Reflections on the Kennedy Funeral

There's much to be admired about the funeral of the late U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy today. An amazing crowd gathered to honor the man's epic life, a crowd that included four presidents, hundreds of Members of Congress, and dignitaries of business, labor, journalism, and religion.

Even so, the funeral homily and the litany offered by family members ought to sadden us, if we hear what was being said.

The homily offered spoke much about the kingdom of God, but the kingdom was defined in an impoverished, politicized way. And the kingdom just happened to line up with Sen. Kennedy's legislative career. The words about the kingdom, frozen as they were in the partisan debates of our little blip of history, didn't communicate the transcendence offered by the Basilica itself.

USA Today said this afternoon that my disappointment (posted on my Twitter account) was "vitriolic" compared to the "hope" offered at the funeral itself. I'm willing to be corrected, but I see neither vitriol nor hope here. Is it "vitriolic" to say that the vision of the kingdom held by the church through the ages (Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant) is more than legislation, more than politics, more than human accomplishment?

It's as though the vision of the kingdom offered at the Basilica were written by Nicodemus, before his night-time conversation with our Lord Jesus. This isn't unique to the Kennedy family. It's the way almost all of us are prone to view the kingdom, the gospel, the Christian faith.

This isn't a Catholic/Protestant divide. I've heard many, many Baptist preachers do the same thing at a celebrity funeral. This is true even when the "celebrity" is just the kind of small-pond "celebrity" of the furniture store owner who happens to be the wealthiest man in a tiny hamlet.

It's not a conservative/liberal divide either. The Religious Right establishment often confuses the kingdom with a set of legislative goals just as surely as does the Left. There are many churches and ministries whose kingdom litanies would sound just like the Kennedy funerals, except on the other side of the legislative docket.

Church leaders had the opportunity to give the Kennedy family, and the rest of the onlookers, the opportunity to hear something we all need to hear: the gospel is bigger than politics, bigger than history, and bigger than one man, even this man's, life.

They didn't, and that's sad. When given the chance to preach the kingdom, all we heard was Camelot. That's not enough for hurting people anywhere, not even for the Kennedys.

Comments

[James Kabala]

If I were cardinal-archbishop of Boston, I would have permitted Kennedy to have a Catholic funeral. He apparently did receive the last sacraments, and although some could argue that public sin can only be forgiven by public repentance, I think we should err on the side of mercy.

However, I would have forbidden all of the following (in descending order of importance):

1. Eulogies (especially by President Obama).
2. Eulogy-like remarks by the priest, especially claims that Kennedy is in Heaven. (If there is any place Kennedy is definitely not right now, it is Heaven. Even if he did repent, he clearly has a long time in Purgatory ahead of him. I know Rev. Moore and other Protestants will disagree.)
3. Concelebration by multiple priests as if he needed a great sendoff. Two priests maximum (and I personally would not have attended).
4. Placido Domingo et al.
5. Television coverage.

This is a sad day for the Catholic Church in America.

[Justin]

Something continues to confuse me about all of this. Why are the orthodox constantly lectured about the legislation of morality and the separation of church and state (assuming in the end that the laws are driven by utilitarian concerns) and yet when Senator Kennedy dies there is so much talk about how his legislative agenda was somehow attached to his Christianity?

[Janek Ignace]

When I read that Senator Kennedy died, I immediately said a prayer for his immortal soul there alone before God, his Creator. No colleagues, no backslpping, no family dynasty...just the Lord and the souls of those unborn infants whom He so brutally consigned to premature and horrendous deaths. The rest is Silence.

[Magister Christianus]

I noticed the curious, or not-so-curious, alignment of several comments with the late senator's agenda, and I, too, was bothered by the assumption, or was it presumption, that he was already in heaven enjoying the beatific vision. That said, for a few moments those who tuned in could not escape hearing words from Paul and Matthew, could not escape bearing witness to the story of the risen Christ both spoken and enacted in the Eucharist, could not escape the artistry of ecclesial architecture designed to lift both heart and mind to God. Yes, the humans who participated publicly in the event at times crossed over from reverence of deity to fawning of celebrity. Yet the difference was still stark between this funeral service and that of a so-called king of pop, and that difference was good.

[Bill R]

I'm curious: what level of rejection of Christian/Catholic teaching is sufficient to deny one a Christian/Catholic burial? Obviously continual and influential rejection of pro-life teachings won't. Would virulent racism? Denial of the Trinity? What, exactly? And what would be the test? I sure can't figure it out.

