Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vatican 'backs ex-Kennedy wife'
BBC News ^ | 6-20-07

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: annulment; congressman; kennedy; marriage
The church giveth, the church taketh away.

Good for her for fighting this.

1 posted on 06/20/2007 11:25:58 PM PDT by wanderin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wanderin

Very shariah-like.


2 posted on 06/20/2007 11:28:32 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wanderin
She received the notification in Latin

How courteous.

3 posted on 06/20/2007 11:33:48 PM PDT by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
I thought it was an extremely bad decision when the church granted the annulment.

This marriage had 2 children involved.

Does an annulment make the children fall into the illegitimate category?

4 posted on 06/20/2007 11:34:52 PM PDT by wanderin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Very shariah-like.

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.

5 posted on 06/20/2007 11:42:16 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker

How so?
Because it is very capricious ... very like sharia law.


6 posted on 06/20/2007 11:58:50 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

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.


7 posted on 06/21/2007 12:01:32 AM PDT by BykrBayb (This tagline in memory of FReeper 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub ~ )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wanderin

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.


8 posted on 06/21/2007 12:27:09 AM PDT by Huntress (The United States already has enough people with college degrees. Who is going to cut their tobacco?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huntress

Mrs. Kennedy=Ms. Rauch.


9 posted on 06/21/2007 12:27:44 AM PDT by Huntress (The United States already has enough people with college degrees. Who is going to cut their tobacco?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mercat

Ping!


10 posted on 06/21/2007 12:30:19 AM PDT by Huntress (The United States already has enough people with college degrees. Who is going to cut their tobacco?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Because it is very capricious ... very like sharia law.

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.

11 posted on 06/21/2007 12:34:50 AM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Huntress
I agree with you, he did her dirty.

Not that a Kennedy has ever pulled anything before that is low down and dirty. /s

12 posted on 06/21/2007 12:35:12 AM PDT by wanderin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing

I assume she knew she would.


13 posted on 06/21/2007 12:39:42 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wanderin

So now he must become a Mormon since he has two wives??


14 posted on 06/21/2007 2:03:11 AM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wanderin

The kennedy’s do NOT need the vatican to sanction their marriages.....

they are the kennedys...dontcha know!!!!


15 posted on 06/21/2007 2:15:11 AM PDT by nyyankeefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wanderin

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.


16 posted on 06/21/2007 2:36:55 AM PDT by MIchaelTArchangel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
it is very capricious

Not really. Quite explicitly spelled out, actually. Just not consistantly adhered to by American clergy.

17 posted on 06/21/2007 2:43:21 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler (A man who will not defend himself does not deserve to be defended by others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker

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.


18 posted on 06/21/2007 3:03:50 AM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

I rest my case.


19 posted on 06/21/2007 3:09:15 AM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: wanderin

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.


20 posted on 06/21/2007 3:39:08 AM PDT by DooDahhhh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

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.


21 posted on 06/21/2007 3:41:44 AM PDT by MDspinboyredux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wanderin
Does an annulment make the children fall into the illegitimate category?

No.

22 posted on 06/21/2007 3:50:37 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing
She received the notification in Latin

How courteous.

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.

23 posted on 06/21/2007 3:54:00 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
but this ruling was a huge embarrassment for the Catholic Church ... and they well know it.

Incorrect. This is an embarrassment to the Archdiocese of Boston, long known as a cesspool, not the Church. Sensible people realize that.

24 posted on 06/21/2007 3:57:54 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: wanderin

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???


25 posted on 06/21/2007 5:14:32 AM PDT by Savage Beast (If you think like the Roman Empire you'll act like the Roman Empire--and fall like the Roman Empire!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
The current ruling capricious? Hardly...

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....

26 posted on 06/21/2007 5:19:09 AM PDT by nevergore ("It could be that the purpose of my life is simply to serve as a warning to others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wanderin

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.


27 posted on 06/21/2007 5:21:02 AM PDT by Juana la Loca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wanderin

No!
The children do NOT retroactively become “illegitimate”!


28 posted on 06/21/2007 5:25:58 AM PDT by G Larry (Only strict constructionists on the Supreme Court!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

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.


29 posted on 06/21/2007 5:28:25 AM PDT by Juana la Loca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wanderin
The Kennedy family have always been hypocritical Catholics. Posing as good Catholics when it suited their political ambitions, but living lives far from the Church. Good example is Teddy Kennedy who is a champion for abortion on demand. However, I am sure that when Teddy assumes room temperature, he will be given a full Catholic funeral with at least one Bishop and likely a Cardinal presiding.
30 posted on 06/21/2007 6:09:38 AM PDT by The Great RJ ("Mir we bleiwen wat mir sin" or "We want to remain what we are." ..Luxembourg motto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
So is the American legal system "capricious" because appellate courts reverse lower courts when they err in fact or law?

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.

31 posted on 06/21/2007 7:34:00 AM PDT by d-back
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wanderin
Does an annulment make the children fall into the illegitimate category?

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.

32 posted on 06/21/2007 9:23:35 AM PDT by BlueMondaySkipper (The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Juana la Loca

BS
She didn’t even know about the ruling for several years because it was done in secret.


33 posted on 06/21/2007 10:20:38 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: d-back

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.


34 posted on 06/21/2007 10:25:23 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

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.


35 posted on 06/21/2007 10:27:35 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

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.


36 posted on 06/22/2007 5:51:16 AM PDT by Juana la Loca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson