Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Prelate says politicians who back abortion shouldn't go to Communion
Catholic News Service ^ | July 31, 2003

Posted on 08/02/2003 3:07:26 PM PDT by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-137 next last

1 posted on 08/02/2003 3:07:26 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: american colleen; sinkspur; Lady In Blue; Salvation; Polycarp; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; ...
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!

2 posted on 08/02/2003 3:10:50 PM PDT by NYer (Laudate Dominum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
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.

3 posted on 08/02/2003 3:24:41 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
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.

4 posted on 08/02/2003 3:35:21 PM PDT by sinkspur ("I will be allowed to fulfill my destiny!" George C. Scott as "PATTON.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer
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.

5 posted on 08/02/2003 3:39:24 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; NYer; As you well know...
Let community pressure and stares from fellow Catholics work on Kerry and Kennedy, and others.

"others" being O'Malley, et al?

6 posted on 08/02/2003 3:44:27 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish


7 posted on 08/02/2003 3:53:04 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
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.

8 posted on 08/02/2003 4:35:56 PM PDT by NYer (Laudate Dominum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer
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.

9 posted on 08/02/2003 4:54:08 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NYer
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.

10 posted on 08/02/2003 5:07:39 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NYer
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
11 posted on 08/02/2003 5:27:44 PM PDT by sitetest (To permit them to receive is to reinforce the delusion that they may endorse the murder of innocents)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
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.

12 posted on 08/02/2003 5:37:51 PM PDT by sinkspur ("I will be allowed to fulfill my destiny!" George C. Scott as "PATTON.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NYer; 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...
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
13 posted on 08/02/2003 5:49:02 PM PDT by Coleus (God is Pro Life and Straight and gave an innate predisposition for self-preservation and protection)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
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.

14 posted on 08/02/2003 5:50:25 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Thank you for that link. I was unaware of this petition.
15 posted on 08/02/2003 5:59:14 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
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.

16 posted on 08/02/2003 6:03:09 PM PDT by sinkspur ("I will be allowed to fulfill my destiny!" George C. Scott as "PATTON.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
Excellent post, sitetest.
17 posted on 08/02/2003 6:04:25 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; sitetest
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.

18 posted on 08/02/2003 6:30:31 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
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?

19 posted on 08/02/2003 6:35:41 PM PDT by sinkspur ("I will be allowed to fulfill my destiny!" George C. Scott as "PATTON.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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
20 posted on 08/02/2003 6:36:12 PM PDT by sitetest (To permit them to receive is to reinforce the delusion that they may endorse the murder of innocents)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Canon 915 (or is 951?) states differently
21 posted on 08/02/2003 6:36:57 PM PDT by As you well know...
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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?

22 posted on 08/02/2003 6:39:57 PM PDT by As you well know...
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
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
23 posted on 08/02/2003 6:41:28 PM PDT by Coleus (God is Pro Life and Straight and gave an innate predisposition for self-preservation and protection)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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
24 posted on 08/02/2003 6:45:09 PM PDT by sitetest (To permit them to receive is to reinforce the delusion that they may endorse the murder of innocents)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: As you well know...
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.

25 posted on 08/02/2003 6:45:25 PM PDT by sinkspur ("The entire Nazi Reich is mine for the taking!" George C. Scott as "PATTON.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
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.

26 posted on 08/02/2003 6:49:45 PM PDT by sinkspur ("The entire Nazi Reich is mine for the taking!" George C. Scott as "PATTON.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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?

27 posted on 08/02/2003 6:53:23 PM PDT by As you well know...
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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.
28 posted on 08/02/2003 6:57:15 PM PDT by sitetest (To permit them to receive is to reinforce the delusion that they may endorse the murder of innocents)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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.

29 posted on 08/02/2003 6:57:27 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: As you well know...
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.

30 posted on 08/02/2003 7:00:10 PM PDT by sinkspur ("The entire Nazi Reich is mine for the taking!" George C. Scott as "PATTON.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; sitetest
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.
31 posted on 08/02/2003 7:01:12 PM PDT by old and tired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: old and tired
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
32 posted on 08/02/2003 7:06:09 PM PDT by sitetest (To permit them to receive is to reinforce the delusion that they may endorse the murder of innocents)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
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.

33 posted on 08/02/2003 7:08:14 PM PDT by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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.

34 posted on 08/02/2003 7:08:31 PM PDT by As you well know...
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
Amen. Just how did it contribute to the "Common Good?"
35 posted on 08/02/2003 7:09:26 PM PDT by As you well know...
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; Polycarp
Thanks again. It's a great site.
36 posted on 08/02/2003 7:09:43 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: As you well know...
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.

