[guest commentary by Paladin]
I just learned (along with most of the world, who knew it hours before I did) that Ted Kennedy, the dissident Catholic senator from Massachusetts, died last night at his home.
I hate episodes like this. In the social/political order, this is a clear case of "addition by subraction", in that Senator Kennedy can no longer champion the culture of death; in the spiritual order, it's a time of fear and grief... since there's great reason to fear for his eternal soul. In your charity (and if your worldview allows), I ask you to pray for the soul of this sadly wayward man; he is a child of God, whose redemption was bought by Christ's agony and death on the cross, and our prayers (which go beyond time--see HERE for details) can make the difference between his salvation and damnation. He now knows the full horror of what he's done throughout his life and career; and if his soul is saved, he will have (by the grace of God) grieved for that evil far more than we could understand... and he will have joined his repentant tears and prayers to ours, in trying to undo those evil works.
Kyrie, eleison.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
May God have mercy on his soul.
I will add a comment I have made on some other blogs. In 1999 my husband's father died of the same type of brain tumor that Sen. Kennedy had. He lived only 5 months after his diagnosis, and most of those months were filled with painful, desperate, and ultimately fruitless attempts to stop the spread of this very aggressive cancer. It is not something I would ever wish on anyone, even my worst enemy.
If my math is correct, Sen. Kennedy lived 15 months after being diagnosed. If my father in law's experience is any indication, he probably experienced quite a bit of purgatorial suffering ahead of time. It certainly was not an easy death.
I prayed for both of them today and for others suffering from the same disease. May God have mercy on him, on us, and on the whole world.
My very first thought after hearing the news of Senator Kennedy’s death was, “I wonder what he’ll say when he meets Mary Jo.” Then I said a prayer for him. I have to admit, saying that prayer was not as easy as it was for other people who have passed away, but that is a reflection of my sinful nature, not his.
And what of the good things, the achievements of Ted Kennedy.
After Chappaquiddick, he painstakingly rebuilt his reputation, stabilising his personal life after his second marriage to Vicki Reggie and developing his power and skills in the US Senate.
The common theme of his legislative efforts was help for the poor and dispossessed. He was centrally involved in legislation on civil rights, education, immigration, disability and women's rights.
A true American hero. He will be missed. I have been fortunate enough to live in MA for most of my life and I have seen first hand the good this man has done. One can only hope that all of the current legislatures learned a thing or two from Teddy and continue to fight for their constituencies.
No one here is suggesting that Senator Kennedy didn't accomplish good things in his lifetime (both publicly impressive and quietly private); but that can be said of almost anyone. Mere grandiosity or "magnificence" (in the old sense of "doing things on a grand scale") is not the measure of a man's character; many a tyrant can claim great "works" like that. To lionize him without acknowledging his terrible crimes is blindness, pure and simple... and it tempts his sycophants to neglect (and even disdain) praying for his soul.
Funny, I have been watching three whole days of Kennedy coverage and everyone is celebrating his accomplishments, remembering the greatness of the man, and wildly cheering as his casket is moved through the city. I guess everyone is blind..pure and simple huh? Maybe you are blinded by your Catholicism, did that ever occur to you? Probably not...Paladin is never wrong!!!! The best part is, his funeral is on right now, and as I type, the priest is mentioning the Eucharist. Seems like a fine Catholic funeral to me...I guess not all Catholics hate him.
(*sigh*) I can remember Socrates, of Hannity forum fame, telling me: "Paladin... don't feed the trolls!!" I had trouble heeding his advice then, too...
Funny, I have been watching three whole days of Kennedy coverage and everyone is celebrating his accomplishments, remembering the greatness of the man, and wildly cheering as his casket is moved through the city. I guess everyone is blind..pure and simple huh?
To quote another friend: "I love arguments like that: 'Eat [manure]! Ten billion flies couldn't *all* be wrong!'" (Coarse language cleaned up for family viewing.)
Jake, you didn't follow Professor Paladin's "Self-evident Lesson #1": When setting forth a logical argument, avoid illogic! See here for a quick explanation of the fallacy you just committed, and advice on how not to do it again. Also, see here for getting a clue what the Catholic Church actually teaches (as opposed to what a self-anointed collection of Catholic individuals might say or think about this-or-that), and in what it consists. Ignorance is a curable disease, Jake; get on it, and heal thyself.
Maybe you are blinded by your Catholicism, did that ever occur to you?
