Kerry Ignores Reproaches of Some Bishops

NYT via Drudge ^ | 04.11.04

[sinkspur]

Annulments are still hard to get. John Kerry tried and failed to get one before he married fellow Catholic Teresa Heinz Ketchup

Annulments are NOT hard to get. They take time, but over 50,000 annulments were granted in the US last year.

And, I've read reliable accounts that Kerry DID, in fact, get an annulment from his first wife.

Money is not a determining factor in who gets an annulment. It never has been.

[NeoCaveman]

Come on! Annulments are still hard to get.

Sadly, this isn't the case. Now adays the Church (at least in the U.S.) pretty much assumes the both spouses are crossing their fingers when they say "I do"

[Non-Sequitur]

Last I checked, abortion is taken care of by nothing less than the 10 commandments - i.e. that little provision about not killing.

Which, I suppose, would also explain the Church's condemnation of capital punishment. Yet nobody is talking about denying the sacraments to a politician who supports that.

And divorce is specifically condemned in Christ's own words in Matthew and Mark, and those like Kerry (or Gingrich and Reagan for that matter) who divorce and remarry are living adulterous lives. Yet we don't condemn those who support divorce. In fact we cheer them on as they make divorce easier and provide tax incentives for those who destroy their families. So by all means deny those who support abortion rights access to Communion, I don't have a problem with that. But advocate the same for those who support other positions that are contrary to church dogma, like capital punishment and divorce. It's only right, wouldn't you agree?

[NeoCaveman]

Which, I suppose, would also explain the Church's condemnation of capital punishment. Yet nobody is talking about denying the sacraments to a politician who supports that.

Anti-capital punishment is not a dogma of the Catholic Church. Never was. Never will be.

[Non-Sequitur]

Anti-capital punishment is not a dogma of the Catholic Church. Never was. Never will be.

Has anyone told the Pope that?

[NeoCaveman]

Has anyone told the Pope that?

Obviously. Or else he'd raise it to that level. As he is very much against capital punishment.

[dennisw]

See post #79. Legitimate Catholic Church annulments for traditional, historical, legitimate reasons are not that hard to get. Annulments outside those parameters, such as the one John Kerry sought, are still quite difficult though much less so for the Kennedys of Massachusetts

[sinkspur]

Legitimate Catholic Church annulments for traditional, historical, legitimate reasons are not that hard to get. Annulments outside those parameters, such as the one John Kerry sought, are still quite difficult though much less so for the Kennedys of Massachusetts

Dennis, I worked in a marriage tribunal role for ten years, ending in 1996.

You are simply wrong, not only about the "annulments outside those parameters," but also about money being needed to obtain such an annulment.

Psychological grounds form the basis for 99% of all anulments granted today, with "inability to form a sacramental union" being the most predominant.

[Romulus]

Still bluffing, are you?

What in your opinion is a "traditional, historical, legitimate" reason for an annulment? If this is the sort that's so routine, why is it that 40 years ago a full year would see only 500 or so annulments in the US, whereas today that number has swelled to 50,000? Has the Church only in the past 40 years discovered her own tradition and history?

You still have not explained why, with his Kennedy-sized bank account, Kerry's annulment isn't waiting for him in his Beacon Hill mailbox. Since you're so well-informed, what non-traditional marital impediments is the senator alleging to have invalidated his marriage to the first Mrs. Kerry? And why is his money no good with the Archdiocese of Boston?

You are wrong about this, as you were about annulments being a privilege of the rich, and your obstinate refusal to accept reliable information makes for an unedifying spectacle. I'm getting mighty tired of being informed about bureaucratic technicalities of Church law by a glib Jewish bigot. You don't know what you're talking about. Be gracious enough to admit you were wrong. Humility is liberating.

(BTW, there's no such thing as being "outside" a parameter.)

[GOPcapitalist]

Which, I suppose, would also explain the Church's condemnation of capital punishment.

Actually, that is this particular pope and from what I've read of it he condemns it only circumstantially to exclude places where it cannot be guaranteed that the offender will not be released. It is also the case that the majority of popes before him have not condemned it similarly. Abortion, on the other hand, has been consistently denounced by the church's theologians since roughly the first or second centuries.

And divorce is specifically condemned in Christ's own words in Matthew and Mark, and those like Kerry (or Gingrich and Reagan for that matter) who divorce and remarry are living adulterous lives.

The traditional way "out" of this in catholic circles is an annulment, which can legitimately occur under several circumstances, among them certain cases where adultery has already happened.

Yet we don't condemn those who support divorce.

You may not. Others, including most catholics, tend to believe that divorce procedures have become far too lax and should require some form of cause to be stated.

[Arthur McGowan]

Why? What did they say?

[A.A. Cunningham]

Read it.

[Arthur McGowan]

What is "it"? Councils produce documents. Which document?