BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 03:05 AM

They should spend as much effort in discovering ways to make marriages
into life-long celebrations and sources of joy

Actually, Amos, they do. When I got married in the Catholic Church the second time, we had to wait six months and had to go through a very nice marriage preparation program. The people who did our preparation went to our wedding, and they've kept in touch with us afterwards.

I was in the Army the first time I got married (1971), and the situation made it much more difficult to get good marriage preparation (although I'm quite sure that no amount of preparation could have saved THAT marriage, even though we held on for twenty years). Even in 1971, most U.S. Catholic parishes had pretty good marriage preparation programs. And yes, they do a lot of positive things to support family life after the wedding day.

Sure, there have been incidents of repression, "coercion and overwhelm," and all that bad stuff all through the history of the Catholic Church and of many churches - that's the kind of stuff that makes headlines. And yes, in my years of working in the church, I have come across a number of incidents that distressed and angered me - but the vast majority of encounters I have had in church have been positive ones.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 06:59 PM

This has nothing to do with the topic of Kerry -- but I would submit that if the Catholic Church wanted life-long marriages, they should spend as much effort in discovering ways to make marriages into life-long celebrations and sources of joy as they have in the past in researching methods of coercion and overwhelm. Then you might have a religion that was doing something about it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 06:42 PM

At least the Catholic Church has an official way of declaring a marriage void. No other Christian church that I know of does that. Many Protestant churches allow a divorced person to remarry, but you still have to go to the state, not the church, to get your divorce.

I can't imagine that a person who has sincerely made a vow before God to be faithful "as long as we both shall live" can subsequently get divorced without at some stage experiencing deep disappointment and grief, and maybe even a "crisis of faith." (Often the grief comes long before the official divorce, but it's there.)

How ironic that the church has ways of helping you through the other major life crises—birth, death, and marriage—but when you get divorced, nothing happens.

Jewish law does provide for divorce, however. Click here.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 04:00 PM

The annulment process of the Roman Catholic Church is one area of real separation of church and state, at least in the U.S. and other contries where Catholicism is not the state religion. A church annulment has no legal standing in the U.S., but it a tool the Catholic Church uses to preserve the religious ideal of life-long marriage, while providing a realistic solution for those who have a marriage that fails. Still, I think the term "annulment" is unfortunate. It implies that a marriage didn't exist, that that's a hard concept to stomach when people have lived together for years and had children. The theological talkaround is that a sacramental marriage did not exist, but I think that's a trip into a lot of verbal gobbledy-gook. In practice, though, annulments can work as a pretty good tool for reconciliation.

There are those who argue against it, but I can't see any charitable advantage to refusing to grant annulments to those who request it. If this is a request for a second or third annulment within a short time, then I think we get into another question. But if a person has one failed marriage and wants to start over a second time, why should the church refuse? What good does it do to require divorced people to be celibate for the rest of their lives?

Most churches have healing and reconciliation as primary goals, but most churches have fundamentalists who have condemnation and exclusion as primary emphases. I think even atheists have their own variety of fundamentalist, people who just can't tolerate any difference of opinion, or any conduct that doesn't meet their standard of perfection.

I think it's appropriate for churches to strive for reduction in the numbers of divorces in this world, and to strive for reduction of abortion. However, if they really believe in these ideals, then they must provide workable alternatives. They must also provide opportunity for healing and reconciliation for those how have gone through divorce or abortion. I don't see how condemnation and exclusion does anybody any good.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 08:28 AM

I don't care about Kerry's marital status either. But it would be silly to think there are Catholics who won't care, because there are, and there will likely be more mention of it in the fall.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 10:57 PM

So, it seems that Kerry, despite the fact that he is divorced, annulled, or whatever, managed to parent his daughters satisfactorily. Given the circumstances, they seem to be doing O.K. Doesn't look like he's a dead beat dad so who cares about his relationship with their mother and step-mother. As long as he's not abusive or negligent, I don't really care. Thats between them.

It is interesting that he married women with more money than himself. Thats quite uncommon but hey...I'm sure they travelled in the same circle.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 09:22 PM

dianavan,

I found an article about Kerry's daughters campaigning for him from the Boston Globe, posted at his website. This is about all it says about their growing up years:

"Despite living 3,000 miles apart, the Kerry daughters are close. In separate interviews they say the same thing, word for word: "I can't imagine life without my sister." They also say they are close to both parents, who separated when the girls were 6 and 9 years old and divorced five years later. Julia Thorne, who lives in Montana, is remarried and has written books on depression and divorce. She and John Kerry remain friendly.

It couldn't have been easy with a mother who suffered bouts of depression and a father who was in Washington much of the time. Living in Brookline with their mother, the girls saw their father on weekends and at some of their field hockey and lacrosse games. "He made an effort to come up twice a week, and he called every single night," says Alex, who graduated from Milton Academy and Brown. Vanessa boarded at Andover, then went to Yale, and now Harvard. ("The same schools as George Bush," she says, wrinkling her nose.)"

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 08:57 PM

"Does an annulment carry the same weight in court as a divorce?"

No, a Catholic annulment carries no weight whatsoever in a civil court. It is not the same thing as a civil divorce.

As to whether he paid child support, that is likely a moot question in his case, as his first wife was rolling in dough, just like his second wife is. Both were wealthier than Kerry, so a court wouldn't order Kerry to pay the wife, but possibly the other way around, if Kerry were a viable custodial parent.

I don't know what the custody arrangements were, but I do know the Boston Globe stories say that his first wife suffered from depression. However, I doubt that means Kerry was the custodial parent. The wealthy have nannies raise their kids, so my guess is they had some sort of shared custody arrangement.

Sorry, can't tell you any more than that. You can go to www.boston.com and try a search of their archives.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 08:40 PM

Guest - Now I'm really confused. Does an annulment carry the same weight in court as a divorce?

You see, I don't really care if he's divorced, annulled, separated, married or "living in sin". What I do care to know is this - Is Kerry a dead-beat dad? Did he pay child support? Was he a co-parent or did he just move on? These answers will give me some insight into the character of the man.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 10:45 AM

People do get needlessly confused about annullment. An annulment is a ruling that, for some reason or other, there was never a valid marriage, a divorce is a ruling that a valid marriage has ceased to exist.

So you have civil annullments as well as religious anullments. And it is perfectly possible for there to be a civil annulment in circumstances where there is no possibility of a religious annulment, and vice versa.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: Strick
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 10:22 AM

Amos, it shouldn't be a political issue, it's true. On the other hand, the church should and will decide how it deals with these issues for itself. The timing's a little suspect and Jim Dixon could easily be right, but that's beside the point.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 10:15 AM

This whole business is bullshit. It is no-one's concern whether the man practices Catholicism, lapsed Catholicism, inverted Apostoloic Simianism or any other lizard-brained tripe he chooses. It has no bearing on the question. Anyone unfortunate enough to be tangled up in that awful mess should be perfectly free to fend it off any way he possibly can.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 09:52 AM

Regarding mixing religion and politics, I have a story to tell that might be enlightening.

This happened in 1990, when Paul Wellstone was first running for the US Senate in Minnesota against the incumbent, Rudy Boschwitz. Both Wellstone and Boschwitz were Jewish. No one had made an issue of religion until the last days of the campaign. Then Boschwitz asked some of his prominent Jewish friends to sign a letter supporting him. Many agreed and gave him copies of their signature without seeing the letter. Then Boschwitz drafted a letter saying that Boschwitz was a better Jew than Wellstone. (Wellstone was not a regularly practicing Jew. His wife was not Jewish and his children were not being brought up Jewish.) Boschwitz obtained a mailing list of Jewish names and sent out the letter.

Then the shit hit the fan. To their immense credit (in my opinion) several of the "signers" of the letter publicly denounced it, saying they regretted giving Boschwitz permission to use their signatures.

One of them said (I'm paraphrasing from memory here) that Jews had been the victims of religious discrimination so often in the past that it was doubly wrong for them to practice it.

The backlash was huge, and Wellstone won the election.

Catholics who would consider using similar tactics against Kerry should take warning from this.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 08:38 AM

BTW, according to a more neutral source than the Catholic League (whom I don't support), the Boston Globe, Kerry and Teresa Heinz, both of whom are Catholic, were married in a civil ceremony. It is well known that he applied for an annulment, and his first wife protested it.

It is the timing of his application for annulment, as well as the facts surrounding it, that could cause problems for him. It appears he may not have applied for the annulment for religious reasons, but political ones (ie he was considering running for president). At the time he applied for his annulment in the late 1990s, his children were adults, he had been divorced for nearly a decade, and remarried in a civil ceremony. So it does beg the question, was his only reason for the annulment to allow him to claim to have a legitimate Catholic marriage when running for president, since there seems to be no other legitimate reason for seeking an annulment otherwise.

Don't forget, Kerry considered running as a challenger to Gore for the 2000 race, and is said to have been mightily disappointed when Gore chose Lieberman over him for veep.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 07:53 AM

The Catholic League is a sort of conservative Catholic watchdog group, of the sort that could certainly stir up trouble among Catholics if it suits their agenda. I just did a quick google, and found this very recent press release on their website:

April 12, 2004   


KERRY CAN'T DODGE CATHOLIC ISSUE

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."

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: GUEST,Risky Business
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 07:45 AM

I heard two Catholic co-workers discussing their marriages. Sid had obtained a civil divorce, Roger had married a Protestant.

Roger: "In the eyes of the Church, I'm not married."

Sid: "In the eyes of the Church, I still am!"

It seems to me that the art of the Roman Catholic Church, and not solely to it, is the ability to lay down a dicta and make it stick - just enough, while allowing (or not seeing) local modus vivendi.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 07:35 AM

dianavan, to answer your questions, the courts do not recognize annulments for the obvious reasons. It would allow men to get out of paying child support.

Yes, Kerry had two daughters with his first non-wife. She too fought the annulment.

I would expect, Joe Offer, that someone who applied for and received an annulment, would consider it a positive process if it benefits them. I am assuming your annulment also allowed you to remarry in the church?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 05:33 AM

I keep on getting GUEST confused with GUEST. No excuse for it, sheer carelessness.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: Strick
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 01:39 AM

"He misspoke recently, and referred to the main architect of Vatican II reforms of the church, Pope John XXII, as Pope Pius XXIII."

Given some of the things Bush has said, this is a gimme.

"And, of course they'll try to smear him for getting an annulment, just like tens of thousands of other Catholics have done."

I can't speak for Catholics, but I'm pretty certain no protestants will worry about this. Not since divorced and remarried Reagan was elected. Too many of us are in the same boat as Kerry to point fingers. When was the last time you saw anyone protesting legalizing divorces?

"They'll bring out his pro-choice stand, even though he says he is opposed to abortion from a moral standpoint."

Surely Kerry's position on abortion is clear from his actions over the last couple of days. On the other hand, I don't know anyone who didn't already take that into account. Anyone to whom that mattered seriously one way or the other knew assumed where Kerry stands and has already made up their minds.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 01:24 AM

Well, I suppose that's possibly a valid view of Catholic annulments, at least if you're a bitter, jilted ex-spouse who can't let go of a long-dead marriage. I do think the term "annulment" is unfortunate, but I understand the reasoning behind it. Most churches want to do their best to preserve the ideal of lifelong marriage, so they don't want to make it easy for people to get divorced and remarried. Realistically, though, they know that sometimes marriages do fail, even when people make an honest effort to make marriage work. What's supposed to happen then? Is a religious divorced person supposed to live a life of celibacy after a failed marriage? Is their only choice excommunication or living alone?

The annulment process in the Catholic Church is a far-from-perfect attempt to deal with that problem. It's administered differently in various dioceses, and the administration is probably more strict in the more conservative dioceses, or when the annulment is contested (the Kerry annulment was not contested, I believe - but Ted Kennedy's ex-wife fought hard against it). My ex dumped me after 21 years and three kids, and she wanted to get married again, almost right away. She filed for an annulment a few months after the civil divorce, and she and I split the $400 fee. The diocese did a fair amount of work on our case, so I don't think the fee was unreasonable. We and our parents and some old friends had to fill our forms that told the story of our marriage from the beginning; and then our case was reviewed by canon lawyers (church lawyers), who granted the annulment on the grounds that we were "psychologically unprepared" when we got married at the age of 22. That was true - I didn't know at the time that my ex would suffer from anxiety. I found the annulment process to be very helpful - a very good way of examining and setting aside past shortcomings and preparing to start anew. My ex got remarried right away, and the marriage lasted 6 months. I waited 10 years before I got married again, and Christina and I have done quite well together for 2-1/2 years.

So, was it duplicitous for John Kerry to get an annulment and get married again? Sorry, but I don't believe so. Did he have to have great wealth and political power to get the annulment - well, I didn't.

So, maybe Kerry got his popes mixed up. I teach a lot of classes to adult Catholics, and a lot of them get their popes mixed up. Maybe he didn't know, but I think it's more likely that Kerry suffered from a slip of the tongue. From what I understand, he does attend Mass most Sundays, and he identifies himself as Catholic. That's good enough for me.

The right-wingers, especially the anti-abortionists, will try everything they can this year to smear Mr. Kerry. They'll bring out his pro-choice stand, even though he says he is opposed to abortion from a moral standpoint. They'll question his right to receive communion, and they'll label him a hypocrite for simply attending Sunday Mass. And, of course they'll try to smear him for getting an annulment, just like tens of thousands of other Catholics have done. It's a shame and a scandal that Catholics have chosen to make religion into a political issue in an attempt to defeat a fellow Catholic.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 12:57 AM

Just out of curiosity...do the courts recognize annulments as a divorce. In other words, are the ex-wives still entitled to alimony, child support, etc. just the same as if it were divorce?

Did Kerry have children from the first marriage?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 08:16 PM

Apparently the point flew right over your head, McGrath.

I may have screwed up my Roman numerals, but at least I know there is a BIG difference between the pope who was the architect of Vatican II, and the pope who preceeded him, who historians have rightly proved through examination of Vatican and other historical documents of being a Nazi sympathiser, if not a collaborator.

I'm not so sure Kerry does know the difference.

And to the Catholics I know, Kerry's annulment is a much bigger deal to them as Catholics, than his stand on abortion, which is predictably identical to every Democratic Catholic politician in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 07:48 PM

Nitpicking. Reading anything into it is about as meaningful as reading something into the fact that this nameless GUEST initially got his or her Popes mixed up as well, and referred to John XXII, who died in 1334 instead of his more recent successor John XXIII, who died in 1963.

Of course that is assuming that the various posts involved are by the same nameless GUEST. Never a wise thing to assume anything about these phantoms or to speculate with confidence about what kind of agenda any one of them might be pushing in any instance.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 07:36 PM

Apparently I'm having some Roman numeral issues today.

Above should have read, Kerry called Pope John XXIII, the architect of Vatican II, Pope Pius XXIII. The Pius pope to which Kerry was referring presumably, was the WWII pope, who was known as Pope Pius XII, whom John XXIII succeeded in the late 50s. Pius XII is the pope who has often been accused of being a Nazi collaborator, largely because of his signing a concordat with Hitler, after it was obvious what Hitler was up to, with his book burnings, etc and after Dachau had started up operations.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 06:54 PM

Whoops! Above should read "Pope Pius XII had bugger all..."

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 06:48 PM

You know, it is pretty common knowledge among Catholic types that John Kerry isn't exactly the world's best Catholic. He misspoke recently, and referred to the main architect of Vatican II reforms of the church, Pope John XXII, as Pope Pius XXIII. Some would say it was a bit of a freudian slip, others say, that Kerry is such a bad Catholic he really doesn't know: a) there was no Pius XXII, and; b) he had bugger all to do with Vatican II.

Next, I threw out the line above about if you were an important enough man in the church, you could get your marriage annuled. The name I threw out was Kennedy. Apparently Mudcat is a predominantly Protestant derived chat forum. Don't any of you know about Kerry's very controversial relationship with the church, especially the more enlightened Catholic women of the church? No, eh? Well, heads up people.

US Sen. John Kerry and US Rep. Joseph Kennedy, both sought and received annulments of their first marriages, and their cases bear striking similarities. Both men's ex-wives are not Catholic and both women opposed the annulments, calling the process hypocritical.
Both men had been married for years, and had children as a result of the marriage.

Now then, the Church teaches that annulments do not invalidate the legitimacy of children and only recognizes that the couple was incapable of validly performing the sacrament of marriage. Which, when you go through the church wedding the first time, and are recognized by your Catholic community as living within the sanctity of that union for years, born children, etc etc it would seem pretty iron clad that at the time of your first marriage, you were not only capable of validly performing the sacrament, but did.

Hence, the controversy. It royally pisses off a whole lot of Catholic women, and non-Catholic women married to Catholic men, that this sort of thing could actually happen in this day and age.

Now, why would John Kerry and Joe Kennedy seek annulments? Because their second wives ARE Catholic, and want a Catholic wedding, children of the marriage baptised Catholic, etc etc.

Hypocritical? You bet. In my view, that pretty much makes those guys scum on a personal level, in addition to being hypocrites. And their lovely second wives too. If you are a powerful male Irish Catholic politician, especially one from Massachusetts, you can pretty much have your attorney write up the annulment, mail it to the archidiocese, and have the sucker rubber stamped.

And what rights do your first wife have in this process? Need you ask? Women don't have such rights in the Catholic church, period. Joe Kennedy's ex was so appalled and angry about it, she wrote a book and began a movement to bring attention to this horrendous, medieval practice. But hey--Mrs. Heinz-Kerry is a happy camper!

Now, to clear up this excommunication thing. The short, simple answer to what being excommunicated from the Catholic church means: it means you are no longer able to receive communion, but that is meant to mean the benefits of the Catholic community, not all of the sacraments of the Catholic church, because even if you are excommunicated, you are still considered to be Catholic because the efficacy of your baptism can't ever be overturned by any Catholic authority. An excommunicate is considered an exile from Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority.

So, in the practical, every day sense of Catholic community, what that means is you cannot be administered any of the sacraments of the church until you redeem yourself. So, you can't attend mass, or receive any of the sacraments. So excommunication doesn't deprive just of communion, but of all the other sacraments as well.

Catholics view the seven sacraments to be the ritualized, outward ceremonies that represent our inward grace and sanctification in christ. The seven sacraments are: baptism, confirmation, communion, matrimony, penance, extreme unction, and holy orders. For those of you who are confused by those terms, the roughly work out to mean: penance = confession; extreme unction = last rites; holy orders = the ritual of becoming a priest, nun, etc on up the hierarchy.

So, the question of whether Kerry should receive communion because of his publicly stated belief on abortion, isn't really legitmate and is a bit of a non-starter, as they say. On the other hand, the fact that he had his first marriage annuled in order to remarry in the church could conceivably hurt him both with Catholics and with women, in the general election, if someone decides to make an issue of it.

My guess is, since Rove hasn't used it yet, is that it is in Rove's October arsenal.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 05:07 PM

As Joe says, there are some times when trying to use the law to determine what happens just doesn't work, and ends up making things worse.

A top priority for anyone who thinks that a society has a duty to protect vulnerable human beings - either mothers or babies - is to find ways of ensuring that women who are pregnant never feel impelled to resort to abortion when it is not their free choice, because they feel they have no choice but to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 04:52 PM

Communion is taken when the receiver is not living with an unresolved grave sin.

For example, if I divorce, that is not of itself a grave sin. If I remarry, that is, because in the eyes of the church I will have committed bigamy. Subsequently, I will be disallowed communion ever again.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 03:54 PM

Thanks, Joe Offer, for your intelligent and sensitive comments.

I had a brief conversation yesterday with a friend who seems familiar with Catholic theology and practice, and he told me emphatically that being refused communion is NOT the same thing as being excommunicated. We didn't have time to discuss this at length, so I am still unclear on what the difference is.

I thought I was safe on etymological grounds-that the root "communi" in "excommunicate" meant "communion"-but my friend said it means "community." So being excommunicated means being "thrown out of the community." I still don't know what that means in practical terms.

By the way, just so you don't think I was speaking totally out of my hat: my first wife was formally excommunicated from the small fundamentalist Lutheran sect that she was brought up in, because she told her pastor she didn't believe in something that they considered fundamental. It might have been the inerrancy of the Bible. (I had never been a member of that church, so there was no question of excommunicating me, although she and I believed mostly the same things.) I think that's how "excommunication" was explained to me at the time: that she wouldn't be allowed to take communion.

I know that church had a strict rule that only members of that sect could take communion. The church was small enough that the pastor personally knew every member. Visitors from other parishes had to bring a letter from their home church stating that they were members in good standing, and had to meet with the local pastor privately before the service, if they wanted to receive communion.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 12:05 PM

Yeah, sometimes they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 11:55 AM

Those weiner dogs, now -- do they run around chasing their tails in circles?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 11:45 AM

Man, I have just GOT to start another weiner dog thread, inspired bu this one... :-) I mean, this is SO important!

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 11:30 AM

Hrothgar, it is true that the religious institution of marriage goes back farther than the civil institution of marriage. But, just as the example you cited, the institution of marriage prior to a couple hundred years back, was one of the aristocracy, not the common folk.

All societies have *traditions* of recognizing a couple coming together to create a household that goes back to ancient times, but the institution of marriage as it is known in the West was, until modern times, an institution of the aristocracy.

As to the sacraments themselves, they are the rituals that hold Catholics together as a community, because each of the seven sacraments celebrates an aspect of human life which is defined as sacred to the church community. That is why it SHOULD be a big deal and RARE to get an annulment, but if you are an influential and powerful man in the church community, a Kennedy say, it is easy pickings to get an annulment, and deny your previous wife and children ever lived with you in the supposed sanctity of marriage.

I see this issue as no different really. There are priests who will refuse Kerry, and priests that won't. But I don't think Kerry will be attending a church anytime soon, where he would be denied communion. Unless he thinks he could get some political mileage out of it, of course.

I too was raised Catholic, and I do love many aspects of the Catholic community I feel myself to be part of through family, colleagues, and friends. But it is just this sort of shit that caused me to jettison the church from my life at a very young age, and never look back.

Catholic Worker and Liberation Theology types have been persecuted, ostracized, and excommunicated by both current and past right wing, fascist cardinals and popes, and I want no part of them, or their church.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: GUEST,Desdemona
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 07:27 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 01:50 AM

I guess I'd call myself a pro-choice, pro-life, anti-abortion Catholic. I think I'd agree with most Catholics that abortion is not a good thing, and I think I might even go so far as to say that being opposed to abortion is part of being Catholic. Still, I can't buy the idea of attempting to eliminate abortion by passing criminal laws against it. I'd much prefer to see unwanted pregnancies eliminated by birth control - but of course, Rome has taken a stand against that, too. I suppose it's standard conservative thinking that criminal sanctions are the best way to control wrongdoing - so if abortion is wrong, we should pass a law against it and put people in prison if they break the law. It's that simple - all the talk show hosts say it's so. The current administration in the Vatican is conservative and seems to have bought into talk-show mentality, so they figure abortion should be illegal.

Mind you, people who oppose abortion don't see it as a religious issue, like Jews or Moslems eating pork. They see it as a moral issue, something that is either right or wrong for everyone, not just for adherants to a particular religious code. If politicians say they are "personally opposed to abortion" but cannot allow their religion to interfere with their government position, that's evading the issue. Many anti-abortion people equate abortion with murder - and most people would readily agree that murder is universally wrong, not just a religious prohibition. I can't bring myself to equate abortion with murder, especially in the early stages of pregnancy - but I do believe that it brings about the loss of a life or a potential life, and that, to me, is wrong. I will also agree that at times women may have valid reasons for terminating her pregnancy - but the loss of her child will still be a cause for grief for me.

I suppose you could argue the issue on when life begins, but it's not really a discussion that satisfies me. I think the question of when life begins is a philosophical one, not a scientific matter. There are two logical moments that can most reasonably be defined at the beginning of life: the moment of conception, and the moment of birth. It's hard to define birth as a momentary thing - it's more of an ongoing process. Conception, on the other hand, does happen more-or-less in a moment; but the immediate result really doesn't seem to have the essence of whatever it is that makes us human.

Of course, then you get into another philosophical question: why should we value life at all, and what's so bad about killing anyhow? Many people who oppose abortion are very self-righteous about their "right" to kill criminals and military opponents. So, maybe we'd better not get off on that question.

Once upon a time, I interviewed a doctor who was medical director of a unit of Planned Parenthood. After I finished my business, I asked if I could ask some of my personal questions about abortion, and he was very happy to talk with me. He said he performed about three or four abortions a year. He said abortion is never a cause for celebration, and that doctors don't like doing abortions. Sometimes, he was appalled by the reasons women gave for wanting abortions, or by women who had one abortion after another. Still, he found that most women had thought the matter over carefully, and had chosen abortion because they saw no reasonable alternative. Planned Parenthood tries hard to deal with the grief and the negative aspects of abortion - but it's still usually a very sad event.

