Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

AS KERRY EMERGES, SO DOES CONCERN THAT AS PRESIDENT HE MAY BE DENIED COMMUNION
Spirit Daily ^ | 1-29-04

Posted on 01/29/2004 6:30:44 AM PST by cpforlife.org

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-181 last
To: Campion
The fact remains that you were misinformed.

Nothing of the sort. I was referring to the practice of granting annulments, not the canon law. The Church in United States processes 60,000 annulments a year; that's 75% of all annulments worldwide, and up from 400 a year in 1968. Are you trying to tell me the way canon law is being applied is the same, from country to country, and from 1968 to the present?

If you think a man could have gotten a Church annulment in Ireland in the 1960's, after thirty years and lots of children, by claiming he'd entered the marriage intending to cheat, then let me politely inform you you don't know what you're talking about.

151 posted on 01/29/2004 9:58:41 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: An American In Dairyland
Now why would she object to that?

So does that mean that Kerry is divorced in the eyes of the Church?
152 posted on 01/29/2004 10:01:42 AM PST by AppyPappy (If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: mystery-ak
"Why isn't he denied communion now?"

There is no good reason why.

Sadly, our Bishops have been negligent in following the Holy Father's many clear and repeated calls that this entire matter be settled once and for all.

The article, as well as others do give reason to have some new hope; as a few bishops have started to act on this.
153 posted on 01/29/2004 10:17:12 AM PST by cpforlife.org (The defense and promotion of LIFE is not the ministry of a few but the responsibility of ALL.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
I went to Mass,many years as a half repentent sinner until a hunger for Communion with the Body and Blood caused me to repent,confess and come back to Christ,fully and entirely.

There were some other,acts of God and man, that were also involved but that was the principal one.

I think attending Mass and not receiving Communion forced me to consider my sins weekly. Sometimes "out of sight out of mind",can cause the loss of a soul.

Just my own personal experience and view.

154 posted on 01/29/2004 10:32:06 AM PST by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Kieri
...if Jenny wants to dabble in politics she should STAY OUT OF THE CHURCH!

No, she should attend church - maybe some of it will sink in. But she should stay out of the line for communion.

155 posted on 01/29/2004 10:43:28 AM PST by T Minus Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Republican Red
Many others, including Jackie Kennedy Onasis were excommunicated for divorce.

People are not excommunicated for divorce. They excommunicate themselves when they remarry without obtaining an annulment first.

156 posted on 01/29/2004 10:48:19 AM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: John123
Again, how can a marriage that spawned two children be annulled?

There is a misunderstanding of what Catholic annulment is. The Church recognizes that a legal marriage took place. They require a legal divorce before the annulment process is considered. Children are therefore not illegitimate. Catholic annulments rule on the sacramental nature of the marriage. Two different things.

Note: you can get a legal annulment if the divorce occurs within the first year. Again, that's a different matter from the Church.

157 posted on 01/29/2004 10:55:00 AM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama; A2J; Agitate; Alouette; Annie03; aposiopetic; attagirl; axel f; Balto_Boy; ...
ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

158 posted on 01/29/2004 10:55:53 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (Pre-empt the third murder attempt-- Pray for Terry Schiavo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
AS KERRY EMERGES, SO DOES CONCERN THAT AS PRESIDENT HE MAY BE DENIED COMMUNION

Why would I be concerned about that? Sounds like a great idea to me!

:-)

159 posted on 01/29/2004 10:59:41 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (Pre-empt the third murder attempt-- Pray for Terry Schiavo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
But only a week ago, newly-installed Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley struck out against pro-choicers like Kerry, telling a Catholic website called LifeSiteNews.com, "These politicians should know that if they're not voting correctly on these life issues that they shouldn't dare come to Communion."

Come on Bishop, let's formalize this. Inaction scandalizes the Church.

160 posted on 01/29/2004 11:08:05 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Wheels of the Church..........................................S-L-O-W

At the cost of millions of lives and millions more souls.
161 posted on 01/29/2004 11:11:47 AM PST by cpforlife.org (The defense and promotion of LIFE is not the ministry of a few but the responsibility of ALL.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Republican Red
Kerry is also divorced. How is it he is still considered a Catholic in good standing?

He may or may not be. We can't know unless he makes public the fact that he did or didn't receive an annulment from the Church.

An annulment, or "declaration of nullity," is a (fallible) determination by a Church tribunal that a marriage did not take place. In determining whether a declaration of nullity is justified, the Church only considers the time leading up to and including the wedding. What happens afterward is irrelevant.

