Posted on 07/02/2004 4:11:13 AM PDT by 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!
(Excerpt) Read more at kmclive.com ...
"Kerry's first wife has a history of mental illness, depression, which would allow an annulment."
Not unless it affected her ability to understand and contract a valid marriage at the time of the vows. He married her for better or for worse, and subsequent medical problems are not grounds for annulment.
Heck, wouldn't being married to Kerry make anyone depressed?? ;)
Since Catholics do not recognize divorce, and Kerry wanted to get on the "gravy train," i.e. the former Mrs. Heinze, in order to marry in the Catholic religion, he needed an annulment. To all the Catholics out there, please correct me if I'm wrong, but if he were to marry without the annulment, wouldn't that preclude him from receiving the Sacrement?
Mark
That's the one thing that seems fishy about this Kerry story. My understanding is that someone can't just decide to get the marriage annulled, and inform the spouse simply as a matter of course. The spouse is an integral part of the process, since the one seeking the annulment is trying to make the case that there was some kind of impediment to the marriage in the first place.
As mind boggling as that is, I believe it to be a correct interpretation of RC theology. The annulment says no sacramental marriage ever took place.
I'm not endorsing any of this, BTW, just giving information.
The writer is WRONG! Annulment does not create illegitimacy any more than a divorce does.
I'm NOT for Jean alQuery, but just wanted to set the record straight, as this fiction about annulment and illegitimacy seems to pop up from time to time.
For example, folks like to make a big deal about the Kennedy family annulments, saying that "sure they got theirs cause they gave a lot of money to the Church". The Kennedy men were never raised with the idea that staying faithful to your spouse was an important thing because they saw their father (Big Joe) continue to be unfaithful to their mother, so they treated their wives the same way. If they never had any intention to be faithful to their spouses, the Sacrament was never valid. And as far as I know, the Kennedys aren't particularly generous with the Church, anyway.
All this, however, has nothing to do with the legal contract entered into by the parties. A Catholic wedding doesn't take place without a legal Marriage License, so when the Sacrament is conferred, the priest or deacon is also acting as a agent of the State which issues the license. A divorce is the dissolution of the legal contract, but the Sacrament is still valid unless one of the parties can prove that is is not.
Either way, the legitimacy of the kids is not affected. They are the children of their parents whether their parents are divorced, or their marriage is annuled. Children are considered legitimage if their parents were legally married at the time of their birth. Whether or not they were married in any Church has no bearing on that legal state, and a change in the religious nature of the union doesn't affect the legal status of the children.
Hope I've explained it well enough.
The church informs the other party AND asks for their participation.
I would also like to state for all who are on this thread, that a SACRAMENTAL MARRIAGE is a STATE OF LIFE IN THE CHURCH. This is why, to those who look at this whole issue from a secular point of view, there is so much confusion.
He wasn't worried about an annulment in '91 when he and Thorne divorced. It wasn't until '95 when he was going to marry Tay that, on the sly, needed the annulment. I'm under the impression it was Ms. I-can't-believe-I-married-an-American who wanted the annulment.
True or not, it doesn't matter. What matters is what people believe or what the concensus is. People believe Saddam was or wasn't involved in 9/11. People believe he had or didn't have WMD. People believe Clinton is or isn't the greatest president alive. People believe there is or isn't a Santa. And my pet peeve is people insist on calling the Branch Davidian thing "Waco" never mind that it wasn't in Waco or had anything to do with Waco other than that was the closest town large enough to house and feed all the LE and media.
Thank you. That comports with my sort of vague understanding, but explains it much better.
Idiot newspeople trying to be theologians. The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony would be annulled, this has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the kids. The Church has always held that the kids are not responsible for the stupidity of their parents.
No he didn't.
(I hate Kerry as much as the next guy but this is an uninformed statement.)
The Catholic church annulments do make the children illegitimate. My source is the book written by Joe Kennedy Jr.'s first wife where she fought his annulment claim for just that reason. She claimed it was so. I believe she won her case [within the Catholic church].
If it granted the annulment -- that's the question no one seems to have a definitive answer to. He's mentioned requesting an annulment, but weasels out of saying he actually got one.
I thought he married her for her money . . . (nasty snicker)
Absolutely. He would, in the eyes of the Church, be living in sin. (Of course, there's no indication that his marriage to Heinz was a Catholic wedding -- at least nothing anyone's been able to find; the wedding didn't take place in a church, in any case -- so he may well be married outside the church in any case.)
remember when the libs ripped Newt over far less serious circumstances affecting his separations?
Dumb question/observation here....wouldn't the book Julia Thorne wrote (while Sydney Bristow thought she was her on ALIAS!) have far more juicy detail out in the public forum than his records?
According to the Catholic church the marriage isn't valid to it would make his children illegitimate but heck good luck explaining common sense to a Catholic.
Just curious but how come the Repuplican's SEALED records are exposed without their permission and John Kerry has NO judge helping journalists UNSEALING his divorce papers. The same reasoning was used for the Republican - spare the kids the dirt but with John Kerry they can not be unsealed - no journalist is pursuing it and NO judge is offering it to be "fair" politically speaking.
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.