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.

[Land of the Irish]

Sorry, but Archbishop O'Malley's installation mass was not the time or place...

We, as Catholics, are instructed to live each day, as if it was our last; to be prepared for our final Judgement at all times.

If Kerry had walked out of that cathedral, and died on the steps from a sudden heart attack, what would you and Archbishop O'Malley say?

"Whoops! I wish I had disciplined him earlier"?

[Land of the Irish]

“Those who…obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Communion.” Canon Law 915

[Salvation]

Yeah!

[Loyalist]

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

Careful now, deacon. Those of us without a sense of humour might think that you were endorsing homosexual marriage.

[sinkspur]

Those of us without a sense of humour might think that you were endorsing homosexual marriage.

Do you know something about your sidekicks that I don't?

[NYer]

Archbishop O'Malley's installation mass was not the time or place to promote controversy

Precisely. The mass was about healing open wounds, and reassuring those who have lost their faith. He identified himself as a humble Franciscan servant, and drew much inspiration from the acts of St. Francis. Thank you, St. Chuck.

He said he was pleased that many victims were at the Mass. "The healing of our church is inexorably bound up with your own healing. You are the wounds on the body of Christ today," he said. "I am sure that many are skeptical and think that the church leaders are like Simon the Cyrenean who carried the cross only under duress and not from a genuine desire to help. Perhaps the journey began that way, but what we see in the community of faith today is a spirit of repentance and a desire for healing."

He said the crisis has forced Catholics to focus on what is essential: Christ, the saving power of the cross and their call to follow Christ's mission.

[sitetest]

Dear St.Chuck,

"Sorry, but Archbishop O'Malley's installation mass was not the time or place to promote controversy..."

I don't see what would have been so controversial for the archbishop to personally call Messrs. Kennedy and Kerry to inform them that they are no longer welcome to approach Holy Communion as long as they remain public sinners.

It appears that Archbishop O'Malley may have already gone most of the way there, by at least informing them that they ought not approach, but that he wouldn't refuse them. Apparently, Chappaquiddick Ted, being a bit more of a man and a bit more of a Catholic than Comrade Kerry, took the hint. Without controversy.

I'm sure that the archbishop will do quite well in Boston. But setting the tone was precisely what he could have done. His installation Mass certainly was the place for it. He could have set the tone that, unlike his predecessor, he is serious about Catholicism and the practice of the faith.

Archbishop O'Malley, by the way, IS something of a fire-brand, having called pro-abort Catholic politicians in his previous diocese "KKK without the sheets". If you want to look for "controversy", "lighting the match", and "drawing blood", comparing a group of liberal politicians to the KKK seems to meet those criteria.

But the question will be whether he is all talk, or whether there is action that goes with the talk. Calling the pro-aborts "KKK without sheets" is emotionally very satisfying, but is he willing to follow up his brave words with actions that match? To have failed to do so from the very first is one small misstep on his part, and I don't despair of him for it. I expect great things from him. But I do believe that it is a misstep.

It need not have been done in an overly confrontational way. It would have set a wonderful, positive tone for Catholics who have longed for orthodoxy in this archdiocese. And perhaps, it may have even pricked the conscience of these evil men, perhaps to even get them on the road to repentance.

At the very least, give the benefit of the doubt to those here who disagree with you, that they do not disagree out of vain motives, but out of their own view of what would help heal the Church in Boston. Unfortunately, posts have been made comparing people to pharisees and the like. This, for merely wishing that an archbishop apply Canon Law. At least do not villify those who disagree with you. That would be better than some.


sitetest

[St.Chuck]

At least do not villify those who disagree with you.

Any disagreement we might have is in tactics. I think we share the recognition of the Church's teaching on this particular sin, and agree as to what the bishop's stance should be. I just think that the archdiocese of Boston has a greater priority right now, which is addressing those who have been turned away from the faith by abusive clergy and the church's inability to deal appropriately with abusive clergy. Those Catholics deserve O'Malley's attention more than a coupla renegade politico's. Archbishop O'Malley has set the right tone.

