Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Catholic Archbishop of St. Louis (Raymond Burke) would refuse communion to John Effing Kerry
St. Louis Post-Dispatch ^ | 01/30/2004 | Patricia Rice

Posted on 01/30/2004 1:51:21 PM PST by rface

Edited on 05/11/2004 5:35:52 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 last
To: autoresponder
Kerry eating a hotdog!
41 posted on 01/30/2004 7:38:24 PM PST by potlatch (Whenever I feel 'blue', I start breathing again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 4integrity
Unfortunately, it seems many Christians, even religious leaders, are reluctant to speak out for their beliefs for fear of appearing controversial or possibly offending someone or simply they are uncomfortable with confrontation.

We are blessed that Archbishop Burke has the courage and inspiration of the Holy Spirit to speak out.

42 posted on 01/30/2004 7:39:19 PM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
Des, since the post is all about St. Louis, I presume one of the ladies in the picture is YOU. Which one?

In a Carolina Panther outfit? Take your pick.
43 posted on 01/31/2004 5:20:34 AM PST by Desdemona (Kempis' Imitation of Christ online!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Ciexyz
Absolutely hypocritical, but and it's a big but, annulments do not involve the taking of human life. Some do believe that annulments are the slippery slope down which the church's moral authority will cascade, but JPII has spoken on the American Church's propensity for Catholic divorce and there have been fewer in recent years.What needs to be publicly afirmed is the necessity of those who call themselves Catholic to stand for life, not death. The irony is that the phrase "life not death" comes from Cuomo's speech in 84 convention. Hypocritically ironic for a Catholic whose party supported death on an apocalyptic scale.
44 posted on 01/31/2004 7:10:40 AM PST by xkaydet65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: pegleg
I agree, but my comment was made in anticipation of the howling that would result if all U.S. Bishops followed Burke's lead. They will scream that the church is illegaly involving itself in the political arena, when if they were men and women of true conviction they would leave a Church whose teachings they cannot follow.

The Jesuits taught me that Luther while wrong in his fundamental belief of Faith alone, was genuinely a man of courage and conviction. Pro abortion democrats are wrong, but possess neither true courage nor conviction.

45 posted on 01/31/2004 7:16:40 AM PST by xkaydet65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MegaSilver
Abortion Decision Affirmed. S. 3 (Roll Call 48)

This resolution affirmed that the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision legalizing abortion was correct. ACU believes the original decision in Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. ACU opposed this resolution. It passed 52-46 on 12 March 2003

ACU opposed this bill.

This bill was: passed The vote was: 52-46

Senator Kerry voted in support of abortion decision affirmation

46 posted on 01/31/2004 7:17:37 AM PST by mware
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
An annulment states that the marriage was not valid. It is not a license to go get hitched again.

I'm willing to be educated. After watching the plotlines of many soap operas, I just assumed this was the case.

How does your church view divorce?

The Presbyterian Church USA doesn't go near the issue, as far as I'm aware. Divorced ministers can still preach in the pulpit. This is in contrast to the Assemblies of God, which deny a divorced minister the right to remarry and still preach in the pulpit - however, a divorced minister can still preach if he/she stays celibate.

47 posted on 01/31/2004 10:24:40 AM PST by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
Kerry applied for an annulment after remarrying but it was either denied or didn't even reach the stage where it would be denied.

It would be interesting to learn the final result. Did he just let it drop? Did the church deny it had validity?

48 posted on 01/31/2004 10:27:34 AM PST by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: rface
"I would have to admonish him not to present himself for communion," said Burke. "I might give him a blessing or something," he said. "If his archbishop has told him he should not present himself for communion, he shouldn't. I agree with Archbishop (Sean P.) O'Malley (of Boston.)"

Did Archbishop O'Malley say that Kerry shouldn't receive Communion? Did I miss something?

Here's a great quote from Archbishop O'Malley when he was bishop of the Fall River diocese:

I will not vote for any politician who will promote abortion or the culture of death, no matter how appealing the rest of his or her program might be. They are wolves in sheep’s garments, the K.K.K. without the sheets, and sadly enough, they don’t even know it.

If I were ever tempted to vote for simply selfish reasons, tribal allegiances, or economic advantages rather than on the moral direction of the country, I should beat a hasty retreat from the curtain of the polling booth to the curtain of the confessional.

49 posted on 02/01/2004 6:42:09 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MegaSilver
It is impossible to equate abortion with murder on a moral level and NOT have that translate to a belief that abortion should be illegal... unless you perhaps believe that MURDER should be legal--which would violate the Declaration of Independence.

