Skip to comments.
[Bombshell: KERRY not validly married?] MEDIA INTEREST IN KERRY’S CATHOLICISM GROWS
Catholic League ^
| April 2, 2004
| William Donohue
Posted on 04/02/2004 11:15:30 PM PST by Notwithstanding
Catholic League president William Donohue commented as follows:
The Catholic League does not possess a theological micrometer that judges, with digital precision, how good a Catholic is. Furthermore, it is not our business anyway. But it is also true that we will not pretend disinterest in subjects that touch on the issue of Catholics in public life.
This weeks issue of Time magazine says Senator John Kerry sought an annulment of his 18-year first marriage before marrying again. News reports indicate, however, that Kerry didnt seek an annulment until after he married Teresa Heinz in a civil ceremony in 1995. Todays New York Times says Kerry sought an annulment from the church when he was divorced from his first wife. Notice that neither Time nor the New York Times says that an annulment was granted. They say it was sought.
Kerry cannot claim that this is a private matter since he publicly joked about his quest for an annulment on the Don Imus show of May 8, 1997. Seventy-five percent of all annulments in the world take place in the United States, Kerry said, and I guess the figure drops to 50 percent if you take out all Massachusetts politicians. He continued saying, Its one of those special Catholic things. Its like confession or feeling guilty about things you havent even thought of doing.
On February 16, 2004, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Kerrys office didnt respond to several e-mail and telephone requests regarding the question of whether an annulment was granted. On March 23, 2003, the Providence Journal-Bulletin said that Kerry will not say whether he obtained an annulment of his first marriage
. Why the reticence, especially since Kerry says his current marriage is in good graces with the church?
Why does this matter? If Kerry did not receive an annulment, then he is not married in the Catholic Church and cannot receive the sacraments. But even if he was annulled, did he and Teresa Heinz get married in the Catholic Church following the annulment? If not, then Kerry is not married in the Church, thus raising all sorts of questions.
TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2004; annulment; catholicchurch; catholicpoliticians; galante; kerry; kerryandgod; teresaheinz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 181 next last
To: A.A. Cunningham
Are all the orders of the Jesuits and annals of the Vatican of public knowledge?
101
posted on
04/03/2004 7:02:31 AM PST
by
Cvengr
(;^))
To: zarf
The matter IS important to Catholics. And also guess what? The head of state of the United States is in a position to have meetings or audiences or whatever you want to call them with the Head of the Vatican - the Pope. This could get very interesting indeed.
102
posted on
04/03/2004 7:10:06 AM PST
by
NotJustAnotherPrettyFace
(Michael <a href = "http://www.michaelmoore.com/" title="Miserable Failure">"Miserable Failure"</a>)
To: BurbankKarl
If I recall my Catholicism correctly, back in the day, children of an anulled marriage were not allowed to participate in the Church...as they were seen as illegitimate. I am sure this has all been changed.Whoa, Karl, pull out your Code of Canon Law! The children of annulled marriages are seen as innocent victims of their parents and are considered legitimate. What the Church annuls is the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony not the civil marriage. In other words, the sacrament is declared invalid by those who first administered it.
103
posted on
04/03/2004 7:26:21 AM PST
by
pbear8
(no complaining...Thanks be to God)
To: SkyPilot
remember talking to one of the priests who was sought out by Rep. Joe Kennedy's former wife after she was devastated by the "annulment" that good ole Joe sought. He told me the whole practice was as dirty and corrupt as the selling of indulgences.
Knew this wouldn't take long. Instead of criticising Kerry, you have to go after the Church and the practice itself, and try to do a little Reformation Protestant association with indulgences. This thread should be a blast. Can't wait to read the rest of it.
To: zarf
It's kinda important to us Catholics. Our religion and morals actually matter to us. And when some scumball like Kerry tries to represent himself as one of us, we take it to heart.
To: Notwithstanding
I worked with a woman who was divorced and broke up another marriage, then marrying that man. She is forbidden to take Holy Communion in the Catholic Church. Will someone please explain to me why Kerry can waltz into a Catholic Church and take Holy Communion?
To: Notwithstanding
It's INSANE to even suggest that ANYONE can ANNUL a marriage after EIGHTEEN YEARS! I don't care what religion the person claims to be!
107
posted on
04/03/2004 7:30:07 AM PST
by
nmh
(Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
To: Notwithstanding
If John F'n Kerry is going to go around and tell the world he's a devote Catholic, then he needs to live within the guildelines of the church. Apparently he's not, thus proving again, he's a complete fraud.
108
posted on
04/03/2004 7:32:06 AM PST
by
Lucky2
(Go Yankees go... 2004 is the year to win the World Series!)
