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.

[Polycarp IV]

Add A Comment

Someone should forward this thread to Cardinal George! Let him know that faithful Catholics are desperate for justice! Maybe we should quit supporting the Bishops' diocesan lenten appeals and capital campaigns until they all follow Archbishop Burke's lead.

Posted by: misfit Today 10:24 AM EST

Many of us have sentenced Cardinal Francis George of Chicago to Hades and other distinguished leaders of the RC Church in the US but I suggest that this assignment is beyond our jurisdiction. More profitable would be an attempt to understand the positions of these gifted and devoted men of the Church and to pray they in turn seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their direction of the Church.

Posted by: Peter-Paul Today 6:19 AM EST

This not a simple issue. We are not to receive the Eucharist when in the state of mortal sin. To committ a mortal sin there must be three conditions present: (1) the matter must be grave, (2) there must be sufficient reflection on the evil one is contemptlating, and (3) there must be full consent of the will. Can we say that today's Catholics really understand this? There has been so much talk about one's own conscience and so much relativism. We need to reeducate the Church.

Posted by: ILM Today 6:12 AM EST

OUTRAGE!!! This from a Cardinal, a position that helps select our Popes?? He needs to wait for a recommendation from a task force set up by the Catholic Bishops?? What absolute garbage! What about what the Faith has stood for dear Cardinal? What about the recommendation from almost 2000 years of the Church? This man should preach from Hell because this is where he is directing individuals. What absolute cowardiness, what disgusting moral and ethical failure. Christ and Mary have mercy.

Posted by: Athanasius Today 12:36 AM EST

There would be only one response to me, as an individual Catholic, if I wanted to openly cause scandal by supporting abortion upon demand. I am sure the Bishop would have no difficulty in telling me that the pro-life position is not optional for Catholics who wish to be in good standing with the Catholic Church and worthily receive the Holy Eucharist. I see no difference just because Sen. Kerry is a politician. His immortal soul doesn't know the difference because there is none.

Posted by: Tudy Apr. 09, 2004 11:35 PM EST

Dear Cardinal, The proper response is not to give these public Catholic politicians, who support abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia, Holy Communion. In order to be in Communion with the Catholic Church you must follow, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium (all three, not one, or two, but All Three. John Kerry strikes out on all three. Cardinal you should turn your Red Cap in, if you have to form a task force, to tell a fallen-away Catholic theTruth.

Posted by: Ross Dee Apr. 09, 2004 11:30 PM EST

Prochoice Catholic politicians (around 500 in the US) receiving Holy Communion with the approval of Church leadership is creating scandal. It is leading people into sin because the message is that abortion is "no big deal." Women trying to decide on whether or not to have an abortion are going to be nudged toward abortion by this action. Pray that the Vatican and the USCCB's committee will make the right decision.

Posted by: Jim Apr. 09, 2004 10:54 PM EST

Dealing with someone giving public scandal is a prudential matter; as long as they preach clearly, the bishops should get the benefit of the doubt. What difference does it make? It doesn't affect Kerry. No "Catholic" could believe in the Real Presence AND support abortion. So he'd be denied something that is meaningless to him. Query how many people receive communion every Sunday despite being in a state of mortal sin? Which is more important? Would ANY hearts or minds be changed? NO.

Posted by: Raqa Apr. 09, 2004 10:28 PM EST

The Devil has been at work throughout our Roman Catholic Church for some time under the guise of Liberalism. The battle for control rages. If Liberalism is successful, a full schism may be in the offing.As to Cardinal George and his position, I don't have any faith in the AP. Lets look for a more authoritative source. Let's pray the Cardinal doesn't let us down.

Posted by: GITCHEGUME Apr. 09, 2004 10:14 PM EST

to stlouisix re the eucharist..I know where you are coming from however Kerry knows all the rules just like you and I. He is so pompus isn't he? Now for our leaders, they know we know. We have been told just like Kerry. Jesus left his apostles because they would have wanted him to spoon feed them into His Kingdom. It's God's doing to allow this story front page. From all this people are learning again when you can and cannot receive HIM. And that abortion is very seriously wrong Mr Kerry.Danie

Posted by: Danie Apr. 09, 2004 9:40 PM EST

It is time we let our shephards know that we are watching them. It is not enough anymore to just say "oh how awful" when a shepard does not uphold Church teaching. We must say to them in love "ENOUGH". http://www.archdiocese-chgo.org/cardinal/cardinal.shtm

Posted by: bjrcathcon Apr. 09, 2004 9:10 PM EST

Yes, Coco and Captain Cook. A second marriage without a judgement of nullity is adultery, and cannot be changed, as this is verbatum from Jesus Himself. It does mean that one is in grave sin IF all three requirements are in place. And I also wish that the good Cardinal could read the comments here. An article I read recently suggested Kerry will seek a photo op of being refused Communion. Another said...what if he cannot fine anyone to refuse him. Something to think about. God have mercy on us.

Posted by: WISCatholic Apr. 09, 2004 9:07 PM EST

What would the Devil himself do different to wreak havoc and confusion in the Church? Would anyone be inspired to become a Catholic when we have the likes of C. George held out as a "leader"? Nothing will change until these guys are removed...

Posted by: Head Monk Apr. 09, 2004 8:44 PM EST

St Maximus Confessor he is not.

Posted by: Pseudodionysius Apr. 09, 2004 8:35 PM EST

The real shame is the bad example the Cardinal is setting for his brother Bishops. It is a sin to be in the postition that he's in and fail the Church.

Posted by: Thomas2 Apr. 09, 2004 8:21 PM EST

We must all be completely nonplussed. Expect this of European bishops, but American? There is no rationale that can explain Cdls George, McCarrick, Keeler, Eagan, Mahoney, and other bishops! If there is, they better start explaining themselves.The Church in America is coming unglued and they are directly responsible. How can the American Catholic pro-life movement continue effectively with such ambivalence? The scandal is truly profound. I think this is really, really bad. History has few comps.

Posted by: benbernie Apr. 09, 2004 8:21 PM EST

We need new bishops because the majority of them are spineless with, of course some outstanding exceptions. If, if The Cadinal said this, and thats a big if, he then is a member of the majority and that would be a loss and a shame! Jack Gilbert

Posted by: JBG Apr. 09, 2004 8:17 PM EST

The Cardinal is "waiting for recommendations from a task force..." Hmmm. It seems to me that Our Lord made all the 'recommendations' any shepherd needs some 2000+ years ago. What am I missing? More improtantly, what is Cradinal George missing...?

Posted by: GOR Apr. 09, 2004 7:55 PM EST

A second comment re 'c'ardinal George. I wish the comments that I have been reading would be read by the caridinal.

Posted by: Captain Cook Apr. 09, 2004 7:13 PM EST

I recall reading about something Cardinal George said a few years back. When the people complained to him about changes in the liturgy that priests were doing, Cardinal George was purported to have told them to stop whinning. I think it was from a non Cathoic news source. I guess that I am not all that surprised about his lack of courage stance today.

Posted by: Captain Cook Apr. 09, 2004 7:11 PM EST

What about the fact that Kerry divorced and re-married without an annulment? Or is adultery no longer a mortal sin in the United States?

Posted by: Coco Apr. 09, 2004 6:43 PM EST

What a disappointment! I thought Cardinal George was one of the REALLY good bishops.

Posted by: Ann from Ireland Apr. 09, 2004 4:53 PM EST

May the Holy Sprit fall anew upon Cardinal George and his brothers! In the name of Christ I pray.

Posted by: Mauna Kea Apr. 09, 2004 4:29 PM EST

Any Catholic—politician or not—that openly promotes anti-Catholic thought or action is to be publicly rebuked and, if known to the minister, refused Holy Communion. It doesn’t take a task force of bishops to figure that out. “For there will come a time when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but having itching ears, will heap up to themselves teachers according to their own lusts, and will they will turn away their hearing from the truth and turn aside rather to fables.” 2 Tim, 4: 3-4

Posted by: altar boy Apr. 09, 2004 3:46 PM EST

Maybe it's time to see bishops fighting in public. If our house is to be divided, it better be over something important. These questions are that important.

Posted by: Rex Aldrich Apr. 09, 2004 2:35 PM EST

It has finally dawned on me what the problem is with the American Bishops..... The problem is that they are all American Catholics. They reflect rather accurately the makeup of Catholics in this counntry. Bad news for all us CWN readers....we are a tiny minority. I know they should lead us not follow us but that isn't going to happen. We have met the enemy and he is us!

