Can someone actually explain to me what it is Archbishop Burke actually DOES for a living?! Ever since he was sacked--I mean, summoned to Rome!--he does nothing but travel the world, celebrate the most beautiful of baroque liturgies, gives interviews to conservative Catholic publications, and received all kinds of honors from Catholic institutions.

I wish I had THAT job, baby!

I mean, seriously: all his orthodox hot air means absolutely NOTHING when it is not backed up by legislation or discipline. What the heck is he being PAID for?! Where are the heresy trials for wayward clerics and prominent laymen? Someone, please tell me: What does Burke actually do these days other than waste oxygen?

I say this as a long-time admirer of the man. It looks to me his summons to Rome was an effective neutering.

Archbishop Burke was appointed Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, on June 27, 2008.

The Vatican’s Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura is a tribunal of appeal from the Tribunal of the Roman Rota. It is the highest court of appeal available in matters concerning the Church’s Tribunals. The Roman Rota is a court of appeal from local Tribunals, and a court of first instance where there is no competency with local Tribunals. For example, any matter concerning a bishop would have to be dealt with by the Roman Rota rather than the Bishop’s own tribunal. Some people liken it to a position equivalent to that of Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, or President of the Conseil d'Etat of France. As such, immediately after the Roman Pontiff, Burke holds the highest judicial office in the entirety of the Roman Catholic Church.

Just as the various U.S. Supreme Court justices travel and speak about the country, Burke's ability to provide reflections on current events is a blessing to those who have a chance to read and/or hear his remarks.

Finally just as supreme court justices do not "bring" cases before their own courts, Archbishop Burke acts in a judicial capacity and would not "bring" "heresy trials" or anything of the kind.

Since you express a certain admiration for the man, please pray for the Archbishop that he be a willing instrument to accomplish all that Our Lord wills.

I find it interesting that, prior to Cardinal Stafford' retirement earlier this year, we had 3 Americans serving as the Prefects of the three Vatican offices dealing with "punishment": the CDF (formerly Holy Office/Inquisition), the Penitentiary (in charge of indulgences and remitting the sins that only the Vatican can give absolution for), and the Signatura (highest court for Canon Law---the very court that upheld Burke's interdict against that rebellious parish).

Any suggestion that Burke's move to the Signatura is a "slap on the wrist" is ridiculous. First, by Eric's admission, it has given him a greater "bully pulpit." Secondly, it validates his own readings of Canon Law on various issues.

A lot of people don't like Levada, but I think he has an impressive record. Levada sued San Francisco to not be forced to pay for contraceptives, and he sued not to have to give benefits to same sex couples.

All three of these men have taken strong stands on contraception, abortion, wayward politicians, dissident theologians and/or marriage issues, and the Vatican knows it.

at Friday night's Partnership Dinner honoring him, I came away mightily impressed by this 'lion of a man' as Deal conveyed. In personal conversations with him there is no mistaking his defense of the truth as the Church teaches it, while at the same time there is no hint of any animus. You'd be hard pressed to find a more humble and peaceful man. Truly a model for all our bishops.

He acknowleged in the Q&A afterwards an observation from me about the loss of a capacity for the psychological experience of shame in our present culture. He too calls attention to the shamelessness of so many public acts which, in a prior day, would have caused internal conflict for most.

I for one hope this bishop carries on for many, many years to come. His God-given talents serve the Church well in Rome.

Deacon Ed

That was you? Interesting.

Have you read Solovyov's Justification of the Good? One of the central elements of it is the idea of shame.

Being a Bishop is a difficult job. The Bishop should bear witness to the truth, be outspoken in defense of the faith, yet if he is too stident, such as Bishop Martino, he risks having the rug pulled out from under him by his brother Bishops or even the Vatican. I see a lot of criticism in posts at various Catholic websites from both Trads and Liberals of the Bishops, and given that I frankly wonder why any intelligent Priest would want to be a Bishop.

Yes, there are some Bishops who really drop the ball {Weakland and a few others], however, the vast majority are good, even heroic men, doing a very difficult and thankless job while enduring endless criticism. I am very glad that I am a layman and will only have to answer for myself

I am very glad that I am a layman and will only have to answer for myself.

Amen, brother!

Shame is an interesting psychological phenomenon that has fallen out of fashion. As the public and social response to an inner sense of guilt which acknowledges a breach with the community, we hear little of it nowadays. But so much of what we talk about in terms of the scandal of the Kennedy funeral illustrates the lack of any shame connected to such a public and open display of honor for someone who had been a major proponent of access to abortion in our country. In another day and age such an extravanganza would have been cause for great shame.

I have not read the work you mention but will look into it. Gershan Kauffman wrote an important work on the psychology of shame many years ago that helped form my thinking about it.

Archbishop Burke says that "It is not possible to be a practicing Catholic and conduct oneself in this manner." (He is referring to the issues of abortion and gay marriage.) As the Irishman in "Braveheart" says to William Wallace, "That was a fine speech, now what do we do?"

I thank God and His Most Holy Mother Mary for Archbishop Burke!
He is a model for Priests.
He loves the Mother of God so much.
He is kind and humble and gracious and wise.
He speaks the truth in love. No pro abortion politician should be allowed to receive Jesus in Holy Communion or receive Catholic Funeral rites.
He is strong and roars like a lion for the babies in the womb who have no voice.
He has as his model no other than the "Strong Lion of the Tribe of Judah"

Hey Eric; In the Catholic Church, when you go from Missouri to the Vatican THAT'S CALLED A PROMOTION.
Who knows Eric? You may be listening to the next Pope.

I'm lov'in it.

Thanks for your courage Archbishop! And to our current Pope for his excellent taste!
May Christ and His Immaculate Mother be at your side.

Fr. Deacon Ed,

Solovyov's book is from the late 19th century, but was far-thinking in his insight. Not always right, but good (which is why he is well loved by theologians and Popes alike).

A good summary of his position on shame is this (from http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/solovyov.htm ):

"The natural bases of morality, from which ethics as an independent discipline can be deduced and which form the basis of moral consciousness, are shame, pity and reverence. Shame reveals to man his higher human dignity. It sets the human apart from the animal world. Pity forms the basis of all of man's social relations to others. Reverence establishes the moral basis of man's relation to that which is higher to himself and, as such, is the root of religion.

