Skip to comments.Vatican Official Tells TIME: 'There's a Problem With John Kerry...'
Posted on 03/28/2004 6:48:44 AM PST by truthandlife
The last time a major political party put forward a Roman Catholic candidate for President, he had to confront bigotry and suspicion that he would be taking orders from Rome. Forty-four years later, the Democrats are poised to nominate another Catholicanother Senator from Massachusetts whose initials happen to be J.F.K.and this time, the controversy over his religion may develop within the Catholic Church itself. Kerry's positions on some hot-button issues aren't sitting well with members of the church elite. Just listen to a Vatican official, who is an American: "People in Rome are becoming more and more aware that there's a problem with John Kerry, and a potential scandal with his apparent profession of his Catholic faith and some of his stances, particularly abortion."
But it's far from clear whether the greater political problem is Kerry's or the church's. "I don't think it complicates things at all," Kerry told TIME in an interview aboard his campaign plane on Saturday, the first in which he has discussed his faith extensively. "We have a separation of church and state in this country. As John Kennedy said very clearly, I will be a President who happens to be Catholic, not a Catholic President." Still, when Kennedy ran for President in 1960, a candidate could go through an entire campaign without ever having to declare his position on abortionmuch less stem cells, cloning or gay marriage. It was before Roe v. Wade, bioethics, school vouchers, gay rights and a host of other social issues became the ideological fault lines that divide the two political parties and also divide some Catholics from their church....
If anything, the church is getting tougher. The Vatican issued last year a "doctrinal note" warning Catholic lawmakers that they have a "grave and clear obligation to oppose any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them." When Kerry campaigned in Missouri in February, St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke publicly warned him "not to present himself for Communion"an ostracism that Canon Law 915 reserves for "those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin." Kerry was scheduled to be in St. Louis last Sunday, and told TIME, "I certainly intend to take Communion and continue to go to Mass as a Catholic."
But, inevitably, his religion and his politics will clash. Already, one employee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington says he has lost his job as a result of his political activities on Kerry's behalf.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Well said. Everyone is filled with this great pride, thinking they're big experts who can make important moral decisions based upon their gut reactions, and how they happen to feel each day.
It's A Personal Thing by Steve Taylor
The press conference
It's a personal thing, and I find it odd
you would question my believing in a personal God
I'm devout, I'm sincere, ask my mother if you doubt it
I'm religious, but I'd rather not get radical about it
the old-time believers had timidity and grace
but this new generation doesn't know its place
you're entitled to believe, but the latest Gallup Poll
says you mustn't interfere--that's the government's role
'Cause when you throw your hat in the bullring
before you know it's a personal thing
and when he comes to the day of reckoning
he's gonna tell 'em, "uh, uh, uh, it's a personal thing"
The nomination speech
It's a personal thing, and I boldly state
that my views on morality will have to wait
'til my personal life's out of the public eye
and the limitations statue can protect my alibi
I'm devout, I'm sincere, and I'm proud to say
that it's had exactly no effect on who I am today
I believe for the benefit for all mankind
in the total separation of church and mind
The victory night
It's a personal thing, and I plainly speak
(from the same code of ethics that I held last week)
as I promised if elected this election day
with the help of God almighty...I'll do it my way
Once again, Kerry puts his ignorance on display.
We're called to rebuke sinners.
2 Timothy 4:2
Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage with great patience and careful instruction.
Even God has occasionally lost patience with the his chosen people and had to correct them in order to turn them back to the correct path. How much patience must the Church have with a unrepentant and arrogant sinner.
I am not so good at quoting scripture but I recall that Paul had a few words to say about tolerating the presence of those whom habitually sin and will not repent.
I tried to search on the net for it, but one would really have to call the diocese, and I doubt they'd be forthcoming with the information.
Usually you must apply to the diocese wherein the marriage took place. On the net, one mentioned Washington, DC; the other mentioned Boston. The first wife was an heiress from Philadelphia, iirc, and if the wedding was in Philadelphia, then the annulment may have been applied for there.
If Kerry and his present wife were married in a Catholic church, which is required to be in good standing, someone might be able to dig it out where and by whom. I don't think any priest could officiate at a catholic wedding if there hadn't been an annulment process completed beforehand.
Should some cosmic cataclysm actually put Kerry in the White House this fall, I shudder to think of the photo ops we'll be treated to. Like Clintoon carrying his bible out of church on Sunday on his way to other "services", I can just see JF'gK now, piously toting his rosary in full view of the cameras, all on his way to make a speech to NARAL.
