Posted on 10/15/2004 8:58:28 AM PDT by johniegrad
A Washington Times article was just pulled because the poster violated the copyright rules for our website. I was in the process of typing a response to the article and it was pulled prior to my posting. I went to the Times website and could not find it. There was something about his marriages that would be of interest to a number of Freepers, i.e., the article said he married Theresa Heinz BEFORE his first marriage was annulled. I think that may be new information. Is there a way to get this article, appropriately excerpted, back on the site.
Why did you not send the mods a freepmail?
bttt
Sometimes you can find them by doing a search of cached pages on Google if they have been pulled form the host site....
The annulment question was a Catholic Church legal formality. This practice is extremely common, and has nothing to do with the legality of either marriage.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
They could have had their "marriage" blessed afterward. I believe their is a 1-year waiting period.
check this thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1110539/posts
Being married to TWO women at the same time IS a problem.
I'll say.
he annulled his first marriage, even though he had children from that marriage? i know people (mainly wealthy men) do this, i just don't understand how the Catholic Church allows it...
Even the democrat party only polls about 36% support for Kerry. More important is the democrats, the true democrats, being so ready to put aside their values to join forces with the fringe extremists.
Their well publicized advance game plan of disputing the election and throwing it into the courts should give everyone a good picture of who the American democrats have become.
Anyone who supports Bush will stay as far away as possible from the Kerry 1st wife/marriage story. It will do irrepairable damage to Bush if this is brought up...tick off the squishy middle, solidify Kerry's base.
It's bad form.
(In case you doubt me, think about how successful the democrats were when they tried to bring up Jane Wyman/divorce/2nd marriage/etc. That really worked wonders.
Give me some clues on the title and I'll look it up and help you out. I have a subscription and I can supply you with the url as well.
What you read IS correct. I had read it also and can't recall the title - even with searching around.
E-mail me privately and I'll help you out.
Catholic or not, annulments are CRAZY - EIGHTEEN years of marriage and THEN to have married the *itch before he was divorced, for more money of course is a problem for most of us.
A religious annulment is a process in the Catholic church. It only affects whether the Church recognizes your marriage - not whether it is legally binding.
Now if you are talking about a secular annulment (which I can't imagine would be the case since the original marriage was obviously consummated because they have children), then yes Kerry would be a bigamist. Is that what you are suggesting?
Kerry himself has never been able to provide evidence of an annulment. All he has said is that he "applied" for one, although he doesn't say when he did this (probably just before the start of the campaign!).
He was married in a civil ceremony on his lawn (or maybe it was the lawn of his lovely wife...). If he later got an annulment he could then have regularized his situation, but it doesn't sound as though he ever did. I suppose it's also quite possible that the annulment was refused, because I believe his first wife was undergoing a nervous breakdown at the time.
In any case, he's never made it clear. The thing that has probably prevented this from coming out is the fact that he attends the left-wing "Paulist Center" in Boston, which like him is Catholic in name only.
Depends on how much you give to the church.
"he annulled his first marriage, even though he had children from that marriage? i know people (mainly wealthy men) do this, i just don't understand how the Catholic Church allows it..."
It's not Biblical and is that of another Gospel as well as illogical.
No, nothing to do with legality, but it would mean the Heinz-Kerry's are not married in the church, in spite of being such "devout" Catholics.
I understand your question about whether Kerry ever had his first marriage annulled, but regardless we all know that Kerry is no true Catholic. It would be yet another reason for him to be excommunicated.
Rationalize it all you want but it is NOT Biblical and is nothing more than a DIVORCE for money without the label.
Whether or not you agree with the Catholic Church's practice of annulments, it is indeed practiced. I can also tell you that not only the wealthy pursue and are granted annulments.
Unless you are attempting to challenge and transform the Catholic Church, there really is no political story here.
Because he wanted you to see it.
This may be my fault. Here's an old Boston Globe article. Excerpted and follow link for the full version--->>>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22already+at+the+center+of+a+fierce+public%22&hl=en&lr=&selm=01bc45fd%24a4bb1de0%2463755acf%40default&rnum=1
Kerry's former wife, Julia Thorne, says she received what she considers a coldly worded letter in November from a church official notifying her that the senator was seeking an annulment of their 12-year marriage, which ended in 1984.
Thorne, unlike Sheila Rauch Kennedy who is battling a similar request from Congressman Kennedy, says she will not contest the annulment request. She says she still supports Kerry politically and is glad he is happy in his new marriage to Teresa Heinz, the Heinz food fortune heiress.
But Thorne, a published author on issues of emotional experience, does not hold back her contempt for the way the Roman Catholic Church takes a marriage off the books.
Thorne, who married Kerry in 1970, said the church's approach to the issue was cold-hearted and showed no respect or recognition of her 12-year union with the senator.
"It was disrespectful to me, it was aloof to any emotional issues, and devoid of any sense of the humanity of what this means to me and the children,"
Marriage is a legal, binding contract, recognized and registered with the state.
Marriage is also a sacred union, recognized by the Catholic Church.
The legal wheels can turn fairly quickly, enabling the contract to be declared void. Upon the issuance of the divorce decree, the state declares the marriage to be at an end, and both parties are free to pursue their lives, even to entering into another marriage contrat, recognized by the state.
The Catholic Church would view things a little differently.
Divorce is a sin, under canon law. But the Church does recognize the process of annulment (fundamentally declaring that the marriage never existed in the first place).
Technically a Catholic would have to receive an annulment from the Church (a religious nicety that the state doesn't recognize), as well as a divorce from the state (a legal action that the Church doesn't recognize). Technically, the Church recognizes the couple as still married, until the annullment is granted, even if they are divorced.
Re-marrying, before receiving the annulment is a sin, but not a crime.
Don't waste your time.
We probably don't even need any more dirt.
But nothing being married to two rich women at the same time cannot solve.....
People can bear children outside of marriage, too. Having children is not the litmus for marriage.
The Church determines whether or not the marriage vows were fraudulently declared, declared in ignorance, declared under duress, or declared without full disclosure of personal information (e.g., "I'm really bisexual") between the man and woman.
It's debatable whether or not it's loosely granted. What's not debatable is the fact that a man or woman can be re-married (in sin), receive an annulment of the previous marriage, and be returned to good standing in the church.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, NMH.
"We have a loser"
I miss your point. Do you not like nmh's #17?
You are exactly right. The first wife supports Kerry. What's in it for us? Nothing and it is very dirty to go digging into mental health issues and past marriages.
You are wrong, wrong, wrong. Don't go there.
Even if it's just a "technicality", it would still lodge in the minds of many voters. Go for it. The Dims would.
Ah, gotcha right here:
"What's not debatable is the fact that a man or woman can be re-married (in sin), receive an annulment of the previous marriage, and be returned to good standing in the church. "
Where in the Bible does God reveal that annulment is acceptable?
Um, when someone calls the Catholic faith "not Biblical and is that of another Gospel as well as illogical," I'm going to come out swinging.
Practicing Catholics are an evangelical's best friend, and a very powerful component of the Republican party.
Technically speaking the Catholic church is NOT following the Bible. At some point you must decide, WHO are YOU going to follow? Perfection or a fallible mortal?
Just pointing out the obvious minus the unbiblical rationalizations.
Is this another vanity?
It's more than a "technicality". It's simply wrong. It's a scam put forward by the Catholic church to allow DIVORCE and NOT call is a divorce. Honestly after EIGHTEEN YEARS OF MARRAIGE and TWO kids later, it's laughable that this is an "annulment."
You have no idea!
"Um, when someone calls the Catholic faith "not Biblical and is that of another Gospel as well as illogical," I'm going to come out swinging.
Practicing Catholics are an evangelical's best friend, and a very powerful component of the Republican party."
Swing all you want but it doesn't change the FACT that the Catholic church is NOT Biblical on the issue of annulment. This is an add on by a mere mortal to allow for DIVORCE without saying the word DIVORCE. It's illogical, unBiblical and WRONG.
I tried to read the original at the source and could not find it either.
"Where in the Bible does God reveal that annulment is acceptable?"
It doesn't.
NO WHERE!
That's why Catholic often give you distasteful remarks that actually shows their true colors when confronted. It's a scam for money and allows them to day they do NOT "divorce" people - LOL! It's the same thing with a different label.
In a three year span, every single word of the Bible is spoken at Mass. Your ignorance is disgusting.
Where does it state that abortion is wrong?
Why not? After all, the cross you speak of in that heinous display was a CATHOLIC CRUCIFIX.
Think before you post.
"he annulled his first marriage, even though he had children from that marriage? i know people (mainly wealthy men) do this, i just don't understand how the Catholic Church allows it..."
Guess it depends on how large a donation the person wanting an anullment gives to certain catholic churches (?)
"Where in the Bible does God reveal that annulment is acceptable?"
You didn't answer my question.
I was simply addressing the issue of Kerry, potentially being married to two women at the same time.
See, according to the state, he wan't (he got the divorce first, then got re-married)
According to the Church he wasn't (he was still married to his first wife at the time and thus simply shacking up with Teresa, so he is a sinner)
I have been mystified for years as to how the Catholic Church recognizes the dissolution of marriages many years old, with the issuance of children, and yet decree that "no marriage took place".
Problematically, the Catholic Church is currently recognizing "no fault" mechanisms for the declaration that no marriage took place. For example, if I didn't believe at the time I got married that my marriage would presuppose marital fidelity, then, no marriage took place....pretty thin rationalization, if you ask me.
It doesn't. There also isn't anything that says abortion is wrong. It doesn't say that slavery is wrong. There's nothing in it about altar calls or Reformations or embryonic stem cells, either.
Perhaps your faith is "Biblical", but it's certainly not complete.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.