I’m Pat Kennedy, and the church doesn’t approve of me
The following is not really a quote from Congressman Kennedy, but a satirical interpretation of recent events.
“Hi, I’m Patrick Kennedy, and I’d like to be even better than my late father, Edward – I’d like to be Henry VIII.
“So what I’ll do is reveal to news outlets a confidential letter from my priest, asking me not to take communion because of my stance on the topic of abortion. And because I don’t agree with their request, and because I typically get whatever I want (what’s my last name?), I’m going to do what’s best for everyone and reveal something personal between the church and I in an effort to make them look bad and to make me look like a victim.
“If I was a real man, I would take a step for what I really believe in, which seems to be very little based on my abuse of confidential information, and leave the church I disagree with, allowing them to have their rules and authority that they have as leaders. But that would look bad for the voters, which is why I practice faith in the first place. In fact, it’s why I do everything I do – the voters. A backbone? Why that’s for lesser men and women who have character and make decisions out of the values they hold. Me? I kind of just go with the flow, as long as the flow agrees with me, and of course votes for me.
“In the end, this will be just another black eye on the church. Which is no big deal because no one votes for the church leaders, and they have thick skin. They can suck it up. But the good news is…
Related posts:
Sorry Marty, but this is bullshit. This isn’t an isolated personal move between a man and his priest. The Catholic Church is one of the primary actors pushing through health care reform, and they’re using the keys to heaven as part of their politics. That deserves some disclosure.
Wow… took a pretty dramatic (and unwarranted) leap there Adam. This all started in private well before the health care debate between the two parties. But you are right – it isn’t an isolated personal move. It has been handed down from generation to generation. Keeping daddy’s dream alive! God knows my sinfulness doesn’t poll well – not sure why PK thinks it will for him. Ultimately PK gets to make the vote on health care, not the Bishop or the Pope. I’m glad I don’t use PK’s PR firm in my life…
“As long as PK is making the vote, who cares if he’s coerced?” Nice. Even if you don’t think the bishop is out of line, the argument against disclosure isn’t strong enough.
Adam the request from the bishop had nothing to do with the health care debate. It was entirely based on PK’s support of abortion, and not even his support of abortion being included in the health reform bill. He chose to take a private matter and make it public to 1. make the bishop and the church look like un-caring, villains, and 2. and use that to support his political position as to way the church shouldn’t be listened too on the health care debate.
It was a childish move. And if you look at the media when the church takes any sort of stand they get villainized, and told we should be loving, we are called crazy, and then have the separation of church and state thrown in our face (completely out of it’s original context) So the choices we are left with as the church are this. A. Remain silent and be viewed as a weak frail-minded group lemmings. Or B. take a stand and be portrayed as a bunch of hateful hypocrites.
Is the church making it known that they don’t support the government funding (government run health plans) of abortions? Yes. Is that a surprise? No, they are just making their opinions known. Are they shaping the health care debate? Very, very, very little. If you want to look at the ‘seedy’ side of this health care debate, follow the money. Look at what the pharmaceutical industry, health insurance industry, hospitals, and physician groups have spent on lobbying. Are they shaping the health care debate? You bet! Pharma and insurance companies have spent over $300 million so far in lobbying in 2009 and the year is not over (opensecrets.org) . The church is not spending a dime. So who is influencing the health care debate?
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
The questions are, “is it on purpose?” and “if it is, what is the purpose?”
The foundations of politics are built upon self-interest. Very few people are motivated by anything else when either voting or representing.
Unfortunately, the result of such motives is that we never quite understand an issue or its cause/effects. Notice how the debate almost always erodes to ad hominum jousting. It is the greatest trick of the Adversary.
As long as we believe, think, and act as if our battle is with each other, truth loses.
Listen to God. He levels the playing field so that we can see over our own swelled heads: we all suck, and deserve to die, now choose death or grace.
If we agree that murder, theft and coveting are wrong, let’s procede from there.
Let me acknowledge that my mention of health care reform confuses the issue. But then let me also dispute NeighborMichael’s point about the minimal influence of the Catholic Church regarding health care legislation. The USCCB has been a political powerhouse, and has played a key role in past attempts at health care reform. They’ve played a key role in not only getting the Stupak amendment affixed to the legislation, but in mustering the political capital to address healthcare legislation overall.
