On the Death of Sen. Edward Kennedy

"For 50 years, the Kennedy brothers struggled to reconcile their Catholic faith with the public square. Sen. Edward Kennedy’s legacy will, sadly, remain compromised in the eyes of faithful Catholics.

Kennedy’s claimed to be a Catholic while using his worldly power to condone and facilitate the deaths of innocent preborn babies. Kennedy emphatically defended their right to life in 1971, but tragically abandoned his Catholic principles as his presidential aspirations rose toward the end of that decade.

By breaking faith, Kennedy set a catastrophic precedent for “Catholic” public officials to publicly dissent from fundamental Church teachings while continuing to identify themselves as Catholics.

As Senator Edward Kennedy’s death provides a platform for others to applaud him as a historic figure, we mourn the loss of only God knows how many preborn children –  lives snuffed out by this man’s advocacy of abortion.  God have mercy on his soul.

We extend our prayer to his family during this time of loss. As his death brings an era to a close, we pray that it will also mark a new era in which American Catholics will set a far more faithful standard for Catholic conduct in public life."

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • http://arkanabar.blogspot.com Arkanabar Ilarsadin

    It was not Sen. Edward Kennedy who set that vile precedent, but another Catholic congressman from Massachusetts: Rep. Father Joseph Drinan, SJ. Resquiat in pacem.

  • jpckcmo

    Senator Kennedy is the real pro-life advocate, because he cares about the lives of women and children. He wanted every child to be wanted, and he knew that women will have abortions even if Roe vs. Wade is repealed, because they always have and they died doing it.

    I am hoping his death will energize the progressive movement and help the health reform legislation, with a public option, to be passed. I know I will work even harder for this goal. This man did more good than all other senators combined. I have no worries about where his soul is today.

  • kagnewkid

    Ref jpckcmo comments:
    Judy Brown’s case made clear by your comments.

    He cared about the lives of women and children? Not the ones that were yet to be born!!! 50 million children have been killed in horrific manners since RvsW and it’s only getting worse with this embryonic stem cell lunacy!

    Every child to be wanted? God is the author of life and HE wanted them. The children are merely placed in our care. Their lives are not ours to take or experiment with any more that your life or mine is to be taken away or experimented with.

    Progressive movement? What is progressive about actions and ideas that helped finish-off the Roman Empire? Vanity of vanities, nothing new under the sun! Painting new names on old stuff.

    Go ahead. Work harder for your progressive health reform legislation. Those of us who DO NOT WANT TAX DOLLARS PAYING FOR ABORTIONS are lined-up against you. Abortion is NOT HEALTHCARE.

    More good than all other senators combined? That’s a pretty low bar considering congress’ approval ratings over the past few years. Wouldn’t take a lot to achieve that one.

    No worries about where his soul is today? Never a good idea to presume upon God’s mercy. Only God knows where any soul may go. What is clear, though, is that 50 million martyrs are in God’s care now, thanks to some of our illustrious “Catholic” legislators.

  • neiders

    I commend this writer for having the guts to say the truth today among all the blathering, pandering, “he was such a gracious guy” crowd.
    Sen Kennedy had many reasons that he will need much mercy from the almighty one.

  • theshahids

    On the plus side, he gets to see Mary Jo again…

  • jpckcmo

    Federal funds in the health care reform will NOT pay for abortions. That is prevented by the Hyde Amendment. End of story. I am tired of this accusation. It is a lie. If you think the wording is vague, then talk to your representative into clarifying it. I think it should be clarified, too, if there is any confusion. I certainly do not believe your taxes should pay for abortion if you think it is morally wrong. I just wish I could make sure my tax dollars did not go to Afghanistan or Iraq, because I believe those wars are morally wrong.

  • c-kingsley

    Is it so clear that HR 3200 won’t pay for abortions? Then please explain why an amendment to make that explicit was defeated. (Past tense. This has already happened.) Please explain the pols who say “Abortion will be covered, and I think it should be covered.” How can they be so confused?

  • kagnewkid

    jpckcmo: I have in my grubby little paw, a copy of a letter from one of my senators from Michigan in which she writes, “As health reform continues through the legislative process, I will continue to push for comprehensive health services for all women.” That, my friend, is code for “abortion and contraceptive services.” Later in the letter, she even decodes the code by saying, “Reproductive health care, including abortion services, should be treated like all other health care services….” So, it is being pushed as part of the package – do not be confused. (I DID contact my congress people and from their responses, they are clearly on the trajectory of including abortion funding in the health care package – Look at the voting records for Stabenow, Levin and Dingell, to name a few prominent ones).

    Secondly, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – if you’re concerned about casualties, remember, 5,000 service personnel dead over 5 years – a terrible number. Abortion, by contrast, costs about 3,424 innocent lives PER DAY (1.25M/365 – the number looks a lot worse if you figure 250 working days per year)!!! And MUCH of what goes on in Iraq and Afghanistan is rebuilding. The news doesn’t cover ANY of what is being done on the rebuilding front. They only report what they think will get you to watch more TV, and get you lathered-up over us “right wing conspiratorial nuts.”

    Your reference the the Hyde Amendment is interesting, but a bit of a diversion. I’m not sure about this, but I think the Hyde Amendment does not encompass restricting funding through Health and Human Services, so Ms. Sebelius can do whatever she wants and you and I pay for it. HHS will have direct oversight on the implementation of any health care reform. And on the topic of HHS, why did our president pick two people with the same profile for HHS director? Look-up anything you can on Daschle and Sebelius and you’ll see what I mean.

    Note to Catholic Exchange – the authors of this site seem to work hard at lining-up directly with Catholic Moral Teaching. I have found the site to be a great resource for learning more of Catholic Moral Teaching and developing a better formed conscience. Conscience formation does not come from within me. It comes from hearing, recognizing and accepting truth.

    What you’re hearing about health care reform and the war, blah, blah – there are a lot of lies out there. Better work on conscience formation to be able to deflect some of that stuff.

  • kagnewkid

    Correction – Hyde does explicitly restrict funding via HHS, BUT, Title X is out there for funding Family Planning through HHS!!!

    http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familyplanning/index.html

    And who is one of the greatest recipients of Title X funding? Planned Parenthood.
    And who provides nearly a third of abortions in America? ….
    And where did Title X come from? COBRA – 1985, Ted Kennedy. Hmmmmmmm.

  • DWC

    jpckcmo: You will have a rightlyfully difficult voice on this forum. Your views are adamantly opposed by those of us who see strength, truth & hope in more orthodoxy versus progressive-ism.

    Kennedy’s tended to relish power over faith (as in most politicians). Sadly, I believe Robert would have been the best of the lot.

MENU