Kerrey and Kennedy are educated men, and are probably well-acquainted with the rules of the Church. That they choose to defy them is not the will of the church but rather a lack of will on the part of Sens. K&K.

Let's not forget, also, that these powerful lawmakers and aspiring president are the elected representatives that Boston area Catholics have supported for many, many years, and whether we like it or not, Kennedy's public values mirror the social values taught by the church. To publicly and imprudently shame these men, in my view, might needlessly repel them from future fruitful alliances with the Church.

[St.Chuck]

That is a bishop's duty: to be a good shepherd; to find that lost sheep and bring it back to the flock.

The good shepherd needs to nourish the entire flock, not the troublesome one who keeps slipping away. He will get to that sheep, but not to the detriment of the others who have been starving in recent years.

[St.Chuck]

If Kerry had walked out of that cathedral, and died on the steps from a sudden heart attack, what would you and Archbishop O'Malley say?

Well, I'm certain that Archbishop O'Malley would say the appropriate thing. I would just say, "Many are called, but few are chosen."

[St.Chuck]

Unfortunately, posts have been made comparing people to pharisees and the like. This, for merely wishing that an archbishop apply Canon Law.

Well, sometimes, one does get the impression that some posters have missed their call to a vocation to the church.

[Land of the Irish]

The good shepherd needs to nourish the entire flock, not the troublesome one who keeps slipping away. He will get to that sheep, but not to the detriment of the others who have been starving in recent years.

"4 What man of you that hath an hundred sheep, and if he shall lose one of them, doth he not leave the ninety-nine in the desert and go after that which was lost, until he find it?"

" 5 And when he hath found it, lay it upon his shoulders, rejoicing?"

" 6 And coming home, call together his friends and neighbours, saying to them: Rejoice with me, because I have found my sheep that was lost?"

" 7 I say to you that even so there shall be joy in heaven upon one sinner that doth penance, more than upon ninety-nine just who need not penance."

Luke 15:4-7, Douay-Rheims Bible

I suggest you study your own religion, before you continue your feeble attempts to be an internet preacher.

[sitetest]

Dear St.Chuck,

"Any disagreement we might have is in tactics."

Then the disagreement should end at that point, rather than deteriorating to vicious name-calling.

"and whether we like it or not, Kennedy's public values mirror the social values taught by the church."

Maybe once upon a time, they did. But the fact is, the political programs effected by Chappaquiddick Ted and his comrades have failed abysmally to achieve the social goals set by the Catholic Church. It is more likely that the social programs endorsed by many conservative Republicans will better achieve many of those goals than the tried-and-failed, morally-, socially-, and economically-bankrupting programs and policies of liberals.

That many Catholic clergy and prelates are unable to distinguish between Church teaching, and failed liberal programs to achieve these teachings, doesn't mean that Chappaquiddick Ted's "public values mirror the social values taught by the church", just that the clergy and prelates are partly blind. They confuse their politics, often deeply held, with Church teaching.

"I just think that the archdiocese of Boston has a greater priority right now, which is addressing those who have been turned away from the faith by abusive clergy and the church's inability to deal appropriately with abusive clergy."

I think that the exclusive focus on abusive priests and execrable bishops covering up for them is wrong. I read the posts here of many Catholics, and I think that a lot of the folks in the pews hold similar views and questions. The abusive priests and bad bishops are only part of it. As Fr. Neuhaus has said, the issue is, "Fidelity, fidelity, fidelity."

There is a core of Catholic laity who yearn to see their bishops stand up for the FAITH. To exercise fidelity to the FAITH. I think that must be part of the healing process, as well.

"Those Catholics deserve O'Malley's attention more than a coupla renegade politico's."

Starting to deal with the pollution of the Church by men like this is part and parcel of what the bishops ought to be doing, now. I think that regular Catholic layfolks are looking for this, wishing for this. Thinking that the predator priest problem is separate from the problem of tolerating anti-Catholics within the sanctuary is, I think, a mistake. Tolerating the likes of Chappaquiddick Ted and Comrade Kerry are part and parcel of the lack of fidelity shown by our bishops, priest, and by, also, our Catholic laity, who have voted for these perverse moral monsters.

The guilt for the situation in the Church today does not belong only to Paul Shanley, Rudy Kos, Bernard Law, Rembert Weakland, & Co. The guilt, the moral guilt, lies also with laity who have voted for Chappaquiddick Ted, Comrade Kerry, Bill & Hill, (in my own state) Parris Glendenning and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. The guilt for the degraded life of the Church in the United States, and I suppose in all the West, lies as well with layfolks who have voted in this sort all throughout the First World. The guilt lies with rank and file Catholic, folks in the pews, who have divorced, contracepted, and aborted with the best of the pagans. Who have compromised, over and over, fidelity to Catholic truth and faith.

I think that a large number of Catholics sense this in their souls, if they haven't precisely formulated in their minds. I think that a large percentage of Catholics are ready for priests and bishops who begin, again, to act like Catholic priests and bishops, and I think a large percentage of Catholics are ready to follow such men.

I'm sure many may resist at first. I suspect most will resist for a while, and then will realize that what is happening is to the good. Some may leave. Fewer than many suspect, I think. I believe that within the soul of every single baptized Catholic is the soul of a sheep who can hear his Master's voice. I think that when the bishops and priests start speaking again with that voice, that part of each Catholic soul will re-awaken, and many, most, will follow.

Pope John Paul II is such a man who has spoken this way through his pontificate. He awoke the docile sheep within my own soul, I heard the voice of my Master, and I have been trying to amend my life since.

But when bishops trim their sails, hem and haw, try to avoid the tough dialogue, I don't hear that voice. When Archbishop O'Malley says that pro-abort politicians are "KKK without sheets", I hear my Lord's voice. When he says that it is up to the individual pro-abort Catholic politician to decide whether or not to receive, I hear an ecclesial politician.


sitetest

[St.Chuck]

Inappropriate analogy.

[sitetest]

Dear Land of the Irish,

"I suggest you study your own religion, before you continue your feeble attempts to be an internet preacher."

I suggest that many of the good things that you have to say would be better received if you did not poison them with thorn-ladened comments like this.


sitetest

[Land of the Irish]

Thank-you for your very charitable advice, sitetest.

[St.Chuck]

Then the disagreement should end at that point, rather than deteriorating to vicious name-calling.

That's the second time you have alluded to that. What's your motivation? I have only been complimentary or gently corrective on this thread. Afraid I'm gonna blow up? LOL. Surely you're not getting overly sensitive on us.

[sitetest]

Dear St.Chuck,

I allude to what is posted on this thread. Not all who have taken your position have acted, at all times, anywhere near as charitably as you have. Not all you have taken my position have acted charitably, at all times, either.

I've personally been attacked in this thread as one who "would like to strike a match and light the kindling under the cauldron in Boston". Others who take my position have not posted charitably, as well.

I suppose it's a pet peeve of mine. It seems that we ought to be able to air our disagreements without being disagreeable. It seems to me that one may have the faith to move mountains, but that if one is without charity, one is worse than useless.

I'm willing to denounce what you think. I'm willing to denounce what you say. I'm willing to denounce what you do.

I'm unwilling to denounce you.

It seems that folks get mixed up about this stuff, and I don't like it.


sitetest

[St.Chuck]

I suggest you study your own religion, before you continue your feeble attempts to be an internet preacher.

Here, I'll throw a wrench into your circuitry. How do you square Luke:15 with Luke 9:5?(Douay Rheims)

[St.Chuck]

I'm willing to denounce what you think. I'm willing to denounce what you say. I'm willing to denounce what you do.

I'm unwilling to denounce you.

That's a nice sentiment, but I guess it doesn't apply to "Chappaquidick Ted and Comrade Kerrey."

It seems that folks get mixed up about this stuff, and I don't like it.