Mansfield Fox

Law student. Yankees fan. Massive fraggle. Just living the American dream.

Friday, April 23, 2004

IT'S KIND OF A DUMB POINT, but it's worth mentioning, perhaps, that Dubya should be denied communion, too. Y'know, 'cause he's not a Catholic.


To quote Lisa Simpson, "I'm no theologian." My analysis of the situation may be wrong (please correct me if it is). But:

It seems to me that Kerry ought to be denied communion, for his own sake. He's a major public figure, advocating a position of neutrality towards grave sin. That seems like scandal to me. (c.f., Pius XII: they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline in morals...) John Kerry, by his words and deeds, helps lead others into grave sin; as such, he himself is in a state of mortal sin.

If he continues to receive the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin, he compounds his folly by adding to scandal the sin of sacrilege (c.f., 1 Corinthians 11:27-29). As such, even if Kerry is a virtuous man in all other respects (and I've no reason to doubt he is), he's locked in a self-perpetuating cycle of mortal sin. For the sake of his soul, he needs to get out of it.

Kerry shouldn't be receiving communion, for his own sake. If he can't take care of himself, the bishops ought to do it for him ("feed my sheep" and all that). It won't be pretty, and it won't be fun, but it might be the kind of slap-in-the-face wake-up call that leads him to renounce his sinful ways. Look: I'm not holding my breath. But I have hope.



PS: I'm not blind to the political ramifications of all this. But that's besides the point. Elections come and go; empires rise and fall. What's at stake here is the immortal soul of John Forbes Kerry. No number of electoral votes is worth more than that.