Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Well now, this is an interesting question...

Should Ted Kennedy have been denied funerial rites?

Hmmm....I see it from both sides, inasmuch as Mr. Kennedy took a very prominent, anti-Catholic position on pivotal issues such as abortion, sterilization based population control and healthcare, and same-sex "marriage." However, because we who are reading (and writing) about this simply cannot know the extent or nature of his private reflections (sorrow? repentance? or just doin' a little cya letter writing campaign to Rome?) as he journeyed toward his death, at the time he received the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick, and/or at the hour of is death, it's hard for me to accept absolutely that he shouldn't have been afforded a Catholic funeral, because all we have is public information. I guess we should hope and pray that he truly repented and had a conversion of heart, mind, and soul as his days drew to a close. Hate the sin(s), love the sinner, right?

Bottom line: I hope Ted Kennedy found his way Home. And I love that we have someone like Archbishop Burke willing to go on the record and say aloud what his former USCCB cohorts are either too cowardly to say...or just flat-out don't believe.

5 comments:

ArchAngel's Advocate said...

What he should have been denied is a public Catholic funeral because of the public scandal he caused. I can't think of a valid reason short of a "don't you dare give me on of those hocus pocus Catholic ceremonies" statement from a recently departed apostate to deny funeral rites in private. But then, I ain't makin' da rulez

Angela M. said...

Public Catholic funeral, NO.
Private one, yes.

Mike said...

Senator Kennedy's effective dissent from Catholic teaching was very public. His repentance, if it happened, was private.

I therefore think his funeral should also have been private: no reporters or cameras allowed.

Instead we had a very public media event cum funeral which seemed to tell the entire world that dissent doesn't really matter as long as you're important enough.

Dear old Sr. Wilhelmina, my 6th grade teacher of a half century ago, would have called that "giving scandal."

gemoftheocean said...

Count me with the private funeral people. But there may have been public considerations given his position. i.e. the people of Massachusetts might have gone into mass hysteria, otherwise. (though come to think of it how can you tell the difference when they are not, given their drunken voting record.)

What should under no circumstances have happened was public eulogies, and ZERO should have been denied speaking at all and NONE of the hierarchy should have shown up.

Joe of St. Thérèse said...

He should have been denied public funeral. Zero in chief shouldn't of given a eulogy (there shouldn't of been one period)