www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall +Sean O'Malley/John Kerry, Ted Kennedy

I heard this afternoon (May 9th) that the Archbishop of Boston, +Sean O'Malley, has indicated that he would give the Blessed Eucharist to Senators Kerry and Kennedy if they approached the altar during the celebration of Mass. I do not want to make any judgement about this before I have the correct information. Does anyone know the official statement from the Chancery in Boston? So far, nothing on their web site. Thank you!
Silouan, her monk

Apparently, +O'Malley has said that he wishes pro-abortion politicians wouldn't present themselves for Communion, but that he would not personally deny anyone the Body and Blood.

Too bad for him. I guess he'll have to answer for his decisions and for the well-being of the Boston Archdiocese at his judgment day. I hope he has very good reasons for mingling Our Lord Himself with those persons who support and encourage the annihilation of the unborn.

Logos Teen

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04130/312841.stm

Something thoughtful From Ann Rodgers in the Post-Gazette on Kerry's Catholicism.

Ann Rogers is a good writer. The article provides much food for thought. For me it shows that Kerry is a man who will not bring Christian values to the public arena. He is Catholic only when it suits his agenda and independent when Catholic values are not politically advantageous.

Hospodi Pomiluj!

djs,

Good idea. Let�s pray for Kerry and all Catholic politicians to actually affirm Catholic values once they are elected to office. Their salvation is at stake, not to mention the lives of the millions murdered via abortion each year in this country because they have rejected Catholic Teaching.

Admin

And that all of us can see Christ in each other rather than choosing to see sin foremost - as well as convenient scapegoats.

djs,

Generally I would agree with such a petition but you seem to offer it in sarcasm rather than in prayer.

It is hard to see past the blood of the innocents on Senator Kerry�s hands and on the hands of all those who vote to continue to support the murder that occurs through legal abortion. It taints any good that he might have done. I do pray for him, for President Bush and for all of our representatives each day. I pray that the Lord will lead them to follow His Will, and not what is politically expedient.

Admin

I'm fuzzy about church teaching on denying communion to politicians who support abortion.

I believe it comes under "participating in an abortion" as being a mortal sin (including abortionists, nurses, counselors, technicians and pro-abortion legislators and judges who take part in an abortion).

Is the church obligated to deny communion to known abortionists and participators or is it the responsibility of the church to warn these people that their communion would be sacriligious?

Paul

Administrator,

How did you vote on the where does responsibility lie poll?

Paul,
Under Roman Canon Law, participation of any type in an abortion, causes automatic excommunication, therefore the person who performs, procures, or in any way supports abortion is excluded from the sacraments of the Church.

Dear Glenn,

I understand canon law on "automatic excommunication." in cases involving abortion. My question has do with enforcement of the excommunicaion. Does the priest deny communion to a known abortionist or pro-abortion public official or is the excommunication an "honor" system. The abortionist voluntarily stays away from communion.

Best regards,

Paul

djs,

Thanks for your question. I didn�t vote in that poll. It is my opinion that some of the voices on both the left and the right are wrong. Many on the left seem to believe that President Bush or Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld ordered these torturous actions against the detainees. That is both ludicrous and irresponsible. There are also some on the right who believe that no one had any knowledge of these torturous actions except the soldiers themselves. That is also silly and self-serving.

Responsibility should be placed at several different levels. The soldiers bear direct responsibility for their actions, more so than anyone else. Their superiors in the chain of command also bear responsibility, and it does not matter whether these superiors ordered the torturous actions or turned a blind eye to them.

Unfortunately, the issue has now become politicized. No one in Congress said anything late last year when these misdeeds first came to light. Neither did they raise concern earlier this year when the Pentagon announced that investigations were underway. Last December, the father of one of the soldiers (from here in Virginia) involved contacted the offices of 17 members of Congress (both Republicans and Democrats) to ask for their assistance in addressing this problem, and got virtually no response. The Pentagon announced in the middle of January that there was a problem, that it was beginning a full investigation and that it expected charges to be filed. And now some of these same members of Congress are claiming no knowledge? Yeah, right.

I believe that the appropriate response is for there to be a full investigation and that all those involved � both soldiers, Marines and the higher-ranking officers involved � should be court-martialed.

But this discussion belongs in another thread.

I would like to comment a bit more on Kerry. It seems to me that if he were really �personally opposed to abortion� but did not want to force his values upon others he would have at least acted not to force the pro-abortion position on Catholics. Yet he led the charge to try to deny federal funding to Catholic hospitals because they did not permit abortions in their facilities.

Admin

By saying that he is personally opposed to abortion, but that he does not want to "impose [his] religious convictions" on anyone else, Kerry is actually saying that he personally believes murdering innocent human beings is wrong, but that he doesn't want to impose this view on others who believe they have every right to murder innocents.

Should we have someone so deluded as President of our country? Don't get me wrong, I don't like the alternative (Bush), but at least he doesn't support abortion (or at least puts severe limits on it).

Logos Teen

My comparison of "personally opposed" to abortion is this:

I wouldn't own a slave, but you should be allowed to own your own slave.

Paul

Paul:

That is an excellent comparison, if you thnk about it a little.

Both Teen and Administrator have championed pro-slavery politicians like Robert E. Lee, who was personally opposed to slavery, but had principled opposition to the Union in the civil war and therefore fought in support of pro-slavery stgates.

In any way? Do you provide funds that are used to pay for abortions Glenn? Are you excluded?

djs� assertion is incorrect. While Robert E. Lee�s name has not arisen in these discussions lately, I have never championed his pro-slavery position or him. I have merely noted that Lee�s involvement in the War was more for state�s rights than for the preservation of slavery. Let�s face it, Lincoln really didn�t care about black people that much, either. His primary goal was to preserve the Union. The freedom of blacks was a secondary cause. If one were to take djs� assertion seriously, then one would have to label anyone living in the South who has pride in the South�s heritage as automatically supporting slavery. That just isn�t accurate.

Too busy to dig the archives beyond:
https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000499;p=2#

But, I am just using pro-slavery in the manner of those who wield the term pro-abort.

By the way, the extension to those living today misses the mark. Lee and others of his time had to make a choice - informed by many facts and many principles - as to which side to support in the War. And the War was about slaverly - as unambiguously proclaimed in documents of secession of various Confederate states.

All Americans are forced to pay for abortions whether they want to or not. Certain members of Congress � including Senator Kerry � champion taxpayer financed abortions. They do so over our objections and, therefore, have little respect for us.

In order to be guilty of personal sin in this issue an individual needs to knowingly and willingly participate in performing, procuring or in any way supporting abortion. [Willful participation in a sinful activity is a necessary component of sin.] If, in one�s heart, one in any way supports abortion then that person should not approach the Eucharist. It is a grave insult to the Lord to spit on His Commandments and then to approach the Chalice.

OK, Regarding pro-abortion pro-slavery rhetoric.
I've seen a bumper sticker:

Against abortion?, Don't have one.

My bumper sticker:

Against slavery?, Don't own one.

Paul

djs,

You are not using the term �pro-slavery in the manner of those who wield the term pro-abort�.

Slavery and abortion are two different things. Both are wrong and immoral yet only one is murder. Further, using your logic one should not have even supported the North because woman did not have all the same rights as men. Are you really trying to argue that the good done by these pro-abortion politicians outweighs the lives of the innocent blood on their hands?

I agree that the Lee and others in the South supported the continuation of slavery. I have not suggested otherwise. That does not negate that the issue they broke with the Union was one of State�s rights.

Admin

Actually Americans have famously accepted jail rather than paying taxes over matters of principle. Who is willing to engage in such limited civil disobedience on the issue of abortion? Easy to scapegoat others and imagine that our hands are pure.

Well there are sins involuntary...

But let's be clear about what is being willed:
I will to have my liberty, my assests, etc. not jeopardized by taking a principled stand against financial support of abortion. But I will to be absolutely uncompromisingly heroic in crtiticizing others's actions. They have it soooo easy!

FWIW, anyone who while proclaiming the heightened moral awareness of life, yet doesn't take that modest risk should be more solicituous of the dilemma's faced by others and ask for God's mercy on us all (which you did, btw, and for which I commended you).

I am.
I use it with a cultivated indifference to the actual detailed views of any particular individual; I attach the label after a quick litmus test of their support. Fought for the south = pro-slavery; just the same way.

A good point. In the past I have limited myself to writing letters to the President, Congress and my state officials, participating in the March for Life and other activities. Kerry�s office usually sends back a nice form letter merely acknowledging my letter. You might be right. Maybe it is time for massive civil disobedience regarding withholding of taxes. Are you willing?

This makes no sense. Using this logic you should not publicly criticize U.S. actions to remove Hussein (or anything else) unless you are also willing jeopardize your liberty, assets and etc.

By the way, I never suggested people like Kerry have it easy. If he is honest with himself and really gives credence to Church Teaching, his life must be hell living with his continuing action to promote and fund abortion. I�ve mentioned this before, but his speech before the pro-abortion march a few weeks back did not sound like one who had any qualms about the issue.

Given such logic then it should be safe to conclude that if one is pro-Kerry then one is pro-abortion. I would accuse Catholics who support Kerry of not thinking the issue through. I would not automatically label them to be pro-abortion.

Not at all. I do oppose what this administration is doing in Iraq, and oppose them. Do their actions scream to heaven and cry out for every manner of opposition? Can't say for sure, but don't thnk so.
I think that people who aren't witholding support for abortions must feel the same way.

Bravo.

And perhaps thinking through a bit differently and reaching different conclusions. As I said before, I don't see anyone really thinking the issue through to the extent that workable strategies are identified that could lead to the societal change-of-heart required to solve this problem. (Apart from Paul's analogy, the implication of which is civil war might help the solution along.)

And, FWIW, I am inclined to extend that charity to Kerry himself.

But there is a difference. We know that abortion is always wrong and always immoral. The Church teaches this definitively. The Church offers no definitive teaching regarding the current War. Even in the Vatican there is disagreement and Pope John Paul II has not spoken against the War as a matter of faith.

A curious response. The logical extension of my statement is that we should encourage people of faith to think the issue through and to realize that voting for pro-abortion candidates (when there is a pro-life candidate) is morally wrong. You seem to be advocating that its ok to not to think and go ahead and vote for abortionists.

There is only one conclusion that is in accord with our Catholic and Orthodox Faith. I will agree that we have not exhausted the workable strategies to change the hearts of Americans to reject the culture of Death and embrace the culture of Life. In every extension of charity I cannot bring myself to see anyone voting for someone who is actively working not only to continue taxpayer financing of abortions but also to require Catholic hospitals to perform them as someone who is conflicted on the issue. Kerry�s position is clear. His work serves the culture of Death. He must be opposed.

I also extend charity for Kerry. If he is really debating this issue in his heart I urge him to choose the side of life. I will continue to pray for him (and to write to him). This charity, however, does not extend to the voting booth. There are pro-life candidates available in all parties and we should support them instead of pro-abortion candidates. Imagine the change that could be brought about in both major political parties if Catholics and other Christians refused en mass to vote for pro-abortion politicans. Anyone who reads the Holy Father�s teaching (and all Catholic Teaching) and respects it simply cannot place the sacredness of life in second place to other issues.

Of course there is a difference. My response was to your query about the different levels of action against the war versus abortion. You comment is a good answer to your own question. It leaves open the questionas to why the action against abortion is so disproportionately mild as compared to the rhetoric.

I take it you are talking about political conclusion, and disagree with you completely. What the present strategy has accomplished is polarization and entrenchement of positions; modest steps in the right direction are thus seen as jumps onto slippery slopes. And this dichotomy played for political gain, with us being played big time. Because of our complicity in this game, we have made far less progress than otherwise possible.

As you wisely noted there are levels of responsibility about conduct and consequences. IMO, the "one conclusion" view of the political question bears a heavy responsibility for our failure to make headway on this problem.

Upping the ante in the debate on the "proper" treatment of pro-abortion candidates, the Most Rev. Michael J. Sheridan, Bishop of Colorado Springs, and before the USCCB Task Force can come up with a "national" strategy, has issued a Pastoral Letter to the Catholic faithful of his diocese informing them not to receive the Holy Eucharist likewise if they support and/or vote for pro-abortion candidates.

In addition, the good Bishop included in the injuction candidates and their supporters and/or voters who are for same-sex marriages.

It's getting serious and I am for it. Details at:

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=46467

Amado

Good discussion of the letter here.

http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2004/05/it_only_takes_a.html#comments

I agree with djs that the response of the Church to those who are pro-abortion and still pretend to be Catholic has been disproportionately mild. This question has been much discussed for past generation. Awhile back I read an article in a Roman Catholic magazine in which the author spoke of the Church�s mistake of being more concerned about being compassionate towards individuals then about their salvation. I think this writer (I think he was Jesuit priest) is accurate. Another recent article spoke of this false notion that an individual must be totally sinless before witnessing to others what is right and wrong. Hopefully, we are seeing the beginning of a change in the Church towards calling people to account for their beliefs.

I applaud Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs for calling people to conform their personal action to the Commandments. I think it is time for the Church to remind people that if they reject the teaching of Christ they should not call themselves Catholics and that they should repent of their errors and embrace Church Teaching.

About 20 years ago I was working with a man who was a non-practicing member of the United Church of Christ. He asked me one day: �By what right to you Catholics tell people that they cannot even believe in having abortion as a choice?� Without thinking, I responded that we don�t pretend to tell people what to think and we respect the individual�s conscience to accept or reject God�s Commandments. I then told him that the Catholic Church teaches that there are certain things we must accept for belief. We are free to reject these things but, if we do reject them, then we should not call ourselves Catholics and should realize that the Church says we jeopardize our salvation when we reject what Christ teaches.

I disagree totally. For the past 30-40 years the Church has greatly muted it�s authority to call Catholics to account for their actions. This strategy of changing hearts has done nothing except teach the majority of Catholics that they can have two sets of rules, one taught by Jesus that belongs only to Sunday mornings and another taught by our society that rules their daily lives. Further, this has caused the Church to be viewed as radical instead of mainstream when it calls Catholics to account for their actions.

On the larger level, it has given those who oppose Judeo-Christian moral standards in society the dominant voice in our society.

I pray and hope that every bishop, Catholic and Orthodox, follows Bishop Sheridan�s example.

I would like to highlight some excepts from the pastoral letter linked by Amadeus:

Well stated. We cannot pretend that there are other issues more important than the right to life. We cannot continue to ignore the murder of the innocents. We must always pray and work toward converting the entire country to Jesus Christ.

You changed my question entirely, of course.
I am challenging the conviction of laity and clergy who do so litttle in terms of direct action to end abortion. When, for example, glib comparisions are made to the Nazi holocaust, but no action is taken that entails risk, then I question the conviction. I don't doubt for a moment the ease with which we can risklessly see and criticize fault in others.

Here again you shift completely - from what a voter should do to what Church disciplinarians should do. As to political strategies, it is naive in the extreme to think that the way to achieve objectives is to adhere to a direct path. Or to discount the posturing that is inherent to the process, with tyranny of public opinion, that we have created.

And this is where Bishop Sheridan's message is weak. What is God's law on poltics? What does it mean "supporting", "to advocate", "to promote"... A candidate that has an abortion, procures an abortion, praises an act of abortion may certainly be unambiguously be said to "defy God's law". But a vote?

The conflating of the moral dimension of abortion, which is totally unambiguous, with the political action, which is murky at best, is a great way to dilute the power of one's voice of moral authority, and to cause rather than alleviate confusion.