Skip to comments.Vatican 'backs ex-Kennedy wife'
Posted on 06/20/2007 11:25:56 PM PDT by wanderin
The Vatican has reversed the annulment of former US Congressman Joseph P Kennedy II's first marriage, his ex-wife Sheila Rauch says. They were divorced in 1991 and Mr Kennedy obtained the annulment in secret in 1993, before he married his secretary Anne Elizabeth Kelly.
Ms Rauch had alleged that the Kennedy family had used its influence in the church to obtain the annulment.
Mr Kennedy is the nephew of President John F Kennedy, assassinated in 1963.
His father, Robert Kennedy, was in turn murdered in 1968 as he campaigned for the Democratic Party's nomination for presidential candidate.
"The annulment decision totally overlooked the fact that I felt that we had a very strong marriage in the beginning, we had two wonderful children, and it lasted," said Ms Rauch.
The Vatican reached its decision in 2005 and informed her in May, Ms Rauch said.
She received the notification in Latin and had it translated by the archdiocese of Boston, the Boston Globe newspaper says.
Mr Kennedy has made no comment on the Vatican's decision.
An annulment declares a marriage invalid, allowing a person to marry again in the Roman Catholic Church and receive the sacraments.
Mr Kennedy served in the US House of Representatives from 1987 to 1999.
Good for her for fighting this.
This marriage had 2 children involved.
Does an annulment make the children fall into the illegitimate category?
How so? The church is only saying that Kennedy is not entitled to communion or to remarry IN THE CHURCH. It would be sharia-like were the church's ruling to have the effect of law.
Don't see why you have a problem with a private organization saying who can and who cannot be members and have the privileges of membership (communion and marriage in the church). What you are really saying is that non-members, like you and me, ought to be able to tell the Catholic Church which of its membership policies are OK and which aren't. I would feel ridiculous telling an organization how it should run when I am not a member.
Because it is very capricious ... very like sharia law.
Then it’s a good thing the annulment was reversed. Under Sharia law, she’d be stoned to death for having those kids out of wedlock.
I recently read Mrs. Kennedy’s book about the annulment proceedings, “Shattered Faith.” At the end of the book, the tribunal in Boston had granted the annulment, and Mrs. Kennedy had appealed to Rome. I wondered what the outcome was, and am pleased she got the annulment reversed.
Mrs. Kennedy=Ms. Rauch.
Viewed from your lofty perspective, I expect that every organization's membership rules would therefore appear capricious. Some folks are out. Some are in. Some behavior is out. Some is in. Any rule you disagree with appears to qualify as "capricious."
I have a hard time seeing how any slicing of the article gets you to any point where the comparison of the Catholic Church's actions to folks who bury women in the sand to their necks and throw stones at them is anything other than a gratuitous, nasty, and unfounded slur.
If your perspective gets lofty enough, you become unable to make even the most obvious distinctions.
Not that a Kennedy has ever pulled anything before that is low down and dirty. /s
I assume she knew she would.
So now he must become a Mormon since he has two wives??
The kennedy’s do NOT need the vatican to sanction their marriages.....
they are the kennedys...dontcha know!!!!
No, an annulment only states that at least one of the parents of the children was an illegitimate participant in the Sacrament of Marriage.
Oh, wait, he’s a Kennedy, and from Massachusetts? That makes him think illegality is something to be celebrated and that there is not Sacrament of Marriage.
Not really. Quite explicitly spelled out, actually. Just not consistantly adhered to by American clergy.
Sharia law varies in its severity in different cultures, but it has one thing in common wherever it is practiced, capriciousness.
Likewise, some of the dealings within other religions.
Granted, the Catholic Church has come a long way from where it once was ... but it still has arcane medieval elements. Sorry if that offends you ... but this ruling was a huge embarrassment for the Catholic Church ... and they well know it.
I rest my case.