"Each of the three bases, Solovyov tells us, may be considered from three sides or points of view. Shame as a virtue reveals itself as modesty, pity as compassion and reverence as piety. All other proposed virtues are essentially expressions of one of these three. The other two points of view, as a principle of action and as a condition of an ensuing moral action, are interconnected with the first such that the first logically contains the others. "

And it is human dignity which we all are interested in. With the loss of shame, no wonder human dignity is now lost!

It is a shame the Archbishop went to Rome. The leaders of three of our largest Archdioceses speak out in disagreement with Archbishop Burke (Boston, LA, and DC) and get more publicity and face time. IN DC and Boston, they publicly approved of the Kennedy funeral.

Archbishop Raymond L. Burke is a great man and a great Archbishop. You have described him well: humble, faithful, willing to stand up for the truth, as well as a very kind and warm person. I am very proud that he ordained me to the priesthood some six years ago and has given very good and sound assistance to our association since its foundation (when he was a priest in the Chancery). Thank you, Archbishop, for your fidelity to our Lord Jesus Christ and Holy Mother Church.

The time to speak up was before Sen. Kennedy passed away. The Church, through the Bishop in that area, could have taken a stand but they didn't.
It was a scandal to have a Catholic Mass said for this pro-abortion senator.
The American Bishops are not on board hence, a scattered flock.

I admire Archbishop Burke. He seems to recognize who he works for, Jesus Christ. In the end, we will all answer for what we have done and failed to do.

God bless Archbishop Burke!

To those who claim falsely we have mostly heroic and good bishops: It does not do the Church any good for the faithful to run about claiming that Most of our bishops are good and heroic. This is so obviously false as many can attest to after approaching their bishops about serious matters of faith and morals, only to be ignore or told "there are differing views in the Church."

Indeed, we pray for our bishops, we know they have a difficult job. So do parents, though, yet what nonesense it would be to say "oh, those poor parents have it hard so let's be more understanding when they neglect their children, don't feed them, or feed them junk, abuse them or allow others to abuse them." Nonsense! These parents would be in jail and/or have their children taken from them.

We have very few good bishops. Be honest. We have some really great ones, but even more weak and bad ones who allow their sheep to be mistreated, neglected, and abused.

The faithful must be honest about this, and call their bishops on a lack of action when evil is occurring right under their noses and they intentionally turn a blind eye after being informed. How can the sickness among our shepherds be cured if no one admits they're sick?

"The words of the Bible and of the Church fathers rang in my ears, those sharp condemnations of shepherds who are like mute dogs; in order to avoid conflicts, that let the poison spread. Peace is not the first civic duty, and a bishop whose only... concern is not to have any problems and to gloss over as many conflicts as possible is an image I find repulsive." - Cardinal Ratzinger (Salt of the Earth)

"Who is going to save our Church? Not our Bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to the people. You have the minds, the eyes, the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests,your bishops like bishops, and your religious act like religious." - Archbishop Fulton Sheen

As has been often said, the Church is like a big ship, and it turns slowly. I believe AB Burke has been given the assignment to speak the truth in love, which is one of the first steps in turning the ship. He's in a position to take great heat from the secular world and cafeteria Catholics, as well as people who don't understand his role. Sometimes The Holy Father and "his boys" work with wisdom in ways that we don't understand.
I have tremendous gratitude that Burke is willing to step forward and "take the heat" necessary to allow the ship to "lean into the turn."
The Pope speaks the Truth but doesn't normally get involved in many particular and specific worldly events. AB Burke is taking heat for Our Holy Father. It doesn't look like an easy job to me.

for the reference on Solovyov. I had never heard of him and will look forward to looking into his ideas on the topic. I think that our sense of and appreciation for human dignity has been markedly dulled by the ethos of the current culture, rather than actually being lost altogether. Christ has restored man to the dignity tarnished by original sin. The absence of experienced shame is ample evidenced of how seriously dulled the sense of our human dignity has become. And I can see how modesty is the virtue that Solovyov pairs with shame.

I know some might recoil at this suggestion but I would like to hear once again in our conversation the words: "You ought to be ashamed of yourself." I think it's most applicable to any Catholic politician who supports the destruction of unborn human persons: "You ought to be ashamed of yourself!" And for those who celebrate these Catholics - in life or in death - I would say similarly: "You ought to be ashamed of yourself!"

Fr. Deacon Ed,

Vladimir Solovyov is an enigmatic but important Russian Orthodox philosopher from the 19th century. He was friends with Dostoevsky and was very ecumenical in his perspective (believed in papal authority, papal infallibility, et. al.). Pope John Paul II I know liked him. He is quite esoteric at times in his philosophy, being the one who founded modern Russian sophiology (followed by Florensky, Bulgakov and Evdokimov). But his broad interests should serve well for the kind of moral reflection you seem interested in.

As a side note, Solovyov is now most famous for his "Tale of the AntiChrist" which has been discussed a few times on the net.

Prominent Catholics who supported Bush's crimes against humanity, need to make public apologies, for the sake of the Church, the country and their own souls.

Until they do -- any talk about "life" issues, is hollow and a waste of time.

Catholic politicians are you referring to who supported what crimes against humanity?

You deplore the disappearance of shame. Maybe you should read R.R. Reno's recent article on the First Things website. He said that personal morality used to be dictated by social norms but the situation has reversed: social norms are dictated by each person's choice of values. Anything goes. Without recognized public norms it may be difficult to generate any sense of shame. What's shameful to you is my piece of cake. By the way, Reno says the culmination of this trend is the push for gay marriage.

Okay, I publicly apologize on behalf of everyone who ever voted for George W. Bush.

Now can we get back to reality?

for the heads up on First Things...

George W Bush was correct on life issues and we should be grateful for his pro life stance. He was wrong however, on Iraq. I am pro life and just because Bush was wrong on Iraq, it does not negate his pro life work. That being said, one cannot ignore the disaster that was Iraq and look the other way pretending everything is OK, when it is not. No apology needed, but no more trying to twist things around to make Iraq look like a good idea.

Just jumping in here. How's this for starters?

{QUOTE} On the first charge of committing wars of aggression, the Commission found: "The evidence is overwhelming that the Bush Administration authorized and is conducting a war of aggression against Iraq in violation of international law, including The Nuremberg Principles, Geneva Conventions of 1949, the United Nations Charter, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In doing so, the Bush Administration has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity." [Thousands of Iraqis civilians murdered, tens of thousands of Iraqis displaced, and over 4,000 American soldiers murdered for the sole purpose of securing oil leases with Iraq for Big Oil.]

On the indictment for illegal detention and torture, the Commission found: "There was substantial evidence submitted through testimony and documents that the Bush Administration committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in conducting its 'War Against Terror.' It did this by developing and implementing policies and practices that violated international law and international human rights to force information from detainees and to punish those whom it believes may be 'enemy combatants.'" [Torture was used purely to harm and extract vengeance. No valuable intelligence was ever obtained once torture began.]

On the indictment for destruction of the global environment: "The testimony of scientists and the scientific reports and other documents submitted during the inquiry support a conclusion that the Bush Admministration has committed crimes against humanity by its environmental policies and practices." [Despite overwhelming evidence supporting global warming, the Bush administration took a purely political stance, contrary to all other First World industrialized nations, and refused to acknowledge man's role in climate change and support legislation to do something about it.]

On the indictment around criminal neglect after Katrina: "The evidence of the Bush Administration's conscious and deliberate faillings in preventing the foreseeable devastation, including death toll, caused by Hurricane Katrina, particularly in New Orleans, and its failure to respond efficiently and appropriately after the Hurricane was overwhelming. Its failures constitute crimes against humanity." [Otherwise known as criminal negligence.] {END QUOTE}

Bush does not think all babies' lives are sacred, sure he said he did, he was lying. He supported the killing of babies conceived by rape, incest, or for the life of the mother. These babies are human beings, too. aren't they?

Pro-lifers need to save the "pro-life" label who actually believe all babies are human beings. This calling just about everyone and their brother "pro-life" has to end. If pro-life means we support the killing of some "garbage" babies, then I'm on the wrong team.

Bush also gave his approval for the decision to sell the abortion pill over-the-counter. Obviously, he doesn't think the tiniest babies are human beings either.

He did a few things to save some babies for abortion, ok, good. But he also set the rotten foundation even deeper for the idea that only some human lives are valuable, and some are worthless. That setting of such an evil foundation far outweighs the few good acts he did, for the effects will linger for a long time, and as a result more innocent blood will be shed.

Only when pro-lifers begin to be honest about who is who, and unify ourselves against the killing of ALL babies, then, and only then, will we convince others to do the same.

Don't go changing the subject. It only makes you look guilty as Archbishop Burke has charged.

Furthermore, waving around the agenda-colored bloviations of an unidentified "Commission" additionally self-identifies one as a kook.

Getting back to the topic at hand...

[big][/big]

Abbreviating the Christian respect for innocent life in the womb to the term "pro-life" has confused some folks into treating the abbreviation as if it fully described the whole concept it represents. As a result, such folks are confused about the teaching of Jesus and the Church He founded as applied to the matter of abortion and on the matter of the death penalty in criminal justice and on the matter of prosecuting wars in self-defense and defense of the innocent.

All we Catholics need in America is another 100 or so more men like AB Burke.

Thanks for posting this, Mr. Hudson. Anytime we Christians can read/hear a Christian Prelate speaking like a man it is a cause for celebration and joy.

Archbishop Burke is a man while far too many in the USCCB are simply males. The difference is as clear as night and day.

Thank YOU!



Paul, Cathy, and baby Michael Kozlowski (...My son who now lives! He was rescued from the silent holocaust!)

Is Alberto Gonzales Catholic? If so, his signature on the infamous "torture memo" is entirely against *current* Church Teaching on the subject.

Though one could point out that the Church has been rather inconsistent on teaching against torture throughout it's 2000 years on this planet.

Isn't this just an extension of the Protestant Five Solas, and the severe disregard for authority they injected into our discussion of morality?

He was warned by two Popes on Iraq. Was he wrong on Torture? That's a more *direct* problem, given the fact that Catholics in his cabinet signed memos *directly* relating to the torture of prisoners.

Not dismissing any of the charges, but what Commission is this from? I'm always asked to give my sources- and I've taken my lumps for using raw data from pro-abortionists- but we need full disclosure when discussing things with conservatives.

Let's not forget, Iraqi babies aborted in the womb when the mother was killed by cruise missile.

Though we tried to avoid that one, I'm sure it happened; Iraqi death count was far too large to avoid it entirely.

I hate to Meta somebody who's side I'm on- but why stop there? Why not unify ourselves in protection of all human life, from conception until natural death?

On those last two- I've got some other options we really should consider.

I always liked the French alternative to the death penalty in years when it was in favor- permanent solitary confinement in steel. "The Man in the Iron Mask" was the classic case, today we could do something similar with a stainless steel cell.

On Wars of Self Defense, didn't St. Augustine of Hippo state that such wars really ought to be fought only against an invader on our own soil? In which case, wouldn't a far more effective method of war than genocide of the Sola Jihadists be to cut off diplomatic and trade ties with the Middle East, regardless of the economic pain caused? In other words, use depriving our own people of a few goods, as a weapon against the Sola Jihadis.

Archbishop Burke is simply living his faith and following his conviction that the Truth must be proclaimed as advocated by his friend, Servant of God, Father John A. Hardon. S.J. Fr. Hardon said that everyone had the right to the Truth. "We have a right to the truth because, without the truth, we cannot be at peace in this life, nor reach our heavenly destiny in the life to come."

Proclaiming the Truth in a materialistic, secular world will generate criticism...it goes with the territory. "Unless we recover the zeal and the spirit of the first century Christians...unless we are willing to do what they did and to pay the price that they paid, the future of our country, the days of America are numbered." (Servant of God, Fr. Hardon, S.J.)

To all of the harsh criticism, Archbishop Burke is probably saying, "It is good for my humility." His kind of courage only comes from extraordinary grace which comes through prayer.

Then Cardinal Ratzinger made clear in his 2004 letter to the U.S. Bishops that Catholics could disagree over the legitimacy of the War in Iraq, but there could be no disagreement over the evils of abortion and euthanasia.

The assertion that there is a moral equivalence between the War in Iraq and the over 7 million abortions that have taken place in this country since that war began (and the 50 million that have taken place since Roe v. Wade) is preposterous. That argument is simply a device to allow Catholics who view themselves as progressives to vote for politicians who promote abortion.

And speaking of the concept of shame, those who claim that widespread war crimes have been committed in Iraq should be ashamed of themselves for slandering our troops. Please do not try to defend yourself by claiming that you are only alleging that the Bush Administration committed the war crimes. The "Bush Administration" is not doing the fighting in Iraq. Our troops have shown incredible restraint in fighting the war to minimize civilian casualties and the ongoing attempt to portray them as murderous savages should not be tolerated.

Steven,

Why can't we acknowledge that the legalization and funding of abortion, the systematic murder of the poorest of the poor is immoral and scandalous?

Do we have to stop talking about it just because something else is immoral and scandalous?

I remember both of our Pontiffs speak out against military agression in Iraq. I have also, as have many others, spoken out on the evils of the war, even in these forums. Can't we address other evils which we can actually stop? We can't change what we did several years ago, but we can stop abortion.

BTW - We have to now figure out a way to fix Iraq because we broke it - so pulling out now would be irresponsible. Hey, I agree with President Obama on one thing (wow!)

is about Archbishop Burke. Could all the Bush haters please stop hijacking this thread and start a new one about Bush?

The bishop is CORRECT.... You cannot be a practicing Catholic, believe in parts of your faith and not the other and expect a Communion, Funeral, Wedding or anything else that our WONDERFUL FAITH has to offer us.... One must not stradle the fence...

We must be obedient to Jesus, HIS teachings and the TRUTH... this is where our many graces and gifts are given... I guarantee you that if Kennedy ( any of them ) Could come back to you and speak now, they would tell you how wrong they were. You cant even call themselves Catholic.... It isnt a Name, it is our FAITH.... You either go by the book or you dont...

You cant chose what part of the bible or Jesus's tradition that you want to live by ... It doesnt work.. You diffently will not get to heaven and who wants to stay in purgatory for life...

The cleaner your soul, the closer you are to being PURE in soul will you see the great KINGDOM of heaven...

ALl you have to do is read the Bible...

Nothing unclean will enter the gates of Heaven.

Unless you become like little children, you shall not see the gates of heaven...

TAKE THESE SCRIPTURES SERIOUS... STUDY THE INCORRUPTIBLES, THE PRIESTS,NUNS AND PEOPLE WHO HAVE DIED AND COME BACK TO TELL ABOUT HEAVEN, HELL AND PURGATORY..

Kennedy was far from our GODS CHURCH FAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He was caught up in the WORLD and wasnt a man who could stand up for the truth in the latter part of his years...
What a shame what he gave up and for what and who???

May GOD have mercy on his soul and all the luke warm Catholics who are like him....

PRAY FOR THEM...

Ted,

On February 2, 2006, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, the International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration delivered its findings.

The findings were based on five days of public testimony in New York in October and January. The work of the Commission brought together former government officials, experts in international law, human rights monitors, and victims of the crimes under investigation. It was a Commission of great legal, ethical, and moral credibility based on its integrity, its rigor in the presentation of evidence, and the stature of its participants. Based on the testimony, evidence, and documents submitted, the Commission delivered its findings that the Bush administration was guilty of crimes against humanity.

Best regards,
Craig

Folks -
Why this fixation on what priests, bishops, cardinals & popes say? Please think for yourselves!

MOGADISHU, SOMALIA (Worthy News)-- "Islamic militants have shot and killed a long-time underground Christian in Somalia after finding Bibles in his possession, BosNewsLife learned Sunday, September 20.

Well-informed Christian news agency Compass Direct News said 69-year-old Omar Khalafe was killed by al-Shabab fighters Tuesday, September 15, at a check-point near the port city of Merca, 70 kilometers (45 miles) from the capital Mogadishu.

Shalafe carried 25 Somali Bibles he hoped to deliver to an underground congregation, Christians said. By 10:30 a.m. he had arrived at the checkpoint controlled by al Shabab, a rebel group linked with al Qaeda."


I would personally give the ok to play loud music, blow smoke and pour water on Muslim terrorists if it meant stopping realities like this from occurring ... and then I'd take my chances standing before Jesus Christ on judgement day.

The comments have veered off course. This article is about Archbishop Burke's position on charity and truth, and not the past actions of the Bush administration. If you'd like to discuss that, we have an open thread here:

http://tinyurl.com/nuc8sq

Thank you.

Interesting. I've heard this comment many times from my husband and find it fascinating. We so shame people all of the time. As an occasional smoker, I've been publicly admonished that I should be ashamed of myself. I also understand that shame is the right reaction when I don't properly sort my recyling - and not long ago, a friend found an anonymous note on her windshield here in SF that read, "You should be ashamed of driving this vehicle." And, of course, we all know that we should be ashamed if we object to paying higher taxes. It seems to be that the total amount of shame available has remained constant, but the objects of shame have shifted.

At any rate, I thought I was hearing Archbishop Burke advocate plain spoken truth - with compliance to canon law as a proper path in service of that truth - delivered with charity and love. Did I miss something?

Archbishop Burke said: "A Catholic cannot accept the attainment of universal health care if it includes abortion and other evils "just because it achieves some desirable outcomes."

This would include not accepting universal health care that includes aborting babies conceived in rape, incest, and life of the mother. As Catholics, we cannot give consent to health care that kills even one innocent human being, even if the majority of babies would not be aborted. That is what Archbishop Burke is saying here, right?

I bring up this point because I remember, not long ago, the headlines on some pro-life Catholic websites were trumpeting that a vote passed which excluded abortion from health care, then in further reading, I was horrified to discover the dreaded and evil line of "abortion only allowed for rape, incest, and the life of the mother." So abortion was not in fact excluded from health care - why would pro-lifers deceive themselves and others that way?

I was again amazed at the deal with the devil that pro-lifers were willing to make - a complete sell-out on those poor innocent babies who would be sentenced to death even by pro-lifers.

Pro-lifers need to listen to what Archbishop Burke is saying, and stop making deals with Satan by supporting the killing of some babies. Is it any wonder that people look at how many in the pro-life movement give the impression they accept aborting certain babies, and figure they really don't think life is sacred 'afterall they are willing to allow some babies to be killed.' I've seen this come up on pro-abortionists blogs (that if they don't mind some babies being killed then their foundation is not about the life of the child at all), and I have to agree with them. The impression too many pro-lifers give by supporting abortion for rape/incest/mother's life, is that there are indeed reasons to support killing babies, it's based only on one's personal opinion. We won't convert the world to thinking human life is sacred if this is the message being given to the world.

