally Flawed) Catholic" argument:

Needless to say, the Senator’s wake and Catholic funeral were controversial because of the fact that he did not publically [sic] support Catholic teaching and advocacy on behalf of the unborn. ­­­Given the profound effect of Catholic social teaching on so many of the programs and policies espoused by Senator Kennedy and the millions who benefitted from them, there is a tragic sense of lost opportunity in his lack of support for the unborn.  To me and many Catholics it was a great disappointment because, had he placed the issue of life at the centerpiece of the Social Gospel where it belongs, he could have multiplied the immensely valuable work he accomplished.

Because, you see, when Sen. Kennedy was doing all of his good deeds, he was motivated by the Gospel and Catholic doctrine, but when he mysteriously failed to advocate for the unborn, it was one of those strange mishaps, like Michael Jordan missing a game-winning shot ("Goodness, I guess he is human!"), or Babe Ruth striking out ("Well, who would thunk it possible?'), as if it was the exception to the rule. But for Kennedy, being a driven and vigorous supporter of the culture of death was the rule, with few exceptions. So, the funeral was controversial, in fact, because:

1). He publicly opposed and attacked Catholic teaching.
2). He publicly and very ardently supported abortion.
3). And embryonic stem-cell research, contraceptives, and "same-sex" marriage.
4). And he never publicly acknowledged or expressed remorse for these great public wrongs.

The best piece I've read so far about the Senator and the Cardinal is Phil Lawler's September 3, 2009, CatholicCulture.org piece, "The Kennedy Funeral: Boston's Latest Scandal." Here is the opening, but be sure to read the entire essay:

A week after the death of Ted Kennedy, the relevant question is not whether the Massachusetts Senator deserved a Catholic funeral, but whether he deserved a ceremony of public acclamation so grand and sweeping that it might, to the untutored observer, have seemed more like an informal canonization.

We cannot know the state of Ted Kennedy's soul when he finally succumbed to brain cancer. We are told that he was visited regularly by a priest in his last days; we assume that he made a sincere confession and received absolution. We can-- and should, and do-- pray that he receives the same sort of merciful judgment that we wish for ourselves.

That indeed is the purpose of a Catholic funeral: not to honor the deceased, but to pray for the salvation of his soul. Yet that central purpose was never acknowledged during the long, elaborate ceremony last Saturday in Boston's basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help: the beautiful structure known to local residents as Mission Church. From the first greeting to the final commendation, the ceremony was a celebration of Kennedy's life and his public career. There was never a hint that Ted Kennedy might need prayers, that his eternal salvation could be in question-- that he, like the rest of us sinners, can only rely on the compassion of an all-merciful God. On the contrary, at several points during the service, priests and eulogists stated flatly that Ted Kennedy was already in heaven, enjoying the rewards of a virtuous life.

The great, unanswered question hanging over the congregation in Mission Church, and in the minds of the millions who watched the funeral Mass on television, was how the Catholic Church could arrange such a highly public tribute to a man who, over the years, was arguably the most powerful political opponent of the Catholic position on the central moral issue of our time: the battle to protect human life.

Read the entire article. Which brings me to the second bit of disheartening writing, a column by Bishop Robert C. Morlino titled, "God's Mercy and Senator Edward Kennedy." The bishop writes:

There can be no doubt that Senator Kennedy’s accomplishments as the “Lion of the Senate” always were intended to help the most poor and downtrodden in our society, whether in terms of helping the developmentally handicapped, or young children with little or no strong educational opportunities, or taking leadership in providing healthcare for children, and on and on and on. Senator Kennedy certainly did live out the Gospel, in that the lifestyle of being a disciple of Jesus Christ means seeing the hungry and feeding them, seeing the naked and clothing them, seeing those who are sick or in prison and visiting them, and other like occurrences that are part of our everyday life. No one can take credit away from Senator Kennedy for his leadership in these very important areas.

As I've asked and argued elsewhere, why must it be assumed that expanding federal programs, opposing school choice, and growing the welfare system are each an iron-clad, can't-be-debated part of Catholic social teaching? Those matters, which are bound up in policy and prudential judgment, can be disagreed upon and debated among Catholics and others of good will. More importantly, who are the most poor and downtrodden, the most naked, the most vulnerable in our society? Surely it is the unborn, no? The bishop continues:

And yet there was also a disconnect in his life between the strong exercise of pro-life leadership in the areas described above and his leadership against the pro-life cause relative to the abortion of our tiniest brothers and sisters, embryonic stem-cell research, same-sex marriage, and so on.

The challenge for us as Catholics in the United States — and it is a challenge both personally and as a community — is to bridge that disconnect and pull that whole seamless garment of the defense of life together, rather than rending that garment in twain and choosing one, while almost, or actually, excluding the other. The social teaching of the Church and her pro-life stance surely are interwoven as a seamless garment.

Yes, there certainly was a "disconnect"; it is the sort of gaping chasm many Catholics, including myself, see as evidence of a brazen and conscious repudiation of clear Catholic teaching. After all, as has been pointed out many times over, Sen. Kennedy offered rather articulate and strong renunciations of abortion in the early 1970s. But the senator, prior to his death, made no such public renunciations of abortion or acknowledged the deep and abiding damage done by his decades of publicly supporting abortion. The much-discussed private/partially-public letter from Kennedy to Benedict, while containing admissions of "human failings," also insisted, "I have never failed to believe and respect the fundamental teachings of my faith." That, to put it mildly, is hard for many Catholics to swallow—not because they pretend to know the soul of Ted Kennedy, or because they think he should be in hell, but because his public record does not reveal the work of a man who "never failed to believe and respect the fundamental teachings" of the Catholic Church. Which is why this passage from Bishop Morlino's column is more than a little disconcerting:

I’m afraid, however, that for not a few Catholics, the funeral rites for Senator Kennedy were a source of scandal — that is, quite literally, led them into sin. From not a few corners has come the question, “how on earth could Teddy Kennedy be buried from the Church?” There have also been expressions from some, that “whatever happens in Church, Senator Kennedy will now face justice, which will lead him inside the gates of Hell.”

From the earliest days of the Church it was defined as sinful to enjoy the thought that someone might be in Hell. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit worked powerfully through history so that Hell could be avoided by the proper exercise of human freedom, and to take delight in the perceived foiling of God’s plan is wrong.

Pope Benedict XVI has written very beautifully that on the Cross of Christ there was lived out a conflict between God’s justice, in that someone who was Himself equal to God had to die in reparation for man’s sinfulness, and God’s mercy: from the very beginning, the Church believed and taught that Jesus died precisely so that sins might be forgiven. His body was broken and His blood was shed so that sins might be forgiven, so that there might be mercy.

I fully agree with the bishop's statement that it is sinful to enjoy thinking someone might be hell, or to wish someone would go to hell. And I have no doubt some people are expressing themselves in reprehensible ways (you can, after all, find just about anything on the internet). But the passage above raises a few questions:

• [The following paragraph was added on Sept. 7, 2009] Bishop Morlino wrote: "I’m afraid, however, that for not a few Catholics, the funeral rites for Senator Kennedy were a source of scandal — that is, quite literally, led them into sin." That's exactly the point, isn't it? Scandal, the Catechism explains, "takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. ... Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others" (par. 2285). So is the bishop admitting the the funeral was, in fact, a source of real scandal? Was there a failure on the part of Church leaders to handle this matter in a way that would teach and educate both the faithful and everyone else?

• Is the attitude described by Bishop Morlino really the prevalent stance among Catholics who are upset or concerned about the funeral? Having read many articles and numerous comments about the topic, I have a hard time believing so. It appears to me that many of those who are confused or even angry are simply wondering why a public funeral Mass—a rather extravagant, widely publicized (and televised), eulogistic, and liturgically problematic Mass—was afforded to a man who worked so long and hard against the Church on essential moral issues, and who never publicly disavowed that work. It's a good question, and they have a right to ask it.

• Within a week of Kennedy's funeral, those making offensive and inappropriate statements of his eternal destination are being called on the carpet for their objectively sinful actions. Fair enough. My question is this: how long after Ted Kennedy made it known in the 1970s that he was going to publicly support abortion (and, later, other evils), was he called on the carpet by bishops or priests for his objectively sinful actions? How often throughout his public career was he publicly confronted and chastised for his support of abortion, contraceptives, "same-sex marriage," embryonic stem cell research, and so forth? And why does Bishop Morlino only use the word "sin/sinful" regarding those comments, but never in referring to Kennedy's many public actions and positions? Is it really so hard to call a spade a spade?