This practice is based on Jesus' declaration that marriage is permanent. But the question arises of what constitutes a marriage. Clearly, a wedding of two drunks is invalid, for example. This is one criteria for granting an annulment. Another is coercion. Another is failure by either party to be open to the prospect of children or to consider marriage to be a lifelong union. Considering these facts, it should not be surprising that many annulments are granted in the US today. Like my priest says, "anyone who marries a Kennedy should receive an automatic annulment.

Although the judgment of the tribunal is fallible, Catholics are obligated to adhere to the tribunal's judgment out of obedience to legitimate authority.

162 posted on 01/29/2004 11:18:54 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
From Ann Coulter's latest:

"When Kerry was about to become the latest Heinz family charity, he sought to have his marriage to Thorne annulled, despite the fact that it had produced two children. It seems his second meal ticket, Teresa Heinz, wanted the first marriage annulled – and Heinz is worth more than $700 million. Kerry claims he will stand up to powerful interests, but he can't even stand up to his wife."

***

Can't tell from her column whether he DID or DIDN'T get the annulment he wished for (knowing the Catholic Church, he probably did). BUT if he DIDN'T, and the priest saying Mass knows it, he shouldn't allow Communion to Kerry for that reason alone. Although it should, his position on abortion wouldn't even have to enter into the equation.

Will ask same question at Coulter thread, which I am sure exists......
163 posted on 01/29/2004 11:30:26 AM PST by litany_of_lies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy; JohnnyZ; Right Wing Professor
Looks like Post 98 answers (he asked for but never got one, though a link would be helpful if it's convenient to provide).

If true (no annulment), PLEASE don't tell me Kerry and Heinz got married in a fully sanctioned Catholc rite.

Unless there's a loophole I haven't heard of, if he has no annulment, he can't "confess" his way into receiving the sacraments, PERIOD.
164 posted on 01/29/2004 11:38:21 AM PST by litany_of_lies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: litany_of_lies
It implies here that they were married at his home 'under a canopy'. That would seem to rule out a Catholic wedding.

They also have a pre-nup. Evidently, Teresa Heinz doesn't trust him, but thinks we should.

165 posted on 01/29/2004 11:50:59 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Wow. The Church has changed from when I took religion class. How did they justify that?

Annulments are a sad business--but a big business in the contemporary American Church. It appears that just about any marriage--any length of time, any number of children--can get itself declared "null" on PSYCHOLOGICAL grounds, the idea that one or both parties didn't really go into it with the right sort of mindset. Thomas More is no doubt spinning in his grave.

It's really the same abnegation of values that allowed so many in the Church to justify sexual misconduct by the priests and bishops. But this scandal has many, many defenders, not a few of them here on Free Republic, because so very many American Catholics have gotten caught up in our easy-divorce culture but have felt the need to return to the sacraments. Next thing you know, their first marriage has gone up in smoke, their second (or even third) has been blessed by the Church, and they're back at the altar taking communion.

166 posted on 01/29/2004 12:00:53 PM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
Excuse my density in reading your post.

I presume by your "that wasn't in the eyes of the Church" you mean he actually got the annulment (10 years after the secular divorce-GMAFB).

If true, this should be Exhibit A for how the American Catholic hierarchy has totally lost its way.

Again if true, we are all paying the price for the Church's permissiveness now. Kerry's viability as a candidate would be greatly reduced, even in this secular age, if he remarried without an annulment and was still trying to pretend to be Catholic.
167 posted on 01/29/2004 12:09:06 PM PST by litany_of_lies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
When Kerry was about to become the latest Heinz family charity, he sought to have his marriage to Thorne annulled, despite the fact that it had produced two children. It seems his second meal ticket,

Coulter is NOT saying the annulment was granted, only that he SOUGHT one. I think if he was granted one and Coulter knew, she would have said so.
168 posted on 01/29/2004 12:36:54 PM PST by litany_of_lies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Why should this be a problem, I thought Kerry was Jewish...

In New York City, he's Jewish. In Boston, he's Catholic.

169 posted on 01/29/2004 12:40:35 PM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: litany_of_lies
Coulter doesn't have any personal knowledge about Kerry's private life and how he stands with the church. Her comments were based on newspaper and internet reports about Kerry asking for an annulment in 1997.

I believe it is unlikely that he has gotten an annulment. We know (from newspaper and internet reports) that his first wife is fighting it. (Just like Kennedy's first wife has.)

But I don't think anybody outside of the principals knows whether the case is still pending or whether the tribunal has made its decision.

