April 12, 2004

Catholic League president William Donohue commented today on Senator John Kerry’s inability to dodge the issue of his Catholicism:

“In today’s newspapers, all the buzz is over John Kerry’s voting record on abortion and whether this should disqualify him from receiving Holy Communion. But this is not Kerry’s biggest problem with the Catholic Church. The question of his status as a married Catholic is: there is no evidence that John Kerry and Teresa Heinz were ever married in the Catholic Church.

“We know that Kerry continues to receive Holy Communion, but if he isn’t married in the Church, then he is expressly contravening Church teaching. This is not an opinion: the operative paragraph in the Catholic Catechism on this subject is paragraph 1650.

“Let’s review what is known for sure. We know that he divorced Julia Thorne in 1988 and married Teresa Heinz in 1995. But the Kerry-Heinz marriage was not recognized by the Catholic Church. Why? Because Kerry’s first marriage was never annulled. Kerry did not even apply for an annulment of his first marriage until November 1996; that is when he started the process in the Archdiocese of Washington. On May 8, 1997, Kerry joked about the annulment process on the Don Imus radio show, thus going public about the matter. From this point onward, the media have reported that Kerry ‘sought’ an annulment, but there is no evidence that it was obtained. When now asked about this question, Kerry’s staff goes mute.

“In Kerry’s recent book, he calls himself a ‘believing and practicing Catholic.’ If that is the case, he should have no problem saying whether he is married in the Catholic Church. If he is, then a) he must have been granted an annulment of his first marriage, and b) he must have married Teresa Heinz in the Catholic Church subsequent to that time. But if this isn’t the case, then in the eyes of the Catholic Church he is still married to Julia Thorne. To say this raises serious issues—especially given his willingness to present himself for Communion—would be a gross understatement.”

Catholic League

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 17, 2004

Answers

bump

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 17, 2004.

The abortion record is definitely a legitimate problem I have with Kerry as a candidate. But the marriage thing is his personal life. It has no buisiness in the political world, just as Bill Clinton's affairs didn't. Leave that alone. There are plenty of other things you can call him on, but that's below the belt.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), April 17, 2004.

Kerry was granted an annulment in 1996 from his marriage of 18 years that produced 3 children.

I am not sure who is more to blame for this situation Kerry or the Catholic Church.

We beat up on Kerry and he sure deserves it but how can we expect him to abide by the laws of the Church when the Church does nothing to enforce them. I am not inspired by politicians that identify themselves as Catholic (Kennedy Kerry Kucinich Daschle). They are a pathetic bunch.

I am pleased to be a member of the one true Church but I would say Her members leave much to be desired and Her clergy need to start dishing out tough love.

Are the clergy out to save souls or not? Do they really believe in Heaven and Hell? IMO Kerry has a ticket to Hell and he wants to bring others with him. Does his Archbishop care or is it too tough to confront this wayward sinner? One thing is sure. Hell is very uncomfortable and I don't want Kerry to go there and the Church should do what it takes to keep him from doing so.

-- David F (notanaddress@nowhere.com), April 17, 2004.

Catholics, by and large, are horrendously catechized. Many do not know anything about the consequences of divorce. They do not know about annulments. These ignorant catholics will not see anything wrong with Kerry being divorced, receiving communion etc. If one of the most recognizable catholics in America, continues to publicly promote heresies, and publicly commit adultery (which he is doing if his first marriage was not annulled) without repudiation from catholic authorities, then many catholics will continue to think abortion is ok, divorce is ok etc. This is about more than an election. This is an example of allowing the flock to go astray by the shepherds (the bishops) who are asleep in the barn.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 17, 2004.

Kerry was granted an annulment in 1996 from his marriage of 18 years that produced 3 children.

For the record: Kerry requested an annulment in 1996. In May 1997, Kerry appeared on Don Imus' nationally syndicated radio show and, according to the Boston Globe, "opened up for the first time about his decision to seek an annulment of his first marriage, jokingly describing annulment as 'one of those special Catholic things.'" "Seventy-five percent of all the annulments in the world take place in the United States, and I guess the figure drops to 50 percent if you take out all Massachusetts' politicians," he said. There has been no evidence that he ever was granted the annulment.

What makes this a public point is that Kerry brought his Catholic faith into the public arena, he also talked about his requesting an annulment in a number of interviews to show evidence of his good faith. That makes it a political issue, not just a private one. I know another very liberal Senator who is in the same boat as Kerry, but I don't know of his bringing it into the public arena, so I will not either.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 17, 2004.

From washingtonblades.com

18-year marriage ‘annulled’ In 1976, Kerry became an assistant district attorney in Boston shortly before Thorne gave birth to their second daughter, Vanessa, though he eventually settled into a stable family life and a private law practice from 1979 to 1982.

But Kerry re-entered the political world, it cost him his marriage to Thorne, who sunk into a deep depression she attributed to Kerry’s cold nature, fierce ambition and prolonged absences. On the eve of his election as lieutenant governor in 1982, Thorne separated from Kerry.