My ex husband tried this after a 21 year marriage and 2 children. The Catholic Church looks to who is making donations. The cause for my annulment was “immaturity”. Hey, I am the one that was responsible for 2 kids during the Vietnam war, etc, etc. The guys that try this are living in a dream world. :You can not change history and the damage that they do to their older children is disgusting. You would not believe the pressure from the Catholic Church that I received to agree with this nonsense. I never did give them one bit of satisfaction and so far as I know they dropped it.
It’s really not the same. The guidelines are expressedly laid out, and if someone fails to adhere to it, it’s the failing of the practitioner not the policy.
Your comparision would be like a law against murder and since people commit murder, the people who wrote and enforce the law are guilty of capriciousness.
It’s quite clear, however that your attempt to compare the Catholic Church with repugnant radical Islam was more an attempt to make a personal statement than an dispassionate observation.
I’m sorry you have such prejudice against the Church, and hope whatever religion you choose to believe in would foster a little respect for others, since we are Ambassadors for our faith.
As does everyone else. Latin is the official language of the Church and every written document that the Vatican produces is in Latin, then it is translated into the vernacular.
Incorrect. This is an embarrassment to the Archdiocese of Boston, long known as a cesspool, not the Church. Sensible people realize that.
Hey, I thought the contemporary Catholic Church had been cleansed of this kind of corruption. No? I wonder if I could buy a few indulgences???
The initial ruling in 1963 was capricious....
The ruling by the Vatican set the record straight after a long and lengthy appeal process of reviewing cannon law...
This would be akin to the secular ruling of a lower courts decision being eventually overturned by the Supreme court.
The ruling by the church has no secular provisions and only reflects the members standing with the church....
No. The concept of children being “legitimate” is of a secular nature and is rooted in the rights of heirs to estates and the dispensation of property.
To the Church, there is no such thing as an illegitimate or legitimate child. There are just children.
The children do NOT retroactively become “illegitimate”!
This is not capricious, it is law, which I might add, happens to mirror our justice system very closely.
If a tribunal awards a decree of nullity, the respondent has the right under Church law to appeal the decision. They can appeal the decision to a regional tribunal OR appeal to Rome. Mrs. Kennedy chose to appeal to Rome, and Rome decided that the tribunal in Boston erred in it’s decision.
This is not caprice, it’s justice.
Don't bother answering. Your use of the word "sharia" to describe the ecclesiastical legal process of the Catholic Church tells me all I need to know about you--and all anyone needs to know about your views of the Catholic Church.
No need to split hairs of this. Since they are part of the Kennedy clan they are bastards not matter what their parent's marital state is/was.
She didn’t even know about the ruling for several years because it was done in secret.
I happen to have a very high opinion of much about the Catholic Church and am a great admirer of John Paul II.
I do, however, call a spade a spade. And this annulment thing is medieval, capricious, hypocrital and sexist ... and very much like many arcane laws under sharia law which are meant to “bend the rules” for some and not for others. It harks back to the days of buying indulgences ... and should be done away with.
It’s also a huge embarassment for the Catholic Church ... and they know it. That’s why they tried to keep this Kennedy annulment thing quiet.
Exactly my point. Just as rogue Islamic clerics can mete out “sharia law” as they see fit, so also in other religious organizations. It’s the nature of the beast.
Speaking of BS, that is a pile of it.
I happen to be a case sponsor for the Metropolitan Tribunal of Atlanta. You should not speak of which you do not know.
Rome would not have reversed the decision had the case not been appealed by the respondent. As Ms. Rauch is aware that the judgment from Rome was in her favor, I fail to see how this was “done in secret.” All decrees issued from the Roman Rota are in Latin. It is not an attempt at secrecy, it is the language of the Church.
The article indicates that they were divorced in 1991 and she received her decision from Rome in 1993. You cannot seek an annulment from the Church until your divorce is final. This would have been a formal case, as opposed to an informal case as it was not based on impediments. Informal cases move much more quickly through the process. The resolution time for a formal case varies, but can take 6 mos to a year to receive a decision from the local tribunal. She then appealed to Rome, which would have taken another year. So, to have divorced in 1991 and received the decision from Rome in 1993 sounds just about right.