The Catholic Kennedy, a long serving Senator from Massachusetts, was a staunch supporter of a woman’s right to choose abortion to terminate an unwanted pregnancy; a Democrat seen on the far left of the American political spectrum; and brother of two assassinated brothers, was controversial in life. In Arroyo’s words, he was seen by many as “the public sinner.” The funeral drew public protests as well as live television coverage. Many said that Kennedy should not be given the high mass, with the main issue being his stand on abortion.
The abortion issue is a heated political issue, perhaps the most emotional issue in current American politics. The position of the Catholic Church, and other conservative Christian sects, is that abortion is murder of the unborn child. Kennedy’s political position was that a woman’s right to choose is Constitutionally protected under the construction made by the US Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. Thus Kennedy was in the middle between two creeds, the first of his theistic religion, the second of his civil religion. that he was obligated to defend. His political position followed the formulation on separation of church and state propounded by his brother, John F. Kennedy, during his 1960 presidential campaign:
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
I felt that the use of the funeral mass as a platform for political protest was in bad taste, but I recognize, as did Stevens-Arroyo that the funeral itself was political. I was gratified that President Obama did not use the pulpit to push his political agenda. Although I didn’t agree with Kennedy politically, I admire his integrity and his dedication to Constitutional freedoms, even when that duty put him at odds with his church.
My personal views on Roe v. Wade are that an activist Supreme Court exceeded its mandate and issued a decision on issues that were not before the court, thereby making the decision overly broad. I cannot, however, fault the thoroughness of their reasoning. Determining the point at which a fetus becomes a human being with its own rights is not an easy task. The court cannot use standard religious doctrine to reach its decision. Even if such an approach were viable, and even if a Judeo-Christian standard were appropriate, there isn’t clear guidance in the Judeo-Christian Bibles. As Kugel (How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now
When men are fighting and one of them strikes a pregnant woman so that her offspring comes out, and there is no mishap, he [the one responsible] shall be fined in accordance with what her husband shall impose upon him. And it shall be given over to adjudication. But if there is a mishap, then you shall give a life for a life [literally a soul for a soul], and eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise.
Exodus 21:22-25
Kugel then goes on to explain that the ancient rabbinical interpretations of Exodus 21:22-25 provide two different interpretations, one in which the “mishap” is injury to the child, the other that the “mishap” is injury to the woman. The first interpretation is found in the Septuagint’s Greek:
If two men are fighting and a pregnant woman is struck in her belly, and the child comes out not fully formed, he shall pay a fine, as the woman's husband shall impose, he shall pay it with a valuation. But if it is fully formed, he shall give a soul for a soul. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burning for a burning, a wound for a wound, a stripe for a stripe
Septuagint, Exodus 21:22-25
while the second is found in the Jerome’s Latin translation, the Vulgate:
If men are fighting and someone struck a pregnant woman and she miscarried but she herself lived, he will be subject to a fine, as much as the woman's husband shall request and as the judges decree. If, however, her death shall follow, let him pay a soul for a soul, and eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burning for a burning, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise.
One irony here is that the Catholic bible uses the books of the Septuagint (in fact a scripture quoted in Kennedy's funeral was from "The Wisdom of Solomon," a book not included in Protestant Bibles which are usually based on the Masoretic text), but the Vulgate's Latin translation was used by the Roman church for centuries. Jerome, in translating the OT to Latin was one of the first "textual critics" and complained that, even in the 2nd. century, the variations in scripture were numerous
To add even further irony, a 1906 archaeological discovery in southern Iran seems to indicate that this Mizvot was borrowed and adapted from the 2nd Millenium BCE "Code of Hammurabi, predating the Exodus by at least 500 years, and throwing doubt on the divine inspiration of Exodus.
Comments