Consequences: logical and otherwise

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Aug 04, 2003

In a remarkably prompt and clear public statement-- issued even before his installation-- Boston's new Archbishop Sean O'Malley said that "pro-choice" Catholic politicians should not receive Holy Communion.

That's a very big first step, and I don't mean to criticize Archbishop Sean for taking it-- far from it. But when he goes on to say that he would not deny the Eucharist to an abortion supporter, I am confused.

Why shouldn't a pro-abortion Catholic receive the Eucharist? Because by receiving Communion while in a state of sin he is jeopardizing his own soul. And if that is the case-- if the bishop or priest is reasonably certain that is the case-- wouldn't it be an act of true charity to save him from his own dangerous intentions?

Take a completely different sort of case: A prudent bartender will not serve drinks to a man who is obviously intoxicated. Why not? Because he fears for the consequences-- both for the inebriated customer, who might harm himself and/or others, and for himself, since he could be held liable.

Shouldn't bishops and priests be worried, in much the same way, about the consequences of sacrilege?