Feb 25, 2006

Archbishop O'Malley and Teddy Kennedy

This post reproduces my rather lengthy reply to a comment that a good friend of this blog, Venerable Aussie, has made at my most recent post, "He's a bishop, not a squishop." (You can see his comment there, of course.)

Dear Venerable Aussie,

Thank you for your posts and your good recommendations. Please keep them coming!

I try to practice the desire to be very careful in what we say about others. But if I make a point or two about Archbishop O'Malley, I hope you'll understand me.

Of course, he does good things that deserve support. But there are some problems.

Soon-to-be-Cardinal O'Malley's policy boils down to this: He will give Communion to notorious, unrepentant politicians who time and again go out of their way to publicly defy Holy Mother Church by supporting the homosexual agenda and by promoting the killing of millions of BABIES.

Teddy Kennedy is guilty not only of those evils but of another one that few even know about: He is a direct persecutor of his fellow Catholics, including priests, who are pro-life activists.

Kennedy helped ramrod the FACE (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances) Act, which made it a federal crime to hold peaceful sit-ins to block abortionists from plying their bloody racket.

A photo showed Teddy Kennedy and his cronies grinning gloatingly and evilly as Clinton signed that monstrous persecution-of-priests-and-other-Catholics bill.

Can you blame pro-lifers for holding that the hierarchy and clergy should withhold Communion from such politicians? And for holding that excommunication might be in order, as a measure of charity -- toward the politicos for the good of their souls, and to enlighten the faithful?

It is not enough to leave it up to pro-aborts and persecutors whether to receive Communion. A bishop-like bishop would decide that.

Archbishop O'Malley was installed in Boston on July 30, 2003. The day before, his office said pro-abortion politicians should not receive. But both Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry, and probably other pro-aborts, received anyway.

By defying the new Archbishop in his first moments "in office," these powerful politicians spit in his eye like bullies saying, "What are you going to do about it?"

They were also spitting at the Bride of Christ, the Church.

Sure, they took advantage of the new Archbishop -- but he could have prevented that entirely by taking strong, bishop-like actions such as disinviting them ahead of time and by refusing Communion if they dared to show up.

Archbishop O'Malley did a good thing last December by refusing to attend a Boston Catholic Charities dinner that honored Thomas Menino, the notorious pro-abortion, pro-homosexual mayor of Boston.

But he could have taken an even stronger, bishop-like action by ordering Catholic Charities to disinvite Menino, and by scrubbing the dinner if they refused.

It would be hard for any bishop to keep up with the number of pro-abortion politicians that Cardinal Mahony has appeared with -- Bill Clinton, Gray Davis, Antonio Villaraigosa, etc., etc.

But we would all be so proud of ANY bishop who would take more forceful, bishop-like action against the pro-aborts -- any bishop who would act more like the slayings of tens of millions of babies are an emergency priority.

Let us pray that Cardinal O'Malley will be more actively pro-life and will also safeguard the Eucharist from pro-abortion politicians.


Blogger Venerable Aussie said...

Hi Quintero.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

The other day I downloaded and read Bishop Vasa's "Giving Testimony to the Truth" and the "Affirmation of Personal Faith" which he requires of those with official positions in his diocese.

If it was possible tomorrow for this to be rolled out across the dioceses of the US (and Australia for that matter) we would be over the moon!

We all know that slowly but surely it is heading in this direction. It is not a matter of if but when.

When we evaluate our bishops I think it is legitimate to identify who is moving in this direction, and who are quite blatantly and demonstrably moving in the opposite direction. It is not as clear-cut as asking "who is supporting and implementing this NOW".

We all know the myriad obstacles in the path, and we can all play armchair bishop.

But my point was to ask: in which direction is a particular bishop headed? and how can we support those who have made clear that they are moving in the right direction?

This is why I found this selective criticism of Cardinal-designate O'Malley - and talking about him in the same breath as Mahony - to be unjust.

You fill in the following blanks:

1. Communion to public pro-aborts:

O'Malley: " Catholic politician who holds a public, pro-choice position should not be receiving Communion and should on their own volition refrain from doing so. "

Mahony: ....

2. Support for pro-life youth (Jan 2006):

O'Malley: You are "willing prophets of the Gospel of Life"

Mahony: ...

We all know the problems O'Malley is confronting in renewing the practice of Catholcism in Boston. Heck, when I was there last (2 years before 9/11) I got harangued by a Moslem taxi driver - who knew I was Catholic - in the short downtown trip from Logan.

As I said in an earlier comment, I see a deeply Christian heart, good intentions, and many positive signals from O'Malley.

As regards your Ordinary, well, I'll leave you to fill in the blanks...

7:43 PM  
Blogger tagryn said...

Yup, agree with VA. O'Malley isn't perfect, but I think his heart is in the right place. Sniping at one's allies for not being everything we'd want them to be is a losing strategy.

We'd be lucky if we get someone of O'Malley's caliber as Mahony's successor, when the time comes.

8:50 PM  
Blogger Quintero said...

Dear Venerable Aussie,

As I said, few could keep up with Cardinal Mahony.

But I do not see how it is "moving in the right direction" to proclaim that a politician should not receive Communion, but then to give him Communion anyway.

That is surrender.

You can bet he would not give Communion to some people: nazis, violent racists, mobsters.

The trouble with "slowly but surely" is that 4,000 BABIES a day
are paying the painful, bloody price for our taking our time. And it's been 33 YEARS of dead babies and "slowly but surely."

It is not "selective" to focus on what Popes and bishops call the most serious issue of our times.

It is not armchair bishoping to see mass murder and call for our shepherds to stop "business as usual" and start actually saving some of the 4,000 babies a day.

And it is common for U.S. bishops
to make occasional strong pro-life remarks. Cardinal Mahony hosted a pro-life Mass at his cathedral in Jan. 2006, with many present, including young people. What I am saying is that more is needed.

7:59 PM  
Blogger Quintero said...

Dear Tagryn,

What we need as our next Ordinary in Los Angeles is a man who will stop business as usual and start taking actual action to stop the mass slaughter of babies.

Our Holy Father has just said there is no difference between newly conceived babies and adults. Bishops need to act as they would if 4,000 adults a day were being put to death.

Should a bishop give Communion to a politician who voted for, funded, and made speeches in favor of killing 4,000 adults a day?

8:10 PM  
Blogger Kenneth Fisher, Founder & CRCOA said...

Dear Venerable Aussie and tagryn,

I wonder if you will be saying the same thing after the Consistory where Kennedy and his ilk will probably be specially invited and allowed again to receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord, thus giving even more public scandal to the faithful.

As for my part, if this actually does not happen, I will be very happy to admit that I was wrong.

Kenneth Fisher

1:52 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Site Meter