The war over the "Good Catholic" label

It started with the rush to the keyboards and microphones: "Attention everyone: Kennedy was a good Catholic as well as being a good Liberal"

Here's an incomplete list of what I am talking about:

Complex legacy of a Catholic
Abortion rights stance drew criticism, but work embodied teachings: Boston Globe, Michael Paulson

He made me proud to be a Catholic: National Catholic Reporter, Maureen Fiedler

I think the yardstick being used here is that Kennedy was successful in exploiting his Catholic identity to achieve his liberal political agenda. There's a certain tone of admiration and triumph that he wasn't officially criticized by the Church and never denied the platform when he sought it to speak as a Catholic.

What would I believe a good Catholic politician would do? It isn't a matter of taking orders from a bishop but letting the teachings of the Church permeate how you think and act. Why? Because Catholics believe that the Church speaks for Christ, and especially so when it declares an intersection between important universal moral teaching and public policy.

The "Kennedy is a good Catholic" advocates either ignore this or respond -- "look at the whole man".

This could be your standard or mine, but it not God's. Cardinal O'Connor made the point to several New York politicians, that sanctions from the Church were secondary to the peril that you risk ones own salvation by advancing, even in a remote way, the murder of the unborn. I would be moved by that.

The "Good Catholic" label given by pro-choice liberals may be permanently retired. Born in 1932, Kennedy may have been the last politician who sought and who had a distinct appeal to Catholics. The Catholic voting bloc doesn't exist in 2009. As political creatures, we are all assimilated now into the American voter. Partly because of demographics and partly because what might be called an "Catholic agenda" can't be identified apart from the "Democratic Party agenda" apart from the right to life issues. The threat of losing its tax exempt status is the muzzle stifling the Church's voice.

Many questions come up and when the Church has a clear teaching on a serious moral matter, I withhold the "good Catholic" label from the politician who opposes and undermines it. It's no longer about Ted Kennedy now. He exists in eternity now without rank, money, or privilege but in God's mercy. It is about us and whether we can, as Catholics, pull the voting levers for Catholics who promote a disregard for the culture of life, and can justify that choice as we appear before the same merciful God who has judged the late Senator.

Senator Kennedy came to my parish

It was the year he was serious about running for President of the United States -- 1980 -- President Carter was running for reelection but he first needed the nomination of the Democratic Party. (details on the Wikipedia). Kennedy (then 48) was known for being a Senator (appointed in 1962 at the Constitutional minimum age of 30), for Chappaquiddick in which Mary Jo Kopechne died in mysterious circumstances, and for a Roger Mudd interview where he fumbled the question "Why do you want to be President?"

All of the early primaries were won by Carter but as 1980 progressed, people thought he was not handling the economy and Iran hostage crisis well. There was high unemployment, high interest rates, and all over the globe, the power and influence of the Soviet Union was growing.

Kennedy confidently came to New York, to Queens, to Woodside, to the SE corner of 58th Street and Roosevelt Ave. to Sunday Mass at St. Sebastian. I was 26, and married a year, and I shook the Senator's hand, along with many other Woodsiders on the week of the New York primary. He won New York, but that was Kennedy's peak, and by the time of the convention Carter had a surge. Kennedy never again sought the Presidency.

This undated photo of Mother Teresa and Senator Kennedy was taken in India.

Kennedy Apologetics

Taking a step back, the liberal Catholic love for Kennedy is no surprise. The surprise is burying his pro-abortion record in pieces targeted towards Catholics. The related surprise is the intensity of the attacks on pro-life Catholics who point out the plain fact that Kennedy was pro-abortion.

Update: Caroline Kennedy -- adding 2 items:

Princess avoided the routine financial disclosure required by NYC employees. Even the people who worked under her filed the disclosure but she got a pass. And the excuse undermines her so-called qualifications -- she had no influence on policy and priorities at the city Department of Education.

A personal observation from me -- who waits until they are 51 to decide, getting appointed to the Senate is what I really have wanted to do all my life, and, I haven't prepared a resume that would get me elected to the New York City Council?

Nepotism we can believe in: Caroline Kennedy

It started when Robert Kennedy, Jr., the son of the carpet-bagging Robert Kennedy, spoke to accidental governor David Paterson, the son of another politician, Basil Paterson, and his mother was a secretary for Marcus Garvey. But I digress.

The are enough skeletons in the closet of Robert Kennedy Jr for him to be an unpopular appointment, although he did publicly speculate about seeking the appointment in 2007 should carpet-bagging Hilary Clinton vacate the office.

