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 ...
Utter nonsense that defies common sense and obviously NOT Biblically correct. It's another man made doctrine that caters to our disintegration of marriage, ah in exchange for money to the Catholic church. To state otherwise is ridiculous.
If you want the TRUTH on what the Church teaches, go to an actual Catholic source. Joe Kennedy's ex-wife is NOT Catholic, so she has no idea. Most of her bile was because he dumped her, and she wanted to take it out on him in the worst way she knew how; through their childen.
She was probably granted an annulment for the reason I stated earlier; the Kennedy men have a problem being faithful to their wives because they don't believe such requirements apply to them. If he went into the marriage never intending to be faithful, the Sacrament was not valid from the beginning.
Your snide comment notwithstanding, whether or not the Church claims the SACRAMENT is valid has no bearing on whether the STATE claims his marriage was legitimate. It is the STATE which determines the legitimacy of children, not the Sacrament conferred by the Catholic Church.
Why do children not become illegitimate when a couple divorces? After all, if legitimacy is determined by whether or not a couple was married legally, why wouldn't the marriage dissolution also remove the childrens' legitimacy? If it doesn't, then anything the Church does won't change that, because the Church never conferred legitimacy upon the children.
I asked this very question in a different thread; "Does not
the annulment make his children retroactively illegitimate"?
what kind of man chooses his own self-interest over the
bastardy of his own children?
Seriously, I have some questions about how someone can be married for the sake of their children while never being married at all (isn't that what annulment means?)
And I'm not a bombthrower my wife got an annulment but she had no kids.
>>Seriously, I have some questions about how someone can be married for the sake of their children while never being married at all (isn't that what annulment means?)
I actually did vote for marriage, before I left my wife!
No, that's not what annulment means. An annulment only affects the Sacramental portion of marriage. All legal issues remain.
The entire question is whether the vow could be considered legitimate. There are lots of reasons why it might not be...drunkeness...insanity...dishonesty...shotgun, etc. Catholics believe that once you promise to cling to a spouse for the rest of your life, that you cannot go back on that promise. An annulment says basically that the promise itself wasn't valid because one or the other party wasn't capable of making a promise.
Which is more Biblically correct, denying remarriage to previously married couples or allowing as many divorces and remarries as you want?
Just remember the Catholic Church invented lawyers.
Thanks for your very informative post.
What can you tell us about the use of the word "Error" in some of these clauses? Does this not suggest that not only did the sacrament of marriage not take place but that one of the parties to the event is "guilty" of error? Isn't this equivalent to suggesting that such persons are living in sin while continuing to live in this state of non-marriage? Wouldn't the church demand as remedy for such error, that the mistaken thinking be corrected?
Hey, believe what ever you like. Homosexuals want to believe that same sex attraction is normal too and Biblically correct. So you're not alone in wanting to believe something not Biblically validated and caters to man's ever lowering social mores.
You've been shown to be wrong on BOTH counts during the course of this thread. If you want to continue on in ignorance, be my guest.
Yes, he made a promise to her...but was she able to enter into a sacramental marriage? "depression" can be blamed on a bad marriage, but often the bad marriage is due to a depressed woman...and they are quite careful in checking if the mental illness was present before the marriage...
Or maybe, like the Kennedy's, he only pretended to promise he would be faithful...and cheated on her from the start of the marriage...
This is really a non-issue. The Catholic Church, whether you agree with it or not, holds the view that children of parents whose marriage is annulled continue to be legitimate. This is quite simply a fact, and a fact that has been explained over and over in this thread. Also, whether you agree with it or not, the Catholic Church gave John Kerry an annulment. He sought the annulment from the Catholic Church, not from civil authorities, which means that the definition by the Church is the only one we can work from. Now since the question of why he would get an annulment has been posed so many times, I think it is clear -- he wanted to get remarried and that was the only way to do it within the Catholic Church.
But let's get to the real issue here: if there were a Republican running for office who had done the same thing, you wouldn't be sitting here saying he is a bad guy. The reason that Kerry is being attacked here is because of his politics and some of you are trying to get a cheap shot in by making arguments like this that are not founded in fact, and even if they were, they would be none of your business. I know that Republicans think that they have a monopoly on values and morality, but you don't. I'd like to hear a discussion of why it is OK for Dick Cheney's daughter to be a lesbian or an open discussion of George Bush's use of cocaine. Yes, it isn't Cheney's fault that his daughter chose to be a lesbian. Sure, George Bush doesn't use cocaine now. But then again, John Kerry isn't getting an annulment now either.
If you have a problem with someone's politics, why don't you discuss his politics rather than trashing his personal life, which you know nothing about, and which you have to admit, has nothing to do with your dislike of John Kerry.
Yes, KMCl, half of the electorate is classless -- the half that sits around making personal attacks because they can't meaningfully discuss the real issues. Yes, I am aware that these people reside in both parties.
The little lecture can stay. You go.
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.