Posted on 06/16/2008 6:17:08 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
President Bush may follow in the footsteps of his brother Jeb and convert to Catholicism, several European papers are reporting.
In the wake of the president’s visit to see Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican, Italian newspapers, citing Vatican sources, said Bush was open to the idea of converting to Catholicism.
The Italian newspaper Il Foglio referred to such talk about Bush’s possible conversion and stated that “anything is possible, especially for someone reborn like Bush.”
Noting that Tony Blair converted to Catholicism after leaving office as Britain’s prime minister last year, the paper also stated that “if anything happens, it will happen after he finishes his period as president, not before. It is similar to Blair’s case, but with different circumstances.”
President Bush welcomed Pope Benedict XVI warmly when he visited the U.S. in April. And Vatican watchers noted that Bush met privately with the pontiff in the private gardens of the Vatican last Friday — an unprecedented place for the Pope to meet a head of state. Typically, the Vatican gardens are used by the Pope for private reflection.
A Vatican spokesman said the Pope used the unusual locale to reciprocate for the “warmth” Bush showed when the two met in Washington.
Though the Catholic Church has criticized the U.S. war in Iraq, Bush has been an ardent supporter of pro-life issues; he has staunchly opposed stem-cell research; and he opposes gay marriage — all issues important for Rome.
Currently Bush belongs to a Methodist church in Texas and attends an Episcopal church in Washington, D.C.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
PING!
After hearing about how they refuse to marry people who are paralyzed I have lost all respect for the Catholic Church. Canon does not trump the Bible.
if Newsmax is reporting it...ugh.. I just wished they hadn’t.
I read once about a high school classmate of mine who was wheelchair-bound. She got married. I don’t see the problem here (but the Church does, for some reason).
whaaaa?
If a person cannot perform the physical act of sex, the church will not marry you.
I've never heard this... looking for detail on this please.
That would be so sad. But it can’t be ruled out; with his “we all worship one God” garbage, and his un-Biblical optimism about unredeemed human nature, you know W’s grasp of the Bible is (to be charitable) uneven.
Never heard that before. Have a link?
Whoever told you this was terribly mistaken, it is totally false.
Right, this makes sense as he is preparing to have his presidential library located at Southern METHODIST University.
One has to admit that he has always been a bit of a follower.
Canon 1084.1 of the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church states that "antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage." However, Canon 1084.2 adds that "if the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null."
It would have been wise for the priest not to raise the question at all, but once the answer is there and is an objective fact, indeed the couple should not marry as they cannot consummate the marriage.
It is no different than any other impediment to marriage, for example, a prior marriage not dissolved in the eye of the Church, or a vow of celibacy, or marrying a close relative.
I never heard of such a thing. Are you sure?
To put it delicately, women who have spinal cord injury do not suffer from the same malady that prevents men with the injury from having a church marriage. The question is whether or not the marriage can be consummated. Women with SCI are still able to consummate the marriage, wheras some men with the injury (depending on where the lesion falls) are often not able to consummate the marriage.
The inability to consummate a marriage is one of the primary grounds for annullment within the church. The church does not want to be in the position of officiating in a marriage where the grounds for annullment exist from the onset.
We may not agree with it, but that is the rationale.
Sometimes you gotta wonder if lawyers weren’t writing these laws.
This is actually pathetic, IMHO. Why shouldn’t they marry? There are instances when a couple marries and later on through illness, a tragic accident, or whatever, one of the two could certainly become paralyzed or impotent and it doesn’t matter THEN, so why should is matter before?
Oy!
See Wikipedia. It is by the way, identical to the list of reasons when an existing marriage can be nullified. Not all can.
Gotta love the Catholic Church. The guy can beat the living daylights out of his wife every day for years but THAT isn’t grounds for annulment, but if he couldn’t consummate the marriage, THAT is.
Oh yea, “Wikipedia,” the most reliable and scholarly information site on the internet.
Well, that is your opinion. A marriage must be valid when the vows are said; that includes intention and ability to consummate.
The proper question is, why should they marry? They can live together and receive all sacraments as a chaste couple.
I’m not saying I think these reports are true, but if they are, then it explains GWB’s immigration ideas - they are fully in line with those of the Catholic Church.
Abuse is grounds for separation, but alone it does not invalidate the marriage. In order to be invalid, the marriage must begin invalidly.
The Wikipedia article has footnotes to the actual canon law; if you doubt its accuracy, you can check the canons directly.
Looks like we found a better topic that the supposed conversion of the President.
He’s gonna take orders from the Pope now!
This topic is certainly worthy of discussion.
While I do check Wikipedia for some quick references, I can’t really rely on it; too much room for error since anyone can add to it. In college, the profs will not allow you to cite it in any research or other scholarly papers.
I knew that abuse is not grounds for invalidating a marriage, but that’s why this is just so crazy. Two people love each other but cannot consummate the marriage, but they could be devoted and share sexual love in other ways; yet, a man could be horribly abusive and they don’t seem to think that’s bad - it just frustrates me.
FWIW, I do understand that there is a spiritual component to marriage and that it is much more than what most of us think, yet.....
I can’t help but think on some level this is just, well, stupid (?)
It’s the elevation of the “traditions of men”. Mt 15.
You have GOT to be kidding? Why should they marry?
Did you ever think that they love each other and want to have the benefits of legal marriage, etc.? Or that maybe they want to adopt kids or a host of other issues.
Oy. This is legalism at its finest and Christ condemned the legalists of his day and rightfully so.
You are so right. I just posted to another Freeper on there that, to me, this is just legalism at its finest and how Christ really hammered on the legalists of his day.
So much for Christian “charity” and the commandments that ALL the laws are based upon, which are to love the Lord Thy God and to Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself.
So much for love, eh?
I still find it hard to believe that the Catholic church truly doesn’t believe in miracles any more. How could they possibly know that the man might not recover from his spinal cord injury or any couple couldn’t overcome their infertility for that matter and couples are often blessed with children against medical odds. New medicines and treatments for things are being developed all the time. The entire idea of them denying a marriage on those grounds really upsets me. It sounds like something Muslims would come up with, not otherwise civilized people like Catholics.
Oh, who wants to marry the church anyway? Most people want to marry another person.
I couldn’t resist.
Good points, all. If true, it seems almost diabolical.
Exactly! Did not Abram marry a "barren" wife? They had that miracle happen!
Positive. The Church would have no problem marrying a serial killer (in prison) to a woman on the outside, yet a man with irreversible impotence cannot.
I love how the malcontents have hijacked the thread.
“I still find it hard to believe that the Catholic church truly doesn’t believe in miracles any more.”
Huh?
It bothers me that the Catholic church refuses to let an infertile man get married because they are so certain that means he will never have children. How can they possibly know that? More impressive miracles than that happen all the time. Every year there are people who are infertile and conceive anyway, either through prayer or medical treatment or both. I think it’s horrible for a church to slam the door on that possibility so cruelly. It seems backwards to me. Sorry but that’s how I feel.
The person who told you that must have had a paralyzed brain and the person who believed it without proof, well, I don’t know.
Because at that point, the marriage has been consummated. If it happens before, the marriage cannot be consummated.
I suppose it depends on the laws of each state, but they can still get legally married in a civil ceremony and derive all the benefits of a legal marriage. Getting married in the Church wouldn’t have any effect on that.
“The Church would have no problem marrying a serial killer (in prison) to a woman on the outside, yet a man with irreversible impotence cannot.”
Do you know of a case where that happened?
Legalism is alive and well on the FR religion thread. Jesus only had to deal with 6000 Pharisees. There are more than that here.
His two-steppin’ with the philistinians ought to give him some pause.
Is GWB now saying that Methodism is uninspiring to him?
I think Bush changed over the years. He allowed Washington to get the best of him. Sad! We really need someone who is immuned to the lust of power in Washington and will do God’s will for the American people even if it is the hard road.
>> Positive. The Church would have no problem marrying a serial killer (in prison) to a woman on the outside, yet a man with irreversible impotence cannot. <<
Try checking your facts before making a fool of yourself.
The paralyzed thing - it means that if a person cannot consummate the marriage, they cannot be married sacramentally in the church. Merely being paralyzed does not translate into the inability to consummate the marriage.
To me a man being paralyzed usually means he is impotent and for a woman sex may or not be possible as I am unsure if those nerves would be involved.
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.