AS KERRY EMERGES, SO DOES CONCERN THAT AS PRESIDENT HE MAY BE DENIED COMMUNION

Spirit Daily ^ | 1-29-04

[cpforlife.org]

The emergence of Senator John Kerry as a presidential candidate raises crucial questions about how bishops may react, seeing that he presents himself both as a staunchly pro-choice politician and as a practicing Catholic. The issue is of immediate moment, for it is a time when bishops across the United States -- including on Kerry's home turf of Boston -- have been issuing statements or even canonical declarations warning those who favor abortion to abstain from the Eucharist.

Kerry represents Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate and hails from Boston. He has seized control of the Democratic primaries -- at least for the moment -- and professes to paid heed to his religion. "I am a believing and practicing Catholic, married to another believing and practicing Catholic," he has been quoted as saying.

But only a week ago, newly-installed Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley struck out against pro-choicers like Kerry, telling a Catholic website called LifeSiteNews.com, "These politicians should know that if they're not voting correctly on these life issues that they shouldn't dare come to Communion."

Those words appear at great odds with Kerry's voting record and may put him on a collision course with the Church, should he ever assume control of the Oval Office. In fact Kerry even opposes a ban on partial-birth abortion. According to his campaign website: "John Kerry believes that women have the right to control their own bodies, their own lives, and their own destinies. He believes that the Constitution protects their right to choose and to make their own decisions in consultation with their doctor, their conscience, and their God. He will defend this right as President. He recently announced he will support only pro-choice judges to the Supreme Court. Kerry also believes that we should promote family planning and health plans should assure women contraceptive coverage.

These positions are the perfect opposite of the Church's, and if elected his standing as a "practicing" Catholic could generate significant -- and perhaps even monumental controversy -- leaving open the possibility that America's second Catholic President could become the first to be prohibited from receiving Holy Communion, the Church's defining sacrament.

Just last November Archbishop Raymond L. Burke -- now in St. Louis but at the time bishop of LaCrosse, Wisconsin -- issued a canonical notification prohibiting the Eucharist for pro-choice lawmakers.

"Catholic legislators who are members of the faithful of the Diocese of La Crosse and who continue to support procured abortion or euthanasia may not present themselves to receive Holy Communion," said the notification. "They are not to be admitted to Holy Communion, should they present themselves, until such time as they publicly renounce their support of these most unjust practices." The document repeated the Vatican's teaching that Catholics involved in lawmaking have a "grave and clear obligation to oppose" any measure that is an attack on human life. "For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them," it says.

This was followed by a statement by New Orleans Archbishop Alfred C. Hughes -- who less than two weeks ago said that "the Louisiana bishops are sending a copy of this document to each of our elected Catholic public officials in Baton Rouge and Washington. When Catholic officials openly support the taking of human life in abortion, euthanasia or the destruction of human embryos, they are no longer faithful members in the Church and should not partake of Holy Communion. Moreover, citizens who promote this unjust taking of human life by their vote or support of such candidates share in responsibility for this grave evil."

The need is to pray for the potential leaders, as opposed to simple condemnation. Can John Kerry return to faithful Catholicism?

[cpforlife.org]

Wheels of the Church..........................................S-L-O-W

At the cost of millions of lives and millions more souls.

[Aquinasfan]

Kerry is also divorced. How is it he is still considered a Catholic in good standing?

He may or may not be. We can't know unless he makes public the fact that he did or didn't receive an annulment from the Church.

An annulment, or "declaration of nullity," is a (fallible) determination by a Church tribunal that a marriage did not take place. In determining whether a declaration of nullity is justified, the Church only considers the time leading up to and including the wedding. What happens afterward is irrelevant.

This practice is based on Jesus' declaration that marriage is permanent. But the question arises of what constitutes a marriage. Clearly, a wedding of two drunks is invalid, for example. This is one criteria for granting an annulment. Another is coercion. Another is failure by either party to be open to the prospect of children or to consider marriage to be a lifelong union. Considering these facts, it should not be surprising that many annulments are granted in the US today. Like my priest says, "anyone who marries a Kennedy should receive an automatic annulment.

Although the judgment of the tribunal is fallible, Catholics are obligated to adhere to the tribunal's judgment out of obedience to legitimate authority.

[litany_of_lies]

From Ann Coulter's latest:

"When Kerry was about to become the latest Heinz family charity, he sought to have his marriage to Thorne annulled, despite the fact that it had produced two children. It seems his second meal ticket, Teresa Heinz, wanted the first marriage annulled – and Heinz is worth more than $700 million. Kerry claims he will stand up to powerful interests, but he can't even stand up to his wife."

***

Can't tell from her column whether he DID or DIDN'T get the annulment he wished for (knowing the Catholic Church, he probably did). BUT if he DIDN'T, and the priest saying Mass knows it, he shouldn't allow Communion to Kerry for that reason alone. Although it should, his position on abortion wouldn't even have to enter into the equation.

Will ask same question at Coulter thread, which I am sure exists......

[litany_of_lies]

Looks like Post 98 answers (he asked for but never got one, though a link would be helpful if it's convenient to provide).

