On his blog, Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley has tried to defend himself against his critics over the Kennedy funeral (see previous news brief). Some highlights and commentary appear below... [Note: Emphasis may be added, punctuation & typos may have been changed]
The Cardinal said...
"Needless to say, the Senator’s wake and Catholic funeral were controversial because of the fact that he did not publicly 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 benefited 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."
Items missing from the above:
* Explanation of what the Cardinal means by "publicly" - being the tireless advocate for abortion that he was, Kennedy apparently didn't privately support Catholic teaching either - not that his public behavior would have been acceptable even had he held correct views "privately"
* Talk of sin - there is only talk of "a tragic sense of lost opportunity in his lack of support for the unborn" - no talk of the fact that this is gravely sinful. In fact, let's speak plainly: The Senator was an advocate for murder. This is especially serious in Kennedy's case since Scripture says concerning those who "sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth": "If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries. Anyone who rejects the law of Moses is put to death without pity on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Do you not think that a much worse punishment is due the one who has contempt for the Son of God, considers unclean the covenant-blood by which he was consecrated, and insults the spirit of grace?" (St. Paul, Heb. 10:27-29) One may find it difficult to even conceive of St. Paul speaking of a "tragic sense of lost opportunity" in connection with a public figure who advocated for abortion for decades while calling himself Catholic and receiving Holy Communion.
* Talk about the harm he did or the evil he promoted - there is only talk about multiplying "the immensely valuable work he accomplished". A person doesn't get a pass on one of the commandments even if that person happened to fulfill all the other nine "really well". As Scripture says, "For whoever keeps the whole law, but falls short in one particular, has become guilty in respect to all of it. For he who said, 'You shall not commit adultery,' also said, 'You shall not kill.' Even if you do not commit adultery but kill, you have become a transgressor of the law." (St. James, Jms. 2:10-11)
The Cardinal also said...
"The thousands of people who lined the roads as the late Senator’s motorcade traveled from Cape Cod to Boston and the throngs that crowded the Kennedy Library for two days during the lying in repose, I believe, were there to pay tribute to these many accomplishments rather than as an endorsement of the Senator’s voting record on abortion."
Commentary:
Who cares how many people came? Let's also not forget that some may have been motivated by self-interest (e.g. being a part of "history", meeting "famous" people, etc.). Wouldn't it be realistic to expect that many of today's deluded people would even attend a public funeral for Hitler? Of course, each would have different reasons. The number of persons who might attend has no bearing on whether it is appropriate for the Church to give a public funeral to a public sinner - especially a funeral which gushed so much praise on the deceased. Obviously, a public funeral which heaps praise on a public sinner who has not publicly repented is a scandal, regardless of how many might attend the service.
The Cardinal also said...
"There are those who objected, in some cases vociferously, to the Church’s providing a Catholic funeral for the Senator. In the strongest terms I disagree with that position. At the Senator’s interment on Saturday evening, with his family’s permission, we learned of details of his recent personal correspondence with Pope Benedict XVI. It was very moving to hear the Senator acknowledging his failing to always be a faithful Catholic, and his request for prayers as he faced the end of his life. The Holy Father’s expression of gratitude for the Senator’s pledge of prayer for the Church, his commendation of the Senator and his family to the intercession of the Blessed Mother, and his imparting the Apostolic Blessing, spoke of His Holiness’ role as the Vicar of Christ, the Good Shepherd who leaves none of the flock behind."
Commentary:
This seems to be a distortion on a number of levels. First, most of the critics probably would not begrudge the deceased a private funeral, especially given the reports of an attempt to "make amends." What critics disagree with is the public aspect of the funeral - the scandal of it all. The funeral - with eulogies by a Protestant pro-abortion president & politicized prayer intentions - was celebrated with the help of many priests and two cardinals (how many Catholics who actually follow Church teachings have more than one priest, much less a Cardinal, at their funeral?). Officials of the Catholic Church have publicly lavished praise on a public sinner.
What critics have talked about - what they have "vociferously" objected to - is the perceived offense against God & bad messages these actions have sent to Catholics (and others) worldwide. For example, consider: Is the Church really serious about sin?, Considering the treatment of Kennedy, could abortion really be such a big deal?, Are there no consequences for mortal sins?, Are we no longer to tremble at the thought of the Just Judge?, How can a politician with an abortion advocacy record like Kennedy's even be considered Catholic?, Does the Church consider the laws of God subordinate to political "niceties"?, Should we consider it appropriate for prelates - much less a pro-abort Protestant - to publicly praise an abortion advocate even from the sanctuary of our basilicas?, Do we really feel this treatment accorded to a public sinner pleased God?, Etc.
Furthermore, while the Senator's letter did acknowledge some failings, it also claimed that "I have never failed to believe and respect the fundamental teachings of my faith." He had the audacity to include this in his letter to the Pope even despite his decades-long staunch pro-abortion advocacy (even for late term abortions!) and support for 'gay rights' & contraception. How could the Cardinal be so "moved by" this acknowledgement of failings considering that it was coupled with the patently unbelievable comment of the Senator that he "never failed" to "believe and respect the fundamental teachings of [his] faith"?
Regarding the Pope's letter, the Cardinal's remarks may be contrasted with Raymond Arroyo's previous comment that "Actually it was a note, very likely from the Secretariat of State. This is the sort of thing any member of laity receives when they send a prayer request or a Christmas card to the Pope. Cardinal McCarrick made is seem as if it had the weight of a new encyclical."
Cardinal O'Malley also said...
