Ted Kennedy's letter to the Pope

ted kennedy at burial arlington 2.jpgI watched Senator Ted Kennedy's burial service at Arlington National Cemetery on t.v. last night and was saddened when hearing the contents of his letter to Pope Benedict XVI.

Nowhere in his letter did Kennedy profess a belief that Jesus Christ died to give him the free gift of eternal life. Instead Kennedy's letter read as from a man unsettled about his future, seemingly listing his accomplishments in hopes they would be enough and additionally hoping the prayers of the leader of his faith would help. Don't get me wrong, the prayers of the saints are invaluable - in all areas except helping God make up His mind on one's entry into heaven....

ted kennedy procession.jpgFurthermore, I also don't know how Kennedy's avid support of abortion could not have nagged him at the end of his life. I don't know how Kennedy could maintain in his letter, "I have always tried to be a faithful Catholic," and "I have opposed the death penalty and fought to end war," as if to say he respected human life, and not consider the one overriding blight on his record, his partial responsibility as a pro-abortion "liberal lion" for the killing of millions of preborn children.

Kennedy was a U.S. senator for 47 long years, during which time Roe v. Wade was imposed on America and the legalized abortion question was tested again and again. And during the time Kennedy went from believing "this generation... [should] fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception" to voting twice to oppose the Partial Birth Abortion Ban.

Liberals, of course, are trying to avoid discussing the fact Kennedy championed abortion, which I always find quite telling. Why not brag about abortion accomplishments alongside all others during eulogies?

Ah, well, following is a transcript of Ted Kennedy's letter to the Pope (Read the Pope's response here.):

Most Holy Father, I asked President Obama to personally hand-deliver this letter to you. As a man of deep faith himself, he understands how important my Roman Catholic faith is to me, and I am so deeply grateful to him.

I hope this letter finds you in good health. I pray that you have all of God's blessings as you lead our church and inspire our world during these challenging times. I am writing with deep humility to ask that you pray for me as my own health declines. I was diagnosed with brain cancer more than a year ago and, although I continue treatment, the disease is taking its toll on me. I am 77 years old and preparing for the next passage of life.

kennedy family.jpg

I have been blessed to be part of a wonderful family. And both of my parents, particularly my mother, kept our Catholic faith at the center of our lives. That gift of faith has sustained and nurtured and provided solace to me in the darkest hours. I know that I have been an imperfect human being, but with the help of my faith, I have tried to right my path.

I want you to know, Your Holiness, that in my nearly 50 years of elective office, I have done my best to champion the rights of the poor and open doors of economic opportunity. I have worked to welcome the immigrant, to fight discrimination and expand access to health care and education. I have opposed the death penalty and fought to end war. Those are the issues that have motivated me and have been the focus of my work as a United States senator.

I also want you to know that even though I am ill, I'm committed to doing everything I can to achieve access to health care for everyone in my country. This has been the political cause of my life. I believe in a conscience protection for Catholics in the health field and I'll continue to advocate for it as my colleagues in the Senate and I work to develop an overall national health policy that guarantees health care for everyone.

I have always tried to be a faithful Catholic, Your Holiness, and though I have fallen short through human failings, I have never failed to believe and respect the fundamental teachings of my faith. I continue to pray for God's blessings on you and on our church and would be most thankful for your prayers for me.


Comments:

I think this letter is just a reminder that we are not to judge each others faith-- And like abortion, there are many other agendas out there that need to be fought for. The word absolute can get us into trouble... Ted may not of been one of my or many of your favorite people but as we all walk in faith and look at the issues in our country on hand, the things he mentioned are quite Christ-like...

Posted by: dellie at August 30, 2009 8:24 AM



Rose Kennedy is a woman I truly admire. Whatever you think of the Kennedys, this woman had more than her share of anguish but remained a pillar of strength and faith.
The one thing she never forgave was her husband Joe having their "retarded" daughter Rosemary lobotomized without her knowledge or consent. Its now theorized that Rosemary may have been autistic. Whatever, the lobotomy did indeed render Rosemary retarded as well as disabled. Joe did this while Rose was away. I can't imagine as a mother coming home to news like this.
Its not like old Joe couldn't have afforded a decent facility or around the clock caretakers for his autistic daughter. John Travolta and his wife hired caregivers for their autistic son. Tragic that old Joe couldn't show his daughter the devotion the Travoltas showed their son.

Out of Rosemary's tragedy came the Special Olympics, founded by Rosemary's sister Eunice. What an incredible tribute to Rosemary.

Posted by: Mary at August 30, 2009 8:27 AM


dellie,

Its easy to be "Christ-like" when you are spending other people's money. Christ did not advocate spending the money of other's to do good works, but rather personal charity. But then Ted needed the Kennedy millions to bail himself and family members out of legal scrapes, including allowing a woman to drown and a rape charge.

Posted by: Mary at August 30, 2009 8:35 AM


I think this letter is just a reminder that we are not to judge each others faith-- And like abortion, there are many other agendas out there that need to be fought for. The word absolute can get us into trouble... Ted may not of been one of my or many of your favorite people but as we all walk in faith and look at the issues in our country on hand, the things he mentioned are quite Christ-like...
Posted by: dellie at August 30, 2009 8:24 AM

No. We can judge each others actions. And Ted Kennedy's actions speak louder than any words we might muster up. Again and again he chose to support abortion and abortion rights in an attempt to gain political power. He tried to assuage his Catholic conscience through the support of other lesser social issues. And they are lesser because if a baby has no right to life, all those other social issues don't matter a flying fig to a dead baby.
And there are some absolutes that are....well, absolute. Thou shalt not kill is one of them. And in every abortion, a baby dies. A human person is murdered.

To me, this letter seems like a man terrified of meeting his maker. What absolute nonsense writing to the pope.

How does one undo a lifetime of carnage? By repenting. Ted Kennedy should have written a letter to the American people apologizing for his support of abortion, apologizing to all those women babies and men he's indirectly led down the path to abortion. That would have been the mark of a truly great and repentant Catholic man.

Posted by: angel at August 30, 2009 8:48 AM


Yes, this letter is revealing. In it you can see that Kenndy's conscience has been pricked somewhat and realizing he is at the end of his life, he turns toward the Pope in an effort to legitimize his life-long efforts in the hope that the Pope will put his seal of approval on them.

The Pope did not comply however.

For Kennedy, it's hard to reconcile his advocacy of abortion and his desire to do good in other areas. It does seem like this letter is only another step, in a long line of efforts, to use the base that the Church provides to further his own career, in this case, his legacy after his death.

It's sad really. Here was a man who had the potential to do much good, and we would have rejoiced had he and his family actively opposed the killing of innocent children.

I'm shaken at the opportunity lost. It makes me even more determined not to use the life that God gave me in vain, and to see that justice is finally done for everyone, even those that Kennedy ignored.

I suppose too, that we are living in a period of time where these kinds of things are common, and that in 100 years we will look back and shake our heads and ask ourselves why this all happened, much like the way we look back on other injustices and ask why.

Humanity never dissapoints in giving us the challenge to rise above the weakness of men.

Posted by: Andrew at August 30, 2009 8:48 AM


In reading the response of the Pope, I wonder about the Apostolic Blessing. The Catholic Church may grant a plenary indulgence, (through an AB), for those who have made a genuine confession with their priest and performed the required penance.

There are many who blogged hoping that Kennedy made his peace with Christ. This is one way to do it within the Catholic Church.

The AB is usually reserved for "Big Shots" who have had to make tough decisions as heads of state, etc.

But the Sacrament of Penance is private so we will never know if Kennedy recanted his views on abortion. It would make me feel better about him if there was a letter to the public like he sent to the Pope regarding the issue, but I doubt it.

So he will now be made a martyr for the extreme left, enabling many persons in doubt about their unborn child to make it easier on themselves.

I would hope that the CC would make public as a reminder their position on abortion and have it printed in all the news outlets that their church burial of Kennedy in no way changes their position on the issue.

It does bother me as a cradle Catholic that the Church seems to lack the courage, on occasion, to stand up for what it believes in.

Posted by: Ray Dombkiewicz at August 30, 2009 8:59 AM


Kennedy, unfortunately, shows himself to still be the little boy that papa Kennedy always bailed out and never taught to be accountable for his actions. In his letter, rather than admit what has separated him from his faith, he only asks this other authority, papa, to once again give him special privileges without himself having to be accountable and be honest about his sins. It's too bad how this Kennedy father's, Joe's, own sins were visited upon his own - given his own open examples of behavior before them as their life model!

Posted by: KC at August 30, 2009 9:00 AM


"We can judge each others actions. And Ted Kennedy's actions speak louder than any words we might muster up. Again and again he chose to support abortion and abortion rights in an attempt to gain political power. He tried to assuage his Catholic conscience through the support of other lesser social issues."
Posted by: angel at August 30, 2009 8:48 AM

Maybe it's just me, but after reading the response letter to Ted from the Vatican, why on earth if abortion is considered a "mortal sin" by the Catholics did the pope and the Vatican miss yet ANOTHER opportunity to address abortion?

If, according to Catholic teaching, one supports abortion as though Ted did, and it's a mortal sin, why didn't the pope try to "save" Kennedy's soul by reaching out to him in the response letter as Ted did in his original letter?

The response letter from the Vatican, to me at least, was nothing more than, "we wish you a peaceful death".

Posted by: Marie at August 30, 2009 9:00 AM


Marie, we don't know what the pope wrote in full to Kennedy.
The fact is that Kennedy did not publicly retract his support for abortion. I think he will be accountable for this in God's eyes, no matter the Apostolic Blessing.
I have also read reports that the Vatican considers Ted Kennedy of little importance but someone who has his own legend of followers - a hero to American liberals. In other words, they consider him to have little significance in the big scheme of things. Perhaps they are a little out of touch, for Kennedy has had a direct and important impact on social policy in America and therefore, throughout the world.

Posted by: angel at August 30, 2009 9:17 AM


Look, the Pope knows that this man is accountable, through his own free will, for his decisions. He knows that his bishops have outlined what are the sins that are always intrinsically evil for the faithful. The Pope is considered a bishop among bishops so does not interfere with what has been already done by Kennedy's local authorities. And, a personal letter to a dying man isn't a place to grandstand. In the end, it is up to one's own attempts to be open to the grace offered when one has already been told just what separates him from possible mercy. Besides, from such a distance, how is the Pope to know what has gone on between another person and his own priest or spiritual advisor as far as personal confession has been?

Posted by: observer at August 30, 2009 9:18 AM


Sometimes I have to step back and just wonder, are the people in power, those that are pushing for abortion rights, possibly truly in the dark of what abortion really is? I have to admit, reading his letter and the fact that he asked Obama (another man of faith?)to deliver it, I felt sheer discust and contempt. How dare he ask for prayers for himself, did he pray for the babies led to slaughter and all the women maimed?
Then.... I read further and my heart softens and I start to think, " Is it possible that he had no real concept of abortion, it was an abstract to him?" Maybe, in all his encounters, no one had the opportunity to show him what abortion really is? And he never had the inclination to research it himself because all his circle of peers, the so called intellectuals, how could they all be wrong. You know what, I think it is possible. I heard John Kerry describing on Meet the Press this morning, all the young people from the Kennedy dynasty, surrounding Ted on the grassy field, all the neices and nephews that ultimately he became a father too with all the deaths of their own parents. Kerry sounded like he was going to cry. He almost sounded like a pro lifer fondly describing a big pro child family. I thought in their liberal elite world, they are in the dark. It's o.k. to boast of their big family, they have the means to provide. But for others, we, the have - nots, we should be responsible. They have championed for us to limit our family size so we can give quality to our 1 maybe 2 kids. I don't know, I'm just pondering how they can justify their abstract philosophy. And if it is possible that they are that clueless, they need more prayers and compassion than I ever dreamed. And much more work for our movement to enlighten them.
Don't get me wrong, I have been outraged by the coverage of his funeral, making him out to be a hero, despite all the dark stories of his past. When someone like Henry Hyde dies, you hardly hear about the great accomplishments he was attributed with.
I guess through all this, I am trying to soften my heart and really pray for their souls conversion. It will require a whole lot of softening for me.... but I will try.

Posted by: muriel at August 30, 2009 9:22 AM


There is a good reason that you will never see people like Scott Hahn, Jim Caviezel, and Eduardo Verastegui write about how faithful they are to the Church and how they tried so hard to be "good Catholics."

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at August 30, 2009 9:30 AM


Those are great points, observer...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at August 30, 2009 9:31 AM


well Muriel, it would have been nice if good Ted had asked for forgiveness and shown some sort of humility. But all the pope got was a list of Ted's (in his own mind) great accomplishments. Narcissistic and self-absorbed to the very end.


Posted by: angel at August 30, 2009 9:32 AM


Angel & Observer,

I understand that. Thank you very much for your responses and information.

It's just that I feel that Ted was reaching out to the pope with all of his "accomplishments", and with 4,000 babies dying DAILY here in the US, it WOULD have been proper for the Vatican to acknowledge it in the response letter.

I've looked over a few Catholic websites, and they are stating that the response letter was indeed the full text of the response.

I have also read that the Vatican does consider Ted a "nobody" (not literally, I'm sure), but the 4,000 babies dying brutal deaths DAILY are not, at least in my opinion, in the "nobody" category.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that I just wish the "higher-ups" in the Catholic church would be brutally honest and vocal about the brutal deaths of these innocent babies, and use every single opportunity they may have to address this horrific act. This isn't the first time they have missed a HUGE opportunity to do so.

Posted by: Marie at August 30, 2009 9:36 AM


Marie,

"I just wish the "higher-ups" in the Catholic church would be brutally honest and vocal about the brutal deaths of these innocent babies, and use every single opportunity they may have to address this horrific act."

And we're right there with you. I wish something would have been said too, but I suppose at this time they felt it more prudent not to make a strong condemnation at this time. Like the lyrics from that Byrds song (?!?!?!) says, there is a season for all things Also, I would expect to see a lot, actually, from some of the really good American Bishops, like Archbishop Chaput, Cardinal Rigali, and Bishop Bruskewitz, and others. Because after all, we're talking about a largely American icon, so it might be more appropriate for the American Bishops to address it. Ultimately I think it is a prudential matter, though. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at August 30, 2009 9:50 AM


"Don't get me wrong, I have been outraged by the coverage of his funeral, making him out to be a hero, despite all the dark stories of his past."

That happens to every public figure who dies, remember Nicole and Ronald Reagan? Reagan especially had a lot of things to be accountable for, but he was of course labeled as a hero. That's just how things work in the media, but in part I think it's okay to do that for a little while if nothing else but be tactful about it.

Posted by: prettyinpink at August 30, 2009 10:05 AM


"I wish something would have been said too, but I suppose at this time they felt it more prudent not to make a strong condemnation at this time"

In my opinion, it is the BEST time to make a strong condemnation. This is prime time to make a statement, while Catholic legislators would be listening. In order to have laws changed to protect our young and innocent, wouldn't it be beneficial or prudent, to address these people while they may be listening? It's a matter of life and death for goodness sakes. I don't think the cries of the 4,000 babies, killed in such a brutal manner, are crying out for justice only when it's prudent.

And I'm sure the Vatican can come up with a creative way to make SOME sort of statement while also being respectful. Creativity is definitely lacking here. Jill should have written the response instead!

Posted by: Marie at August 30, 2009 10:07 AM


Oh yes Angel, I know.
I got SO angry reading the letter, waiting for an apology or an excuse, SOMETHING as to why he was so misguided when it came to women, babies and dad's that lost their right to fatherhood. His votes through the years have hurt our country. But in his letter, nothing, just a list of his accomplishments. I even thought, God help him if all his life he planned to go against the church to further his career with a plan to just go to confession at the end and recieve the sacrament of last rights. I felt at the end, how could he be so ignorantly stunted when it came to true moral conviction as a civil servant.
Than I felt the Lord prompt me to show compassion, like when I struggle to pray for our president and his wife. And after Meet the Press, John Kerry is added to the list...ugh. It's hard but imagine if we all started fervently praying for the whole lot of pro aborts, Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Hillary...maybe we would get to the goal faster?

Posted by: muriel at August 30, 2009 10:13 AM


And let me add to that, lets also pray for the brave church leaders that do call evil for what it is. They need our support and prayers too, because they will get the most chastisement from the media. A faithful servant comes to min Father Tom Euteneour HLI,org. Read his bold statement on Ted Kennedy. He never minces words. I love his passion in standing for the church

Posted by: muriel at August 30, 2009 10:19 AM


It didn't sound like the pope forgave Ted of anything but basically said "good luck to you". This may be the cynic in me but I thought Obama was going to use the eulogy as a way to get in some support for healthcare. And when he didn't I thought "o.k. I smell a rat". But Obama figured there would be no need to do that because Kennedy had taken care of that with the reading of the letter at his graveside that would be broadcast across the nation. I believe Obama knew what was in that letter. Ted was a politician even at the grave!

Posted by: Catherine at August 30, 2009 10:50 AM


Regardless of what Ted Kennedy said in his letter to the Pope, his detractors are wont to criticize. You even vilify him for not mentioning Jesus Christ in the letter. Whom does the Pope represent? It would not matter to you even if Ted quoted the entire Bible.

The great falsehood being spread by the right wing about abortion is that Liberals support it. No, Liberals DO NOT support abortion, they just recognize a woman's right of choice, but hope that women CHOSE to keep their pregnancies. It is an issue of religious FAITH and MORALS, not legal FORCE. It is amazing how the right-wing crazies justify the cardinal sin of murder (of doctors) in order to "prevent" abortion.