If you're asking me if I've examined Catholicism critically, the answer is "yes, many times"--and the Catholic Church has been right, every time--yes, even in the many times when I was wrong.
Probably not...Paladin is never wrong!!!!
Absolute, gibbering nonsense.
The best part is, his funeral is on right now, and as I type, the priest is mentioning the Eucharist.
You *do* realize that the Eucharist is part of "all things Catholic", yes? Why does this surprise you? Will you be equally stunned and impressed if the good Father mentions God, Jesus, or the Gospel?
Seems like a fine Catholic funeral to me...
It might be; it might not be. I'm not watching, so I couldn't say. I will add, though, that you're not qualified to make that determination, since you know next to nothing about Catholicism... and you can only describe such things according to your personal tastes.
I guess not all Catholics hate him.
Any Catholic who hates Senator Kennedy is committing a serious sin, and he violates the teaching of the very Church to Whom he belongs. Perhaps your mental caricature of Catholicism didn't allow you to know that. At any rate, it is obligatory for every faithful Catholic to *love* the deceased Senator (not at ALL to be confused with liking or admiring him, or supporting what he did while alive on earth), and to pray that God have mercy on that poor, wretched man's soul. See my post to that effect.
Ha ha...precious. Paladin (a brainwashed Catholic) lecturing anyone on logic. Ok, try this one on...'Eat [manure]! Ten billion flies couldn't *all* be wrong!'" Now apply that to the sheep who follow the word of the Bible. Hmmm....
From this point on, I think I'll let the reader decide which of us is illogical and ranting, Jake.
(Sorry, Socrates... I should've listened to you, the first time!)
Lovely...yet you are quick to dismiss my argument. You say to me...no, actually you link to site that tells me the fallacy of my arguments by stating, and I am paraphrasing here, that an argument cannot be proven just because many people believe it. Yet when I call you out for your Catholicism based on the same argument, you call me ranting and illogical. What is a matter Paladin..can't keep up?
I am not done..here is what you linked to Paladin..:
Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
Therefore X is true.
The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.
It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim.
So, and keep up here Paladin....I am going to substitute...oh lets pick, Catholicism for X...therefore it reads: Most people approve of Catholicism...therefore Catholicism is True. Hmmmm...following your argument, again your argument..."It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim."
Jake, what makes you think that Paladin in Catholic because Catholicism is popular, rather than other reasons?
When you answer this, please take into account that Paladin's version of Catholicism (abortion is murder, contraception is wrong, etc.) is not particularly popular.
As you yourself said, most people who call themselves Catholics have great respect for the recently deceased Senator Kennedy. Paladin does not. Why, if he chose Catholicism based on popularity rather than other criteria?
I have to agree with Ori on this one. I don't think Paladin has chosen Catholicism because it's popular.
I do agree though that Paladin is in the minority when he chooses to not venerate Kennedy. His reasons for that will be staunchly Catholic ones, I imagine.
You could cite the overwhelming preponderance for people of the world to believe in some sort of supernatural god like figure, and say that that could not be used as evidence of the existence of said gods.
But still, Paladin wouldn't argue that widespread belief was evidence of the existence of God(s).
What I still don't understand though is why paladin dislikes him so much or 'worries about his soul' so much. After all, perhaps after Chappaquiddic and the event with his son and nephew he confessed, apologised and so on. He did really really good things after that. Things the most people don't do. Does God not allow people to repent and learn from their ways?
Does the author of this blog require our prayers too? How will God judge him for his mistakes?
Perhaps some compassion and forgiveness would be the dish of the day. That's what Jesus would do.
The late senator was pro-life, but then changed his position to one supporting abortion. Considering this, I'd say it's only prudent to pray for his soul.
That said, it is also prudent to pray for the souls of any who died, no matter what their standing with respect for Church teaching. The reason eulogies are forbidden during a Catholic funeral mass is to avoid the assumption that the deceased is "definitely going to heaven," or vice-versa. Prayers for the soul of the deceased are always warranted. That's what separates a funeral mass from a regular mass.
Yes, everyone needs our prayers, Oliver. As long as you're saying some for Paladin, could you maybe throw one or two in for me, too?
I don't say prayers, I'm sorry. Not for anyone.