Then there's another issue - even if you believe abortion is murder, will legislation stop it? I think that a criminal law is practically unenforceable if a large minority in a community (or nation) disagrees with it. We learned that lesson with Prohibition, and we learned it with abortion before Rowe v. Wade. If we enact a law the people won't support, all we do is create a criminal subculture that will continue doing what they've always done, without any legal or safety control.

It's an uncomfortable time to be a liberal in the Catholic Church. Most American and European Catholic priests are liberal or at least moderate, but the Big Guys in Rome are primarily conservative; and there is a very strong and vocal conservative minority among the laity. These people take the term "pro-choice" and automatically change it to "pro-abortion" - even for people like me who oppose both abortion and criminal prohibition of abortion. On the other hand, they very religiously call themselves "pro-life" even though they are vey obviously "anti-abortion." They've taken out full-page newspaper ads labeling various Catholic politicians "pro-abortion" without even giving substantiating information - and then they condemn these politicians for attending Mass and receiving Communion.

The Mass and Communion are a very sacred part of my religious belief, and I hate to see them made into a political football. I think THAT's appalling.

Another thing that really bugs me is that in the United States, the right-wing interests have taken ownership of the "pro-life" movement, making it impossible for people to effectively oppose abortion without buying into the the entire right-wing agenda. I can't bring myself to support Bush's Iraq fiasco, his destruction of environmental programs, his support of capital punishment, or his failure to support social and anti-poverty programs.

I do wish John Kerry would say something that indicates at least some opposition to abortion. I thought Bill Clinton was quite eloquent when he said abortion should be "safe, legal, and RARE." I wish Kerry would at least buy into a position like that.

I think it's worthwhile for us all to look at this issue from all perspectives. It's not just a religious issue, and those who oppose abortion certainly have many valid reasons for calling it wrong. It may well be the only alternative for certain women in certain situations, but it is never a decision to be made lightly. The whole thing is a very difficult issue.

But as for receiving Communion, I certainly hope that Kerry continues to do it, and that priests don't turn him away. I'm sure it won't be hard for him to find priests who will welcome him to Mass - but I think he would be wise to avoid making an issue of it, and he should avoid attending Mass in a church where he's likely to be turned away.

Catholics and non-Catholics sometimes tell me that if I think the way I do, I should find myself another church.* I don't buy that. The Catholic Church is MY church, as much mine as it is the Pope's. I don't care to let the right-wingers take over my church, and I'll keep fighting to keep it open to everyone.

-Joe Offer-

*I have never heard a priest or bishop suggest I should leave - it's just right-wing extremists who don't think I'm qualified to be Catholic, along with outsiders who view the entire Catholic Church as monolitically right-wing.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: Mickey191
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 01:21 AM

I wish there was a loving & accepting Catholic Church in every community, such as the Paulist Center. I've known Catholics who have been refused Communion because they were divorced. We all know of certain people who were granted Church anulments because of some supposed impediment at the time of their marriage. They're up there at the communion rail. I've often wondered how much do those anulments cost?   

I think the Vatican just wants 4 more years of the Bush Baby. It doesn't have to issue a Papal Bull to turn a significant number of voters away from Kerry. They are turning already.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 12:37 AM

Desdemona got it right.

Is that one more for Kerry? ...or is it for Desdemona?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: Strick
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 11:31 PM

Kerry 2 - Pope 0


Kerry Takes Communion After Vatican Edict

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: Cruiser
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 08:30 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: Cruiser
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 08:25 PM

Kerry should take Command, forget Communion.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: Hrothgar
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 08:18 PM

"marriage laws are very recent in historical terms. Barely a couple hundred years old in Europe and British North America."

They might be new in secular terms. In religious or canon law they go back a long way. Henry VIII had his problems nearly five centuries ago. Don't even think about Ruth and Boaz.

Kerry's problem appears to be that facing most Catholics - those in Rome want power over the individual conscience. If I understand my history fully, this was one of Luther's complaints. I would have to say that the current church hierarchy have more justfication for their actions than those of the 15th and 16th centuries.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: Peace
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 06:40 PM

GUEST: Why exactly should JFK have had a sex change and become a nun?

If you meant the Pope, then don't you mean 'sects change'?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 05:35 PM

I think the fucker should have a sex change and become a nun...