Of course the church will oppose abortion. Reasonable people can disagree on whether denying heaven to congressmen who favor increased access to abortion is appropriate. Reasonable people can also disagree on whether it makes sense to try to stay within the Church to reform it (which has worked in the past). I’m not so sure that reasonable people can disagree on whether disclosure about church coercion is appropriate.
The media is being demonized for attacking the church in this affair. I don’t see that. I just see that the incident is newsworthy.
And garret, while I don’t reject your insight, let me just say that by suggesting that those particular tenets decide the outcome of the argument, you’ve engaged in what logicians call “begging the question.”
Clarification: In my third paragraph, I meant to challenge the assertion that mainstream media outlets were actually attacking the Catholic Church over this, rather than simply reporting the coercion.
Wow, Marty. You really opened a can of worms here!
That is all I have to say.
Just curious, what are people’s thoughts on health reform irrespective of the abortion issue?
Adam: i personally don’t see a problem with this issue being reported. How it’s presented and how it became available seem to be the creeping incindiary elements.
i also don’t have a problem with any group or person trying to influence the “process”. It’s what we do. Who would know anything if we weren’t exposed to what other people think?
Consider if a Bishop of even a lay-person were to be mute or sit idle as each person’s perspective were allowed to become doctrine. Where does one draw the line? Why should the Bishop let PK overshadow the CC position on moral issues? From PK’s seat of power there is great potential for him to lead others astray.
If PK wants to stray that far away, he should probably take a hard long look at choosing to follow the path of his heart. What he is advocating is corrosive and disingenuous.
Bishop O’Malley would be remiss to not present to PK the gravity of his choices.
Michael: i think ‘reform’ is usually a good thing.
Reform suggests that the system isn’t working properly or efficiently or as intended. The purpose of reform is to identify the core elements that are sound and CONSERVE them.
What we have going on today is CHANGE. While we could argue that it’s what the people voted for, i find it more interesting and to the point to argue that “healthcare reform” is labeled such as a semantics ruse to obfuscate the true purpose of the present process.
THIS is a ‘lipstick on a pig’ argument. You can dress this ‘reform’ debate and process up any way you like but at it’s heart it is something else. Ontologically speaking the nature of this thing is a power grab. Why else would the original bill have been rushed through in the dead of night on a weekend in July?
There are many more responsible ways of challenging the system and improving it so that it works better for more people…if that really is the goal.
My 2 cents on the original point of this blog:
I am not convinced that the motivations and intentions being attributed to Kennedy are accurate. They could be. But I don’t know. (Marty wisely observes that his assumptions are satire, so I’m not faulting him, merely emphasizing that point.)
After giving it some thought, it occurs to me that it’s biblical: when a person is engaged in evil, after they have been confronted, if they do not repent, to remove them from the church.
(I think it’s an open question as to whether “evil” is an accurate description of his position. But I’m willing to grant that it’s reasonable to disagree with me on this point and think that the Catholic — or any church– has the right to carve it’s position on this matter)
As for Michael’s question about healthcare reform, and Garret’s response:
Our system is a careful one which does not easily or often lend itself to radical change. There is not only a huge variety of aspects of it under debate, there are also changes from little tweaks to utter overhaul for each of these aspects being argued.
Therefore, the beast we end up with is likely to have faults, unfortunate compromises, false-starts, and less than ideal portions to it.
I think Garret and I disagree. I think that we will end up with a reform, not an utter change. (To use his terminology.)
I think that it will probably be for the better. I believe that the current debate is long over due: in my opinion, the status quo is not only impractical and inefficent it is also immoral.
What do you think, neighbor Michael?
While I am a big fan of capitalism and for limited government in my life, the current health care system incentives are extremely flawed. We definitely need health reform. We can be proud in Massachusetts that our uninsured rate is down to 2.7% with our health reform efforts. For better or worse, whatever comes out of Washington will be a band-aid approach. As Jeff stated, the policy making process in the U.S. only allows for incremental change. It is a shame that 15% of Americans are uninsured. Statistic after statistic shows the harm of being uninsured, from lack of preventative care, to being poorer, to dying younger. We need health reform, but the ‘devil is in the details’.