26 August 2009

Kennedy to Have Funeral Mass




One of the leading advocates of the legalized killing of innocent unborn babies,


One of the leading Senators responsible for preventing an anti-Roe v. Wade Supreme Court,


One of the original I'm-personally-opposed-but... Catholics who have blocked pro-life legislation whenever possible,


will be honored with a Catholic funeral Mass on Saturday.

Canon 1184 doesn't seem favorable:

Can. 1184 §1 Church funeral rites are to be denied to the following, unless they gave some signs of repentancebefore death:

1° notorious apostates, heretics and schismatics;

2° those who for anti-christian motives chose that their bodies be cremated;

3° other manifest sinners to whom a Church funeral could not be granted without public scandal to the faithful.

§2 If any doubt occurs, the local Ordinary is to be consulted and his judgement followed.


Oh, and the Leader will give a eulogy.

Cum ergo videritis abominationem desolationis quae dicta est a Danihelo propheta stantem in loco sancto qui legit intellegat tunc qui in Iudea sunt fugiant ad montes...

26 comments:

StGuyFawkes said...

"Cum ergo videritis abominationem desolationis quae dicta est a Danihelo propheta stantem in loco sancto qui legit intellegat tunc qui in Iudea sunt fugiant ad montes..."

And therefore when you will have seen the abomination of desolation which was declared by the prophet Daniel standing in a holy place who then both reads and understands who is in Judea fleeing to the mountains..."

Corrections to my free and very loose translation gratefully accepted.

As for Teddy the K. how could you leave out the death of Mary Jo Kopechne?

All readers of this blog should consult the Wikipedia entry entitled "Chappaquiddick Incident".

See if your blood doesn't chill as you read the diver's testimony who finally brought to air the body of Mary Jo.

According to the diver the young woman was probably trapped in an air pocket and lived for two hours while Ted consulted his conscience and family counsellors.

The diver's opinion is that had Ted simply gone to one of four houses on the road to his destination the police and his services would have arrived in time.

Oh well.

Anonymous said...

Maybe they'll name an abortion clinic after him in his honor.

Southern Illinois Catholic poses the question in the most succinct manner: '... did Obie think that Ted should have refused all options and just let himself go? I don't think Ted did. I think Ted fought for his life, as we all should be able to do.' I think B.O. would've been bedside stroking his hand.

Steve

Patrick said...

According to a NY Times story, a priest (Fr. Patrick Tarrant) spent time in prayer with Sen. Kennedy in his final hours. The same article related that he attended Mass regularly, often during the week. From this I assume that the Senator repented of his sins, although I have no way of knowing this. But, I do know through faith that God is merciful.

While I was no great admirer of Sen. Kennedy, I'm willing to concede that he is entitled to be commended to God's mercy as much as any other Catholic.

May his soul rest in Eternal Peace.

thetimman said...

I pray, like Patrick, that indeed he repented and is saved. I don't despair of it, and I don't judge the state of his soul in any way. God has done more miraculous things than that, and I am in need of mercy as much as anyone.

StGuy, I am glad you mentioned the personal factors only for one reason-- to highlight that I limited my post to the public actions and stance of the man, avoiding the personal, because my only unease with the funeral is the public scandal element.

If Mr. Kennedy had truly been shriven, a funeral Mass might have been held as a private matter with an announcement that gave at least a hint of the administration of extreme unction and sacramental confession. The story said nothing of the sacraments of the dying.

Feel free to disagree with me, but (to those whose comments do not appear in this space) spare me the sanctimoniousness of claiming that I am judging his soul. I am not.

The damage of scandal in this situation is real. Consider that people who read this blog are more likely than the average Catholic to have an awareness of the Church's position on a wide variety of issues. Then consider how many non-Catholics there are in this country. Is it not a reasonable speculation that a person who knew Kennedy's public positions, not to mention the irregular marriage situation or Chappaquidick, would conclude that despite some rogue bishop or the ramblings of the ancient pope that one can be a good Catholic and still promote abortion? Don't some of you have bumper stickers that say you can't be pro-abortion and Catholic?

The message of a funeral without any explanatory comment is that the Church either doesn't care about these things or that it will look the other way for the rich or powerful.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget about his traitorous behavior trying to sell out two Presidents to the Soviets in order to make himeself President:

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2325107/posts

StGuyFawkes said...

Tim,

Scandal, and danger to the Church is the big issue no doubt.

However, Teddy's womanizing and the circumstances surrounding his behavior at Chappaquiddick are nearly as important.

I agree that if he was truly shriven, and we must assume he was then a Catholic burial is required.

By the way, Ted made public acknowledgement of his philandering during the Clinton impeachment when he spoke to a small group of liberal supporters of the president, and explained his shame at being A.W.O.L. during the Clinton defense in the Senate.

Ted acknowledged humbly that his own moral history with women would have drawn an uncomfortable comparison to Clinton's and made the defense even harder. He acknowledged that his private behavior had hurt the party and the country.

By the way what Bishop approved the annullment of his marriage to Joan?

Anonymous said...

I'm curious here.

SCOTUS Judge Anton Scalia, also a Catholic like Ted K, also a regular participant in daily Mass, said that because of the terrible precedent of Roe v Wade, abortion WILL ALWAYS REMAIN LEGAL HERE IN THE US. 30+ years of precedent and stare decisis is why he says there is no turning back.

He is a Catholic conservative - if he died, will his Catholic burial be equally scandalous?

The answer, of course, is "no."

We can argue all we want, but if Roe v Wade wasn't touched with an all-republican Presidency, House and Congress, and with 9 of the last 11 Supreme Court Justices appointed by Republicans, I think the writing is on the wall. As Scalia says, abortion is here to stay, like it or not. (And I CERTAINLY DO NOT LIKE IT!)

Seems that Scalia will remain the darling of Catholics, while Ted K will remain the 'he should rot in hell' to the exact same group. Seems to that both are aware that it cannot be overturned - one continues to be condemned for saying the sad truth here, the other will continue to be the darling child.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:

Ted Kennedy did his darnedest to make sure the nominees who would have overturned Roe, most notably Judge Bork, were defeated. His darnedest included vilification of Judge Bork and misrepresentation of his positions. Justice Scalia's comments were deplorable in my view, but they were just his assessment of where we stand. He himself has done whatever was in his power to reverse Roe through his judicial opinions. The difference is obvious.

Jim Cole

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:31:

You are making the most disingenuous of straw man arguments. No one on this blog has said that Ted Kennedy should "rot in hell". On the contrary, there have been several charitable statements of those who have prayed for him. The subject matter is far more nuanced than you make it out to be, namely, should the Church have made some sort of explanatory statement regarding Kennedy's Catholic burial? (For the record, I don't know how you do that without violating the confidentiality of the confessional, but that's a separate matter.)

Moreover, the point htat you make about Antonin Scalia is asinine. I have not examined all of Scalia's Supreme Court votes, but I think that it is probably safe to say that he has never voted to support or uphold Roe v. Wade. Speaking about the judicial principles that some (not him) on the Court would use to uphold Roe v. Wade and predicting their success is not the same thing as supporting Roe v. Wade.

Anonymous said...

Timman The rich and the powerful DO get special treatment in the Church. The "message" has been loud and clear for centuries. That's exactly what makes the hierarchies' pronouncements so laughable.

The Wallaces said...

All: Please consult canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters' remarks on the matter at his website http://www.canonlaw.info/blog.html.

Anonymous said...

Anton Scalia spoke at Kenrick Seminary a few years back. It was shocking to hear a daily Communicant state that Roe v Wade cannot be overturned.

The key phrase here is stare decisis, something we continue to hear ad nauseum each time a new SCOTUS nomination is being reviewed. The Justices interpret the laws, not create new ones. If you're an American, you would know that the House and Senate are the ones who create laws - the SCOTUS only has the power to interpret them. (Thus, the HUGE debate about the error of Roe v Wade, which chose the precedent of individual rights over the right of an infant primarily because the US had/has never defined "life," i.e. when it begins or ends. It can't, sadly because there are no laws for them to interpret. Had a law been passed defining when life began before that, then of course the Roe v Wade decision would never have been made.)

Constitutionally, the Supreme Court cannot make laws. Bork was rejected not necessarily because of his ideological views, but because he thought the Supreme Court should be able to change poorly written laws, versus interpreting precedents.

Justice Scalia's comments are NOT deplorable, as he is constitutionally 100% correct. What IS deplorable was that the original Roe v Wade precedent that was decided on in the first place.

The majority of politicians will give lip service to their opposition to abortion, but the fact is RvW cannot be overturned by the Supreme Court. A bitter reality? - absolutely! But Ted K and Scalia both spoke the honest-to-God's truth here when they say Roe v Wade cannot constitutionally be overturned.

The Vatican seems to agree with Ted K's and Scalia's views here in the states. I.e. that in Europe, abortion will remain the law of the land. Surprisingly, our 'wildly liberal' Pope Benedict made President Nicolas Sarkozy an "honary canon of St. John Lateran's" last month. Sarkosy is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and married invalidly to an actress.

It leaves me the impression that Pope B SVI doesn't see the world through the singular lens we Americans use over here.

StGuyFawkes said...

I love the idea of naming an abortion clinic in his honor.

However, I'd rather start by naming a cocktail after him (two shots of whiskey in a glass of channel water), or a topless bar ("Compromising Positions").

I presume there's already an exotic dancer out there who calls herself "Teddie Kennedy".

Failing all the above, I think the best thing would be to get the alumni of Notre Dame to endow the "Edward T. Kennedy Camelot Chair in the Religious Study of Dynasty Worship."

The chair would be an endowed position in the Theology Department and require of the holder to make an annual lecture on the huge contribution of Fr. Theodore Hesburgh and Fr.Robert Drinan to the "Spirit of Vatican II."

Anonymous said...

Tim: Thanks for this.

Anon 9:57 has a major point- MONEY. I hate to say this, but the bottom line for our beloved Church for too long a time has been and is MONEY.

What are we going to do? This is really getting out of control. Is there no one with a backbone to stand up for Our Lord in this country? Do they not realize, not only the supreme scandal in all of this, but the message it sends to Catholics?

No small wonder that the majority of the Catholics in this country do what they please.

The salt has lost its' savor and is good for one thing only.

I don't mean to sound melodramatic, and I'm sorry for the rant, but I don't know how much more I can take. I'm almost 56 and have been through a lot with Holy Mother Church. And people dare to wonder why sedevacantists and SSPX chapels exist?

Is it true about our dear President giving something called an "eulogy" or is that a joke? I thought that was against Church law.

Dear Mr. St. Guy has a point with his quote. Apocalypse 18:4-5 comes to mind too.

thetimman said...

Regarding stare decisis, it doesn't mean that a decision can never be overturned. It means that decisions are entitled to deference in the absence of some very compelling reason. Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education after more than 50 years. Why? It was wrong.

Roe was a made-up piece of garbage that made up a right that nowhere exists in the Constitution-- the supposed supreme law of the land. Overturning it is a legal, not just a moral, duty. I always love when liberals use stare decisis to protect their illegal and revolutionary case precedents.

Roe can, and should, and hopefully (but unlikely) will, be overturned.

Mr. Krumbly said...

Liberals didn't care as much for stare decisis when they wanted to legalize contraceptives and sodomy - they only care about it with abortion.

TGL said...

To St.GuyFawkes: As to your last post, a)if it was supposed to be humorous, it failed miserably; b)when your time comes, I truly hope that commentators treat you with a whole lot more Christian charity than you've shown Senator Kennedy.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:41, your post is demonstrably wrong in too many ways to count.

StGuyFawkes said...

To TGL,

You wrote: "when your time comes, I truly hope that commentators treat you with a whole lot more Christian charity than you've shown Senator Kennedy."

Dear TGL, If I should be so drunk that I failed to get help when a girl was drowning, AND if I started a midnight party on Good Friday which resulted in my nephew raping a girl, AND if I dishonored my wife by public promiscuity, THEN I should hope my friends pray for my soul and leave Christian charity to Christ.

I've gone on the record that the man deserves my prayers and is now in purgatory or heaven because I assume he was validly confessed.

Look, the guy was a public rake and alchoholic. He helped invent the "personally opposed" cover.

What lack of charity is there in telling the truth.

Having said all that I'll freely admit that he was of a lot more substance than a lot of the other Senators.

St. Guy

Anonymous said...

Anon at 14:48. Can you be more specific here? I'm on your side here, buddy, and want Roe v Wade overturned. I'm just maybe adding some reality here to a highly emotional debate. Citing the brilliant, conservative, Catholic Scalia, is totally disheartening to us who want R v W overturned.

Can the Timman find a link to Scalia's talk to the seminarians at Kenrick? Scalia sounded less optimistic about Roe v Wade being overturned than the Timman is, and the Timman's comment was: "Roe can, and should, and hopefully (but unlikely) will, be overturned." I can't agree with him, or Scalia, anymore. RvW should never have happened, and it should be overturned, but as Scalia said, it won't.

Good point, Timman, about Brown v Board of Education being overturned. Can you propose a truer sense of how that might actually happen? (No, it is not realistic to get 5 Borks onto SCOTUS. Heck, George W Bush couldn't even get Harriet Myer onto the bench ... which is a good thing because she is pro-abortion!

My own belief is that someplace along the way, the US will have to define what human life is. That debate won't begin with the first stage of life as much as the end of life, e.g. the Terrie Schaivo case. There are some precedents there, but with the incredible advance of medicine, even the language we use will have to be changed. "Viability" for an infant used to be about 36 weeks. Now children are prematurely born, and surviving, at the 24th week!



Getting back to the original topic, didn't Ted Kennedy think that Stare Decisis was the name of an exotic dancer he once knew?

Anonymous said...

TGL - Go listen to your Buffalo Springfield albums and leave or alone.

TGL said...

