McCULLOUGH: KERRY CHOOSES ILLEGITIMACY FOR HIS DAUGHTERS

WMCA-NY ^ | 7.1.2004

[KMC1]

BOSTON - In 1995, already divorced from his first wife Julia Thorne, John Kerry pressed for an annulment. He didn't bother to tell Ms. Thorne. The church simply informed her by way of a letter that this was the case. Ms. Thorne had been severely depressed and near suicide when Kerry walked out on her, and in pressing for an annulment he cast his daughters into the bizarre state of illegitimacy. One of them was still a teen at the time.

Compare that to the Jack Ryan case where - BOTH - parents were arguing to keep the records sealed so that their 9 year old son could be spared the embarrassment of unsubstantiated allegations.

What's good for the Jack is good for the John!

[AppyPappy]

Toni Morrison said that Clinton was black because he acted black. IOW she said that bad behavior was indicative of black people. She could say the same about Kerry.

She said it.

"I don't have any illegitimate children"...Then you aren't black enough for Toni.

[goldstategop]

I'm glad we agree. Illegitimacy exists among whites as well as blacks. Values shouldn't be an issue of color but of basic human behavior. It would serve the country well if we could put on the table how to keep families together across the country. Instead of digging for skeletons in people's closets and playing "Gotcha." It wasn't right in the Jim Ryan case and I hate to see it happen to Kerry. We need to take this to a different level.

[PJ-Comix]

The church simply informed her by way of a letter that this was the case. Ms. Thorne had been severely depressed and near suicide when Kerry walked out on her, and in pressing for an annulment he cast his daughters into the bizarre state of illegitimacy.

Dear Ms Thorne,

Remember that marriage you thought you had with John F. Kerry? Well, it never happened as a result of it being annulled. Oh, and those two kids you had in the non-existent marriage are now illegitimate.

Have a nice day!

The Annulment Bureau

[AnAmericanMother]

An annulment has no effect on the legitimacy of the children, any more than a divorce does. It affects only the religious aspect of the marriage.

BTW, even Henry VIII's divorces did not make his children illegitimate. He had to make separate declarations of illegitimacy, which he did as the new self-appointed "head of the church." Since Elizabeth's mother was beheaded, there was no divorce, but he declared her illegitimate anyway. In my opinion, she never got over it.

[PJ-Comix]

Was the Kerry Annulment before or after the annuled wife of Joe Kennedy III wrote her book on this topic and thus gave annulment a really bad name? I'm curious because before her book there was no big stigma in the public on the topic of annulment but nowadays there is. BTW, isn't that book that she wrote the reason why Joe Kennedy III dropped out of politics?

[protest1]

annul // v.tr. (annulled, annulling)
1 declare (a marriage etc.) invalid.
2 cancel, abolish.
annulment n.
[Middle English via Old French anuller from Late Latin annullare (as ad-, nullus ‘none’)]

Hi kids, catholic church here don't worry your pretty little heads about a thing. You are still legit in the eyes of the church it's just that your parents marriage never existed.

[Aquinasfan]

in pressing for an annulment he cast his daughters into the bizarre state of illegitimacy.

No children are "illegitimate" in the eyes of God and His Church.

[Mike Bates]

It's important to note that an anullment from the Catholic Church does not mean Kerry's daughters are illegitimate.

Absolutely correct, and can't be stressed often enough.

[Aquinasfan]

[Catholics, since we're often asked about "annulments" or declarations of nullity, please copy these grounds for annulment]

Why the annulment as well?

A declaration of nullity, a declaration that a valid, sacramental marriage did not take place, would permit Kerry to remarry in the Church.

Grounds for Marriage Annulment in the Catholic Church

Insufficient use of reason (Canon 1095, 10)

You or your spouse did not know what was happening during the marriage ceremony because of insanity, mental illness, or a lack of consciousness.

Grave lack of discretionary judgment concerning essential matrimonial rights and duties (Canon 1095, 20)

You or your spouse was affected by some serious circumstances or factors that made you unable to judge or evaluate either the decision to marry or the ability to create a true marital relationship.

Psychic-natured incapacity to assume marital obligations (Canon 1095, 30)

You or your spouse, at the time of consent, was unable to fulfill the obligations of marriage because of a serious psychological disorder or other condition.

Ignorance about the nature of marriage (Canon 1096, sec. 1)

You or your spouse did not know that marriage is a permanent relationship between a man and a woman ordered toward the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation.

Error of person (Canon 1097, sec. 1)

You or your spouse intended to marry a specific individual who was not the individual with whom marriage was celebrated. (For example, mail order brides; otherwise, this rarely occurs in the United States.)

Error about a quality of a person (Canon 1097, sec. 2)

You or your spouse intended to marry someone who either possessed or did not possess a certain quality, e.g., social status, marital status, education, religious conviction, freedom from disease, or arrest record. That quality must have been directly and principally intended.

Fraud (Canon 1098)

You or your spouse was intentionally deceived about the presence or absence of a quality in the other. The reason for this deception was to obtain consent to marriage.

Total willful exclusion of marriage (Canon 1101, sec. 2)

You or your spouse did not intend to contract marriage as the law of the Catholic Church understands marriage. Rather, the ceremony was observed solely as a means of obtaining something other than marriage itself, e.g., to obtain legal status in the country or to legitimize a child.

Willful exclusion of children (Canon 1101, sec. 2)

You or your spouse married intending, either explicitly or implicitly, to deny the other's right to sexual acts open to procreation.

Willful exclusion of marital fidelity (Canon 1101, 12)

You or your spouse married intending, either explicitly or implicitly, not to remain faithful.

Willful exclusion of marital permanence (Canon 1101, sec. 2)

You or your spouse married intending, either explicitly or implicitly, not to create a permanent relationship, retaining an option to divorce.

Future condition (Canon 1102, sec. 2)

You or your spouse attached a future condition to your decision to marry, e.g., you will complete your education, your income will be at a certain level, you will remain in this area.

Past condition (Canon 1102, sec. 2)

You or your spouse attached a past condition so your decision to marry and that condition did not exist; e.g., I will marry you provided that you have never been married before, I will marry you provided that you have graduated from college.

Present condition (Canon 1102, sec. 2)

You or your spouse attached a present condition to your decision to marry and that condition did not exist, e.g., I will marry you provided you don't have any debt.

Force (Canon 1103)

You or your spouse married because of an external physical or moral force that you could not resist.

Fear (1103)

You or your spouse chose to marry because of fear that was grave and inescapable and was caused by an outside source.

Error regarding marital unity that determined the will (1099)

You or your spouse married believing that marriage was not necessarily an exclusive relationship.

Error regarding marital indissolubility that determined the will (Canon 1099)

You or your spouse married believing that civil law had the power to dissolve marriage and that remarriage was acceptable after civil divorce.

Error regarding marital sacramental dignity that determined the will (Canon 1099)

You and your spouse married believing that marriage is not a religious or sacred relationship but merely a civil contract or arrangement.

Lack of new consent during convalidation (Canons 1157,1160)

After your civil marriage, you and your spouse participated in a Catholic ceremony and you or your spouse believed that (1) you were already married, (2) the Catholic ceremony was merely a blessing, and (3) the consent given during. the Catholic ceremony had no real effect.

We shouldn't be surprised by the number of declarations of nullity that are granted in our country considering the conditions of "Willful exclusion of children (Canon 1101, sec. 2)," "Willful exclusion of marital permanence (Canon 1101, sec. 2)," "Error regarding marital indissolubility that determined the will (Canon 1099)," "Error regarding marital sacramental dignity that determined the will (Canon 1099)."

Of course, like so many other problems in the Church, this can be traced back to poor catechesis.

[yankeedame]

An annulment has no effect on the legitimacy of the children, any more than a divorce does. It affects only the religious aspect of the marriage. Oh, I couldn't agree with you more that secular divorce has no baring on the "status",shall we say, of children born of that union. I wonder,re: the religious angle. Why I say this is b/c with an annulment a marriage -- in the eyes of the Church -- is declared null and void the off spring of that union are considered to be born out of wedlock. Illegitimate, IOW. 'Course I could be -- and probably am -- hopelessly out of date.

BTW, even Henry VIII's divorces did not make his children illegitimate. IIRC, Henry did not divorce his first wife, Catherine of Aagon. The marriage was annuled on the grounds that it violated Levitius and that's why he had no male heirs, etc. etc.

He had to make separate declarations of illegitimacy, which he did as the new self-appointed "head of the church." Since Elizabeth's mother was beheaded, there was no divorce, but he declared her illegitimate anyway. In my opinion, she never got over it. Again, I wouldn't agree with you more.

