Rep. Kennedy barred from Communion in 2007?
The Catholic Church, which heavily influenced and even authored language of the anti-abortion language in the health care bill in the House, in clear violation of the constitution, has escalated its war over the separation of church and state by barring Rep. Patrick Kennedy from receiving communion by Catholic Bishop of Rhode Island Thomas Tobin.
Tobin's barring of Kennedy was the result of Kennedy's criticism of the church for threatening to oppose health care reform unless it contained tighter restrictions on abortion.
Now just how many things can you get wrong in an article? Well this reporter is going for a world record. Clear violation of the Constitution? Gee the part about religious group not being able to speak up about legislation in not in my copy of the Constitution. The author goes on to talk about Thomas Jefferson and his famous phrase. Gee I was also unaware that Jefferson's letters were part of the Constitution. Though of course his letter to the Danbury Baptists on the wall between Church in state was about the government not being able to interfere with the churches, not vice versa. But liberals can't be troubled by facts when popular myths are all they need.
The reporter also did not find out that the letter to Rep Kennedy by Bishop Tobin is actually sent in 2007, so it was not a result of the Healthcare Debate as it is being framed in so many stories. The Boston Globe reports:
Bishop Thomas Tobin divulged details of his confidential exchange with Kennedy after the Democratic lawmaker told The Providence Journal in a story published Sunday that Tobin had instructed him not to receive Communion. The two men have clashed repeatedly in the past few weeks over abortion.
Kennedy did not say where or how he received those instructions. He declined to say whether he has obeyed the bishop's request.
"The bishop instructed me not to take Communion and said that he has instructed the diocesan priests not to give me Communion," Kennedy told the paper in an interview conducted Friday.
,,Tobin said in a statement Sunday that he "has never addressed matters relative to public officials receiving Holy Communion with pastors of the diocese."
If Bishop Tobin had told his pastors not to give him Communion two years ago surely the story would have leaked out. So I wold say that Rep. Kennedy is not being honest about that part. Though if the Bishop did indeed write this letter in 2007 I wish that he would also have instructed his pastors about this.
It looks like Bishop Tobin was doing the same thing that Archbishop Joseph Naumann did in regard to Gov. Sebelius who was told not to present herself before Communion, but that priests were not instructed to deny Communion if she went forward.
Being only an armchair bishop I have wondered why if you instruct a person to not receive Communion why you wouldn't instruct priests, deacons, and EMHC to not give Communion to those persons if they put themselves forward. Though maybe it is not necessary if the person does not go forward for Communion. Rep. Kennedy will not say whether he has followed the Bishop's instructions or not.
Known as 
The Roman Catholic Identity blog has a post up concerning Kennedy's claim about his desire for privacy on the issue:
What? Bishop Tobin reiterated the fact that his hand was forced by the unwarranted attack by Kennedy and his continued public comments and letters. There was no 'agreement' of confidentiality, especially whe the Congressman sent the Bishop an open letter and sent a copy to the Press. The meeting between them which was subsequently 'postponed' was to be held at a busy Providence restaurant at Noon today--at the Congressman's request. How private could this have been? The bishop noted that within ten minutes every satellite truck in Rhode Island would have been there. The fact that any confidences were violated "is preposterous".
http://www.romancatholicidentity.com/2009/11/bishop-tobin-instructs-faithful-if-you.html
Why should Bishop's agree to keep the discussions private with a politician who publicly dissents from Church teaching? Cosmos~Sex~Liturgy has something pertinent to say:
The public rebuke of wayward Catholic politicians is becoming a growing trend among our US shepherds. For decades now, the dominant pastoral strategy among bishops who have taken seriously their responsibilities, has been to engage these politicians in private. The thinking being that pastoral dialogue is only possible when done in private. Once the matter becomes public the opportunity for personal dialog is generally lost. Unfortunately, those politicians have come to recognize this and taken great advantage of it.
Kennedy, like others before him, thought himself free to publicly proclaim the meaning of being Catholic assuming that he was exempt from public rebuke. I suspect that part of this comes from the predominant American heresy that says religion is a completely private, individualistic affair. In other words, no one can tell me what “my faith” means. Thus, wayward Catholic politicians regularly proclaim that they can do whatever they wish and still be “good” Catholics. I would argue that this heresy has been unintentionally abetted by the previously dominant pastoral strategy of US bishops.
http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/2009/11/17/a-matter-of-public-witness/
Bp. Tobin's statement:
http://www.thericatholic.com/news/detail.html?sub_id=2678
Just for clarity, this isn't a reporter in the usual sense of the word. Examiner.com gets writers from all walks of life, some of whom are better informed (and/or more fair-minded) than others. A lot of Examiner pieces read like op-ed, with even less of a pretense of journalistic objectivity than in the regular media.
That said, getting your facts right (or at least trying to get them close) isn't so much a matter of journalistic objectivity as of journalistic integrity. This particular Examiner—who apparently considers himself well-informed on politics—does seem to have missed some basic concepts when he was learning about the First Amendment.
Peace,
--Peter
Just for clarity, this isn't a reporter in the usual sense of the word. Examiner.com gets writers from all walks of life, some of whom are better informed (and/or more fair-minded) than others. A lot of Examiner pieces read like op-ed, with even less of a pretense of journalistic objectivity than in the regular media.
That said, getting your facts right (or at least trying to get them close) isn't so much a matter of journalistic objectivity as of journalistic integrity. This particular Examiner—who apparently considers himself well-informed on politics—does seem to have missed some basic concepts when he was learning about the First Amendment.
Peace,
--Peter
"The bishop instructed me not to take Communion..."
I thought Catholics RECEIVED Communion while Protestants took Communion.
