Pres. Obama… letter carrier

20 Comments

1. Hidden One says:

   10 July 2009 at 9:56 PM

   I’m now waiting for a crack about Obama’s visit having some, albeit limited, use.
2. Brandon says:

   10 July 2009 at 10:04 PM

   Talk about a Presidential Courier… I wonder if it was an apology for years of foolishness.
   [Who knows what the letter said. Let’s keep the cheap shot out of this. The old man has brain cancer and he found a way to write to the POPE and know the letter would be deliver. What would you do in that situation?]
3. Most Excellent Sledgehammer says:

   10 July 2009 at 10:22 PM

   Let’s hope that Senator Kennedy is reflecting on things in light of his unfortunate illness.
4. Zubismom says:

   11 July 2009 at 1:51 AM

   oh please, oh please, oh please fisk Kathleen Kennedy Townsend’s Newsweek article. Thanks
5. THE REFORMER says:

   11 July 2009 at 2:23 AM

   WHAT! SOURCE!!! SOURCE!!! FR. Z SOURCE! Who can confirm this?
6. Vincenzo says:

   11 July 2009 at 2:51 AM

   The Reformer: “WHAT! SOURCE SOURCE FR. Z SOURCE! Who can confirm this?”

   Obama delivers letter from Kennedy to Pope
7. Allen Murphy sfo says:

   11 July 2009 at 7:18 AM

   I am not sure if the Senator had received an annulment from his previous marriage- Perhaps he is aking for assistance from the Holy Father so he could marry in the Church before dying. Allen Murphy sfo
8. A Random Friar says:

   11 July 2009 at 8:44 AM

   Private correspondence is… private correspondence. Something interesting to think about, but unless one of the parties reveals the contents… just gossip.
9. Thomas says:

   11 July 2009 at 8:53 AM

   We can only pray the Senator is in the process of reconciling himself to Christ and the Church before he dies. The hush-hush nature of the letter doesn’t give any hints, but wouldn’t such a reconciliation eventually have to be just as public as his infidelity and disobedience have been for 40 years?
10. Roland de Chanson says:

    11 July 2009 at 9:03 AM

    Ted evidently got an annulment “for lack of due discretion.” (Source: Jackie, Ethel, Joan by J. Randy Taraborrelli on google books.) He married Victoria Reggie in the Catholic Church and received communion at his mother’s funeral.

    Jacqueline Kennedy married the divorced Aristotle Onasis with the blessing of Richard Cardinal Cushing, Archbishop of Boston.

    Joe Kennedy’s annulment from Sheila Rauch, granted by the Kennedy-friendly Archdiocese of Boston, was overturned by the Roman Rota. Rauch wrote abook about annulments complaining that they are inherently unjust because they claim the a marriage had never existed. That is clearly not the case in the overwhelming majority of annulments. The entire concept is little but scandalous skullduggery and ought to be expunged from canon law.

    I will write to His Holiness proposing a more equitable and charitable solution to the problem of divorce along the lines followed by the Orthodox Church. If the Pope can pray the Creed without the filioque, perhaps he will see the natural as well as the supernatural ex Oriente Lux. Unfortunately, I won’t find such a distinguished postman as Ted had. Maybe I’ll take out a full page ad in OR.

    But perhaps that is exactly what Ted was requesting for Joe.
11. depeccatoradvitam says:

    11 July 2009 at 9:15 AM

    I have a hard time supporting Livestrong and Diabetes Tour de Cure as both support Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

    On President Obama’s recent release of funds to support ES reserach, the following quote was returned from Livestrong:
    “We understand that certainly people have strong feelings, but for cancer survivors and people who are advocates for progress for diseases like Parkinson’s, this is a great day,” said Katherine McLean with Livestrong.

    This and the support of sperm banking step beyond moral backing fo rtheir positive efforts.
12. Fr. Jay Finelli says:

    11 July 2009 at 10:56 AM

    Who cares what is in the letter. It just shows his connection to Holy Mother Church and the Holy Father. Let us pray for the poor man! I wouldn’t wish his suffering on the most evil person in the world!
13. Alban says:

    11 July 2009 at 2:39 PM

    Fr Jay, we reap what we sow.
14. Lynne at Hasty Brook says:

    11 July 2009 at 4:37 PM

    Fr.Jay Finelli said:

    “Who cares what is in the letter. It just shows his connection to Holy Mother Church and the Holy Father. Let us pray for the poor man! I wouldn’t wish his suffering on the most evil person in the world!”

    Thank you Fr. Jay.
15. Agnes says:

    12 July 2009 at 12:04 AM

    “Fr Jay, we reap what we sow.”

    Alban, I’m really hoping you’re not a confessor! *shudder*

    Maybe he’s converting? Maybe we should pray for him? Or did you want to just mail him a basting brush?
16. JHaye says:

    12 July 2009 at 1:25 AM

    Alban,

    We will be judged as we judge others.
17. ssoldie says:

    12 July 2009 at 7:57 AM

    If one cannot judge right from wrong, how can one teach right from wrong. Is giving scandal still a serious sin? Can we judge the actions of one on that?
18. Kathreja says:

    12 July 2009 at 2:43 PM

    Alban;

    Wow. So, by that logic St. Augustine shouldn’t be a saint. St. Ignatius of Loyola shouldn’t be either. Neither of them were very good prior to their conversions. Heck lets just rip Paul right out of the lectionary.

    Give the poor man the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, let charity be our guide with the sick and dying. In our charity they may find conversion. My grandfather did before succumbing to lung cancer. . . were it not for our family’s charity with him he would have died obstinate.
19. Veritas says:

    12 July 2009 at 4:31 PM

    Roland de Chanson’s account of annulments given makes Henry VIII seem quite benign. Perhaps he should have lived in the late 20th century and made his request then.
20. Matthew says:

    13 July 2009 at 10:55 AM

    finally, someone gets it right namely, that henry vIII was seeking a declaration of nullity. 90% of catholics (i’m one, but a convert from the episcopal church) think he was trying to divorce. i heard it and read it time and again. don’t get me wrong, i think henry’s reaction to not getting the declaration namely, the act of supremacy, was schismatical but henry vIII deserves to be treated fairly. his seeking of a declaration was his right and his obligation if he genuinely believed (as he apparently did) that he was not, in law, genuinely in a valid sacramental marriage. i once heard a lecture by a genuine historian of the event and of the period who had studied other declarations of nullity granted to royals at about the same time period. he said that henry vIII had every reason to believe (because he knew about other contemporaneous cases) that his declaration would be granted and that his over reaction was in a way not surprising because it would have come to him as a shock and as an injustice. sadly, he was not the sort of man capable of suffering such a perceived shock and an injustice patiently.

Comments are closed.