LifesiteNews has an article about the commentary of Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S., in residence in St. Louis with the Oblates of Wisdom, about the Kennedy funeral fiasco. Fr. Harrison is an excellent theologian who gives an interesting take on the matter.
From the full article:
Priest: Imagine the Funeral if Kennedy was an Anti-Semite Rather Than Pro-Abortion
August 31, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – As a Roman Catholic priest, I feel a duty in conscience today to register my emphatic dissent from a message that was projected around the nation and the globe this morning to millions of viewers and listeners by certain other members of the Roman Catholic clergy.
I refer to this morning’s televised funeral Mass, celebrated in Boston’s Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help, for the recently deceased Senator Edward Moore Kennedy. It was a Mass I regard as a scandal comparable to, if not worse than, the scandal given several months ago when the nation’s most prestigious ‘Catholic’ university bestowed an honorary doctorate upon Barack Hussein Obama, the most pro-abortion and ‘pro-gay’ president in U.S. history.
Why, you ask, should a Catholic priest raise such objections to a Catholic funeral for a Catholic legislator? Well, I am afraid this funeral was no ordinary Catholic funeral.
For to those innumerable viewers and listeners of many religions (or none) who were aware of Sen. Kennedy’s public, straightforward, radical, long-standing, and (as far as we know) unrepented defiance of his own Church’s firm teaching about the duty of legislators to protect unborn human life and resist the militant homosexual agenda, this morning’s Mass, concelebrated by several priests, presided over Cardinal Sean O’Malley, Archbishop of Boston, and adorned by a eulogy from the aforesaid U.S. President, effectively communicated a tacit but very clear message: the Church does not really take too seriously her own ‘official’ doctrines on these matters!
I feel impelled, therefore, to make known to anyone willing to read these lines that there are many other representatives of the Catholic Church, such as myself, who take those doctrines very seriously indeed.
To answer that question, we need only imagine a situation in which some well-known Catholic legislator had for years supported the Church’s social teaching ‘across the board’, in regard to human life, marriage, compassion toward the poor and underprivileged, etc., but had then, in old age, lapsed into supporting some ideological position that was strongly opposed not only by the Church, but also by the dominant Western elites.
Suppose, for instance, that he had come to endorse white supremacism or holocaust denial. Now, when the moment for this Catholic legislator’s funeral came, could we imagine for one moment that our cardinals, bishops and other leading clergy, mindful of this man’s sterling and thoroughly orthodox contributions to the common good over so many years in Congress, would ‘compassionately’ overlook his latter-day lapse into racism or anti-semitism?
Would they agree to give him a free pass in regard to this defect? Would they speak and act as if it were non-existent? Would they grant him a televised funeral Mass in a large basilica, presided over by a cardinal, in which he would be publicly eulogized by both family and public figures?
These questions really answer themselves. Of course none of that would occur! The local bishop might go as far as to allow our hypothetical Catholic racist or anti-semite a Church funeral, if it was known that (like Senator Kennedy) he had confessed sacramentally to a priest before death.
However, the bishop would allow the use of church property for this funeral on the strict condition that only close personal family and friends would be admitted. All media transmission or even presence during the service itself would surely be forbidden. (It would, of course, be unnecessary for the bishop to ask his fellow bishops and other high Church dignitaries not to attend the service; for all of them, like the bishop himself, would already prefer to be anywhere else on earth than at the funeral of one who had lapsed so unspeakably from society’s ruling canons of acceptable behavior.)
The big difference is simply that most members of the Catholic hierarchy in Western society today – and there are of course a number of honorable exceptions – are lacking in prophetic courage. They are ready and eager to take vigorous and resolute public disciplinary action only against those deviations from Church teaching which also happen to be excoriated by the cultural and media elites.
So it was, in this morning’s funeral Mass, that the homilist, Fr. Mark Hession (pastor of Kennedy’s Cape Cod parish), made his sermon a eulogy about what a wonderful Catholic Christian Ted was, assuring us that we could be “confident” that he is already with Jesus in glory.
So it was that the principal celebrant, Fr. Donald Monan, S.J., Chancellor of Boston College, not only repeatedly told those present – and the whole watching world – that Sen. Kennedy was a man of “faith and prayer”, with a deep devotion to the Eucharist, but also assured us that this “faith and prayer” in private was precisely what inspired and motivated his public policies, so that there was (surprise, surprise) a real integration and unity between his private and public life!
Well, a lot of us didn’t quite manage to see any private-public unity based on Roman Catholic principles. On the contrary, Kennedy’s huge political influence, based on both the family’s prestige and the personal dyamism of this “Lion of the Senate”, if anything made his U-turn on abortion (yes, he was pro-life in his younger days) an even more scandalous counter-witness: a sign of conflict, not union, with that Church to which he professed loyalty.
What could I say to her? And what can I say now, after today’s public scandal? That young lady’s complaint was simply that this man remained a Catholic in good standing. I find I must now complain to you of something worse.
Before the whole world this morning, my fellow Catholic clerics in Boston did not just accord him the “good standing” of a normal, flawed Catholic whose soul we can hope is in Purgatory. Rather, clad in triumphant white vestments instead of penitential violet (never mind the traditional black!), they have placed him on a pedestal, granting him an unofficial ‘instant canonization’!
Enough. If, in your charity, you pray for God to be merciful to the soul of Edward Moore Kennedy, please pray for all of us Catholic priests as well – and be cognizant of the fact that some of us are profoundly indignant at what we saw our brethren doing today.
One of the great flaws in anti-human, earth-worshipping radical environmentalism (as opposed to rational conservationism) is the failure to answer the simple objection to it: If human activity harms the environment, and we need to protect the environment by mitigating human activity, for whom are we protecting the environment if not for humans themselves?
The possible answers are two: either we need to protect the environment for humans to enjoy and use, and thus cannot eliminate them from the equation, or else we need to protect the environment for its own sake, in which case the best course of action is simultaneous global suicide.
Guess which answer the radical environmentalist embraces?
The abolition of Man is the end of radical environmentalism. The fact that this is hidden in their agenda is bad enough, but compounding the problem is that this bill of goods has been sold to many leftist, self-described Catholic laymen and religious.
A recent article highlights the obvious. If people are bad, why not prevent their existence and kill them if they manage to get conceived anyway?
I love the statement made in the article, without the least bit of irony, that the UN estimates that 40 percent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended. Unintended. Really? And people in the grocery store ask me if I know what causes that.
From the UK Telegraph:
‘Contraception cheapest way to combat climate change’
Contraception is almost five times cheaper as a means of preventing climate change than conventional green technologies, according to research by the London School of Economics.
By Richard Pindar
Published: 12:05PM BST 09 Sep 2009
Every £4 spent on family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a ton, whereas a minimum of £19 would have to be spent on low-carbon technologies to achieve the same result, the research says.
The report, Fewer Emitter, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, concludes that family planning should be seen as one of the primary methods of emissions reduction. The UN estimates that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended.
If these basic family planning needs were met, 34 gigatons (billion tonnes) of CO2 would be saved – equivalent to nearly 6 times the annual emissions of the US and almost 60 times the UK’s annual total.
Roger Martin, chairman of the Optimum Population Trust at the LSE, said: “It’s always been obviously that total emissions depend on the number of emitters as well as their individual emissions – the carbon tonnage can’t shoot down as we want, while the population keeps shooting up.”
UN data suggests that meeting unmet need for family planning would reduce unintended births by 72 per cent, reducing projected world population in 2050 by half a billion to 8.64 million.
The research is published on the day that the Government’s climate change advisers, the Climate Change Committee, warned households and industry that a planned 80 per cent reduction in emissions are likely to prove insufficient.