First of all, that link is wrong. That's an article entitled "When the Church bankrolled ACORN" not "the past actions of the Bush Administration viewed in Truth and Charity".

Secondly, and I quote from the article above:


I would suggest also, that one cannot use abortion and euthanasia to compromise other universal evils, such as torture and war crimes. Thus, the debate about the Bush Administration, while admittedly somewhat straying, is exactly on the topic as presented: Charity, Civility, and Speaking the Truth, in that Speaking the Truth should *always* be above Charity and Civility.

Now having said that:


In my human lack of civility and charity, I would too, if it wasn't for one small item: torture doesn't work. Ever. It has been proven time and time again that the only thing you get from torture is a lie: the victim will say whatever he thinks the torturer wishes to hear, regardless of it's truth.



Why are we playing Obscurantist on this issue? Why not admit in truth that our troops (and maybe more importantly, our bought and paid for mercenaries in the security contracting industry) acting on orders of the administration, committed war crimes? Is this something like how the Democrats play obscurantist with the fact that abortion cannot be safe, legal, and rare as long as money is considered more important than human life? Or how Larry Summers, the very man who negotiated NAFTA and who spent the intervening years working for the financial industry, was put in charge under Obama of renegotiating our trade agreements?

Why can't we admit that voting for Republicans OR Democrats, in all cases, is cooperation with Evil?

Excellent examples, Marjorie, of Chesterton's maxim: "Once you stop believing in God, you'll believe anything." People are designed by God with knowledge of the Natural Law, inscribed in our hearts, as it were, from our conception. When societies adopt wholesale the notions of moral relativism, then every little thing is legislated because there is no overarching moral system to guide our actions.

People living under this perversion of true morality still feel the need to enforce orthodox beliefs in their warped system, so they shame those who fail to toe the line on ever-changing issues borne of warped "-isms" like secularism, relativism, materialism, etc. Don't smoke, don't neglect to recycle, don't reproduce, don't offend anyone's feelings or crticize their beliefs (unless they are Christian, of course), etc. The list grows and changes constantly as our society moves further and further away from God.

Ted:

Abortion and euthanasia are treated differently because there cannot be any disagreement about them. They are intrinsically evil. Go back and read the letter B16 wrote to the U.S. Bishops in 2004.

War crimes and torture are: (1) subject to definition and (2) have to be viewed in a wider context. Atrocities were committed by Alled troops during World War II. Does that mean the fighting of that war was an intrinsic evil?

Finally, I am sorry Ted, but unless you can identify specific policies our troops followed in Iraq that constitute war crimes, then you are slandering the finest citizens of our country and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Agreed. So? Why are these things intrinsic evils? They are intrinsic evils because they unjustly take human life.

Are you claiming that the Iraq war, in light of the lies used to get into it, was just?



The definition of torture is in the Geneva Convention, which when the Pope signed on, became Canon Law. Wider context or not, Americans shouldn't use torture because we don't want torture used against us. Or does the golden rule not apply in your mind? If not, then I suggest Newton: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The fighting of any unjust war is an intrinsic evil, because it is against the fifth commandment, Thou Shalt Not Kill.

St. Augustine of Hippo defined the only Just War any Catholic should ever fight- against an invader, on our own soil, in protection of innocent life, and NEVER invading another country to take revenge.

Morality is black and white. Right and wrong. Not "sometimes wrong because I feel like it".



The invasion of Iraq itself was a war crime. Crossing the border from Kuwait was a war crime. Pope John Paul II said so, BEFORE THE INVASION, and I'm a follower of the POPE first. Who are you following?

My hero, Cardinal O'Malley, says it best, from an article in The Boston Globe..."Cardinal urges civility over abortion issue
By Michael Paulson, Globe Staff | September 3, 2009

Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley last night issued a forceful defense of his decision to participate in the funeral of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, an appearance that has drawn sharp criticism from some conservative Catholics because of Kennedy’s ardent support for abortion rights.

O’Malley, writing in his blog, also revealed the substance of a conversation he had with President Obama near the altar of the Mission Church as the congregation assembled for Saturday’s funeral. He said he told Obama that the Catholic bishops are “anxious to support a plan for universal health care, but we will not support a plan that will include a provision for abortion or could open the way to abortions in the future.’’

But the most impassioned part of the cardinal’s blog post - which is at times folksy, at times cerebral, and punctuated by snapshots of the memorial events - is a de facto plea for greater civility among Catholics when discussing divisive issues. He warned against “harsh judgments’’ and attributing “the worst motives’’ to people with whom Catholics have disagreements, saying “these atti tudes and practices do irreparable damage to the communion of the Church.’’

“If any cause is motivated by judgment, anger or vindictiveness,’’ he added, “it will be doomed to marginalization and failure.’’

And to those who argued that Kennedy did not merit a Catholic funeral because of his support for abortion rights, the cardinal wrote: “In the strongest terms I disagree with that position.’’

“We will stop the practice of abortion by changing the law, and we will be successful in changing the law if we change people’s hearts,’’ he wrote. “We will not change hearts by turning away from people in their time of need and when they are experiencing grief and loss.’’

The statement, and O’Malley’s handling of the Kennedy death, seems likely to be a defining moment for the cardinal, who has been archbishop of Boston for six years.

He is a fierce opponent of abortion, has been strongly critical of Obama’s support for abortion rights, and has questioned how Catholics can vote for politicians who support abortion rights.

But he has also refused to join the handful of bishops who would deny Communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion rights, and with his statement last night he makes it clear that he believes the tone of the debate needs to change.

“Our ability to change people’s hearts and help them to grasp the dignity of each and every life, from the first moment of conception to the last moment of natural death, is directly related to our ability to increase love and unity in the church, for our proclamation of the truth is hindered when we are divided and fighting with each other,’’ he wrote.

The cardinal’s statement comes after criticism, in the form of hundreds of phone calls and e-mails to the archdiocesan headquarters and comments by bloggers and some antiabortion organizations taking the cardinal to task for participating in the Kennedy funeral. An archdiocesan spokesman said most of the complaints have come from out of state.

But the archdiocese said O’Malley is also being praised by multiple Catholics for his willingness to preside over the funeral. And clearly many Catholics were moved by Kennedy’s death - in Massachusetts, one of the most Catholic states in the nation, 50,000 people stood in line to mourn the senator, and his funeral was widely watched on television.