For the true Christian, abortion is not the only issue of sin. There are numerous other issues that Christ enjoined us to devote our lives to, most especially caring for the poor and the sick, whom he courted during His ministry on earth. The right-wing extremists of this country would rather bury the poor (which ironically, are also within their ranks), deny healthcare to the needy, and redistribute the common resources of the country to the wealthy and powerful.

Ted Kennedy recognized his failings, but tried to make up by devoting his causes to help the poor and less powerful. What have you done to right your own imperfections, you critics? The great Teacher said, "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone", and "First remove the log in your own eyes so you may see the speck in that of your neighbor's".

Enough said.

Posted by: Merlin at August 30, 2009 10:53 AM


I agree with Dellie on this one.

The matter of morality and legacy are complex: he was a flawed human being who, like all people, held good and evil in the same hand and, unlike many people, sought to do his best to pick good. He fought the battles to help the poor and champion for those forgotten in society: that makes him our ally, remember?

If we want to help children, who are the most forgotten and silenced and trampled members of society, then we need to recognize those who will help us. He voted against making abortion illegal, but he voted on pro-life measures to increase wealth amongst poor men and women: that is the real goal of the pro-life movement. Making it illegal is only a step. Our enemy is abortion, not legal abortion- but abortion.

Ted Kennedy, in his life, even if not intentionally, fought to reduce abortion that means. It wasn't the issue that he found passion in, though- he helped society's underdogs. That's what we're supposed to be doing, too, but we can't just forget that for the sake of politics.

So as far as I'm concerned- and as far as the nation and his children are concerned, too- he was a hero.

Posted by: Vannah at August 30, 2009 11:17 AM


Well said, Vannah. Bless your heart, very well said.

Posted by: Merlin at August 30, 2009 11:25 AM


Ted Kennedy recognized his failings, but tried to make up by devoting his causes to help the poor and less powerful.

Merlin,
I beg to differ. His duty as an elected official was to "protect" his fellow citizens, even the smaller and weaker ones. Even the citizens that could not cast a vote for him, nor have a voice to protest and defend themselves. Instead he exploited a huge majority of voters who were blinded by his agenda. We know now through the science of ultrasound that a baby in the womb is a pre born citizen worthy of basic rights.
What was it Judge Ginsberg recently stated,she thought abortion was for weeding out the unwanted and the poor? It is that mentality that the elite buy into. That's wrong, just like the slaveowners were wrong. We can not decide nor judge who is worthy.

Posted by: muriel at August 30, 2009 11:34 AM


Merlin,
Surely you must respect the words of Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta. There is no excuse for legalized abortion.

"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters" And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign."
(Mother Theresa -- "Notable and Quotable," Wall Street Journal, 2/25/94, p. A14)

Posted by: Janet at August 30, 2009 11:39 AM


Vannah, I think you've got it backwards.

Flawed human beings can still do the right thing. This is called a grace from God.

Kennedy certainly did not. For example, it is very difficult to see how someone can be a "hero" for children and vote against a ban on an abortion procedure that would inflict the greatest harm on them.

It is this discrepancy that is at the heart of the debate, but he could have done the right thing. He just chose not to do so.

Posted by: Andrew at August 30, 2009 11:40 AM


I have to disagree, Vannah. 80% of respondents, when questioned before an abortion, said that if abortion was illegal, they wouldn't get one. That tells me that making abortion illegal is priority #1, because as long as it is seen as a safe and easy way to conveniently be rid of an uncomfortable problem, people will treat it like that, no matter HOW well off they are. Plenty of college kids get abortions. Are you telling me that we should laud their unwillingness to perhaps transfer to a JC/community college with cheaper tuition so they could use the money they spend on public/private universities to care for their baby instead? Everyone could make adjustments for a baby. I'm not going to say that I can only support abortion being illegal after I've made it my life's work to make everyone else's life worry and trouble-free. MY life is not nor has it ever been worry and trouble-free, and thus far, at its worst, I was pregnant, and I still managed not to kill anyone. Nobody's life will ever be worry and trouble-free, and that is no reason to kill a baby.

Speaking of killing people...You DO know that a much younger and married Kennedy ran his car off of a bridge with his pretty young campaign aide inside, and didn't bother to help her before swimming 500 ft. to safety, heading back home, and sleeping the rest of the night. He could've had his chauffeur drive them both, but for SOME reason...he drove himself with his pretty 28 year old campaign aide...

I will not sit here and hero-worship a murderous liar.

Posted by: xalisae at August 30, 2009 11:43 AM


Also, I would expect to see a lot, actually, from some of the really good American Bishops, like Archbishop Chaput, Cardinal Rigali, and Bishop Bruskewitz, and others. Because after all, we're talking about a largely American icon, so it might be more appropriate for the American Bishops to address it. Ultimately I think it is a prudential matter, though. God love you.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at August 30, 2009 9:50 AM

I think this is precisely WHY the pope did not write more. It was the duty of the American bishops to do something and once again, they didn't.
The CC throughout North America must be cleansed and purified. We can do it ourselves or God will do it for us.

Posted by: angel at August 30, 2009 11:52 AM


"He voted against making abortion illegal, but he voted on pro-life measures to increase wealth amongst poor men and women: that is the real goal of the pro-life movement."

No, thats not the goal of the pro-life movement, yours in a common lie among many pro-aborts. It is the goal of the pro-life movement to make the killing of unborn children illegal.

Posted by: Jasper at August 30, 2009 11:58 AM


"In my opinion, it is the BEST time to make a strong condemnation. This is prime time to make a statement, while Catholic legislators would be listening. In order to have laws changed to protect our young and innocent, wouldn't it be beneficial or prudent, to address these people while they may be listening? It's a matter of life and death for goodness sakes. I don't think the cries of the 4,000 babies, killed in such a brutal manner, are crying out for justice only when it's prudent.

And I'm sure the Vatican can come up with a creative way to make SOME sort of statement while also being respectful. Creativity is definitely lacking here. Jill should have written the response instead! "

Marie, I couldn't agree more.

Posted by: Jasper at August 30, 2009 12:00 PM


"His duty as an elected official was to "protect" his fellow citizens..."

Muriel,

Are you suggesting that the poor and weak are not "fellow citizens"? Listen, there are probably human beings who have the capacity to save the entire human race, good for them. But not everyone has such strength. Therefore you pick your fights rather than try to save all of humanity at once.

The passion of the Kennedys was not abortion causes, but to represent the poor and the needy. They picked their fight and excelled. Got it?

And for Janet, Andrew and Xalisae:

I find it to be bold impunity that you can guess how God would judge Ted Kennedy. "Judge not so you may not be judged". It is easy to sit in your pajamas before a computer and pass judgment on others under the anonymity of internet chat rooms. Ask yourself, what have you really done practically to advance a good cause, other than criticize others anonymously on the internet? At the very least, how much have you donated recently to advance the cause of babies, as a percentage of your capabilities? That is the more crucial discussion here.

Posted by: Merlin at August 30, 2009 12:01 PM


Our enemy is abortion, not legal abortion- but abortion.
Ted Kennedy, in his life, even if not intentionally, fought to reduce abortion that means.

Vannah,
If that were the case then Ted Kennedy, as a Catholic, should never have accepted any endorsements or praise from Planned Parenthood ($$$, based on abortion), if he were truly committed to "reduce" the number of abortions. I do not recall anytime that he fought to reduce abortion.
Maybe in a round about way, when he worked with Bush for No Child Left Behind; where inner city kids could possibly get an education? Then they could see where their parents were exploited, to be used as a chunk of votes. But let's not offer school choice or a voucher program... Rev. Jessie Jackson & Rev. Al Sharpton may not like that.

Posted by: muriel at August 30, 2009 12:01 PM


Merlin,

The poor in this country are not being killed by the thousands each day. We do not ignore the poor at all, many of our churches do a-lot to help the poor, I know ours does. Does it mean we don't want to help the poor because we want to end legalized unborn baby slaughter? Is it impossible to support both causes? That's good that the Ted Kennedy wanted to help the poor with middle class tax payer money, I'm not faulting him, but does that mean he has to support abortion?

How come Rose Kennedy filed her will in Florida when she mostly lived in Massachusetts? Because the taxes were lower in Florida which allowed her to pass more of the fortune to her kids.

Posted by: Jasper at August 30, 2009 12:23 PM


Merlin, I don't presume to guess how god would judge Ted Kennedy. It would require me to believe in a god for me to do that, and I don't. I'm just judging him based on his past performance, and who DOESN'T do that? He was a law maker. He made crappy laws. I'm sure at home he might've been a wonderful guy with a great sense of humor, but most of the laws he made sucked.

Wait...wait...wait...by ASSUMING that I never have and do not donate what I can when I can to help those in need (which is inaccurate, by the way-like my daddy always said, "When you assume, you make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me') aren't YOU passing judgment on ME? Now, what gives you the right to sit there in your bib, bonnet, high heels, lederhosen, and sequined dinner jacket (hey, if you can take for graneted I'm in my pajamas, I get to pretend what you're wearing, too. By the way, you look ridiculous!) and call me out on things I may or may not do?

I know the facts. I know what Ted Kennedy did, and I know what he did not do in his life. I have every right to speak based on that knowledge.

Posted by: xalisae at August 30, 2009 12:26 PM


At the very least, how much have you donated recently to advance the cause of babies, as a percentage of your capabilities? That is the more crucial discussion here.
Posted by: Merlin at August 30, 2009 12:01 PM

nope. The thread is about Kennedy's letter to the pope and his response.

Ted's letter was about seeking a comfort of conscience from the pope. I think Benedict was unimpressed. Benedict has been to America, and he knows the lay of the political landscape. Ted Kennedy (like his father and his brothers before him) was about power and pleasure. He had free will and made his choices. They will determine how he spends eternity.

Posted by: angel at August 30, 2009 12:30 PM


I agree Jasper.It's funny how pro-choice people try to muddy the waters by introducing different elements.THE main goal of the pro-life movement is to stop the murder of babies in the womb.
Providing for the poor, heath care for all etc. are worthy goals and need to be addressed but when babies are systematically and legally murdered all else pales in comparison.
Also, Kennedy didn't just vote to keep abortion legal, he voted twice against a ban of partial birth abortion ie. infanticide.
That he would catalogue his accomplishments in the letter to the Pope and describe himself as a "faithful" Catholic is incredible.
I think the Holy Father's response was the right one. If a man is in the process of dying and he still does not realize the absurdity of facilitating the murder of babies and still considering oneself a good Catholic, then nothing the Pope could have said would have made any difference. We can only hope that the Pope's words of comfort softened Kennedy's heart and incouraged him to look deeper into his soul.

Posted by: castellina at August 30, 2009 12:39 PM


"His duty as an elected official was to "protect" his fellow citizens..."

Muriel,

Are you suggesting that the poor and weak are not "fellow citizens"?

Not at all Merlin. If you are trying to say, that making abortion legal for the poor helped them, I wholeheartedly disagree.

I remember learning in nursing school(1980's) about geriatric care and cultures. At one time in our nation, the black community represented a closely knit, generational family foundation. They did not send their elders to a nursing home like many ethnic cultures did. Instead, they all chipped in and took care of their aged loved one (possibly a freed slave that went on to make a life for themself and raise a large family). It was a responsiblility shared by the whole clan, just as an unplanned baby would have been accepted. They may have been poor, but they had the unity and support of their family. The government was not involved. Abortion took away that family unity bond, and catapulted them into the fragmented absentee father syndrome. Then the rap culture invaded that exploits and plaques their own women and children. Now a huge % in the inner city are slaves to the government support they recieve. And God forbid that they don't vote with the herd mentality, they are chastised for wanting something better for their children. If I am wrong, please tell me how abortion has helped the African American culture.

Posted by: muriel at August 30, 2009 12:43 PM


"And for Janet, Andrew and Xalisae:"

"I find it to be bold impunity that you can guess how God would judge Ted Kennedy."

I didn't mention Sen. Kennedy in my post. I addressed your argument for abortion. (See 11:39 AM post.)

Posted by: Janet at August 30, 2009 12:43 PM


Merlin,
To address another of your comments..... I'd bet that vocal pro-lifers are some of the most giving of their time, talent and treasure in their communities as well. We don't sit in our PJ's all day at the computer. LOL. Next time you walk by a Catholic church, walk in and pick up a Sunday bulletin and read it. You'll see how much charitable work is done in additional to pro-life work - for the homeless, elderly, poor, teens, pregnant women, unemployed, mothers, fathers, singles, etc... Then, go to the Church office and talk to them....

Posted by: Janet at August 30, 2009 12:55 PM


Aaaaand...I never voted to raise the minimum wage, which actually HURTS poor/lower middle class families and individuals. It makes prices increase for everyone because manufacturers have to cover costs of increased pay, and increases the unemployment rate because some companies cover this cost by lay offs and increase workload of existing employees.

It looks and sounds nice on the outside, but when you actually investigate and look into things analytically, it's not as good as it seems.

So, once again, I'm better than Ted Kennedy.

Posted by: xalisae at August 30, 2009 12:56 PM


Muriel:

I refuse to accept your inference that I support abortion, and it is disingenuous for you to keep repeating it. I HATE abortion, but I just don't want YOU to tell a woman it's illegal, ok? That will be decided by her faith, conscience and doctor, ok? No matter how many times you repeat it, it will not stick.

Also, what is unreasonable is that you condemn Kennedy by one single policy decision that you happen to disagree with (which by the way, is the law of the land), ignoring a body of work spanning almost half a century. How reasonable is that?

Your incursion into African-American socio-economic issues is unnecessarily expanding the topic. They are not the only ones doing abortion and again this is disingenuity on your part. I will defer on this topic.


Janet says:
"Next time you walk by a Catholic church, walk in and pick up a Sunday bulletin and read it. You'll see how much charitable work is done in additional to pro-life work - for the homeless, elderly, poor, teens, pregnant women, unemployed, mothers, fathers, singles, etc..."

Janet, I am not asking about what the Catholic church does, I am asking about what YOU do personally.


Xalisae says:
"I'm better than Kennedy".
Good for you. Who is to say you're not? I cannot judge you on your statement, neither can you judge Kennedy on his life. Pride goes before a fall.

Posted by: Merlin at August 30, 2009 1:10 PM


I'm judging him on his voting record, because that's his job. If a man sells shoddy cars to people with bad credit at unreasonable prices because that's all they can get...do people not have a right to judge that person based on his occupation and how he did his work?

Posted by: xalisae at August 30, 2009 1:23 PM


As a former Catholic I can say that all the penance in the world, vain repetitious prayers, money in the church coffers, confession to a priest doesn't do any good! All that is needed is FAITH ALONE IN CHRIST. The church CANNOT give someone a "free pass" to heaven no matter how much a person pays the church and that is because salvation is not the church's gift to give! When God looks at Ted Kennedy He will not be looking for the Pope's okay, He will be looking for His Son's okay.

Salvation is the gift of GOD to a lost world. He sent HIS SON JESUS to die in OUR PLACE on the cross. Jesus suffered hell FOR US so that we don't have to. Because HELL IS THE ONLY JUST PUNISHMENT for our absolute wickedness. If people would just

a) realize that Jesus paid the price and put their trust in Jesus and not themselves (I'm thinking of "good works" that people try to do) and

b) truly repent of their sin and ask God for His forgiveness

THEN people would not have to fear the end of their life! They would not suffer hell because God ALWAYS keeps His promises and He has promised "If we confess our sin He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (first John 1:9)

The thief on the cross lived a life of great wickedness. But in the blink of an eye Jesus saved his soul and promised him he would spend eternity with Jesus! how can that be when the thief never got off the cross to go live a life of good works? That is because "for by GRACE are you saved THROUGH FAITH, and that NOT OF YOURSELVES: it is the GIFT OF GOD: NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:8,9)

Posted by: Sydney M at August 30, 2009 1:33 PM


Xalisae:

Of course you have a legitimate right to criticize any lawmaker on their voting records. If you read my posts, you will see that I only object to your condemnation of the man and his half-century career on the basis of his stance on abortion only.

If you have truly comprehended the 1000 laws he helped to create and disagree with ALL of it, then you have a legitimate argument if you condemn his entire legislative career. Other than that, your criticism is disingenuous.

Posted by: Merlin at August 30, 2009 1:33 PM


All:

The common thread linking persistent critics of others is a lack-luster, selfish and empty life. When you have genuinely tried to help others and do good with your best resources, then you will appreciate others who have made similar efforts even though they may have personal flaws you disagree with.

Deep down you critics of Ted Kennedy know your vilification of him is not objective, that it's borne out of politics of rancor, envy and hate. You are unable to see any good he may have done despite his flaws. You disagree with his position on abortion, therefore he's evil. I am sure the imperfections in your own personal lives are probably shocking to most people. If you feel you have the right to judge Kennedy, then you open yourself up for judgment. And you are free to criticize my personal life too.

It is foolhardy and difficult, if not impossible, to have a reasonable discussion with hardliners. I am therefore bowing out of this forum. One thing you can be sure of: the world ultimately has no lasting place for extremism and intolerance that you seem to advance. Hardliners lead us over an abyss of destruction and anarchy, while real lasting progress is engendered through moderation and realism. Even Ted Kennedy's political opponents give him credit for that, and Catholics repeatedly voted for him. Despite his stance on abortion, the majority of Massachussetts Catholics realize that alone cannot define the man.

Enough said. Good luck.

