Of course, I know that. I was using the divorced Catholic example as shorthand for "divorced and remarried" Catholic.
I also know all about the big loophole that allows divorced and remarried Catholics like the Kennedys get around the prohibition from receiving the Eucharist by having the Church declare that their marriages (even twenty year marriages with children) were null and void from the inception.
As far as Martin Luther is concerned, I am currently reading a good book that I recommend to all who want to learn more about the history of the Catholic Church. Its called "The Bad Popes" by E. R. Chamberlin.
If you want to know where Luther was coming from, you need to know about the abuses of the Church during that time.
http://www.cpats.org/CPATSAnswerDirectory/Answers_to_Questions/AnyMoreBadPopes.html
I await your defense of Pope Alexander VI (aka Rodrigo Borgia) or Leo X (aka Gio de Medici).
See the Peter passage of Matthew to the effect that Jesus asked of his disciples "Who is it that men say I am? Some answered Elijah. Some a prophet. Simon bar Jonah answered: You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Jesus said to Peter: Flesh and blood have not revealed this to thee but only My Father in Heaven. Simon bar Jonah, though art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I give you the keys of the Kingdom. What you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. What you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. I shall be with you all days even unto the end of the world.
That was the truth, is the truth and alwasy will be the truth. Biblical scholars with the Good Book at hand may quibble about my precise phraseology but that is essentially what the Peter passage says.
You are disappointed in the morality of the annulment process as regards the Kennedys. See what can be caused by apparent instances of the sin of scandal? See why Law must resign even if he has never personally had sex cross his mind? People who obsess about the sins of the Church have asked Law in public about Ted Kennedy's remarriage after his divorce from Joan (Technically Lee Radziwill of an earlier time was related to the Kennedys only through Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis) and Joseph Kennedy the Youngest whose Episcopalian wife has reasonably complained along the lines you use as to the annulment of her marriage. First, Joseph Kennedy the Youngest probably would not know the Catholic religion unless it jumped up and bit him. One may have sympathy for his wife (first and only legitimate wife, in all likelihood) but she too has not an in depth understanding of Holy Mother the Church.
Whatever happens AFTER marriage vows are exchanged cannot be the basis of an annulment so long as the marriage is, umm, consummated. If your spouse becomes a heroin addicted prostitute in Boston's Combat Zone three years after validly marrying you, that is not valid grounds for an annulment. If a husband should father three children by his valid wife and, only then develop a compulsive taste for ten year old boys, that is not a valid ground of divorce. Canon Law specifies the grounds of annulment and those grounds must be present before marriage. We all know that plenty of American dioceses operate as to annulments on the basis of "There, there, pooooor baby, how you have suffered! Here is your annulment! No one should be shackled to a spouse who smokes or munches crackers in bed or likes the Red Sox. However, I am talking Roman Catholicism here not AmChurch. Nowadays, it is very easy to understand the late, great Bishop Fulton J. Sheen when he said that, if the Catholic Church were half as bad as its critics claim, he could not very well belong to it himself. Of course, he died a Catholic.
The length of the marriage makes no difference nor the number of children who, if born to an APPARENTLY valid marriage are not rendered bastards (in case anyone cares anymore and nowadays we should call them survivors) by a decree of nullity, contrary to popular opinion in the uninformed quarters of AmChurch.
As to Luther, and I feel sure he would agree, from where he was coming (his errors) was not nearly as important as to where he was going.
While it is true that Leo X was a Medici (a good thing) he was Giovanni de Medici. You are being overly familiar with him by calling him "Gio". Sort of like calling Eugenio (Pius XII) Pacelli "Geney Baby". Leo X lived an apparently soft life. So would have you if you had been born to Lorenzo (de Medici) the Magnificent. He also lived a somewhat sinful life as do we all. No surprise there. He balanced that off by excommunicating Martin Luther and thereby defending the Faith.
Leo X issued a papal bull to do so and Mount Luther exploded accordingly, claiming a rather unlikely scenario in which Leo X had issued not from the womb of Mrs. Lorenzo the Magnificent but rather from the anal regions of Lucifer. If you think that's colorful, pick up a copy of Table Talk, his pal Melancthon's recollections of Luther's rather colorful remarks over the dinner table. Unlike the work of this Chamberlin, called The Bad Popes, +(the recommendation of which merely confirms my accusation of Catholic Bashing) published by Barnes and Noble because they need pay no royalties to the long dead anti-Catholic who wrote it, Table Talk is written by Luther's closest ally who remained loyal to the end.
Now if you really must collect scurrillous lies in print about Catholicism, do not miss such stirring classic fables as The Tales of Maria Monk, Jack Chick's Comix, Roman Catholicism by the Reverend Mr. James Swaggert and any pack of lies by one Lorraine Boettner (who is said to have been a man).
As to Alexander VI, a Borgia, and father to both Cesare Borgia and Lucretia Borgia, he did not speak heresy. Unfortunately, he had Fr. Savanarola, O.P., of Florence, burned at the stake for pointing out the papal shortcomings as to chastity. Father Savanarola's canonization as a saint is anticipated soon. Alexander VI is not thought to be in contention to be so raised to the honors of the altar.