Replies

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.

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

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