Skip to comments.Bill O'Reilly: Kennedy speaks — and the Catholic Church is silent
Posted on 09/21/2012 8:42:15 PM PDT by annalex
On Jan. 8, 1962, President John F. Kennedy wrote a letter expressing condolences on the death of James Cardinal Gibbons. Kennedy, who rarely discussed his Catholicism, did so while describing the Cardinal: "He nobly expresses the essential traditions of my church in the United States ... the deep sympathy for the plight of the working man and of minorities, the steady concern for the betterment of society and mankind."
Thus, it was somewhat startling to see JFK's daughter, Caroline, invoke her father's name and describe herself as a "Catholic woman" when espousing a passionate defense of abortion rights at the Democratic Convention. President Kennedy never publicly commented on abortion and, indeed, his brother Teddy was ardently pro-life when he began his political career. Of course, that changed over time as Sen. Kennedy evolved into a liberal lion and enthusiastically entered the pro-choice den.
Caroline Kennedy has to know that the Catholic Church condemns abortion. It is a mortal sin in the eyes of the institution. There is no debate on that. So for Ms. Kennedy to describe herself as a Catholic woman in the context of promoting "reproductive rights" is a direct insult to her religion. Why would she do that? Other Catholic politicians like Mario Cuomo say they don't personally believe in abortion but respect the legal process that allows it. Not Caroline Kennedy — she openly told the world that she is an abortion crusader.
A Gallup poll says 24 percent of practicing Catholics believe abortion is morally acceptable. At first glance that's hard to fathom, but not when you analyze the landscape. After Caroline Kennedy's speech, not one American Catholic leader publicly criticized her. There was complete silence from the Archbishops. Given a huge opportunity to explain why all life should be considered sacred, and why Ms. Kennedy is misguided — to say the least — the clerics passed. Call it the silence of the lambs.
It was obvious at the Democratic Convention that President Obama and the Democratic Party are extremely bullish on "reproductive rights" and are using the issue to promote a fabricated "war on women" by the Republican Party. In response, the GOP has little to offer. It fears being branded "anti-woman."
But theologians don't have to run for office or curry favor with any group. They supposedly have a moral obligation to define their beliefs and stand up for what they consider God's will.
Abortion eliminates life. That's what the procedure does. Human DNA is present upon conception. If the Catholic Church believes that abortion is against what God intended, then it should be just as adamant about stating its case as Caroline Kennedy is about stating hers.
It is not.
Bill O'Reilly hosts "The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox News and has written many books, including "The No Spin Zone."
If the Catholic Church believes that abortion is against what God intended, then it should be just as adamant about stating its case as Caroline Kennedy is about stating hers.
Perhaps the Catholics, like most of the rest of us, couldn’t give a rat’s @ss what Caroline or any other Kennedy has to say about anything....??
The same attitude of “my religion won't influence my politics” has been used as cover ever since.
This is why I am so disillusioned with the Catholic Church—not Catholic Theology-—just the hierarchy..... Geeeeshh. They are such cowards and so afraid at how the press will portray them if they voice the Truth.
It is the environment that Pastor Bonhoeffer talked about which transformed Germany into secular humanism in the 20’s and 30’s-—same in many popular churches in the US like Riverside in 31. “Religionless Christianity” . Just mush preached inside the churches.
They might as well throw in the towel and bow to Satan if they don’t SHOUT the Truth from the rafters.
No one can hear them above the din of the press and preaching of Godless feminists. The Church needs to get real men in the Church again and get rid of the pansies. Can they please find someone with the personality of a St. Paul!!!! Stand by the Church—Shout the Truth and Stand Tall and Proud. You have a group to support you.....get rid of the progressive Marxists/homosexuals that are undermining the Church from within and study Jonathan Edwards or SOMETHING!!!! ACT! and stand by the Truth. Excommunicate these radical Godless Feminists, please.
Ted Baxter reminds me why I quit watching his dumb show.
Serial intern harassing O'Reilly opining about anything Catholic is the epitome of chutzpah. The next time he goes to the Ed Sullivan theater to schmooze with fellow philanderer Letterman somebody needs to ask him if he thinks the Sixth Commandment is just a suggestion.
Ping for later.
Yep. The Leprechaun is a sell out. But, we already knew that.
A few years ago I didn’t know who he was, and couldn’t watch his show, so I read one of his books. I got the impression that O’Reilly was pro-choice, I think the book was from the late 1990s.
The truth is, she hasn't really been Catholic in years. I'm not even sure how seriously she pretends to be Catholic anymore. It's kind of funny that the media have stopped referring to her as Caroline Schlossberg Kennedy in recent years -- as if to avoid raising the obvious questions about her Catholic "credentials" if she has a Jewish spouse.
I only know what happened through O'Reilly's article, -- I am one who doesn't, really, give a rat's ass about conventions, -- but if the article is factually correct, this is a speech given at a convention of a major political party by a well-known offspring of a prominent clan, who framed her speech as one given by a "Catholic woman".
