Posted on 04/10/2004 8:53:44 AM PDT by Polycarp IV
Chicago cardinal would not withhold Eucharist
Chicago, Apr. 09 (CWNews.com) - Cardinal Francis George of Chicago has announced that he will not deny the Eucharist to Catholic politicians who support abortion, according to an AP report.
Cardinal George reportedly said that he was considering an appropriate response to prominent Catholic political leaders who violate Church teachings on issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia. He indicated that he is waiting for recommendations from a task force set up by the US bishops' conference to consider that problem.
The cardinal's statement was triggered by questions that have come to the fore with the emergence of Senator John Kerry as the Democratic presidential candidate. Kerry, who is a Catholic, is a stalwart supporter of legalized abortion on demand.
Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis has indicated that he would not allow Kerry to receive the Eucharist because of his flagrant and public violation of Church teachings. In Boston-- Kerry's own archdiocese-- Archbishop Sean O'Malley has indicated that politicians who flout Church teachings should not receive Communion. But the Boston archbishop has not indicated that he would deny the Eucharist to Kerry or other pro-abortion politicians.
One thing about "times of crisis" in the church though - it deepens some people's personal faith and spirituality. Because the public representations of the church are so conflicted and filled with error, people have to search deep in their own hearts and prayer life. That in itself is not a bad thing. You can still have saints and very holy, very good people even when the institutions of the church are very much in disorder.
That is baloney. It has nothing to do with money. There are tribunals of lay people and religious who determine who gets an annulment. There is at lot paperwork involved. That costs money. You can an annulment for about $300.00. If you can't afford it you can get it for less or for free. And when it is over your children are not bastards because that has to do with CIVIL law. CIVIL LAW!!!!! In civil law you are simply divorced and your kids conceived within marriage are legitimate. I canon law it is determined that a SACRAMENTAL MARRIAGE never existed. That has nothing to do with the legitimacy of your children. Nowhere does the church pronounce the offspring of an annulled marriage illegitimate. YOU are the ONLY one doing THAT.
Find a better excuse to leave the Church. The one you pulled out of your ear is transparently lame.
Yes, indeed. And by giving Kerry (and other pro-death politicians) a pass on this, it gives aid and comfort to others to follow their example. Bishops and cardinals who tolerate the pro-death politicians give rise to grave scandal in the church.
So Kerry doesn't think the unborn are real human persons with rights and, hence, they can be snuffed out. Suppose it were Jews or Blacks he didn't think were real human persons???
The election of Kerry as president will be not only a disaster for American society for four years. It will be a monstrous disaster for Western civilization and the whole world. Imagine Supreme Court Justices appointed by John Kerry !!! Imagine his social policies ! Secular humanist Socialism without restraint.
If you can publicly oppose the teachings of the Church in power politics, what significance is there left to being Catholic? That makes no sense. The teaching on abortion is not some esoteric theological mystery. Catholics are not the only ones who oppose abortion. Kerry's public rebuke of the Church is insulting and degrading to Catholics. If elected as president, Kerry will do more damage to Catholic culture than other public figure. He will institutionalize anti-life "liberal" Catholicism Lite (to the delight of the media).
The same liberals and non-Christians who bashed Mel Gibson for being Catholic, will lionize Kerry and worship at his feet. This will be very damaging to American culture. But the effect of Kerry's policies will not just promote the culture of death in America. He will export this vision abroad. Any bishop who thinks this is fine and OK is morally insane. Deranged. Diabolically disoriented. Catholicism will be completely and utterly nullified as a moral voice for all practical purposes.
I posted some thoughts on O'Malley and Kerry on another thread, but I think they bear some consideration. These politicians have been doing this for years, and we know only too well that too many in the hierarchy are not, shall we say, so devoted to Catholic doctrine as they might be.
But what should O'Malley do now? He's pretty new to the archdiocese, so I don't think he can be blamed for the derelictions of others. What should he do?
Kerry apparently attends the Paulist Center in Boston and plans to be there for Easter Mass. For scathing commentary on the Paulist Center, consult BlackElk, and I don't think he's been there for years, but the Center has been over the top in left-wing weirdness since the 60s. The fact that Kerry finds it congenial should tell you enough -- the DNC in drag.
Should O'Malley forbid giving Communion to Kerry in Boston, the Paulist Center would almost certainly publicly defy him, and the press (having been notified and invited) would be there in full force. (I don't know why I said "almost.")
Then what would he do? He doesn't have the authority over the Paulists that he does over diocesan priests (too many of whom are a problem anyway). Theoretically, he could withdraw their permission to operate in his diocese, but how far do you think that would get him? Especially while the archdiocese is still so tainted from the scandal, with Porter in the news again.
It would undoubtedly be interesting to watch. Fireworks are exciting, but they've been known to get out of hand. I am very glad I'm not O'Malley, and I pray that God guides him and gives him strength. But I still don't know what he should do.
I really don't care what the civil law says. Basically the church is saying that your parents weren't married when you were born. I bet that civil law is a great comfort to those who are told their church doesn't think their parents were ever married. And those tribunals are doing a great job in America. Sinatra's first three, count 'em three, marriages were declared null and void so he could marry a fourth time. Excuse me if I'm a little cynical but that is absolute nonsense. If the marriage is sacrimentally unacceptable it never should have happened in the first place for one, let alone three.
Annulments in the Catholic Church these days are cheap and easy.
If someone is insane or drunk at the time of the wedding then I can see the annulment --- but it seems those would be obvious enough to everyone at that time and the wedding wouldn't happen. A failed marriage shouldn't be reason to say it was never legitimate --- it could have been if both spouses had done their part.
The Holy Spirit IS guiding the teaching Magisterium of the Church, but there is no guarantee any individual bishop or cardinal is being guided by the Holy Spirit or is being faithful to the teaching Magisterium of the Church.
The good cardinal is disobeying the explicit guidance of Holy Mother Church; the Church has spoken:
According to Canon Law, not speaking out is NOT an option (see the link I just posted about Canon 915). Its a sin by omission.
Well that's one thing but claiming that you can "buy" an annulment is cynical and slanderous. And calling the children of an annuled marriage "bastards" is not only cruel it is simply incorrect. Legitimacy is a legal matter that has to do with inheritance, child support, and knowing who one's parents are. It has nothing to do with canon law and sacramental marriage.
Sure in the example you give it seems like, based on what you know on the surface, the marriage was sound. But you can't go just by what is on the surface. The information they tribunal gathers is very extensive, confidential and in depth. I mean they probe deep into the lives of the couple. They interview relatives, they get phychiatric records if there are any aviailable.
While I tend to agree that there might be too many annulments I can't be sure because what is on the surface is not all that is there.
Madprof, are we to believe that you ENDORSE this woman's fornication?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.