Replies

The American Catholic Politicians:

Legates of the New Church

Michael J. Matt

Editor, The Remnant

In her book, Shattered Faith: A Woman’s Struggle to Stop the Catholic Church from Annulling Her Marriage, Sheila Rauch Kennedy, an Episcopalian, delivered an indictment against the post-conciliar Church back in 1998 that should have caused Catholics from here to the Vatican to cringe with embarrassment. Mrs. Kennedy, readers will recall, was refusing to roll over and accept the Archdiocese of Boston’s absurd ruling that her 12-year marriage to Congressman Joseph Kennedy, the son of slain US Attorney General Robert Kennedy, was never sacramentally valid.

Though the couple had divorced after twelve years of marriage it wasn’t until Congressman Kennedy wanted to marry again that the Archdiocese had to consider yet another set of “special circumstances” for the Kennedy clan. Political expedience necessitated that the Congressman seek the cloak of legitimacy from the Church in order to help circumvent any potential roadblocks on his way to the governor’s mansion in Massachusetts that year. (Due to subsequent personal tragedy—the accidental death of Michael Kennedy in 1997—his gubernatorial bid was eventually abandoned.)

True to form, however, the Archdiocese granted the controversial annulment, much to the dismay of Mrs. Kennedy. Ironically enough, her battle against the Archdiocese’ decision—which she has since taken all the way to Rome—was as much an inadvertent defense of the Church’s pre-conciliar moral governance as it was a defense of the legitimacy of the two children which the Kennedy marriage had produced. Mrs. Kennedy was outraged by the two-faced politicking of the Church. Showing more integrity than the Archdiocese of Boston, in fact, she clarified a very simple concept which the new Church still seems incapable of grasping:

My concern was for my children’s moral development, a responsibility I felt the Church had shared with parents in the larger community for nearly two thousand years. To me, were the Church to declare my children the offspring of a marriage that had never existed, it would be abdicating its sacred and historic role to protect and promote their moral well-being.1

So, on the one hand, we now know that the Archdiocese of Boston was for decades covering up rampant sexual abuse of young men by Catholic priests, and, on the other hand, the same archdiocese had a policy which, in effect, made bastards of thousands of other Catholic children by unjustly annulling marriages willy-nilly.

Mrs. Kennedy believes in divorce, by the way. What she was decrying in her book is the hypocrisy of the post-conciliar Church, the same hypocrisy which nauseates not just traditional Catholics but a lot of outside observers as well, including a host of disillusioned wives who are the victims of “Catholic divorce”, euphemistically referred to these days as the “annulment process”—yet another spawn of Vatican II. (Ken Jones points out in his masterful Index of Leading Catholic Indicators that there were virtually no annulments in the United States in 1968. Thirty years later there were 50,498.)

The number of annulments continues to skyrocket and yet the new Church refuses to call it what it is—DIVORCE! Several heartbreaking testimonies of Catholic women victimized by the new Church’s cruel marriage annulment policy appeared in Mrs. Kennedy’s book:

All of the women I spoke with were married for more than twenty years and each is the mother of at least three children. Most were raised as traditional Catholics. The others were dedicated converts who joined the Church to share their husbands’ faith. Largely because of their strong beliefs in the Church’s teachings, they had forgone careers and defined themselves as wives and mothers. When the Church declared that the unions to which they had dedicated their lives had never existed, their faith in the institution and in themselves was shattered.2

Who could blame them? And who’s going to answer for this colossal scandal? Our progressive churchmen may call it the “annulment process” but Mrs. Kennedy, who was married in the Catholic Church, calls it “lying before God.” And, you know what? The Episcopalian is absolutely right! That’s precisely what it is:

Those seeking annulments are not encouraged to accept responsibility for their failed marriages. Rather, the Church searches for a technicality in its laws that will render the marriage invalid. The person seeking an annulment is vindicated of responsibility for the breakup of the union on the grounds that there never was a true marriage in the first place...they [the children of annulled marriages] have become the offspring of unions that never existed. For some persons, annulments require an even greater compromise in personal truth: lying before God. 3

Indeed. So even Episcopalians are recognizing the modern Church’s sellout on the indissolubility of marriage as nothing more than a cheap sham conducted by milquetoast churchmen who lack the courage to call it what it is. Even before the priest/sex scandals had hit high gear in Boston, Mrs. Kennedy was rightly pointing out that the moral authority of the Church has been squandered:

I realized that much of what they [Catholic women victimized by forced annulments] were saying was not about how things used to be but about their fears for the future. Many saw their church, the entity they had once trusted above all others, as one more institution that had abandoned traditional values for short-term gain and social convenience. They saw a future in which their children would be unable to rely on the Church either as a moral beacon within their communities or as a source of comfort in a family crisis. And they felt that without moral principle or truth, there would be no trust, and that without trust, a community and a family would break down. 4

Shattered Faith makes it abundantly obvious that it’s the post-conciliar Church’s inability to be honest either with itself or the world which is so offensive to non-Catholics. What the world calls “divorce”, the Church of Vatican II calls the “annulment process”; what the world calls “birth control”, the Church of Vatican II calls “natural family planning” (mandatory classes); what the world calls “religious indifferentism”, the Church of Vatican II calls “ecumenism”; the world shouts: “Who are you to force your beliefs on me?”, while the Church whimpers: “We no longer believe in conversion since the faith systems of our separated brethren subsist in the Church of Christ anyway.”

At nearly every level the post-conciliar Church has signed a treaty of surrender to the world, her only condition being that she retains the right to change the nomenclature as she sees fit. More than anything, the Spirit of Vatican II is so abominably lukewarm! It is neither hot nor cold but shivers along in tepid mediocrity, earning for the Church the disgust of those within and outside her walls.

In 1998, an utterly scandalized Mrs. Kennedy wrote that Boston’s marriage tribunal granted the annulment on the grounds that her husband lacked “due discretion.” “In other words,” she mockingly observes, “at the time of our marriage, Joe had suffered from a lack of due discretion of such magnitude that he was incapable of marriage and therefore our union had never been valid.”

Apparently, Joe found that “adequate discretion” a little later on when, even before his annulment proceedings had been completed, he went ahead and married a cute, little member of his staff.

As for the Archdiocese, well, sadly, who would expect anything more from that fun house? Things only got worse after that, you’ll recall. After Cardinal Law had finally been offered his attractive “redundancy package” for his part in covering up the largest, sickest priest scandal in history, a new sheriff came to town. With his plastic six-guns a’blazin’, Archbishop Sean O’Malley issued a statement about pro-choice, “Catholic” politicians receiving Communion that pretty much says it all. Get a load of this timber-shivering proclamation:

"A Catholic politician who holds a public, pro-choice position should not be receiving Communion. However, the Church presumes each person is receiving in good faith. It is not our policy to deny Communion. It is up to the individual."

Whew! That’ll show ‘em. By the way, pro-aborts John Kerry and Ted Kennedy attended O’Malley’s installation ceremony with bells on last fall. Wouldn’t you know it—the two notoriously pro-death senators trotted up the aisle and received Holy Communion right on cue.

Sunday, May 18, 1997

How a Kennedy discards his family
By YVONNE CRITTENDEN -- Toronto Sun

SHATTERED FAITH
Sheila Rauch Kennedy
(Random House)

The Roman Catholic Church's bizarre practice of annulling marriages that were undertaken in good faith between consenting adults, many of them married for years and the parents of children, is the focus of this outspoken book by Sheila Rauch Kennedy, divorced first wife of Congressman Joe Kennedy.

It is just one of the latest in the parade of stories about the Kennedys' mistreatment of women -- including, recently, Robert Kennedy's son Michael, a father of three whose wife is divorcing him over his affair with a 14-year-old babysitter.

Divorced after a 12-year marriage and the birth of twin sons, Sheila Kennedy, an Anglican who married Kennedy in the Catholic faith, received a letter in 1993 from the Boston Catholic Archdiocese informing her that her ex-husband was seeking an annulment of their marriage in order that he could remarry in the Catholic Church.

Stunned and outraged that she was being asked to agree that her marriage had never really existed, and that her sons would henceforth be regarded as children of an unsanctified union, Kennedy decided to fight the action, thus taking on not only the Church but one of the most powerful families in America.

In the process, she threw light on a little understood but widespread practice that has shattered lives and left women, who believed they had been good Catholic wives and mothers, feeling betrayed and deserted by their Church. Many felt the annulment had devastated their children, who even though they were still legitimate in the eyes of the state, lost their faith and self-esteem by the cruelty of this hypocritical practice.

Joe Kennedy warned his ex-wife that by contesting his action, she would be bogged down in ecclesiastical law, and he could not understand why she wouldn't go along with his wishes.

"It's just Catholic gobbledegook," he told her. He reminded her she was "a nobody," while he was powerful and popular.

Undeterred, Sheila Kennedy proceeded. Although Joe eventually won his annulment, as do most petitioners, she is now appealing the decision to Rome, not just for herself but on behalf of the many wives and mothers she interviewed who feel demeaned and humiliated by the practice.

It is an abuse of power and a perverse practice that needs to be revealed for what it is, she writes. A thought-provoking look at a subject that seems well worth reforming or abandoning altogether.

About annulments

Question: What is an annulment of a marriage? Why and how does one go about obtaining one?

Your question actually suggests a number of other questions people pose about the need for and process of annulment. Let's start with:

What is an annulment?

An annulment is a declaration by a competent church authority that a marriage is invalid. It is an official judgment that a marriage never took place, in spite of all appearances.

Just as the state requires certain conditions before two people can marry, so does the Catholic church. For instance, the state demands that two people be free to marry, are not already married, are of age, and marry before a licensed official of the state. The church also requires some conditions be met, or else there is no marriage.

So what are these church conditions?

Church law requires that the couple to be married be of age; be married before the legitimate representative of the church - ordinarily the pastor of the parish, and that they are free to enter into the sacrament of marriage. So, if internal consent of one or both of the parties was either missing or vitiated, there is no marriage; if the marriage has not taken place before the local pastor or his representative there is no marriage; or if there are major impediments to the marriage, there is no marriage and a "decree of nullity" could be sought.

Is an annulment a Catholic divorce?

No. A civil divorce is a permanent separation of two people who were validly married. A judge declares that reasons now exist to end the marriage. A civil divorce usually leaves the individuals free to marry again if they so desire. An annulment, however, is a judgment that there was no marriage to begin with.

Can a Catholic get a divorce?

Yes. There may be reasons for Catholics to obtain a civil divorce in order to obtain a variety of legal benefits. So yes, a Catholic could get a divorce for these benefits. However there is no freedom to marry again, unless the Catholic party has obtained an annulment. Note that a civil divorce must have been obtained before beginning the annulment process.

What are the reasons to grant an annulment?

As stated above, the church, like the state, has certain requirements before its members can marry. Both church and state are concerned that marriages be stable. The well being of society depends on this. If any of these major requirements are lacking the grounds for annulment can be investigated. Two areas for investigation are impediments and consent.

What are the impediments?

Impediments are obstacles to a couple getting married. Unless these have been dealt with prior to the wedding, then some of them could invalidate a marriage.

There are a variety of impediments. Some have to do with previous relationships such as a previous marriage, blood relationships, etc. Others have to do with differences of religion and sex. A third category has received a lot of publicity in the recent past. It has to do with the area of consent.

What do you mean by "the area of consent"?

When the priest or deacon asks the couple questions before they take their vows, he is asking "consent" questions. During the ceremony the question is asked: "Do you take John/Mary?" Implied in that question are some very important facts. "Do you know who this person is?" "Do you know what marriage is?" If a person really doesn't understand that this is a faithful partnership for life, if the person is not freely entering into this covenant; if one of the parties is really not who the other thought he/she is then there is no consent. There is no marriage.

Is the area of consent a difficult area to investigate?

Yes. The other areas are facts relatively easy to prove: one did or did not go before a priest or deacon to get married; one was or was not related to another person. But it is not easy to prove that one did not marry for life, or that one had to be faithful. It's not easy to prove fraud or fear. It is not easy to prove that if one knew something at the time of the marriage, they would never have consented to the wedding. And, today, we are much more aware of how various mental conditions undermine a person's freedom of choice.

How does one get an annulment?

An annulment is indicated after some sort of a crisis has been reached in the relationship. One or the other wants to have a decree of nullity declared, allowing them to separate and/or remarry.

Usually the first step is to go to the local pastor and ask for help in beginning the process. He will either take some testimony himself, or refer the party to the diocesan center where a trained person, in what is called the "tribunal," will begin to gather the facts in the case.

How much does it cost ? How long does it take?

The only costs are usually some minor expenses to cover the expenses of paper work and the like. As to time, that depends on the complications and difficulties of obtaining testimony and proof of the situation alleged. Planning on a year would not be far wrong.

If I get a decree of nullity, does that mean my children are illegitimate?

This is a consideration that has bothered many people before, during and after the procedure of seeking an annulment. Simply put the answer is "NO." Church law covers this situation very clearly and recognizes that children who were considered legitimate offspring are still so considered.

FURTHER REFERENCES: Ladislas Orsy, S.J. "Annulments" The New Dictionary of Theology, Komonchak,Collins,Lane, Glazier, Wilmington,DE 1988 Also Ladislas Orsy, Marriage in Canon Law, Wilmington,DE:Glazier,1985. Geoffrey Robinson, Marriage,Divorce and Nullity; A Guide to the Annulment Process in the Catholic Church, Melbourne: Dove Communications, 1984 and London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1985