"In 1993 they began dating, and were married in the presence of her three sons and his two daughters on Memorial Day in 1995"
So if that is true, it doesn't *sound* like a church wedding, does it?
That narrows the search somewhat though. BTW, you can have a private or very small wedding in a catholic church.
Some catholics need to get on this.
And, a hypocrite.
But then, that's a given, eh.
"The year 1995 was important for another reason: Kerry was 51, with nearly two Senate terms behind him, and his youthful ambitions to run for president had fallen far off track. Now, though, an unexpected romance, followed by newfound family and wealth, would bring much needed order to his personal life -- and, eventually, set him back on that presidential path.
"On May 26, 1995, at an evening ceremony underneath a canopy, John Forbes Kerry exchanged gold rings with Teresa Heinz, the 56-year-old widow of Pennsylvania Senator H. John Heinz and one of the richest women in the country. Social and political glitterati gathered at Heinz's home on Nantucket Harbor. The couple had met at an Earth Conference in Brazil, where she heard Kerry singing at Mass in Portuguese, the language of her Mozambiquen youth. At the wedding, Peter Yarrow of the folk group Peter, Paul & Mary performed; Heinz wore peach Oscar de la Renta
m, I pinged you because you might know how to figure this out. Catholics normally must marry in the church, no? Not in an outside canopy, although there may be exceptions.:
You are correct Aliska, there are "norms", which means nothing to many catholics these days, unfortunately.
Even tho the wedding ceremony is allowed to be held outside of a church with special permission, out of sight of the main Altar and the Altar of Mary, this is highly discouraged. Those who choose to go this route most likely don't have God as the Guest of Honor Par Excellence. What more can I say.
Below is the appropriate section of Code of Canon Law 1983 in regards to this issue.
Can. 1118 §1 A marriage between Catholics, or between a catholic party and a baptized non-Catholic, is to be celebrated in the parish church. By permission of the local Ordinary or of the parish priest, it may be celebrated in another church or oratory.
§2 The local Ordinary can allow a marriage to be celebrated in another suitable place.
§3 A marriage between a catholic party and an unapprised party may be celebrated in a church or in another suitable place.
Now here is my 2 cents, taken from the cue of my wise old priest friend and canon lawyer. From observable actions over the years, I strongly suspect John Kerry had a "catholic wedding", but not a "catholic marriage". There is a major difference. Real catholics know what that is.
I don't think it's a money issue.
Anyone who is willing to lie can get an annulment-money is not really a factor, because if you don't have the $$, you don't have to pay the fee.
The real problem with the system is that the annulment is automatic (it's a divorce in all but name) as long as you have someone who can coach you in the magic words and (if the magic words don't pertain to your case) as long as you are willing to lie.
It is a not unreasonable solution for Catholics who are divorced, since they have no other sacramental solution-but it is apparant to anyone that there are not 60 000 Catholic marriages contracted by persons who actually lack capacity to marry, at least as the Church has traditionally understood capacity and marriage.
I think a lot of people are seeking annulments based on false claims. Others are truly entitled to one. My mother always comments about the falsified ones, "Do they think they are going to fool God?" When these applicants debase the process, they just show even more disrespect for their faith and its tenets. To me, they are no better than the "devout Catholics" who have affairs but "can't get a divorce because they are Catholic." (If I read that comment one more time about Spencer Tracy....) Anyway, it seems to me that the annulment process is really about church recognition of the invalidity of the marriage. If the marriage is valid/invalid in the eyes of God and under the rules of the church, then it is valid/invalid... even if the tribunal were to grant or deny an annulment mistakenly. I think this aspect of the process is recognized in the concept of the "internal forum." To me, it is a matter of respect for the faith and regularizing one's status in the church. But these phoney baloney annulments just because someone wants a big church wedding.... they truly are a disgrace. It's just a shame that some people who truly are entitled to an annulment don't pursue it, or are viewed as just going through the motions, because of people who have abused the process.
But even if a Catholic priest officiates, a marriage is not valid if one of the partners has a living spouse.
The priest is a witness, the ministers of the sacrament are the couple, and if one of them is married, that person lacks the capacity to minister the sacrament.
Right, but I understood the question to be whether the Catholic priest could officiate in a subsequent marriage taking place after the annulment. If Kerry's first marriage was nullified, then in the eyes of the church he did not have a living spouse and it would be acceptable to marry him in the church.
