Sons of Perdition: How Certain Catholic Priests Turned the Kennedys Pro-Abortion
March 17, 2016 by Patrick Madrid
Filed under Patrick's Blog
Awhile back, The Wall Street Journal ran a fascinating and deeply saddening article exploring the reasons behind the Kennedy Family’s staunch pro-abortion position.
Believe it or not, Ted Kennedy used to be pro-life.
So how did he and all the other prominent Kennedys swing so far in the wrong direction? For that matter, what about some of the other Catholic pro-abortion zealots in (or recently in) high public office, such as Nancy Pelosi, Mario Cuomo, and Tom Daschle? What happened to them?
(NB: I originally posted this blog entry on January 2, 2009. Given all the chattering right now from Catholics who feel they can vote for pro-abortion candidates with impunity and without compromising their Catholic identity (and without committing sin), I post it again because of its pertinence to the late Ted Kennedy’s life and legacy, such as it was.)
This article alleges that it was was an intentional, systematic, concerted effort on the part of a group of dissenting Catholic theologians (including Fr. Richard McCormick, S.J., Fr. Charles Curran, Fr. Josef Fuchs, S.J., Fr. Robert Drinan, S.J., and Fr. John Courtney Murray, S.J.), who spent a good deal of of time with the Kennedys in the mid 1960s employing bogus moral theology arguments to convince them they could “accept and promote abortion with a clear conscience.” Once this was accomplished, these same Judas priests undertook to literally coach the Kennedy’s on what to say and how to vote in favor of abortion in their public lives.
Given the Kennedys’ enormous influence over American politics, it’s diabolically logical for those dissenting Catholic theologians to have targeted this renowned and respected Catholic family for “conversion.” They were in the perfect position to persuade other Catholics, and even many Protestants, that it’s okay to be pro-abortion.
And this strategy worked so well that, today, it is virtually impossible to find a Catholic politician holding national public office who is pro-life. Thanks to these dissenters and those Catholics they duped, “Catholic” is synonymous with “pro-abortion” in politics.
Read here how this hideous transformation was accomplished:
Ms. [Caroline] Kennedy’s commitment to abortion rights is shared by other prominent family members, including Kerry Kennedy Cuomo and Maryland’s former Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. Some may recall the 2000 Democratic Convention when Caroline and her uncle, Sen. Ted Kennedy, addressed the convention to reassure all those gathered that the Democratic Party would continue to provide women with the right to choose abortion — even into the ninth month. At that convention, the party’s nominee, Al Gore, formerly a pro-life advocate, pledged his opposition to parental notification and embraced partial-birth abortion. Several of those in attendance, including former President Bill Clinton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, had been pro-life at one time. But by 2000 nearly every delegate in the convention hall was on the pro-choice side — and those who weren’t simply kept quiet about it.
Caroline Kennedy knows that any Kennedy desiring higher office in the Democratic Party must now carry the torch of abortion rights throughout any race. But this was not always the case. Despite Ms. Kennedy’s description of Barack Obama, in a New York Times op-ed, as a “man like my father,” there is no evidence that JFK was pro-choice like Mr. Obama. Abortion-rights issues were in the fledgling stage at the state level in New York and California in the early 1960s. They were not a national concern.
Even Ted Kennedy, who gets a 100% pro-choice rating from the abortion-rights group Naral, was at one time pro-life. In fact, in 1971, a full year after New York had legalized abortion, the Massachusetts senator was still championing the rights of the unborn. In a letter to a constituent dated Aug. 3, 1971, he wrote: “When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception.”
But that all changed in the early ’70s, when Democratic politicians first figured out that the powerful abortion lobby could fill their campaign coffers (and attract new liberal voters). Politicians also began to realize that, despite the Catholic Church’s
teachings to the contrary, its bishops and priests had ended their public role of responding negatively to those who promoted a pro-choice agenda.In some cases, church leaders actually started providing “cover” for Catholic pro-choice politicians who wanted to vote in favor of abortion rights. At a meeting at the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport, Mass., on a hot summer day in 1964, the Kennedy family and its advisers and allies were coached by leading theologians and Catholic college professors on how to accept and promote abortion with a “clear conscience.”
The former Jesuit priest Albert Jonsen, emeritus professor of ethics at the University of Washington, recalls the meeting in his book “The Birth of Bioethics” (Oxford, 2003). He writes about how he joined with the Rev. Joseph Fuchs, a Catholic moral theologian; the Rev. Robert Drinan, then dean of Boston College Law School; and three academic theologians, the Revs. Giles Milhaven, Richard McCormick and Charles Curran, to enable the Kennedy family to redefine support for abortion.
Mr. Jonsen writes that the Hyannisport colloquium was influenced by the position of another Jesuit, the Rev. John Courtney Murray, a position that “distinguished between the moral aspects of an issue and the feasibility of enacting legislation about that issue.” It was the consensus at the Hyannisport conclave that Catholic politicians “might tolerate legislation that would permit abortion under certain circumstances if political efforts to repress this moral error led to greater perils to social peace and order.”Father Milhaven later recalled the Hyannisport meeting during a 1984 breakfast briefing of Catholics for a Free Choice: “The theologians worked for a day and a half among ourselves at a nearby hotel. In the evening we answered questions from the Kennedys and the Shrivers. Though the theologians disagreed on many a point, they all concurred on certain basics . . . and that was that a Catholic politician could in good conscience vote in favor of abortion.”
But can they now? There are signs today that some of the bishops are beginning to confront the Catholic politicians who consistently vote in favor of legislation to support abortion. Charles J. Chaput, the archbishop of Denver, has been on the front lines in encouraging Catholics to live their faith without compromise in the public square. Most recently in his book “Render Unto Caesar,” Archbishop Chaput has reminded Catholic politicians of their obligation to protect life.
The archbishop is not alone. The agenda at November’s assembly of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops included a public discussion of abortion and politics. The bishops’ final statement focused on concern about the possible passage of the “Freedom of Choice Act,” and referred to it as “an evil law that would further divide our country.” The bishops referenced their 2007 document, “Faithful Citizenship,” which maintains that the right to life is the foundation of every other human right. In it, they promised to “persist in the duty to counsel, in the hope that the scandal of their [Catholic congregants’] cooperating in evil can be resolved by the proper formation of their consciences.”
It is inevitable that temptation will enter the world, but woe to those through whom temptation comes.
I find it disturbing that Ed Kennedy got the allegedly orthodox archbishop to preside over his elaborate Catholic funeral. Money must talk. This kind of thing sends a terrible message to the “faithful.”
You have a difficult job because you have to teach Truth when many of our shepherds have fallen into error. Many appear to be the allies of the wolves. St. Catherine of Siena understood the grim reality well.
Patrick,
Praise be Jesus Christ!
Suppose my wife was having triplets… and financially, it would bring future financial burden on every aspect of our lives. Suppose that as they are being born, I immediately submerged them under water to drown them. It would be no different than if they were in my wife’s womb than outside. This child is human. This baby is a child of God with rights as equal to yours and mine. It is appalling and sad that either they are ignorant or refuse to accept the truth. But imagine if this was not a human baby, but a puppy. Very strange how people’s perception changes immediately.
Sincerely,
Jose Luis Lopez OCDS
praying for abortionist ( & those support them directly & indirectly)…that God may touch their hearts.
Dear Patrick, I ran across this when I was searching for an article that would refresh my memory about the events that took place at Hyannisport, where the Kennedys were coached by Catholic “moral” theologians and college professors on how they could support abortion.
