Posted on 06/08/2002 7:22:15 AM PDT by anniegetyourgun
Wrong. In canon law if one of the parents believed him/herself to be validly married then the children are not bastards.
Absolute nonsense. This is a persistent myth, which, incidentally, does a lot of harm. People who are entitled to an annulment often shy away from the process out of fear of "having my children declared bastards."
When the Church declares a marriage null, it is declaring that it was gravely defective from the beginning, defective enough so as not to bind the parties. But it does NOT declare that there was no bond whatever, or that there was no belief on the part of the parties that they were married, or that they were "living in sin," or that there was no LEGAL marriage. The legitimacy of the children is not an issue at all. Children born in a putative marriage, even one later judged to have been defective, are legitimate.
Didn't Ted Kennedy do the same thing to his first ex-wife? I've forgotten how many ex's he has -- is it two, and the current one is number 3?
It's so hard to keep up with these people.
What service? Losing his command craft in what amounted to a traffic accident, because he posted no lookouts?
Much has been made of his "heroic" efforts to salvage his crew after the PT 109 was sunk, but that was his duty, as the commanding officer, and after having totally hosed his mision, wouldn't it be about time this Hyannisport yachtsman-playboy got a little serious about something such as a "war"?
No, the entire myth about his "heroism" is cut from whole cloth, much like the entire "Camelot" myth, and was done to ensure his future, political viability...
the infowarrior
What? They are "no true issue" ?
Sort of ratifies my opinion of the lot of them.
I suggest you read the article in American Heritage a few years back by one of the other PT boat commanders involved in the battle in which his boat was lost. I didn't make a fetish out of his "heroism", I said:
H[e] ... served honorably ... in WW-II. Admittedly no more honorably and bravely than many thousands of other Americans.
John Kennedy was elected president at a time when politics - and life in general - in this country was far less vitriolic than these days. And the two parties were much closer than today. JFK's politics were not far from Ron Reagan's.
The Democrats appropriated the public grief for a handsome young president to make JFK a symbol of policies he never endorsed nor would ever have imagined. His relatives, near and ever more distant, bask in an undeserved glow from the goodwill he left. But does this require us to unfairly besmirch the reputation someone who isn't here to defend himself?
What service? Losing his command craft in what amounted to a traffic accident
He was banished to the South Pacific after he was cashiered from his cushy duty with Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) when he was caught by the F.B.I. in bed with Inga "Binga" Arvad, a suspected Nazi agent...
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.