Here's the problem:
Very few priests or bishops accept Church teaching about this issue. They want an Orthodox solution, based on sacramental economy.
Because they can't get that, they manipulate the system the Roman Church has created to deal with this problem.
Make no mistake, it IS a problem-one which I know well.
Saying it better...."It is then up to the sinner to repent and seek reunion with GOD."
Doesn't there have to be a mass with reception of communion even if permission had been obtained to have it in the yard of your home?
If there was no priest or deacon officiating, that makes me suspect there was no annulment.
The other arguments aside as to the unbinding by annulment (I know that's not what it really is), if there is no priest or deacon officiating, I don't see how it can be a valid Catholic marriage.
If they are not in a valid Catholic marriage (accepting annulments as valid), he should not be receiving communion on that basis.
There is no mention in articles on the web any of the details of the wedding to indicate if a priest or deacon officiated.
Thanks for helping me with this. There is another thread on this and I dug out my canon law book, and it is as you say.
Anybody can say they got an annulment, but anybody seeking to have their marriage approved by the church must have a copy of the papers, at least the diocese or priest where the marriage took place or they can't perform a wedding.
I can't find out who officiated at the wedding, whether it was a priest or deacon or if a mass with the reception of communion was involved. In other words, I'm not convinced that it is a valid Catholic marriage at this point.
My point? Nancy and Ron were in a divorce/second marriage, so the public accepts that. If he is catholic and not in a valid marriage, he should not be receiving communion regardless of the other matter of being a pro-abortion politician. There have been words from on high about both issues.
This is also interesting (from the link you gave me):
"In remarks made Feb. 26 from the campaign trail, the presumed Sen. John Kerry unequivocally backed amending the Massachusetts Constitution to prohibit gay marriage, disappointing a number of the presumed Democratic presidential nominees gay supporters."
Kerry is now against gay weddings, but he's not against attending them:
I know. I have an annulment and have not remarried. Jesus didn't have any annulment rules. You were either married for life or you weren't. They argue about the "except for adultery/fornication", but let's not go there.
St. Paul, I believe, talked about couples where they couldn't live in peace over religion or whatever, and said let them depart, but he was silent over whether the parties involved were free to enter into a new marriage covenant.
Yes, that may be, but there still has to be a priest or deacon present. Obviously they can't concelebrate a mass in a protestant church, so I don't know there. I do remember reading that for certain cases (can't imagine what), permission can be given to marry in a protestant church.
You are correct that the diocese won't release the information. To avoid scandal, they should at least be willing to issue a statement saying aye or nay. The public is not entitled to the why's or wherefore's.
Marriages have to be public with witnesses; annulments are carried out in secret. Justly so, but the final result should be made public, at least to concerned catholics.
The JFK, Jr. marriage was odd. Was that a Catholic chapel they married in? They were very secretive about it (probably justified in such a high-profile person), but the Catholic conditions for a valid Catholic marriage had to be met. But I never heard about them going to church together or separately after that, so I don't know.
A Mass or Holy Communion is not a requirement for a Catholic Marriage between 2 baptised catholics, strictly speaking, but an official witness of the Church is required, such as a priest or deacon with proper faculty, as well as 2 other witnesses, which could be the church janitor and the organist, if there are no other guests at the marriage in an extreme example.
The sacrament of Marriage is where the Bride and Groom are the celebrants, not the priest, who is only a witness.
The bishop also has the power to grant dispensation in regards to the presence of a priest or deacon in rare and unusual circumstances and still recognize the Marriage. This is specially the case where a catholic marries a protestant in a protestant church where the protestant minister is the one officiating. Yes, kinda messy stuff.
The Church would recognize a "natural law marriage" outside of a Church, such as a city hall deal, but does not regard it as a sacramental marriage, which will require "regularization" to rectify the situation.
All the above are in general terms, I must say I am not familiar with Kerry's first or second marriage, have not researched them. But I do know he is one giving catholics serious scandals with his pro-abort stand.
Still it is a bit irregular and I can't help wondering if they got what they wanted because of their wealth. They are very tough on less well-heeled folks. It is all but impossible to get permission to get married in the pretty little gazebo in the park if you are catholic.
I'm sure there are a couple of catholic churches or chapels and a priest or two on Nantucket Island.
LOL ..... you know, money talks when it comes to getting the attention of a bishop, believe me. This is reality, not fantasy. I'd rather be discreet and don't intend to divulge too much on this.
Let me just relate one incident with a well respected K of C member in our community. One time, he mentioned that there will be no problem with any one of his family members getting a quicky annulment from the bishop. He so proudly announced that the bishop is quite aware of how he could get his 4 generations of catholic family as well as others to "cut the bishop off" with money.
Now, this particular gentleman probably need not to resort to his silver bullet policy these days. The reason is that most of the diocesan marriage tribunals across the US are simply too eager to give out annulments anyway. Many of these "canonists" are nothing but loophole mentality shysters, using the "mental and psychological blocks" as grounds for impediment to contract marriage. BTW, many flunky nuns with JCD serve on these tribunals.
No wonder the US accounts for about 75% of the total number of annulment worldwide. JP2 is very concerned about this.
While it is Possible that was a valid catholic wedding, the most telling point would be whether Kerry had gotten dispensation from the bishop, IN ADVANCE. Otherwise, the situation would not have been any different than a Vegas deal.
I have no first-hand knowledge about this (don't know anyone who bought off a bishop personally), but that rings true. It ought not to be that way. I did get an annulment shortly after I converted but haven't remarried, and it didn't cost me all that much and wouldn't have cost anything if I couldn't have afforded it.
It really has reached scandalous proportions in the US. I guess when you are an American, you have a right to whatever you want or what you can buy.
A lot of people are really hurt by this in other countries because they can't get them and see Americans getting them at the drop of a hat and merrily going along with their new lives.
That's not what the Vatican is concerned about. It is concerned about the separation of Church and John Kerry. He shouldn't be going around calling himself Catholic when he neither believes nor adheres to the tenets of his supposed faith. The Vatican just wants truth in advertising.
SPECIAL: Is the Church Serving Two Masters - Politicians and God?
3/16/2004 - 8:50 AM PST
by Barbara Kralis
As Senator John Kerry travels throughout the U.S. in his bid for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency, this pro abortion, dissenting 'Catholic' legislator receives sacrilegious Holy Communions wherever and whenever he attends the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Each and every Sunday, Senator Kerry enters a different parish, approaches the altar, receiving the Eucharist while obstinately refusing to obey the Church's clearly defined laws against his unlawful reception of Communion. Each parish receives advance notice of Kerry's clamorous arrival, yet, in parish after parish, both pastors, priests, deacons and lay extraordinary eucharistic ministers (EOEMs) willfully give Kerry sacrilegious Communions.
Can a minister of the Eucharist deny Holy Communion to Kerry, a manifest (publicly known), persistent, obstinate politician, on their own, without their bishop's permission? The Catechism teaches that all clergy who administer the Sacrament of the Eucharist to manifest, obstinate, persistent sinners also participate in this grave cardinal sin of sacrilege (CIC, n.1755). Isn't it clear they must deny these politicians the Eucharist?
In addition, all diocesan bishops, priests, deacons and lay EOEMs are ecclesiastically bound to obey Church law, regardless of whether their bishop or pastor does not obey. In fact, canon 915 places the responsibility on the minister - 'ne admittantur' - who, in some canonists' opinion, could be punished themselves according to canon 1389 §2, should he unlawfully administer the sacrament with the consequent danger of scandal for the rest of the faithful. Canon 1339 prescribes the possibility of punishing any person who causes grave scandal by any violation of a divine or ecclesiastical law.
Senator Kerry's bishop, Boston's Archbishop Sean O'Malley, allowed Kerry to receive sacrilegious Communion; in fact, O'Malley said he would not deny (pro abortion) Kerry the Eucharist if he approached the Altar at his Mass. To his credit, O'Malley did give Kerry (and Senator Ted Kennedy as well) both private and public warnings not to approach the altar, so why does O'Malley ignore his own warnings?
To further my point, the good Archbishop Raymond Burke, St. Louis, in contrast to Archbishop O'Malley, said that he (Burke) would deny Kerry the Eucharist if he were to present himself at his (Burke's) Mass. Is Archbishop Burke wrong and Archbishop O'Malley correct? I don't think so and neither does canon law.
Did you know that a minister of the Eucharist cannot be forced by his bishop or pastor to distribute the Eucharist to a known, manifest, persistent sinner. To do so would be to do evil so that a good may come from it (the good being, perhaps, not to embarrass the sinner). However, I suspect that many parish priests are afraid their bishops will punish them, take away their Faculties or rights to administer the Sacraments if they do not give the pro abortion politicians Communion.
Isn't it correct, then, that ministers of the Eucharist, nationwide, must deny the Eucharist to Kerry, regardless of whether or not Kerry's own bishop or pastor denies him? Should this sanction not apply to all manifest, obstinate, persistent politicians nationwide (and there are hundreds), not just Kerry?