[Bill R]

And, if the Catholic Church truly wished to stand firm in its pro-life doctrine, what an effect denial of Christian burial of one who has flouted the Church's teaching would have! But that, of course, might entail persecution and, above all, bad press. Can't have that, now, can we?

I'm reading Newman's "The Church of the Fathers." I just finished his chapter on the bravery of St. Basil, facing down an Arian emperor. Basil would not recognize today's American bishops. But Basil only had to face death. Bishops these days must confront the scowl of TV broadcasters.

[Hunter Baker]

I sure don't see the vitriol in what you said.

I don't see how the Church could approach this thing in a basically sanguine matter, as though everything is okay. I was watching in the gym and kept returning to the unborn children, the famously dissolute lifestyle, etc. When Obama talked about Ted risking his heart to marry again, I was thinking, "Who risked their heart? His current wife, that's who. She surely knew the choices he'd made in the past."

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Hunter Baker: "I don't see how the Church could approach this thing in a basically sanguine matter, as though everything is okay."

Did the Roman Catholic Church approach Senator Kennedy's funeral as though everything is okay?

[An Observer]

"I don't see how the Church could approach this thing in a basically sanguine matter, as though everything is okay."

This comment seems to imply a common misperception that non-RCs have about the RC Church -- that is, since the RCC has a hierarchical structure, then if an RC parish or priest does something, that has the implicit approval of the entire RCC hierarchy if the latter does not intervene to stop or alter it. (Whereas, since e.g. the SBC has a decentralized congregational polity, a given action by a local SBC congregation does not imply the concurrence of the SBC as a hole.)

This is simply incorrect. Just as it's not the job of President Obama (at the peak of the U.S. local-state-national government hierarchy) to intervene in the affairs of every local township in the USA, likewise it's not the job of the pope, or even the diocesan bishop, to intervene in the affairs of a local parish, such as a funeral mass (no matter how prominent the person being buried), so long as there is no gross immorality or heresy involved.

That is one reason why James Kabala's take on matters is essentially correct. And, to answer Bill R.'s query, the "level of rejection of Christian/Catholic teaching ... sufficient to deny one a Christian/Catholic burial" is clear and unrepentant rejection of the faith as a whole. Since Sen. Kennedy asked for and received last rites, the presumption is made in charity that he was a believer and sincerely repentant for all his sins.

Now, Sen. Kennedy may not have consciously repented of his sins regarding e.g. abortion, adultery, divorce and remarriage, etc. The priest administering the sacraments should have counseled him on those, and withheld the sacrament if Sen. Kennedy remained obdurate on any point. If the priest did not do so, then that's the fault of the priest. In any case, God will judge Sen. Kennedy's guilt and culpability based of factors such as degree of invincible ignorance, etc.

As Russell Moore rightly noted, this is not a Catholic/Protestant or conservative/liberal divide. Our culture now presumptuously grants a place in heaven and confers sainthood on virtually any every celebrity. A Calvinist friend of mine noted that R. C. Sproul has spoken of the new universalist "sola" doctrine of "justification by death alone."

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Isn't there a long-standing societal tradition of not speaking ill of the dead?

Or at least the recently deceased?

And so anyone who speaks ill of the dead is usually roundly condemned for violating this taboo.

Having said all that, when I read statements like this: "There are many reasons so many Christians revered Kennedy and pray for blessings upon him"

I think of what Jesus Himself said in Matthew 8:22 about letting the dead bury their own dead.

[David Gray.]

>He was dearly loved by his children, his nephews, and his nieces, for whom he did so much.

How do you think Mary Jo Kopechne felt about him while she was asphyxiating?

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

David Gray,

You're violating the taboo. Shame on you.

;-)

[J Murphy]

I kept waiting for the net of balloons to be released from the Basilica's ceiling.

[Bill R]

Observer,

I agree this is not a Catholic v. Protestant issue, nor did not mean to suggest that it was. But Kennedy was such an important figure in the anti-life movement that to accord him such a high church sendoff is to imply that his struggle to abort millions of the children of our country was no more than a mere peccadillo. This was by no means "the affair(s) of a local parish," as you put it. The impression it created was that anti-life views for a Catholic are no big deal, just one option among many.

[bonobo]

I guess the chief scandal in the list above was the eulogizing by Fr. Hession. I haven't read or heard it (having a weak stomach for what I might hear), but it appears to have violated the Church's regulations for funeral addresses. The point of a requiem Mass is to beg mercy for the deceased, not to canonize him. That applies to saints as well as to those who might have benefited from the call to repentance that excommunication constitutes.