The hierarchy was silent about abortion for a long time. I’m glad to see as you reported that the USCCB has roundly condemned abortion. Back in the 90s, I remember going to a LA Religious Education Conference and hearing Archbishop Weakland talk about how bishops like him had the obligation to listen sympathetically to the suffering women who made the “difficult choice” to kill their babies in their wombs. In that era, much sympathy was being generated to the sinners who had abortions, similar to how in these days, sympathy is being generated for the adulterers who have chosen to disobey the Church’s laws concerning marriage.
You might be interested in a post I recently made titled “Do You Ever Wonder Why Prominent Catholics Openly Defy Church Doctrine?” — which is about how dissenting Catholics were taught the same kinds of erroneous theories as the Kennedys received, in Catholic schools, in classes led by modern “moral” theologians or by teachers who were trained by them.
http://catholicpunditwannabe.blogspot.com/2016/10/do-you-ever-wonder-why-prominent.html
God will hold these priests and theologians accountable. God is merciful but he also just. The cries of the aborted unborn reach to the very Throne of God!
This article begins to open the eyes of any TRUTH seeker to the subtle sophistry of the Tyranny Of Relativism. The truly rational evidence is very clear to show the “house of cards” that moral relativism is. The effort of self absolving, circuitous reasoning used by the so-called “theologians” and by those politicians named in the article is one of the many examples of “reasoning” that is used to allow, for themselves, some semblance of relief from the obvious difficulty in accepting the spiritual contradictions that they feel deep in their hearts.
Thank you for the great article. The gospel is very clear about the responsibilities of our leaders, both political and spiritual…so great the if they lead their sheep astray, they are VERY ACCOUNTABLE. If they think that the “millstone” does not really apply to them, they ought to think long and hard again and again. There is not too much wiggle room.
I love JFK and will continue to love him. After all God calls us to love. I am a southern pro choice because I believe that I shouldn’t shove my belief’s down someone else’s throat. Merry Christmas to all of you.
Leah:
Do you believe murder is wrong? Are you in favor of the law reflecting that belief? Or are you shoving your belief down someone else’s throat?
So you would rather shove a forceps down the throat of an innocent baby, or crush their skulls perhaps?
By the way, name one time a pro-lifer ever shoved anything on anyone?
Yes… God calls us to love and that is why abortion is wrong.
I was very sickened by the prayer on the Sunday following Ted Kennedy’s death at my church (a Dominican church that should know better)….The prayer was to “pray for our beloved Senator Ted Kennedy”…..Really,,,beloved?…..I realize we have a duty to pray for all the dead (one never knows if at the point of death, a spiritual confession was made and God granted His Grace….However, to call anyone beloved by the people is an act of extreme presumption….Catholics like Senator Kennedy (so oppossed to the Magisterium) could have kept me out of the Church(I am a convert)…Still, they confuse me and the reaction of the Church towards them confuses me….I believe with a very learned man (Pope Emeritus, Benedict) that the Church in the future may very well be a smaller church…However, she will be a more faithful church….Come quickly the future Church!
Re Senator Edward Kennedy being referred to as beloved.I think that is perfectly acceptable,as he was beloved of many who knew him and his family.It does not necessarily mean he was beloved to one and all.
I have always had that feeling that is what the Catholic Church was heading for.
A much smaller Church a new beginning with the faithful on a par with the original Apostles.
There are too many buckling under the new ideas e.g the sexual revolution and ignoring that abortion is a bloody sacrifice to this new “God”.Divorce and the
new ideas of extended family,single parenting and even same sex marriages.
It’s not a pretty scenario.
I think the answer is very simple. The Kennedy’s didn’t need any priest to invent excuses for them to become pro-choice. The Kennedy’s have always flowed with the tide to keep themselves in power. Power was their addiction. My question is why did the people of MA, (and RI)who are largely Roman Catholic, sell out their Church and vote for any Kennedy after the mid 1970’s?