What a narrowback!
It's important that any Bishop make the declaration of imposed sacramental discipline of c. 915 public, concerning the unworthy reception of the Holy Eucharist, so that ALL ministers of Holy Communion are aware of the diocesan discipline. As Archbishop Burke explained:
"Regarding those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, it is necessary to know that indeed the person does obstinately persist, that is, that his pastor has informed him about the grave and public sinfulness of what he is doing and has cautioned him about not approaching to receive Holy Communion. The commentary on the 1983 Code of Canon Law, prepared by the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland, summarizes the point:
" 'Likewise excluded are those... who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin. In this third case, unlike the first two, there has been no public imposition or declaration of the person's state and so, before a minister can lawfully refuse the Eucharist, he must be certain that the person obstinately persists in a sinful situation or in sinful behavior that is manifest (i.e. public) and objectively grave.'
It's no secret that Patrick Kennedy receives Holy Communion regularly. The Providence Journal quoted recently Patrick Kennedy saying he has a pastor, and “I have my sacraments through that pastor. I have sought the sacraments of reconciliation and Communion and all the rest.”
Which leads to my next question. Why would Bishop Tobin play patty fingers with Kennedy when he asked Kennedy publicly about his Catholic life in the Church? He knows well. A well-educated bishop such as Bishop Tobin is capable to research and seek pastoral information on someone as publicly manifest as legislator Patrick Kennedy. This Eucharistic sacrilege and public scandal should have been corrected and stopped 4.5 years ago, while Kennedy has been legislating abortion, sodomy, euthanasia, cloning for 18 years in same diocese.
Ratzinger wrote in 2004, Cd. McCarrick and Bp. Gregory withheld the memo from the USCCB: "The minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" when warning and counsel given to the manifest sinner "have not had their effect."
Spanish Bishop's gen. sec.Bp. Juan Martinez said last week: "Excommunication is provided in the Code of Canon Law for those who cooperate actively in the practice of abortion…. Those who have not gone to confession are encouraged to do so because God wants to offer them a solution and deep peace."
I'm happy Bp. Tobin FINALLY is making attempts at disciplining Kennedy, although it's unclear what the Bishop has really done, but I certainly don't consider Tobin a hero. He's guilty of dereliction of duty as Priest, Prophet and King to govern correctly. The Scandal is felt worldwide.
barb kralis
Barb, it appear that the bishop has chosen to follow the process of canon law, for which he cannot be blamed.
Canon Lawyer Ed Peters has the following on his blog:
I read Bp. Tobin's statement released just a few minutes ago as saying that no new steps have been taken by Tobin in regard to reception of holy Communion by pro-abortion Democrat Patrick Kennedy, resident in Tobin's diocese. It appears, to the contrary, that Kennedy has -- God knoweth why -- parlayed Tobin's letter to him of February 2007, urging Kennedy to refrain from taking Communion, into a news story in November 2009 that he has been barred from receiving.
Mind, Tobin can, if he judges it pastorally useful, move to an actual prohibition against reception by Kennedy under Canon 915, but to date at least, Tobin's stance seems to be one of urging Kennedy to examine his conscience under Canon 916 before approaching the Eucharist. It's an open question as to how long such an approach might be tried before being found insufficient but as I read it, it's still being tried, Kennedy's claims notwithstanding.
How Kennedy will respond-and how Bishop Tobin respond to his response-will dictate whether or not canon 915 will be followed.
One down.
One down.
One down.
It is one thing to tell someone they should not present themself for communion. It is another to deny them when they present themselves anyway.
It becomes a prudential decision on the part of a bishop when to take the next step. If a bishop trusts in someone else's integrity not to present themself, they may simply be erring on the side of caution.
I've played several games of episcopacy using both the hard-line strategy on communion and the softer strategy and always made a mess of the Diocese either way.
I have found, however, that quietly removing priests who advocate, participate in, or possess images of teen-age boys in homoerotic relationships seems to avoid a whole class of problems.
Being only an armchair bishop I have wondered why if you instruct a person to not receive Communion why you wouldn't instruct priests, deacons, and EMHC to not give Communion to those persons if they put themselves forward. Though maybe it is not necessary if the person does not go forward for Communion. Rep. Kennedy will not say whether he has followed the Bishop's instructions or not.
My guess would be because the individual priests, deacons, EMHCs would not know if Congressman Kennedy had repented, confessed and received absolution prior to the mass in question.
I would not want to be the one to deny him communion after repentence right before he gets hit by a truck leaving mass.
Re Tony, the armchair bishop's comments, that he'd not want to be the one who denied someone who had in fact repented, that's not correct theology. Sit up straight in that chair and listen carefully. It is the wish of the Church [cf RS "Do all we can to protect the Eucharist from sacrilege"] that we err on the side of reverence to the Eucharist and deny the manifest sinner. Since the condition of the discipline of c. 915 is the grave sinner must be a public [manifest] figure, then their repentance would have to be public, so that all in the Church would have an opportunity to learn of the conversion. If no news of conversion is forthcoming, then you deny. For instance, Lincoln, NE Bp. Bruskewitz's then Vicar General, Monsignor Timothy J. Thorburn, J.C.L., addressed one of my questions during an interview with Bp. Brukewitz, whether the discipline of c. 915 applied to legislators from other dioceses who were manifestly pro abortion. Msgr. Thorburn explained: "If I had denied Holy Communion to someone who is known to be manifest, persistent, and obstinate in his grave sin and he later demonstrates that he had, in fact, publicly denied his promotion of, say, abortion, I then would publicly apologize to him." Don't beat yourself needlessly when the answer is simply to err on the side of Reverence to the Eucharist.