Posted by: Where'sRoger? Apr. 09, 2004 12:26 PM EST

Another "Shepherd" down the tube.

Posted by: kaycee Apr. 09, 2004 11:58 AM EST

Isn't that putting politics above principle, Cardinal?

Posted by: Leo13 Apr. 09, 2004 11:26 AM EST

As long as there are bishops like George and O'Malley who do not have the courage to defend the faith by putting those who are repeatedly guilty of committing public scandal by bastardizing it on notice that they are in danger of eternal perdition for the sake of the souls of all concerned, the status quo where "dissent rules" in the Catholic Church will remain unchanged. Doesn't Rome care about souls going to Heaven instead of hell anymore? Isn't the existence of hell still Catholic dogma?

Posted by: stlouisix Apr. 09, 2004 10:13 AM EST

This is terribly disappointing. Archbishop Burke is courageously offering real leadership as a bishop, and to see him publicly snubbed like this by Cardinal George is not only a betrayl, but a move calculated to foster confusion and even scandal among the flock. Fie on you, Cardinal George. The advice in Mt 18:6 seems especially appropriate here.

Posted by: GrzeszDeL Apr. 09, 2004 10:09 AM EST

[Polycarp IV]

More spineless hierarchs weigh in on the Kerry Kontroversy.

[freeangel]

Let's see--women in the Atlanta area were excluded from the foot washing rituals this week, but slime like kerry can keep recieving sacraments after he endorses abortion and homosexuality because of why?

[Polycarp IV]

Boston Archbishop excludes women from Catholic foot-washing ritual

It would seem that its easier to play pretend at being an orthodox bishop, by finally addressing a liturgical abuse that should have been corrected decades ago, in order to placate the growing voice of outrage among real Catholics, than it is to enforce Canon Law in regards to these obstinate manifest grave sinners.

Canon Law needs to be changed so that cowards like Cardinal George and Archbishop O'Malley no longer have control over this issue.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the following relief:

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. An elected or appointed official who willfully votes for legislation enabling abortion, euthanasia or same-sex unions, or who publicly propagandizes for or promotes abortion, euthanasia or same-sex unions, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication. Canon 915 shall be applied to such public individuals."

[Tacis]

Ease up on the Cardinal! He knows that Kerry is lying when he says he supports abortion, just as we all do. Kerry wouldn't have "annuled" the marriage to his first wife and turned his kids into bastards if he didn't follow faithfully the doctrine of his church. The Cardinals know when he SAYS something that seems inconsistant with that doctrine, he really is lying.

[TheBattman]

Why and I not surprised that the Church doesn't have a backbone in this case? The Church has clearly stated several times that it will not allow communion for those who support abortion and a handful of other issues. Yet time and time again, they back down from their position.

What's the term for those who preach one thing, then do another?

leadership

[claudiustg]

He's only following the cardinal principle: never miss a chance to kiss rich and powerful butt.

[Polycarp IV]

and turned his kids into bastards

An annulment does not now, nor has it ever, turned anyone's kids into bastards. Because the issue of "legitimacy" of children is basically a legal issue, it is not affected by the annulment procedure. An annulment does not in any way suggest that children born of the marriage are "bastard children." Since the marriage was presumed to be real and true at the time of the birth of the children, they are totally "legitimate" in every way, and an annulment cannot change that. The effects of the annulment involve only the two partners, not their children.

[Jim Noble]

This actually is quite an interesting problem, and giving communion to Kerry may be more problematic than these bishops suppose.

I'm married to a Roman Catholic, and we go to a Catholic Church.

I don't receive communion, because I'm asked not to (as you all know).

Now, the usual explanation of WHY I'm asked not to is that "we don't share a common faith", and there are various elaborations of this view that are familiar to all.

But what about the fact that I share more, FAR more, in faith than Kerry does with his bishop and the teaching magisterium? It does not seem reasonable that Kerry's (presumably false) profession of "being a Catholic" (whatever he means by that) should count for more than the faith of all other Christians not in communion with Rome but who profess the Creed and who believe in the real presence.

Is it Cardinal George's view that it doesn't matter what you believe, or what you do as long as you call yourself a Catholic?

Would George say, "Well, he's an athiest, but at least he's a Catholic athiest"?

[M-cubed]

He indicated that he is waiting for recommendations from a task force set up by the US bishops' conference to consider that problem.<<< Can we assume that in these wonderful days of "diversity worshipers" that the task force has a majority of Muslim clerics on board?

[Right_Handed_Writer]

Kerry is sticking with the old tradition of buying absolution. I'm sure he is a healthy contributor to the Church.

Providing protection for pedophiles and safe haven for abortionists. The future is very dark...

[LADY J]

There is a Higher Power that Kerry will have to answer to!

Let the Catholic voters voice their opinion at the ballot box to show their feelings about this.

[don-o]

Who's Freepin' Kerry on Sunday?

[hometoroost]

"An annulment does not now, nor has it ever, turned anyone's kids into bastards. Because the issue of "legitimacy" of children is basically a legal issue, it is not affected by the annulment procedure. An annulment does not in any way suggest that children born of the marriage are "bastard children." Since the marriage was presumed to be real and true at the time of the birth of the children, they are totally "legitimate" in every way, and an annulment cannot change that. The effects of the annulment involve only the two partners, not their children."

It's that type of muddled thinking that made me leave the Catholic church. Basically, if you have enough money (Frank Sinatra) you can buy your way out of your old marriage and it never existed but your children are still legitmate. Sorry, I don't buy it.

[independentmind]

But what about the fact that I share more, FAR more, in faith than Kerry does with his bishop and the teaching magisterium?

I suspect the Cardinal's answer would be that God might hold Kerry far more accountable for receiving Communion than he would you.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

But what about the fact that I share more, FAR more, in faith than Kerry does with his bishop and the teaching magisterium? It does not seem reasonable that Kerry's (presumably false) profession of "being a Catholic" (whatever he means by that) should count for more than the faith of all other Christians not in communion with Rome but who profess the Creed and who believe in the real presence. Is it Cardinal George's view that it doesn't matter what you believe, or what you do as long as you call yourself a Catholic? 9 posted on 04/10/2004 9:20:14 AM PDT by Jim Noble

Kerry receiving Communion while PROMOTING the culture of death is absurd. But...what's stopping you from becoming a Catholic? (just curious)

[DestroytheDemocrats]

. "Kerry wouldn't have "annuled" the marriage to his first wife and turned his kids into bastards if he didn't follow faithfully the doctrine of his church. "

An annunlment comes under canon law not civil law. His kids are not bastards. Kerry is just trying to have the Church and yet be against the church. He always does this kind of garbage. He tries to have it both ways.

[Jim Noble]

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

A common question, and a fair one.

There is a 10,000+ post thread running on this topic in the Religion forum.

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

[m4629]

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.

Well now let's see, perhaps Jesus should have waited on his rebuke of Mr. Iscariot, while the Jerusalem Better Business Bureau conduct an inquiry to determine whether the transaction between him and Caiaphas was kosher and in compliance with the code of ethics.

These modern day bishops really believe we are too stupid to realize they are hiding behind the Bishops Conference don't they?

[DestroytheDemocrats]

"Kerry receiving Communion while PROMOTING the culture of death is absurd. "

It is absurd. There is NO WAY to justify this. 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.

[Piquaboy]

It all depends on how much money you donate as to what you can or cannot do.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Bump.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

I was born into the Catholic Church so it's quite impossible for me not to be Catholic. However...the excessive liberalization and modernization of the church in America does result in a lot of distortions and misrepresentations of Catholicism. I would imagine that could make things very confusing and frustrating for any sincere people of faith seeking answers in the Catholic Church as it exists in contemporary America. The liberal modernist nonsense is very unfortunate. But that's not real Catholicism.

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.

[OpusatFR]

"Someone should forward this thread to Cardinal George! Let him know that faithful Catholics are desperate for justice!
Maybe we should quit supporting the Bishops' diocesan lenten appeals and capital campaigns until they all follow Archbishop Burke's lead."

Maybe we should calm down and let the Holy Spirit guide this Bishop and Kerry. Kerry does not seen to understand The True Presence not only because of his stance on reproductive choices and fetal cell research, but because he also took Communion in a Protestant Church which belies any belief he has in the Eucharist.

Ultimately, the idea of Kerry receiving the Host after his words and actions this past week will have to be dealt with by the Bishops.

And ultimately, Kerry will have to answer to Someone else.
God is not mocked.