37 posted on 08/02/2003 7:17:37 PM PDT by sinkspur ("The entire Nazi Reich is mine for the taking!" George C. Scott as "PATTON.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

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

All for the better!

38 posted on 08/02/2003 7:19:33 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
...tone of reconciliation at the beginning of his tenure to heal...

New Age BS.

39 posted on 08/02/2003 7:23:09 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
Irish, you and UR ought to get married. You know each other's thoughts.
40 posted on 08/02/2003 7:25:55 PM PDT by sinkspur ("The entire Nazi Reich is mine for the taking!" George C. Scott as "PATTON.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I don't think either of us can influence Bishop O'Malley and from what I can tell, he is a much better Christian than I can ever hope to be.

That having been said, I do think he had an opportunity to do great things. It is also true I am looking in from the outside and I could well be wrong and you could be right, but, I am waiting for one in Apostolic Sucession to cut loose and act as though he were Robert Duvall in "Gods and Generals" and act as though he was constitutionally (intended) incapable of compromising language in dealing with an enemy of objective morality.

I really ache to see such action. Don't you?

Maybe it is just me pining for the old ways....

41 posted on 08/02/2003 7:27:49 PM PDT by As you well know...
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: As you well know...
I really ache to see such action. Don't you?

I do. But I want it to be for the sake of those who need correction, and not for the sake of you and me, who are self-righteously standing on the sidelines and cheering it on.

As for "Gods and Generals," my wife twisted my arm into watching it two weeks ago. It's a dreadfully slow movie, and I left it and came back to FR after an hour.

42 posted on 08/02/2003 7:32:12 PM PDT by sinkspur ("The entire Nazi Reich is mine for the taking!" George C. Scott as "PATTON.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: sitetest; sinkspur; Land of the Irish
*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. *

This was O'Malleys Installation Mass. His is coming into a diocese rife with problems and simmering like a cauldron. On Wednesday, he needed to set a tone and he more than accomplished that.

At least one of the abuse victims that accepted his invitation to the mass, had not stepped into a catholic church in 40 years. He was there to "hear" O'Malley's message and find hope. Others, however, chose to remain outside and continue to shout their disdain for what happened under previous bishops.

According to the trads, though, this was an opportunity to draw blood. Confront the politicians in front of family, leaders from other religious groups, sex abuse victims and the pope's representatives.

Did you not listen to O'Malley's homily or were you too focused on the pews, looking to beam a spotlight on Kennedy and Kerry? O'Malley, under pressure from some in the media, released the above statement regarding reception of communion. Kennedy got the message and left. Kerry, undaunted, remained.

As members of the SSPX, why do you even care? You already disagree with the mass O'Malley said, the distribution of communion in the hand, standing for communion. If O'Malley had denied Kerry communion, you would be complaining about some other aspect of this mass. Why did he say the NO mass and not the Tridentine Rite?

Which one of you would like to strike a match and light the kindling under the cauldron in Boston? You watch every move and analyze even the most subtle nuance as an excuse to put him down, along with his predecessors. My prayers go out to this humble servant who insists on wearing his Franciscan robe and sandals. He wasted no time in firing the lawyers hired by Cardinal Law while selecting a different team, ones who are more compassionate. But all you care about is the fact that Kerry received communion.

As Matthew points out in his gospel ...

While he was at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat with Jesus and his disciples.

11 The Pharisees saw this and said to his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?"

12 He heard this and said, "Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do.

You are no better than the Pharisees who watched every move that Christ made and sought to trip him up.

43 posted on 08/02/2003 7:33:04 PM PDT by NYer (Laudate Dominum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NYer; sitetest; Land of the Irish
According to the trads, though, this was an opportunity to draw blood. Confront the politicians in front of family, leaders from other religious groups, sex abuse victims and the pope's representatives.

Sitetest is not a trad, and I'm certainly not, but I must commend you for the above statement. It is right on target. "Drawing blood" is for the benefit of those who see the blood drawn, and not so much for the bleeder.

You are no better than the Pharisees who watched every move that Christ made and sought to trip him up.

Apropos. There's been way too much emphasis on the disappointment some feel over O'Malley's failure to kick some butt on his special day.

44 posted on 08/02/2003 7:41:03 PM PDT by sinkspur ("The entire Nazi Reich is mine for the taking!" George C. Scott as "PATTON.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I do. But I want it to be for the sake of those who need correction, and not for the sake of you and me, who are self-righteously standing on the sidelines and cheering it on.