O’Malley’s spokesman said the cardinal decided to speak up because he wanted “to articulate, to teach and communicate with the wider Catholic community following such a significant moment in our local church and nation.’’

O’Malley is not the only church official who stepped forward to pray for Kennedy. The bishops of Worcester and Fall River issued prayerful statements upon Kennedy’s death; Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, the retired archbishop of Washington, presided over the burial service at Arlington National Cemetery; and Pope Benedict XVI, after receiving a letter from the ailing Kennedy asking for prayers, responded with a note assuring the senator of his “spiritual closeness’’ and bestowing on him an “apostolic blessing.’’

O’Malley said he regretted Kennedy’s support for abortion rights. But O’Malley said he wanted to be at the funeral because “As archbishop of Boston, I considered it appropriate to represent the church at this liturgy out of respect for the senator, his family, those who attended the Mass and all those who were praying for the senator and his family at this difficult time. We are people of faith and we believe in a loving and forgiving God from whom we seek mercy.’’

The Kennedy funeral has sparked a debate among Catholic opinion leaders and writers about how the church should have responded to the death of a man who was a member of the most prominent Catholic family in American history and a champion of many elements of Catholic social teaching but also a leading supporter of abortion rights. Kennedy has also been criticized by Catholics because of his support for gay rights, and his divorce and remarriage.

Raymond Arroyo, news director at Eternal Word Television Network, was among the sharpest critics.

In his blog, he wrote: “The prayer intercessions at the funeral Mass, the endless eulogies, the image of the cardinal archbishop of Boston reading prayers, and finally Cardinal McCarrick interring the remains sent an uncontested message: One may defy church teaching, publicly lead others astray, deprive innocent lives of their rights, and still be seen a good Catholic, even an exemplary one.’’

But there was also praise. The Rev. James Martin, an associate editor at America magazine, wrote, “Cardinal O’Malley’s decision to attend the funeral is large-hearted, compassionate, pastoral, sensitive and, above all, Christian.’’

Michael Paulson can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
"

My hero, Cardinal O'Malley, says it best, from an article in The Boston Globe..."Cardinal urges civility over abortion issue
By Michael Paulson, Globe Staff | September 3, 2009

Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley last night issued a forceful defense of his decision to participate in the funeral of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, an appearance that has drawn sharp criticism from some conservative Catholics because of Kennedy’s ardent support for abortion rights.

O’Malley, writing in his blog, also revealed the substance of a conversation he had with President Obama near the altar of the Mission Church as the congregation assembled for Saturday’s funeral. He said he told Obama that the Catholic bishops are “anxious to support a plan for universal health care, but we will not support a plan that will include a provision for abortion or could open the way to abortions in the future.’’

But the most impassioned part of the cardinal’s blog post - which is at times folksy, at times cerebral, and punctuated by snapshots of the memorial events - is a de facto plea for greater civility among Catholics when discussing divisive issues. He warned against “harsh judgments’’ and attributing “the worst motives’’ to people with whom Catholics have disagreements, saying “these atti tudes and practices do irreparable damage to the communion of the Church.’’

“If any cause is motivated by judgment, anger or vindictiveness,’’ he added, “it will be doomed to marginalization and failure.’’

And to those who argued that Kennedy did not merit a Catholic funeral because of his support for abortion rights, the cardinal wrote: “In the strongest terms I disagree with that position.’’

“We will stop the practice of abortion by changing the law, and we will be successful in changing the law if we change people’s hearts,’’ he wrote. “We will not change hearts by turning away from people in their time of need and when they are experiencing grief and loss.’’

The statement, and O’Malley’s handling of the Kennedy death, seems likely to be a defining moment for the cardinal, who has been archbishop of Boston for six years.

He is a fierce opponent of abortion, has been strongly critical of Obama’s support for abortion rights, and has questioned how Catholics can vote for politicians who support abortion rights.

But he has also refused to join the handful of bishops who would deny Communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion rights, and with his statement last night he makes it clear that he believes the tone of the debate needs to change.

“Our ability to change people’s hearts and help them to grasp the dignity of each and every life, from the first moment of conception to the last moment of natural death, is directly related to our ability to increase love and unity in the church, for our proclamation of the truth is hindered when we are divided and fighting with each other,’’ he wrote.

The cardinal’s statement comes after criticism, in the form of hundreds of phone calls and e-mails to the archdiocesan headquarters and comments by bloggers and some antiabortion organizations taking the cardinal to task for participating in the Kennedy funeral. An archdiocesan spokesman said most of the complaints have come from out of state.

But the archdiocese said O’Malley is also being praised by multiple Catholics for his willingness to preside over the funeral. And clearly many Catholics were moved by Kennedy’s death - in Massachusetts, one of the most Catholic states in the nation, 50,000 people stood in line to mourn the senator, and his funeral was widely watched on television.

O’Malley’s spokesman said the cardinal decided to speak up because he wanted “to articulate, to teach and communicate with the wider Catholic community following such a significant moment in our local church and nation.’’

O’Malley is not the only church official who stepped forward to pray for Kennedy. The bishops of Worcester and Fall River issued prayerful statements upon Kennedy’s death; Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, the retired archbishop of Washington, presided over the burial service at Arlington National Cemetery; and Pope Benedict XVI, after receiving a letter from the ailing Kennedy asking for prayers, responded with a note assuring the senator of his “spiritual closeness’’ and bestowing on him an “apostolic blessing.’’

O’Malley said he regretted Kennedy’s support for abortion rights. But O’Malley said he wanted to be at the funeral because “As archbishop of Boston, I considered it appropriate to represent the church at this liturgy out of respect for the senator, his family, those who attended the Mass and all those who were praying for the senator and his family at this difficult time. We are people of faith and we believe in a loving and forgiving God from whom we seek mercy.’’

The Kennedy funeral has sparked a debate among Catholic opinion leaders and writers about how the church should have responded to the death of a man who was a member of the most prominent Catholic family in American history and a champion of many elements of Catholic social teaching but also a leading supporter of abortion rights. Kennedy has also been criticized by Catholics because of his support for gay rights, and his divorce and remarriage.

Raymond Arroyo, news director at Eternal Word Television Network, was among the sharpest critics.

In his blog, he wrote: “The prayer intercessions at the funeral Mass, the endless eulogies, the image of the cardinal archbishop of Boston reading prayers, and finally Cardinal McCarrick interring the remains sent an uncontested message: One may defy church teaching, publicly lead others astray, deprive innocent lives of their rights, and still be seen a good Catholic, even an exemplary one.’’

But there was also praise. The Rev. James Martin, an associate editor at America magazine, wrote, “Cardinal O’Malley’s decision to attend the funeral is large-hearted, compassionate, pastoral, sensitive and, above all, Christian.’’

Michael Paulson can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
"

Ted:

Torture has to be defined because reasonable people can disagree about what constitutes torture. I find it absurd that some people believe that a procedure that we have performed on approximately 25,000 of our own troops was torture when it was used on three undisputed Al Qaeda leaders.

With regard to Just War, the concept has never been limited to fighting on your own soil. For instance, the Battle of Lepanto in 1571 was a pre-emptive strike on the Ottoman fleet and the Crusades were a counter-attack against centuries of Muslim aggression that obviously involved invasions.

I will not bother going through all of the other reasons for going into Iraq beyond WMDs because that would annoy the administrator. However, you are simply wrong about the War being declared an Unjust War by JPII. Cardinal Ratzinger issued a statement in which he indicated that the Pope's opposition to the War was his personal view, not a matter of Church Doctrine. So there is still no excuse for you slandering the troops.

Finally, B16 has made it clear that disagreements about a Just War determination do not justify Catholics supporting pro-abortion policies. The moral equivalence you continue to try to make has been rejected by the Pope. Who are you following?

No, the link isn't wrong. If you read the post, you'll notice the part at the bottom where Brian says it's an OPEN THREAD. That means you can debate any topic, including the human rights violations of the Bush administration.

However, this is not an open thread. If you want to discuss Archbishop Burke's statements regarding Catholics speaking truth in charity, here's the place. If not, then you can post on one of the other threads. See Rule #4

This isn't directed exclusively at you; others are off topic as well.

Of all the things written in the article, they all revolve around this point and it flatly contradicts Cardinal O'Malley's actions and comments. Talk about a concern for scandal - what is it when two senior members of the Church hierarchy come to mutually exclusive positions on an issue of such significance? I find the entire situation appalling as it seems to reinforce the cafeteria mindset that is already too well entrenched ... after all, if the bishops are free to interpret Church teaching as they see fit, why aren't we?

What Archbishop Burke said is wither right or wrong and surely that can't be simply a matter of personal choice. Unless our bishops can show some unity - and a demonstration that Church teaching can actually be understood would be a good place to start - it will be a long time before we can expect the laity to be unified over much of anything the Church teaches.

God respects what you think. However, when we reach the end of it all it is obedience to the teachings of the "Church" that I believe we will be judged. Clearly, Archbishop Burke acts in a way that demonstrates his belief in obedience. He is aligned with the teaching of the Church. You may try to justify your thought process with one argument or another. Then when faced with a stronger orator your argument may collapse. How do we know who or what to follow?? To answer this question I will refer to a truth I learned at a young age in Catholic School. Obedience, obedience, obedience. Jesus demonstrates this same thing in his agony in the garden. He is in full knowledge of what is to come. He asks to have this cup pass BUT NOT MY WILL BUT YOUR'S BE DONE!! Jesus demonstrates obedience. I believe we look to those who God has placed in authority that are aligned with the teachings of the Church to lead even when we don't understand.

Archbishop Raymond Burke is also the International Director of the Marian Catechists (www.mariancatechists.org) founded by Servant of God, Father John Hardon. He is in full communion with the Truth.

Thanks for the information. It was great reading Archbishop Burke's strong comments, but your post to Eric was educational. I am a cradle Catholic and obedient to the Magesterium, but I suffer from ignorance of many things Vatican.
Keep up the good work!

Dear Craig,
The REAL body that handles war crimes is not a bunch of Bush-haters, or any other group who pretend to be official and international, but the United Nations. They then decide either to open an International War Crimes Tribunal (like they did for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda) or, more likely given recent cases, turn evidence and power to try people over to the new International Criminal Court, based in the Hague (which, has now looked into four cases, including Uganda and Darfur). By the way, the US does not recognize the latter court's jurisdition. The mention that your "Commission" accused the Bush administration of war crimes for polluting the world should have tipped you off that this was not a genuine or serious commission at all. I would advise you to do a little further research next time before spouting off with your Bush-bashing (which, I agree does not belong here anyway).

How can we get the entire address? Is it available online?

For someone who discovered this website just a few months ago, I am being quickly being turned off by it. I so much want to learn about my faith and hear from others that want to do the same. What I am discovering is it always turns to politics ,democrats vs. republicans, social justice over abortion issues. For those that seem to express true love for their faith First instead of their political affiliation, I thank you, for those whose always turn it into a political debate, I hope and pray that God will eventually come first in your decisions instead of the government. For the subject at hand, I find the message that Arch Bishop Burke has conveyed has helped those like myself,who have been left confused by the Notre Dame and Kennedy funeral fiascos. Thank you for that message Inside Catholic.

Laurie:
In my view, you're right. This isn't the best place to learn about our faith; there are many others where you can learn more about the teaching of the Church, etc (like EWTN, for instance) and that are candidly more spiritual in nature.

However, insidecatholic is a place to discuss the nexus of faith, culture and politics, so you shouldn't be surprised to see what you see here.

God Bless,
Mike

It seems "un-lion like" for Inside Catholic to shy away from a truthful and charitable dicussion of the "culture of life" -- as it was or "was not" lived up to in the Bush White House, vis a vis abortion, Iraq etc.

Wouldn't Archbishop Burke want that?

Sigh. It isn't complicated, Stephen. We'd be very happy with that discussion, or any number of others, but not in the combox of an unrelated article. As Laurie rightly complains in comment #65, some people feel the tiresome need to drag every single comment thread -- no matter what the story -- into a discussion of abortion, President Obama's "socialism," President Bush's "war crimes," etc.

As I mentioned (twice) yesterday, here's an open thread:
http://tinyurl.com/nuc8sq

Feel free to post on anything you like there -- people will see it and respond. We'll also be adding another open thread today, if you want to wait for a newer post.

