Monday, November 23, 2009

More Publicly Aired Dirty Laundry in the Bishop Tobin - Rep. Kennedy Saga

As he seeks to fan the flames of the public feud in which he is currently engaging with Providence Bishop Thomas Tobin, the late Swimmer's son, Congressman Patrick Kennedy, has decided to make public Bishop Tobin's 2007 request that the pro-abortion Kennedy refrain from taking Holy Communion.

Don McClarey and Dr. Ed Peters have details.

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Bishop Tobin to Rep. Patrick Kennedy: "Your Position [on Abortion] is Unacceptable to the Church and Scandalous ... Makes You Less of a Catholic

More from Archbishop Dolan on "Bishop Tobin and Representative Kennedy"

A Kennedy Spits at the Church, and His Bishop Responds Harshly [UPDATED]

For Kennedys, Poor Driving Runs in the Family

Labels: , , , , , , , ,


At 11/23/2009 7:14 PM, Blogger The Expatriate said...

If Bishop Tobin and the Catholic Church want to participate in the public sphere, that is perfectly fine. However, they should be willing to pay their fair dues to civil society.

Time to tax the churches.

At 11/23/2009 8:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good idea Expatriate! Perhaps in return the Feds and the States could then pay the Catholic Church for the poor students the Church educates, the poor who receive free care at Catholic hospitals, the poor tended by the Church in shelters, asylums, etc.

At 11/24/2009 10:17 AM, Blogger Terry said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

At 11/24/2009 10:56 AM, Blogger The Expatriate said...

@Donald McClarey:

Oh yes, the institutions the Church uses to blackmail us whenever it sees something it disagrees with. (See Washington D.C.)

Perhaps the Church should just be grateful the State did not intervene more forcefully in the wake of the scandals of early this decade.

At 11/24/2009 11:22 AM, Blogger lamt said...

How slick for Kennedy to publicize the Bishop's private request in order to solicit (liberal) public involvement. What cowards these Kennedy's are, no? Must be inherent to the bloodline.

What they'll reduced themselves to in order to advance politically is a study in pathology.

And, I must add, how appropriate a comment coming from a commenter named 'The Expatriate.' Your comment not only makes no sense, but illustrates how well liberal education has done it's dirty job.

At 11/24/2009 11:24 AM, Blogger Jay Anderson said...

"Perhaps the Church should just be grateful the State did not intervene more forcefully in the wake of the scandals of early this decade."

Right on cue: Anderson's Law.

At 11/24/2009 11:28 AM, Blogger The Expatriate said...

Define "Anderson's Law":

A take off on the popular internet trope Godwin's Law, it seeks to draw a fallacious comparison between randomly bringing Hitler into a conversation and pointing out the biggest Church scandal in several decades in discussions of the Church.

At 11/24/2009 12:02 PM, Blogger Jay Anderson said...

No, it merely defines ad hominem attempts to drag a completely unrelated topic into any discussion in which the Church is either the topic or has taken a position.

It's also a much more accurate predictor of which way the topic of conversation will eventually go than Godwin's Law has ever been.

At 11/24/2009 10:32 PM, Blogger The Expatriate said...

Apparently, some clergy abuse victims don't agree with your assessment that it is irrelevant. Forgive me if I take their assessment over yours:

At 11/25/2009 10:31 AM, Blogger Terry said...

Your appeal to emotion is no less fallacious than your original ad hominem, but just as irrelevant.

At 11/25/2009 4:29 PM, Blogger Jay Anderson said...

Ahhh, SNAP never misses an opportunity for a good ad hominem. I'll say it again:


At 11/25/2009 4:31 PM, Blogger Jay Anderson said...

That link also reinforces my long-held view that SNAP is more interested in pushing liberal AmChurch politics than it is in righting the wrongs done to those who were the victims of clergy abuse.

At 11/25/2009 4:33 PM, Blogger Jay Anderson said...

And forgive me if I don't give a rat's ass whose assessment you take. In fact, if you agreed with my assessment, I'd have to reassess.

At 11/25/2009 4:37 PM, Blogger The Expatriate said...

Mr. Anderson:

You are an example of the perverted moral values that characterize the Roman Catholic Church. The only reason I even brought up the clergy scandal is that your friend McClarey brought up Catholic education.

The clergy abuse victims who belong to SNAP are far better qualified to judge this issue than a fanatic like you. You would probably just tell them to offer it up to God.

You have earned my blog's religious fanatic of the week award. Wear it with pride.

At 11/25/2009 5:15 PM, Blogger Jay Anderson said...

I most certainly will wear that distinction with pride.

But you should disabuse yourself of the notion that a topic becomes relevant to a completely unrelated discussion just because SNAP or anyone else claims that it is relevant.

Finally, you haven't done enough reading if you believe my sympathy for those tormented by pervert priests is lacking. What I lack is patience for an organization that attacks good Bishops (like my own) whenever they speak on matters completely unrelated to said scandalous behavior.

At 11/25/2009 11:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Expatriate, the Church has survived 2000 years of attempts by bigots like yourself to destroy her. You are merely part of a very long line of enemies of the Church who will rail against us and in the long run accomplish nothing. The Church will be here after you are not even a memory, and our Bishops will speak out for the unborn until your precious right to kill the unborn is regarded as barbarous as cannibalism is now. Please put me down for a religous fanatic of the week award on your blog. You are certainly in the running for one of my New Know-Nothings Award.

At 12/01/2009 2:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The tax-the-Church thing is always more funny than threatening. This has been going for years and I'm sure the IRS has quite a file of requests to pull the exemption. Anything is possible of course, but my bet is if they haven't done anything by now, they aren't going to. Also in the anything possible category is the fact that the exemptions are regulations, not laws. However unlikely, there remains the possibility that these regs could be ruled unconstitutional. Wouldn't that be a hoot? We could endorse candidates AND keep our exemption. So some ought to be careful what they wish for.

But in the end, much of this gas is motivated not by fairness, but by desire to muzzle the Church and the exemption is the best these feeble imaginations can come up with. (One exception is the recent attempt in Connecticut to legislate a restructuring of diocesan authority. It rightly went down like the Hindenburg, but I admire the chutzpah.)


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

hit counter for blogger