Prelate says politicians who back abortion shouldn't go to Communion

Catholic News Service ^ | July 31, 2003

[NYer]

BOSTON (CNS) -- Boston Archbishop Sean Patrick O'Malley has stated that Catholic politicians who support legal abortion should not receive Communion of their own volition, but the church does not deny Communion to people approaching the altar, presuming they do so in "good faith." The Boston Archdiocese issued a July 29 statement outlining the new archbishop's position in response to a Boston Globe article. A July 27 Globe article discussed a 1992 controversy involving a Catholic politician who backed legal abortion when Archbishop O'Malley headed the Diocese of Fall River, Mass.

[NYer]

This may well explain why Ted Kennedy disappeared before the Offertory, while Kerry remained and did receive, but not from the hands of O'Malley.

As much as I dislike Kennedy's pro-death positions, he did respect Archbishop Sean's advisory.

Kerry, on the other hand, has shown his true face. Hypocrite!

[Land of the Irish]

I'll say it again,
"All talk, no action."

It is incomprehensible that O'Malley allowed the Body of Christ to be given to a person living in an obvious state of mortal sin.

[sinkspur]

I'll say it again,
"All talk, no action."

Yeah, we know. The spotlight is now on these politicians, and they know what O'Malley has said.

After Kerry's outburst today against the Pope, O'Malley's not going to become his whipping boy. Let community pressure and stares from fellow Catholics work on Kerry and Kennedy, and others.

[Land of the Irish]

while Kerry remained and did receive, but not from the hands of O'Malley.

"not from the hands of O'Malley." That sounds like Pontius Pilate washing his hands. For heaven's sake, he's the bishop, can he not exert some authority over his priests and "EEM's"?

According to O'Malley's press release: if Kerry had approached, O'Malley, himself; the archbishop would have given the apostate Holy Communion.

[Land of the Irish]

Let community pressure and stares from fellow Catholics work on Kerry and Kennedy, and others.

"others" being O'Malley, et al?

[Land of the Irish]

[NYer]

It is incomprehensible that O'Malley allowed the Body of Christ to be given to a person living in an obvious state of mortal sin.

It is simply amazing that you can be so judgemental and still consider yourself a catholic! How do you know whether or not Kerry went to confession? You are no better than Kerry by judging his soul and the souls of others with whom you disagree.

[Land of the Irish]

How do you know whether or not Kerry went to confession?

That's a silly question; no priest knows the status of his communicants' souls. Only God does.

However, you don't play guessing games with the Body of Christ, when it comes to a public person living in an unrepentant, flagrant state of mortal sin.

You and O'Malley apparently don't have the same appreciation of the Body of Christ as I do.

Do you really believe Kerry went to confession? If so, he should be denouncing the evils of infanticide by now.

[Land of the Irish]

The author of this article has already determined the actions that will be followed by the new bishop and condemned him .... and the installation is still 2 days away!

And Land of the Irish comments on their invitation by stating: If O'Malley had one ounce of guts, those minions of Satan would never had been invited in the first place.

38 posted on 07/28/2003 7:00 PM CDT by NYer (Laudate Dominum) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

The author was right, I was right, and you were wrong. Get over it.

[sitetest]

Dear NYer,

One can't guess whether or not an individual is in mortal sin, at least not subjectively, not culpably.

Nonetheless, one can accurately state that Chappaquiddick Ted and Comrade Kerry have publicly committed acts which are gravely evil, and are unrepentant for them. Thus, they are public sinners.

After fair warning (and every Catholic politician in the world has had such warning, repeatedly), they ought to be refused Holy Communion. Plain and simple. They are public sinners, and Church law specifies that they ought to be forbidden the Eucharist.

As well, it's just plain common sense. We can never say with certainty that someone is subjectively culpable of mortal sin, but we can say that their PUBLIC ACTIONS are gravely evil. And in these cases, these men are unrepentant of their crimes against God and humanity. It is the merest prudence to deny them the Blessed Sacrament.

Further, it is an act of charity. For a Catholic priest or prelate, there is not a stronger way to say, "Repent! You are on the wrong path! Turn back before it is too late!"

Especially a bishop has an absolute moral obligation to try to assist these men to obtain the salvation of their souls. These men embrace the most filthy and putrid of evils and call it holy, virtually a sacrament to them and their followers. The bishop OWES THEM THE OBLIGATION of calling them out, publicly, to turn away from their sin.

It is strong, very strong medicine, but these patients are sick, very, very sick, and even this medicine may be too little too late.

Finally, it becomes a teaching event: if you wish to deny the most basic moral truths of the Holy Catholic Church (you will not protect in law the slaughter of innocent human beings), and you wish to proclaim this as a moral good, then you are outside the community of faith.

All are edified that these things really mean something, that sin is serious, and it is taken seriously by those whose duty it is to teach, rule, and sanctify.

Sorry, no one has yet explained to me how this was not an opportunity for Archbishop O'Malley to accomplish all three things.


sitetest

[sinkspur]

You and O'Malley apparently don't have the same appreciation of the Body of Christ as I do.

