Replies

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

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.