I do not think for a minute that this is a “Kennedy Annulment†and I certainly don’t judge this man; I didn’t even opine that he should not be ordained. Further, I didn’t imply he had done anything sinful. For argument’s sake, let’s assume he was the innocent party in a marriage that was sacramentally invalid through no fault of his own. I simply said I wished his personal history were not public because it is confusing to see a priest who has been divorced. It is because this is undoubtedly a good, devout man that it is troubling: people in troubled marriages see in a position of authority a manifestly good person whose marriage failed, but who went on to good life without his spouse. It may be demoralizing to married people.
Fair ‘nuff.
I should have cleared your name out of the reply to. My response looked as though I was addressing you, when I was speaking in general.
I apologize for any confusion this may have caused.