Skip to comments.[Catholic Caucus] Mel's marriage is annulled ... by his own dad
Posted on 08/04/2009 5:43:44 AM PDT by markomalley
No wonder Mel Gibson is giving the thumbs-up. Full time has been called on his 28-year marriage to Robyn Moore. The Pope didn't give the order, though. That edict came from Mel's 90-year-old father Hutton Gibson, and it paves the way for his son to marry his pregnant Russian girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva by Christmas.
Having had his request turned down by Catholic bishops, Mel, 53, pleaded his case in front of a tribunal of members from the Church of the Holy Family, his breakaway Catholic church in Malibu.
Hutton, who once studied for the priesthood only to leave before he was ordained, presided over the hearing. He granted Mel's annulment request after his son presented evidence that his union to Robyn, 53, was never a true marriage even though they wed in a Catholic ceremony in Australia in June 1980.
"Especially important was Mel's description of how he felt pressured into the marriage in the first place because Robyn was pregnant," a family insider says.
"Those feelings indicated to Hutton that it couldn't have been a true marriage, and so he felt it must be invalid.
"After the discussion ended, Hutton pounded his fist on the table and said, It is true that this union did not have what it takes to be a true marriage.'"
The family are at pains to keep the annulment, which took place a month after Robyn filed for divorce in April, a secret but maybe not too secret.
"Mel hopes some of the bishops he has befriended recently can be persuaded to give him a proper Catholic annulment," the insider says.
Either way, Mel is forging ahead with plans for a Christmas wedding to Oksana, 39, despite her cold feet over his recent behaviour, which includes gambling escapades in Las Vegas.
As much as I enjoy his movies (and believe "Passion" was inspired), the more I hear about him, the less impressed I become.
Seven kids and he had the marriage annulled? Mel has gone off his rocker....
Either that or this Ukrainian bombshell has caused all the blood to rush from his head to his pe**s and he ain’t thinking straight!
As for the annulment he's basically removed himself from The Church anyway so hey...why stop there!
The church made their own rules. A friend of mine got her marriage annulled....All you gotta do is PAY!!
“I guess his 7 kids weren’t real either. Are they going to be annulled too?”
Yes, in his case and in every other annullment.
I don’t get it.
This guy is such a train wreck.
That’s what I heard.
And how is that different from his upcoming marriage to his pregnant girlfriend?
I dont know why Mel would worry about getting a farcical annullment. He knows and we know it isnt a true annullment so his conscience cannot be clear with it. Why seek it?
He probably would have gotten a real annulment from the Catholic Church if his name had been Ted Kennedy.
We all know Ted’s conscience is clear.
Do I believe even the Church’s real annulments are sometimes farcical??? Yeah , I do.
I used to be a fan of Mel’s because of this convictions. No more. Now he is now an irrelevant nutcase. I feel for his kids.
Wink wink. Setting up Annulment Two, when he meets another starlet he wants to bed.
Mel has the demons working on him overtime.
I agree. I am Catholic and the annulment is just the Catholic Church’s way of getting around a divorce. If you have the money, you get one.
It is sad.Pray for him .He is still looking to do a movie that I would like to see done.
Evidently, you did not read the article. He was refused an annulment by the Catholic Church, so he pulled a Henry VIII.
I have lost all respect for Mel.............. oh wait.... Mel is Hollywood.... typical Hollywood behavior.
where did you come up with that idea? :)
Only in the US - something like 90% of the American annulments which are appealed to Rome get overturned. The tribunals here are annulment mills, but not in the rest of the world.
Don't comment on something (church annulment) you obviously don't understand. A church annulment is not the same as a civil annulment. Same goes for the comments from others on this thread that he had his "kids annulled".
That is not what church annulment does. The children are legitimate. A church annulment (and don't count Mel's breakaway church as representative of the Catholic church) says that one, or the other,or both, parties to the marriage had an impediment (mental or physical) that made a true marriage impossible.
An annulment is granted only after a Church Tribunal hears and studies all the evidence, and it's a lengthy process. The party seeking the annulment has to gather the evidence, including written testimony from parents and others who knew the couple before and after the marriage took place.
The money you talk about is NOT a bribe as many imply. The money pays for copies of all the paperwork and the associated court costs and can be very little. My daughter's annulment cost around $250 in Seattle about 16 years ago. The Tribunal appointed an attorney to represent her. In her case, her husband was mentally ill and had not disclosed that fact before the marriage. He also had undergone a vasectomy before he met her and had not disclosed that fact either.
Another little known fact. The Church does not deliberate on an annulment until the couple already has been granted a civil divorce. And another complication is that the Church will not consider an annulment unless BOTH parties file their paperwork, or at least sign off on the process. In my daughter's case signing off was merely that her ex returned teh papers with "Don't bother me about this" scrawled across them and his signature at the bottom. That proved that he had received the papers and that was enough to start the process.
And she sought the annulment on the advice of several different priests. It was a bad situation.
IN MY OPINION, The whole process is a farce!!!! My friend’s was over $1000. She said she wouldn’t do it again!!
My thoughts exactly.
It’s funny, that on many other threads, when people talk about wanting to see a movie and then finding out something about the producer/director/actor’s personal life or political leanings, they consider the movies no good, won’t even watch them, and actually hope they fail.
The number of children has nothing to do with the validity of the marriage.
I don’t assume Acorn is a legitimate enterprise just because they get millions of signatures and voter registration cards every election.
“The church made their own rules. A friend of mine got her marriage annulled....All you gotta do is PAY!!”
False. The court costs are low. If you can’t pay them, you don’t have to. I know someone who was so financially strapped by her divorce that she paid NOTHING for the annulment court costs.