If true (no annulment), PLEASE don't tell me Kerry and Heinz got married in a fully sanctioned Catholc rite.

Unless there's a loophole I haven't heard of, if he has no annulment, he can't "confess" his way into receiving the sacraments, PERIOD.

[Right Wing Professor]

It implies here that they were married at his home 'under a canopy'. That would seem to rule out a Catholic wedding.

They also have a pre-nup. Evidently, Teresa Heinz doesn't trust him, but thinks we should.

[madprof98]

Wow. The Church has changed from when I took religion class. How did they justify that?

Annulments are a sad business--but a big business in the contemporary American Church. It appears that just about any marriage--any length of time, any number of children--can get itself declared "null" on PSYCHOLOGICAL grounds, the idea that one or both parties didn't really go into it with the right sort of mindset. Thomas More is no doubt spinning in his grave.

It's really the same abnegation of values that allowed so many in the Church to justify sexual misconduct by the priests and bishops. But this scandal has many, many defenders, not a few of them here on Free Republic, because so very many American Catholics have gotten caught up in our easy-divorce culture but have felt the need to return to the sacraments. Next thing you know, their first marriage has gone up in smoke, their second (or even third) has been blessed by the Church, and they're back at the altar taking communion.

[litany_of_lies]

Excuse my density in reading your post.

I presume by your "that wasn't in the eyes of the Church" you mean he actually got the annulment (10 years after the secular divorce-GMAFB).

If true, this should be Exhibit A for how the American Catholic hierarchy has totally lost its way.

Again if true, we are all paying the price for the Church's permissiveness now. Kerry's viability as a candidate would be greatly reduced, even in this secular age, if he remarried without an annulment and was still trying to pretend to be Catholic.

[litany_of_lies]

When Kerry was about to become the latest Heinz family charity, he sought to have his marriage to Thorne annulled, despite the fact that it had produced two children. It seems his second meal ticket,

Coulter is NOT saying the annulment was granted, only that he SOUGHT one. I think if he was granted one and Coulter knew, she would have said so.

[Polybius]

Why should this be a problem, I thought Kerry was Jewish...

In New York City, he's Jewish. In Boston, he's Catholic.

[Hon]

Coulter doesn't have any personal knowledge about Kerry's private life and how he stands with the church. Her comments were based on newspaper and internet reports about Kerry asking for an annulment in 1997.

I believe it is unlikely that he has gotten an annulment. We know (from newspaper and internet reports) that his first wife is fighting it. (Just like Kennedy's first wife has.)

But I don't think anybody outside of the principals knows whether the case is still pending or whether the tribunal has made its decision.

(On a tangent, this might have been mentioned already--I don't feel like plowing through the other posts--but as many probably already know, JFK (the first), who is JFKerry's role model had his first marriage annulled.)

[Hon]

BTW, by all accounts Kerry asked for the annulment in 1997, which was two years after his marriage to Teresa--in a civil ceremony.

[litany_of_lies]

Actually, the significance of that point (asking for annulment two years after marrying Heinz) eluded me.

First, I would guess his marriage hasn't been annulled-it is tougher to get one if the original spouse opposes or won't cooperate in the hearing phases. Plus, I would think/hope that the archdiocese's reaction would be "....and you're just now getting around to it!!??"

His annulment request, even if it was successful, strikes me as a purely political calculation, on exactly the same level as Bill Clinton's signing up for the military and then excusing and dodging his way out of it to maintain his "political viability." There's no other "reasonable" explanation to wait until two years after consummating a second civil marriage to apply (esp since Kerry-Heinz have no kids from their marriage, which would actually constitute a good reason to clean things up).

This means he has excommunicated HIMSELF. He has no business inside a Catholic Church. Even in this secular age, that issue will resonate with enough Catholics to hinder his electability. 40 years ago, he'd be total toast.

[trustandhope]

Re: Post No. 20 [However, many Catholic clergy have long supported the liberal "social justice" agenda espoused by Kerry and the like and cannot bring themselves to support George Bush who has done more to limit abortion than any President since Reagan.]

Regarding social justice, the Priests for Life newsletter for January-February 2004 (first-page) quotes from US Bishops, 1998, Living the Gospel of Life, as follows:

Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the rightness of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community.

The same article quotes Pope John Paul II, 1988, The Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World (Christifideles Laici), n.38) as follows:

Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights--for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture--is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

The article also says: It is difficult to go wrong when we are quoting our own bishops and Pope!

I'm saving this article to use as a good comeback when fellow Catholics try to justify voting for pro-abortion politicians by insisting that, although personally opposed to abortion, they don't want to vote on one issue only.

[Fitzcarraldo]

This would never happen ... money talks.

[cpforlife.org]

"I'm saving this article..."

Always a good idea to save from Fr. Frank!

I'd also like to offer this as a sharpened version from yours truly: http://cpforlife.org/id126.htm

Coming soon to a thread near you.

[Samwise]

His votes for abortion weren't really votes for abortion. They were votes for the "threat" of abortion.

[trustandhope]

"I'd also like to offer this as a sharpened version from yours truly: http://cpforlife.org/id126.htm"

THANK YOU!!

