Posted on 09/21/2012 8:42:15 PM PDT by annalex
On Jan. 8, 1962, President John F. Kennedy wrote a letter expressing condolences on the death of James Cardinal Gibbons. Kennedy, who rarely discussed his Catholicism, did so while describing the Cardinal: "He nobly expresses the essential traditions of my church in the United States ... the deep sympathy for the plight of the working man and of minorities, the steady concern for the betterment of society and mankind."
Thus, it was somewhat startling to see JFK's daughter, Caroline, invoke her father's name and describe herself as a "Catholic woman" when espousing a passionate defense of abortion rights at the Democratic Convention. President Kennedy never publicly commented on abortion and, indeed, his brother Teddy was ardently pro-life when he began his political career. Of course, that changed over time as Sen. Kennedy evolved into a liberal lion and enthusiastically entered the pro-choice den.
Caroline Kennedy has to know that the Catholic Church condemns abortion. It is a mortal sin in the eyes of the institution. There is no debate on that. So for Ms. Kennedy to describe herself as a Catholic woman in the context of promoting "reproductive rights" is a direct insult to her religion. Why would she do that? Other Catholic politicians like Mario Cuomo say they don't personally believe in abortion but respect the legal process that allows it. Not Caroline Kennedy — she openly told the world that she is an abortion crusader.
A Gallup poll says 24 percent of practicing Catholics believe abortion is morally acceptable. At first glance that's hard to fathom, but not when you analyze the landscape. After Caroline Kennedy's speech, not one American Catholic leader publicly criticized her. There was complete silence from the Archbishops. Given a huge opportunity to explain why all life should be considered sacred, and why Ms. Kennedy is misguided — to say the least — the clerics passed. Call it the silence of the lambs.
It was obvious at the Democratic Convention that President Obama and the Democratic Party are extremely bullish on "reproductive rights" and are using the issue to promote a fabricated "war on women" by the Republican Party. In response, the GOP has little to offer. It fears being branded "anti-woman."
But theologians don't have to run for office or curry favor with any group. They supposedly have a moral obligation to define their beliefs and stand up for what they consider God's will.
Abortion eliminates life. That's what the procedure does. Human DNA is present upon conception. If the Catholic Church believes that abortion is against what God intended, then it should be just as adamant about stating its case as Caroline Kennedy is about stating hers.
It is not.
Bill O'Reilly hosts "The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox News and has written many books, including "The No Spin Zone."
Yes, perhaps, -- but this is a public speech, spoken by a member of a prominent family that is correctly identified with liberal Catholicism, and aimed to get fellow liberal Catholics to disregard the non-negotiable issue of abortion. It is a job for our prelates to correct her public statement publicly, quite regardless of her private life.
Here is a wider problem, that your post touches upon. It is true that the pro-death Catholics are ex-communicated by their political acts. But it is then a duty of the Church to make the ex-communications also visible to the public, at least when the offending political acts were public. Instead I see them in communion lines, eulogized upon death, and -- here -- allowed to speak as "Catholic woman".
You shouldn't, but the US bishops have a job no one has relieved then of.
WHAT? Could you make a clear statement? I have not idea what you are saying.
There is no reason for you “care what Caroline Kennedy has to say”, unless you are a US Catholic bishop.
The US Catholic bishops have a job. Included in that job is the responsibility to teach US Catholics in matters of faith and morals. Implicit in that larger responsibility to teach is the responsibility to correct public statements contrary to truth spoken as if they were authoritatively Catholic.
Which makes you an apologist for a serial sexual harasser.
The show is the important thing because everyone makes their living from the show, the ref., the “good” guys and the “bad” guys and all their helpers. The wrestlers may slap each other around but never too hard and everybody has a chance to do their act so as to give the audience a good show.
Win, lose, draw, everyone makes money except the fans. And they're given just enough entertainment to keep’em coming back for more.
The difference between the two is that in national politics the audience is dragged from their seats and beaten up by the professionals.
True-—the feminization of men—even in the Church, has been devastating.
There is a dearth of them....sad, but our culture is intentionally destroying “Real” men through public schools and TV —through homosexualization and feminization which destroys character and fiber of men. The schools destroy knowledge and inserts emotion over intellect and base urges. it is really a very sick culture we have today.
Gibbons died in 1921. O'Reilly fixed this in later versions of the article.
I'm not really sure JFK was all that Catholic or all that different from his daughter.
Both father and daughter viewed "social betterment" as more important than actual religious beliefs or personal morality (and I'm also not sure there wasn't a lot of hypocritical posing in all that professed "sympathy" for underdogs -- it's the stuff people like the Kennedys say whether they act on it or not).
For those who did not read or read but did not understand my post 18, to which you respond. Do I need to add a helpful picture in case of the latter?
Ha, -- good. Indeed. Except that particular Kennedy, correct me if I am wrong, is not running for anything. She is basically a T-shirt material like Stone Cold Austin.
Catholic woman my ass.
Why, that is the left's project. Real men need very little government, close to none in peacetime. This is why the left is so upset about the 47% being in the client class: Romney spoke an off-the-cuff truth on that one.
Thank you. Is the new version significantly different? Would you give us a link?
Both father and daughter viewed "social betterment" as more important than actual religious beliefs or personal morality
There is a revolutionary current running through the earliest Christianity. "He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble. He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away" -- are words spoken by the Blessed First Christian. Can it be combined with weak faith, or perhaps in the case of JFK cowardice, weak will and political ambition? The example of the Holy Apostles teaches that yes, it can be. That Catholicism inspires the left does not bother me, so long as the "social betterment" remains in defense of human life and human dignity. The justification of the murder of the unborn is what makes what's-her-name's remarks repulsive, and deserving of public condemnation. We did not get one from our pastors in this case, and we were owed it.
But as “Daughter of JFK”, Caroline KENNEDY she needs no other accomplishments or expertise to be significant and a listened to person, an office only the news media idolaters have elected her to.
On Jan. 8, 1962, President John F. Kennedy wrote a letter celebrating the work of James Cardinal Gibbons, who died in 1921. Source
That Catholicism inspires the left does not bother me, so long as the "social betterment" remains in defense of human life and human dignity.
Good point.
Ping for later
From unionizing government, to Vietnam, to the 1965 immigration act, JFK was the end of us.
“However, if there is one man who can take the most credit for the 1965 act, it is John F. Kennedy. Kennedy seems to have inherited the resentment his father Joseph felt as an outsider in Boston’s WASP aristocracy. He voted against the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, and supported various refugee acts throughout the 1950s. In 1958 he wrote a book, A Nation of Immigrants, which attacked the quota system as illogical and without purpose, and the book served as Kennedy’s blueprint for immigration reform after he became president in 1960. In the summer of 1963, Kennedy sent Congress a proposal calling for the elimination of the national origins quota system. He wanted immigrants admitted on the basis of family reunification and needed skills, without regard to national origin. After his assassination in November, his brother Robert took up the cause of immigration reform, calling it JFK’s legacy. In the forward to a revised edition of A Nation of Immigrants, issued in 1964 to gain support for the new law, he wrote, “I know of no cause which President Kennedy championed more warmly than the improvement of our immigration policies.” Sold as a memorial to JFK, there was very little opposition to what became known as the Immigration Act of 1965.”
I don’t know if he ended anything, let alone ended “us”, but I agree, at the root of modern top-down penis-driven liberalism there is his tetanoid silhouette.
We puke.
The 1965 Immigration act ended “us”, now we are just a place where the world goes to make money.
That — the making of money — might soon end, if “they” have their way.
If the Bishops are not the champions of the Faith, then it would appear the disfunctional Kennedys are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.