O'Reilly makes a correct point: reasonable lay people can safely ignore any such speech, but the bishops of the Church have a duty to teach, and therefore to correct a public misapplication of the epithet "Catholic" to things that are anti-Catholic.
Amazing fact is that JFK's weasel act somehow added to his popularity, -- and not among our theological opponents such as Jews, Muslim or Calvinist but among the very Catholics this coward promised to betray.
There was, this political season, one moment that still may redeem it to political history: the "I wanted to puke" remark by Santorum. Of course, nausea is not healed by wanting to puke, but by actually puking, but it was a start. Maybe next time the relief comes.
I don’t care what Caroline Kennedy has to say or BOR.
Absolutely. But it won't happen until we have real men in the pews, who won't stand for a gelding leadership.
This is why voices like O'Reilly's matter.
I disagree. No one needs to wait for his own sanctity before he can point out a real problem, that of Catholic leadership.
It doesn’t matter who O’Reilly is.
Yes, perhaps, -- but this is a public speech, spoken by a member of a prominent family that is correctly identified with liberal Catholicism, and aimed to get fellow liberal Catholics to disregard the non-negotiable issue of abortion. It is a job for our prelates to correct her public statement publicly, quite regardless of her private life.
Here is a wider problem, that your post touches upon. It is true that the pro-death Catholics are ex-communicated by their political acts. But it is then a duty of the Church to make the ex-communications also visible to the public, at least when the offending political acts were public. Instead I see them in communion lines, eulogized upon death, and -- here -- allowed to speak as "Catholic woman".
You shouldn't, but the US bishops have a job no one has relieved then of.
WHAT? Could you make a clear statement? I have not idea what you are saying.
There is no reason for you “care what Caroline Kennedy has to say”, unless you are a US Catholic bishop.
The US Catholic bishops have a job. Included in that job is the responsibility to teach US Catholics in matters of faith and morals. Implicit in that larger responsibility to teach is the responsibility to correct public statements contrary to truth spoken as if they were authoritatively Catholic.
Which makes you an apologist for a serial sexual harasser.
The show is the important thing because everyone makes their living from the show, the ref., the “good” guys and the “bad” guys and all their helpers. The wrestlers may slap each other around but never too hard and everybody has a chance to do their act so as to give the audience a good show.
Win, lose, draw, everyone makes money except the fans. And they're given just enough entertainment to keep’em coming back for more.
The difference between the two is that in national politics the audience is dragged from their seats and beaten up by the professionals.
True-—the feminization of men—even in the Church, has been devastating.
There is a dearth of them....sad, but our culture is intentionally destroying “Real” men through public schools and TV —through homosexualization and feminization which destroys character and fiber of men. The schools destroy knowledge and inserts emotion over intellect and base urges. it is really a very sick culture we have today.
Gibbons died in 1921. O'Reilly fixed this in later versions of the article.
I'm not really sure JFK was all that Catholic or all that different from his daughter.
Both father and daughter viewed "social betterment" as more important than actual religious beliefs or personal morality (and I'm also not sure there wasn't a lot of hypocritical posing in all that professed "sympathy" for underdogs -- it's the stuff people like the Kennedys say whether they act on it or not).
For those who did not read or read but did not understand my post 18, to which you respond. Do I need to add a helpful picture in case of the latter?
Ha, -- good. Indeed. Except that particular Kennedy, correct me if I am wrong, is not running for anything. She is basically a T-shirt material like Stone Cold Austin.
Catholic woman my ass.
Why, that is the left's project. Real men need very little government, close to none in peacetime. This is why the left is so upset about the 47% being in the client class: Romney spoke an off-the-cuff truth on that one.
Thank you. Is the new version significantly different? Would you give us a link?
Both father and daughter viewed "social betterment" as more important than actual religious beliefs or personal morality
There is a revolutionary current running through the earliest Christianity. "He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble. He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away" -- are words spoken by the Blessed First Christian. Can it be combined with weak faith, or perhaps in the case of JFK cowardice, weak will and political ambition? The example of the Holy Apostles teaches that yes, it can be. That Catholicism inspires the left does not bother me, so long as the "social betterment" remains in defense of human life and human dignity. The justification of the murder of the unborn is what makes what's-her-name's remarks repulsive, and deserving of public condemnation. We did not get one from our pastors in this case, and we were owed it.
But as “Daughter of JFK”, Caroline KENNEDY she needs no other accomplishments or expertise to be significant and a listened to person, an office only the news media idolaters have elected her to.
On Jan. 8, 1962, President John F. Kennedy wrote a letter celebrating the work of James Cardinal Gibbons, who died in 1921. Source
That Catholicism inspires the left does not bother me, so long as the "social betterment" remains in defense of human life and human dignity.
Ping for later
From unionizing government, to Vietnam, to the 1965 immigration act, JFK was the end of us.