[James Kabala]

Did anyone hear Kennedy's letter to the Pope that Cardinal McCarrick read at the grave? It was creepy to listen to, but if nothing else, it was proof that Kennedy was no atheist. It was a classic expression of a fearful sinner at death's door - self-righteous, self-justifying, rambling, but with occasional feints toward genuine repentence. (Among other things, Kennedy announced his support for a "conscience exemption" for Catholics in any national health care plan - something he never cared about in life, when he always voted for federal funding of abortions despite his claim to be "personally opposed.") Let us hope that these final feelings were what came to the fore, and more fully, at the moment of death.

In the Western calendar we have had some interestingly appropriate saints this week - St. Louis (the model ruler) on the day of his death, St. Monica and St. Augustine (the model for repentant sinners) on Thursday and Friday, and the beheading of St. John the Baptist on Saturday. Despite the obvious and often-made analogy between abortion and the Massacre of the Innocents, I think Ted had more in common with Herod Antipas than with the father - shallow, weak-willed, and pleasure-loving rather than fully malicious at heart. One can easily imagine Ted listening to John the Baptist with perplexed but genuine interest or having the working of a physically impressive but morally shallow miracle as his first desire if Jesus came before him.

[Christopher]

"Is it "vitriolic" to say that the vision of the kingdom held by the church through the ages (Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant) is more than legislation, more than politics, more than human accomplishment?"

No. And our present Pope Benedict XVI just so happens to have a lot to say on the matter:

http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/08/30/eschaton-si-immanent-no/

[Neil Gussman]

I agree with USA Today. One of the things I remember vividly from "That Hideous Strength" (CSL) is that the people of Saint Anne's were not allowed to fight with the NICE's weapons. Why should anyone who respects culture and dignity and lives to win others to Our Lord be diving into the cesspool of commentary on a funeral? We can respectfully shut up and let those who grieve do so in peace for a few days, maybe a week if we are really striving for high virtue. We are all Americans. Over here in Iraq when one of us dies, even if the victim made mistakes no one would dare air that sort of thing until long past when everyone has a chance to deal with it.

Odd that civility flourishes in this dry desert and shrivels in the well-watered world back home.

[An Observer]

Bill R.,

It was a high media and high family sendoff, not a high church sendoff. And I agreed with James K. on restrictions I wish had been observed. But, as I said, the Vatican doesn't dictate those things -- the parish does, and the funeral was held in Kennedy's home parish. I'm not defending what was done for the funeral (it made me gag); I'm merely responding to your question as to why there wasn't higher level intervention. Once again, it reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of hierarchy in the Catholic Church.

[David Gray.]

>One of the things I remember vividly from "That Hideous Strength" (CSL) is that the people of Saint Anne's were not allowed to fight with the NICE's weapons.

An interesting comment which seems to have no applicability to our present circumstance.

>Why should anyone who respects culture and dignity and lives to win others to Our Lord be diving into the cesspool of commentary on a funeral?

Because we fear Him more than man and value truth more than popularity?

>Over here in Iraq when one of us dies, even if the victim made mistakes no one would dare air that sort of thing until long past when everyone has a chance to deal with it.

And if the individual in question had actively cooperated with our enemies? And if the friends of the individual chose to use his death to promote their own agenda at that very moment?

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

The event of Sen. Kennedy's funeral and the various blogs and comment threads that it has spurred has caused me to examine a phenomenon that hitherto escaped me. I would like feedback to my ponderings from MC readers.

When someone who we think might not have been a fruitful follower of Christ has died, we (a generalized "we") usually say, if asked: "God only knows his/her eternal destiny. I don't know. I hope he/she will be in Heaven."

But if someone we "know" has died and we (and a whole lot of other people too) think that the deceased is a Christian, then if we're asked, we usually say with assurance: "I'm sure that he/she is in Heaven with God."

Now here's my puzzlement. If we want to express uncertainty and humility about someone who we "think" might be going to Hell, why don't we express the same uncertainty and humility about someone who we "think" might be going to Heaven?

If we're unsure about one destination, then out of intellectual consistency, why not be unsure about arrival at the other destination?

Why not be epistemically uncertain all the time when someone passes away?

[bonobo]

The RCC and others have that definite place of epistemic uncertainty: "Purgatory" :)

[Christopher Hathaway]

Why not be epistemically uncertain all the time when someone passes away?