Also, some people have taken cases all the way to Rome...and have been turned down flat. Most people throughout history were turned down as a matter of fact.
“I agree. I am Catholic and the annulment is just the Catholic Churchs way of getting around a divorce.”
No, that’s logically impossible.
“If you have the money, you get one.”
Nope. If you have a legitimate case you’ll get one. Can you name a recent case where money clearly made the difference? Joseph P. Kennedy II had money - lots of it. It apparently did him no good. Napoleon couldn’t even get a legitimate annulment from the Church and had or forced clergy to him make one up with no authority. And decades ago, Princess Chalotte of Monaco? Turned down. Count de Castellane? Turned down. James Walker, one time mayor of New York? Turned down. I know there are other famous, rich people who’ve been turned down.
Every case of annulment I have ever learned the facts about seemed like a legitimate case to me.
Mel has the demons working on him overtime.
He sure does.....Jim Cavziel has manged to keep it sall together, but Mel was addicted to the *Drink* that allows Satan to do some terrible things to you...
Why can we not admit that once healthy marriages can for whatever reason die?
Why can't we let go of the ghost of Henry VIII and allow a divorce.
Why can we not admit that in many cases, not all, the current Church annulment process is dishonest. True or false, many if not most people think it is a “pay to play” scheme. As well intentioned as were the original efforts, it has not worked in all too many instances.
I heard some grumbling about Kerry’s annulment during the 2004 campaign. According to you it sounds like there could have been good reasons — and I may have been impugning the man.
Do you know what the facts were behind his annulment? I’m curious as to why he was granted one. I guess I could just go to Google but I’m lazy. LOL.
LOL. If she has to get *another* annulment in another marriage, she probably has bigger problems than money.
If he felt pressure to marry his first wife because she was pregnant, and that was the reason it wasn't a “real” marriage; what about the pregnant girlfriend he is in a rush to marry before she births? Will that one not be “real” after a few decades because of the “pressure”?
I guess you cannot expect crazy people to start making sense.
Is this informal church “tribunal” authoritative under ecclesiastical law?
5 years. She did not give up on him easily. He was a sociopath. When she finally threw in the towel (after he said he really didn’t want to be married) his parents said, “We’re surprised that you didn’t give up on him a long time ago. We’re amazed that it lasted this long.” No children for the reasons stated above.
There is no such thing as an “informal church tribunal”. It’s very formal and is operated by the Diocese under the authority of Rome. They appoint Dioscesan attorneys to represent the plaintiff. If the defendent wants an attorney, I’m sure they would appoint one for the defendent too. Of course, that increases the cost.
The only time the decision goes to Rome is when there is a dispute, and one of the parties does not want the annulment. Then the decision can be appealed to Rome, whether the Tribunal decided yes, or no.
The Diocesan marriage tribunal uses lay people to decide the case. There are psychologists involved and attorneys and transcriptionists and notaries. Lots of paper work. It’s a big deal.
From observations on someone close to me, the process asks some very uncomfortable and probing questions that forces people to face things about themselves and their life. It requires those seeking the annulment and those near to them to fill very long questionnaires. It was not a burden financially either.
It may vary from diocese to diocese too. The person I knew was in St. Louis right around the end of Bishop Regali’s term there and as bishop he is very faithful in his duties.
Never trust a man who becomes his own pope. Mel’s “Church” sounds like Petoria.
Perhaps because marriage annulments have nothing to do with what happens after the marriage begins. They are concerned with determining whether or not the marriage was valid at the time it occurred. They are fundamentally different from a civil divorce, most people's perceptions notwithstanding.
ROFL!!!! Following his father's thinking on this matter .. this marriage should not take place because the future bride is also pregnant. That renders the future marriage invalid before it even takes place.
Mel is in serious need of prayers! He has lost his way.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but imho, there is nothing "Catholic" about this church.
Why can we not allow that once healthy and valid marriages can die for reasons other than the physical death of one or the other. Baptism and Orders are permanent - where does it say marriage is. The physical death of one party will end the marriage, though some would like to hold that it continues in heaven. A marriage can morally die. Slaves separated from their spouses were allowed to marry another. Leave marriage to the consciences of the people, not to the control of ecclesiastical tribunals.
this poor guy and his poor family and this poor pregnant...whatever she is. ugh, what a disaster.
It’s all about the alcohol.
In the Bible. Which the Church has received the authority to interpret (it being her book and all).
Human conscience is where the concept of marriage for life was first recognized. There is no such thing as the "moral death" of a marriage, any more than there could be the moral death of someone's human nature. The practice of people degraded to conditions of slavery can hardly be considered normative or consistent with human nature, I'm thinking. So your example is meaningless.
What do you think? Was old Henry's sixth marriage legitimate???? Or his fifth? Or his fourth? Or his third? Or his second? Do you think it was OK for him to execute bishops like St. John Fisher for refusing to become accomplices in his adulteries? Or St. Thomas More?
Will we also leave abortion, homosexuality, etc., to "the consciences of the people" whatever that may mean (individualist anarchy??? Democracy on moral theology in the pews???)? We are discussing the Roman Catholic Church which is not some windtunnel self-esteem movement.
Jesus Christ said to Peter: "What you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and what you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. I give you the keys of the kingdom." Pursuant to that grant of authority, Peter and his successors are the source of those ecclesiastical tribunals that you demean.
That’s entirely untrue.
Payment is made so that the Church can facilitate the tribunal/paperwork/internal costs that go into granting annullments. The Church doesn’t make a profit of any kind off of annulments. The payments, in fact, are more than justifiable. If I come to you to resolve a problem of my own making, and expect you to use your time/resources/personnel to address and resolve this problem of my making, shouldn’t I pay for the costs you incur?