And if he withdraws permission? The archdiocese doesn't own the building. It has no civil authority and no basis for civil authority to back him up. He wouldn't be able to enforce the order. And it would be a field day for the press, especially the anti-Catholic Boston Globe.
O'Malley is even now in the process of deciding which (not whether) parishes will be closed; whatever he decides, there's going to be a whole lot of people he won't be popular with. A Boston Herald columnist who claims to be Catholic recently had a column on the Church (she usually writes fluff pieces, e.g., about her aging dog, but occasionally branches out into sheer stupidity); she wrote that there are two Churches -- (in my words) one is the happy, loving, do-your-own-thing Church ("As long as the young people are happy," in C.S. Lewis' phrase), and the other the mean old nasty Church that happens to be teaching what the Church has always taught. Guess which side she's on; guess which side Kerry's on.
I do sympathize with your view -- and if the hierarchy had taken it 40 years ago . . ., well, they didn't. Maybe O'Malley should go your way (personally, I've had enough and would be willing to take up arms, should it come to that, though I won't do it alone), but he would be on the losing side. Even the USCCB wouldn't back him up. He would be on the right side, of course -- have you read C.S. Lewis' The Last Battle? In this world, the right side is often the losing side.
O'Malley has at least made a public statement that pro-abortion politicians who claim to be Catholic should not receive. I don't know what else he plans, but I'm sure the issue is in his mind and his prayers.
The Massachusetts Democrat, speaking first among the six candidates at a Planned Parenthood forum on women's issues, said: "It is a late-term abortion. They have done a very effective job of giving people a sense of fear about it. It's part of their assault on the rights of women in America. . . . There's nothing partial about their effort to undo Roe v. Wade."
She's a newspaper columnist. Is this what it comes to? Being afraid of some old bat who writes in a newspaper? Like I said, this is about life or death, abortion and partial birth abortion. To say "don't dare come to Communion" and to give them Communion when they do come is totally absurd. You just say, Don't come to communion, because you won't be getting it. Here's why. End of discussion. Let the mob go crazy. Let the Paulists do what they want. The bishop will have done the right thing and that IS winning.
What theological reason can they give for not backing him up? Do you know of any theological or canonical reason that a bishop can use to justify NOT with holding communion? Is there something about causing more scandal than the acutal offense?
Just run the Catholic list at FR, and I'll run the Bang List (FR gunners.)
You won't be alone, at least after we all drive over there.
Buy ammo now.