The simple answer to this is because the two destinations are not equal. God is more interested in people going to heaven than people going to hell. Thus, when we are confident that someone has trusted in the Lord we can be confident in his resting with the Lord. If we can't see the basis of a man's faith that would lead us to believe he is in Christ we still know that there is the power of Grace to overcome what we lack. God wants to give us MORE than we deserve, never LESS.

After all, we are all born "going to hell" until we are saved. We should be confident to affirm that God saves and to affirm specific instances where He did do so and reticent to mention any instances where He didn't.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Christopher Hathaway: "The simple answer to this is because the two destinations are not equal."

(a) You can say that again.

(b) Yaaaa thaaink? (Spoken with smiling sarcasm).

-------

Dear Christopher, your explanation works for me.

It just seems to me that if people are so willing to be so unsure about whether someone is going to hell, then they should be equally willing in being so unsure about whether someone is going to heaven in view of what Jesus said in Matthew 7:21:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

[Christopher Hathaway]

But if we were equally unsure wouldn't that send the message that living a moral and holy life counted for nothing as far as confidence in salvation goes? To be "unsure" about Ted Kennedy's fate while being fairly certain (but not totally, as we are mindful that we cannot KNOW) that Mother Theresa and Pope JPII are in Paradise is judgment enough that the first was not a good Christian model to follow while the latter two certainly were. I think such judgments are necessary for a Christian witness.

[Dymphna]

I am very sad about this whole thing. I think the Kennedy funeral, broadcast to the world and straying so far outside the rubrics as it did, will only further divide the Church.

[Neil Gussman]

TUAD--I like your post. I still don't like the idea of hiding one's identity behind a vacuous phrase, but you were impressive in this post.

David--Treason over here would not be metaphorical or debatable. But to take your point, there would have to concrete evidence of treason before the soldier in question would be accorded anything but respect.

And what purpose does it serve for us to twitter in like all the carrion birds rather than letting even a celebrity have some peace. Over here most everyone waited almost a week before releasing the torrent of Michael Jackson jokes.

[David Gray.]

Neil,

This is from Ed Morrissey

Now that Ted Kennedy has been eulogized and buried, no one can complain about the examination of his life in the public sphere as inappropriate. From the beginning, Kennedy’s critics have discussed his failures and cowardice at Chappaquiddick, and that certainly belongs in any discussion of Kennedy’s life. However, another episode relates much more directly to Kennedy’s public career and should get a great deal more examination now— his effort to enlist Yuri Andropov as an ally of the Democratic Party against Ronald Reagan in 1983. Peter Robinson reviews the incident for Forbes:

“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.” …

Kennedy’s motives? “Like other rational people,” the memorandum explained, “[Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations.” But that high-minded concern represented only one of Kennedy’s motives.
“Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988,” the memorandum continued. “Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.”

One might think that the press would take more interest in this subject. Kennedy offered to get Andropov on American television by pushing networks to visit Moscow and give the former KGB chief airtime. Kennedy wanted Andropov to counter Reagan’s assertion that the Soviet Union was an evil empire. Kennedy also wanted Andropov to push for nuclear disarmament, which would have allowed the Soviets to survive much longer than they did against Reagan’s economic warfare.

Even putting aside who the Soviets were, this is a despicable tactic for any American politician. We pride ourselves on our freedom from foreign influences on our elections. Kennedy tried to set up a mechanism for just that influence for partisan gain — and apparently for personal gain as well. Kennedy didn’t run for President in 1988, in any event, but the fact that he relayed his ambitions to a foreign potentate and begged for his assistance should be enough to blacken Kennedy’s political reputation for good, or at least everywhere outside of Massachusetts.

But selling out to the Soviets in such a fashion comes dangerously close to treason. The Soviets weren’t just some other nation a hemisphere away. In the 1980s, they were our mortal enemies, and almost ready to collapse. Kennedy didn’t just offer to allow our enemy to manipulate our elections, but offered to take positive action for them to succeed in that effort. That’s more than just personal cowardice and betraying the trust of a young woman, resulting in her death. Morally if not legally, the Andropov gambit was a betrayal of American independence and security by a high-ranking politician. It should stand as a singular denunciation of Kennedy as a power-hungry, contemptible politician. Like in Chappaquiddick, the only reason it hasn’t is because of his family name.

[James Kabala]

Before this vanishes off the main page, I thought it was only fair to provide this link:

http://www.cardinalseansblog.org/2009/09/02/on-senator-kennedys-funeral/

I still don't agree, but I respect his explanation.