Yesterday's discussion, if seen in the context of fraternal correction, shouldn't be seen as tiresome or unrelated.

Laurie needs to understand that to be spiritually healthy we need to live "unity of life." Most Americans including Catholics live in a compartmentalized way. The consequence is that we can seperate the "good' from the "real." Which is why so many who claim to be pro-life also support torture.

It's important that Catholics be formed so as to better unite the "real world" with "Real Life."

I am not allowed to respond in truth and charity to this accusation against me- due to another intrinsic evil, censorship.

And the whole mess is compounded by a third intrinsic evil: Your inability to read simple instructions.

Go check the link I've posted here three times, and you'll find all your responses.

Here it is, yet again:
http://tinyurl.com/nuc8sq

Mike,

I understand what this site is about. I understand that we are applying our faith to cultural and political situations. Did you read the article? It did not mention George Bush, war, capitol punishment. It's main emphasis was on ArchBishop Burke's take on abortion, homosexuality, and Catholic politicans who refuse to follow Church Doctrine. To compare tortune, war, capital punishment to the obvious intrinsic evils of abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality is not a fair argument. Although all are bad they are not all intrinsic evils as Brian English tried many posts ago to explain to Mr. Seeber. I welcome the clear and consise information that ArchBishop Burke has conveyed. What seems to be happening on this website is the individual's need to persuade others that their faith fits into a particular political affiliation. As a political junkie myself who has decided to put my faith first before my politics, I was looking for positive ideas on how ALL of us can be Catholic before Democrat or Republican. I think Inside Catholic has provided articles in reference to this idea, it is up to us the posters and readers to comply accordingly.

Stephen Wise, I appreciate your opinion but that is just what it is your opinion. In a perfect world we would have perfect politicans that fit into a perfect unity of life. That is not the case. We are human. We are all flawed and certainly we will never be everything to everyone. I think Jesus knew that, that is why he wanted us to follow him as a role model rather than some politican or political party. Otherwise he would have come down as a politican. No party fits perfectly within our faith. Most of us have to discern which is the lesser of two evils. ArchBishop Burke spoke plainly as to what a Catholic should believe. That is all. Nothing more. His message is very clear. It is us who try to justify our political belief system into this simple message.

Abortion is wrong. The war in Iraq was wrong -- both times, and if Cardinal Ratzinger actually said what has been reported about John Paul II's "opinion" regarding the war, then he too was wrong.

Why did you delete my comment?

You deleted my post after you posted it?

Nice.

Hi Stephen,

Actually, that wasn't the admin, it was me, and I did it by accident. You'll notice the comment is back up (#75).

I'd meant to unpublish a different post. And speaking of that...


Most comments are automatically posted, as was yours. However, once I read your offensive rant against Archbishop Burke -- a good third of which was written in all-caps -- I very enthusiastically unpublished it.

Laurie:

Catholiceducation.org has a great archive of articles that address many different aspects of the Church.

Stephen:

Here is the interview where Cardinal Ratzinger explains JPII's position: http://zenit.org/article-7161?l=english

Here is the relevant portion of Cardinal Ratzinger's 2004 letter that I previously referred to:

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

I would like to ask of anyone who was present at the awards ceremony whether the word "Seamless Garment" (which the author of the above article put into quotes) was actually used by Archbishop Burke in his speech.

The author writes:

"In this form of reasoning, the archbishop hears an echo of the type of 'seamless garment' argument that conceals a distinction between intrinsically evil acts and those that may be evil in some situations; these acts "are not all of the same cloth."

Perhaps the author put the words into quotes because it is a commonly used phrase for folks who try to equate the death penalty and war with abortion. But if the words "seamless garment" were in fact used by the bishop, then it might be an interesting critique of his former colleague, Cardinal Bernardin, who coined the term.

Archbishop Burke did indeed use the phrase, but in such a way as to give Cardinal Bernardin the benefit of the doubt with respect to the cardinal's original intent in coining it. Burke was more concerned with how the term was being used today.

Dear Margaret:
Thank you for your reply. Could you (or anyone, for that matter) please provide a fuller context of how AB Burke used the term "seamless garment?" It is not my desire to fish for a critique of the cardinal but I would like to know more precisely the views of the bishop, whom I greatly respect, on this vitally important issue. Thanks.

Brian,

Thanks for the follow-up. For the record, John Paul II was not a pacifist. Nor should we be. During the Balkan Wars in the 90's, he was upset that European countries didn't step up militarily to end the genocide, same with Rwanda.

The wars with Iraq never met the criteria for being "just" -- from the Catholic perspective. Faithful Catholics should have been able to see that for themselves. But if they couldn't figure it out for themselves, they should have listened to JPII. His voice was not just one in the crowd. Unfortunately, many people were led astray by some in the American Catholic Church who wrongly manipulated the "just war" teaching to justify a "war of choice," that was wrong.

Ironically, when Pope Benedict XVI became Pope, one of the first things he did was to exhort a group of seminarians to obey the Pope -- all the time, not just when he speaks ex cathedra.

Stephen:

I think the Iraq War does fit within the Just War framework, but this is really not a thread to go through all of that.

I think Cardinal Ratzinger's answer in the Zenit interview is an indication that the issue is not as clear-cut as you assert. Reasonable people could reach different conclusions and that is why JPII's view was not being imposed as Church Doctrine.

In any event, we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

Thank God for Archbishop Burke.
He continues to clarify the big issues and the Pope brought him to the Signatua to do just that. Our Catholic people need to hear the truth and he has the wisdom, courage and fortitude to articulate the teachings of our Church in a direct and kindly manner.
Pray for him.

I was always taught that only God knows the state of a person's soul at the hour of his death. Given that Sen Kennedy knew he was dying, it is entirely possible he had one or more visits from a confessor during his last months, weeks, or days (the family & he had every right to keep such visits private; they and their neighbors had to deal with the press vultures' death watch outside their homes for weeks). Only that person & God knows what was said about his actions during his life.

Given that only God knows the person's condition at the time of death, I have also been taught that the Church does not deny funeral rites or burial in Catholic cemeteries (this last is not an issue in Sen Kennedy's case, as he is buried with his brothers in Arlington).

So, why give the church in which the funeral was held a hard time?

As to who did or didn't receive Communion at that Mass, how does Archb Burke know that? The TV cameras cut away from the congregation at Communion and focused on the windows and statues.