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.

[Aquinasfan]

But nothing is going to be done by this conference but to announce that if you are pro-choice you will be given Communion but your soul is in great peril. Then the politicans will say, "I don't FEEL that my soul is in peril and it is between me a God." That will be the end of it.

You know it, and I know it, so why don't they just get it the hell overwith. Maybe they're waiting for summer. I hate to say it, but the chances of anything happening are 1 in 100.

[Jim Noble]

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?

I have made no comments (I don't think) about Senator Kerry's case as to whether or not his marriage to Julia Thorne was sacramental or not.

I am in the position of being divorced and remarried to a Roman Catholic, I know quite a bit about the annulment story and the process.

I am sceptical that there are 40 000 invalid marriages rightly discerned per year, and I think that the success rate of annulment petitions suggests that the outcome is to some degree predetermined.

But as to Kerry's case, I really have no idea.

[Aquinasfan]

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).

Absolutely. This will do more damage to the Church than the priest-shuffling scandal. It will also cost the lives of millions of unborn children.

[don-o]

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

Did he follow Bill's practice of deducting his and Hill's donation of old underwear?

[DestroytheDemocrats]

"I bet that civil law is a great comfort to those who are told their church doesn't think their parents were ever married."

My parents marriage was annulled and it never crossed my mind that I was illegitimate. It is ridiculous on it's face to insist that I am bastard because my parents marriage was not a sacramental marriage. The only one calling people bastards is you. That annulment was a great comfort to my parents. It meant both of them could return to the sacraments. My father believed he had an obligation to try for an annulment so he could return to the Church if at all possible. I personally think it would be wrong not to at lest try to see if you can get back to the state of grace. I believe every divorced Catholic who has a desire to remarry has an obligation to see if they qualify for an annulment.

Oh sure you hear stories of people who are bitter because their former spouse wanted an annulment and got it. Why would that bother them? Would they rather be out of the Church or in the Church? Would they rather their former spouse be out of the Church or in the Church? If you don't WANT to even try for an annulment, you don't want to go back to the Church and evidently don't want your former spouse to either. What.... is it better to stay bitter, out of the Church and unforgiving of your former spouse? That does not seem very virtuous to me.

[Aquinasfan]

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.

If you look up the conditions for the granting of a declaration of nullity, you'll find that the conditions are similarly reasonable. The conditions include the intention to remain married (not the intention to bail if the marriage becomes inconvenient) and being open to having children. Both of these conditions are understandable. It's also understandable that the intentions of many couples in our selfish age do not meet these conditions.

[RonDog]

Indexing related threads - for future reference:

Diocese gives nod for Kerry to receive Eucharist
			Posted by delacoert On News/Activism 04/10/2004 10:40:32 AM PDT with 14 comments The Boston Herald ^ | April 10, 2004 | Eric Convey
Chicago cardinal [George] would not withhold Eucharist [Kerry]
			Posted by Polycarp IV On News/Activism 04/10/2004 8:53:44 AM PDT with 63 comments CWNews.com ^ | Apr. 09 | CWNews.com
Diocese gives nod for Kerry to receive Eucharist
			Posted by Fifthmark On Religion 04/10/2004 8:39:21 AM PDT with 6 comments The Boston Herald ^ | April 10, 2004 | Eric Convey
Chicago Cardinal would not withhold Eucharist
			Posted by Canticle_of_Deborah On Religion 04/09/2004 4:15:11 PM PDT with 16 comments CWNews ^ | April 9, 2003
Bishop Bruskewitz will deny Kerry the Eucharist
			Posted by johnb2004 On Religion 04/07/2004 10:39:21 AM PDT with 33 comments www.renewamerica.us ^ | April 6, 2004 | Barbara Kralis

[FITZ]

My grandfather once told me that biology has always happened, shotgun weddings were not all that uncommon in his day --- but the priests were a little more flexible about the dates so often wrote down a date earlier than that actual wedding date --- and many shotgun weddings last, the family makes it --- I can think of some shotgun weddings in my own extended family that are still lasting and those kids who were conceived a little early are now grown. I don't know if I buy the "duress" excuse.

[ninenot]

I wasn't referring to Kerry's situation.

[conservativehistorian]

Excellent point. I think that we should start with the Annual Bishop's Appeal, and in so doing, state the reason: Kerry is giving great scandal to observant Catholics. The bishops acquiescence unavoidably indicates to the laity that money and fame trump faithful observance of Church teachings.

[ninenot]

Reference was to the thread beginning with #30, the NON-Kerry annulment.

[DestroytheDemocrats]

"Oh . . . 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."

When the husband got the "hots for a new babe" was he married to your friend? In other words did he leave her for the new babe? If not, if he met the woman later and wanter to marry her in the Church, her whole arguement is just one of bitterness. What in the world is WRONG with someone trying to get back into the state of grace if they can?

[FITZ]

and being open to having children.

I can see refusal to have children as a more reasonable cause for annulment than the excuse that a baby was on the way when the wedding happened. I knew a couple where the husband got a vasectomy without the wife's knowledge after they had several kids --- she was angry and hurt but they didn't divorce.

[ninenot]

I don't know if I "buy" it, either.

I outlined the scenario to demonstrate that there's a LOT that people don't really know about annulment cases, and our reactions to them are often emotional, not rationally based on ALL the facts.

And for obvious reasons, most people are NOT willing to share "all" the facts about their own annulment--particularly if they think they were 'dumped.'

Just an observation.

[fella]

So the pedifile protecting heirarchs are sideing with Kerry.

[DestroytheDemocrats]

"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."

Why all the bitterness? Why not just be grateful to be able grateful to be able to go back to the sacraments. Annulments are not blame game events. How stupid to make them so.

[Sir_Ed]

"But...what's stopping you from becoming a Catholic? (just curious)"

I'll tell you why I cannot. The Catholic Chruch teaches that Mary was born without sin. That's impossible, unbiblical and contradicts scripture. Furthermore, it remove the reason for Christ's propitiary death, for...if God could bring Mary forth, sinless, without Jesus having been sacrificed for our sins, then God could bring EVERONE out sinless, and Christ's death wouldn't have been neccesary.

They also teach that Mary intercedes for us on Jesus' behalf, when the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus intercedes for us.

Plus they teach that Mary and other saints hear our prayers, that would mean that they are omniscient, and then grants them, that would also mean they are omniscient, seemingly taking the place of, or supplanting God.

The Real Presence, I don't know...I guess it's possible. That's not that big of a concern, absolution of sins, yeah, I can see that...it's basically just the false teaching that Mary was born without sin I disagree with, and that she plays a role in our redemption.

I always wondered...if Mary was born without sin because Jesus couldn't exist in a sinner's womb, does that mean Mary's Mother was born without sin, also, because a sinless Mary couldn't have been born in a sinner's womb?

And if Mary's Mother was born sinless, then was Mary's Grandmother born sinless, because the mother of a mother of a sinless person couldn't have been born in a sinner's womb? At what point can the sinless start being born in sinner's wombs?

I'm not being disrespectful, by the way...I do think Catholicism is of God, as is the Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger and all the people fighting for Orthodoxy here...I just think they have some flaws in their theology that stopped me from becoming Catholic.

Ed

[ninenot]

A thoughtful response.

Here's a question: if miracles can happen, why do you think God was bound 'otherwise' in the case of Mary's conception?

[DestroytheDemocrats]

"I don't know if I buy the "duress" excuse."

I can think of several shotgun weddings where the couple and the marriage was miserable. Very miserable. And I mean totally miserable. Like they HATE each other miserable.

[FITZ]

Why all the bitterness? Why not just be grateful to be able grateful to be able to go back to the sacraments.

Who's bitter? I'm not involved in any annulment or remarriage or any of that. But can you imagine being a person who believed they were married for many years, bore or supported kids with someone, and then when that someone wants to move on because they found someone else to marry they not only leave you but get the Church to say your marriage was all a big joke --- that it never happened? You can receive the sacraments with a civil divorce and no annulment.