Hmmm, it sounds as though we may be getting close to agreement here. I would like to point out I am the least "self-righteous" man I know. I well know I ought to live in a Confessional

As for "Gods and Generals," my wife twisted my arm into watching it two weeks ago. It's a dreadfully slow movie, and I left it and came back to FR after an hour.

Clearly you are on the road to perdition. (just kidding). Duvall played the incomparable Lee as too old and unanimated but he did illustrate Lee's intellect,dignity, conviction,grace,humanity,courage ect.

What I wouldn't give for a Bishop Lee...

45 posted on 08/02/2003 7:45:59 PM PDT by As you well know...
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish


Newly installed Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Boston Sean O'Mally raises the Eucharist during Mass at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston July 30, 2003.

(Ooops ... he's facing the congregation)


Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley acknowledges guests Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston, at the conclusion of a ceremony installing him as the new archbishop of the diocese.

(What's that? A simple wooden crozier? How decadent!)


Bishop Sean O'Malley, center, blesses the congregation with holy water in the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston Wednesday, July 30, 2003, during a ceremony at which he was installed as the new archbishop of Boston.

Pax et Bonum, Archbishop "Sean"

46 posted on 08/02/2003 7:50:40 PM PDT by NYer (Laudate Dominum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NYer
#8. Your words. "It is simply amazing that you can be so judgemental and still consider yourself a catholic..."

You are no better than the Pharisees who watched every move that Christ made and sought to trip him up

Ahem...

47 posted on 08/02/2003 7:51:41 PM PDT by As you well know...
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Dear NYer,

Many of us who think highly of Archbishop O'Malley, and who wish him well, and believe he will do fine in his new position, are nonetheless disappointed.

The discussion would go little further here if there were not a stout defense of permitting public sinners who endorse radical evil to receive Holy Communion.

"This was O'Malleys Installation Mass. His is coming into a diocese rife with problems and simmering like a cauldron. On Wednesday, he needed to set a tone and he more than accomplished that."

And I understand why he did what he did. But I think it was a serious misjudgement. I think it would have prompted MORE healing as the faithful Catholics of his See would have seen that he was quite serious about all aspects of Catholic life.

"At least one of the abuse victims that accepted his invitation to the mass, had not stepped into a catholic church in 40 years."

I don't think that this person would have not accepted the invitation if Comrade Kerry had been privately told not to approach the Blessed Sacrament.

"According to the trads, though, this was an opportunity to draw blood. Confront the politicians in front of family, leaders from other religious groups, sex abuse victims and the pope's representatives."

Well, I'm not sure that anyone around here would call me a "trad", least of all the trads [trads, your thoughts on this question are welcome], LOL, but to me, it wasn't about "drawing blood".

It COULD HAVE been about saying, "A lot of things are going to change for the better here in Boston, and quick. And this is one of them. We will no longer humor politicians who are bad Catholics, who endorse the murder of millions, we will not longer avert our eyes when they commit sacrilege. If they wish to be Catholic, then now is the time for them to make that choice. If they wish to protect mass murder, then they have made their choice."

But heck, NYer, it wouldn't have ever come to that. Honestly, I don't think it would have been very confrontational at all. The archbishop blinked. If he hadn't blinked, Comrade Kerry would have. I don't think for a moment that Comrade Kerry would have approached if he'd been told he'd have been refused.

"Did you not listen to O'Malley's homily or were you too focused on the pews, looking to beam a spotlight on Kennedy and Kerry?"

I didn't see the Installation Mass at all. I was at work while it happened, and living in the Washington-Baltimore region, it wasn't available on broadcast TV later. I don't get cable. Coverage in the Washington Times was not extensive. I don't read the Washington Post, generally. What I know about it, I read here.

"You are no better than the Pharisees who watched every move that Christ made and sought to trip him up."

I hope that this isn't addressed to me. It is an insult.


sitetest
48 posted on 08/02/2003 7:52:36 PM PDT by sitetest (To permit them to receive is to reinforce the delusion that they may endorse the murder of innocents)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

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

Excellent point! Thank you for making it.

49 posted on 08/02/2003 7:53:28 PM PDT by NYer (Laudate Dominum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: As you well know...
Hmmm, it sounds as though we may be getting close to agreement here.

I prefer fraternal correction without an audience, without the air of humiliation.

50 posted on 08/02/2003 7:55:06 PM PDT by sinkspur ("The entire Nazi Reich is mine for the taking!" George C. Scott as "PATTON.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-137 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson