Posted on 01/29/2004 6:30:44 AM PST by cpforlife.org
The emergence of Senator John Kerry as a presidential candidate raises crucial questions about how bishops may react, seeing that he presents himself both as a staunchly pro-choice politician and as a practicing Catholic. The issue is of immediate moment, for it is a time when bishops across the United States -- including on Kerry's home turf of Boston -- have been issuing statements or even canonical declarations warning those who favor abortion to abstain from the Eucharist.
Kerry represents Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate and hails from Boston. He has seized control of the Democratic primaries -- at least for the moment -- and professes to paid heed to his religion. "I am a believing and practicing Catholic, married to another believing and practicing Catholic," he has been quoted as saying.
But only a week ago, newly-installed Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley struck out against pro-choicers like Kerry, telling a Catholic website called LifeSiteNews.com, "These politicians should know that if they're not voting correctly on these life issues that they shouldn't dare come to Communion."
Those words appear at great odds with Kerry's voting record and may put him on a collision course with the Church, should he ever assume control of the Oval Office. In fact Kerry even opposes a ban on partial-birth abortion. According to his campaign website: "John Kerry believes that women have the right to control their own bodies, their own lives, and their own destinies. He believes that the Constitution protects their right to choose and to make their own decisions in consultation with their doctor, their conscience, and their God. He will defend this right as President. He recently announced he will support only pro-choice judges to the Supreme Court. Kerry also believes that we should promote family planning and health plans should assure women contraceptive coverage.
These positions are the perfect opposite of the Church's, and if elected his standing as a "practicing" Catholic could generate significant -- and perhaps even monumental controversy -- leaving open the possibility that America's second Catholic President could become the first to be prohibited from receiving Holy Communion, the Church's defining sacrament.
Just last November Archbishop Raymond L. Burke -- now in St. Louis but at the time bishop of LaCrosse, Wisconsin -- issued a canonical notification prohibiting the Eucharist for pro-choice lawmakers.
"Catholic legislators who are members of the faithful of the Diocese of La Crosse and who continue to support procured abortion or euthanasia may not present themselves to receive Holy Communion," said the notification. "They are not to be admitted to Holy Communion, should they present themselves, until such time as they publicly renounce their support of these most unjust practices." The document repeated the Vatican's teaching that Catholics involved in lawmaking have a "grave and clear obligation to oppose" any measure that is an attack on human life. "For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them," it says.
This was followed by a statement by New Orleans Archbishop Alfred C. Hughes -- who less than two weeks ago said that "the Louisiana bishops are sending a copy of this document to each of our elected Catholic public officials in Baton Rouge and Washington. When Catholic officials openly support the taking of human life in abortion, euthanasia or the destruction of human embryos, they are no longer faithful members in the Church and should not partake of Holy Communion. Moreover, citizens who promote this unjust taking of human life by their vote or support of such candidates share in responsibility for this grave evil."
The need is to pray for the potential leaders, as opposed to simple condemnation. Can John Kerry return to faithful Catholicism?
No, no, no. What he is is a gigolo!
You clearly don't even know what an indulgence is.
How else could all these priests walk away scott free after molesting boys for so many years.
I give up. You tell us what this has to do with indulgences, particularly since the priests in question aren't dead, for the most part.
Hint: an indulgence is not a permit to commit a sin, any more than "time off for good behavior" in a federal prison is a license to go out and commit a crime.
I suspect this has little relevance to the teaching of religion in Catholic schools in Ireland in the 1960s.
He was speaking in the 1960's. As I pointed out, he was specifically referring to Catholic colleges in the US, however.
The fact remains that you were misinformed.
An unconsummated marriage can be dissolved by the Church, even if it is not found to be null.
However, the unilateral refusal of one spouse to consummate the marriage would certainly be grounds for a finding of nullity even if that were not the case.
That Pope John Paul II, Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church take jurisdiction of this petition. Part 1 That Canon 1398 be changed to read: "A person who willfully enables an abortion or euthanization incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.[...]"
If a member of the Catholic Church rejects abortion but supports a law that “willfully enables” others to have one it is considered apostate. If he rejects false creeds (Islam for example) but supports a law that “willfully enables” others to practice said faith (the 1st Amendment) he is not considered apostate.
Why the double standard?
Isn’t it also a sin to “willfully enable” another to place other gods before the Lord? Why does the church turn a blind eye to this?
Nothing of the sort. I was referring to the practice of granting annulments, not the canon law. The Church in United States processes 60,000 annulments a year; that's 75% of all annulments worldwide, and up from 400 a year in 1968. Are you trying to tell me the way canon law is being applied is the same, from country to country, and from 1968 to the present?
If you think a man could have gotten a Church annulment in Ireland in the 1960's, after thirty years and lots of children, by claiming he'd entered the marriage intending to cheat, then let me politely inform you you don't know what you're talking about.
There were some other,acts of God and man, that were also involved but that was the principal one.
I think attending Mass and not receiving Communion forced me to consider my sins weekly. Sometimes "out of sight out of mind",can cause the loss of a soul.
Just my own personal experience and view.
No, she should attend church - maybe some of it will sink in. But she should stay out of the line for communion.
People are not excommunicated for divorce. They excommunicate themselves when they remarry without obtaining an annulment first.
There is a misunderstanding of what Catholic annulment is. The Church recognizes that a legal marriage took place. They require a legal divorce before the annulment process is considered. Children are therefore not illegitimate. Catholic annulments rule on the sacramental nature of the marriage. Two different things.
Note: you can get a legal annulment if the divorce occurs within the first year. Again, that's a different matter from the Church.
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Why would I be concerned about that? Sounds like a great idea to me!
:-)
Come on Bishop, let's formalize this. Inaction scandalizes the Church.
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.