Shepherding involves protecting the sheep from the wolves, not talking and writing and having it that the sheep protect themselves and lead the clergy (help; not lead), which is a perversion of the just order, like women being the spiritual head of the family. I am not a SSPX member or a greater dissenter, but Pius X did his job, as have any superior who has done his or her (for women’s orders) best to safeguard souls, not worrying if it creates prodigal children. It is hard to be against Vatican 2, when all we think it is is the removal of altar rails, altar girls, innovations by the MC priest and his folk band and other false ecumenical megommicks to “reach out” to this or that group and not their souls. Actually, V2 fathers wanted Latin in parts of the Mass and suggested none of the above, but that is what a priest made it out to be about in a sermon! Then, we have schools in the model of Fr.. Hesburg and like minded ashamed of our leadership in the sciences, who wanted faith teachings to kneel to contradicting worldly “scientific” beliefs and it is illustrated when that is really what even conservative Catholic talking heads are saying when they say faith and science cannot contradict each other. Well all that explains why most Catholics I know don’t believe all Church teachings. They are subject to peer review and who can respect a faith, if their priest does not respect the Mass?
Part of the problem is that Catholics in the pews have not had substantive catechesis for the past 40 years.
This can be changed if we follow the direction in Pope Benedict’s ‘Porta Fidei’ starting with paragraphs 11.
He wants us to read and study the CCC, and pass on the info to others.
Most news articles about the Year of Faith do not or barely mention this and the Pope writes 3 paragraph on this.
The CCC defines heresy and schism. Based on the definition, many Kennedys are heretics and schismatics and should be called just that not the slang of “cafeteria catholics” – which isn’t so bad.
The CCC is clear about excommunication for abortion.
There is so much more in the CCC, that if all Catholics knew exactly what is says, we could slow relativism, secularism, heresy, schism and scandal in the USA.
For a great site with documented links including to Porta Fidei, the CCC, and so much more (and a brief video from Scott Hahn), go to: http://whatcatholicsreallybelieve.com
or search ” What Catholics REALLY Believe SOURCE “.
You won’t be disappointed.
This reminded me of a lecture given by a Father Jose Maniyangat of Kerala, India to a Mariam Conference presented at Gonzaga University. He was killed by a motorcyle while going to a new assignment in the northern part of India. He experienced an “after life” episode when his angel met his soul and escorted him to Hell where he saw Priests and Bishops, some of whome he never expected to see. He says that, “many of them were there because they had misled the people with false teaching and bad example. One can read the entire facinating account in “Father Jose Life After Death Experience”. If those involved with this diabolical interpretation of Catholic teaching do not repent God will render justice
Thank you Patrick for reissuing this article. I did not see any mention of Robert Kennedy who had many children and was an attorney. what was his position on abortion?
While certainly these theologians are responsible for endless confusion over Church teaching, I doubt very much that it took much effort to convince the Kennedy family — they were already using abortion as a tool to conceal their sexual excesses. Mimi Alford’s current book relates how JFK offered to procure an abortion when she believed she was pregnant, for one example.
I suppose some of these (Judas) priests will be spending a little extra time in purgatory for this eh!
John F Kennedy was President but my Father who was somewhat involved with politics disliked the Kennedys immensely.and that always made an impression on me. John F.Kennedy seemed very pumped up by the media like Obama, I recently saw on EWTN a small segment on Eisenhower very interesting he supported The Catholic Church on Birth Control which was very unpopular and he took a beating from the press for this, he actually read or attended the conference on Birth Control and agreed with the Catholic Church. The Press attacked Eisenhower viciously for his support of Catholic Doctrine. John F.Kennedy, according to many Historians Paul Johnson being one of them, had Diem the Catholic Leader in South Vietnam killed the story I was told was Diem was praying in the Church and was shot in the Head, Vice President Johnson thought there would be blow back and that kennedy should not have done this ,Kennedy was killed 2 weeks later. President Eisenhower’s Son General John Eisenhower stated that his Father did not like what Kennedy was doing to the country. I do not think that a bunch of liberal heretical Priest corrupted the Kennedys they were opportunist. I am sure that they helped, and yes provided Political cover but I believe personally that the Kennedys are not taken seriously anymore and are somewhat of a Joke. Don;t forget that Archbishop Hannan Who recently passed away at the age of 98 was a spiritual advisor to John F Kennedy and the Kennedy Family a while back. I can assure anyone Archbishop Hannan was a very devout and Holy Man. He provided some very good insight into the Kennedys on his program called Focus. when he The Archbishop was questioned he stated he was not JFK’s Confessor but was his spiritual advisor.and the Families. There is a scene in the Film Becket where King Henry II is leaving The Church after being Flogged as penance for what Happened to Saint Thomas Becket The camera rises above King Henry to the very famous painting Of Christ. I have always been very moved by that scene it speaks volumes about who our Real King is. ..
left out the first sentence which was:
I personally believe that the Kennedys have always been opportunist.and hypocrites not all of them one must remember Rose Kennedy was certainly not pro abortion. I was not born when ,
.
Patrick, what a great idea to reissue this article. I’m amazed at how, even though we yearly remember the veterans who courageously fought and gave their lives to stop genocide (Remembrance Day, Canada; Veteran’s Day, USA), that society does not think it important to pass on to ensuing generations HOW genocides happen, how regular people can suddenly become accomplices to genocide (and even omnicide).
Re: “…it was an intentional, systematic, concerted effort on the part of a group of dissenting Catholic theologians…who spent a good deal of time with the Kennedys…employing bogus moral theology arguments to convince them they could “accept and promote abortion with a clear conscience.” ”
That genocidalists made an effort to socialize persons who were in key positions to further their goals shouldn’t be surprising, and is something we all need to be aware of and on our guard against as this is one of the ways that otherwise “good” people can allow themselves to participate in genocide/omnicide.
An excellent psychological treatment of genocide, exploring its psychological mechanisms, etc., is “The Genocidal Mentality: Nazi Holocaust and Nuclear Threat” (Basic Books, Inc., New York, 1990)* by genocide scholars (Dr.) Robert Jay Lifton and the late Eric Markusen. Although they focus on the stated two “episodes,” they are also talking of the psychological processes which occur that enable any genocide. For example, they state:
“Genocide requires well-educated professionals. They are necessary for its technology, its organization and its rationale….[including] clergy….” (p. 98)
“…socialization of overall professions, and of individuals within those professions, to the genocidal system and function, and with psychological mechanisms that enable people to view, as a form of authentic professional activity, work that is actually or potentially genocidal.” (p. 98) The Nazi’s did this with doctors, so they would kill; the nuclearists do this with scientists, so they will design killing machines (nuclear bombs); and pro-choicers also do this with politicians, to legalize the murder of our innocent children and also to further socialization of society to this genocide.
“…putting trusted ideologues in control with infusing the entire profession with [genocidal] ideology.” (p. 99)
* Although this book is out of print, I found a copy at my local library. Used copies are also available for resale.
Why were these so called Catholic Theologians and Judas Priests allowed to continue to practice their professions by ecclesiastical authorities? This is the result of what BXVI has called the hermeneutics of rupture in interpreting Vatican II. The abuse of adolescents by homosexual priests, the actions of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, the Nuns in the Bus, and so on ad nauseam, are similar results of this diabolic hermeneutics (The Spirit of Vatican II).
Bella Dodd helped put in place 1000 marxists into the seminaries, including homosexuals and satanists. Her work has born fruit. She later converted and spilled the beans. She was converted by Bishop Fulton Sheen.
Just a point of clarification. Patrick, in the introduction to your informative article you cite the background article that,
“… alleges that it was was an intentional, systematic, concerted effort on the part of a group of dissenting Catholic theologians (including Fr. Richard McCormick, Fr. Charles Curran, Fr. Joseph Fuchs, Fr. Robert Drinan, and Fr. John Courtney Murray), who spent a good deal of of time with the Kennedys in the mid 1960s employing bogus moral theology arguments to convince them they could “accept and promote abortion with a clear conscience.”
I am aware of the first of the four theologians cited as being involved in this effort. However, I do not believe that Fr.John Courtney Murray was either present for the meeting with Kennedy’s or directly involved in the position developed.
What was used from Fr. Murray was his distinction “between the moral aspects of an issue and the feasibility of enacting legislation about that issue,” as noted in Albert Jonsen’s book.
In this, wasn’t Fr. Murray simply outlining St. Thomas’s Treatise on the Law from the Summa ((I-II, q. 95 and following) that says that not every precept of the Natural Law need or always can be implemented into human law? E.g., masturbation may violate the Natural Law but need not be, and probably could not be, outlawed.
I hasten to add that I write only to clarify that Murray ought not be grouped with the others identified here, and that in any case, the argument itself is flawed because the very reason for civil law is the protection of human life. I only wanted to know if my understanding of the historical record, and in particular my assessment of Fr. Murray was accurate.
I found this article helpful in making these distinctions regarding Murray’s thought, and why the dissenting theologians cited above would not have Murray’s approval: http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/liberalism/murray_contraception_abortion.html
This is the problem with these so-called Catholic Celebrities, they can trash talk priests and spread calumny and scandal yet show no remorse. Patrick Madrid has become one of the most shameless talking heads who from this point forward will become synonymous with my ignore button. Yuck.
Patrick: It is certainly timely to repost this. I got it via NewAdvent.org, which was great as I missed it in 2009. While the story you relate involves high-profile individuals in both the political & theological spheres, the sad fact is that this same conversation between misguided churchmen & their misled flock occurred uncountable times over decades, both here & in Europe, Australia, & other liberal societies. I suppose we should be thankful that presumably these clerics are largely gone, but it is hard not to rue the incredible damage done: whole generations & their progeny effectively lost, either physically or spiritually.
Even after parochial elementary & high school, I was at one time pro-choice, as I bought the specious argument that no one should be able to tell a woman what to do with her body. My cure came from a few important sources:
1) A conference you gave in Florence SC, wherein you related the truth about populations, along with orthodox Catholic teaching.
2) EWTN in mass quantities, particularly Fr Pavone’s “Defending Life” & Fr Spitzer’s “Healing the Culture: A Pro-Life Philosophy”; the latter giving a profound exposition on personhood.
3) A remarkable exchange during a Senate hearing I happened to catch on CSPAN. When the young woman testifying passionately told Sen Orrin Hatch of Utah,”Don’t you dare tell me what I can do with my body!”, he blandly replied, “we do that here every day”, which is certainly true. It was (for me) a shock to consider that governments on all levels routinely make decisions that profoundly affect daily life.
As I am an inquisitive sort, I at least had the curiosity to engage in this process, & it still took a significant amount of time, empirical data & philosophical argument for me to accept & embrace the pro-life message. If that was true for me, how much more those who are more entrenched in their views with all the affirmation they get in the popular culture!
This is a sobering view of the task ahead, & just how contrarian Catholics are called to be. The fact is that some 30% or more of Catholic women in the pews have had one or more abortions, which poses an overwhelming pastoral task for priests & bishops.
Somehow they need to find a way to deal with the conflict & controversy that will inevitably arise if they engage abortion head-on from the pulpit. That this is their duty in no way reduces the difficulties they face.
Perhaps the answer is in developing a pro-life parish mission model, where the out-of-town preacher gives the tough message, accompanied by a team of priests giving confessions & counseling & other people trained to deal with the individual women (& some men) who are confronted with the sad, irreversible, & unrepressable truth about their past actions. A parish that is willing to sponsor this sort of mission would also have to create an infrastructure to handle additional cases that develop over time, including a strong tie-in to Rachel’s Vinyard & similar programs.
