Posted on 10/08/2004 1:54:12 PM PDT by Diago
JOHN KERRY'S RELIGION September 28, 2004
by Joe Sobran
In his convention acceptance speech, John Kerry made a brief, vague reference to his "faith" and skipped over the subject even more quickly than he did his political career. A few months ago, it appeared that Kerry might have trouble with some Catholic bishops if he tried to take Communion, because of his consistent advocacy of abortion.
But Kerry and his defenders insisted that he was a Catholic in good standing, and the issue faded away. Still, there were unanswered questions about how seriously Kerry took his Catholicism. Had he gotten his first marriage annulled before marrying Teresa Heinz? Why did he attend Protestant services instead of Catholic Mass, even taking communion in the Protestant rites -- things Catholics have always been forbidden to do?
A long profile of Mrs. Kerry in THE NEW YORKER casually answers some of these questions. Judith Thurman writes, "After a brief courtship, a short period of cohabitation, and the signing of a prenuptial agreement, the Kerrys were married in a civil ceremony on Nantucket in 1995."
There is a world of meaning here for Catholics, and for anyone who takes Kerry's professions of faith seriously. He and his wife, both baptized Catholics, are living together in defiance of Catholic teaching. In the eyes of the Church, their marriage is invalid: Catholics may not marry outside the Church. The issue of abortion aside, the Kerrys are both ineligible to receive Communion.
Catholic rules on this are ancient and firm. They are no longer firmly enforced, since the Second Vatican Council has created (or been used to spread) the false impression that the "old rules" have somehow lapsed. In fact, annulments are now scandalously easy to obtain. It's become common for long-married couples with several children to get rulings that their marriage never existed. Annulments, once rare, have become the Catholic answer to no-fault divorce.
Which makes it all the more remarkable that Kerry didn't bother to wait for an annulment (which he claims to have belatedly applied for recently) before marrying the widowed Teresa Heinz. This confirms the suspicion that Kerry is, in fact, a thoroughly secularized man, whose regard for Catholicism is minimal.
And if Kerry takes Communion in Catholic churches, he is, in Catholic eyes, committing the grave sin of sacrilege -- receiving the Body of Christ unworthily, as St. Paul puts it. This would also make him a hypocrite.
Some Catholic moral theologians argue that a prenuptial agreement makes a marriage invalid as well, since it shows that the parties are already contemplating divorce. They are supposed to be committing themselves to an indissoluble union. Nor may they cohabit before marrying.
To Catholics, all this is far more significant than the details of Kerry's war record. He has tried to represent himself as a faithful Catholic, when he simply is not, and he knows it. His long record of promoting abortion is only part of the picture.
Kerry has belatedly scrambled to say he disapproves of abortion, but nothing in his record gives the slightest hint of moral reservations about killing the unborn. This is simply the pro forma "personally opposed" gesture of nominally Catholic liberal politicians, as familiar as it is empty. Kerry in fact has favored even grisly late-term abortions, which the late Senator Patrick Moynihan, otherwise another pro-abortion Catholic, bluntly called "infanticide." The crushing of an infant's skull in the birth canal, with the extraction of its brain, isn't something to which you should merely be "personally opposed"; it's something that should make you sick.
But what else should we expect of a liberal Massachusetts Democrat who has always idolized the Kennedys? In 1960, when John Kennedy became the first Catholic to be elected president of the United States, some people worried that he would act as a tool of the Vatican. Nobody need have the least worry that President John Kerry would let his Catholicism slow him down. Neither did President Kennedy, but we would learn that only much later.
Kerry's religious ambiguity is one large reason he seems so hard to pin down. What does he really believe, and what difference does it make? He hasn't been pressed on his religious views as he has been on his Vietnam days, but he has featured his religion too as a key part of his makeup. It would be no intrusion on his privacy to ask him, politely, how his voting record would be different if he were non-Catholic -- or, for that matter, anti-Catholic.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read this column on-line at "http://www.sobran.com/columns/2004/040928.shtml".
Wow. That's the most rational article by Mr. Sobran that I've read in years.
When will the church put its foot down on this nonsense of Kerry?
The swift boats pressed him about vietnam the media defended him. The Catholic Church has taken him to task and again the Anti-Catholic media defended him, do we see a pattern here, Yet they say bush lost the debate stop.
w2004
ciao
I'm much more comfortable with a candidate who keeps his personal beliefs out of his decisions as someone in public office. America is not a theocracy. Bush and his 'pipeline to God' disgust me.
Conservative Christianity (at least the kind that's in the White House) is a faith motivated by fear and it will NEVER take over this country.
Your anti-Christian bigotry and hatred is well represented in the modern Democratic party.
I thought Bush was evil because he was a middle aged whited male. Who knew, you troll.
Its impossible to separate personal beliefs and decisions. Personal beliefs are the underpinning for values and morals.
I'm perfectly comfprtable with Mr. Bush's belief system. Nobody knows what Kerry believes, including Kerry.
That's a profoundly ignorant thing to say; I really have difficulty believing that you're not a troll with a flamethrower re: this thread. Have some sense.
So, in your estimation, how exactly is someone to make decisions in public office? Should a Senator or Representative, take a constituent poll every time they make a vote?
No! An elected official should vote their personal beliefs on the matter. If someone believes abortion is wrong, then vote against it, if they believe it's okay, then they should vote for it.
I am a Conservative Christian. Yet, I would take an atheist who voted by their personal beliefs, over someone like Kerry, who claims Christianity, yet holds none of the beliefs of Christianity (or at least you can't see their supposed beliefs in how they vote).
I really doubt there are any wolves dressed in sheep's clothing in the churches. If they want in the church why would they dress up like sheep?
George W. Bush is a born-again Christian; john faux kerry is a hollywood christian.
But Kerry and his defenders insisted that he was a Catholic in good standing,...? Kerry and his defenders insisted that all of his medals were earned, Kerry and his defenders insisted that the swift boat vets were lying, Kerry and his defenders insisted that Bush made all the wrong choices by going into Iraq, Kerry and his defenders insisted that he WAS in Cambodia, Christmas of 1968, Kerry and his defenders insisted, Kerry and his defenders, Kerry and his defenders blah, blah, blah....we`ve heard it all before. Why does Kerry NEED defenders? Can`t he defend himself?
Kerry servers one master but being a fool he thinks that master is a generous one - sorry Kerry that master hates those created by his nemesis and will burn those who come to him your future is without hope!
That is one scary looking troll, looks like he could be from one of the Night Gallery episodes. I could put him in my garden to keep away the possum that keeps trying to eat the cat food.
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.