Just recently, on Sunday, March 14, 2004, in Bethlehem, Pa. Msgr. Michael Chaback, S.T.D., pastor of the one hundred year old Slovak parish of SS.. Cyril and Methodius, disregarding the Church's clearly defined canons of the Church, distributed Holy Communion to the manifest, obstinate, persistent sinner Kerry, causing scandal for the faithful of his flock and to every faithful Catholic in the world. Scandal is the sin of another by any word or deed which is or appears to be evil, thus causing wrong thinking or acting in others.
At SS. Cyril and Methodius parish, a parishioner who wishes to remain anonymous told this writer that pro abortion Senator Kerry and his entourage came to Sunday Mass very late, during the homily, disrupting everyone in the church with his tardy and exhibitionist entrance. Moments later, Kerry approached the Altar and was given sacrilegious Holy Communion. Most parishioners watched in shock.
A perfect example of giving scandal to the faithful is what took place after Kerry's Mass. I was told that many parishioners remained outside of Church and asked one another if abortion was still a sin, or did the Church change her teachings on this murder. Some laity argued that it's not a sin to vote for the pro abortion Democrat John Kerry because the pastor gave him Communion. Others argued that the pastor sinned by failing to deny the Senator. Most of these people, confused and angry, left Church wondering what the Church really teaches. Several people said they were leaving the parish, that giving Kerry the Eucharist was the 'last straw.'
SS. Cyril and Methodius is also the parish of another pro abortion legislator, democrat State Legislator T.J. Rooney. Rooney, his wife and children, attends the parish each Sunday, and each Sunday, pro abortion legislator Rooney receives sacrilegious Holy Communion by the parish clergy.
Like legislator Rooney, John Kerry also says that he is a faithful Catholic in good standing, yet promises Americans that if elected: "I will not overturn Roe v Wade; I will not appoint judges hostile to 'choice;' I will allow poor women to have free abortions; I will never outlaw abortion; I will increase American taxpayer's dollars on population control efforts around the world."
In other words, Kerry has set himself outside of the Catholic faith and has incurred, according to canon law 1398, a common excommunication, latæ sententiæ, a censure incurred by the very fact of committing a crime.
Why is the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and it's President, Bishop Wilton Gregory, silent on this subject? Canon 1369 tells all bishops: "A person is to be punished with a just penalty who gravely harms public morals." Who could refute the fact that for years Senator Kerry has participated in abortion by writing, endorsing, encouraging and passing pro abortion and pro sodomite legislation.
Doesn't the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's note "Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life" carry any authority with American Bishop's and clergy? Is there an American schism taking place, as many Catholic Church observers have suggested in recent years?
Some have suggested that the silence of the Bishops is due to the fact that U.S. clergy overwhelmingly vote as Democrats and do not want to offend their leaders. A recent poll suggested this was the case, at least, in the diocese of Chicago.
According to an exclusive Illinois Leader analysis of the voting habits of the Chicago Archdiocese's voting Catholic priests, more than 75% of them sided with Democrats in the March 2002 primary election. Consequently, many U.S. Catholics are receiving a message from some priests and bishops, however subtle, that the Church wishes them to vote for the Democrat Party, the official abortion party in America. Is this why many of our pulpits are silent on the infallible Church teachings regarding morals and faith, teachings that definitely offend Democrats?
Will the Catholic Bishops be responsible for the election of pro abortion, pro euthanasia John Kerry because the message they are currently sending to all Americans is that being pro abortion is not a grave offense against God?
Could the real reason be U.S. Bishops fear losing their Catholic tax exemption on their land and assets nationwide? The typical tax on a Cathedral in any given U.S. city is approximately $400,000.00 per year. Do some U.S. bishops fear offending powerful politicians, let's use John Kerry and Ted Kennedy as an example, who will later present legislation to take away the Catholic Church's tax exemptions on it's many properties?
Dear Bishops, let God worry about the money. You must be courageous shepherds over your flock, even at the risk of losing your life, if necessary. You cannot serve two masters.
Barbara Kralis, the article's author, writes for various Catholic and conservative publications. She and her husband Mitch live in the great State of Texas, and codirect the Jesus Through Mary Foundation. She can be reached at: Avemaria@earthlink.net
Contact: Jesus Through Mary Foundation
http://www.catholic.org TX, US
Barbara Kralis - Director, 903-532-5555
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.