[cpforlife.org]

Read with salt in hands PING!
"Kerry was raised a Catholic, served as an altar boy, and once considered becoming a priest."

(Barf Alert!)

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/
president/articles/2004/01/30/
rivals_assail_remarks_on_abortion_south?mode=PF

Rivals assail remarks on abortion, South
By Patrick Healy, Globe Staff, 1/30/2004

GREENVILLE, S.C. -- Senator John F. Kerry, facing the increased attention that comes with front-runner status, came under multiple attacks yesterday from rival Democrats over his recent remarks on abortion and winning Southern votes, while top Republicans assailed him as soft on national security.

Kerry struck back immediately with retorts that he and his advisers had crafted beforehand, a sign of his campaign's zeal for avoiding the political damage suffered by other Democrats who did not respond swiftly to attacks, including Howard Dean, who was weighed down by attacks from Kerry and other rivals when he was well ahead in early polls.

Advisers to one Democratic candidate circulated a newspaper article in Missouri -- which holds a key primary Tuesday that Kerry has targeted for victory -- that said Kerry personally opposed abortion "as an article of faith" because he is required to do so as a Catholic. Kerry added that a lawmaker should not "legislate his personal beliefs," according to a transcript of the interview with Missouri reporters, but that was not included in the published story.

Kerry was raised a Catholic, served as an altar boy, and once considered becoming a priest. Nevertheless, he said yesterday, "Whatever my personal beliefs are, they have no place here," and repeatedly stressed his view that the constitutional separation of church and state forbids lawmakers from regulating abortion based on their religious beliefs.

On a day when the seven Democratic candidates gathered here for a forum, rival John Edwards sought to sow doubt in Southern Democrats' minds about a key campaign theme of Kerry's -- that he is the most "electable" of the Democrats challenging President Bush. Edwards told reporters that the Massachusetts senator would be a "risk" as the party nominee because his mix of liberal and centrist views would not appeal to Southern voters.

"We've never elected a Democrat in the United States without winning at least five Southern states," Edwards said. "If Democrats across the country want to take a risk that for the first time in American history that's a possibility, then they can do that."

Voters in both Iowa and New Hampshire expressed similar concerns in the weeks before Kerry's recent victories in those states. He reassured them -- in comments that Edwards and others are now seizing upon -- by saying that he would compete in the South but didn't necessarily have to do well there during the general election. Instead, he said, he would seek to win all of the states that Al Gore carried in 2000, plus New Hampshire, Ohio, or West Virginia.

Yesterday, Kerry said his remark was not tantamount to writing off the South, but rather that it was "merely a comment on mathematical counting."

"It is not possible for me in my strategy to not campaign in the South and not win states in the South, and I intend to," Kerry said during a stop at Midlands Technical College in Columbia, S.C., where he picked up a key endorsement from the state's senior black congressman, James E. Clyburn.

"I've been to Alabama, to Tennessee, to Arkansas, to Florida, to Georgia, obviously to South Carolina," Kerry added. "I think it is time that we create a new coalition in America. In my race for the presidency, I intend to prove that we are indeed `one America,' " a phrase that Edwards has invoked for months.

Kerry also fended off a new line of attack from Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie, who said yesterday that the four-term senator had consistently opposed greater defense spending and laws that Gillespie said enhanced US national security.

While Kerry plans to use his Vietnam War service record and his foreign policy expertise as a bulwark to Republican attacks on his national security credentials, Gillespie drew a distinction between Kerry's experience as a soldier and his Senate record.

"John Kerry's record of service in our military is honorable. But his long record in the Senate is one of advocating policies that would weaken our national security," Gillespie said at the RNC's winter meeting in Washington yesterday.

Kerry said he welcomed a debate pitting his views on defense and security against Bush's, and called Gillespie's remarks "the greatest form of flattery."

"I have voted for the largest defense budgets in the history of our country. I have voted for almost all weapon systems that we have today with few exceptions. Unfortunately, these are people who've never met a system they didn't like. I have," Kerry said.

Before last night's forum with his rivals, Kerry earned bragging rights in South Carolina as he won support from Clyburn, who had previously endorsed Representative Richard A. Gephardt.

Kerry, who toured the technical college's manufacturing learning lab with Clyburn before announcing the endorsement, said that the two men had become friends during some of Kerry's visits to the state, where he has not campaigned since Sept. 12.

"I've had some good times with him, learned how to talk over the loud noise in a garage in a fish fry, and dance a bit late at night," Kerry said.

"I wouldn't call that dancing," Clyburn interjected.

"I thought for a white guy I showed some rhythm," Kerry replied. "I guess I'll have to take a few more lessons. I'm ready for it, folks, come on at it. Bring it on!"

Globe staff member Raja Mishra contributed to this report. Patrick Healy can be reached at phealy@globe.com.

© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.

[LauraJean]

I believed she divorced Ari Onassis.

[RobbyS]

It is not if there was a great difference in the social views of Bush and Kerry on most matters. I believe that many bishops simply cannot bring themselves to abandon their family loyalties to the Democratic Party.