[DestroytheDemocrats]

"Basically, if you have enough money (Frank Sinatra) you can buy your way out of your old marriage and it never existed but your children are still legitmate. Sorry, I don't buy it."

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.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

It is absurd. There is NO WAY to justify this. 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. 20 posted on 04/10/2004 9:58:25 AM PDT by DestroytheDemocrats

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.

[FITZ]

Still --- I think a lot of people have a problem with the Church claiming not to accept divorce but handing out so many annulments. I know a couple who married young --- at 18 and 20, they had 8 children and after 20 years of marriage divorced --- the wife got tired of the husband's drinking problem which he started in his 30's. She got an annulment and remarried --- in the Church. I don't see how the marriage was not legitimate --- if he had not started drinking, most likely the marriage would have lasted but he was not an alcoholic at the time of the wedding.

[Arthur McGowan]

No Catholic should give a penny to the Church in any diocese where the bishop has not made an explicit statement that no pro-abortion Catholic should receive Communion. And the bishop should be expected to back up this statement by disciplining priests who violate this policy.

[maryz]

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.

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.

[madprof98]

Such reaasonable thinking will get you in trouble here. The annulment-on-request (AKA "Catholic divorce") scandal seems to differ from so many others these days in that so many genuinely committed Catholics have a vested interest in the legitimacy of the system. But it actually makes a mockery of the gospel teaching on marriage, and plenty of people outside the Church realize that. I know one young woman, for example, whose Catholic ex-husband insisted she go through the annulment paperwork because his new shack-up wanted a big wedding in church. The jilted spouse refused but, of course, the annulment was granted and the wedding was celebrated with all possible pomp. When the former wife found a new man, she insisted she would never go through another marriage ceremony but would just live with her lover and bear his children. "More honest than the Catholic Church," she said to everyone who would listen. Frankly, I think she was right.

[independentgrrl]

Isn't the NCCB a liberal arm of the US Catholic Church? I know that my confessor (very orthodox) does not think very highly of it nor it's creators, Bernardin et al.

[hometoroost]

I must have hit a nerve with the all caps and the exclamation points. A little touchy on this one or if you shout it loud enough does that make you feel more correct on this?

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.

[Cicero]

For what it's worth, Cardinal George "reportedly said" this according to AP. Maybe he did. But maybe he didn't.

I'm not defending him. But he's a bishop with a past record of solid theological orthodoxy trying to cope with a huge mess left to him by Cardinal Bernardin, the single most malign bishop to infest the Catholic Church in America in the past 50 years.

If he thinks it imprudent to speak out on this issue, then I would prefer that he remain silent. The position of the Church is clear.

And with regard to other replies posted here, I don't THINK Kerry has received an annullment. 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. If he had, it's hard to imagine he would not have announced the fact publicly, since he is so desperately trying to square himself with Catholic voters.

[FITZ]

It's somewhat like that with the couple I mentioned. The kids turned out okay --- the father drank but always managed to work and support his large family, the mother was always very attractive, kept a perfect home. She said she got tired of cleaning up the vomit from him coming home early in the morning and throwing up in the kitchen and then passing out on the sofa --- she said for some reason finding his false teeth in it one morning was the last straw. She remarried in the Church, he chooses to believe that his first marriage was legitimate, accepts that there was a civil divorce but doesn't accept the annulment. He continued to financially provide for his kids.

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.

[m4629]

Well yes, but they have since merged into one entity, the USCCB. This is the monster that the bishops hide behind the "collective we" when they refuse to honor their office and do the right thing.

[Polycarp IV]

Maybe we should calm down and let the Holy Spirit guide this Bishop and Kerry.

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:

A Primer on Canon 915: Essential information to present to your Bishop regarding THEIR OBLIGATION to deny the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians, and the risks of refusing to do so

[Polycarp IV]

If he thinks it imprudent to speak out on this issue, then I would prefer that he remain silent.

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.

[Barnacle]

This is a travesty indded.

Qerry should be excommunicated.

[DestroytheDemocrats]

"Still --- I think a lot of people have a problem with the Church claiming not to accept divorce but handing out so many annulments."

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.

[ninenot]

When the former wife found a new man, she insisted she would never go through another marriage ceremony but would just live with her lover and bear his children. "More honest than the Catholic Church," she said to everyone who would listen. Frankly, I think she was right.

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

[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.