True. It doesn't take much to push through the "I'm personally opposed, but..." rhetoric. Unfortunately, they're never challenged by the media.

50 posted on 02/01/2004 6:44:30 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ciexyz
But it's alright for the Church to grant Kerry an annulment from wife #1 even tho they had two kids? Isn't that hypocrisy on behalf of the church

A declaration of nullity (an annulment) is granted if a church tribunal determines that the conditions necessary for a valid marriage were not present at the time of the wedding. What happens after the wedding ceremony is irrelevant.

4. Declaration of Nullity

The declaration of nullity must be carefuly distinguished from divorce proper. It can be called divorce only in a very improper sense, because it presupposes that there is and has been no marriage. However, as there is question of an alleged marriage and of a union which is considered by the public as a true marriage, we can understand why a previous ecclesiastical judgement should be required, declaring the presence of a diriment impediment and the consequent invalidity of a supposed marriage, before the persons in question might be free to separate or to enter upon a new marriage. It is only when the invalidity of a marriage becomes publicly known and further cohabitation gives scandal, or when other important reasons render a prompt separation of domicile necessary or adivisable, that such a separation should take place at once, to be made definitive by a later judicial sentence. When the invalidity of a marriage is publicly known, official procedure is necessary, and ecclesiastical process of nullification must be introduced. In the case of impediments which refer exclusively to the rights of the husband and wife, and which can be removed by their consent, only the one of the supposed spouses whose right is in question is permitted to impugn the marriage by complaint before the ecclesiastical court, provided it is desired to maintain this right. Such cases are the impediments of fear or violence, of essential error of impotence on the part of the other not fully established, and failure to comply with some fixed condition. In cases of the other possible impediments, every Catholic, even a stranger, may enter a complaint of nullity if he can bring proofs of such nullity. The only plaintiffs excluded are those who, on account of private advantage, were unwilling to declare the invalidity of the marriage before its dissolution by death, or who knew the impediment when the banns or marriage were proclaimed and culpably kept silence. Of course it is allowed to the married parties to disprove the reasons alleged by strangers against their marriage (Wernz, "Jus decretalium", IV, n. 743).

That separation and remarriage of the separated parties may not take place merely on account of private convictions of the invalidity of a supposed marriage, but only in consequence of an ecclesiastical judgement was taught by Alexander III and Innocent III in IV Decretal., xix, 3 and II Decretal., xiii, 13. In earlier centuries the summary decision of the bishops sufficed; at present the Constitution of Benedict XIV, "Dei miseratione", 3 November, 1741, must be followed. This prescribes that in matrimonial cases a "defender of the matrimonial tie" (defensor matrimonii) must be appointed. If the decision is for the validity of the marriage, there need be no appeal in the second instance. The parties can be satisfied with the first decision and continued in married life. If the decision is for the invalidity of the marriage, an appeal must be entered, and sometimes even a second appeal to the court of third instance, so that it is only after two concordant decisions on the invalidity of marriage in question that itcan be regarded as invalid, and the parties are allowed to proceed to another marriage. (Cf. III Conc. plen. Baltim., App. 262 sqq.; Conc. Americ. latin., II, n. 16; Laurentius, "Instit. iuris eccl.", 2nd ed., n. 696 sqq.; Wernz, "Jusdecretal.", IV, n. 744 sqq.) Sometimes, however, in missionary countries, Apostolic prefects are permitted to give summary decision of cases in which two concordant opinions of approved theologians or canonists pronounce the invalidity of the marriage to be beyond doubt. Moreover, in cases of evident nullity, because of a manifest impediment of blood-relationship or affinity, of previous marriage, of the absence of form, of lack of baptism on the part of one party, a second sentence of nullity is no longer demanded (Decr. of the Holy Office, 5 June, 1889, and 16 June, 1894. Cf. Acta S. Sedis, XXVII, 141; also Decr. of the Holy Office, 27 March, 1901, Acta S. Sedis, XXXIII, 765). The court of first instance in the process of nullication is the episcopal court of the diocese, of second instance the metropolitan court, of third instance the Roman See. Sometimes, however, Rome designates for the third instance a metropolitan see of the country in question (Laurentius, above, 697, not. 6). No one, however, is prohibited from immediate application in the first instance to the Holy See. Custom reserves to the Holy See matrimonial cases of reigning princes.

In the Decretals the declaration of nullity is treated under the title "De Divortiis". But it is important that these matters should be carefully distinguished from one another. The lack of exact distinction between the expressions "declaration of invalidity" and "divorce", and the different treatment of invalid marriages at different periods, may lead to incorrect judgements of ecclesiastical decisions. Decisions of particular Churches are too easily regarded as dissolutions of valid marriages, where in fact they were only declarations of nullity; and even papal decisions, like those of Gregory II communicated to St. Boniface and of Alexander III to Bishop of Amiens, are looked on by some writers as permissions granted by the popes to Frankish Churches to dissolve a valid marriage in certain cases. The decision of Gregory II, in the year 726, was embodied in the collection of Gratian (C. xxxii, Q. vii, c. xviii), and is printed in "Mon. Germ. Hist.", III: Epist. (Epist. Merovingici et Karolini ævi I), p. 276; the decision of Alexander III is given in the Decretals as pars decisa, i.e., a part of the papal letter (IV Decretal., xv, 2) left out in the Decretal itself. In both cases there was question of a declaration of the invalidity of a marriage which was invalid from the very beginning because of antecedent impotence. A certain concession to Frankish Churches was, however, made in these cases. Accoding to Roman custom such supposed husband and wife were not separated, but were bound to live together as brother and sister. In Frankish Churches, however, a separation was pronouced and permission to contract another marriage was allowed to the one not afflicted with absolute impotence. This custom Alexander III granted to the Frankish Churches for the future. If therefore, the union in question is spoken of a legitima conjunctio, or even as a legitimum matrimonium, this is done only on account of the external form of the marriage contract. That in such cases a diriment impediment according to the natural law was present, and an actual marriage was impossible, was well understod by the pope. He says this expressly in the part of his letter that has been embodied in the Decretals (IV Decretal., xv, 2. Cf. Sägmüller, "Die Ehe Heinrichs II" in the Tübingen "Theol. Quartalschr.", LXXXVII, 1905, 84 sqq.). That in similar cases decision has been given sometimes for separation and sometimes against it, need excite no surprise, for even at the present day the ecclesiastical idea of impotence on the part of the woman is not fully settled (cf. controversy in "The American Eccl. Review", XXVIII, 51 sqq.).

Catholic Encyclopedia

51 posted on 02/01/2004 6:56:33 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 4integrity; NYer; rface; Salvation; Lady In Blue
GET THIS! If you're a concerned Catholic, this is an great, short (16 pages), pocket booklet called "A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters". It does NOT tell people exactly how to vote or what party, it's not political. Instead, it's a very clear explanation of solid church teaching on abortion for a voter or an elected official. It specifies the responsiblities of citizens in how they vote, and any Catholic elected representative in how he votes or behaves. It also clears up the confusion about why the abortion issue is completely different than death penalty question.

My priest got these for our parish, they cost about 50 cents a copy. We can't rely on most priests to explain the details, but Catholics do want to know. The media also is clueless about the details of this extremely important doctrine. Encourage your priest to get these for your church, or have a group you're in (KofC, etc) buy some to distribute. Here's details:

Leaflet Missal Company
976 W. Minnehaha Ave.
St. Paul Minnesota 55104

"A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters" text by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco, Ph.D.. Copyright 2003, Leaflet Missal Company.

52 posted on 02/01/2004 10:57:01 PM PST by enuu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 4integrity
As many laity the priests may sometimes put labor loyalty or dedication to a Socialist type agenda ahead of their Faith. When I grew up, priests were tough guys who would kick the crap out of you, then absolve you in Confession.
Today they are all Kum-by-ya touchy feely...too many psych classes, not enough gut checks.
53 posted on 02/02/2004 6:29:29 AM PST by steve8714
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: enuu
Wow, great info! Thank you, so much. I will definitely send for a copy of this booklet and share with my parish priest. And, if they don't want to send the bucks, I'll spring for $100 and give out copies on my own. We, the people, must stand up for our great country. Thanks again!
54 posted on 02/02/2004 7:17:31 AM PST by 4integrity (AJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Ciexyz
But it's alright for the Church to grant Kerry an annulment from wife #1 even tho they had two kids? Isn't that hypocrisy on behalf of the church -- granting anulments to people of property so Kerry can go on to nab his next heiress?

My understanding is that Kerry's annulment was refused.

His name may start with K-E- and end with -Y, but he's missing the all-important N-N-E-D-.

55 posted on 02/02/2004 1:37:53 PM PST by Jim Noble (Now you go feed those hogs before they worry themselves into anemia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson