Dear skellmeyer,
"Once O'Malley publicly answers that question with a 'yes,' EVERY OTHER BISHOP MUST DENY KERRY THE EUCHARIST."
Actually, there was a case out in California, I think, of a bishop denying the sacraments to a pro-abort Catholic pol. The neighboring Catholic bishop invited the pol to the Eucharist in his diocese.
In this case, where one bishop didn't recognize the excommunication of another, it wouldn't mean schism, but it would mean that if the excommunicating bishop wished to enforce the excommunication across the board, he'd have to bring it to Rome. I think this has happened before.
Practically speaking, however, I think the deal is cut. The "fuzzy" bishops may have lost at the June bishops meeting, and the "burn-'em-at-the-stakers" appear to be moving with quiet Vatican backing.
sitetest
Well, technically, that IS schism. The Church is either in full communion with itself or it isn't. If it isn't, then the fabric of the Church is torn. That's the definition of schism. We've been in material schism since the USCCB ruling that blessed this situation of geography determining when you can receive. But, since no one has publicly said it out loud, it isn't formal schism yet.