• Where does Pope Benedict speak of a "conflict" between God's justice and mercy? I cannot find it. This is especially puzzling since the bishop goes on to emphasize: "On the cross of Christ, God’s justice came into conflict with God’s mercy. God’s justice was fully satisfied, but mercy triumphed in the conflict, according to the teaching of Pope Benedict." But this doesn't sound like anything I've read by Benedict (it doesn't appear in any of his encyclicals, at the very least). And John Paul II, in Dives in Misericordia (1980), his encyclical devoted to mercy, noted that "mercy is in a certain sense contrasted with God's justice", and then further explained, "Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it..." (par. 4; emphasis added).

UPDATE (Sept. 7, 2009): LIfeSiteNews.com reports that Fr. Thomas Rosica, the President and CEO of Canada's Salt & Light TV network, has written a blog post stating, in part:

Leading up to the Kennedy funeral last weekend, and in its aftermath, many so-called lovers of life and activists in the pro-life movement, as well as well-known colleagues in Catholic television broadcasting and media in North America, have revealed themselves to be not agents of life, but of division, destruction, hatred, vitriol, judgment and violence. Their words and actions vitiate their efforts in favor of life. Their open and public attacks against Cardinal Séan O’Malley, OFM, Cap, Archbishop of Boston; Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, Archbishop emeritus of Washington, D.C.; the priests involved in the funeral liturgy in Boston’s historic Mission Basilica, (be they Redemptorist, Jesuit or Diocesan) indicate that something is terribly wrong in the pro-life movement. Civility, charity, mercy and politeness seem to have dropped out of the pro-life lexicon.

Through vicious attacks launched on blogs, a new form of self-righteousness, condemnation and gnosticism reveals authors who behave as little children bullying one another around in schoolyards- casting stones, calling names, and wreaking havoc in the Church today! What such people fail to realize is that their messages are ultimately screamed into a vacuum. No one but their own loud crowd is really listening. We will never change laws and bring about conversion of minds and hearts with such behavior. We make the Church and our efforts for life look ridiculous and terribly anti-Christian. Sowing seeds of hatred and division are not the work of those who wish to build a culture of life.

Once again, it's interesting how easy it is to chastise pro-life Catholic bloggers for being "vicious" and "bullying" and "sowing seeds of hatred" and being "agents of destruction and violence", but how hard it is to state the facts about Sen. Kennedy's public record. I suppose it was Kennedy's good fortune that he was never a pro-life Catholic blogger, otherwise he might have had to face public criticism from Catholic clergy.

Related Insight Scoop posts:

• Kennedy's letter—the pro-life one (Sept. 2, 2009)
• The funeral and the letter (Aug. 30, 2009)
• What is Sen. Ted Kennedy's "Catholic legacy"? (Aug. 27, 2009)
• Sen. Ted Kennedy's right to a Catholic funeral (Aug. 27, 2009)

Comments

[Marguerite]

I learned in Catholic school that God's mercy is plentiful while alive in order for us to repent, but that after death his judgment takes precedence. Is this no longer the case?

[Greg - Wellesley, MA]

Carl, a couple of thoughts. The one Kennedy that the media and for that matter Catholic clergy do not discuss is Rose Kennedy, the mother of Ted Kennedy. That's interesting because she was a very devout orthodox Catholic. Because of her devout Catholicism, to this day,she has an influence over the Archdiocese of Boston in that there are those in Boston who respect who she was. I believe that one reason for Ted Kennedy's Catholic burial is due to this woman who through all the suffering that she experienced in her life remained true to her Catholic faith. And for that reason, the Archdiocese of Boston buried her son in a Catholic church.

[Michael McBrien]

Basic Logic:

The orthodoxy of one does not make up for the unorthodoxy of another.

[Carl E. Olson]

Greg: One does not have to question anything about Rose Kennedy to conclude that what you are describing—Ted Kennedy getting a big, public Catholic funeral because of his mother—is simply nepotism, rank favoritism based on kinship. Frankly, if that is true (and I think there is much too it), it is revolting. The Church should have nothing to do with such favoritism, especially not in matters of life and death and witness to the Gospel, regardless of whatever sentimental attachments people still have to the Kennedy name.

[Stephen Sparrow]

I think this whole business of Ted Kennedy's former prolife stance followed by an about face, was pure unadulterated political opportunism. Kennedy went with the way the votes went - the Party Machine changed from being prolife to being abortion friendly - knowing full well that traditional Dem voters would still stay with them because they disliked the Republicans. This was made clear in that video talk by Fr Robert Barron. I remember in 1960 as an 18 year old and like huge numbers of Catholics world wide, enthused with the idea of a "Catholic" being made President of the USA. But three months before the election & bear in mind this was New Zealand - I attended a Sunday mass at which a well informed and well travelled priest (Fr John Crocker) gave a homily which shocked the congregation. He told us what a corrupt bunch the Kennedys were and how utterly ruthless they were - stopping it would seem at nothing to gain their end. I'm with Carl on this one. Giving Kennedy a Catholic funeral has blocked a lot of folk from taking the step toward Catholic Faith. The Catholic Hierachy was gutless. And as for that craven fawning letter he wrote to Benedict - they should pin a copy of that to all Medical emergency room walls and patients needing stomach cleansing treatment could be asked to read it instead of having to be pumped out.

[janek.ignace]

How many other Catholic bishops joined St. John Fisher in repudiating the sinful acts of Henry VIII? And who was canonized in the end?

[miasarx]

Carl,
It comes down, as always, to the bishops. We need prophetic, gutsy bishops. They need to read & take to heart the beginning of Caritas in V*E*R*I*T*A*T*E.

The funeral was a scandal. Pure & simple. Until bishops are willing to stand up for the truth (which IS pastoral), the Church in America will continue to be weak. Who was it who said "this feckless bunch of bishops"?

[Ray Tapajna]

Cardinal Newman said all must follow their conscience even if their consience is ill informed.
GK Chesterton said the modern world is full of old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. The above represents Senator Kennedy's life.

Abortion is an intrinsic evil that can not be accepted in any frame of reference. It is odd that the clergy ignored this when it about Senator Kennedy stance about the right to life.

Senator Kennedy was also a globalist free trader and played a large part of the vast degradation of human dignity in the workday and the devaluation of work itself.

He also claimed a victory for civil rights while 50 percent of young blacks in the inner city can not find gainful employment today . At the same time, the prison population is breaking all records with the blacks making up the majority of the prisoners.

There was a time when it was very difficult to pass through the main streets of many major cities because the streets in the black neighborhoods were full of life and business activity. Recently, I found myself in one of these old neighborhoods and everything seem to be clean and proper with two policemen riding by on bikes. The only thing that was missing was people. Vast areas of our inner cities have been depopulated.

This is the state of our nation that Senator Kennedy leaves behind with miles of main streets across many of our major cities with empty storefronts and empty factories.

We explore the latent response of religion and philsophy to the global economic arena at http://www.therational.com and we review and react to Pope Benedict's economic encyclical - Charity is truth at http://tapsearch.com/pope-benedict-economic-encyclical

[Carl E. Olson]

Cardinal Newman said all must follow their conscience even if their consience is ill informed.

No, he didn't. This myth really needs to go away, die, and be buried under twelve feet of concrete. I find that even good Catholics, loyal to the Magisterium, use it. I wrote about this myth a few months ago in a post titled, "If you're going to quote Newman, quote him correctly..." Here is part of what I said:

Newman's point (or one of his points), to put it as simply as I can, is that the rightly formed conscience, aimed at knowing truth, can never conflict with the authoritative teachings of the Pope, the Magisterium, and the Church, for all truth comes from the Author of Truth, that is, God. The conscience comes first in the sense that it is a divinely implanted gift from God that, if it considers the evidence rightly, will acknowledge the proper authority and authority of the natural law, and of the Church, the Magisterium, and the Pope. The conscience cannot and should not be coerced by the Pope (or anyone else), but it should admit to proper authority when it sees and recognizes it.

The Catechism, meanwhile, states:

Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings. (par. 1783)

A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed. (par. 1790)

A bit later, the CCC notes that "One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience." Pour the cement...

[Manuel G. Daugherty Razetto]

I have not seen a better interpretation of what really happened and why, than in the words of Carl Olson. We all know too well what sen. Kennedy did. To ignore it is wrong; to ameliorate his grave faults as bishops are doing is shameful and regrettable. It was up to the bishops to defend the Magisterium, instead, we uncomfortably see that those who guard the Doors of the Church, are mute or in the wrong side of the Truth.
Esto quod esse videris.

[Irishladdy]

I just wonder how long it will be after Ted Kennedy's death that he will cease to become a whipping boy.

[Mark Brumley]

I wonder how long it will be after Ted Kennedy's death before Catholics will all recognize what a disaster it was to have such a prominent politician identify himself with Catholicism and make claims about his embrace of Catholic teaching, while supporting the legal killing of tens of millions of unborn children.