Political opportunity arose again after Paul Tsongas announced his retirement from the U.S. Senate in 1984. Kerry won the race to fill that seat and entered into what current wife Teresa Heinz called his “gypsy phase,” commuting between apartments in Washington, D.C. and Boston, and dating actresses Morgan Fairchild and Catherine Oxenberg as well as a former law partner.

Kerry and Thorne finalized their divorce in 1988. After Thorne requested an increase in alimony in 1995, Kerry sought an annulment of their marriage from the Catholic Church, a move observers saw as retaliatory.

Kerry eventually received the annulment from the Boston diocese despite Thorne’s vehement objections. Past media reports did not indicate the grounds on which Kerry sought to annul his marriage of 18 years, after it produced two children, and the campaign also declined to provide any explanation.

-- David F (notanaddress@nowhere.com), April 17, 2004.

CCC #2492 Everyone should observe an appropriate reserve concerning persons' private lives. Those in charge of communications should maintain a fair balance between the requirements of the common good and respect for individual rights. Interference by the media in the private lives of persons engaged in political or public activity is to be condemned to the extent that it infringes upon their privacy and freedom.

I just thought we should keep this in mind when discussing information in a public forum. I'm not directing this toward anyone in particular. However, anything in his private life that Kerry did not publicly disclose or consent to its disclosure should not be fit for public discussion. If the media disclosed it without his consent, that does not make it right for us to further perpetuate the problem.

I don't know what Kerry has chosen to make public or keep private in his life, but I just wanted to bring this up so that we use care in discussing such things. Please remember to exercise charity toward others, even if you do not agree with their actions or views. I just found this in the Catechism the other day and I think I have at times been uncharitable toward others in this regard, and if I have in this forum, for that I apologize.

I do not agree with Kerry's public misrepresentation of Catholic teaching (eg. supporting abortion), and he has made that public by declaring that he is a practicing Catholic. These types of things need to be publicly addressed and refuted without interfering in his private life. This can easily be done, such as if the Catholic Church made it known publicly its position on certain points from which Kerry departs.

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 17, 2004.

Kerry eventually received the annulment from the Boston diocese despite Thorne’s vehement objections. Past media reports did not indicate the grounds on which Kerry sought to annul his marriage of 18 years, after it produced two children, and the campaign also declined to provide any explanation.

Here is the web link for this story. The whole story is worth reading since it sheds some very good insight into his 1st marriage, however I don’t think the part about him getting an annulment is correct. Sounds like wishful thinking, or sloppy journalism.

It could be that the source for this is the Boston Globe which reported that an aid told them in 2000 that Kerry had his marriage annulled. That does not answer the question if the church granted the annulment or not. Issue or not an issue? Showing the paperwork would be an easy thing for Kerry to do to silence the issue, now that it is on the national stage. Personally, I would be surprised if he was granted the annulment based upon the history as stated in the Washington Blade article, unless the Boston Archdiocese was very corrupt in those days.

We would need a national source, since this article seems to be based on national sources and not original journalism. So do you have a national media source for this information about him obtaining an annulment? I know of none. Also a source that Thorne objected, I have not found that either. I would think that if this were true, it would be out in the national media by now since this is such a hot topic.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 17, 2004.

Everyone should observe an appropriate reserve concerning persons' private lives.

Kerry is the one flaunting his Catholicism and then acting like the Church teachings on faith and morals don't matter to a polititian.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 17, 2004.

sorry, washington blade article is here.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 17, 2004.

April 2, 2004

MEDIA INTEREST IN KERRY’S CATHOLICISM GROWS

Catholic League president William Donohue commented as follows:

“The Catholic League does not possess a theological micrometer that judges, with digital precision, how ‘good’ a Catholic is. Furthermore, it is not our business anyway. But it is also true that we will not pretend disinterest in subjects that touch on the issue of Catholics in public life.

“This week’s issue of Time magazine says Senator John Kerry ‘sought an annulment of his 18-year first marriage before marrying again.’ News reports indicate, however, that Kerry didn’t seek an annulment until after he married Teresa Heinz in a civil ceremony in 1995. Today’s New York Times says Kerry ‘sought an annulment from the church when he was divorced from his first wife.’ Notice that neither Time nor the New York Times says that an annulment was granted. They say it was ‘sought.’

“Kerry cannot claim that this is a private matter since he publicly joked about his quest for an annulment on the Don Imus show of May 8, 1997. ‘Seventy-five percent of all annulments in the world take place in the United States,’ Kerry said, ‘and I guess the figure drops to 50 percent if you take out all Massachusetts politicians.’ He continued saying, ‘It’s one of those special Catholic things. It’s like confession or feeling guilty about things you haven’t even thought of doing.’

“On February 16, 2004, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that ‘Kerry’s office didn’t respond to several e-mail and telephone requests’ regarding the question of whether an annulment was granted. On March 23, 2003, the Providence Journal-Bulletin said that Kerry ‘will not say whether he obtained an annulment of his first marriage….’ Why the reticence, especially since Kerry says his ‘current marriage is in good graces with the church?’