(On a tangent, this might have been mentioned already--I don't feel like plowing through the other posts--but as many probably already know, JFK (the first), who is JFKerry's role model had his first marriage annulled.)
170 posted on 01/29/2004 12:44:10 PM PST by Hon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: litany_of_lies
BTW, by all accounts Kerry asked for the annulment in 1997, which was two years after his marriage to Teresa--in a civil ceremony.
171 posted on 01/29/2004 12:50:42 PM PST by Hon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Hon
Actually, the significance of that point (asking for annulment two years after marrying Heinz) eluded me.

First, I would guess his marriage hasn't been annulled-it is tougher to get one if the original spouse opposes or won't cooperate in the hearing phases. Plus, I would think/hope that the archdiocese's reaction would be "....and you're just now getting around to it!!??"

His annulment request, even if it was successful, strikes me as a purely political calculation, on exactly the same level as Bill Clinton's signing up for the military and then excusing and dodging his way out of it to maintain his "political viability." There's no other "reasonable" explanation to wait until two years after consummating a second civil marriage to apply (esp since Kerry-Heinz have no kids from their marriage, which would actually constitute a good reason to clean things up).

This means he has excommunicated HIMSELF. He has no business inside a Catholic Church. Even in this secular age, that issue will resonate with enough Catholics to hinder his electability. 40 years ago, he'd be total toast.
172 posted on 01/29/2004 1:10:06 PM PST by litany_of_lies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ; cpforlife.org
Re: Post No. 20 [However, many Catholic clergy have long supported the liberal "social justice" agenda espoused by Kerry and the like and cannot bring themselves to support George Bush who has done more to limit abortion than any President since Reagan.]

Regarding social justice, the Priests for Life newsletter for January-February 2004 (first-page) quotes from US Bishops, 1998, Living the Gospel of Life, as follows:

Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the rightness of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community.

The same article quotes Pope John Paul II, 1988, The Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World (Christifideles Laici), n.38) as follows:

Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights--for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture--is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

The article also says: It is difficult to go wrong when we are quoting our own bishops and Pope!

I'm saving this article to use as a good comeback when fellow Catholics try to justify voting for pro-abortion politicians by insisting that, although personally opposed to abortion, they don't want to vote on one issue only.

173 posted on 01/29/2004 7:25:08 PM PST by trustandhope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
This would never happen ... money talks.
174 posted on 01/29/2004 7:26:12 PM PST by Fitzcarraldo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trustandhope
"I'm saving this article..."

Always a good idea to save from Fr. Frank!

I'd also like to offer this as a sharpened version from yours truly: http://cpforlife.org/id126.htm

Coming soon to a thread near you.
175 posted on 01/29/2004 7:34:09 PM PST by cpforlife.org (The defense and promotion of LIFE is not the ministry of a few but the responsibility of ALL.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
His votes for abortion weren't really votes for abortion. They were votes for the "threat" of abortion.
176 posted on 01/29/2004 7:39:36 PM PST by Samwise (There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides the will of evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
"I'd also like to offer this as a sharpened version from yours truly: http://cpforlife.org/id126.htm"

THANK YOU!!

177 posted on 01/29/2004 7:43:38 PM PST by trustandhope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; Coleus; nickcarraway; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; TenthAmendmentChampion; ...
Read with salt in hands PING!
"Kerry was raised a Catholic, served as an altar boy, and once considered becoming a priest."

(Barf Alert!)

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/
president/articles/2004/01/30/
rivals_assail_remarks_on_abortion_south?mode=PF

Rivals assail remarks on abortion, South
By Patrick Healy, Globe Staff, 1/30/2004

GREENVILLE, S.C. -- Senator John F. Kerry, facing the increased attention that comes with front-runner status, came under multiple attacks yesterday from rival Democrats over his recent remarks on abortion and winning Southern votes, while top Republicans assailed him as soft on national security.

Kerry struck back immediately with retorts that he and his advisers had crafted beforehand, a sign of his campaign's zeal for avoiding the political damage suffered by other Democrats who did not respond swiftly to attacks, including Howard Dean, who was weighed down by attacks from Kerry and other rivals when he was well ahead in early polls.

Advisers to one Democratic candidate circulated a newspaper article in Missouri -- which holds a key primary Tuesday that Kerry has targeted for victory -- that said Kerry personally opposed abortion "as an article of faith" because he is required to do so as a Catholic. Kerry added that a lawmaker should not "legislate his personal beliefs," according to a transcript of the interview with Missouri reporters, but that was not included in the published story.

Kerry was raised a Catholic, served as an altar boy, and once considered becoming a priest. Nevertheless, he said yesterday, "Whatever my personal beliefs are, they have no place here," and repeatedly stressed his view that the constitutional separation of church and state forbids lawmakers from regulating abortion based on their religious beliefs.

On a day when the seven Democratic candidates gathered here for a forum, rival John Edwards sought to sow doubt in Southern Democrats' minds about a key campaign theme of Kerry's -- that he is the most "electable" of the Democrats challenging President Bush. Edwards told reporters that the Massachusetts senator would be a "risk" as the party nominee because his mix of liberal and centrist views would not appeal to Southern voters.

"We've never elected a Democrat in the United States without winning at least five Southern states," Edwards said. "If Democrats across the country want to take a risk that for the first time in American history that's a possibility, then they can do that."

Voters in both Iowa and New Hampshire expressed similar concerns in the weeks before Kerry's recent victories in those states. He reassured them -- in comments that Edwards and others are now seizing upon -- by saying that he would compete in the South but didn't necessarily have to do well there during the general election. Instead, he said, he would seek to win all of the states that Al Gore carried in 2000, plus New Hampshire, Ohio, or West Virginia.

Yesterday, Kerry said his remark was not tantamount to writing off the South, but rather that it was "merely a comment on mathematical counting."

"It is not possible for me in my strategy to not campaign in the South and not win states in the South, and I intend to," Kerry said during a stop at Midlands Technical College in Columbia, S.C., where he picked up a key endorsement from the state's senior black congressman, James E. Clyburn.

"I've been to Alabama, to Tennessee, to Arkansas, to Florida, to Georgia, obviously to South Carolina," Kerry added. "I think it is time that we create a new coalition in America. In my race for the presidency, I intend to prove that we are indeed `one America,' " a phrase that Edwards has invoked for months.

Kerry also fended off a new line of attack from Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie, who said yesterday that the four-term senator had consistently opposed greater defense spending and laws that Gillespie said enhanced US national security.

While Kerry plans to use his Vietnam War service record and his foreign policy expertise as a bulwark to Republican attacks on his national security credentials, Gillespie drew a distinction between Kerry's experience as a soldier and his Senate record.

"John Kerry's record of service in our military is honorable. But his long record in the Senate is one of advocating policies that would weaken our national security," Gillespie said at the RNC's winter meeting in Washington yesterday.

Kerry said he welcomed a debate pitting his views on defense and security against Bush's, and called Gillespie's remarks "the greatest form of flattery."

"I have voted for the largest defense budgets in the history of our country. I have voted for almost all weapon systems that we have today with few exceptions. Unfortunately, these are people who've never met a system they didn't like. I have," Kerry said.

Before last night's forum with his rivals, Kerry earned bragging rights in South Carolina as he won support from Clyburn, who had previously endorsed Representative Richard A. Gephardt.

Kerry, who toured the technical college's manufacturing learning lab with Clyburn before announcing the endorsement, said that the two men had become friends during some of Kerry's visits to the state, where he has not campaigned since Sept. 12.

"I've had some good times with him, learned how to talk over the loud noise in a garage in a fish fry, and dance a bit late at night," Kerry said.

"I wouldn't call that dancing," Clyburn interjected.

"I thought for a white guy I showed some rhythm," Kerry replied. "I guess I'll have to take a few more lessons. I'm ready for it, folks, come on at it. Bring it on!"

Globe staff member Raja Mishra contributed to this report. Patrick Healy can be reached at phealy@globe.com.

© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
178 posted on 01/30/2004 10:34:38 AM PST by cpforlife.org (The defense and promotion of LIFE is not the ministry of a few but the responsibility of ALL.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: petitfour
I believed she divorced Ari Onassis.
179 posted on 01/30/2004 12:18:18 PM PST by LauraJean (Fukai please pass the squid sauce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ
It is not if there was a great difference in the social views of Bush and Kerry on most matters. I believe that many bishops simply cannot bring themselves to abandon their family loyalties to the Democratic Party.
180 posted on 01/30/2004 6:39:31 PM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Republican Red
Kerry is still considered a Catholic even though he divorced his first wife. Yet, we don't know if Kerry is able to take the sacrament of communion during Mass, or if he is eligible to have the last vows administered to him on his death. The fact that he now wants an annulment of his first marriage makes him out to be a hypocrite like RFK's eldest son.

I blame the Catholic church for starting this irresponsible behavior. The Catholic church takes hypocritical positions, depending on who the person is, their power, and what they can do for the Church. The Church is like any other political organization -- power is the name of the game.

What is intriguing to me is how quiet the Church has been on this issue -- I have not read anything that states whether or not Kerry has received an annulment. If he is successful in getting his first marriage annulled, it should make his two daughters feel great that they are bastards.

I am not anti-Catholic, I am anti-hypocrisy. Does America need a man like Kerry for President? I hope we all think hard on this question?
181 posted on 02/13/2004 7:35:07 PM PST by Irreverent Doyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-181 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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