(CatholicCulture.org) A pro-abortion Catholic congressman from Pennsylvania has come to the defense of Rep. Patrick Kennedy in his dispute with Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence. “We don't legislate at the orders of the Vatican, we legislate what is in our conscience and what we think is good for our country,” said Rep. Patrick Murphy as he received an award at Harvard University from Caroline Kennedy, who is Rep. Kennedy’s cousin. “I'm reaching out to Patrick Kennedy and also to my local priests and bishops to make sure they know that we agree on 99 percent of the issues.”
More harsh were comments on the issue by two Massachusetts senatorial candidates. “It seems to me a little bit ironic that a church that was willing to overlook the victimization of many, many children over several years is now turning around and saying to people who are good Christians, good Catholics, that, ‘You can’t join this,’’’ said Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, a Catholic. According to the Boston Globe, Rep. Michael Capuano added:
“And they wonder why people stop going to church.’’ Capuano, who is Catholic, then ticked off issues on which he disagreed with the church, including abortion rights, same-sex marriage, and prohibitions against the ordination of women and married men as priests.
Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.
Matthews showed how inept he is as an interviewer, how misinformed he is as a Catholic, how rude he is as a person and how threatened he is by the Moral truth.
Chris Matthews should be fired for his offensive and impolite Interview of Bishop Thomas Tobin. Then, he should sign up for the Right of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) and learn the Catholic faith all over again.
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Catholic Online) – When I discovered that Chris Matthews of the program Hardball was going to interview Bishop Thomas Tobin on the continuing saga of Congressman Patrick Kennedy, I knew I had to watch. Bishop Tobin has courageously - and with a Pastor’s heart - tried to help Congressman Patrick Kennedy to see the dangerous error of his failure to defend the fundamental Right to Life. The Congressman is one of far too many unfaithful Catholics in public life who do not demonstrate moral coherence in their exercise of public office.
After sitting through several segments, I should have known from the “tease” to the segment which I was awaiting where this arrogant, self centered commentator intended to take this alleged “interview”. He repeatedly “teased” to the segment by incessantly repeating the term “Abortion rights” and indicating that he was going to interview Bishop Tobin who was "punishing" Congressman Kennedy for supporting “abortion rights”. There are no “abortion rights”, only human rights. I cannot listen to that phrase “abortion rights” without instantly responding.
The claim of a so called “right” to abort an innocent child is heinous. It is also a fallacy to couch this evil in the language of a woman’s “Right to Choose.” Some choices are always and everywhere wrong. Yet, that is the current state of the positive law in America since the horrendous decisions in Roe and Doe. Women can “choose” to take the life of our first neighbors, the ones who live where we all once lived, in the womb. That “choice” - which is always and everywhere wrong because it is the taking of innocent human life - is also currently protected by the Police Power of the State.
Abortion is the only example of taking innocent human life which is so protected by the Police Power of the State. It has a special status as some sort of "super right" in the American libertine culture and the dictatorship of relativism. Imagine if the positive law created a so called “right” to kill three week old babies because the Supreme Court said it was OK. There is no moral difference. Abortion is feticide in a new language intended to make what is evil sound acceptable.
In an Orwellian effort to change the debate and assuage their consciences its’ advocates have fashioned a “rights language” to make it somehow sound enlightened. It does not work. Science has confirmed what our conscience long ago told all of us, the child in the womb is one of us. She is our neighbor. It is always wrong to kill an innocent neighbor. This truth is written on our hearts by the Natural Law which all just positive laws should participate in and not abrogate. Intentional abortion is wrong and should be illegal in a just society.
The notion that the act of intentionally killing of an entire class of human beings should be called an “abortion right” is despicable. Only human persons can have “rights.” Governments do not create them, they can only recognize them. The act of abortion is a heinous crime. It has no "rights.”
The shorthand phrase “abortion rights” is a linguistic tool used by some journalists like Matthews to further the abortion deception. Even if the positive law of the United States has placed the Police Power behind protecting the evil “choice” to take innocent human life in the womb, one simply cannot have a “right” to do what is always wrong.
Matthews finally did have the good Bishop on his show. It quickly became clear that he intended to pummel him, browbeat him and try to persuade him to abandon the truth and excuse the error which Matthews has embraced. In his grandiosity and arrogance Matthews proceeded to talk over the Bishop, interrupt him, cut him off, and try to lecture him in a condescending manner on “the law”. He repeatedly tried to force him to answer loaded questions. He finally had the audacity to suggest that the Bishop needed to rethink his position.
MSNBC should publicly apologize to the Bishop and Matthews should be fired for his lack of professionalism. To not give this good and intelligent man, this Bishop of the Catholic Church, an opportunity to speak, after inviting him on this show, was inexcusable.
I hope Chris Matthews is reading this article. If you are Chris, here is my heartfelt personal message to you, “You should be ashamed of yourself. You need to get right with God and with your Church”.
Matthews feigned respect by repeatedly calling the Bishop “Your Excellency”, but his manner of proceeding revealed he has no respect for the Office. Matthews, a professing Catholic, also does not understand his own faith. He does not understand that his own Church’s unwavering opposition to the taking of all innocent human life at every age and stage is the ground of every social justice issue.
At several points in this frustrating interview, as the Bishop was trying to help Matthews see that the defense of the Right to Life is a "Natural Law" position and not simply "religious", Matthews simply cut him off and continued his ill mannered browbeating.
Yet, in spite of Matthews asinine effort to claim that morality has nothing to do with the law, the Bishop at least succeeded in showing that morality is the foundation of much of the positive law. He used a few salient examples such as our prohibiting in the law the killing of our neighbor, stealing his property or beating him up. Matthews would hear none of it.
Chris Matthews was not interested in interviewing Bishop Thomas Tobin. In this embarrassing excuse for a program he showed how inept he is as an interviewer, how misinformed he is as a Catholic, how rude he is as a person and how threatened he is by the Moral truth as taught with conviction and courage by his own Church.
Chris Matthews should be fired for his offensive and impolite Interview of Bishop Thomas Tobin. Then, he should sign up for the Right of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) and learn the Catholic faith all over again.
..(Bishop Tobin) said no one knows how many bishops confidentially bring that teaching to individual Catholic officials. He added, finally, that he had never contemplated that his letter to Kennedy would become public.
What is the distinction, Tobin was asked, between what Kennedy recollected as an “instruction” not to take Communion and what the bishop considered a request. How is a Catholic to take such a suggestion, coming from a bishop, he was asked?
Tobin said he “presumed” that Kennedy had complied with the request and was not certain what he would have done if Kennedy continued to take the sacrament. “If I had found out that he was regularly violating that request, the next step might have been more direct. An instruction? A decree? I don’t know what.”
Kennedy has said that he has taken Communion, but he did not give any specifics.
Tobin was asked whether, by taking his firm public stands on abortion, he is seeking to advance his career within the church.
“No,” he replied. “Bishops who tend to be really outspoken don’t tend to get promoted …
“It’s simply one bishop — me — doing my job as best I can.”
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 Congressman responded 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 Church, misrepresents the teachings of the Church, or issues inaccurate statements about my pastoral ministry....
Update [Bishop Tobin responds to Kennedy]: It appears that this happened in 2007, the original AP article from today didn't make that clear. The Bishop's response below:
Bishop Tobin responds to Kennedy
Dispute about receiving communion
Updated: Sunday, 22 Nov 2009, 10:57 AM EST Published : Sunday, 22 Nov 2009, 10:41 AM EST
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..."
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Rep. Patrick Kennedy says Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin has barred him from receiving communion because of his support of abortion rights.
The Providence Journal reports on its Web site Sunday that Kennedy said in an interview that Tobin issued the order during discussions with the Democratic lawmaker, further escalating a simmering ideological dispute between the two men.
Under church rules, Tobin can prevent Kennedy from receiving communion within his diocese, which covers Rhode Island. It’s unclear whether bishops outside Rhode Island will take the same path.
The dispute between the men began when Kennedy criticized the nation’s Catholic bishops for threatening to oppose an overhaul of the health care system unless it included tighter restrictions on publicly financed abortion. Tobin asked for an apology and questioned Kennedy’s faith.
“The vast majority of bishops don’t want people denied Communion” over the abortion issue, said Thomas J. Reese, a Jesuit scholar at the Woodstock Theological Center in Washington. “But the problem is, every time an individual bishop does it — especially if the public official has a high-profile name like Kennedy — it’s going to make headlines across the country and every bishop is going to suffer because of it,” Father Reese said....
According to the National Catholic Reporter, Cardinal Sean O’Malley, the archbishop of Boston, once urged Catholic officials who support abortion rights to refrain from Communion. But the newspaper said Cardinal O’Malley did not order Boston priests to deny them the sacrament. Kerry and the late Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Patrick Kennedy’s father and another supporter of abortion rights) both received Communion at Cardinal O’Malley’s installation as archbishop in 2003.
In 2004, a large majority of bishops “tried to persuade the minority not to do this — using Communion as a weapon,” Father Reese said, but the conference could not come to a consensus view on the issue...
Card McCarrick Downplays Ratzinger Letter on Denying Holy Communion Sept 12, 2004
Washington Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick downplayed a letter to the U.S. Catholic bishops from the Vatican's chief doctrinal watchdog on whether priests should refuse Communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians.
(The Washington Times, 7 July 2004) Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent his letter in early June to Cardinal McCarrick and Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, in the context of dealing with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, a Catholic whose positions on several issues, including abortion, contradict church teachings.
But its full text, which was published Saturday in the Italian newspaper L'Expresso, contains much stronger language than Cardinal McCarrick used last month at a meeting of the country's Catholic bishops near Denver.
Cardinal McCarrick's nuanced speech during the meeting from June 14 to 19 paraphrased the Ratzinger letter to say that the Vatican had left the issue of Communion in the hands of the U.S. bishops.
As the chairman of a task force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians, it was his job to convey what Vatican officials had told him during meetings in Rome.
"I would emphasize that Cardinal Ratzinger clearly leaves to us as teachers, pastors and leaders WHETHER to pursue this path" of denying Communion, Cardinal McCarrick told the bishops in his speech, the text of which is posted at the U.S. bishops' Web site, on www.usccb.org.
"The question for us is not simply whether denial of Communion is possible, but whether it is pastorally wise and prudent," the cardinal said.
As a result, bishops voted 183-6 on a compromise statement allowing each bishop to decide whether to give Communion to pro-choice politicians.
Before the meeting, 15 bishops had released statements suggesting that pro-choice politicians refrain from taking the Eucharist, and four bishops forbade such politicians from doing so.
However, the Ratzinger letter says that denial of Communion is obligatory "regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia."
Cardinal Ratzinger also says a priest should warn "the person in question" of the consequences, including the denial of Communion.
If "the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it," Cardinal Ratzinger wrote.
The letter's last paragraph also takes on Catholics who vote for candidates because of their pro-choice stance.
"If he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia," that Catholic too "would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion," it reads.
That statement supports Colorado Springs Bishop Michael Sheridan, who on May 1 sent out a letter to his diocese saying Catholics who vote for candidates who support abortion, stem-cell research or euthanasia also should not take Communion.
But Catholics who vote for that politician on other grounds should not be penalized, the Ratzinger letter adds.
"Ratzinger's letter was stronger and firmer than we were led to believe," said Michael Novak, a Catholic theologian and author of many books on the church, who is in Italy this week. "It's pretty dynamite stuff."
Before leaving for Italy, he had heard of "dissatisfaction" in Rome over how Cardinal McCarrick was representing the church's teachings.
"I had heard Rome was much tougher than Cardinal McCarrick was letting on," he said. "Some people in the Vatican were upset that McCarrick was putting on too kind a face on it."
Cardinal McCarrick was out of town yesterday, but a spokeswoman released a statement saying he had not read L'Expresso reporter Sandro Magister's report on the letter.
"From what I have heard, it may represent an incomplete and partial leak of a private communication from Cardinal Ratzinger, and it may not accurately reflect the full message I received," the cardinal said.
"Our task force's dialogue with the Holy See on these matters has been extensive, in person, by phone and in writing. I should note I was specifically requested by the cardinal not to publish his written materials, and I will honor that request."
Raymond Flynn, the ambassador to the Vatican from 1993 to 1997, said American prelates often downplay the Vatican's instructions.
"The American church has been reluctant to speak out forcefully on a lot of these issues, whereas Pope John Paul II has instructed the Catholic Church to be more assertive," said Mr. Flynn, a conservative Democrat and former mayor of Boston.
"A lot of these American bishops aren't willing to get involved because of the backlash, because it's not politically correct, and the criticism they will receive from the liberal media," he said.
