Off the Record

Get the "Off the Record" Feed

incoherence By Diogenes | November 11, 2008

 If Joe Biden plans to visit Pensacola, Florida anytime soon, he knows that the bishop there questions his fitness to receive Communion. But in his own home diocese of Wilmington the vice-president-elect has no such problem; Bishop Malooly doesn't "want to alienate people." The difference can be explained thus:

• Senator Biden's support for legal abortion is well known in Florida, but remains a secret in Delaware, so that his reception of the Eucharist does not constitute a scandal there? Nope. The voters in Delaware aren't stupide. They know. 
• Public support for abortion is seriously wrong in Florida, but not in Delaware, because... No, that argument is going nowhere. If it's seriously wrong anywhere, it's seriously wrong everywhere.
• A bishop in Florida is worried that Biden is jeopardizing his immortal soul, but the senator's own bishop isn't interested in that question. Let's hope that's not right.

OK, I give up. You tell me the difference.

And if you can do that, move on to problem #2. In today's Boston Globe, Cardinal Sean O'Malley is questioned about whether pro-abortion politicians should receive Communion, and delivers the following answer:

 

The church's teaching on worthiness for Communion and proper disposition is in the Catholic catechism, and it's no secret, and I support that. There is perhaps a teaching where we have not done as good a job of late as we used to. . . . Today, I think we need to reinforce that teaching a lot. And once that teaching is better understood, then, I think, it will be obvious as to who should be coming to Communion and who shouldn't. But until there's a decision of the church to formally excommunicate people, I don't think we're going to be denying Communion to the people. However, whatever the church's decision is, we will certainly enforce.

For extra credit, answer the following questions:

1. The Church's teaching is "no secret." What is it, and where can it be found in the cardinal's answer?
2. If "it's no secret," why is there a need to "reinforce that teaching" and make it better understood?
3. When will that reinforcement begin? When will it be obvious who should come to Communion and who shouldn't? Who will make it obvious?
4. If the Church decides formally to excommunicate people, who will make that decision for the Boston archdiocese?
5. Who is the Archbishop of Boston? 

 

If you found this helpful, please support our work. Make a pledge or one-time donation now!

It's Your Turn to Sound Off!

» To ensure well-meaning comments, only donors are allowed to Sound Off.
  If you're a donor, log in; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Sound Off! Comments

• Posted by: juon36 - Nov. 12, 2008 10:26 AM ET USA

  I find it ironic ,Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was excommunicated,because he ordained four Bishop's ( DISOBEDIENCE) SSPX and who fallow the Church's teaching. We have over 200 bishop's who are NOT teaching or doing (disobedience)what the Church says they "must' do.Senator Biden knows full well what is required of him as a Catholic. To recieve,in the state of mortal sin, is to be" guilty of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ" So very simple to understand. Bishop Malooly....NO NO NO NO

• Posted by: 30 year priest - Nov. 11, 2008 9:14 PM ET USA

  To quote Nancy Reagan, Cardinal, "Just say "No'"

• Posted by: St.John Neumann - Nov. 11, 2008 7:28 PM ET USA

  This fight is over. It seems clear to me that the bishops have no real moral authority in the lives of many Catholics. These politicians who publically proclaim themselves as Catholics and who attend mass while in a state of mortal sin need to be publically excommunicated. To be readmitted to communion they would need to publically repent. Unless this happens many Catholics simply will not take the matter seriusly.

• Posted by: papacasino - Nov. 11, 2008 5:56 PM ET USA

  Many bishops have been wearing their mitres much too tightly. The lack of blood flow is causing this lack of clear teaching. We either accept this explanation or we must face the fact that our bishops are failures as moral and spiritual shepherds. You must decide if "the smoke of Satan has entered the Church" as Paul VI said.

• Posted by: Gil125 - Nov. 11, 2008 5:02 PM ET USA

  In answer to question no. 5 is, nobody. The see is vacant. A pretender is sitting at the archbishop's desk and sleeping in his bed, but nobody is fulfilling the responsibilities of the archbishop.

• Posted by: maynardus - Nov. 11, 2008 4:43 PM ET USA

  Alas, the Archbishop of Braintree's sandals are quite empty. As a Catholic and a Bostonian I am the laughing stock of my protestant, Southern Californian in-laws who have nothing but disdain for the "boneless wonders" like O'Malley, Mahony, Tod (one "d") Brown et al. A hapless bench of bishops indeed, and a complete waste of watered silk...

• Posted by: unum - Nov. 11, 2008 4:41 PM ET USA

  Who are the Archbishops of the United States?