Skip to comments.Bishops have denied communion before
Posted on 07/14/2004 5:39:13 PM PDT by Coleus
In November 2003, Raymond Burke, then the bishop of LaCrosse, Wis., instructed priests in his diocese to deny Communion to three politicians unless they publicly recanted their pro-abortion rights positions, an action some Catholic scholars say is tantamount to excommunication. Since then, Burke's supporters have increasingly pointed to what they see as parallels with another case, and another moral hero, from 40 years ago.
In the wake of the United States Supreme Court's 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling, Joseph Francis Rummel, Archbishop of New Orleans, began planning the integration of the archdiocese's schools. It would take eight years, several court battles and the excommunication of three prominent Catholic political figures for Rummel to achieve his goal.
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
Maestri said Rummel's actions were not political, but moral. "For him this was a fundamental moral issue," he said. "He was clearly motivated by one thing: to do what was just and right."
I wonder what Kerry would have thought of the good Bishop?
Corrected source link:
Even those who would like to draw similarities between the two cases point out differences. "Where the parallel begins to fall apart is in the moral seriousness of the issues," said Donohue. "Segregation is morally wrong, but when you're talking about the killing of a child, that's intrinsically evil. The more egregious offense is abortion, not segregation."
Divorced Catholics are not allowed to receive Communion, and Kerry seems to have had a previous wife and some kids by her; so regardless of his position on abortion he should not be allowed to receive the sacrament anyway-- unless theology is like math, where if you multiply two negarives you get a positive-- or so to say, if you are either divorced or are pro-abortion, no communion, but if you are both divorced and pro-abortion, come right up. Religion is just a sweater, anyway. You put it on and take it off depending on how your feeling at the moment--if you're a politician.
He says he got an annulment, so in the eyes of the Church, he was never married. However, he did apply for the annulment after he married for the second time which did not take place in a Catholic Church. He laughed about getting an annulment -- something about Boston politicians and the number of annulments they had been granted.
I have never seen it stated definitively that he did get his annulment -- his answers are always spin.
Doesn't that then mean his children are bastards?
I bet most of the northern democrats were FOR desegregation and FOR the refusal of Holy Communion and Excommunication to those who still wanted segregation in the church and in society. Today, with the issue of abortion, things are much different with many of the Bishops, lay people and politicians.
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.