I'll take O'Malley. KO in the first round. Kerry may be trying to move up in the division, but he's completely outclassed. I think O'Malley will expose Kerry's weak chin and lack of counterpunching ability. And besides, Kerry's record makes one wonder how he made it this far.
Hal McCard | 01.29.04 - 2:40 pm | #

"When Catholic officials openly support the taking of human life in abortion, euthanasia or the destruction of human embryos, they are no longer faithful members in the Church and should not partake of Holy Communion. Moreover, citizens who promote this unjust taking of human life by their vote or support of such candidates share in responsibility for this grave evil.""

Is there a possiblity that some bishops might tell their congregations not to recieve communion if they voted for a pro-abortion candidate over a pro-life one?
Matthew J. Sullivan | 01.29.04 - 2:47 pm | #

Doubtful. The Church doesn't ask it and the problems arising from such a move are immense.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 01.29.04 - 2:48 pm | #

"Operator, phone number for Archdiocese of St. Louis....thank you....(scribble, dial tone, click)
Hello, Ray? Sean in Boston. How's the new job? Yeah, moving's a bear. Hey, listen- got this little problem here....we have this senator....No, not him- he's hopeless....The OTHER guy....Running for president now.....Nice guy, but oy- Pro-Choice. What should I do?.... No, blaming the wife is out of the question....What? Just call his pastor and.....writing this now.....No Repentance....No Communion.....But Ray, I don't even know if he goes to Mass regularly. How am I gonna enforce.....(click) Hello, Ray? Anyone there?"
Gerard E. | 01.29.04 - 2:57 pm | #

Mark-
True. But doesn't the phrase "sharing in the responsibility of this grave evil." Sound an awful like committing a mortal sin? The voting guide on ewtn.com also seems to imply that it might be a mortal sin to vote for someone who is pro-abortion over a person who is against it.

Besides I feel like we're hitting a tipping point. That, "the problems arising from such a move are immense." Is being weighed against the enormity of the legalized evil in our country. I don't think that its something that would happen tomorrow, but perhaps in another 4 or 8 years? I keep reading articles about bishops with increasingly stiff spines on this issues.
Matthew J. Sullivan | 01.29.04 - 2:59 pm | #

Kerry *has* to defy the church on this one to retain credibility with seculars and pro-abortion Catholics. If he stays away from communion he will be implicitly agreeing that he's doing something wrong, and that he cannot afford to do.
This same calculus will figure into the bishop's decision too, I'm sure. He will have a dilemma:
1. Ban Kerry, and watch Kerry defy him to the cheers of the media, seculars and "open-minded" Catholics - not to mention the scandal given for other pro-aborts to do likewise.
2. Give a private admonition but leave it to Kerry as to whether to obey - knowing that Kerry will go to communion anyhow, but at least it won't be a cause celebre.
Just my 2 cents
WRY | 01.29.04 - 3:04 pm | #

First lesson:

Don't mistake EWTN for the Magisterium.

Very rarely does the Church attempt to micromanage voting for candidates.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 01.29.04 - 3:04 pm | #

The problems arising from a "showdown" with individuals can also be immense. The Blessed Sacrament is distorted when it becomes politicized and an issue of power on a national level. Do you really want CNN's "Inside Politics" discussing the nature of transubstantiation?

These are important things to think about and meditate on before such an action is taken. There is a difference between denying communion to a local state senator of Wisconsin and starting a "showdown" with the President of the United States. If one doesn't even take into consideration respect for government authority, one must at least take into consideration the exponential increase in complexity between the two public offices and how to deal with them.

I think if Kerry becomes president, something i don't hope for, he will be handled much like how the Canadian Bishops handle a Jean Chretien. If he says something like "I'm Catholic and support abortion" you will get some kind of response.

Other than that I would say it is Kerry's responsibility to not go to communion.
Brian Emmick | Homepage | 01.29.04 - 3:09 pm | #

Voting a pro abortion candidate over a pro life candidate is like asking your Bishop to give your parish a priest who is a pedphile rather than a priest who has a normal sexuality.

Can you do it? Sure. Is it a sin to do so? Probably.

Wry,

I wouldnt be surprised if Bishop O'Malley has already been in contanct via private correspondence. I think Bishop Burke said he did so for a year before issuing a public statement.
Jason | 01.29.04 - 3:12 pm | #

Count me among the people who believe that religious freedom extends to anything said in any Church, Synagogue, or Mosque from the pulpit (except for a false shout of "fire", incitement to riot, etc.)

The question of "vote for a sinner and you sin" is an interesting one.

Getting in touch with my inner Dick Morris:

Of course, there's a political calculus here -- I know this is tough but imagine a 3 person race: pro-choice Dem, pro-choice Rep, and independent pro-life. You vote pro-life and split the vote for the Republican -- the Democrat wins and in the big picture they keep their effective power to block Bush's pro-life court picks.
Patrick Sweeney | Homepage | 01.29.04 - 3:14 pm | #

Mark-
"Don't mistake EWTN for the Magisterium."

Good advice.

"Very rarely does the Church attempt to micromanage voting for candidates."

Pardon my ignorance on this one, but why? Sometimes it seems like you could have Jesus running for president against Stalin and we would hear nothing from the pulpits. I've been going to church all my life and have been exposed to priests who have a variety of political views but I've never heard one give a voting guide from the pulpit, sometimes they'll give good advice in private. If we commit a sin by voting for a pro-abort pol then oughtn't we be told by our priests so we can avoid that sin? When something it taught in the Catechism or by the Holy See but it doesn't seem to be mentioned at all by the local priest doesn't that encourage a sense of disconnect? "Oh that's Rome for you but Fr. Joe is much more sensible."
Matthew J. Sullivan | 01.29.04 - 3:22 pm | #

Is Kerry also divorced from his first wife or was he a widower. I don't know. His heiress wife was a widow. If he was divorced and had not obtained an annulment, then I'd think he would be barred from communion on those grounds as well. The bishop could call him on that, too. Right?
Peggy | Homepage | 01.29.04 - 3:23 pm | #

My 2¢:

What would it say to the US laity if a US president was denied Communion because of his anti-life stance?
For me, my answer would be it shows the Canons we're obligated to obey holds true to ALL Catholics, regardless of position.
Brian mentioned there's a difference in a showdown between a state senator and a US President(paraphrasing), why would that be different or less important?
If we're all equal in the eyes of the secular law, then why wouldn't that apply to the Canons?
David | 01.29.04 - 3:28 pm | #

Patrick-
You know its funny I keep performing that same political calculus. The question I run against is if I ought to. It's tempting to vote for something like the Constitution party. Because I vote not because 1 vote makes much of a difference but because it's my civic duty. An even tougher political calculus will be when we a Republican primary where the guy who mostly likely can beat the Dem. candidate is pro-choice. But the guy who will most likely get wallopped is pro-life. This is quite possible 4 years from now, Guiliani, Ridge, Powell or any combo of these could run and be quite successful.
Matthew J. Sullivan | 01.29.04 - 3:30 pm | #

Mark, sometimes the local Church tries to micro-manage votes.

In France, IRRC, the Church was very clear in saying that you shouldn't vote for Le Pen and the Front Nationale in the last French presidential election. The Church in Austria was also quite vocal in saying you shouldn't vote for Jorg Haider and his Freedom Party, and here in England the constant message is that you can't vote for the British National Party.

Interestingly enough, all three parties are the most pro-life political choices available, and opposed to the Islamification of formerly Christian countries. They are also opposed to extending 'homosexual rights'. Sadly, they all happen to be right-wing.

Oh well, I forgot to read the new Catechism. When did 'Racism' become the new, and exclusive, 'sin crying out for vengeance from Heaven'?
Stephen | 01.29.04 - 3:50 pm | #

There is a bigger problem here. Are the forces of Catholicism in America prepared for this fight?

For this to have any effect on Kerry, Abp O'Malley MUST have help. All of the priests in Boston have to support it and the other bishops have to as well. This action would end the debate on whether we should prevent politicians from receiving. In essence, we would be crossing the Rubicon; we better be ready to say "the die is cast."

While I think it would be a good idea, we need to reember the forces the pro-choicers would have at it's disposal.
1. Ability to control public opinion by spinning this into a church/state issue.
2. Depending on the timing, the appearance that the good bishop was trying to influence the election in a partisan way.
3. Control of the debate on the national scene. The Bishop would not have unfettered access to the public, and even when he would be interviewed, there would be someone following him (probably CFFC-type) that would get the last word.
4. Poor catechesis preventing rank and file Catholics from being able to distinguish the truth from all of the chaff.

This is an idea that literally probably should have been done last year. Hopefully, there is enough moral courage in the assembly of bishops to do something like this and make it work.
Statman | 01.29.04 - 4:10 pm | #

It makes rational sense to refuse communion to a proabortion (putting aside the meaning of this term for the moment) king without refusing it to his population. But the whole point of a democracy/republic is that political power flows from the citizenry by way of election. So it is fundamentally irrational to deny a proab politician communion without also denying it to those who vote for him. In a democracy/republic, a politician only has the power to effect a proab policy because the citizenry has bestowed it upon him. So the citizen who votes for a proab politician is as morally guilty as the politician for the crime that the politician contemplates -- as one who knowingly assists another to commit suicide by providing the means to do so is as guilty, or guiltier, than the suicide victim.

Selectively "excommunicating" politicians is a travesty unless the same rules are applied those who vote for or otherwise support them.
T. Marzen | 01.29.04 - 4:40 pm | #

T. Marzen,

The difference is that voting is done privately while politicos state their views publically. It's that public declaration that the Bishops need to start policing and exercising their authority.

The Catholic voter who votes for an anti-life candidate, I believe would incur excommunication latae sententiae. If that is the case, then they place their soul in jepardy by receiving Communion under a Mortal Sin.
David | 01.29.04 - 4:56 pm | #

Well, one obvious difference between preventing Kerry from receiving communion and the ordinary Joe who votes for him is that Kerry's position on abortion is well known and publicly proclaimed by him. For the average Joe in the pew, the bishop/priest has no clue how he voted. He can remind everyone that they need to examine themselves and abstain if they are complicit, but the priest (or more likely EM) has no way of knowing. With Kerry (and other public figures), they know. But if they did know that Ordinary Joe was part of it as well, then why not withhold?

As for Church/State brouhaha, so what? What, is the US Army gonna come in and do the consecration? The state can't do diddly, because its a religious issue, not a state issue. Kerry is free to continue supporting abortion, and run for President on that stance. He is not free to escape the religious consequences of such support.
c matt | 01.29.04 - 5:06 pm | #

As Kerry might say

"Bring it on."
c matt | 01.29.04 - 5:07 pm | #

I think that this conflict is, despite anyone's political math, inevitable: there is a great collision coming, IMHO, between the Church and American Pop Culture. The upshot that I foresee is schism as the more worldly part of the Church - what is commonly referred to as the AmChurch - casts its lot with the culture. This is what I think the bishops’ fear and why many of them have handled deathy political types with kid gloves up tell now and why they are looking for cover from the USBC on this issue. But ready or not, the Church in this country cannot resist the logic of its own teachings and continue to look weak and dishonest by not having the courage of its convictions. If I am right, it will be interesting to see what my ordinary, Crd. Mahony, will do when the crisis hits.
John Hearn | 01.29.04 - 5:08 pm | #

Hey Kerry, would you like some ketchup with that brotherhood cookie?
c matt | 01.29.04 - 5:09 pm | #

I applaud these bishops but why is it that they all stop short of excommunication?

That would definitely take the wind out of their sails as "Catholic politicians". Bishops claim they are being "pastoral" but allowing an unrepetent sinner on the loose with the responsiblity to do great harm renders the church meaningless to much of the public.

Unless, it comes to this the danger lies in that the warnings may be just shallow threats.
Norherner | 01.29.04 - 6:54 pm | #

I have to take issue with those who assert categorically that it would be sinful to vote for a pro-choice candidate. It probably would be a sin if you voted for someone like Kerry *because* you hoped that his election would keep abortion legal. But if you voted for him *despite* that position, then I believe the principal of double effect would apply: the assistance your vote might give to abortion would be an anticipated but undesired consequence of your vote, which you cast to achieve some good. (I can't imagine any good that might come from voting for Kerry escapes me, but we're just hypothesizing here.)

I recall that, just before apartheid fell in South Africa, Fr. Marx of Human Life International advised that the appropriate voting choice there had to be for the Nationalist Party, because the Nationalists were the only party that would keep abortion illegal. He clearly thought that one could vote for the Nationalists in spite of, not because of, their pro-apartheid policy, and that if you did so, you would not incur the guilt of racism. But I think one might in good conscience have decided the other way, that getting rid of apartheid was such a high imperative as to justify tolerating the pro-choice policies of one of the opposition parties. If that example is unpersuasive, consider what you might do if you were a voter in a country like Germany in 1933 and that your only choices (unlike those in Germany at that time) were between the Nazi party which planned to keep abortion illegal, and a Liberal or Social Democratic party that planned to legalize it. Even though the Nazis hadn't announced any plans for genocide, and even though the Social Democrats might be very up front about their plans to legalize abortion, I can still imagine that a Catholic voter might in good faith vote for the pro-choice Social Democrats as the lesser evil (just as Fr. Marx clearly thought the Nationalist party in South Africa was the lesser evil). These are matters of prudential judgment on which people may disagree in good faith.
Seamus | 01.29.04 - 7:36 pm | #

Two thoughts: if Kerry is to be denied the Eucharist, then isn't hasn't he literally been excommunicated ("taken out of communion")? If his bishop declares that Kerry may not receive Communion, then I would think that the Pope would need to either support the bishop by formally excommunicating Kerry or rebuking the bishop himself and saying he went too far. To do otherwise would be cowardice and hypocrisy on the part of the Pope.

Though not a Roman Catholic, I would strongly welcome a show of conviction and power by the Pope. The only other religious leaders of anywhere near his authority would probably be Billy Graham and the Archbishop of Canterbury, but Graham isn't so political and ++Canterbury is...well...you know...
Maybe the Dalai Lama counts, but he's not really in the picture. Right now, JPII is the only religious leader with both the clout and the inclination to do something. If a stand isn't taken, then we deserve what we get.

Finally, how is this not an issue of freedom of association? Kerry is welcome in the Roman Catholic Church so long as he follows the rules; if he persists in breaking the rules, after several warnings, what's wrong with kicking him out?
(Yes, I know his family is actually Czech or something, but he pretended to be Irish and so he doesn't count as a minority in the RCC.)
HokiePundit | Homepage | 01.29.04 - 7:44 pm | #

Excommunication is different from being denied communion. Can 1331, i.e., states that an excommunicated person is forbidden from celebrating the sacraments. I'm no canon law expert by any means, but I think that an excommunicated person would need to get his penalty remitted before even going to confession, or his confessor at least would need to remit the penalty as part of the confession if this is permitted.

Archbishop Burke, on the otherhand, stressed that the sacrament of confession is open to the pro-choice politicians his actions were directed against in his former diocese.
Adam N | 01.29.04 - 8:18 pm | #

Excpmmunication latae sententiae does not apply to the act of voting for a candidate in and of itself. The canon is construed more narrowly than that.