Posted by: Merlin at August 30, 2009 1:40 PM


AMEN!!!! Syndey M., AMEN!!!

Posted by: Marie at August 30, 2009 1:40 PM


You didn't see where I brought up the minimum wage thing?

Boy, you remind me an awful lot of Sharon.

See ya. :)

Posted by: xalisae at August 30, 2009 1:43 PM


As a former Catholic I can say that all the penance in the world, vain repetitious prayers, money in the church coffers, confession to a priest doesn't do any good! All that is needed is FAITH ALONE IN CHRIST. The church CANNOT give someone a "free pass" to heaven no matter how much a person pays the church and that is because salvation is not the church's gift to give! When God looks at Ted Kennedy He will not be looking for the Pope's okay, He will be looking for His Son's okay.

Penance is not useless, nor are prayers vain. And the days of people paying the church for indulgences are long gone Sydney. And Christ did instruct the apostles that those whose sins you forgive they are forgiven, those whose sins you retain they are retained.
But as is often the case, what we on earth consider to be great is judged very differently by God.
The Kennedy's left a legacy of sorrow and moral capitulation. They did not follow the teachings of their Catholic faith and their dissent led other Catholics from the practice of their faith (also known as causing scandal). They did nothing to build up the body of Christ in America.

Posted by: angel at August 30, 2009 1:44 PM


"Janet, I am not asking about what the Catholic church does, I am asking about what YOU do personally."

Merlin, Does my silence condemn me?

Posted by: Janet at August 30, 2009 1:45 PM


"And Christ did instruct the apostles that those whose sins you forgive they are forgiven, those whose sins you retain they are retained."

When did Jesus say THAT?

Posted by: Marie at August 30, 2009 1:51 PM


""And Christ did instruct the apostles that those whose sins you forgive they are forgiven, those whose sins you retain they are retained." When did Jesus say THAT?"

John 20:23

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at August 30, 2009 1:52 PM


Marie:

Please forgive the copy and paste, but I couldn't explain it well myself.

Power to Forgive Sins

It is noteworthy that the fundamental objection so often urged against the Sacrament of Penance was first thought of by the Scribes when Christ said to the sick man of the palsy: “Thy sins are forgiven thee.” “And there were some of the scribes sitting there, and thinking in their hearts: Why doth this man speak thus? he blasphemeth. Who can forgive sins but God only?” But Jesus seeing their thoughts, said to them: “Which is easier to say to the sick of the palsy: Thy sins are forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, take up thy bed and walk? But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say to thee: Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house” (Mark 2:5-11; Matthew 9:2-7). Christ wrought a miracle to show that He had power to forgive sins and that this power could be exerted not only in heaven but also on earth. This power, moreover, He transmitted to Peter and the other Apostles. To Peter He says: “And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven” (Matthew 16:19). Later He says to all the Apostles: “Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven” (Matthew 18:18).
Continued at cantius.org/go/sacraments/penance_confession/power_to_forgive_sins/

Posted by: Janet at August 30, 2009 2:02 PM


Thanks, Bobby.

I thought that Angel was saying that the APOSTLES were able to forgive sins.

I guess I read her post wrong! oops!

Posted by: Marie at August 30, 2009 2:04 PM


thanks to Bobby and Janet for their scripture references! I'm doing dishes right now.....

you know the martha/mary thing!

Posted by: angel at August 30, 2009 2:07 PM


It always sorta amuses me that so many people actually think that someone way over in another country, another culture, who speaks another language (often several, but not perfectly) somehow daily zeros in on the details of one particular individual living his life for decades far away from them. How could anyone in that situation be accurate about the personal circumstances of another elderly man's entire life? That's WHY there are papal nuncios (like ambassadors) and bishops who come ever so many years to give reports to the Pope on particular situations of home countries throughout the world. But it's left up to the local religious authorities to rule on their home turfs. How many times can a politician be told, either privately, or by various theological experts writing in Catholic periodicals, that they are waaay out of line? Even when someone like Bishop Bruskewitz refuses them the Eucharist they go find another weak authority to back up their weak excuses. We really have to pray for real unity within the Church because it will only be then that all the faithful will be forced to accept as sinful their wretched actions.

The Democratic party has itself become the new idol for the political CINOs and their new sacraments to uphold in order to belong to this new secular religion are abortion, homosexual marriage and embryonic stem cell experimentation. They've sold their souls, not even for Wales this time, but for the party and their pride of position in it.

Posted by: observer at August 30, 2009 2:09 PM


On Kennedy and the Pope and abortion: Upon taking office, our elected officials swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States -- not an oath to make their religious doctrine enforceable by law. In defending a woman's right to choose, Senator Kennedy fulfilled his sworn PUBLIC duty, upholding her right to remain free from government intrusion in this most private decision -- free from government forcing her to remain pregnant and to give birth AGAINST HER WILL. There is no compelling state reason to strip her of her liberty, nor to bring more unwanted children into the world. And even if there WERE, forcing women to give birth against their will ought not to be one of the ways our nation should encourage reproduction and population growth.

Theocracy is not the American way...as the Supreme Court recognized.

Posted by: Karen at August 30, 2009 2:09 PM


the apostles were able to save sins! and this has been passed onto Catholic priests...... ;)

you KNEW EXACTLY what I was saying Marie.

Posted by: angel at August 30, 2009 2:12 PM


***sorry for the double post - I got a server error the first time around ****

"In defending a woman's right to choose, Senator Kennedy fulfilled his sworn PUBLIC duty, upholding her right to remain free from government intrusion in this most private decision -- free from government forcing her to remain pregnant and to give birth AGAINST HER WILL."

Except that there is a higher duty - that to God (whether you recognize it or not). It is morally wrong to help in any way emplace a law that kills innocent children. This is what Ted Kennedy fought for. What he vociferously voted for again and again.
And absolutely no one forces women to get pregnant. The majority of abortions do not happen because a woman is "forced" to be pregnant. They happen because the pregnancy/child is not "convenient".
It is NEVER a private decision to kill a person. Never, even should that person reside in the hidden womb of his/her mother.

Posted by: angel at August 30, 2009 2:20 PM


It is absolutely incredible that he can be so highly esteemed and pretend to be a "Good Catholic" when he has championed the cause of killing babies by the millions ... sad!

Posted by: George at August 30, 2009 2:20 PM


Karen-not allowing a woman to not kill her unborn baby is not somehow protecting her liberty or upholding the constitution. In fact, it is in our very own Declaration of Independence that states we have unalienable rights...the right to LIFE.

Telling a woman she can't have an abortion is akin to telling a man he may not rape a woman. Do what you will with your own bodies but the government passes certain laws that prohibit you from USING YOUR BODY TO HURT ANOTHER. The government has a responsibility to protect the innocents of our society.

We have a responsibility to follow GOD'S LAW first and man's law second. Yes, we must be obedient to the law and good citizens of our country but not when the law commands you to do evil. Laws can be changed in the blink of an eye..even our constitution as Obama is trying to do. Ted Kennedy could have used his political power to preserve life, not take it.

Remember the abolitionists in history who broke the law to smuggle slaves to freedom in the North? They BROKE THE LAW because the law was immoral and they knew they answered to GOD not man!

Posted by: Sydney M at August 30, 2009 2:25 PM


um, I meant not allowing a woman to kill her baby...I didn't type that correctly. sorry.

Posted by: Sydney M at August 30, 2009 2:27 PM


In defending a woman's right to choose, Senator Kennedy fulfilled his sworn PUBLIC duty, upholding her right to remain free from government intrusion in this most private decision -- free from government forcing her to remain pregnant and to give birth AGAINST HER WILL.

Rubbish. No government can excercise control over one's personal beliefs - in fact THAT is guaranteed in the Constitution in truth (what citizens flee other countries for to come here); the other manufactured "right to privacy" in order to kill is not there in truth and could not, therefore, override one's conscience, or else the holocaust of history could repeat itself.

Then there is also the very fact that our own government waxes schizophrenic on that very question in its own laws. In one instance of law the child in the womb, at whatever stage, is considered a separate life from the mother and anyone who takes their separate lives is convicted of killing 2 humans. But then that same government, under the same Constitution, justifies all the other killing for the merest "unplanned" circumstances, etc.

And, btw, a pregnant woman will have to "give birth" one way or another - to a living human or a dead one. You seem to only object to the instances where that same child comes out alive against another person's separate will! That way of thinking carries over to the circumstances of a possibly surviving baby of an intended abortion being then, even after "giving birth", left to continue the intended death by not being given care, even in a hospital, like your President's care would permit.

Posted by: KC at August 30, 2009 2:28 PM


Posted by: Karen at August 30, 2009 2:09 PM

I suggest you get yourself a pocket Constitution. You look through it and when you find where it says women have a right to have their children dismembered in utero, get back to me.

I tire of the "forcing women" bit. It is a biological fact that all pregnant women give birth. Excepting miscarriages and stillbirths, the remaining two avenues are child birth or abortion. One produces a live, whole child, the other, a dismembered dead one. No fancy words, laws or shaking of fists at the heavens changes that. If we really want to talk force here, it is the abortionist who forces an unripened cervix open. It is the abortionist who must use either the force of suction, scraping or brute force to grasp limbs with forceps and rip them from the fetus' torso. 64% of women report* they were coerced into their abortions, so let's address those forces, shall we?

*7. VM Rue et. al., “Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women,” Medical Science Monitor 10(10): SR5-16, 2004

Posted by: klynn73 at August 30, 2009 2:41 PM


KC at 2:28 p.m.

We were on the same wavelength, I just take longer to get my posts out of the gate, so to speak.

Posted by: klynn73 at August 30, 2009 2:45 PM


I HATE abortion, but I just don't want YOU to tell a woman it's illegal, ok? That will be decided by her faith, conscience and doctor, ok? No matter how many times you repeat it, it will not stick.
O.K. Merlin,
We agree, I hate abortion too. Then why can't we agree to put it back in the hands of the American voters, in each state and let the law be based on our constitution? Not one case, where the Supreme Court made a mistake. Let's put the law back in the hands of the people state by state, not a radical Supreme court decision made in 1973 before ultrasound and before the testimonies of thousands that would be hurt by legal abortion. Agree?

Posted by: muriel at August 30, 2009 2:55 PM


In reading Kennedy's letter, it seems like instead of addressing the Holy Father, it should have read, "Dear Jesus..."

Oh well. Kennedy's probably busy right now making 50 million apologies.

Posted by: carder at August 30, 2009 3:04 PM


Jill,
I thought this letter was supposedly private... who had a copy? Who has the copy of the Pope's response? How is all of this now public?

Posted by: J at August 30, 2009 3:05 PM


I will let a parable describe my thoughts on the Kennedy's. For one to think that one could impress God with what one has done in this life is truly tragic:

Luke 18:18-23

[18] A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

[19] "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good -- except God alone.

[20] You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.'"

[21] "All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said.

[22] When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

[23] When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth.

[24] Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! [25] Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

[26] Those who heard this asked, "Who then can be saved?"

[27] Jesus replied, "What is impossible with men is possible with God."

[28] Peter said to him, "We have left all we had to follow you!"

[29] "I tell you the truth," Jesus said to them, "no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God [30] will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life."

Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at August 30, 2009 3:08 PM


This will probably get lost down here after all the other comments, but I will say it anyway, and have said it before on other sites the last few days.

We all wish Sen. Kennedy had given legislative support to pro-Life and to pro-Marriage efforts. We all wish his personal life had been other than what the press reported it to be. Maybe it's important to remind ourselves that God sometimes permits evil in order for a greater good to happen. It's also important to remember that we may never know what that greater good might be.

We do not know what went on his mind and soul at the moment of death, and what he was thinking or praying. We don't know what he said to his confessor. St. Jean Marie Vianney once said to a woman whose husband committed suicide by jumping off a bridge (she was terrified that her husband's soul was in Hell), "Remember, there is a distance from the bridge to the water," meaning that her husband could have repented of what he had done in that moment of time. There were several weeks between the time Sen. Kennedy wrote to the Pope and his death. He had time.

I can only speak for myself. I have done plenty to offend God, and have many reasons to hope for his mercy. I am not about to judge Sen. Kennedy, out of the fear of God.

About Sen. Kennedy being allowed a public funeral, and the eulogies, and on and on, that's not really the business of anyone commenting here (the Cardinal Archbishop excepted, if he ever comments). Our business as Christians is to forgive Sen. Kennedy for the harm he did, to give thanks to God for the good he did (and he did do some good), and to pray for his soul.

It's the Hour of Mercy as I type this. Seems like a good intention for the Divine Mercy chaplet today.

Posted by: Bill at August 30, 2009 3:09 PM


"you KNEW EXACTLY what I was saying Marie."
Posted by: angel at August 30, 2009 2:12 PM

No, Angel. I really didn’t. I thought that when a Catholic went to confession the priest was acting as an intercessor to God for the forgiveness of the sin. I really didn’t know that (now from what I gather from these posts) that the pope and the priests, etc. could actually forgive a sin. I didn’t know that’s what Catholics believed. I’m not Catholic.

You see, I was taught that the authority that Jesus gave to the apostles was that they could declare Christ’s forgiveness by declaring His gospel. If the apostles didn’t tell someone about the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then of course their sins wouldn’t be forgiven . If the apostles DID tell someone about the Gospel of Jesus Christ and they believe them, then their sins WOULD be forgiven – through what Jesus did on the cross by showing him them that in the verses that preceded the one that Bobby posted. They were given the power to proclaim the terms of forgiveness, but not to actually forgive.

And, according to the scripture that Janet posted that “whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven” meant the same, because this binding and loosing, in the common language of the Jews, signified to forbid and to allow, or to teach what is lawful or unlawful. If people didn’t know about Jesus, of course their sins wouldn’t be forgiven. It was up to the apostles to spread the Gospel. If they didn’t do it, no one would be saved or forgiven because they couldn't do it without knowing about what Jesus did on the cross.

I guess it’s all in what you believe and are taught and who is interpreting the bible for you (man or the Holy Spirit).

Thank you, Angel and Janet, though, for sharing your beliefs and I appreciate your explanations and research!

Posted by: Marie at August 30, 2009 3:10 PM


It is true we will never know if he confessed and truly repented at the end of his life for his extreme support of abortion. There was an article in the NY Post that he was one of the people responsible for the Democrat party become a pro-abortion plank party. It was a very public position to take. He was given a very public catholic funeral and I am disappointed in that because to me it seems to imply that the church had no problem with him taking this position. Since we will never know if he made his peace with God or not by confessing the sin of supporting abortion I think it would have been better to have a much more private kind of funeral. It looked almost like a funeral given for a president. I feel sad that our church chose to do it this way. I don't think it is a question of judging someone's faith but being careful not to give scandal by seeming to not have a problem with someone taking such a public stance on the pro-abortion side and then given such a very public catholic funeral.

Posted by: Fran Sullivan at August 30, 2009 3:34 PM


J, the letter was read out at the funeral yesterday by Cardinal McCarrick. I don't know whether Pope Benedict knew his response would be made public.

Carder, I agree.

Posted by: angel at August 30, 2009 3:41 PM


I've only read the first few comments above. My thoughts are:
1) a letter from Ted Kennedy to His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI should not be publicised unless it was agreed by both parties.
2) whether Pope Benedict XVI responded (or how he responded) to this letter is none of our business - it's between him and Ted Kennedy.
3) when Ted passed from this life, he would have had to answer to his Maker for his actions/non-actions during his time on earth - and that is between him and God.

All we, as faithful Christians (and non-Christians), can do is pray that one day we will all enter Heaven to praise and glorify God.

One final point, we are committing a sin by judging the actions/non-actions of others, as God is the only true Judge. And by judging others, we are also leaving ourselves open to be judged by others. 'Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.'

Posted by: Delene at August 30, 2009 3:51 PM


"Dr. Zero" tells it like it is. He doesn't accept the Kennedy narrative. Excellent:

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/08/30/my-disagreement-with-the-kennedy-narrative/

Posted by: KC at August 30, 2009 3:55 PM


I want you to know, Your Holiness, that in my nearly 50 years of elective office, I have done my best to champion the rights of the poor and open doors of economic opportunity.

Please see the attached resume for further details. I look forward to our interview and feel my experience and qualifications have prepared me for this position. Thank you in advance for your time.

Seriously, What a weird letter to write to the pope.

Posted by: lea at August 30, 2009 4:16 PM


Delene: I can Judge Ted Kennedy's actions in this life. I can judge whether those actions were right or wrong. He didn't represent his unborn constituents. He diligently campaigned for the right of men and women to kill them. That's wrong.

Posted by: angel at August 30, 2009 4:16 PM


I started to read the comments and quickly stopped...when anyone of any faith has the attitude that they have the right to judge someone else, my good sense tells me that they have bigger problems than any they might THINK they are exposing about someone else!

Isn't judging God's job?
Isn't loving all people our job?

Posted by: denny at August 30, 2009 4:27 PM


No, Angel. I really didn’t. I thought that when a Catholic went to confession the priest was acting as an intercessor to God for the forgiveness of the sin. I really didn’t know that (now from what I gather from these posts) that the pope and the priests, etc. could actually forgive a sin. I didn’t know that’s what Catholics believed. I’m not Catholic.

Well, actually, Christ created his priesthood who are anointed to act In Persona Christi. He instituted the sacrament of confession (reconciliation) when He sent His own anointed out and instructed them "whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven; whose sins you shall RETAIN they are retained". He gave them and only them His full authority for such discernment. One does not confess to a man, therefore, but to God in the person of His anointed priest. This is a grave responsibility for His anointed then which, unfortunately, too many do not take seriously. They will have to answer for that. Thus we have had great saints, humble priests, who spent hours and hours in the confessional because of the great graces obtained for sinners. St. Padre Pio was one with the great mystical gift of the ability to "read" souls. He would then be able to discern if one was truly repenting of grave sin with true sorrow. Some would come to him out of mere curiosity and he would let them know in a very gruff peasant sort of way! If they would attempt to hide a grave sin he often would send them away without absolution, knowing that this treatment would force them to recognize the state of their own souls and later return with true contrition. In fact he did this with a woman (from his biography) who later spoke about her confessional experience. He kept asking her if what she had confessed was everything. She replied yes. He asked her to try to remember. She replied she could not remember more. He told her to climb a particular hill and think about it. She went through this experience with him 3 separate times until finally he revealed to her her sin of a past abortion. She then overflowed with true sorrow and repentence. She was freed from this hidden sin. He also expressed to her that that child was a boy intended by God to be a bishop of the Church! There are other instances recalled by others who also spoke to being told the exact scenario, date and time of some particular sins that they were too embarrased to admit. They left the confessional totally freed from what hiding such sins inside for years had done to their spirits. Another man, still living, is Joey Lomangino, an American who was severely injured in an accident and lost both eyes and sense of smell. He relates how he was rather dragged to visit Padre Pio by one of his Italian relatives. When Padre told him of certain sins he had kept hidden with the time and place he said he felt like he was going to faint or something, but in the end, he was humbled by this great saint's true love of all sinners and wanted them freed. And, after an affectionate slap on his cheek by the Padre, Joey's sense of smell, gone from the time of the head injury, was returned to him!! The patron saint of all priests was another great confessor, St. John Vianney, who, through his humility and self sacrifice, converted a whole town where before his assignment there was basically pagan. He was the greatest confessor who had great battles with Satan - esp. before, what he called "a big fish" was about to come to him to confess grave sins. His bed that Satan set on fire to try and convince him to stop is still there for the faithful to view!!!

Posted by: KC at August 30, 2009 4:31 PM


denny: there is nothing wrong with saying that what this politician spent 40 years of his life doing was wrong.
He supported the right of women to choose abortion = the killing of an unborn human person.
Ted Kennedy chose to support abortion. His support was vocal and he did everything he could to support abortion rights.
I consider abortion an immoral act. I therefore consider Ted Kennedy's support of abortion rights to be immoral.
I'm sick to death of this concept that we can't say whether an action is right or wrong. This is moral relativism.

God alone will judge his soul.

Posted by: angel at August 30, 2009 4:37 PM


"Dr. Zero's" disagreement with the Kennedy narrative. Excellent:

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/08/30/my-disagreement-with-the-kennedy-narrative/

Posted by: observer at August 30, 2009 4:40 PM


"About Sen. Kennedy being allowed a public funeral, and the eulogies, and on and on, that's not really the business of anyone commenting here (the Cardinal Archbishop excepted, if he ever comments)."

Excuse me, but isn't a public funeral paid for with public money, i.e., taxes? If it is, then it is my right to protest the cost and make comments for the worship of a person who does not deserve such worship and adulation.

I am sick and tired of Liberalism., i.e, those who are liberal with my money.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at August 30, 2009 5:43 PM


I don't think most "pro-life" folks really are that concerned with protecting human life. It seems to me that they want to win a god-less culture war. Abortion will soon be illegal after the first tri-mester as it should be. Regardless of what the neo-right does, or doesn't do. You should spend more time caring for the children with out homes, the gross over population of the world and in the final analisis their own families who they often neglect to go to war the the peace and justice loving "liberals" they are so quick to asassinate. God bless You Senator Kennedy, your anti-choice sister Eunice,(who we all love and admire) loved and admired you, so do we.

Posted by: Andrew at August 30, 2009 5:45 PM


I'm sick to death of this concept that we can't say whether an action is right or wrong. This is moral relativism.

God alone will judge his soul.
Posted by: angel at August 30, 2009 4:37 PM
*********************

http://bluewavecanada.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-not-lest-ye-be-judged-real.html

Posted by: Kel at August 30, 2009 6:09 PM


LOL, lea. That is exactly what I was thinking.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at August 30, 2009 6:44 PM


The judgment Christians are to refrain from is judgment concerning the eternal fate of anyone. Leave intentions, motives, and final worth to God.
We are not to confuse the judgment of the actions of people with sitting in judgment over them as to their eternal fate.
But reluctance to make judgments concerning sinful acts is to produce that type of paralysis and inactivity that has brought both contemporary society and American Catholics to their present plight.

thank you Kel.

Posted by: angel at August 30, 2009 7:29 PM


"No, Angel. I really didn’t. I thought that when a Catholic went to confession the priest was acting as an intercessor to God for the forgiveness of the sin. I really didn’t know that (now from what I gather from these posts) that the pope and the priests, etc. could actually forgive a sin. I didn’t know that’s what Catholics believed. I’m not Catholic."

I need to reply to be sure that their is no doubt in anybody's mind.

Only God forgives sin. He gives this power (to forgive sins)to men (Priests) to exercise in his name. Article 1441 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

BUT
Article 1451 continues with this. -
"Among the penitent's acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again".

Without contrition, sorrow, detestation, and resolution NOT to sin again, you HAVE NOT made a good confession and your sins are not forgiven.

So, Ted Kennedy must meet all of the above for the salvation of his soul. His arrogance in not following the teachings of the Catholic Church and his insistence that killing the unborn was a just cause, well we will need to leave this in the hands of the Lord.

Posted by: Thomas F. Schraad at August 30, 2009 7:33 PM


You should spend more time caring for the children with out homes

Obviously that's what we're doing - the "homes" are the wombs of the mothers and the children are being evicted, but not by their "choice". When you speak of the homeless you start always with the most vulnerable in your "caring".

Posted by: KC at August 30, 2009 7:37 PM


It's always the same tired arguments, isn't it?

1.) You can't be against abortion unless you adopt every orphan on the planet, give all your money to poor mothers and become an animal rights activist.

2.) Nobody has the right to judge anything anybody does or tell anybody what they can do, ever. Well, except for me. I have the right to make erroneous generalizations and question the motives of entire groups of people and any individual who disagrees with me. I also have the right to support many other laws that tell people exactly what they can or cannot do.

3.) You guys hate poor pregnant women. Even though several of you have been poor pregnant women and/or volunteered your time and money working with poor pregnant woman, only the pro-choice movement can accurately speak for you.

4.) This is an exclusively religious issue. Ignore the science. Ignore the studies. Ignore the post-abortive families. Ignore the pro-life atheists and agnostics. Everything that I don't support is only a religious issue.

Seriously. Somebody come up with something original.

Posted by: Janette at August 30, 2009 8:53 PM


I voted for Senator Kennedy in every election that I have been eligible for, since 1972. I am also a Catholic voter, as are many here in Massachusetts who also voted for him. I know the man had his flaw, as we all do, but I sincerly believe that Senator Kennedy rose above those flaws in the conduct of his official buisness for the people of Massachusetts. I didn't agree with all that Senator Kennedy did but I know that his work for the less fortunate had meaning. If your child is getting an early boost in life through Head Start or attending a better school or can go to college because a Pell Grant has made it more affordable then you have to thank Senator Kennedy. I will continue to look for politicians to elect to ALL offices in our country that hold the same compassionate beliefes that Senator Kennedy did.

Posted by: David at August 30, 2009 9:19 PM


I"m sorry David, but because Ted Kennedy was so proabort, he is indirectly and maybe directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of babies.
That is no small thing.

Voting for someone like this is wrong.

Posted by: angel at August 30, 2009 9:37 PM


Posted by: David at August 30, 2009 9:19 PM
You said -
"but I know that his work for the less fortunate had meaning."

The less fortunate?????? He was responsible for have them killed.

David, he was against the most basic teachings of the Catholic Faith.

You can not be a follower of the Catholic Church and also promote the extermination of 50 million lives.

Either you are Catholic and follow the teachings of the Catholic Church or you are hypocrite.

Posted by: Thomas F. Schraad at August 30, 2009 10:09 PM


David:

We are all held accountable for our actions. Lying to oneself and self-justification won't work before a Holy God.

The church who you profess to be a member of condemns abortion. Despite this you were willing to put your politics ahead of your faith. And the Bible teaches one cannot serve two masters.

Know this, your vote resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent children. There is simply no other way to get around this.

I am sick and tired of you Liberal Northeasterners in NY and MA telling all the rest of us what is right and what is wrong. As far as I'm concerned take your tax and spend economies and go some where else.

Massachusetts is a hell hole along with NYC. Don't believe me, just take a stroll through Cape Cod and downtown Manhattan. The debauchery is beyond belief.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at August 30, 2009 10:22 PM


For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God. Ephesians 2:8

- Which means that we can't be saved by works but by faith. That's what Jesus said. Forgiveness is granted upon repentance of sins. It's a personal relationship between God and man that can't be asked from anybody in this world. But others can pray for you... for healing etc. not SALVATION. Also, reference to John 3:16.

I pray for the families who are left behind. May God's peace and love be with them.

Posted by: Smith at August 30, 2009 10:23 PM


This too David:

You were willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent children for college money?

This is no different that what the Israelites did when hey sacrificed their children on the altars of fire to the false god Molech.

You haven't got a clue do you?

Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at August 30, 2009 10:25 PM


David:

I'd rather live one day and not go to college than sacrifice an innocent child and face a Holy God at Judgement Day.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at August 30, 2009 10:28 PM


Good post, Janette. :D

If I might add another cliched argument that leaves me wanting to bang my head into a brick wall:

"It's not even a real person. Never mind that, despite my best hopes, women aren't stupid enough to buy into that and when abortion is not an issue they're called babies and fetus is a medical/proper term, much the equivalent of saying 'they're not humans, they're homo sapien sapiens...there's a difference.' Women totally have abortions for fun. They're often times sitting on the operating table reading People, wondering if they should have the iced mocha or the pumpkin roll when they hit Starbucks after this. It's all casual. No biggie. It's no different from having your tonsils removed."

Posted by: Vannah at August 30, 2009 10:43 PM


"I will not sit here and hero-worship a murderous liar."

Posted by: xalisae at August 30, 2009 11:43 AM

Classic Xalisae, I love it how you tell it like it is.
********************

"Oh well. Kennedy's probably busy right now making 50 million apologies."

Posted by: carder at August 30, 2009 3:04 PM

Unfortunately, I doubt he's anywhere near those children. I hope I'm wrong, but I haven't seen anything to indicate he found saving faith in Christ.

We are all sinners. It doesn't matter what good things Ted thought he did - not one bit.

He clearly was deserving of Hell, just like me. The only question is, did he before he died, pray and confess to Jesus that he was a sinner and thank Jesus for taking his place on the cross and for shedding His blood for the forgiveness of his sins. Then if he rose up from that prayer with a Holy Spirit-inspired resolve to live his remaining days serving his risen Savior, Jesus Christ, grateful for His Love and Mercy, Ted will have made it to Heaven.

If not . . .

Posted by: Ed at August 30, 2009 11:00 PM


Dear Pope: Me, me, me, me, me. I, I, I, I, I. Me. I. Me. I.
-TK

P.S.: I. -TK

Posted by: Row1 at August 30, 2009 11:12 PM


But reluctance to make judgments concerning sinful acts is to produce that type of paralysis and inactivity that has brought both contemporary society and American Catholics to their present plight.

thank you Kel.

Posted by: angel at August 30, 2009 7:29 PM


EXACTLY! It is judgment that keeps society in check, and it is the judgment (or lack of) that so many people complain about regarding the Catholic Church. Darned if you do, darned if you don't I guess.

We DO NOT have the right to say this person will go to hell because we cannot know the state of his/her soul, but we have the right and the duty to judge their actions on Earth.


And David,

Who is to say that another Senator from Massachusetts would not have done all the things Kennedy did AND protect the unborn? You are an accomplice in the deaths of those children by NOT voting for a pro-life candidate when you could have.

Posted by: Kristen at August 30, 2009 11:16 PM


It is clear that many on this board are steeped in a false religion. If you have any concern for your eternal souls, you should abandon the Roman church and heed the Word of God, the Bible.

Ted Kennedy's pathetic and desperate appeal to Joseph Ratzinger provides an excellent example of the fruits of the pagan and idolatrous thinking which is one of the hallmarks of the Roman Catholic mindset, a mindset fostered and perpetuated by this apostate church.

Heed the word of God: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." I Timothy 2:5

Flee from her, people.

Posted by: Brad at August 30, 2009 11:47 PM


Brad,

For as long as the Roman Catholic Church continues to stand steadfast in her virtues, I will follow God through her.

"You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

The Roman Catholic Church stands steadfast in proclaiming the gospel of the Lord, valuing life and human dignity.

Yes, it is possible to become idolatrous in any religion. This is why we must be ever vigilant. Simply being religious will never be enough. Accepting Christ as your savior is done through actions, not through words. It is something you do every day, not once in your lifetime.

You think the Roman Catholic Church is to blame for Ted Kennedy's behavior, but I place the blame squarely on his shoulders. He chose to worship the almighty dollar. He sold out. I pray he found his way back to God. The man knew what he was doing. This wasn't a result of his religion.

An unfaithful Catholic is an unfair bases by which to judge the Church. Judge our virtue by our faithful. We will return the favor.

Posted by: MaryRose at August 31, 2009 12:02 AM


I believe it is possible for a true born again believer to remain in the Roman church, and I know it happens, but it always baffles me.

The doctrines of the Roman church are so contrary to the Bible that a love for the Bible should automatically preclude any affection whatsoever for a church that has led billions astray.

As for unfaithful Catholics, many of the greatest saints of history are unfaithful Catholics. The Bible defines a saint as any true believer in Christ Jesus, not someone to adulate or to whom anyone should pray.

As for Kennedy, if he is in torment now, it is certainly not because he was an unfaithful Catholic. Many unfaithful Catholics are currently in the presence of the Lord because they chose to believe the truth of the Word of God rather than the traditions of a false religion which contradicts the Bible in many matters essential to salvation.

Posted by: brad at August 31, 2009 12:30 AM


Brad,

It isn't the doctrines that are contrary to the Bible. It is poor interpretation of the doctrines. Misinformation, and misunderstanding. That is what leads believers astray. That is why it is extremely important to study scripture, to pray, and to educate ourselves on the meaning of Canon Law, and on the meaning of the Catechism. Many priests, MANY priests, fail in this.

Kennedy was a liar. He claimed, led even himself to believe, that he was a good and faithful Catholic. Meanwhile, he strove diligently to an end which directly countered the teachings found both in scripture and throughout the Vatican.

I never said that an unfaithful Catholic was automatically a bad person. I simply said that there is courtesy found in judging out virtue by our truly faithful. That is to say, those who follow Canon Law to the letter, who study scripture regularly, and who treat ALL humans, from natural conception to natural death, with respect and dignity.

I would like to know in which ways you believe that Canon Law contradicts the Bible. If you'd like to email me, as this is likely to get in-depth, I'm at myrrhmyrrh@gmail.com

Posted by: MaryRose at August 31, 2009 3:25 AM


Dear Merlin, there are many things on which you and I, upon which we all can agree. We care for the poor, hungry, homeless, unemployed, uninsured ... it's part of our faith and heart to care ... "for the least of these ... " We care for the environment and the importance of being good stewards of the life and creation which God has given us charge over. But then you take these wild "potshots" - seriously false or defective statements/charges - one example - with a broad brush, you falsely state that Catholics condone the murder of abortionists (which you euphemistically call simply "doctors")
First, of all name and count the abortion doctors which have been killed since Roe v. Wade ... they are very few (compared to the millions murdered by abortion). I ask this because the comparison of the violence which you lay at the feet of those who are pro-life, with that of those who propose the deadly solution to an unplanned pregnancy, if honestly answered, will be evident to all. Yours is the extreme point of view with the false accusations ... not those who are truly pro-life. Secondly, name the Roman Catholic bishops who have condoned the killing of abortion doctors. There are none to my knowledge. Any statements that I have read following such rare acts of killing have roundly condemned them. Even "violence" against abortion facilities rarely happens, that's why it makes such big news when it does ... because it's so seldom ... Even then, it's a fringe radical, isolated person with little support. By and far, the vast majority of those who consider themselves pro-life are committed to peaceful, legal, prayerful means of insuring that the dignity of all human life from conception to natural death is upheld. And they staff, support, volunteer for organizations that give real support moral and material to women to show them that there really is a choice (which pro-aborts seek to hide/conceal from them), that they can choose life, that it is possible, that God will make a way for them (though it usually will not be easy).
It is you who refuse to condemn the unjust taking of innocent human life, as if to say the sacrifice of these innocent pre-born human beings is an acceptable price or trade-off to pay for a wider social agenda which aims at helping the less fortunate.
That, as others have said, really and truly is another form of child sacrifice to what you seem to see as an acceptable agenda. This is what we see as abhorrent, inhumane, barbaric and incompatible with being the intelligent,advanced, morally superior, progressive society which we think we have become. We're supposed to be better than that, we can do better, we can assist women to choose life and help provide a better life for those who are having difficulties in making ends meet. It is wrong and immoral to take an innocent human life no matter what the circumstances. That is one of the immutable, unchanging truths that exist. That's an absolute truth. It is always wrong in every case. I know The word absolute makes many uncomfortable ... that is ... unless they choose to use it to make their points ... Nevertheless, properly understood there are absolute truths. We also make laws prohibiting certain behaviors. Rape is wrong and immoral, and it is against the law. Abortion was wrong and immoral according the Hippocratic Oath which undiluted and unchanged until modern times all doctors were required to take. Abortion was wrong and illegal according to the laws of the United States and Western Civilization until the most modern times. What has changed? Man has chosen to go against nature and nature's God, subverted conscience and law, in order to follow immoral inclinations ... to hide, to do away with (to abort) the natural consequences of sexual activity which is the begetting of new life ... reproduction, desiring the "freedom" to engage in sexual activity/pleasure without accepting responsibility for the natural consequences (cause and effect) of that intimacy which God ordained for the beauty of lifelong committed marital love between man and woman, husband and wife, to deepen and strengthen their union and bring forth new creations made in His image and likeness (and theirs' too), to have a family of life and love. Abortion strikes at the very heart of God's loving, generous plan for mankind.
And, oh, for your brainwashed hyped up concern for overpopulation ... God thought of that, in the way He renews the earth, and its population ... people die in the course of life and people are born in the course of life ... He created the planet in the context of the solar system and universe to sustain us. Surely many cities are overpopulated, but many are in decline ... certainly with our ingenuity, we can plan in such ways to make better use of our resources and space, but in a humane and moral way. Recently I read that the entire world's population could fit (not crowded elbow to elbow) in the State of Texas. Fear is being used as a tactic, by those who are irrationally bent on convincing us that their view of overpopulation of the earth and paucity of resources is correct and urgent in order to pressure us to accept draconian and immoral means to control and reduce the world's population ... as the ultimate priority for our day and age ... again putting those goals ahead of recognizing, respecting, preserving and protecting the sanctity of every human life (making them the absolutes!) We can, as a just society say that abortion is wrong and prohibit it as violence against innocent human life. (It also damages women, physically, psychologically, emotionally, financially, socially and spiritually) Another thing to remember is the precept that the Law is a teacher.
Many people think that if something is legal, then it must be okay ... there must be nothing wrong with it. People bend the laws all of the time to suit their own purposes. People bend the truth all of the time to make it possible to have things their way. Lies were told, deceptions made in order to get the Supreme Court to change the law of the land, to conjure up a privacy clause/intention in the Constitution. In an effort to persuade the Court to act on emotion to enact social change, rather than properly interpret facts in the light of the law, it is now known fact that the numbers of maternal deaths due to illegal abortions were falsely and greatly inflated ... "Jane Roe", the plaintiff, was said to have been impregnated by rape and was unable to get an abortion in her native state ... which we now know was false ... that she was pregnant by her boyfriend. Changing the longstanding law of the land (and Western Civilization) was based on falsehoods and fabrications. Do you like living a lie, Merlin?
I don't. And I don't like living in a lie which leads to the corruption of our once great nation and these generations who have seriously lost their way which endangers the well-being of us all. It's not just a private matter. It affects everyone on many levels, our children, the integrity of family, our political, sociological, economic and educational system, faith life, polluting our moral and physical environment. It affects our churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, our nation, our world. It affects the universe, knocking it out of balance.


Dear Brad,
Your reading of the Bible is selective ...
You take a few verses out of context to make your point. After coming to Jesus in a non-Catholic setting, I sought the Lord on some of the disputed points between Catholicism and Protestantism, I got down on my knees and beseeched God to show me ... so, there with my Bible, in prayer, guided by the Holy Spirit, He showed me the undeniable Truths found in the Catholic faith were right there in the Holy Scriptures ... addressed to Him, I asked Him humbly, directly, without preconceptions about some of these issues/teachings/beliefs ... "What about the Pope?", "What is my relationship with the Blessed Virgin Mary supposed to be?" "What about the Holy Eucharist?" "Does the priest really have the authority to forgive (me my personal) sins?"
I hate to say it but those who profess to be pure Bible believing Christian ... in the end, whether they know it or not, are choosing someone's brand or interpretation of Scriptue, one way or the other. Usually they end up conveniently choosing to ignore some (even whole passages of) Scripture while seizing on others to make their point. Truth is not served by deception or omission to make one's point. If you want to serve, proclaim, and live the whole saving Gospel of Jesus Christ, then turn to the Church which He Himself established to insure that His teaching in its fullness and integrity would be passed down to every generation and nation. Proverbs says, "A three ply cord is not easily broken." So that Divine Revelation would be handed on whole and entire, He provided Holy Scripture, the written Word of God, Sacred Tradition (capital "T" to be distinguished from man's mere customs or traditions which He condemned when they were used to nullify God's Commandments)which is the living Word of God, His words and actions handed down in the life of His Church (St. Paul alluded to this when he said to hold fast to his teaching and way of life which he communicated - given by his spoken word in person or written in his letters), this is found most importantly in the liturgical life of the Church, AND thirdly ... the third strand in the three ply cord is the ongoing, led by the Holy Spirit, according to His word and promise, teaching authority of the Church ... which we call by the Latin name ... the Magisterium ... from the word for "teacher". It is by His will and according to His promises that He chose to do things this way ... and you can find that in the whole Scriptures (read the entire New Testament this way), if you will do what I did ... get down on your knees, and beg, beseech, pray ... and have an open mind and heart in docility to the Holy Spirit to show you and surrender to the whole truth which is there. My faith is in Jesus Christ, as my Lord and Savior, who revealed this to me ... what He has revealed is a lot bigger than you (and others before you) have tried to narrow it down to. It was only since then that with further study that I saw that the Roman Catholic Church has as the basis of its teaching the very Scriptures which God showed me during that time of my life when I was absolutely committed to getting it right. It was also then that I was not going to listen to what this person or that person says the Catholic Church teaches about this or that (because sadly even some of its members and representatives are ignorant or in error about what it really teaches)
I made it a point, with the grace of God, to find out what it really teaches by going to the sources of its official teaching ... You can be sure that because of the role Jesus gave to Peter as "the Rock upon which I build my Church" and the authority which He gave to Him and His faithful Apostles after His Resurrection, "To you I give the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven ... what you bind on earth is bound in heaven ... what you loose on earth is loosed in heaven" and "Go make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them ALL that I have commanded you (to do)", promising them the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead them/guide them into all truth. The Pope and the Bishops who teach in union with him are indisputably the legitimate successors (Apostolic succession) to Saint Peter and the Apostles. When he/they speak authoritatively on matters of faith and morals, they have the guarantee of speaking with Christ's own authority ... His voice on earth ... "Whoever hears you, hears Me, and whoever hears Me, hears the Father (the One who sent Me). Just because some representatives or followers have failed in the moral life or have strayed from the faith does not nullify the Word of God, and His promises ... they have to answer to Him for their failings ... if a bishop or a priest breaks union with the Pope in his official teaching on faith and morals, they lose their authority and you have no obligation to follow them ... because they are no longer speaking with the voice of Christ and His Church ... Sometimes it takes time before that is sorted out ... but because of the "sensus fidelium" the sense of the True and Authentic faith given by the Holy Spirit to the Body of Christ (as a whole), it usually quickly becomes evident. Original sources for the true teaching of the Church would be found in approved translations of the Bible, Official documents of its declarations ... such of those of the Church Councils ... Nicea, Chalcedon, Trent, the First and Second Vatican Councils ... the Official Catechisms which have come out of those Councils (most currently the Catechism of the Catholic Church), the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the official documents issued by each Pope: Encyclicals, Declarations, Apostolic Constitutions, Letters, Exhortations, etc. If you go to the official vatican website ... www.vatican.va you can find a whole treasure trove of them ... St. Paul said to the young bishop whom he chose and ordained to head a particular church (diocese), "Timothy, guard the deposit." Was he talking about money?
No, he was telling Timothy to guard the deposit of Faith which Paul handed on to him by word, example and letter. How is it guarded? By making sure that it is faithfully/authentically handed down whole and entire to each generation and to every people. Governance is part of the mission of the hierarchy of the Church. Is there a bureacracy? Yes ... do some get caught up in the administrative aspects and lose sight of the heart of the Gospel? Do some Church bureacrats and admistrators forget to use their authority as Christ taught (especially in His teaching and example at the Last Supper when He washed His Apostles feet and told them that they must do the same, exercising authority as one who serves, as the least)? Unfortunately yes ... the Church is composed of human beings ... that's why the Church needs constant renewal and calling back to its first Love, Jesus Christ and listening to Him ... then governing, teaching, sanctifying, evangelizing after the model of His example and in the power and grace of His Holy Spirit.
Sometimes we need to even have the same attitude towards some of our shepherds, which He indicated his disciple should have towards the religious authorities of His day ... "Because they hold the place of Moses and the 72 (elders), you must obey what they tell you, but not follow their example."
Of course we must be very careful not to be too selective according to what our tastes and inclinations are, but according to what is really right and the authentic teaching of the Church is ... which every Catholic should endeavor to know as much as possible according to their abilities and state in life ... we're not all teachers, we're not all apostles, we're not all evangelists ... but we are all members of the Body of Christ ... and working together in the plan of God and according to the order which He has set up, need to discover, develop and exercise the gifts which He has given us for the building up of His Body, and the spread of His Kingdom, of which He is the Head & King (of All Nations). There is One Lord, One King, One Faith,One Baptism, One Body. There is a true authentic Church founded by Christ Jesus, under the Father and it is known by these 4 marks: it is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.
Please forgive me for writing so much ... I've lost a good night's sleep over this ... I hope it makes sense and is worth your reading. One can't say it all in a single letter/comment.

Posted by: S.P. at August 31, 2009 4:34 AM



Yes, Rose Kennedy did display a strong Catholic

faith, and the Kennedy clan should all thank God

God that SHE was obviously very PRO-LIFE!

Posted by: Joan Scheidler at August 31, 2009 4:38 AM


Dear Pope: Me, me, me, me, me. I, I, I, I, I. Me. I. Me. I.
-TK

P.S.: I. -TK
Posted by: Row1 at August 30, 2009 11:12 PM

Pope: good grief! :(

Posted by: angel at August 31, 2009 6:37 AM


Mary, what do you mean "other peoples money?" It's called taxes, you pay them out of every single paycheck, as well as I and so did Sen. Kennedy. Why do you pay taxes? Where would you like the money to go? What cause would be worthy of your tax money, as if you are the only person who pays taxes. I don't have health insurance, I'm not rich but yet I don't cringe when FED INCOME TAX is deducted from my payroll check. As far as abortion, I feel it's wrong, but I do believe that is the choice of the parents in counsel of their spiritual leader, family and loved ones. If a woman doesn't want to carry and bear the child, I don't have to like it, but I can't make it a law to tell her she has to if she doesn't want to for whatever reason. Its her choice, she will have to answer for her sins just like the rest of us. All sins are equal remember? I'm sure we have all committed a few of those at some point of our lives. Maybe not you MURIEL, I'm sure by your words that sin is something you very seldom engage in. I am not Catholic so the Pope to me is just a Holy Man. I do not hold much more significance in him than that. I also do not believe someone can't be pro-choice and desire adequate healthcare for all. That is also sick to think that. I am pro choice, but I also believe people who need medical care should get it. Or maybe for the self-righteous, only those who are anti-abortion should have equal access to healthcare? Does that sound better? I didn't think so. I don't think people should have to lay down and die from illness because of their views on a choice they feel should go to the individual. You guys are terribly judgemental and because of that, I hope you never have to make choices that question your morality, and I also hope you have everything you need and will never have to ask for help, ever.

God Bless.

Posted by: Kinz2032 at August 31, 2009 8:57 AM


Brad, I agree with you. I have a LOT in my family that are Catholic. I really loved the mass--the reverence of it. There is a lot about the Catholic church I loved. I respect how dedicated my parish was to eradicating abortion in my hometown. BUT...there was never any surety of salvation. At Catholic funerals it was " I hope....I hope this person is in heaven." Whereas, in my new church, a church where the Pastor can say at a funeral " This person confessed their sins and asked Jesus to save their soul so i KNOW he/she is in heaven!"

Last night in church we learned that God had commanded 633 different laws. If you offend in one part of the law you offend in it all. There is no human way we can't break at least ONE of God's laws. I mean, take the ten commandments. I have broken a few of them. I am guilty. I deserve hell because a perfect holy God cannot allow me with my sin into heaven, or else it wouldn't be heaven anymore! So I have asked Jesus to forgive me for my sin, to intercede on my behalf to His Father and to grant me eternal life.

And you know what???? JESUS FORGAVE ME! JESUS SAVED ME! Jesus loves me and I have a relationship with Him! The peace I have, the wonder of this miracle...I cannot describe. The Catholic church points to works for salvation. That is not what the Bible says. It doesn't matter what church you belong to--it only matters that you are trusting CHRIST ALONE for your salvation.

Posted by: Sydney M at August 31, 2009 8:58 AM


Brad,
The Bible is a Catholic Book! It was the Catholic Church who, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, decided which books were to be included in the New Testament. (There were false gospels and letters floating around.) The readings in the NT canon were the readings read at the Catholic Mass. As the printing press was not invented yet, and very few hand-written Bibles, this is how Christians learned their Bible - at Mass. Oh, and statues, paintings, and stained-glass windows also helped Christians learn the Bible.

You are using a Catholic book as the basis of your faith! Well, not absolutely, as Protestants have removed books from the OT that were in use at the time of Jesus and the Apostles, but that is another story....

A good resource for understanding this is a cd "Which Came First, the Bible or the Church?" It explains how certain books came to be in the NT and explains why the OT books were included in the Bible and why the Protestants removed them.
https://www.lighthousecatholicmedia.com/store/products/which_came_first-the_bible_or_the_church;jsessionid=93841749842000d576697ba1950d

Posted by: Eileen at August 31, 2009 9:04 AM


Kinz2032--I don't like rape, but if a man CHOOSES to force his genitalia into a woman's body against her will, I can't FORCE my beliefs on him. I mean if he's going to do it, he will just have to answer for his own sins.

HUH? What kind of a society do we live in where we will stand by and allow a stronger person to assault or murder a weaker defenseless person? Why don't you like abortion? Cause maybe you know its the MURDER OF A CHILD? And if you know that, why don't you stand up and do something about it?

A lot of women have abortions because no one in their lives support them in their decision to have the baby. my friends who had abortions DID NOT WANT THEM but felt they had no other alternative when their parents and boyfriends withdrew their support. Pregnant women are tired and hormonal and without support its easy to crumble and say "fine! lets abort!"

but the pain these women endure for years afterward. Abortion is cruel to everyone involved. You are not respecting women to say "well, I don't like abortion but whatever...."

Posted by: Sydney M at August 31, 2009 9:11 AM


Running a test. Just ignore me.

Posted by: Tim Challies Author Profile Page at August 31, 2009 9:17 AM


"You guys are terribly judgemental "

How dare you judge us!

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at August 31, 2009 9:18 AM


Just another test.

Posted by: Tim Challies Author Profile Page at August 31, 2009 9:18 AM


More tests.

Posted by: Tom at August 31, 2009 9:19 AM


Hi Sydney.

"The Catholic church points to works for salvation. "

Where does the Catholic Church teach this?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at August 31, 2009 9:20 AM


The Catholic church points to works for salvation.
Posted by: Sydney M at August 31, 2009 8:58 AM

That's not true, Sydney. The RCC points to works as demonstrative of one's faith and ongoing conversion. The RCC believes there should be a conformity between one's faith and one's actions. As James notes, even demons believe in God.

James 2:14-26
1 John 3:17-18

Posted by: Fed Up at August 31, 2009 9:29 AM


Bobby,

If you want to make a point for your view, try not to make it extremely weak. I am more than happy to see your take on the issue. Grow up.

Posted by: Kinz2032 at August 31, 2009 9:29 AM


Sydney M,

If you are going to make a comparison, let it not be apples and oranges. An abortion unlike rape, involves a woman, and her body, with a life sustaining from her own. It is inside of her and it is %100 reliant on her. Like I said, I do not agree with aborting babies, I just don't know how can I force a woman to have one. What do we do, put a cork in her uterus? Keep her from jumping down the stairs or hide all of the wire hangers in her house. Also, block all the internet sites for certain herbal teas? Be realistic and logical. You dont' have to believe in it but how can you prevent it without intervening in a persons reproductive affairs? A rape is a person sexually assaulting someone through force, intoxication or carnal knowledge of a minor. How is that like rape? Come on, that isn't even a logical comparison! I am a woman, I feel no one should tell me what I should or should not keep in my body. Period. Whether anyone agrees or not. Babies are important, I use to be one. Also, so are children, people want to protect the unborn but are you advocating for the breathing children who are living in filthy conditions without proper food and also, without health insurance? Do you advocate healthcare for those millions of children? Or do you simply follow the causes that intice your strong, unshakable, always loyal, never astray Faith?

Posted by: Kinz2032 at August 31, 2009 9:32 AM


I hope you never have to make choices that question your morality, and I also hope you have everything you need and will never have to ask for help, ever.

Posted by: Kinz2032 at August 31, 2009 8:57 AM

Come on. Who has NEVER had to make a moral choice? Who has NEVER had to ask for help? This is just silly. Everyday we are confronted with moral choices. Voting for instance, giving to charity, and myriad other things.

We SHOULD be asking for help and guidance in all that we do, that is how we are able to make good moral choices. It's those that do not ask for help that make bad choices. Teddy, from what we could observe, felt he knew it all and needed no help from his Faith to guide his actions. This led to bad decisions. I do hope he repented and is able to see God. I am not in charge of his ultimate judgment but I can look at him and tell my children he was wrong in what he did on Earth.

Posted by: Kristen at August 31, 2009 9:32 AM


My point is that you made a self-refuting statement by judging us for judging.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at August 31, 2009 9:33 AM


"You guys are terribly judgemental and because of that, I hope you never have to make choices that question your morality, and I also hope you have everything you need and will never have to ask for help, ever."

People always have to make difficult choices. We simply believe that one can't make a choice that involves killing another human person to make a life easier. That is what abortion is all about. The baby must sacrifice it's life for the convenience of the mother. That is the reason most abortions are performed.


ps: I don't think Bobby "knows" how to make a weak argument. ;)

Posted by: angel at August 31, 2009 9:39 AM


I just don't know how can I force a woman to have one. What do we do, put a cork in her uterus? Keep her from jumping down the stairs or hide all of the wire hangers in her house. Also, block all the internet sites for certain herbal teas? Be realistic and logical.

Posted by: Kinz2032 at August 31, 2009 9:32 AM


Be realistic and logical? How about you try it first? Nothing you said in that comment made any sense. A baby, even inside a mother, is a living human being. Separate DNA, separate brain waves, unique fingerprints.

How is abortion like rape? It is a moral wrong, that's how.

Let me put it to you this way. If I had a kidney that could save someone else should I donate that kidney? Wouldn't withholding that kidney be selfish? That person couldn't live without my kidney just as a baby cannot live without a few months in its mother's womb. Would I be "inconvienced" for a time if I donate my kidney? Probably. Would it be the right, and moral thing to do? Absolutely. Same thing for the mother of that baby. Adoption is a too little taken advantage of option.

Boo hoo, the mother has to give birth. She could have taken precautions before getting pregnant to prevent that. I am pregnant right now and for the VAST majority of mothers pregnancy is hardly the nightmare pro-aborts make it out to be. I am still able to take care of my 6 other children, my house and, until recently, work a full time job.

Let's get real. You DON'T WANT to tell other women they can't get an abortion because you feel it's okay to murder the child. With any other moral question - rape, slavery, healthcare, you have NO PROBLEM voicing your opposition.

Posted by: Kristen at August 31, 2009 9:46 AM


ps: I don't think Bobby "knows" how to make a weak argument. ;)

Posted by: angel at August 31, 2009 9:39 AM


AMEN sister!

Posted by: Kristen at August 31, 2009 9:48 AM


(sorry if this is a repeat...didn't see my first post)...

Brad,
The Bible is a Catholic Book! It was the Catholic Church who, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, decided which books were to be included in the New Testament. (There were false gospels and letters floating around.) The readings in the NT canon were the readings read at the Catholic Mass. As the printing press was not invented yet, and very few hand-written Bibles, this is how Christians learned their Bible - at Mass. Oh, and statues, paintings, and stained-glass windows also helped Christians learn the Bible.

You are using a Catholic book as the basis of your faith! Well, not absolutely, as Protestants have removed books from the OT that were in use at the time of Jesus and the Apostles, but that is another story....

A good resource for understanding this is a cd "Which Came First, the Bible or the Church?" It explains how certain books came to be in the NT and explains why the OT books were included in the Bible and why the Protestants removed them.
https://www.lighthousecatholicmedia.com/store/products/which_came_first-the_bible_or_the_church;jsessionid=93841749842000d576697ba1950d

Posted by: Eileen at August 31, 2009 9:49 AM


Teddy, from what we could observe, felt he knew it all and needed no help from his Faith to guide his actions. This led to bad decisions. I do hope he repented and is able to see God. I am not in charge of his ultimate judgment but I can look at him and tell my children he was wrong in what he did on Earth.
Posted by: Kristen at August 31, 2009 9:32 AM

exactly. It was a form of pride that led Ted Kennedy along with many other "Catholic" politicians to believe that they knew better than the teachings of their church.
If they did not believe in what the Catholic church taught, especially in the area of sexual morality, they should have left the church. No one would think of belonging to any other sort of group, organization or club without espousing what they believe in!
After 40 years of liberal pap and resistance, have they changed the teachings of the Catholic church. No. And they never will because those teachings are from God. The whole notion is beyond absurd.

Posted by: angel at August 31, 2009 9:49 AM


HI Kinz2032.

We got off on the wrong foot, and for that I apologize. My guess is that you will make the (correct) observation that you were simply pointing out the fact that we were judging. Stating a fact. Nothing more. I agree in the true sense of the word "judge." However, as you scroll up, you will notice many people incorrectly applying the word "judge" as in when they quote scripture- "Judge lest ye be judged" to try and tell us that we can never say that anything anyone ever does is morally wrong. So what I was doing was using the incorrect, "liberal" use of the word judgment when I made the comment about your post, simply attempting to point out the incorrect use of the word. Possibly not for your edification, but hopefully for others. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at August 31, 2009 9:53 AM


It is clear that many on this board are steeped in a false religion. If you have any concern for your eternal souls, you should abandon the Roman church and heed the Word of God, the Bible.

Wow! A contemporary pharisee ordering their followers to disregard this "Christ" Person's Own Will. And just where have you received that "Word of God" that you follow in its truest and purest translation? Surprise ... from the original Body of Christ with its complete deposit of Faith, now continuing unbroken from its very foundation by Christ Himself in Peter. It is too bad that through that Reformation, which you seem to enjoy living out even further now in its own human mistakes, a new religion (not merely a righteous "reform") was formed by changing those precious words of scripture itself (words of God)by Luther himself in order to placate his own fears of his image of the God of justice. Ever since that mistake there have been continuing errors based on that self-centered act of personally sanctioned authority. Since that time there has been nothing more than the further decimation of the One Body of Christ on this earth - in the latest fads forming newer "Churches of What's Happening Now" everyday. We see that continuum through contemporary cultural adaptation, in the Lutheran church itself, the Anglican, the Episcopalian, the Presbyterian, the Baptist, etc., and those schismatic sects even within the Catholic Church, doing satan's work of greater destruction in order to justify sin and disobedience. And by what authority do those errors continue you might ask? Why, by followers of those "reformers" in their own willful and convenient acceptance of adulterated, biblical text - the one so co-opted by those who follow men rather than what God had intended in His prayer for Unity as He left this earth.

There is not any Church Doctrine formed through the continuous action of the Holy Spirit, prophesied by Christ Himself, that does not have for its very foundation the holy scriptures, in their purest form and intention.

We must remember the choices of sinful men by Christ Himself in His very foundation of His earthly institution of His Church, His body on earth - Church militant. What could be worse than the choice of someone who would choose, by his free will - (just as Kennedy has his own free will in his choices to disobey) - to commit deicide??? Or, Peter, who needed constant prayer by the Lord, to carry out his purpose as a man, and yet still not only denied his God friend, but ranted, in a Kennedy-esque hysterical mode with curses, etc., his personal cover-up out of fear. All of that was known by Christ and yet it did not force God to form another group - some renewed group, reformed group, of those who would self-rightously anoint themselves as better than the original group of apparently weak kneed doubters - the first apostles themselves! No, it is promised, through Peter, the first pope (in Christ's own words, in holy scripture), place of Peter, that the gates of hell would not prevail against this original Church of His and Peter's. And there is that continuum to Peter in only one form that has not been changed by man or altered in its basic Truths - beyond the personal disobedience of members, just as in its beginning. It has suffered immensely and at times, only through a remnant of true faithful has it come through - just as in the old covenant times of the OT the remnant Jewish faithful came through. Because we are not just fighting among men and their obvious limitations, but principalities and powers that divide men among themselves and attempt to continue the destruction of Christ's Body, wounding Him over and over again, through the self anointed who would respect bigotry in the name of righteousness, rather than hope for that promise of reunion of all in His one body and one Church. That Church cannot be some pliable and bendable non-constant truth without the original authority established by Christ to lead it under one Shepherd. Remember, the pharisees too had adopted their own way out of God's original will for His people, and because people followed their willful and intentional mis-interpreted and evil bigoted teachings to their followers, the little ones were blocked from true understanding of God's original Will, not man's. These such pharisees continue today to block others, as the pharisees then blocked the small, forming Christian Church, from humbly joining in the Church of Christ's own formation, intended to never be divided - just as He and His Father are still One as then too.

Posted by: observer at August 31, 2009 10:01 AM


Hi Sydney.

"The Catholic church points to works for salvation. "

Where does the Catholic Church teach this?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 31, 2009 9:20 AM

Bobby,

Does the Catholic Church teach faith in Jesus Christ plus nothing else is required for salvation? I'm just curious from reading your comment above, that's all!

Posted by: Marie at August 31, 2009 10:03 AM


Marie,

I will definitely get to your question... but I have to go now. I should get to it around 2-3. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at August 31, 2009 10:11 AM


As if people can't make decisions in their own lives based upon their knowledge of what is appropriate to do and what is not...Ugh. Ridiculous.

Kinz2032, I can't figure out if you're indirectly accusing us all of being hypocrites, or implying that none of us have ever had to make a choice that made our lives more difficult for the sake of someone else because it was the right thing to do...Either way, you're absolutely wrong on both counts, and not all of us used religion as a justification for our decisions, either. Gah.

I'm growing weary. How did the world come to this? I'm just so upset right now after reading some of the...just awful things our young people think about the importance of protecting life and doing the right thing for the sake of others...all so self-centered...their priorities are so out of line...

"If you are killing something that has never been self-aware nor possesses a personality then yes it would be okay to kill it if it is currently inconvenient."

"Yes, those in a comatose should be allowed to live since they still have a personality even though it is as you say dormant. I don't really see how a human being that isn't conscious and has no personality is valuable. A fetus is a member of the human species, but given that like a brain dead individual it has no personality and isn't conscious then it isn't entitled to the same rights as other humans."

"A person is self aware, aware of their own existance, capable of thought etc I think it was described as 'an agent experiencing a life'.
No, I don't think a newborn is a person. They don't develop the necessary brain structures for a few years, I believe."

"Women own their own bodies. No one has the right to use another person's body if that person is unwilling. If something is in my uterus that I do not want there, that's my call. None of us ever had the right to be born. Babies do not have 'rights' to use their mother's body."

and it just goes on, and on, and on, and on. And some of these people teach children. And some of these people HAVE children. And some of these people are children. I'm just at a total loss right now.

Posted by: xalisae at August 31, 2009 10:19 AM


" Marie, I will definitely get to your question... but I have to go now. I should get to it around 2-3"

That would be EASTERN time, not weird Chicago Jill Stanek time... :)

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at August 31, 2009 10:43 AM


Thanks, Bobby.

I was actually just looking for a "yes" or "no" answer!

Seeya later!

Posted by: Marie at August 31, 2009 10:46 AM


From Ted's letter to the Pope, "I have always tried to be a faithful Catholic, Your Holiness, and though I have fallen short through human failings, I have never failed to believe and respect the fundamental teachings of my faith."

In my opinion he erred greatly in his understanding of what the fundamental teaching of Catholicism are; namely abortion. It's a staple of the Catholic faith and he did fail on this issue miserably.

Whether he truly didn't think it was against his religion or not is the question. Maybe "my faith" to him was his version of Catholicism, the verion where abortion is ok.

Or, you could look at this as he believed abortion was wrong but through human failings had fallen short and this was his way of asking the Pope to forgive him?

Interesting.

Posted by: Jerry at August 31, 2009 10:56 AM


I know, Marie, and I wish i could, but it is more nuanced that. What we mean by faith in Jesus and such needs to be addressed, etc. Because two Catholics who are on the exact same page with the Church's teachings; one could answer yes and the other no, and they would both be correct because they understood what the question means differently. So what I want to do is try and formulate the question carefully, but I need to think about it carefully. Of course in the mean(nice?)time, if anyone else would like to give an answer (probably much more desirable than the rambling nonsense I will spew), you are more than welcome to. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at August 31, 2009 10:58 AM


Stay strong in the faith, Sydney! I John 5:13

Posted by: Brad at August 31, 2009 11:07 AM


Testing....

Posted by: Eileen at August 31, 2009 11:13 AM


Ted Kennedy assured the Pope that he advocates "a conscience protection for Catholics in the health field." If only Kennedy and his buddies hadn't voted for abortion rights in the first place, then the conscience protection wouldn't be so necessary.

It's like voting to kill Jews during Nazi Germany, then adding a protective conscience clause for Catholics so they don't have to participate in the carnage.

And it's not just Catholics who need the protection from Kennedy's pro-abortion votes. Pro-lifers come from many different faiths including Jewish and Muslim. If only Kennedy had believed in life as his church teaches, then he wouldn't have endangered babies and their mothers and their medical professionals as well.

Posted by: Kelly at August 31, 2009 12:35 PM


OK Marie. So I would like to discuss a little bit about what we mean when we say "faith in Christ." St Paul begins and ends the book of Romans with the phrase "the obedience of faith." (1:4 and 16:26) This is part of how a Catholic understands faith; that part of faith means obedience and doing what Christ commanded us to do. In fact, if we understand faith as the obedience of faith working through charity, then indeed the Catholic can answer "yes" to your question and even affirm "faith alone."

Now when we say "faith", what exactly does that entail? I think most non-Catholic Christians would agree that part of faith is letting Jesus into your heart as your personal Lord and Saviour, placing a divine trust in his promises, and giving your entire self to him. I would like to concentrate on the last aspect, giving your entire self to him, using an example that we agree on, abortion. (Note that in the following analysis, I am not judging the state of any Christian abortion supporter's soul, but simply looking at this from an objective POV without reference to the subject) What is wrong with one who has placed faith in Christ yet still supports abortion? Well, it is in that fact that in supporting abortion, one has not given themselves totally over to Jesus. They still are holding onto some personal autonomy (MY body, MY choice, or whatever). Holding that part back means you don't give all to Jesus. You can't give yourself partially to God; it's all or nothing.

The point of all this is to say that part of how a Catholic (and I think many other Christians) understand faith NECESSARILY entails obedience; doing what Jesus commanded us to do. It isn't in ADDITION to faith in Jesus; it's PART of it. This obviously raises the question "what did Jesus command us to do?" That's a whole other question, but at this point, I hope you at least see that if you assume for the sake of argument that Jesus did command us to do all those Catholic things that Catholics do, then it isn't far fetched to say that NOT doing those things is tantamount to NOT having faith in Christ.

Does that at least make some sense? It's hard for Catholics to come up with nice and concise formulas, so we do have to nuance and expound quite a bit. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at August 31, 2009 1:36 PM


Kristen,

Please ensure that we are in the same conversation when you respond to me. Where are all of these comments about DNA coming from? That is not my arguement. NOT once did I ever discuss the initial point of life or why is it that women have abortions. That is not my concern. I will not argue that because that is what we call a MORAL ISSUE. We have LEGAL issues and we have MORAL issues. Some MORAL issues are also LEGAL issues, and vice versa. I just believe abortion is a MORAL issue and should not be a LEGAL issue. I feel it should not be done, but the Government should not make that decision. The same with spanking children. Some people feel they have the right to do it, if not the upbrining of the child is jeopardized. On the other hand, other people think it is abusive and it jeopardizes the saftey and well being of children. Do you see what I mean Kristen? So please spare me the "abortion is sin" dialogue. I already know. If it makes you feel empowered to discuss it, by all means. That is not what I am disputing. I know and I do appreciate your passion, but I just don't think that is something that the Government should prevent. I am so sorry you do not like my position.

Posted by: kinz2032 at August 31, 2009 2:30 PM


Thanks Bobby,

I see what you mean. I guess I didn't realize pointing out peoples judgemental nature was in fact judging. If so, I apologize. :)
I just think people are harder on others more so than themselves. I'm not a minister but I just feel sometimes people are more concerns with the sins of others more so than their own. Maybe that is human nature.

Posted by: Kinz2032 at August 31, 2009 2:34 PM


Thanks Bobby,

I see what you mean. I guess I didn't realize pointing out peoples judgemental nature was in fact judging. If so, I apologize. :)
I just think people are harder on others more so than themselves. I'm not a minister but I just feel sometimes people are more concern with the sins of others more so than their own. Maybe that is human nature.

Posted by: Kinz2032 at August 31, 2009 2:34 PM


"I didn't realize pointing out peoples judgemental nature was in fact judging."

Right, it's not. Like I mentioned, it really isn't, but this is the way so many people use it.

"I just think people are harder on others more so than themselves. I'm not a minister but I just feel sometimes people are more concerns with the sins of others more so than their own."

I agree. And it's a difficult balance to try and stand firm and strong in pointing out what one believes to be moral error while not looking at the interior motives (and state of one's soul for the religious).

"Maybe that is human nature."

Yes, which is why we are all in need of a DAILY examination of conscience. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at August 31, 2009 2:39 PM


I am sorry you are becoming upset about this Xalisae. ( I hope I spelled it correctly) I do not think it has anything to do with age, no need to attack those who you feel are younger based on their beliefs and opinions. I hope you do not lose sleep about the fact that someone out there in this World has an opinion that differs from yours. (Insane isn't it?) My point that everyone keeps missing is let the Mother decide. We can only pray that the mother makes the right decision to keep her child and understand that life has a purpose. If not, she has to deal with that. Not you, not me, not the Supreme Court. That is all I am saying. Like Kristen, I appreciate your passion as well. But it still stands. This is a Moral issue, not Legal. Which is what I am waiting for someone to speak about. You keep arguing about how wrong and sinful it is. We all know this. Tell me why should it be against the law. That is the opinion I really want to see right now. If your opinion sites a scripture or the biology of reproduction, you can keep it.

Thanks.

Also Xalisae, if you think you are a hypocrite, those are your words, not mine. I just acknowledge the fact that we all sin. All of us. Yes, that includes you.

Posted by: Kinz2032 at August 31, 2009 2:47 PM


Sydney,

If you are going to indirectly quote me please don't like. I did not say well, I don't like abortion but whatever...."

Lies to prove a point? Is that how you engage in a healthy debate about religion and the law? By purposely misquoting me to make yourself seem correct?

Not respectable of you at all.
I have nothing else to say to you Sydney. Speak what you wish at this point. I choose not to engage with someone who takes the low road.

Thank You

Posted by: Kinz2032 at August 31, 2009 3:00 PM


Wow Ed...wow..
Since it's obvious you know this, can I give you a little bit of information about my life and you can also tell me if I am deserving of Hell? I need to know what I can and cannot repent for so atleast I won't be suprised if after I repent truthfully and wholeheartedly for my sins I still end up in Hell.

Posted by: Kinz2032 at August 31, 2009 3:08 PM


I just can't understand how you can be a Christian and AGREE with Partial Birth Abortion. PBA is NEVER necessary and just horrible. How could he vote opposing the PBA Ban TWICE?

Posted by: Christa at August 31, 2009 3:14 PM


Hey Kinz2032,

I'm trying to figure out what you're driving at.

If you repent from living your life for yourself and live for Him, what would make you think that you'd still go to Hell?

You lost me.

Posted by: Ed at August 31, 2009 3:16 PM


Well Good People,

I am leaving work for the day. I enjoyed reading all of your opinions about the issues and I love your intensity for keeping babies alive. Although I disagree on a few things, I can understand where you fire comes from.

Thank You
God Bless

Posted by: Kinz2032 at August 31, 2009 3:18 PM


We can only pray that the mother makes the right decision to keep her child and understand that life has a purpose. If not, she has to deal with that. Not you, not me, not the Supreme Court.

Kinz2032,

What your argument is severely lacking is the fact that life already exists, and that her so-called choice is to extinguish that life.

Furthermore, the mother, the father, the abortionist, and the nurses and receptionists involved have to live with the tarnish of that child's death on their souls. And as long as we socially condone the act of abortion, we all as individuals have to live with the tarnish of the deaths of thousands of children daily on our souls.

If we can stop injustice, if we can stop moral corruptness, yet we look the other way, we are culpable. We are our brothers' keepers.

If the woman were having an elective tonsillectomy performed, we could say, "Well, she's only hurting herself." When a child's life hangs in the balance, she's not only hurting herself. And she's not the only one responsible.

Posted by: MaryRose at August 31, 2009 3:20 PM


Kinz2032 commented:
This is a Moral issue, not Legal. Which is what I am waiting for someone to speak about. You keep arguing about how wrong and sinful it is. We all know this. Tell me why should it be against the law. That is the opinion I really want to see right now. If your opinion sites a scripture or the biology of reproduction, you can keep it.

Laws reflect morals. Rape is illegal because we acknowledge that it is wrong for someone to force another person to have sexual intercourse against her will. Murder is illegal because we acknowledge that is it wrong for one person to kill another without extraordinary justification.

In the same way, abortion should be illegal because it is wrong to kill innocent human beings without extraordinary justification.

To help you understand this argument, try the following thought experiment. Go through some of the reasons that women have abortions, but substitute a toddler for the unborn child.

For example:
* "I want to kill my toddler so that I can finish my education."
* "I want to kill my toddler because she is disabled, and I believe that her quality of life would be unacceptably low."
* "I want to kill my toddler because I really can't afford her right now."
* "I want to kill my toddler because her father raped me, and she reminds me of what I suffered."

Do any of those arguments make sense to you?

Posted by: Naaman at August 31, 2009 3:22 PM


Do any of those arguments make sense to you?
Posted by: Naaman at August 31, 2009 3:22 PM

No, because there is a significant difference between a fetus and a toddler. That's the whole point. Do pro lifers, that difference is insignificant, to pro choicers, the difference is very significant. And there you have it: An Unresolvable Issue.

Posted by: Hal at August 31, 2009 3:27 PM


Thank you Naaman. The only problem I have is, the fetus or zygote, embryo etc. is not a toddler. It is someone who is 100% reliable on the mother who is holding the life in her body during gestation. It is INSIDE of her body. Not outside. As sick as it sounds, why should the Government tell her to keep it in there. Even though it was her actions (for arguement's sake) that allowed the child to be concieved. It is still apart of her own body, that uses her physical resources for growth and development, how can the Government force her not to abort if she for whatever reason decides she just doesn't care enough about sin or the life of the child? It's still is her body. Right? Once again, it is a moral issue I believe.

Posted by: kinz2032 at August 31, 2009 3:31 PM


Hal,

It's true, this issue will never end. I also want to point out that some women, fear the pain, discomfort and risk of life threatening complications that come along with pregnancy and child birth. With that known, if a woman decides she is not prepared mentally or physically for that experience, should the Government also force her to endure it. Altough that is very selfish of her. I know. Should the Government say, "No, you have to, the baby stays until birth!" What if she does die? What is she experiences permanent damage as a result of carrying and birthing the baby? I know all of this may be rare but it is possible. Then what? Let me remind you all, that I am not arguing whether or not abortion is a moral sin and should not be done. I am just arguing the role of the Government in this decision.

Posted by: kinz2032 at August 31, 2009 3:36 PM


Kinz2032,

Ok, I think I see what you're choking on. It's understandable too. In Proverbs it says that all the ways of a man are right in his own eyes. We all live our lives the best we can, try not to hurt anybody, try to be good neighbors . . .

The problem is that God's standard of righteousness is way up there; way, way, up there. So high in fact that none of us can qualify for Heaven on our own. Thankfully, God didn't leave us without hope. Because of the sacrifice of His Son Who died in our place, we can be forgiven, cleansed from all our sin, by His Blood, and become new creatures in Him, worthy to receive His inheritance and eternal life.

This is one great deal.

The key though is admitting that you don't deserve Heaven by your own good works. You must know that you are a sinner in need of His Mercy and Grace.

Thankfully, I qualify big time.

How about you?

Posted by: Ed at August 31, 2009 3:36 PM


Well, Hal I am grateful that you qualify "big time." :)

My Salvation on the other hand is based on God's Standard. Like you said, not yours or my own. So I'll just keep asking for mercy and staying humble and know that I can do so much more to earn his Graces.

Posted by: kinz2032 at August 31, 2009 3:41 PM


Great kinz2032!

May I recommend a great sermon you can find on line by Jonathon Edwards titled "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." Delivering this message in 1741, Edwards helped spark a revival that became known as the Great Awakening.

Unfortunately, we don't have many preachers of Edwards' caliber today so it looks like we're going to be going through some tough times around here through 2012 and beyond.

For more information check out:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UuCHUhU9WE

This message is prophetic so you have to discern it with what you believe God is speaking to your own heart. Looking at current events, what Jackson describes certainly seems plausible.

Posted by: Ed at August 31, 2009 3:57 PM


Hey Hal,

Did you see kinz2032's freudian slip?

Perhaps it's time you repented and got saved!

The Love and Mercy of God is better than you can imagine.

Real easy too. God is just a prayer away.

Posted by: Ed at August 31, 2009 4:21 PM


My point that everyone keeps missing is let the Mother decide.
Posted by: Kinz2032 at August 31, 2009 2:47 PM

No actually we aren't missing that point. The point is the mother decided when she hopped into bed with the father. Everyone KNOWS when you have sex, you might make a baby. Unless of course you are on BC. Then the expectation is that you won't. And therein lies the problem. Open to sex but not open to children makes life very difficult indeed, especially when sex is designed by God/evolution/the big bang etc. etc. to make babies!

Once the baby is there, there are no more decisions. A new human being exists and to abort it is to murder it. It's really that simple.

Posted by: angel at August 31, 2009 4:30 PM


Posted by: kinz2032 at August 31, 2009 2:30 PM


I don't like your position but that is besides the point. Again, you have no issue with making a moral judgment about certain issues but not abortion because you think it is fine to murder children. Face the facts.

Posted by: Kristen at August 31, 2009 4:33 PM


Ugh. I didn't admit to jack squat, quit putting words in my mouth. YOU seemed to imply that we were hypocritical, and I have my credentials, chica, so don't even think for a second I'll let you get away with playing dumb about what YOU suggested in the first place and saying that I said something I didn't.

I know full well no one is perfect, including myself, but killing my child in a tough time is DEFINITELY NOT one of the ways in which I am flawed as has been proven, so I think I have more than a little right to talk about abortion and its needed or not needed legality.

Ok...instead of toddlers...let's talk about newborns!! They're still dependent on others for their survival. My son wouldn't take a bottle and only breastfed exclusively for months and months. Now, when he started to lose weight because I was trying to wean him, at first I stuck to my guns, because they're my boobs, it's my body, and I was ready to have it back. I figured he'd eventually get hungry enough and gain back the weight on the bottle. I was wrong. Should I have said, "My body, My choice!". If I had, and he had died, do you think I would've gotten away with it in court?

You people just irk me. A human fetus is a lot like a human infant, a human toddler, a human child, a human teenager, a human adult...when the emphasis is on the HUMAN. A human fetus is human. Abortion is a human rights violation.

Posted by: xalisae at August 31, 2009 4:35 PM


I guess all the civil rights activists of the 60's just should've kept their mouths shut, since discrimination is a moral issue and not a legal issue, right? Women don't need to preoccupy themselves with things like tricky laws and whatnot. Reading all those words written in the law books might make our little brains hurt! And forget about a right to vote...ballot reading? Who needs it! Bio-ethics and human rights can be reduced to just moral issues, so let's all just go with the flow and do what the men making millions of dollars scraping our kids out of our uteri and the politicians those men pay off tell us to do.

Posted by: xalisae at August 31, 2009 4:43 PM


Kinz2032,

When a baby is born, they are completely reliant on others for their sustenance. From nutrition to hygiene needs to emotional/mental needs.

When a parent or legal guardian chooses to ignore these needs, they face legal ramifications.

Can it not be argued that these are similar circumstances, although abortion is much more morally corrupt? In both circumstances, those fighting to protect the rights of the child are 'forcing' a parent/guardian to provide for the child involved.

Would you also have the laws that protect the child's right to proper care and feeding rescinded? Why not? I know that tired argument that it's the woman's body, but isn't it the parent's body that has to endure work in order to earn the money to provide for the child? Isn't it the guardian's hands that must get dirty while changing a dirty diaper? Isn't that an infringement on the freedom of the parent/guardian?

Posted by: MaryRose at August 31, 2009 5:17 PM


Well, abortion might be a "moral issue," but it is not immoral. That's the difference between it and the civil rights movement.

Posted by: Hal at August 31, 2009 6:24 PM


Perhaps a little observation might assist some. There is an obvious discrepancy here re. what faith means in the Christian context. Perhaps the way I handle this issue might help others seeking understanding.

Both Sts. Paul and John use many short words. But rather then dismiss words like 'in' and 'one', perhaps we might understand differently. The act of being one 'in' God is different from being 'with' God. In terms often expressed .. being 'with another' can be very supportive, but a relationship of a parasite or fungus is also a 'with-type' relationship.

Both Paul and John (and Jesus Himself via the vine/branch analogy) insisted that we are 'in' Him//participate 'in' His life. His peace makes us one 'in' Him. It is Jesus welcoming/inviting us to be 'in' Abba as He is.

We hear about 'faith in Christ'. The word we might center on is 'Christ'. Then the second most meaningful word is 'in', and not 'faith'. We have Jesus' LIFE - His Love - His hope - His courage - His Truth - His faith - Himself!!! And all this is meant by the small word 'in'.

I sure hope this helps. In pregnancy a babe enjoys hands-on such an 'in' relationship with his/her Mom.

Posted by: John McDonell at August 31, 2009 6:57 PM


How is it not immoral, Hal?

If a woman stands by while her child dies before her, or more similar yet, encourages and rewards someone else for killing her child because she felt that she couldn't care for it anyway and she didn't really want it...How is that not immoral? You wouldn't have a problem with that, morally?

Posted by: xalisae at August 31, 2009 7:03 PM


Well, abortion might be a "moral issue," but it is not immoral. That's the difference between it and the civil rights movement.

Posted by: Hal at August 31, 2009 6:24 PM
*********************

You need a heart transplant bro. You can look at a picture of a dismembered fetus and say it's not immoral? Are you a cyborg? Do you have a pulse?

Posted by: Ed at August 31, 2009 7:54 PM


Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 31, 2009 1:36 PM

Thank you Bobby. However, (and you know it's coming!) I disagree with the definition of what faith is. I believe it's much more simpler than that. I believe that faith simply this: Taking God at His Word.

The book of Hebrews also defines faith:

Hebrews 11:1-3 (my emphasis in parentheses)

NOW faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith (taking God at His word) we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

There are many more verses about faith, but if you look at faith as simply taking God at His Word, the words "obedience to faith", is then submitting to taking God at His Word. (believing the unseen, etc.)

Does that make sense?

Posted by: Marie at August 31, 2009 8:33 PM


No, because there is a significant difference between a fetus and a toddler. That's the whole point.

Posted by: Hal at August 31, 2009 3:27 PM

The whole point is that zygotes, embryos, fetuses, newborns, infants, toddlers, children, teenagers, adults and the elderly are all equally human. The differences in size, level of development, environment and dependency do not make any one of these more or less human than another. Until you can alter biology to fit the narrative that the unborn are less human than toddlers, the differences between the two do not convince me that abortion is acceptable.

On a separate note (this isn't necessarily directed at you, Hal), I'm beginning to suspect that sometimes convincing others of the humanity of the unborn does little good. The simple truth is that people want to be able to kill their unborn children. If they have to deny science to soothe their conscious, they will. If they have to do some serious mental gymnastics to acknowledge that the unborn are human but still say it's ok to kill them, they will. If they have to simply not care at all, they won't. It's not about right or wrong, human or clump of cells, person or non-person. It's about people demanding to be allowed to do whatever they want, even if they have to trample over their own children to get it.

Posted by: Janette at August 31, 2009 9:09 PM


Janette,
I agree that the humanity of a fetus is irrelevant to some people in the abortion debate. They believe that what they want is most important, as you said. This is what happens when God is removed from society. These types of people are gods unto themselves.

Posted by: Janet at August 31, 2009 10:12 PM


There are many more verses about faith, but if you look at faith as simply taking God at His Word, the words "obedience to faith", is then submitting to taking God at His Word. (believing the unseen, etc.)
Does that make sense?

Posted by: Marie at August 31, 2009 8:33 PM

I'm not sure if you are arguing that faith alone is needed for Salvation.... but as I see it, submission to faith implies action. IMO the argument whether it's "faith alone" is not a critical one in the grand scheme of Christian teachings. (Forgive me, I don't mean to insult my Christian friends.) Does that make sense?

Posted by: Janet at August 31, 2009 10:23 PM


Posted by: S.P. at August 31, 2009 4:34 AM

Your letter to Brad was beautifully stated. Thank you. (I LOVE converts. You are the BRIGHTEST and the BEST of all Catholics!)

Posted by: Janet at August 31, 2009 10:34 PM


I'm not sure if you are arguing that faith alone is needed for Salvation.... but as I see it, submission to faith implies action. IMO the argument whether it's "faith alone" is not a critical one in the grand scheme of Christian teachings. (Forgive me, I don't mean to insult my Christian friends.) Does that make sense?

Posted by: Janet at August 31, 2009 10:23 PM

Janet,

I agree. Faith does take action. But because of that action of taking faith, the result is salvation!

Romans 10:8-10

8But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

Posted by: Marie at August 31, 2009 10:38 PM


"The Pope and the Bishops who teach in union with him are indisputably the legitimate successors (Apostolic succession) to Saint Peter and the Apostles. When he/they speak authoritatively on matters of faith and morals, they have the guarantee of speaking with Christ's own authority ... His voice on earth ... "

Posted by: S.P. at August 31, 2009 4:34 AM

I mean absolutely no offense here, but I have such a hard time with what you stated above. Time and time again I hear popes saying things that are not in line at all with what Jesus, or Peter for that matter said. Respectfully I ask you this: how can you put so much faith in the infallibility of a pope...every pope... when they say things that are in direct conflict with the Word of God?

the Lord Jesus Christ said: "I am the way, and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).


By reading the quotes below, popes, throughout time as you can see, have led their followers down the wide road to destruction (my opinion from comparing what they said to what the Word of God says). (Matthew 7:13: Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.) They are giving (making up) other ways and means of salvation that are non-biblical, and totally in error of what Jesus Christ said.

The Apostle Peter (your first pope) made it clear that Jesus is the only way of salvation when he said, "there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).


The following quotes from previous popes were all taken from: The Apostolic Digest, Sacred Heart Press, Irving, TX, 1987.