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: Risky Business
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 05:22 PM

Hi There Again:
And Again: If the definition of life beginning at conception is not in the bible, as GUEST said, then what are the theological underpinnings of the Catholic Church in this regard, and are they the same as the Southern Baptists. I'm curious as to their point of view, and why they can't accept Roe V. Wade.

And as far as PT boats go, supposedly someone asked JFK (the one who was President) what he did that made him such a hero, and he answered,

"The Japanese sank my boat!"

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 04:47 PM

Parable.

         A man living in a small town was quite the heller. Partied it up, drank a lot, and caroused with women of questionable virtue. He was shunned by most of the nice people in the town. One afternoon, following a miserable morning whose main feature was a particularly bad, twenty mega-ton hangover, he decided that this was no way to live. He was going to clean up his act and try to become a decent human being and an asset to the community.
         He felt that one of the first things he should do is join the local church. As he goes out that afternoon to buy some more aspirin for his still throbbing head, he runs into the minister of the church. He tells him, "Reverend, I'd like to start coming to church. In fact, I'd like to join the church. I'll start this coming Sunday. What time is the service?"
         "You?" glowers the minister. "You, want to join the church? No, I don't think so. Considering your—uh—lifestyle, I don't think that would be appropriate."
         "But I want to change my 'lifestyle,' as you call it. I would like to join the church."
         "No. I'm sorry, but no."
          "Why? Just give me one good reason why I can't come to church?"
         "I don't think the congregation would want to have someone like you as one of the members. I suggest that what you should do is get down on your knees and pray. And ask God why we don't think it would be appropriate."
         Frustrated and angry, the man got his aspirin, then went home and did as the minister suggested. He got down on his knees and prayed, perhaps for the first time since he was a little boy. He prayed fervently, and asked, "Why, God? Why won't they let me into the church?"
         Suddenly, a shaft of golden light seemed to come down through the ceiling. He looked up and saw an old and kindly face looking down at him. Then he heard a gentle voice fill the room.
         "I wouldn't worry about it," said the voice. "I've been trying for years, but I can't get in either."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: GUEST,Desdemona
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 03:04 PM

Quite frankly, it seems to me taht the Catholic Church has waaaaay bigger problems than *this* with which to keep itself occupied, and since the separation of Church & State is (theoretically, at least!) one of the basic principles of the American government, this should be a non-issue in terms of politics.

That said, we've got a semi-literate fundamentalist Christian in the White House, continually invoking *his* God & tossing about terms like "Crusades" whilst waging war in the Middle East; sadly, I don't expect this sort of thing to get better any time soon, even if someone were to read GW the Constitution aloud, explaining all the big words as they went along...

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 12:44 PM

Personally, I think the Pope and his craven sycophants have no business messing about with other people's reproductive systems. It is autocratic, dictatorial, narrowminded and in some ways the very opposite of Christian.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: Strick
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 11:58 AM

I was more teasing Amos than anything else. Besides, it was well known that the agressive use of PT boats made of nothing more than plywood against much larger, better armoured and better armed ships was one of the most dangerous jobs in WWII.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: MickyMan
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 11:44 AM

For the record on the "small armed boat" thing. I was reading a very informative article in Atlantic magazine about Kerry's Vietnam tour of duty. He freely admits that he was partly attracted to the river patrol boats because of their similarity to the PT boats of his hero ... the earlier JFK. Give the guy credit for pschychological awareness. If you ask me he picked a decent hero to emulate.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 11:30 AM

Risky Business, I think the difficulty you are having understanding this, is in assuming that there is mention of when life begins in the bible. There isn't. The idea of life beginning at conception has nothing to do with religion or science, but with control over women's reproductive rights, which is political.

Church doctrine isn't usually based upon the sacred texts of a religion in the US, unless it is by orthodox sects. I think if you are truly interested in this issue (abortion), you should do some research into the history of legal proscriptions against it. I think you will find it to be very recent, in historical means of measuring a tradition/proscription.

The anti-abortion crusade is rooted in religious attempts to control human sexuality for moral reasons, and for economic reasons. Marriage is another issue rooted in these same attempts to define and limit what is religiously and morally acceptable sexual contact between adults, and what isn't.

Again, marriage laws are very recent in historical terms. Barely a couple hundred years old in Europe and British North America.

So what do you suppose everyone was doing for all those millenia before the modern era, when all this began to be laid out in church and secular law, hmmmm?