Vatican Official Tells TIME: 'There's a Problem With John Kerry...'

Time.com ^ | 4-5-04 | KAREN TUMULTY AND PERRY BACON JR.

[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 Catholic—another 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 abortion—much 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.

[Bismarck]

You don't need to be a Catholic to know that there's something wrong with Kerry.

[Aquinasfan]

It is then up to the sinner to repent and seek reunion with the Church.

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.

[Mike Bates]

Yes, there's a problem - maybe even more than one - with John F as in Fonda Kerry. But maybe the electorate will figure it out before November.

[Pontiac]

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.

[Squantos]

FYI.............Stay safe !

[Aliska]

I noticed in the Time article, it mentioned he had sought an annulment of his first marriage. Has anyone found out if he did?

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.

[workerbee]

it just showed Kerry is a "stickler" for maintaining his nominal Catholicism for campaign purposes.

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.

[Aliska]

If found this on a Kerry website:

"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.

[Aliska]

I narrowed the search further. They were married in Nantucket, Massachusetts on May 26, 1995.

Some catholics need to get on this.

[kittymyrib]

How many of these who voted against punishing crimes against unborn children are Catholics? I seem to recognize quite a few of them. But talk is cheap. The priests who communed Kerry ought to be disciplined by their bishops, or it means nothing.

[Thumper1960]

Kerry's a "Catholic", alright....a "cafeteria Catholic".

And, a hypocrite.

But then, that's a given, eh.

[Aliska]

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.:

"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

Source: Boston Globe article June 21, 2003

[Aliska]

Please see my post #72 on this thread. Doesn't answer your question, but it sheds some light on where to look and start asking. What diocese is Nantucket in? Boston?

[Conservative til I die]

I'm not Catholic, but if the church says he cannot take communion because of his pro-abortion votes and whatever other offenses he's committed, it seems offensive - and it should offend Catholic voters - that he thinks he can (just like he did while on vacation on Idaho). He's thumbing his nose at the church, big time.

He's profaning the Sacrament. He may as well take a piss on the Communion plate.

And he'll rot in Hell if he doesn't make amends. I say that not as a Republican but as a Catholic.

[meatloaf]

Here's something I found. Apparently he did get an annulment from the Boston Diocese.

http://www.washblade.com/2004/3-5/news/national/kerryback.cfm

[GraceCoolidge]

Thank you for posting the Blade article. It is the first one I've seen (other than an Andrew Sullivan column that mentioned this in passing) that states the annulment was granted. I had read that Kerry's first wife objected to it, but nothing conclusive on the result.

[oldironsides]

Mrs. Heinz wanted the annulment. It is a game Catholics play to save face and keep rabid Catholic aunts off yer butt. It should be reserved for special cases but it is much abused by those that can afford it. It is an insult to a Catholic mate of many years that shares children from the marriage. The book by Congressman Joe Kennedy's first wife was a result of the Kennedy annulment quest and how it affected her. The church is as guilty of misusing the annulment as the Catholic that wants one. My multi married sister in law got one after due time and money spent.
The second husband should have gotten a medal of honor for
even living with her for as long as he did. She is a well educated operator and manipulator. She never attends church but she wanted it. Poor guy is better off.

[GraceCoolidge]

PS: On your posts: 1. A Catholic normally would marry in a church, but I seem to recall that requirement can be waived. I thought, however, that the ceremony had to be in a religious venue. For instance, I know Catholics can get married in non-denominational chapels (like at a university). I'm not sure, but I believe the key fact would be if the celebrant was a Catholic priest. I seem to vaguely recall that a Catholic could get married at his/her home with proper dispensation. 2. As to second point, re. contacting church authorities in certain locations, I can pretty much assure you there is no way that any tribunal is going to release any information about an annulment to any third party.

[m4629]

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.:

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.

[Jim Noble]

It should be reserved for special cases but it is much abused by those that can afford it.

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.