[maryz]

You know, I couldn't helping wondering about Kerry seeking to get an religious annulment, in addition to the secular divorce. An annulment -- declaring the marriage null and void -- de facto bastardizes any children born from said marriage.

You're confusing civil annulment and church annulment. A civil annulment means that there was no marriage in the eyes of the civil law; generally, non-consummation was a factor (you don't much hear of civil annulments anymore!). So you couldn't have a civil annulment and a civil divorce over the same marriage -- can't dissolve what never existed.

A church annulment says that the marriage wasn't sacramental in the eyes of the church. The civil gov't has no interest in whether a marriage is sacramental. A Catholic who gets a civil divorce (which has no effect on sacramentality) must also get a church annulment in order to marry again in the church.

Legitimacy of the children is a civil category only -- if the marriage was legal, the children are legitimate.

[Paul_B]

> An annulment has no effect on the legitimacy of the children, any more than a divorce does.

The difference is that divorce acknowledges there once was a marriage, while annulment says there never was a legitimate marriage. But as been mentioned, annulment affects only the sacramental aspect of marriage, FWIW.

[Dad2Angels]

I'm not a Religious scholar but I'll take a crack at this.

In the Bible it states that in the event a marriage breaks up and one of the principals gets remarried he/she is actually committing adultery. Unless one of the parties actually did commit adultery and that was the reason for the break-up in the first place.

The way around that for Catholics is to have the marriage annulled, hence it never happened in the eyes of the church and a re-marriage is not committing adultery.

Please excuse me if I've misstated the pertinent facts here.

[LadyDoc]

This slanders both Kerry and the Catholic church.

The children of an annulled marriage are considered legitimate under canon law. This "slander" is often used by "innocent" spouses (usually bitter women) to stop their husbands from getting a second marriage in the Church, and to turn their children against the poor man...

And annulment means only that there were problems in the marriage from the start that made one or both partners unable to contract a sacramental marriage. Kerry's first wife has a history of mental illness, depression, which would allow an annulment.

[AnAmericanMother]

True, Henry's first marriage was declared invalid on Levitical grounds. But Mary was also declared illegitimate in a separate act (I don't recall whether it was by Act of Parliament or Royal Assent - but in those days it really didn't make any difference, "Si veut le roi, si veut la loi.")

I'm a newly-minted Catholic, but from a historical point of view it's always been my understanding that an annulment has no effect on the legitimacy of the issue of the marriage. IOW the marriage took place, it just had no sacramental effect.

[AnAmericanMother]

OK, let me make sure I have this right.

The annulment declares that the necessary conditions precedent, so to speak, were not in place for a sacramental marriage. But as far as the civil authorities are concerned, that has no effect on whether a plain old garden variety marriage took place. So the children are legitimate regardless of the decision on the sacramental aspect of the marriage. ???

[Redmen4ever]

In the Catholic Church, especially in America, an annulment is practically the same thing as a divorce nowadays.

When I and my first wife divorced, I applied for and received an annulment. But, that marriage was short-lived, and there were no children. There was also (now, looking back, I can see it), the problem of depression. (Women are susceptible to this.) Plus, I had grounds. That annulment was legit.

When my second wife and I divorced, we had been married for several years, and had a children. Plus, depression was not involved, and it was a no-fault divorce. Therefore, neither I nor my second wife sought, nor do I think I, her or we would have been given an annulment.

All things considered, Kerry's case seems to be more like my second divorce. Yes, the woman suffered depression, but this, by itself, is not grounds for an annulment. That would be like saying that if the woman has a physical illness, that would be grounds for an annulment.

When you marry, you marry for "better or for worse, in sickness and in health." Mere depression is a risk you run when marryng another person. The Catholic Church should NOT have granted the annulment to Kerry. Either that, or the Catholic Church should accept the fact of divorce.

[AMDG&BVMH]

"Have a nice day!

The Annulment Bureau"

She would have been notified and given a chance to respond. There is also a defender of the marriage on the Tribunal. It is not supposed to be a slam-dunk, just because one of the parties requests it . . .

[Arthur McGowan]

An annulment does NOT, repeat, does NOT make the children into bastards. This is nothing but an old, weary anti-Catholic slur.

[Arthur McGowan]

An annulment does NOT make the children of the putative marriage into bastards. This journalist ought to be fired for repeating an old, tired anti-Catholic slur.