However, if there is one man who can take the most credit for the 1965 act, it is John F. Kennedy. Kennedy seems to have inherited the resentment his father Joseph felt as an outsider in Bostons WASP aristocracy. He voted against the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, and supported various refugee acts throughout the 1950s. In 1958 he wrote a book, A Nation of Immigrants, which attacked the quota system as illogical and without purpose, and the book served as Kennedys blueprint for immigration reform after he became president in 1960. In the summer of 1963, Kennedy sent Congress a proposal calling for the elimination of the national origins quota system. He wanted immigrants admitted on the basis of family reunification and needed skills, without regard to national origin. After his assassination in November, his brother Robert took up the cause of immigration reform, calling it JFKs legacy. In the forward to a revised edition of A Nation of Immigrants, issued in 1964 to gain support for the new law, he wrote, I know of no cause which President Kennedy championed more warmly than the improvement of our immigration policies. Sold as a memorial to JFK, there was very little opposition to what became known as the Immigration Act of 1965.
I don’t know if he ended anything, let alone ended “us”, but I agree, at the root of modern top-down penis-driven liberalism there is his tetanoid silhouette.
The 1965 Immigration act ended “us”, now we are just a place where the world goes to make money.
That — the making of money — might soon end, if “they” have their way.
If the Bishops are not the champions of the Faith, then it would appear the disfunctional Kennedys are.
Culture and community and the United States of America are what was destroyed, the chance to suck money out of America will not be seriously threatened, the only real changes are, and will be, the methods and techniques.
Corruption and greed are part of what we are importing and breeding, and making ever more, a requirement of financial success.
No, because the Kennedys have nothing that they could teach. In order to teach something you need to know the truths that you are teaching. The Kennedys cannot take the place of the bishops, but the bishops miss teachable moments like this one.
Well, one lesson we can extract from this: that it is the Catholic People of God that need to pray for better bishops and then better bishops will be given us. We have some good bishops now, and their number is growing. If, on the other hand, the American Catholics let the pro-aborts to hijack their voice, then the grace of God will go to some other country, and leave this one.
No, not yet. Young Catholics are better Catholics than the old ones; the pro-life positions gain in popularity; we are undergoing a revival of Catholic Tradition and -- all too slow -- our bishops recognize their lack of leadership. On a wider arena, we have the Tea Party that is, I think, succeeding in reshaping the GOP. Also not every immigrant is an economic one; some value American Culture and seek to absorb it. I am, for example, an immigrant, although as an asylum seeker from the Soviet Union I would have been here even faster without Kennedy Immigration act.
Wow, what a strange view, young Catholics are more democrat and liberal than even the older Catholics are and have been through our history, and it is already too late, the America of the past is already dead and buried, never to be seen again.
The 1965 Immigration Act ended the United States and turned us into this multi-cultural, multi-lingual, mass of humanity with nothing in common except economic interests.
Look at California, Catholic immigration finished it off, it ‘s future is the future of the city in Blade Runner, and it will never be conservative again.
The most conservative several churches I’ve been to were in California, headed up by young priests, and attended to by young, fecund families.
I understand that a non-Catholic might bee a stranger to all this.
Personal experiences are nice, but they don’t change polling data and voting data, the facts show that demographics is destiny, and our future is only getting worse.
We already lost California forever, and the left plans on Catholic immigration taking Texas out of the running in time.
All statistics and data are available to everyone, they are not restricted by religion.
I do not dispute your statistics; I am however a Christian man and as such I know that culture is made or destroyed not by the statistical units but by certain people lead by the Holy Spirit, whose number is few. In the Catholic Church, there is a revival in sufficient numbers that I was able to find a spiritual home both in California and now in Kansas City Metro. It just hasn’t reached all of the bishops yet.
I don’t think that you realize the purpose of the 1965 Immigration Act, it was to erase America and American culture, and to replace it with exotic third world foreigners who didn’t know, and do not care how we had built the greatest nation in the world.
Protestants don’t vote democrat, they only voted democrat in 1932, 1936, and 1964, the left had to replace the American Protestant voters, or they would never be able to survive, so they changed out immigration laws in 1965.
Immigration means the democrats take it all and the past disappears.
Protestants dont vote democrat, they only voted democrat in 1932, 1936, and 1964
So they voted for the New Deal and Kennedy's successor. As to 1960, the election was close and stolen anyway.
But again, the real issue is not statistics but leadership. Both Protestant and the Catholics lose votes to the left, and they both lose their flock to those without a pronounceable religion; that is a shame, and that is happening because we don't have solid Protestant leaders any more that we have solid Catholic leaders.
Catholics voted for Obama, traditionally vote democrat (only straying 6 times), elected JFK with 80% of their vote and you choose to go after the Protestant vote of 1932, 1936, and 1964?
Catholics vote democrat, and soon, because of Catholic immigration, the Catholic vote will return to it’s normal place of NEVER going republican, all of America will vote like California.
Do you know how Catholic Hispanics that become Protestant vote? They vote more like Protestants.