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.

[As you well know...]

Canon 915 (or is 951?) states differently

[As you well know...]

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.

I was learnt that if one allowed himself to be complicit in another's sin, (read the 1962 Roman Missal for "examination of conscience")then that was a sin in and of itself. I know this is "old school," but has that advice been abandoned?

[Coleus]

You're welcome. Freeper Polycarp is the VP of this organization. I think I originally found out about it from this site. I had Tim add on my governor--a pro PBA Catholic.

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2002Mar/house.htm

[sitetest]

Dear sinkspur,

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

I think that in this case, Archbishop O'Malley wished not to start a war at the moment of his installation. I understand that wish, on his part. I think that he likely told himself something like, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

Usually, that's true. And this instinct will serve him well for the most part.

But here, I can see no justification for not taking the hard line. Frankly, if he'd have told Comrade Kerry privately that he would be refused Holy Communion if he approached, I'd be willing to be that Kerry would have backed down. And privately seethed. And maybe in that private seething, in that upsetting of the equilibrium of sin, maybe a bit of God's grace might have burst through. Who knows. You never know.

* * * * *

Ask yourself this question: Herr Hitler was baptized a Catholic, and I assume he made his First Holy Communion. If, in order to try to appease the Catholic part of the German constituency, he'd have made a point of attending Mass during the worst of the war, and approached the Blessed Sacrament, would you think it proper to have permitted him to receive?


sitetest

[sinkspur]

I was learnt that if one allowed himself to be complicit in another's sin, (read the 1962 Roman Missal for "examination of conscience")then that was a sin in and of itself. I know this is "old school," but has that advice been abandoned?

Ask O'Malley. And the Pope. Not me.

[sinkspur]

If, in order to try to appease the Catholic part of the German constituency, he'd have made a point of attending Mass during the worst of the war, and approached the Blessed Sacrament, would you think it proper to have permitted him to receive?

Were the German bishops caught up in Hitler's madness? If they were, it's likely they saw nothing wrong in his designs and would gladly have given him the Eucharist.

Hitler's a bad example, as we have the benefit of hindsight.

I know what you're trying to say. O'Malley will likely approach Kerry privately.

[As you well know...]

How old are you? Have you never heard it is sinful to be an accessory to another's sin via various behaviors?

Frequently Asked Questions about BEING AN ACCESSORY TO ANOTHER'S SIN

1. Can a person be held accountable before God for the sins of another person?"

2. In which ways can a person be held accountable for the sins of another person?"

3. I heard that there were nine ways in which a person can be an accessory to another's sin?"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q. 1. Can a person be held accountable before God for the sins of another person?

A. Yes. While "sin is a personal act, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them." (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1868)

Return to Table of Contents

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q. 2. In which ways can a person be held accountable for the sins of another person?

A. A person is held accountable for the sins of another in the following ways:

- by participating directly and voluntarily in them;

- by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;

- by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;

- by protecting evil-doers. (C.C.C. # 1868)

Return to Table of Contents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q. 3. I heard that there were nine ways in which a person can be an accessory to another's sin?

A. Under the old teachings of the Catholic Church, the faithful were asked to memorize the nine ways of being an accessory to another person's sins. The following consist of the old teaching:

(1) By counsel;

(2) By command;

(3) By consent;

(4) By provocation;

(5) By praise or flattery;

(6) By concealment;

(7) By partaking;

(8) By silence;

(9) By defense of the ill done.

Return to Table of Contents

. I know I am "old school" and I know that my sins are FAR WORSE than any O'Malley could possibly committ, yet, that is what I was learnt. Ought I abandon what I was taught?

[sitetest]

Dear sinkspur,

Then take a different example. In the late 1950s, certain Catholic politicians in Louisiana made it known that they would oppose desegregation no matter what. The archbishop gave them nearly ten years to change their minds, hearts, and most importantly, their public stances. They refused.

He excommunicated them. Obviously, being in a state of excommunication, they could no longer receive the Sacraments.

Was he wrong to do this? This was rather embarrassing, shocking, and humiliating to these men.