Just musing over this has given me a sense of the enormity of the pro-life task, & why more pastors are not as forceful as one could wish in their preaching.
As you are enormously better informed than me, has anything like this been tried, & did it get good results?
Fr. Walker, why do you point your finger to the sin of the Kennedy’s and the Democratic party when the point of the piece is the role of the priests in the formation of those souls?
Of the 12 Apostles one was Judas, if that ratio still holds there are today over 600 “Judas Bishops” in the Catholic Church.
Is not the first role and responsibility of a priest to spread His Word?
Is not the second to defend His Word?
If it is a sin to remain silent about evil, how much greater is the sin of those who teach His children it is okay to not only live among the people of Sodom and Gommorra but help them build their cities?
Is not the “theologian” role of a priest to help form His children’s souls so they move closer to Him, not farther away?
A priest is supposed to teach his sheep to wear His armour, not how to wear a wolf’s fur suit.
The accelleration in the moral decline and decay of America coincided with the “spirit” and “new teachings”, that were perversions of Vatican II, embraced by theologians and priests.
I believe what happened during Vatican II years in the Catholic Church is this. The Church rightly sought to listen to some of His children who were crying. She opened her heart and pastorally tried to help them understand how they can, not should, but can walk among the wolves with greater freedom.
Like many crying children given an inch of new freedom, they ran out the door smiling and yelling to the wolves “My mom said….”
Like most children with hearts filled with hopes of what they want, their mind did not have “ears to hear”.
So what came from the children’s mouth was not what their mother said but what what they wanted their mother to say.
So the wolves joined the children’s bounding off into the shadows of the forest.
I do not know how many priests are Judas priests. But this I do often see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears. I see GOOD MEN < #nycu – not yelling, can't underline) who have hearts filled with the desire to help their fellow men who are BAD PRIESTS < #nycu). I see a priesthood filled with men who confused their calling to being a Social Worker with a call to being a priest.
I also think many men whose hearts were filled with the desire to help their fellow man and who had homosexual inclinations saw in the post-Vatican II period a safe place where they could come together under the protection of the Church and live out their desire to help their fellow man while living among the very object their sexual desires.
The Church and the Faithful need priests filled with true Love for His Word, the Sacraments, and whose greatest desire fir their fellow man is the salvation of their souls.
Not in helping Caesar and pagans build a better Sodom and Gomorrah.
The desires of the priests around the Kennedy's were the same as those that consumed Adam as he stood before Eve holding the apple.
They desired to possess the knowledge of gods.
They embarked upon the same path of errors, of making laws to lead men to God, the Jews were on when Christ came.
They had no fear of His millstone.
They rejected His story of the virgins and the oil lamps.
They ran off into the forest with the wolves, like children thinking they can do all things and thinking their mother's teachings about wolves were Grimm's tales.
Worse than that, they would walk to the edge of the forest, take off their wolves fur suits and call out to other children to join them. How they did not need to change who they were underneath, but only needed to remove His Armor and Crest and put on a suit of a wolf to be safe in the forest.
There is no new cultural or political attack on the Catholic Church in America.
The sheep who ran off into the forest wearing wolf's clothing became so many, they began to think their numbers would now mean the sheep, and not the wolves, ruled the forest.
So they began to take off their wolf suits. Without His Armor, the wolves have begun tearing apart the flesh of these children like a lion.
That's what we saw at the DNC.
The wolves snarled and the children three times, like Peter, cried out in denial of Our Lord and of the children they entered the forest to save for Him.
The priests in the Kennedy compound that weekend were but a few particles of carbon that make up the Smoke of Satan that entered the Sanctuary.
Father, why did you point to the forest?
AMDG
Didn’t know all that. Very interesting. I just charged it off as the result of all the discension of the 60s and 70s. Although I knew about the part the men you mentioned played in all the discent in general. Didn’t know John Courtney Murray was part of the game. I still remember all the discenting priests and religous going from city to city speading the poision. We had lots of them every year for about ten – twenty years right here in K.C.. No wonder Catholics are so confused today.
Those “Judas priests” were devils in priests clothing. I seriously hope they repented for what they did. And those politicians? I am disgusted at their lack of integrity. They sold their souls to gain the world.
It is probably not fair to John Courtney Murray SJ to directly link him with the pro-abortion priests ( like the infamous Fr. Drinan!) who specifically advised the Kennedy’s that it was acceptable to permit abortion. The general teaching of Fr. Murray that some immoral acts should not necessarily be outlawed because attempting to do so would cause greater harm, is a very old teaching dating back to Aquinas, and in fact is one we accept. For example the Church does not advocate making adultery a crime or premarital sex a felony, even though both are immoral. I think Murray was predominantly focused on whether the Church was morally bound to suppress heresy, as to some extent espousing a “false religion” would essentially be doing. His answer was of course no. The real issue is of course, is this teaching can not be applied to abortion, since a basic function of the state would be to protect the innocent and it is hard to imagine a moral evil greater than the industrial scale murder of the unborn that the abortion regime in the US has given rise to. In fact as we know Vatican II called abortion an “unspeakable crime” So it is hard to imagine Fr. Murray would have used his reasoning about the states not having a moral duty to outlaw all immoral acts, to include things that the council called “unspeakable crime”.
I think you give Catholic theologians too much credit. Kennedy and others were pro-choice because their party was – and the party came first.
Good point! The kennedy’s were all exceptionally well educated &, in the main, products of Catholic educations. They weren’t low IQ or educationally deprived. Each and every member of this family absolutely knows that abortion takes a life. They sold out their faith for politics and now run as fast as they can to rationalize why the mass killing of babies in America is acceptable. I agree that there were some priests and self-appointed theologians who helped them rationalize but the church needed then and still needs strong Catholic bishops to clear the air and make Catholics in the pews understand that cheap politicians who sell their souls cannot change Catholic theology.
Great work, Patrick. The teaching of the Catechism on abortion is crystal clear, there's no "wiggle room" on the subject that was presented to the Kennedy's. The Pope has even called for red and white martyrdom on this issue. I feel that certain Catholic politician's career comes well in front of their faith. They should look to Congressman Chris Smith (NJ) for an example of how a Catholic should act in the public square.
Oct. 6, 2012: Great article Patrick. However, a reason why many Catholics feel they can continue to vote for pro-abortion politicians is because pro-abortion politicians continue to be permitted to receive Holy Communion. Pope John Paul, Pope Benedict, Cardinal Burke, among others, have declared that any Catholic who publicly advances abortion agendas or other agendas that defy Church teaching, must not be permitted to receive the Eucharist unless and until they publicly disavow their abortion agendas and go to confession. Since all Bishops do not accept this from Rome, Nancy Pelosi stated publicly that since the Bishops are in disagreement about this, she can still be considered a Catholic in good standing and receive Holy Communion. Many Catholics are again going to vote for Obama…sad. But until all Bishops agree that those who are publicly standing against the Church and her teachings and urging others to do so cannot receive the Eucharist, Catholics will remain confused. Would our Bishops permit pedophiles to receive the Eucharist. As horrible as pedophila is, killing the baby in the womb is worse. Let’s pray for clarity on this issue; and pray for all our Bishops too.
You're perfectly right and I agree with you. Ted Kennedy will answer to God for what he has done. Don't forget you will be hated by every one because you are a follower of truth – but know that they hated Jesus first. I agree, it is not morally compatible to say you care for the poor and use any means necessary. The ends doesn't justify the means. Many people, including nuns and priests, are blind to the fact that killing the unborn doesn't help the poor.
Nay, Father Seán. I never used the word "pro-choice." If you look closer, you will see that it was the Wall Street Journal article that used that term.
And we have Doug Kmiec today helping to further this monstrocity.