Chicago cardinal [George] would not withhold Eucharist [Kerry]

CWNews.com ^ | Apr. 09 | CWNews.com

[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.

[Jim Noble]

All we know for sure is that he has APPLIED for an annullment, and that his wife refused the invitation from the Boston chancery to oppose the proceedings. That doesn't mean he has received it

In effect, yes, it does.

There are 40-50 000 Catholic annulments granted each year in the United States alone.

How many do you suppose are rejected?

And of those rejected, how many are successful after a second try?

[FITZ]

I agree you probably don't have to buy them --- most are probably far cheaper than a civil divorce. But many of the psychiatric problems came on after the actual wedding --- people change. I can see not wanting to stay with someone if they change so much to the worse --- and I can see addiction, abuse, and adultery as being reasons you shouldn't stay with someone --- but most of those reasons weren't there on the wedding day.

[madprof98]

Uh . . . no, OF COURSE NOT. But I think she was right to say that it is more honest to live openly in sin than to pretend that a sacramental marriage can be dissolved because one of the parties gets the hots for a new babe.

[cynicom]

The Cardinal got a call from Kerrys Rabbi.

[ninenot]

JimN is correct. Although there is a 'defender of the Bond' appointed to assume the wife's (in this case) side, if the annulment is unopposed it generally goes through.

And I've refrained from remarking on that situation, Cicero, because unless Kerry talks about it, (the Church will NOT,) none of us here have a 'morally certain' knowledge of the results.

And in the end what difference does it make? His marital status is CERTAINLY not the question on which your VOTE will be based, is it?

[FITZ]

Madprof, are we to believe that you ENDORSE this woman's fornication?

If she believes her marriage was legitimate then she would also believe her husband is fornicating even though he's married in the Church and that the Church sanctions his fornication.

To me it seems even more hurtful to someone who wanted their marriage to go on to not only have to accept a civil divorce but then to have the Church turn around and say they were never married in the first place.

[ninenot]

But I think she was right to say that it is more honest to live openly in sin than to pretend that a sacramental marriage can be dissolved because one of the parties gets the hots for a new babe.

Really?

This statement means that either 1) you think the Church granted an annulment because 'he got the hots,' or 2) you believe, without question or doubt, HER statement that the annulment was granted 'because he got the hots.'

Which of the above is true?

[FITZ]

And in the end what difference does it make? His marital status is CERTAINLY not the question on which your VOTE will be based, is it?

His abortion stance matters a lot more no matter what his religion --- but if he's trying to use his Catholicism as a way of gaining some votes --- then we have every reason to question his legitimacy as a Catholic and if he's obeying the rules of the Church which he's trying to use.

[don-o]

uffice it to say that I have not been graced to see in faith what Catholics see in the Church.

What a fine answer, that is, sir. Well said.

And it just took me a second to place your tag line. Aunty Em, right?

[ninenot]

I happen to agree that the USA has an extraordinarily large percentage of annulments--statistically, RIDICULOUSLY large percentage of them--and that JPII's warnings to the Rota about annulment are justified. (He has been quite clear that the Bond of matrimony is the Bond, and he suspects abuse from the lower-level tribunals.)

Having said that, as I remarked to MadProf, we are placing a very significant burden on the testimony of the woman in this case--that is, we believe that she is utterly without fault, 'spotless' as it were, in the case.

That's hard to believe on the face of it.

[don-o]

No Catholic should give a penny to the Church in any diocese where the bishop has not made an explicit statement

C'mon Arthur. Tell us how you REALLY feel!

AXIOS!!!

Christos voskrese!

[Jim Noble]

To me it seems even more hurtful to someone who wanted their marriage to go on to not only have to accept a civil divorce but then to have the Church turn around and say they were never married in the first place

That's true, and if anything kills the American annulmentfest, that's what will do it.

[Jim Noble]

Auntie Em, speaking to the farmhands, correct.

Have a Blessed Easter.

[A.A. Cunningham]

"The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops."
St. Athanasius

[ninenot]

Look, guys, I happen to know that a great many of the annulments are being granted because a child was conceived, ah, well before the appropriate time--i.e., the wedding was 'shotgun.'

An extension of this is that the couple was merrily fornicating prior to their wedding and she sort of hinted that a child would come along (perhaps such a hint was not entirely truthful????) and he decided that marriage was a good thing.

Let's play this out. If she lied about a conception, the marriage was solemnized 'under duress,' (currently) ipso facto a ground for annulment.

If she WAS pregnant, the marriage was under duress, also (currently) ipso facto, etc., etc.

You may argue that such "duress" is not grounds, and I think the Pope argues similarly.

But what you ARE stating is that no such hanky-panky went on, that she did NOT make up a pregnancy, and that NONE of the issue were conceived prematurely.

Are you saying so with moral certainty?

[DestroytheDemocrats]

"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?"

Then withdraw persmission. And give them all holy hell! Go to full battle stations! This about abortion!!! That is so much more important than women priests and liturgical goofyness that liberal orders like the Paulist like to play with. It would show that if you disobey the Church and him he is NOT going to ignore it. Shoot... these are some dippy Paulists priests he would have to stand up to, they are not Nazis.

[Aquinasfan]

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.

Time to excommunicate Cardinal George. Enough is enough.

[nickcarraway]

Do you have any proof that he got an annunlment?

[Aquinasfan]

I'm sure he is a healthy contributor to the Church.

I wouldn't be too sure. In one year his tax returns show a whopping total donation of $135 to charity.

[Mo1]

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.

That was the wrong answer to give