That's a good one, anonymous at 15:51. Actually, I've never seen a Buffalo Springfield album. Are there any out there? I don't think they were together long enough to have more than one. But Crosby, Stills & Nash are in Kansas City this weekend. Maybe I'll go see them and think about all my friends on this blog.

just wondering said...

"Souls fall into hell like snowflakes, because they have no one to pray or do penance for them." Our Blessed Mother to the Children of Fatima.

Latinmassgirl said...

St. Guy,

Okay, let's not be too far-fetched here. If Ted Kennedy confessed and repented all of his sins, then he would be saved and in purgatory. There is no way that he would become a saint and go straight to heaven.

Most people need to spend time in purgatory, and I'm not being off base to say one could assume Ted Kennedy would need to be scrubbed with a Brillo pad!

StGuyFawkes said...

Dear Latin Mass Girl,

I wrote:

"I've gone on the record that the man deserves my prayers and is now in purgatory or heaven because I assume he was validly confessed."


You replied,

"There is no way that he would become a saint and go straight to heaven."

I respond,

Quite right except one must presume the abstract possibility that he went straight to heaven because these things are in the hands of the Creator who can beatify and canonize without our consultation.

Remember when I say "abstact possibility" I employ sound medieval logic which infers the logical possibility of infinite angels on the head of a pin, pigs that fly and unicorns.

In other words it COULD happen. One cannot presume upon the decisions of the Almighty and say it absolutely COULD NOT occur.

I don't think we really disagree. If I was handicapping Kennedy's current address I'd put him in purgatory where I expect I'll be.

Regards,

St. Guy

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:41/14:48:

Gladly. I apologize for misconstruing your intent.

Therefore, with apologies for my earlier brusqueness:

"Anton Scalia spoke at Kenrick Seminary a few years back. It was shocking to hear a daily Communicant state that Roe v Wade cannot be overturned."

I supsect Scalia was conveying pessimism rather than identifying an absolute judicial bar to the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Replacing "cannot" with "will not" would drastically change your connotation to the point AS should have made.

"The key phrase here is stare decisis, something we continue to hear ad nauseum each time a new SCOTUS nomination is being reviewed. The Justices interpret the laws, not create new ones. If you're an American, you would know that the House and Senate are the ones who create laws - the SCOTUS only has the power to interpret them. (Thus, the HUGE debate about the error of Roe v Wade, which chose the precedent of individual rights over the right of an infant primarily because the US had/has never defined "life," i.e. when it begins or ends. It can't, sadly because there are no laws for them to interpret. Had a law been passed defining when life began before that, then of course the Roe v Wade decision would never have been made.)"

Thetimman has succinctly summed up what stare decisis is. What it is not is a consistently applied judicial doctrine. So pro-Roe justices use it to defend Roe, but it does not have to be that way and is not settled law.

"Constitutionally, the Supreme Court cannot make laws. Bork was rejected not necessarily because of his ideological views, but because he thought the Supreme Court should be able to change poorly written laws, versus interpreting precedents."

I certainly agree with the first sentence, but that is not a universally-held belief among jurists. Thetimman covered this one well in his comment. I do not remember that about Bork - - my recollection is that he was pretty Federalist-y, but I cannot say with certainty.

"Justice Scalia's comments are NOT deplorable, as he is constitutionally 100% correct. What IS deplorable was that the original Roe v Wade precedent that was decided on in the first place."

All of this is true, but Scalia could not have meant that stare decisis is an insurmountable legal hurdle to overturning Roe. Practical given politics, maybe, but not legal.

"The majority of politicians will give lip service to their opposition to abortion, but the fact is RvW cannot be overturned by the Supreme Court. A bitter reality? - absolutely!"

Again, I don't know that this is a "fact". Roe being overturned may be highly unlikely in the foreseeable future given the current political climate. Admittedly, I am more optimistic than most that Roe will be overturned at some point in the next 20-30 years. It is always darkest just before the dawn. (More on that later.)

"But Ted K and Scalia both spoke the honest-to-God's truth here when they say Roe v Wade cannot constitutionally be overturned."

Again, "cannot" is too strong. "Will not in the foreseeable future" would be better.

"It leaves me the impression that Pope B SVI doesn't see the world through the singular lens we Americans use over here."

I have no doubt that is true, but I am not convinced that means he is anything resembling pro-Roe.

Anyway, I apologize again for misconstruing your intent, and I hope this helps. Keep your chin up and continue to pray for life. There have been at least two occasions where the Supreme Court was a hair's breadth from overturning Roe, and public opinion appears to me to be moving negligibly towards life, the last Presidential election notwithstanding. Indeed, I have seen anecdotal evidence on some pretty left-wing sites that the youngins, for all of their faults, are less enamoured of Roe v. Wade and the tired old feminist arguments in favor of it than their generational predecessors.

Cheers,

Anonymous 9:21