Posted on 06/16/2008 6:16:35 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 ...
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.
It's hard for the world of today to understand the true meaning of marriage as it has been contaminated with so many extraneous and secular motives but the primary end of marriage is fecundity. It is made in obedience to God's command to go forth and multiply. Christian marriage is geared to precisely this end; the creation of children. This is not "legalism". Mutual companionship and comfort are not primary ends of marriage. It is a union made before God for the purpose of producing offspring. If the primary end of marriage is voided, there can be no marriage.
It's an indication of how far we've strayed from the true meaning of marriage that such an idea should be met with shouts of horror and accusations of fundamentalism.
Oy. This is legalism at its finest and Christ condemned the legalists of his day and rightfully so.
Again, you're a little mixed up. He didn't condemn their legalism. He condemned their hypocrisy for not practicing what they taught. Read the Scriptures. Jesus told the people to obey the Pharisees because they were teachers of the law, but not to imitate their example.
The point is sex between them is impossible. So they are physically incapable of doing anything you need to be married to do. The couple wanted to use the sacrament of marriage to declare their love for each other. So what are YOU so upset about?
Or do you think that marriage SHOULD be merely a way of people declaring their love for each other? If so, then why shouldn’t two men get married? Just because you think that’s “icky?” What if they vowed to remain celibate, but they had acknowledgedly homophilic tendencies?
The vast majority of the time, the Church WILL allow the couple to get married, since from love stems the hope of the miraculous. And wherever that hope exists, the relationship can be ordered in the manner akin to a fruitful relationship, even if it is not itself fruitful. Such is certainly the case when one becomes disabled after marriage. But did you ever consider that maybe in this one event, so rare it made headlines around the world, the bishop sensed that the couple didn’t have a proper mindset towards the marriage?
Did you know that for every artificial conception that results in life, dozens result in destroyed embryos? Maybe the couple had stated their intention to have artificial conception (and thus, consign to the overwhelming likelihood of multiple destroyed lives? Not saying that’s what the cause was, but that’s just one thing my imagination can suppose. Do you know the whole case?
A brief while ago, there was a case in New Jersey that had people choking with rage at a bishop. A little girl had been given first communion with a wheat-free wafer. She was allergic to wheat. The bishop ruled she hadn’t received first communion. The family went to the press, in bitter tears that their little girl had been condemned to Hell because of her allergy. The problem with the wafer is that Catholic doctrine says only wheat bread or grape wine can become the body of Christ.
What hadn’t been reported was that the bishop had instructed the priest beforehand to give first communion by tincture. That’s when a spot of consecrated wine is placed on some other food, allowing the person to receive the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. The family had refused the tincture, even though it would have solved the problem completely within the laws of the church, and the priest caved into the family, afraid of making a scene before mass.
That news part of the story only came out via bloggers.
I don’t know the reason, but isn’t it just possible there’s a reason why one couple on a distant continent got treated so uniquely it made world-wide headlines?
Don't let speculation get you down. I don't think he will convert. The press coverage over the years has been so slanted it just wears you down.
He's been right on more things than not. It was the unwillingness of the Pubs to take on the big tasks that has hurt. We are winning in the middle east. He was right about immigration reform, that issue more than anything has led to the Rats gaining power and probably winning the WH in the fall. He was right about social security reform. He was right about tax cuts. He was right about Alito and Roberts.
Marriage is a way for a man and a woman to from a spiritual bond and glorify God. If they can’t have the physical act of sex, then that shouldn’t bare them from being married in a Church. I have a genetic disorder and would consider sterilization before I got married and opt for adoption instead. Would this make me a bad Catholic?
The article is nonsense. Laura would never sit still for it.
To your both posts.
Canons of the law are listed in the Wiki article, — Wikipedia’s overall accuracy is not an issue. If you don’t trust it, do your own research.
If the couple is capable of sexual union, they can marry. If they themselves declare that they cannot, don’t intend to try, and have a medical condition then they cannot have a sexual union. They can mutually inherit, adopt, live together, and everything else, but that is not called a marriage: a brother and sister can do that too and they certainly cannot be married no matter how much they love one another.
You argument, verbatim, is the argument for same sex “marriage”, by the way.
If a marriage is unsafe, the endangered spouse has every right to separate, and never see the abusive spouse again, and thus achieve safety. However, Christ was very clear that these circumstances, no matter how tragic, do not dissolve the marriage, and we Catholics go by what He said.
I don't know the circumstances of this case, but I am familiar (through the Internet) with another case, and then the priest refused to marry because a statement was made by the bridegroom to the effect that he is fully, irreparably incapable of a sexual union. The wise thing is for the priest not to ask, and hope for a miracle. Once such statement is there form the spouses, there is nothing he can do otherwise: the couple is not intending to consummate the marriage, so it is invalid, and therefore should not be attempted. For one such case there are probably hundreds of others where consummation does not occur for some frivolous reasons and then your would argue that such marriage should be annuled.
The heart goes out to this man, obviously.
***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.***
You wouldn’t have examples, would you?
**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.**
President Bush bump and prayer.
I have never heard this before. And I have some friends who have been paralyzed.
Source, please.
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.