Why Archbishop Sean O’Malley makes me see red, and I don’t mean hats. II
By Leila Marie Lawler (articles ) | Mar 19, 2006
As if to prove my point that he really doesn’t have a clue about his responsibility in this matter of hard teachings, Archbishop Sean goes on to answer the question of whether he personally agrees with the teaching of the Church on homosexual adoption thus:
'This is a very clear teaching. And it's not one that would admit of dissent in the church."
A disturbing answer. The man can’t help sounding like someone who, for reasons he doesn’t want to go into, really differs with his boss, but is somewhat reluctantly willing to act as his spokesman. His heart isn’t in it and he doesn’t see the thing from the inside, he doesn’t mind letting you know. It’s the response of fear, not of assent.
For instance, if he wanted to remedy the situation he laments at the beginning of this interview, “our” sadly diminished capacity to teach the hard points of the Gospel, he could start with explaining to the reporter that the teaching of the Church on homosexuality is the only hope men and women have of finding happiness in their relationships with each other and providing loving homes for their children.
It’s crazy that in discussing adoption the word “child” doesn’t seem to creep into his lexicon. Apparently he can’t muster enough imagination to picture an emotionally vulnerable flesh-and-blood child taken into the home of two people who define themselves in terms of a sexual perversion, let alone enough Christian charity to wish to be the means of rescuing such a child.
In fact, he clearly projects his tacit agreement with those who think such a thing is justifiable; so clearly that it causes the reporter to ask whether he could speak up and express his disagreement with the Vatican.
Contrast his unconvinced manner with the passion he displays on the question of immigration:
We can not deport 11 million people, and it is outrageous to expect that the church or private organizations are going to act as some sort of vigilantes to identify undocumented workers. I mean, it's just not going to happen. Q: When you say it's not going to happen, you mean you will not let it happen here in Boston? A: No. I certainly - I think that would be outrageous.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Progress toward our March expenses ($30,504 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: DrJazz -
Mar. 21, 2006 10:22 PM ET USA
The Archbishop's comment is clear: There can be no dissent from Church teaching on this issue. Every priest I know in the Fall River Diocese (of which Abp. O'Malley used to be Bishop) views him as orthodox on Church teachings. That is, the orthodox priests speak of him as one who strives for holiness and adheres to Church teachings, and the self-styled progressives think he's from another planet. Furthermore, his pastoral letters are always true to Church teaching. Leila is off base here.
Posted by: Hammer of Heretics -
Mar. 20, 2006 2:22 PM ET USA
I think Cardinal O'Malley chose his words carefully to confuse those who would use his words to destroy him (the homosexual activists). Sure, I'd love to see him or any high-ranking Churchman be willing to go down in a blaze of glory for the unvarnished Truth, but I'm strangely satisfied that he even took the time to make it clear that this is what the Church teaches and we, as Catholics, are not at liberty to dissent from the teaching.
Posted by: Vincit omnia amor -
Mar. 20, 2006 1:33 PM ET USA
'This is a very clear teaching. And it's not one that would admit of dissent in the church." Though I agree with "L" regarding the touching programs such as TAT, don't see how the Card. Designate's answer to the question regarding homosexuality was "disturbing." To me it's a solid answer and one we could be proud of.
Posted by: -
Mar. 20, 2006 5:22 AM ET USA
Any faithful reader of our leader, Uncle Di, would conclude just the opposite: a member of the episcopacy who immediately forecloses "dialogue" or "further discussion" or who refuses to vitiate an expression of church teaching as du jour, is to be applauded -- cast in amber as a rarity. The position is clear. There can be no dissent. As for immigration, there is no particular "Catholic response," desite the proclamations of the USCCB, and I for one admire the Cardinal's principled stand.
Posted by: benedictusoblatus -
Mar. 19, 2006 8:12 PM ET USA
Discussing the nasty truth of why adoption by unnatural perverts is outrageous is the purview of the priest who has a grasp of truth and morality. The issue of solving the problem of illegal immigration during a time of war is a social worker's and politician's concern. The fact that the archbishop is only willing to speak obtusely about the one while speaking forcefully about the other speaks volumes about his priorities. Forget about saving souls ... make the world a better place!