To: txzman
I think it's because being a Democrat and pro-abortion is almost a given. A scandal so beaten to death that, unfortunately, everyone accepts it as the way things are, i.e., not worth talking about. But, to say you've gotten an annulment, and lie about it, and actually be married tp twp women at the same time, at least in the Church's view, that's newsworthy.
To: Notwithstanding
Past media reports did not indicate the grounds on which Kerry sought to annul his marriage of 18 years, after it produced two children, and the campaign also declined to provide any explanation.
Sheer insanity as well - TWO kids! Then he meets the ketchup lady and goes from near homelessness to extreme wealth. What a shameless gigolo! The entire idea of annulment is bizarre UNLESS it is done quickly like a few days or a month but NOT EIGHTEEN Years LATER - that's a DIVORCE.
110
posted on
04/03/2004 7:34:56 AM PST
by
nmh
(Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
To: kcvl
Father McCloskey said, American bishops are "in a quandary" over just what to do about Catholic politicians who fail to uphold church doctrine on issues like abortion. Punitive measures like denying Mr. Kerry communion could backfire, he said.
A dissappointing quote. Our bishops are supposed to worry about upholding the faith, not political backlash.
To: netmilsmom
This is a big deal to anyone in communion with the church. However, I'd say 3/4ths of the Catholics in America today are not.
And unfortunately, the other 25% of us (I'm not one to talk about practicing devoutly, but my beliefs are conservative Catholic and loyal to the magistrate) probably are already voting Republican already.
To: Notwithstanding
kerry is nothing but an empty suit.
113
posted on
04/03/2004 7:41:34 AM PST
by
chiefqc
To: kcvl
But just last week he made a rare appearance on the Senate floor to vote against a bill that would make harming a fetus a separate offense during the commission of a crime. The vote put Kerry on the same side as abortion-rights advocates in opposing specific legal rights for the unbornand against nearly two-thirds of his fellow Senators. Funny how most of the newspaper articles on this bill didn't bother mentioning how Kerry voted. Still, I predict this vote will be huge down the road. It shows that he so fanatical about killing babies that he is willing to let thugs who kick in the belly of expectant mothers off the hook.
To: Notwithstanding
On March 23, 2003, the Providence Journal-Bulletin said that Kerry 'will not say whether he obtained an annulment of his first marriage
.' Why the reticence, especially since Kerry says his 'current marriage is in good graces with the church?'On March 23, 2003, the Providence Journal-Bulletin said that Kerry 'will not say whether he obtained an annulment of his first marriage
.' Why the reticence, especially since Kerry says his 'current marriage is in good graces with the church?'
CHECKMATE.
115
posted on
04/03/2004 7:46:15 AM PST
by
Ann Archy
(Abortion: The Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
To: onyx
only about the votes he hopes it will garner him. True .. but it usually help not to tell the pope to butt out and mine your own business
Kerry seems to be on a roll insulting catholic's and making a mockery of our religion
116
posted on
04/03/2004 7:47:11 AM PST
by
Mo1
(Do you want a president who injects poison into his skull for vanity?)
To: homemom
Have you seen this one
117
posted on
04/03/2004 7:49:27 AM PST
by
Mo1
(Do you want a president who injects poison into his skull for vanity?)
To: Jim Noble
Divorce is not an obstacle to receiving the Sacraments. Let's reason through it logically. a) There is no such thing as "divorce" to the Catholic Church. b) Hence, without an annulment, civilly divorced people are still considered married in the Church. c) Civil law on marriage doesn't mean anything to the Church. It's just that civil law usually coincides with Catholic law, i.e., when one gets married in a Catholic Church, they are getting civilly married as well as the priest has the power vested in him by the state of so and so to ordain a marriage.
So, a divorced man who is not living in sin with anyone else and is in a state of grace is still considered married to the Church, and eligible to receive the sacraments.
To: Mr. Thorne
I'm going to guess it depends on the society. I know Catholics are prohibited from being members of the Freemasons. Mostly because the Freemasons do represent themselves as a quasi-religious society, and their oaths talk about a more Deist form of God, which of course, the Catholic Church doesn't believe in.
To: Mo1
Hadn't seen it but did hear little bits of it. Thanks for pinging me to it.
This man just makes me sick. He is mocking the church. I'm not Catholic so I don't know all the details of annulments and such, but in our church Communion is taken seriously and it's perfectly clear that he is just mocking the Sacrement, the church, and ultimately God.
If he can take God's laws so lightly and flaunt them, what would he do to man's laws if he was president???
120
posted on
04/03/2004 8:02:09 AM PST
by
homemom
("A word to the wise ain't necessary. It's the stupid ones who need the advice." Bill Cosby)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 181 next 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson