[sitetest]

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

[NYer]

*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.