Robert said to David that Caroline might be interested in running. A few leaks to the press later, and she was the top of the news cycle, and really has been there ever since.

I like the idea of people who are really wealthy sharing their time, talent, and treasure with the public school system. I like the idea the Caroline, until now, has not played the Kennedy card too often. None of these approach anything remotely distinguishing her as a candidate for the United States Senate. Let no one say that I don't like her.

People point out the obvious, as I do now -- the Article I qualifications are: citizen, over 30, and a inhabitant of the state of New York. Paterson has millions of people to pick from, why Caroline? Why not one of the many politicians who have demonstrated leadership, competence and accomplishment in other appointed and elective offices.

The United States Senate is not a place for beginners.

Her "run" may be imploding as she is not doing well the the dinosaur media. Let me quickly run through the negatives:

Inexperience. No political experience.

Hypocrisy. As an advocate of public schools, she sent her own kids to private schools and denies real school choice to parents who cannot afford private schools.

Entitlement. She has evaded the question of whether she has earned this appointment or if she feels entitled to it. Paterson turns the burden of proof around and demands reasons why not appoint her.

Aristocracy. Whenever she or one her backers mentions "family" -- it is not in the same sense that Ronald Reagan or even George Bush meant by the word. "Family" is a code for aristocracy -- the putative American royal family -- the Kennedy's. There's a real irony here, her mother, Jacqueline Lee Bouvier Kennedy Onassis, strove to keep her and her brother isolated from the high risk, booze and drug culture of the Kennedy's that killed cousins David and Michael.

Isolation. Part of the protective bubble that her mother and later her husband put about her has kept her from contact with ordinary New Yorkers and the problems that ordinary New Yorkers. I don't have a dislike of trust fund kids who grow up, don't screw up, and marry into money. I just don't think they can represent New York in the Senate. Not only doesn't she have political experience, but has never run a small business or seen the face of government other than the friendly faces of her family and her admirers in government. I can't imagine her as seeing government as anything but a benign force.

Absence of any life test. We know that McCain was tested by his time in the Hanoi Hilton, George Bush by his recovery from alcoholism, Hillary Clinton by her husband adulteries, and even Barack Obama by the absence of his parents as he was growing up. Caroline was 6 when her father was killed, but beyond that where has she been challenged by life? Would the Senate be the first real challenge she has had to face since 1963.

No engagement in politics. If she got interested in politics after 9/11, where was she in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 before she joined Team Obama?
She failed to vote in several elections and she never sought to increase public awareness on an issue she felt strongly about.

No mandate. What is she running for? It seems all about keeping a Kennedy in the Senate or about Paterson's attempt to graft on some Kennedy magic for his own career.

Not articulate. She lacks not only ideas but a good voice, practiced in teaching, persuading, arguing, etc. Without the Kennedy name and a media shield, she would be considered absurd as a candidate. YouTube has the "Kennedy Obama UmYouKnow Remix" and "The More You Know: Caroline Kennedy." The latter counts — with a buzzer — 30 "you knows" in 147 seconds of excerpts from an interview with The Associated Press. Via Hot Air To answer some critics who have said this is inconsequential, I ask in return, whenever you hear a speaker with so many "you knows", does it add to or undermine the authority and credibility of the speaker? It always undermines it.

No disclosure. The odd way that Senator's get appointed after a vacancy allows her to escape the financial and conflict of interest disclosures that elected officials undergo. A sign of her sincerity in the elective process would be to make in 2009 which she would have to do in 2010 anyway for the November 2010 special election when she would be running with 22 months of incumbancy.

As a Catholic, I am a realist. There is no one with a chance of being appointed by Paterson or being elected in 2010 who will have public policy views that are aligned with the fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church even if there are nominally Catholic as Mrs. Edwin Arthur Schlossberg is. So I am sticking up for meritocracy over aristocracy and old fashioned club house Tammany-style politics over nepotism. The ordinary stepping stone to the Senate is typically state-wide office and or distinguished career in the House of Representatives like Maloney, Velazquez, and Gillibrand.

A recent development was the appointment of a caretaker who would pledge not to run in 2010 (AP) like Mario Cuomo or Bill Clinton. The advantage of a caretaker would be a big monkey off of Paterson's back and it would allow a clear field for the Democrats to sort out who should hold that seat and it would expose Caroline to real politics if she deigns to do so.

Run, Caroline, run in 2010. But the appointment? A.B.C.: Anyone but Caroline.