* * * * *

I think that Archbishop likely already approached the vermin Kerry. As well as Chappaquiddick Ted. I think Chappaquiddick Ted is still a vestigial Catholic, and made a man's choice, as a result. He believes in the sacrament of abortion, and thus forsook the Sacrament of Life. But the vermin Kerry apparently did not have the moral honesty to do likewise.


sitetest

PS - The German bishops generally, the entire German Catholic Church, by and large, condemned National Socialism and all its evil works.

[Land of the Irish]

You're grasping at straws. I addressed this pathetic little notion of yours last night. Look it up.

Let's get back to O'Malley not wanting to embarrass a flagrant, public sinner as compared to how Jesus lived His short life on earth.

O'Malley has been a Catholic bishop for over 19 years and he still can't call a spade a spade, like Christ could.

[sinkspur]

Ought I abandon what I was taught?

No. Your obsession with this O'Malley business is telling. Why don't you write a letter to O'Malley, and Kerry, and Kennedy, and get all of this out of your system?

Don't ask me to speak for O'Malley, because I can't.

For some reason, you're jumping on me over this.

I'm not the Archbishop of Boston.

[old and tired]

I honestly don't know what to think. It seems so clear to me that allowing a public unrepentant murderer like Kerrey to receive is the moral equivalent of flushing Our Lord into the Boston sewer system. I can't for the life of me understand why O'Malley doesn't feel the same way.

But he doesn't. And he seems like a genuinely good and holy man. He has stated that pro-abortion politicians are not to receive. (That is more than most bishops have done). And yet Kerry received anyway, and O'Malley did nothing to stop it. Maybe it's some sort of pacifist Franciscan thing. I don't know, but I'm witholding my opinion of O'Malley until I see how he deals with the pro-death crowd in the future.

[sitetest]

Dear old and tired,

"I can't for the life of me understand why O'Malley doesn't feel the same way."

I share your dismay and lack of understanding.

I think that Archbishop O'Malley, in the long term, will prove a worthy Ordinary of the See of Boston. I think that he will help rebuild the Church of Boston. I look forward to a long and fruitful reign of this good monk.

But no one has yet provided a worthy explanation of why it was a good idea to permit John Kerry to receive Holy Communion. No one has yet made the argument that it was not a missed opporutunity for this bishop to teach, rule, and sanctify.


sitetest

[saradippity]

I think St. Paul said that those who receive the Body and Blood unworthily call down condemnation/chastisement/excommunication or whatever,upon themselves.

If we would hear that line more often in Church,it would probably serve us all well.The unworth partakers and the rest of the congregation who know,or at least think they know.Probably would never need extraordinary eucharistic ministers if people heeded those words. On the other hand,it would probably force the priests back into the confessionals another five,six hours a week.

[As you well know...]

No. Your obsession with this O'Malley business is telling. Why don't you write a letter to O'Malley, and Kerry, and Kennedy, and get all of this out of your system?

I suppose I could be argumentative and point out I talk about a variety of subjects whcih would make your assertion this is an obsession ridiculous.

And why would writing a letter "get this out of my system?"

Tis is a continuing problem and I am sure you yourself have things/issues ect which you don't "get out of your system?

You write as though defending the Faith with zeal is something I ought to purge from "my system" but "my system" is my Catholic life lived as a Christian militant which was an obligation and duty I willingly accepted when I was Confirmed.

[As you well know...]

Amen. Just how did it contribute to the "Common Good?"

[Land of the Irish]

Thanks again. It's a great site.

[sinkspur]

You write as though defending the Faith with zeal is something I ought to purge from "my system" but "my system" is my Catholic life lived as a Christian militant which was an obligation and duty I willingly accepted when I was Confirmed.

And you direct your writings at me as if I can somehow influence O'Malley because I'm cutting him some slack.

Perhaps O'Malley is attempting to set a tone of reconciliation at the beginning of his tenure to heal the chasm caused by clerical sexual abuse.

[Land of the Irish]

On the other hand,it would probably force the priests back into the confessionals another five,six hours a week.

All for the better!

[Land of the Irish]

...tone of reconciliation at the beginning of his tenure to heal...

New Age BS.

[sinkspur]

Irish, you and UR ought to get married. You know each other's thoughts.