Ori, you write "Paladin's version of Catholicism"....I didn't realize that there were "versions" of Catholicism. Correct me if I am wrong, but either you are Catholic or you are not. I didn't think you got to pick and choose the parts you want follow. Heck, that's where the term Cafeteria Catholic comes from doesn't it? So if that is the case, and many "Catholics" revere and admire Ted Kennedy, then why are they wrong and Paladin correct? So once again, I will say, using "Professor" Paladin's argument..Most people approve of Catholicism (it is a major religion, no?)...therefore Catholicism is True. Paladin has a problem with this logic apparently..so I would like to see him defend it.
Oliver wrote:
What I still don't understand though is why paladin dislikes him so much or 'worries about his soul' so much.
Among other things: his flat rejection of (and open disdain for) Church teaching on several fundamental and non-negotiable issues (including abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, so-called "gay marriage", and euthanasia--including the forced euthanasia of Terri Schiavo), while still claiming (in all political circles) to be a "Catholic in good standing"; even by secular standards, his hypocrisy was clear. For a Catholic to reject that authority, while knowing full well that the self-same Church requires submission to that authority, is no small thing. Applaud him as a "good secularist", if you must; but you cannot coherently honour him as a "good Catholic".
I should add: I didn't dislike him (or like him) personally, in the strict sense; I didn't know him, personally. But I certainly knew of his despicable "fruit" (i.e. results of his works), which he made no effort to hide.
After all, perhaps after Chappaquiddic and the event with his son and nephew he confessed, apologised and so on.
I wasn't thinking of the sad case of Mary Jo Kopechne at all, when I shared my concern for his soul; his abortion advocacy (in which he arguably opened the door to millions of murders per year, when he could well have been able to stop that same massacre--as his Church commanded him to do (and he rejected)) was quite enough, by itself.
He did really really good things after that. Things the most people don't do.
Nowhere did I deny that. I merely ask that his crimes be remembered, in addition to his good works, by those who are currently whitewashing his memory.
Does God not allow people to repent and learn from their ways?
Not only does He allow it: He died in order to make it possible! But did you seriously hear of any evidence which implied that Sen. Kennedy actually *did* repent of his advocacy of abortion, ESCR, euthanasia, and the like? I didn't.
Does the author of this blog require our prayers too?
Most definitely (and he'd be the first to say so!)... as do I! I will add, though, that our esteemed host has not given the tragic scandal that Sen. Kennedy has given, and the blood of millions is not on our host's hands. Yes, God can forgive even such a massacre; but God will not--nay, He *cannot*--forgive anyone who isn't interested in forgiveness. He cannot force someone to repent freely of their sins.
How will God judge him for his mistakes?
I have no idea, save that infinite mercy is available to those who drop their rebellion against Our Lord, and submit to Him and to His Divine Mercy.
Perhaps some compassion and forgiveness would be the dish of the day.
It already is. But please do not mistake "leniency and indifference to sin" for mercy and forgiveness. Forgiveness makes no sense, without recognition of sin, and without the full-hearted repentance which is required for us to *receive* that forgiveness. I hope and pray that Sen. Kennedy submitted thusly, before he died--and we are forbidden to presume that he is damned, even in the face of overwhelming evidence in that direction--but I simply don't know... and there's good reason to fear for him, and to beg God's mercy upon him.
That's what Jesus would do.
Jesus will forgive whatever we allow him to forgive; but He will not force us to reconcile with Him if we reject him... no matter how many secularists applaud and praise Sen. Kennedy posthumously, for whatever reasons.
Jake: Ori, you write "Paladin's version of Catholicism"....I didn't realize that there were "versions" of Catholicism. Correct me if I am wrong, but either you are Catholic or you are not. I didn't think you got to pick and choose the parts you want follow.
Ori: Whether God allows you to pick and choose which parts of Catholicism you believe, I don't know. But society definitely allows you to do so. Therefore, viewed as social phenomena, the only way I can discuss a religion to which I do not subscribe, Catholicism does have different versions.
Paladin may be entitled to say that the late Senator Kennedy was not a good Catholic. I, as an outsider, may not. The most I can say is that his Catholicism was different from Paladin's.
Jake: So once again, I will say, using "Professor" Paladin's argument..Most people approve of Catholicism (it is a major religion, no?)...therefore Catholicism is True.
Ori: Islam is also a major religion. Paladin is not a Muslim.
May I respectfully suggest you ask Paladin why he is Catholic, instead of assuming you know the answer already?
The only thing I will ask is this....are there different levels of Catholicism? That seems to be an important question.
You mean like the orthodox/conservative/reform sects of Judaism?
No.
What there are is people who claim to somehow be Catholic without believing what the Catholic Church teaches.