"As Archbishop of Boston, I considered it appropriate to represent the Church at this liturgy out of respect for the Senator, his family, those who attended the Mass and all those who were praying for the Senator and his family at this difficult time. We are people of faith and we believe in a loving and forgiving God from whom we seek mercy."
Commentary:
While it is very true that we believe in a loving and forgiving God from whom we seek mercy, it is equally true that He is a Just Judge that demands true repentance for sins and the amending of one's ways. If we omit the element of justice, we may place ourselves in danger of the sin of presumption. The big omission here in light of the public funeral is the deceased's public repentance. Hopefully he did truly repent - complete with the intention of amending his ways - so that he could receive mercy, but this is not for us to know since it was not made public. It is, however, especially worrying that he wrote to the Pope that he had "never failed to believe and respect the fundamental teachings of [his] faith." If he was so deluded in this matter, was he even aware that he was in need of repentance for violating these teachings that the thinks he "never failed" to "respect"? It seems he would have been better served if the Church had corrected him on this matter - and others - while he was alive. As Holy Scripture says "Reprimand publicly those who do sin, so that the rest also will be afraid." (1 Tm. 5:20) Scripture clearly doesn't say to simply presume God's mercy.
The Cardinal states...
"Advocating for the dignity of life is central to my role as a priest and a bishop."
Commentary:
Then it's a shame that he lost the chance to (1) turn the abortion-advocating Senator around while the he was alive (e.g. possibly by refusing him Holy Communion), and (2) send an unmistakable message to the world that advocating for abortion is a serious crime that - if not repented for - will result in one's being denied a public Catholic funeral. Instead, the Cardinal sent the message that one can be a rabid pro-abortion proponent and still be praised publicly from the sanctuary of the Catholic Church. The actions of the Cardinal speak much louder than his words.
The Cardinal states that...
"...the pro-life movement is best characterized by what it is for, not against. We are for the precious gift of life, and our task is to build a civilization of love. We must show those who do not share our belief about life that we care about them. We will stop the practice of abortion by changing the law, and we will be successful in changing the law if we change people’s hearts. We will not change hearts by turning away from people in their time of need and when they are experiencing grief and loss."
Commentary:
Maybe that's part of the problem with the pro-life movement today - few seem to speak of what we are against (e.g. mortal sin, offending God). Jesus certainly didn't shy away from these topics, nor did popes or saints of the past - yet this didn't hamper their efforts to build a "civilization of love." In fact, such warnings have turned many lives around. It is obviously necessary to show kindness and compassion, but glossing over harsh truths (e.g. mortal sin, judgment, hell) is a disservice to all. The great Catholic preachers of the past knew the power and importance of speaking of judgment & hell. It is sometimes essential to show one's care for others by "tough love" - going "against" what is wrong not simply advocating what is right. Jesus & the apostles certainly did this. Regarding not wanting to "turn away from people in their time of need and when they are experiencing grief and loss", one cannot argue with that - except to say that a private funeral would have sufficed. Obviously, the most appropriate time to have handled the matter of the Senator's sins was while the Senator was still alive. But they didn't want to do this then either. Instead, they allowed the Senator to receive Holy Communion even wile sinning publicly. They apparently allowed him to continue in grave sin and scandal without correction. That is truly something to grieve about. It is also grievous that they lost the opportunity to bring mourners to repentance for their own sins by denying a public funeral for a public sinner. They were given no sense of the gravity of the Senator's decades-long public sins. Rather, he almost seemed to be 'canonized'. We certainly won't change hearts by acting as if they don't need to be changed!
The Cardinal stated,
"At times, even in the Church, zeal can lead people to issue harsh judgments and impute the worst motives to one another. These attitudes and practices do irreparable damage to the communion of the Church. If any cause is motivated by judgment, anger or vindictiveness, it will be doomed to marginalization and failure. Jesus’ words to us were that we must love one another as He loves us. Jesus loves us while we are still in sin. He loves each of us first, and He loves us to the end. Our ability to change people’s hearts and help them to grasp the dignity of each and every life, from the first moment of conception to the last moment of natural death, is directly related to our ability to increase love and unity in the Church, for our proclamation of the Truth is hindered when we are divided and fighting with each other."
Commentary:
It's hard to know where to start here. Clearly the above contains some truths, but it seems a stretch to believe that those who criticized the Cardinal's actions were "imputing the worst motives." Rather, it seems critics have been genuinely concerned about the result - the scandal, the bad effect on others - rather than the motives of those involved. Regarding "harsh judgments", would it be accurate to say that the Cardinal may think that anyone who didn’t agree him was issuing a "harsh judgment"? St. Paul - along with many other saints - certainly uttered some "harsh judgments" and it seems doubtful that the Cardinal would say that their "attitudes and practices [have done] irreparable damage to the communion of the Church." Of course it is true that we must love one another, but this doesn't mean that we are to go along with anything anyone chooses to do. Rather, Scripture tells us to "hate what is evil" (St. Paul, Rom. 12:9) and "admonish one another" (St. Paul, Col. 3:16). Jesus himself says, "If your brother sins, rebuke him" (Lk. 17:3). The Cardinal is definitely right about one thing - "proclamation of the Truth is hindered when we are divided and fighting with each other." Might we suggest that the Cardinal stop causing division by fighting against those who rightly oppose the scandal?
If giving a public funeral brimming with praise to a public sinner (who never publicly repented) - one who may be complicit in the deaths of far more (unbaptized!) persons than Hitler ever was - a person who all the while claimed to be "Catholic" and received the Holy Eucharist - is not scandalous, what ever could be?
[9/3]
Posts