I doubt anyone does, in your eyes.

It must be nice to not be like the rest of men.

[Coleus]

Kudos to Bishop O'Malley, OFM, Cap.

and notice to "some" Catholic Freepers, notably 2 -- Did bishop O'Malley say they were excommunicated? No, he did not. Why didn't he? Because, at the present time, there are no canon laws which say that one can be excommunicated for voting for abortion only those who "procure" an abortion. Yes, the politicians are not in a state of grace and can not receive holy communion until they go to confession.

Now, this does not mean the church can not change their rules. If you want the mother church to change her rules, write to your Bishop, Bishop Gregory and to the Pope. And sign this petition:

http://www.cathfam.org/cfexcom/Excom.html

[Land of the Irish]

You are no better than Kerry by judging his soul and the souls of others with whom you disagree.

I have judged no souls and I challenge you to show otherwise. No Catholic is obliged to bite his tongue when he sees sin and sacrilege. Just because I state that I think Kennedy and Kerry are currently living in a state of mortal sin, doesn't mean I condemn them to eternal damnation. It doesn't even mean I'm right.

I've prayed the rosary outside an abortion clinic while a butcher was killing babies. Why? Because I wanted to pray for the Holy Innocents, future victims, and a conversion of heart of the butcher, himself, because I thought he was in a state of mortal sin.

If you call that judgemental, so be it.

If you want to give an abortion pass to O'Malley and Kerry, I'll voice my objections, but I will judge no one.

[Land of the Irish]

Thank you for that link. I was unaware of this petition.

[sinkspur]

Sorry, no one has yet explained to me how this was not an opportunity for Archbishop O'Malley to accomplish all three things.

Maybe he doesn't embarrass people in public. He'd rather persuade (as the Holy Father does) than condemn and show somebody up.

There are people like that, sitetest. I'm one. I was appalled, for instance, when George W. Bush publicly ripped into Trent Lott without even the courtesy of a phone call to discuss his comments with him. That's the only disappointing thing GWB's done, in my eyes, but it was a biggie.

O'Malley's shown good judgment so far, so you should trust his instincts.

[Land of the Irish]

Excellent post, sitetest.

[Land of the Irish]

Maybe he doesn't embarrass people in public.

Jesus Christ had no problem with embarrassing people in public, even though He was crucified as a result of it.

[sinkspur]

Jesus Christ had no problem with embarrassing people in public, even though He was crucified as a result of it.

Jesus shared His first Eucharist with Judas, a man He knew would betray Him.

Why did He do that?

[sitetest]

Dear sinkspur,

I'm all for trying not to embarrass people in public. I'd hope that before publicly denying someone Holy Communion, a priest or prelate would first try to privately persuade the person not to approach the Sacrament.

Perhaps this is what happened with Chappaquiddick Ted. I understand that he left well before the Consecration.

But, privately, the politician who is a bad Catholic ought to be informed that he is no longer welcome to approach the Blessed Sacrament. The politician can then avoid public embarrassment by refraining from approaching. Any embarrassment caused is caused by the refusal of the politician to abide by the directive of the priest or prelate.

I really, really don't like doing things that will embarrass folks in public. I don't even like to have to say things that will embarrass folks, or otherwise harm them in some way, in private.

But it's clear that whatever has been said privately to the likes of Comrade Kerry, and other Catholics in bad standing, it has had no effect, sinkspur.

The archbishop does not accomplish his three duties in failing to deny these sorts Holy Communion.

First, he fails to rule, in that he does not enforce Church law, which requires him to refuse the Blessed Sacrament to notorious public sinners.

Second, he fails to teach, in that the example that is set is one that teaches that the Church really isn't serious about Her teachings, about sin, about the possibility of eternal damnation.

Third, he fails to sanctify. Catholic politicians who endorse a regime of legal abortion are in danger of eternal damnation. After 30 years, those that persist in this objective grave moral evil are hardened in their sin, whether they are culpable or not (And we must fear that they may be, sinkspur! We owe that to them!).

THE BISHOP OWES IT TO THEM TO do WHAT CAN BE DONE TO SHAKE THEM FROM THEIR MORAL LETHARGY. There would be few things which a bishop could do that would be more shocking to them than to be told that they could no longer receive Holy Communion until they abandoned their bloody crimes and repented of them. If they were to persist, and approach anyway, there would be little more that a priest or bishop could do to try to awaken them from their deadly sleep than to refuse them.

* * * * *

We can see the effect of "trying not to embarrass" these who hold the coats while the abortionists commit mass murder. We see Comrade Kerry is now condemning the Holy Father. For what? For saying that it is gravely morally evil for Catholic politicians to endorse laws permitting the travesty of "homosexual marriage" (whatever that could mean).

We see a man so caught up in arrogance, in pride, in delusion, in moral depravity that he actually thinks the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church has nothing to say about the morality of the actions of Catholic politicians. John Kerry is a spiritual zombie, sinkspur. No one is doing him any favors by trying not to embarrass him.

And Archbishop O'Malley does not teach, rule, or sanctify by trying not to embarrass him.


sitetest