Bishop Tobin Educates Rep. Patrick Kennedy About Being A Real Catholic

Bishop Tobin of Rhode Island felt the need to make some points about what it means to be Catholic with Representative Patrick Kennedy

Representative Patrick Kennedy has given Rhode Island's Bishop Tobin the perfect excuse to define a real Catholic. It seems it has everything to do with obeying the Church and nothing to do with Jesus.

Dear Congressman Kennedy
BY BISHOP THOMAS J. TOBIN 11/12/09 Rhode Island Catholic

Dear Congressman Kennedy:

“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.”

Since our recent correspondence has been rather public, I hope you don’t mind if I share a few reflections about your practice of the faith in this public forum. I usually wouldn’t do that – that is speak about someone’s faith in a public setting – but in our well-documented exchange of letters about health care and abortion, it has emerged as an issue. I also share these words publicly with the thought that they might be instructive to other Catholics, including those in prominent positions of leadership.

For the moment I’d like to set aside the discussion of health care reform, as important and relevant as it is, and focus on one statement contained in your letter of October 29, 2009, in which you write, “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” That sentence certainly caught my attention and deserves a public response, lest it go unchallenged and lead others to believe it’s true. And it raises an important question: What does it mean to be a Catholic?

“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does. Although I wouldn’t choose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church. This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents.

For example, the “Code of Canon Law” says, “Lay persons are bound by an obligation and possess the right to acquire a knowledge of Christian doctrine adapted to their capacity and condition so that they can live in accord with that doctrine.” (Canon 229, #1)

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” says this: “Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles, ‘He who hears you, hears me,’ the faithful receive with docility the teaching and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.” (#87)

Or consider this statement of the Church: “It would be a mistake to confuse the proper autonomy exercised by Catholics in political life with the claim of a principle that prescinds from the moral and social teaching of the Church.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2002)
There’s lots of canonical and theological verbiage there, Congressman, but what it means is that if you don’t accept the teachings of the Church your communion with the Church is flawed, or in your own words, makes you “less of a Catholic.”

But let’s get down to a more practical question; let’s approach it this way: What does it mean, really, to be a Catholic? After all, being a Catholic has to mean something, right?

Well, in simple terms – and here I refer only to those more visible, structural elements of Church membership – being a Catholic means that you’re part of a faith community that possesses a clearly defined authority and doctrine, obligations and expectations. It means that you believe and accept the teachings of the Church, especially on essential matters of faith and morals; that you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish; that you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly; that you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially.

Congressman, I’m not sure whether or not you fulfill the basic requirements of being a Catholic, so let me ask: Do you accept the teachings of the Church on essential matters of faith and morals, including our stance on abortion? Do you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish? Do you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly? Do you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially?

In your letter you say that you “embrace your faith.” Terrific. But if you don’t fulfill the basic requirements of membership, what is it exactly that makes you a Catholic? Your baptism as an infant? Your family ties? Your cultural heritage?

Your letter also says that your faith “acknowledges the existence of an imperfect humanity.” Absolutely true. But in confronting your rejection of the Church’s teaching, we’re not dealing just with “an imperfect humanity” – as we do when we wrestle with sins such as anger, pride, greed, impurity or dishonesty. We all struggle with those things, and often fail.

Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category – it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will; a conscious decision that you’ve re-affirmed on many occasions. Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an “imperfect humanity.” Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.

Congressman Kennedy, I write these words not to embarrass you or to judge the state of your conscience or soul. That’s ultimately between you and God. But your description of your relationship with the Church is now a matter of public record, and it needs to be challenged. I invite you, as your bishop and brother in Christ, to enter into a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance. It’s not too late for you to repair your relationship with the Church, redeem your public image, and emerge as an authentic “profile in courage,” especially by defending the sanctity of human life for all people, including unborn children. And if I can ever be of assistance as you travel the road of faith, I would be honored and happy to do so.

Sincerely yours,
Thomas J. Tobin
Bishop of Providence

************************************************

In this entire piece of Bishop Tobin's there is no mention of Jesus, not one time, not at all. There is plenty of mention of the Church. The word Church is mentioned some 16 times. Church 16 - Jesus 0. Wow the Church in Tobin's view has just pitched a resounding shut out.

I love Bishop Tobin's last sentence: "And if I can ever be of assistance as you travel the road of faith, I would be honored and happy to do so." Tobin has made it amply evident that the road of faith equals docile obedience to institutional authority. Someone should tell the good bishop that docile obedience to authority is not faith. It's childish.

Why does the bishop think a Catholic in good standing has to be childish? In the first place this insults him as a pastor. It says that his pastoral authority is deficient in that he can't allow himself to interact with Catholics who form independent adult opinions. He can allow no other relationship between himself and his flock other than that of parent/child. Tobin doesn't promote or encourage adult faith, he serves only to enable pathological childish dependency. He demands this as the sign of a good Catholic. It says so in the Catechism of the Church. It also says a great deal about him.

I don't know how much longer Catholics with an adult maturity are going to put up with this 'reform of the reform' because it doesn't seem to be just a call to reform. It's a call to return to a childish faith in which intellectually docile laity know nothing about what's good for them and parental clerics know everything. This reform seems to imply the catechism is the end all and be all of human wisdom and divine guidance.

I wish Bishop Tobin could tell me why God and the church felt they could develop the end all and be all of human wisdom and divine guidance with zero input from women. I have a tough time getting over that one. This is especially confusing to me since the whole shebang originated because of the input of a woman. Men claiming the feminine input by defining an all male Church as Holy Mother Church doesn't fly with me. Tobin's letter isn't the thinking of a nurturing loving mother, it's the thinking of an alpha male trapped in his own image and likeness.

In the real world, adult children disagree with their parents all the time on key issues. Most families can accept these disagreements with out lessening the 'famliness' of the children who disagree. This ability is what makes good families healthy cohesive units. When disagreement causes rupture it's because someone hasn't grown up, hasn't matured, hasn't developed the ability to move beyond stereotypical roles, is still threatened by differing opinions and beliefs and sees the differences as a personal attack. They will then resort to personal attacks to defend themselves.

I have some questions for Bishop Tobin. The Church you seem to want us to follow is a Church based on a childish notion of obedience. Not child like, just childish. It sees differing opinion as a personal attack on the Church, rather than a differing opinion. It is based in fear. It is sadly not Christ like. I don't understand why you fear letting us put Christ first, or why you fear letting us act with compassion and love before obedience to the catechism. Do you honestly think following all your rules is going to keep us safe from the devil, like leaving a light on in the bedroom allows small children to feel they are protected from things that go bump in the night?

I think so, because everything coming out of the Church regarding the culture is all future based catastrophic thinking that doesn't reflect the current reality. It also ignores the past which has many lessons concerning the danger of future based catastrophic thinking and the futility of desperately hanging on to idealized notions of some mythical past in order to maintain the illusion of an erroneously defined status quo. That's a very long sentence just to say you don't seem to be living and acting in the real world. Love and compassion are actions which happen in the present, in the real world. That's why they aren't sterile and are potent change makers in other people's lives. This letter comes across very sterile.

In the meantime the battle over health insurance for millions of the uninsured (people in the present) is still held hostage to future fetuses. Is it just possible that Representative Kennedy understands the needs of the present take precedence over the potential catastrophes of the future and that real live people deserve at least equal consideration and opportunity for life as potential humans? Or is this notion all too grey and complicated for the catechism?