“Why does this matter? If Kerry did not receive an annulment, then he is not married in the Catholic Church and cannot receive the sacraments. But even if he was annulled, did he and Teresa Heinz get married in the Catholic Church following the annulment? If not, then Kerry is not married in the Church, thus raising all sorts of questions.”

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 17, 2004.

Anti-Bush,

"But the marriage thing is his personal life. It has no buisiness in the political world, just as Bill Clinton's affairs didn't. Leave that alone."

I must disagree with you on the comment you made about Kerry's marriage. Kerry is a Catholic and if he is living in adultrey, according to the laws of the Catholic Church, then this does become an issue for Catholic voters. If he is Catholic, but not practicing, that is one thing. However, if he is using his Catholic religion to bring in votes, then he must abide by the laws of the Catholic Church.

I, personally, have no right to judge another man's sins..that is God's job. However, when you are in public life, your sins become an issue for the voters - especially Catholic voters.

Our Bishops are in a vulnerable position right now because of their own misdeeds. I don't know how people will react to the Bishops voicing their concerns over Kerry's marriages when our 'own' have sinned so badly. I think the scandal is one of the reasons Bishops are being quiet about it..who knows what the backlash will be.

The laws of the Catholic Church are what they are and if Kerry is receiving Communion when living in a serious state of sin...that is a concern for Catholic voters.

I seem to remember Rudy Guiliani receiving Communion many times at St. Patrick's Cathedral...I don't know if "all" of his marriages were annulled. I would love to see Rudy President one day, but I'm not sure what his views are on abortion either.

As far as Clinton's affairs not being any of our business. In a sense you are right - a man's personal life is his own business. But, I do think that integrity matters when it comes to our leaders. I prefer a leader who lives an honest life, is family oriented, God- centered - not a 'perfect' man, but one who can be trusted.

How can you trust a man who holds the most powerful leadership role in the country when he lies to his own wife and family? If a man is a serial adulterer, he has psychological problems. He is a sneak and a liar and I certainly do not want a leader like that.

Our world is in very bad shape. It is morally declining every day and we don't need immoral, lying, cheating men leading our country as well. If a leader lies to his wife, family, and friends, he will lie to those he leads as well.

It is a parent's job to raise their children right - no matter how hard we try, it is not easy in today's world. We cannot leave it up to our teachers or political leaders. However, it does not help our kids to see these influential people in the world behaving so badly.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), April 18, 2004.

Actually Kerry made it our buisness because he claims he is a Good christain who lives a Cahtolic Life.

He is thus saying we can trust hom based on his Devorion to Catholisism. This is what he is using to Garner votes. Thus, he is basiclaly askign us to compare his Catholic walk with his ability to lead. If, however, he is a bad catholic, then he will likely be a Bad leader. if he cannot keep one commitment, why shoudl he another? And remember, he is the one that wants parrallels drawn.

I am larg eon rleigious freedom. Thus if a Buddhist wanted ot run ofr office, fine. If he isnt a very good Buddhist, fine as well. However, if he claims that he s devout, and uses thzt as proof that he is a good man who woudl make a great leader, then we MUST evaluate his religiosu life, as this is his claimed csource of guidance, and ow well he adheres to Buddhust teachigns wll be the measure of his ability.

The same holds for Kerry.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 18, 2004.

Good to see so many of you are in a position to cast the first stone.

Jesus would be proud of you all.

-- sinner sinner sinner (notperfect@trysomehumility.com), April 18, 2004.

Their is a difference between Castign the First Stine, and using rational jydgement on who we elect as a elader. we arent condeming the man, we are just weighting his charecter to determine if we seek to vite for him or his rival.

What amazes me, however, is that critisism of Bush never is greeted with such comments, btu critisise Ketty and its "Juydge not, lest ye be judged." I wonder f Liberals actually realise that Judfement is seperate for reproof.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 18, 2004.

Zarove: I don't like to "castign the first stine" but have you considered using a spell checker---to make sure nothing gets lost in the translation. With all due respect.

"we are just weighting his charecter to determine if we seek to vite for him or his rival."

Right.

-- Ben Janusz (BJ3511@aol.com), April 18, 2004.

Ben

Your spell-check concern is addressed by some recent posts in the thread titled "Catholic Answer Only: Does the Catechism/Church Teach that Animals..." Its a few questions down.

-- JimFurst (furst@flash.net), April 18, 2004.

Good to see so many of you are in a position to cast the first stone.

Yes, we are all sinners. In the case of Kerry he is trying to get the votes of Catholics while at the same time flaunting his disobedience to Catholic doctrine. It is important that this issue is pointed out. If HE didn't bring up his Catholicism, then the primary issue would have been the fact that he wants to subsedize the murder of millions of innocent children (i.e., abortion).

In either case, he is not someone a Catholic should vote for.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 18, 2004.