Kerry's Cardnal involved in sex scandal...
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Socrtease
Verified User
Was this the same guy that said Kerry should not be given communion because he is pro-choice?
hahahahaha! touche'
uscitizen
Villified User
Is Kerrys church ran by blacks ?
I was the year that he ultimately had to resign:
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/law_resigns/
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/law_resigns/
Not as it reflected upon Kerry, who chose to remain in that church for his entire life...!
It is. Cardinal Law was not Kerry's pastor. Kerry did not choose to continue attending his services even with "divisive" comments... so forth.
Yes, it is different.
NO he was his Cardnal.
Cardinals do not preach at masses on any regular basis.
The reality is, had Kerry refused to reject the activity of Cardinal Law and continued to support him personally, it would have stuck to Kerry.
Had he made a speech that said that it was "problematic" yet kept him on for months and months as a personal spiritual adviser and somebody who was officially part of his campaign...
They never made any issue regarding that...
Because the two were never associated as "close" in any form. Unlike the Right Rev. Wright, pastor Emeritus, and Obama.
And again,
Had Kerry gone out and made a speech about Law's "problematic" activity, then kept him on as a campaign adviser, it most certainly would have.
I think you are being disingenous.
LOL.
do you know what it means?
I am being direct. It is disingenuous to pretend that the same are of some parity, it is not disingenuous to point out the inequity in your examples.
You are pretending that these little differences you bring up are signifigant. There will never be exactly the same situation but clearly there have been plenty of presidental contenders with much worse associations where a big deal was never made.
This bruhahaha is outragous. Especally coming from people who did not care who GWB's former business partners were!
The differences are significant.
One has the person working on their campaign as an adviser.
The other was rejected by the person they are "supposed" to be associated to. (according to you).
One was good friends and spoke personally with the pastor about how to distance himself from him if he stood a chance to gain the nomination.
The other was told he could not have communion or participate in the church by the other and had, as far as I know, never spoken personally to him.
Those are huge glaring differences. It is disingenuous to pretend that they are somehow in parity.