Whether mortal sin is committed is a separate consideration.
Hmm | 01.29.04 - 8:18 pm | #

True story: Kennedy is campaigning around with some guy Kerry saved from drowning in Nam. Bet he wished Kerry was the designated driver that night with Mary Jo.
John J. Simmins | 01.29.04 - 8:55 pm | #

Kerry looks French. That's enough for me! Excommunicate him!
John J. Simmins | 01.29.04 - 9:07 pm | #

Folks, Hmm is correct in stating that when it comes to Catholics who vote for politicians supporting pre-natal-infanticide, excommunication remains a separate issue from that of any potential mortal sin. For a discussion of this topic from a canonical perspective, please see my following blog entry at Catholic Light.
Pete Vere | Homepage | 01.29.04 - 9:10 pm | #

Why would this be "interesting." I live in New England and almost 100% of my "catholic" friends support abortion. The church would lose in any battle with the Kerrys, Kennedys, et al.

I'm not saying it's wrong to deny communion to these guys, but lets be realistic. The problem isn't Ted Kennedy, John Kerry or whoever. The problem is the people who vote for them (and who, contrary to conservative propoganda) know exactly for whom they are voting.
Steve Jackson | 01.29.04 - 9:21 pm | #

What's the scoop on whether Kerry received an annulment? If he didn't, then the whole abortion/Communion thing may be a moot point.
kathy | 01.29.04 - 11:28 pm | #

Steve,

People learn from examples. If the abortion tolerant Catholics in this land (and there are lodes of them outside of New England too) are ever to learn that they can't be both for abortion *and* Catholic, they must see that the Church means it. Otherwise the situation remains just as their "liberal" priests are telling them: "Don't worry about what the Vatican or the bishop says, it's ok to vote for Ted."

The Church must show that she is willing to go to Calvary over this issue if she is ever to win back the hordes of cafeteria Catholics and regain some voice among her own people, let alone the rest of the country.
john hearn | 01.30.04 - 12:06 am | #

Patrick: "My inner Dick Morris"?!?

ROFL!!! This one's a keeper...
John Betts | Homepage | 01.30.04 - 1:57 am | #

Hmmmm.....I wonder if O'Malley is related to Grace O'Malley, Grainne, Grainnuaile, or any of the other names for the Pirate Queen. If so, I wouldn't want to be Kerry if they have a conflict.

(I think I'm related to Grace O'Malley too.........)
LACAstronomer | Homepage | 01.30.04 - 3:10 am | #

John,

I see your point. On the other hand, if these catholics support abortion, then voting to Teddy the K. is no big deal for them. They would do it regardless of what their liberal priest says.
Steve Jackson | 01.30.04 - 6:57 am | #

Steve:

That is true (about those who would support abortion anyway). But there is only so much the Church can do, and w/holding communion seems to be the less severe sanction (vs ex-comm). But if they persist, there may be no other remedy but ex-comm.

See, the Church really is "pro-choice" - eventually, pro-abort "Catholics" are going to have to "choose" - support abortion or be Catholic.
c matt | 01.30.04 - 9:53 am | #

The choice for a priest or bishop seems to be this in a place like Mass.: Preach church doctrine over and over again on abortion and push the pro-aborts to the wall. The risk: they all leave, and you lose the chance to win their souls back.
Or: go softer and hope to win them back gradually and individually. The risk: Everyone else will interpret this as not being serious on the issue.
Then there is this elephant in the living room: contraception. Somehow the American church seems to have thrown in the towel on this one and to have implicitly accepted the secular's argument that contraception and abortion are two different issues. But they are both part of an interrelated field of sexual ethics (not to mention the fact that some "contraception" actually works by causing the death of the new life.
WRY | 01.30.04 - 10:00 am | #

WRY: I'm happy to say that in the Diocese of Arlington the clergy have picked up on the link between contraception and abortion, and that both are denounced from the pulpit regularly.
Seamus | 01.30.04 - 3:23 pm | #

If pro-choice Catholic politicians change their votes because bishops are denying them communion, in short order there will be no Catholic politicians. The voting public will look at Catholics running for office and refuse to elect them for fear that they will be under the control of the bishops or Vatican.
andrea | 01.30.04 - 3:39 pm | #

Andrea: In this case, to paraphrase Ninotchka, there will be fewer but better Catholic politicians.
Seamus | 01.30.04 - 4:11 pm | #

"Preach church doctrine over and over again on abortion and push the pro-aborts to the wall. The risk: they all leave, and you lose the chance to win their souls back."

Man has the choice to damn himself. If he wishes to do so irrevocably, let him, it is his choice. Besides, I don't think hiding Church doctrine would make any more difference either. They've already cast their die that day they shouted "sieg heil!" and marched with the Culture.

I agree that denying a person who voted for a pro-abort politician communion is problematic. The person gets no control over the selection, and sometimes may have few alternatives. I would rather have the politician denied the Eucharist, for ultimately, it is the politician who is responsible for his position and not the voter.

Besides, I see no problems with doing this for Kerry. I don't think the traitorous Katholik recieves communion anyway.
JonathanR. | 01.31.04 - 4:06 am | #

Before there can be revival (or the New Evangelization - same thing), the Church has to be purified. Not all communicants perfect, of course, but not living in *unrepentant mortal sin*.

As long as those baptised living in unrepentant mortal sin imagine that their souls are in good condition, they may not respond to the New Evangelization. And they are a grave scandal to everyone else, Evangelicals and non-Christians alike.

The Church needs to apply the rules of Matthew 18/canon law universally, not politically.

In a way it might have been better if the entire united States had been put under Interdict in late January of 1973. How many 10s of millions of lives might thus have been saved?
Steve | 01.31.04 - 12:07 pm | #

"Preach church doctrine over and over again on abortion and push the pro-aborts to the wall. The risk: they all leave, and you lose the chance to win their souls back."

Read John 6 and see how Jesus handled the issue of truth-telling and subsequent back-turning.
Steve Gandt | 02.01.04 - 1:51 pm | #

you are abully, you are the horrible man banning gyas, you are the horrible man restricting gays, from rights that all men and women must have, thyou are thje horrible man, who supports teh burning of gays, it is unbeluibvgable that the nazi catholic church can go around supporting bullying of gays for doing a totally inoffensive act, that it can go aroubn asaying ays are weirdoes, and abnormla, and when gays fight backl, and say they are not abnormal, that they are not weirdoes, ayou then claim you are being bullied, and call them nazis, for claiming they have rights to marry, and to be in the church, even celibate gays are now goping to be banned from being in the chucrh by this horrible pope, a former member of the ss, it is utterly insane how horrible he is, that he supports arniold scwarternigger, a man who supports abortion and who was a bully in school, that he supports bullies, that he defends people about to be exwecuted for murder but that he calls, gays, wwridoes, like the bully in teh playground who bullies, the boy who is weak, and short and calls him gay, orthe bully in the playgrouind who calls a gay boy a weirdo, and wait for it "abnormal" of course gays should fight back against a horrible pope like this, the media image of the poep, and the chucrh is that they are all nice pweop,le, we are told from school priests and policemen, and all these people, are all nice people, it turns oput on closer inxsepection, that the police and priets are just like everybody else, excwept they have dictatorial power, in places like brazil, they have deaths squads which kills transvestites, andf gays, the pope is a horrible man, who calls gays weirdoes, what should gays, do, should they say thank you, we will not critise wthe pope, for calling us weirdoes, that would be such a nazi thing to do, tel;l, and what about that ki9d who wears glasses in pol pots' cambodia, what a horrible nazi he is for saying to pol pot that he should not be executed, how dare he, he should just accept that human sacrfice and hating gays are part of religon, and hating agys, and bullying gays, is just totally nattal, i hate you horrible catholic bullies, you arr unbeluivable in that you shout abuse at gays, and ban them from tyhis, and that, and incxrease nbannibvg of gays, and appeal to thugs, and ignore passes of the bible that say do not eat shellfish, dop not cut your hair, the only bit you lisetn to, is the hating gays,k bit, and you seriosly think that banniong aysm from this and that is nopt bu7llying, andf that gays fighting back against you is "bullying" you are thje bullies, tyou are horrible people,
down with the nazi bullies | 09.23.05 - 3:40 pm | #