Think of any group you like, that holds to any set of beliefs, activities or philosophies as definitive.
Vegetarians, for example. I could claim to be a vegetarian, even a vegan. I had a burger for dinner, and bacon and eggs for dinner, and pizza for lunch, but I'm a vegan. And who are you to say I'm not a vegan? I'm a former stocker at Whole Foods Market, I'll have you know.
Here's another. I'm a fisherman. I've caught exactly four fish in my life, and the last was years ago, but I expect all the respect and honor that accrues to fisherman because I am a fisherman, and my status as a fisherman means a great deal to me.
Third example: I'm a Catholic. I'm pro-choice, and I believe that we should have a married priesthood, and female priests, and everybody goes to heaven, and the Church is wrong about contracption, and I reject the Church's claims of infallibility, and Jesus wasn't really God, but I'm a former altar boy and I went to Catholic school and I'm a Catholic, and nobody has to believe all that stuff.
Now, which, of any of these claims, can be considered honest?
Well, if he's not actually a Catholic then I don't know what you're worrying about. You can just pray for him like you pray for the rest of us secular folk.
I will call him a good Catholic, though, because for me that's what he was.
Paul: You mean like the orthodox/conservative/reform sects of Judaism?
Ori: Actually, Orthodox Jews claim that they are the one true Judaism. While the rest of us are Jews, what we do isn't Judaism at all.
Oliverseeley wrote:
Well, if he's not actually a Catholic then I don't know what you're worrying about.
Well... if we believe (and we do) that salvation comes through Christ alone, and that--like the Cathechism of the Catholic Church says--no one who knowingly and willfully leaves the Church (while knowing its Divine pedigree) can be saved, I think that's a tremendous cause for worry! True, Sen. Kennedy didn't formally renounce the Faith (which would have been far more honest, and he would likely have been far less culpable in that), but he left its teachings and authority while remaining (physically, and perhaps sentimentally) to steal the "membership benefits" for himself. That's frightful... and a deep cause for worry about his soul.
You can just pray for him like you pray for the rest of us secular folk.
First, "the rest of the secular folk" (by which I assume you mean non-Catholics? That wasn't really what I mean, when I used the term...) aren't guilty of rebellion against the Church of Christ, since they never belonged to it. Kennedy, Biden, Kerry, Pelosi, and a host of other rebellious Catholics are in a position to (and do) stab the Church in the back, whereas "non-Catholic secular people" can only stab her from the front--which is at least an honorable attack, all other things being equal.
I will call him a good Catholic, though, because for me that's what he was.
I'm afraid that makes no sense at all! "Catholic" actually *means* something: as Paul said already, it isn't just a convenient label for people to adopt, willy-nilly. Can you not see the dishonesty in rejecting all qualifications for membership in *anything* (to say nothing of the Keeper of all Salvific Truth), while insisting on membership privileges? Would you admire and welcome someone off the street who (being no relation to you) demanded all rights and benefits of being your son--and while "agreeing to disagree" even about contributing to the household's upkeep? Aside from his refusal to help, there's the small matter of him not being your son at all, while brazenly arrogating the title (and benefits) to himself. That's *bad*... true?
I thought this was an interesting and somewhat related article in Time:
After Kennedy's Death: Silence from the Pope
"After Kennedy's Death: Silence from the Pope"
CMR comments on the subject.
Jesus completely ignored Herod when brought before him, remember?
Yeah, I thought the piece covered why it would be unusual for the Pope to comment on his death, and then went on to describe the type of interaction the Pope has had with the Kennedys. It also includes some of the understandable sentiment stated in this thread.
The niceties of international diplomacy do not require the Pope to issue a statement on the death of a non-head of state. Earlier in August, when the Senator's sister Eunice was dying the Papal Nuncio to the U.S. delivered a letter to her family saying the Pope was praying for her, her children and her husband.
One veteran official at the Vatican, of U.S. nationality, expressed the view of many conservatives about the Kennedy clan's rapport with the Catholic Church: "Why would he even write a letter to the Pope? The Kennedys have always been defiantly in opposition to the Roman Catholic magisterium."
I was just reading another blog where the author congratulated Ted Kennedy on his first full week of sobriety!
"I was just reading another blog where the author congratulated Ted Kennedy on his first full week of sobriety!"
Ouch!
Pelosi, and a host of other rebellious Catholics are in a position to (and do) stab the Church in the back, whereas "non-Catholic secular people" can only stab her from the front--which is at least an honorable attack
Post a Comment