Sin of commision
In a interview via AMDG.
In an interview published Saturday by Inside the Vatican, the Cardinal [Francis Cardinal Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments], somewhat exasperatedly, responded once again to the question. In the interview he compared the situation to a person in favour of killing politicians and asked rhetorically if such a person should be denied communion. He said: Suppose somebody voted for the killing of all the members of the House of Representatives, 'for all of you being killed. I call that pro-choice. Moreover, I am going to receive Holy Communion next Sunday.' Then you ask me, should he be given communion. My reply, 'Do you really need a cardinal from the Vatican to answer that question?' Can a child having made his First Communion not answer that question? Is it really so complicated? The child will give the correct answer immediately, unless he is conditioned by political correctness. It is a pity, cardinals have to be asked such questions."
This is because the bishops as a whole commit the sin of commision. The sin of commision is instead of making the common sense and theologically correct decision they instead create a commision. Have you ever heard of the members of a commision that were martyred for their faith? Neither have I and I doubt if I will see it any time soon.
The sin of commision leads to silliness like:
McCarrick plans to seek advice on this at meetings with Catholic Democrats and Republicans this week who were recommended by their local bishops. [Source]
Maybe I am dense, but I don't see what needs to be investigated and how Cardinal McCarrick's commision could just go on and on without ever coming to a definitive conclusion. The main question seems to me to be do you care enough about a public sinner that you withhold Communion out of care for their soul? Sure there are prudential questions about taking actions that appear to be political. But which is more important someone's soul or appearances? Secondly what about the scandal caused by those openly in defiance of the Church and in objectively grave sin receiving Communion? It seems to me as priories go the pastorally sensitive questions are totally outweighed by points one and two. But then again I am only an armchair bishop.
Cardinal Arinze's example reminds me of a question someone on Mark Shea's blog asked a bit of time ago.
IF SOME POLITICIAN favored a law which authorized the beheading and dismemberment of a very moderate number of Catholic bishops ~ annually ~ would the bishops say "...but where does he stand on tax reform"?"
The answer to which I wrote in my post Every Bishop a Wanted Bishop.
Known as 
My reply, 'Do you really need a cardinal from the Vatican to answer that question?'
Yes.
Yes we do.
Unfortunately we do as long as he ain't in our country.
" ....Maybe I am dense, but I don't see what needs to be investigated and how Cardinal McCarrick's commision could just go on and on without ever coming to a definitive conclusion ..."
ANSW: It's called Modern Dialoguing ....
now tax reform is a very important issue...
Well obviously the good Cardinal Arinze, being relatively new at his job at the CDWDS, is not aware of the American adaptions for determining the worthyness of a communicant. We have our own way of doing things here in America. Its part of our rich cultural heritage as American Catholics.
That's a nice parable, cardinal. Surely you don't mean that the church has to put some pressure on catholic politicians, that would be so un nice. What you really mean is that we all must be nice to each other, as a first communion child.
Thank you, cardinal.
With all due respect, is it me, or are our (say that fast) shepherds starting to act more like CEOS?
At the risk of criticism, I think this piece (of mine) is quite relevant to your current question at hand.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/mehan200409160530.asp
It is not you Momof5.
Commissions are the offsprings of meetings, which are offsprings of inter-office e-mails, which are the offsprings of commissions, which then spawn more meetings, and so on. Now, the one who generates the MOST meetings, which in turn breeds more e-mails and memos, gets to be the CEO. The CEO is the one who gets to have a crummy mug shot flanking the Mission and Vision statements of the organization (not written by the CEO by the way), and the CEO practices writing his/her signature with flair... when not in a meeting or launching a commission.
So if we skip the commission meeting, are we committing the sin of ommission? And if the commission is translating the liturgical texts, is it a sin of translation?
(Kale, you are too funny! Are you channeling Abbot & Costello?!)
I think commissions should be renamed, "we're stalling for time". Which, of course, is not always a bad thing.
First off I avoid any blog of Mark Shea as he basically deletes any comment that does not support hiw warped sense of Catholicism, pretending to actually be "Consevative"
As far as the Cardinal, he is 100% correct, this is such a basic question, that to have to have a cardinal get involved is a joke. These Bishops, many products of the liberal seminaries of the 70's and having been reared on theology from Hans Kung and Rahner, cant even make the moral stand to deny communion to someone.
At my nephews communion, with family from all the communicants all over attending, most of whom had never seen the inside of a church for 20 years, when communion was distributed, ALL went up to receive
I attended mass at an inlaws first communion at a traditional church that was not on communion with Rome, and not even going into how beautiful and pious the ceremony was, the priest made an announcement for the rules for receiving communion and a scant few actually got up and after mass confession was given and these people actually got on line and went, many of whom were not even traditionals! I was amazed and said Now that is Catholicism and the church I used to know, the protector of our Lord!