"The foundation of all our confidence is found in the Virgin Mary. God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will: that we obtain everything through Mary. Sweet heart of Mary, be my salvation!" Pope Pius IX

"For, since it is the will of Divine Providence that we should have the God-Man through Mary, there is no other way for us to receive Christ except from her hands." Pope Pius X

"He will not taste death forever who, in his dying moments, has recourse to the Blessed Virgin Mary. What will it cost you to save us? Has not Jesus placed in your hands all the treasures of His grace and mercy? You sit crowned as Queen at the right hand of your Son: your dominion reaches as far as the heavens, and to you are subject the earth and all creatures dwelling thereon. Your dominion reaches even down into the abyss of Hell, and you alone O Mary, save us from the hands of Satan." Pope Pius XI

"Nothing comes to us except through the mediation of Mary, for such is the will of God. O Virgin Most Holy, no one abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; no one O Mother of God, attains salvation except through thee! Every one of the multitudes, therefore, whom the evil of calamitous circumstances has stolen away from Catholic unity, must be born again to Christ by that same Mother whom God has endowed with a never-failing fertility to bring forth a holy people." Pope Leo XIII

"Mary, not one of thy devout servants has ever perished; may I, too, be saved!" Pope Benedict XV

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Pope Boniface VIII

These are just a few examples, but again, and respecfully I ask you if they were in error when they quoted these things? To me, at least, what they are saying is blasphemy. Maybe I'm missing something that you can clarify, but it just seems so blatently obvious to me that they erred here.

Thank you for your time. :)

Posted by: Marie at August 31, 2009 11:47 PM


You need a heart transplant bro. You can look at a picture of a dismembered fetus and say it's not immoral? Are you a cyborg? Do you have a pulse?
Posted by: Ed at August 31, 2009 7:54 PM

Ed, Hal's heart was broken by the aborting of his two daughters. He and his wife aborted two of their four children. Does this help you to understand his perspective?

Posted by: angel at September 1, 2009 6:35 AM


Kinz2032....I was not quoting you. I was paraphrasing you, summing up your attitude. calm down.

Posted by: Sydney M at September 1, 2009 9:04 AM


Hey Angel,

I think I understand it. He maintains his pro-choice position because that is how he justified killing his preborn children. If he was to admit the truth and become pro-life, he would have to ask God's forgiveness and then forgive himself.

Based on Hal's comments, (and I may be wrong here), but he doesn't sound brokenhearted to me. He doesn't believe abortion is wrong, he doesn't believe it is murder and he doesn't believe it is "immoral".

My comments aren't intended to be mean but to prick his conscience and break up his fallow ground. My hope is that he might see the error of his way and repent . . . before it's too late.

Eternity is a long, long time. (In fact, technically, it is the absence of time.)

I would love nothing more than to see Hal washed in the Blood of the Lamb.

Posted by: Ed at September 1, 2009 9:36 AM


"It does bother me as a cradle Catholic that the Church seems to lack the courage, on occasion, to stand up for what it believes in.
Posted by: Ray Dombkiewicz at August 30, 2009 8:59 AM"

I'm not sure that the church lacks the courage, I think they worry that they run the risk of looking like they are attempting to wrangle some sort of politcal power, much like they did in the dark ages (and let's face it, throughout most of history). Since Vatican 2 the church has taken a much different stance on public denunciation, and prefers to let individuals remind the world of church teaching. Much like the president, I think there's a sense that the pope is "above" that sort of finger wagging.

Being Catholic myself, I've often wished the pope would set a few folks straight, but in our modern perception of Christianity, I think that people might react negatively to that and it may do more harm than good.

In the end, we know what the Church teaches on abortion, and so does Kennedy. In fact, the thing that galls me the most is that Kennedy appears to be saying "hey look what i've done! Just ignore that other stuff about abortion...I HELPED THE POOR!" He knows in his heart of hearts that he was wrong...we can only hope that on his deathbed he admitted those wrongs and asked God to forgive him.

Posted by: Rachel at September 1, 2009 11:00 AM


*Posted by: Marie at August 31, 2009 11:47 PM

"I mean absolutely no offense here, but I have such a hard time with what you stated above. Time and time again I hear popes saying things that are not in line at all with what Jesus, or Peter for that matter said. Respectfully I ask you this: how can you put so much faith in the infallibility of a pope...every pope... when they say things that are in direct conflict with the Word of God?..."

"The following quotes from previous popes were all taken from: The Apostolic Digest, Sacred Heart Press, Irving, TX, 1987......"


Marie, I'm not familiar with "The Apostolic Digest". If anything like "The Reader's Digest", I'm guessing it is not a great source of in depth information. Without knowing the context of these Papal quotes in your post, it's difficult to answer your question. Of course, you know that the teaching of Papal infallibility is applied only in regards to words spoken "ex cathedra", not to every daily utterance by a Pope. Not every word any of us speak is always to be taken literally. Sometimes we speak figuratively. I'm guessing that these Popes were speaking out of a sense of deep admiration and love for the Holy Mother of our Lord, Jesus Christ, as Jesus would have it. When it comes right down to it, we Catholics know that we don't worship Mary.

A few suggestions:


Google: Steve Ray Catholic Convert
Articles: "Do Catholics Worship Mary?" and "Mary, Saints, Worship and Salvation"
(Steve Ray is a Catholic convert whose blog I would highly recommend to Protestants looking for the Truth, not myths, about Catholic Christianity.)

Google: Lighthouse Catholic Media.
(Taken from their website) "Our mission is to answer the call for a New Evangelization by serving the Church in providing inspirational CDs and brochures that will enrich and strengthen people’s relationship with Jesus Christ and understanding of their Catholic Faith. We work to provide the very best presentations and media resources."

I wish I had the time and knowledge to go more in-depth on this subject. Hopefully, this helped. Thanks for your interest in the Catholic faith. :)
God bless you.

Posted by: Janet at September 1, 2009 12:03 PM


Thank you, Janet. It is interesting to me!

Posted by: Marie at September 1, 2009 12:35 PM


I would love nothing more than to see Hal washed in the Blood of the Lamb.
Posted by: Ed at September 1, 2009 9:36 AM

that's just gross

But you got this right:

Based on Hal's comments, (and I may be wrong here), but he doesn't sound brokenhearted to me. He doesn't believe abortion is wrong, he doesn't believe it is murder and he doesn't believe it is "immoral".

Posted by: Hal at September 1, 2009 1:05 PM


Hi Marie. If you're interestesd in offline reading, there's a good book written by former protestant pastor Scott Hahn called Hail, Holy Queen. He looks at the role of the Jewish queen mother as intercessor (for example 1 Kings 2:19) and Mary (overshadowed by the Holy Spirit when she conceived Jesus, Luke 1:35) as the Ark of the New Covenant (Rev 11:19-12:2). If you visit Dr Hahn's website at SalvationHistory.com and take the library link, you'll find audio resources and articles on various topics of Catholic belief.

Here's an article by James Akin that might also interest you.
www.cin.org/users/james/files/key2mary.htm

Ditto what Janet said. Thanks for taking time to find out what we believe :)

Posted by: Fed Up at September 1, 2009 1:49 PM


Thanks Hal. I give you a hard time because I care about you.

If you only knew what it was like to be totally free, totally forgiven, with a clean pure conscience, basking in the Love of God. It's like not going to the dentist for 5 years then finally getting your teeth cleaned. Imagine that feeling in your mind then multiply it by 1000.

Just remember, anytime you're ready, Jesus is only a prayer away.

Posted by: Ed at September 1, 2009 1:56 PM


Ed, I know your motives are good and kind. However, do not worry about me. I have total peace and fulfillment.

Life is good.

Posted by: Hal at September 1, 2009 2:13 PM


"...What could be worse than the choice of someone who would choose, by his free will - (just as Kennedy has his own free will in his choices to disobey) - to commit deicide??? Or, Peter, who needed constant prayer by the Lord, to carry out his purpose as a man, and yet still not only denied his God friend, but ranted, in a Kennedy-esque hysterical mode with curses, etc., his personal cover-up out of fear. All of that was known by Christ and yet it did not force God to form another group..." -observer

Wow.

Observer, that was an *excellent* post. I'm tempted to repost the whole darn thing. Stated so much better than I ever could. Hat is off to you, my friend.

Posted by: Tom at September 1, 2009 2:37 PM


Marie,
You're welcome.

Fed Up,
Thanks for mentioning Scott Hahn and Jimmy Akin - two great sources of information.

Posted by: Janet at September 1, 2009 4:51 PM


Hi Janet. I haven't been on Dr Hahn's site for a while. I just noticed that he offers free online study courses. One of them is based on his book Hail, Holy Queen :) Another is based on my favorite of all his books, The Lamb's Supper.

Posted by: Fed Up at September 1, 2009 5:22 PM


Fed Up,

I've been meaning to read The Lamb's Supper for a long time. Maybe some day.....

Our parish is becoming quite involved in the "New Evangelization" (which Pope John Paul II asked of the faithful) and they will be setting up a display rack in the vestibule of church to make the inspirational CD's from Lighthouse Catholic Media available to anyone who is interested. I'm so happy to see them doing this.

Posted by: Janet at September 1, 2009 5:33 PM


Fed-UP, Hahn's latest offering, Reasons to believe, is very very good.

And Ed, if Hal is so at peace, then why is he on a prolife site?
To convert us freaky fetus-fetishers?

Posted by: angel at September 1, 2009 5:57 PM


angel, thanks for the tip. I've got that book sitting with a pile of others here that I haven't read yet. Maybe I should bring it to the top of the pile to read next! So many books, so little time these days.

Janet, thank you for mentioning LCM. I'd not heard of them. I'm looking for some good Spanish language resources and you may have solved my problem. THANKS!

Posted by: Fed Up at September 1, 2009 6:19 PM


Ed,

Hal strikes me as an individual who, in order to soothe his aching soul, has convinced himself almost completely that he sees no problem with abortion and that he has not been hurt by its effects. His presence on Jill's blog is, as Angel has already pointed out, an indication of that. When your soul is bleeding, there's only one cure, and I pray that Hal will find His grace.

Hal, honestly, I mean no disrespect when I say this. Actually, it occurs to me that you are much like who my husband would be had he married an atheist. Good humored, well-meaning, and missing out on a strong relationship with Christ. My assessment could be wrong, but it's what I see.

Posted by: MaryRose at September 1, 2009 6:26 PM


Good humored, well-meaning, and missing out on a strong relationship with Christ. My assessment could be wrong, but it's what I see.
Posted by: MaryRose at September 1, 2009 6:26 PM

well, I don't know if I'd say "missing out." Otherwise, sounds like me.

Posted by: Hal at September 1, 2009 8:26 PM


"So many books, so little time these days."

You have NO idea! ;)

Posted by: angel at September 1, 2009 9:43 PM


Given his political prominence as a Kennedy, as a Democrat, and as arguably the nation's most visible Catholic politician, imagine the potential difference he could have made if he had fought for the unborn these past thirty years?

Posted by: Mr. H at September 1, 2009 11:41 PM


MaryRose and Angel,

Hal and I have had this unique relationship for a while. Occasionally, I throw a couple of jabs his way, as I said, to prick his conscience a bit. He typically ignores my remarks because he knows I mean well and I'm just trying to get him to open his heart to what we know to be the truth about the Gospel and Life. We've had our exchanges and now our relationship is at equilibrium.

Hal is a smart guy, believes he is right and probably enjoys the banter.

I'm glad things have been going well for you Hal. I hope and pray that one day you will see your need for a Savior. Because when you do, if you reach out to Him like the Prodigal Son, you will find a Love and a Peace that you cannot conceive of now.

And you will find the Best Friend you could ever hope to meet.

Posted by: Ed at September 1, 2009 11:52 PM


Ed,

Keep pricking that conscience, then :)

Honestly, of all the pcers who visit this site, Hal doesn't particularly annoy me. He seems to have his fingers in his ears re: the truth about abortion, but not even that completely, as he frequents a pl blog.

Hal, as far as I'm concerned, you're welcome around anytime :)

Posted by: MaryRose at September 2, 2009 1:05 AM


Marie --

In addition to the book recommended by Fed Up, there is this passage from Kreeft's A Handbook of Christian Apologetics that briefly sums up the "salvation by faith alone" conflict:

"1. Catholics used the term salvation to refer to the whole process, from its beginning in faith, through the whole Christian life of the works of love on earth, to its completion in heaven. When Luther spoke of salvation he meant the initial step -- like getting into Noah's ark.

2. By faith Catholics mean only one of the three needed "theological virtues" (faith, hope, and love), faith being intellectual belief. To Luther, faith meant accepting Christ with your whole heart and soul.

Thus, since Catholics were using salvation in a bigger sense and faith in a smaller sense, and Luther was using salvation in a smaller sense and faith in a bigger sense, Catholics rightly denied and Luther rightly affirmed that we were saved by faith alone."

It seems to me (admittedly as an outsider) like the issue is almost one of semantics -- chiefly, that Catholics define faith as being part of a trinity of virtues that go into salvation, alongside love and hope -- intellectual belief, alongside giving one's heart and one's soul; and Protestants define faith as being that trinity of virtues, inclusive of love and hope -- faith as being the complete definition of intellectual belief, as well as of giving one's heart and soul over to Christ.

Posted by: Alexandra at September 2, 2009 7:30 AM


"Honestly, of all the pcers who visit this site, Hal doesn't particularly annoy me."

what a sweet thing to say ;)

I really don't intend to annoy (usually)

Nor do I need to engage in the battle of whether legal abortion is right or wrong. I came here orignally to dispel a few myths. Abortion is not always done in a clinic, it is not always young single women, and it's not always regretted. We've had those discussions and we've made our positions clear. Now I come just because I like hanging out with my new friends.

Posted by: Hal at September 2, 2009 10:14 AM


His "imperfections"? Let's try calling them what they are: Sins. Instead of justifying his good deeds to the Pope, one would have thought that his (and our own) cry would be "Lord have mercy on me a sinner".

Posted by: Lori at September 2, 2009 10:19 AM


"Honestly, of all the pcers who visit this site, Hal doesn't particularly annoy me"

Yeah, I second that.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at September 2, 2009 10:20 AM


awe shucks, Bobby. You ain't so bad either.

Posted by: Hal at September 2, 2009 1:23 PM


It strikes me that he mentioned the worthy causes he supported but could not claim to have defended the most vulnerable - unborn babes. It is noteworthy that their was a sudden shift in his support for prolife. It makes me think that he was influenced by money or something was at stake in his career. "Suffer the little children..." I am sure that he was met by the one's whom God had entrusted him to protect in his position.

Posted by: Rita Lawrence at September 2, 2009 8:36 PM


Honestly, I don't know how you can say you are guaranteed a free pass into Heaven. In all honesty you have no idea what life after death will be like and to think that you have the knowledge and judgement to determine who is going to hell and who is going to heaven other than God alone, means you have problems with one of two things:

1. a false sense of pride
2. the inability to accept the unknown.

There is a difference between "I trust in Jesus to help me into heaven but the knowledge of those matters is not for us to know" and "I KNOW that chick is going to heaven!" The latter I am afraid is a sad attempt at control with which we have none.

Posted by: PIP at September 3, 2009 11:36 AM


Alexandra,
Good point. Kreeft presents an interesting analysis of "salvation by faith alone". By discussing our "faith" differences, we sometimes find that we aren't as far apart as first thought. Your perceptions are good!

Posted by: Janet at September 3, 2009 12:26 PM


Thanks, Janet. It seems to me almost a parallel to the oft-misunderstood concept of the holy trinity -- where people who don't "get it" think it's a form of polytheism. Such people look at the trinity and say, "But why would you need a son, if God is truly God?" Similar to how many people look at the Catholic view and say, "But why would you need works/love/etc, if faith is truly faith?" It's a misunderstanding of the concept. God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are three manifestations of one entity, usually referred to as "God;" faith and hope and love are, in some senses, three manifestations of one entity, usually referred to as "faith." Just like my favorite comparison, which I once said here almost two years ago (wow!), ice and water and steam are all essentially three manifestations of the same thing.

Posted by: Alexandra at September 3, 2009 1:36 PM


Alexandra,

"Just like my favorite comparison, which I once said here almost two years ago (wow!), ice and water and steam are all essentially three manifestations of the same thing."

Hmm....H20?
:)

Posted by: Janet at September 3, 2009 1:41 PM


ice and water and steam are all essentially three manifestations of the same thing.
Posted by: Alexandra at September 3, 2009 1:36 PM

Ooh, I like this! I like this much more than the clover reference! This is an excellent comparison! I will be using this in the future. XD

Thanks!

Posted by: MaryRose at September 3, 2009 3:25 PM


MaryRose, no problem! I initially brought it up back in the day in this monster discussion: www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/weekend_questio_33.html Wow, trip down memory lane, there.

I still think about JLM. Hard to believe that was already a year and half ago.

Posted by: Alexandra at September 3, 2009 3:43 PM


" MaryRose, no problem! I initially brought it up back in the day in this monster discussion: www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/weekend_questio_33.html Wow, trip down memory lane, there. I still think about JLM. Hard to believe that was already a year and half ago. "

Mmm, fun stuff, ehh Alexandra?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at September 3, 2009 4:03 PM


Bobby, Alexandra,
Thinking about it gives me a headache. If we were to do it all over again, would it be different? Maybe we should all go back and critique ourselves. Or maybe not. :(

Posted by: Janet at September 3, 2009 4:28 PM


It was fun, Janet, but it was hard on all of us, I think. We were so used to always being so on the same page on abortion, and it was hard for everyone (on both sides) to see people they share so much in common reject something that they are so close to. So I don't know how good an idea it is to try going back to it again. But if it happens organically, who knows...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at September 3, 2009 4:38 PM


Bobby,
I agree.

Posted by: Janet at September 3, 2009 5:38 PM


lol it wasn't too hard on me. I was in and out like a flash. Interesting to read as a spectator, though.

Posted by: Alexandra at September 3, 2009 6:33 PM