Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Recently Pulled Thread
Me ^ | 10-15-04 | Me

Posted on 10/15/2004 8:58:28 AM PDT by johniegrad

A Washington Times article was just pulled because the poster violated the copyright rules for our website. I was in the process of typing a response to the article and it was pulled prior to my posting. I went to the Times website and could not find it. There was something about his marriages that would be of interest to a number of Freepers, i.e., the article said he married Theresa Heinz BEFORE his first marriage was annulled. I think that may be new information. Is there a way to get this article, appropriately excerpted, back on the site.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: annulment; catholicism; juliathorne; kerry; marriages
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last
Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

To: nmh
Rationalize it all you want but it is NOT Biblical and is nothing more than a DIVORCE for money without the label.

Whether or not you agree with the Catholic Church's practice of annulments, it is indeed practiced. I can also tell you that not only the wealthy pursue and are granted annulments.

Unless you are attempting to challenge and transform the Catholic Church, there really is no political story here.

22 posted on 10/15/2004 9:15:30 AM PDT by Heartland Mom (My heroes have always been cowboys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MEG33

Because he wanted you to see it.


23 posted on 10/15/2004 9:15:59 AM PDT by Rebelbase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad

This may be my fault. Here's an old Boston Globe article. Excerpted and follow link for the full version--->>>

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22already+at+the+center+of+a+fierce+public%22&hl=en&lr=&selm=01bc45fd%24a4bb1de0%2463755acf%40default&rnum=1

Kerry's former wife, Julia Thorne, says she received what she considers a coldly worded letter in November from a church official notifying her that the senator was seeking an annulment of their 12-year marriage, which ended in 1984.

Thorne, unlike Sheila Rauch Kennedy who is battling a similar request from Congressman Kennedy, says she will not contest the annulment request. She says she still supports Kerry politically and is glad he is happy in his new marriage to Teresa Heinz, the Heinz food fortune heiress.

But Thorne, a published author on issues of emotional experience, does not hold back her contempt for the way the Roman Catholic Church takes a marriage off the books.

Thorne, who married Kerry in 1970, said the church's approach to the issue was cold-hearted and showed no respect or recognition of her 12-year union with the senator.

"It was disrespectful to me, it was aloof to any emotional issues, and devoid of any sense of the humanity of what this means to me and the children,"


24 posted on 10/15/2004 9:16:13 AM PDT by dennisw (Gd - against Amelek for all generations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nmh
You are treading into an area that is outside legal jusridiction.

Marriage is a legal, binding contract, recognized and registered with the state.

Marriage is also a sacred union, recognized by the Catholic Church.

The legal wheels can turn fairly quickly, enabling the contract to be declared void. Upon the issuance of the divorce decree, the state declares the marriage to be at an end, and both parties are free to pursue their lives, even to entering into another marriage contrat, recognized by the state.

The Catholic Church would view things a little differently.

Divorce is a sin, under canon law. But the Church does recognize the process of annulment (fundamentally declaring that the marriage never existed in the first place).

Technically a Catholic would have to receive an annulment from the Church (a religious nicety that the state doesn't recognize), as well as a divorce from the state (a legal action that the Church doesn't recognize). Technically, the Church recognizes the couple as still married, until the annullment is granted, even if they are divorced.

Re-marrying, before receiving the annulment is a sin, but not a crime.

25 posted on 10/15/2004 9:16:36 AM PDT by steve in DC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad
This is a non-story. I recommed Freepers not jump in the middle of Catholic annulment issues. Briefly, if the first wife had maturity issues, it could be just cause for annulment. So just forget it. Besides it think it is really crass to start digging this deep. And finally, the former wife supports Kerry.

Don't waste your time.

26 posted on 10/15/2004 9:18:07 AM PDT by DestroytheDemocrats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad
Kerry's starting to tank.

We probably don't even need any more dirt.

27 posted on 10/15/2004 9:18:10 AM PDT by Allegra (GO ASTROS!!! (Don't Break My Heart AGAIN!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nmh

But nothing being married to two rich women at the same time cannot solve.....


28 posted on 10/15/2004 9:19:37 AM PDT by BIGLOOK (I once opposed keelhauling but have recently come to my senses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: latina4dubya

People can bear children outside of marriage, too. Having children is not the litmus for marriage.

The Church determines whether or not the marriage vows were fraudulently declared, declared in ignorance, declared under duress, or declared without full disclosure of personal information (e.g., "I'm really bisexual") between the man and woman.

It's debatable whether or not it's loosely granted. What's not debatable is the fact that a man or woman can be re-married (in sin), receive an annulment of the previous marriage, and be returned to good standing in the church.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, NMH.


29 posted on 10/15/2004 9:19:40 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever ("...upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever

"We have a loser"

I miss your point. Do you not like nmh's #17?


30 posted on 10/15/2004 9:19:42 AM PDT by Rebelbase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Cousin Eddie
"Anyone who supports Bush will stay as far away as possible from the Kerry 1st wife/marriage story. It will do irrepairable damage to Bush if this is brought up...tick off the squishy middle, solidify Kerry's base."

You are exactly right. The first wife supports Kerry. What's in it for us? Nothing and it is very dirty to go digging into mental health issues and past marriages.

31 posted on 10/15/2004 9:19:43 AM PDT by DestroytheDemocrats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
"Depends on how much you give to the church."

You are wrong, wrong, wrong. Don't go there.

32 posted on 10/15/2004 9:20:49 AM PDT by DestroytheDemocrats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: nmh

Even if it's just a "technicality", it would still lodge in the minds of many voters. Go for it. The Dims would.


33 posted on 10/15/2004 9:21:23 AM PDT by no dems (Hey, hey. Ho Ho. Kerry sign Form 1 - 8 - 0.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever

Ah, gotcha right here:

"What's not debatable is the fact that a man or woman can be re-married (in sin), receive an annulment of the previous marriage, and be returned to good standing in the church. "

Where in the Bible does God reveal that annulment is acceptable?


34 posted on 10/15/2004 9:21:46 AM PDT by Rebelbase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase

Um, when someone calls the Catholic faith "not Biblical and is that of another Gospel as well as illogical," I'm going to come out swinging.

Practicing Catholics are an evangelical's best friend, and a very powerful component of the Republican party.


35 posted on 10/15/2004 9:22:02 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever ("...upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: steve in DC

Technically speaking the Catholic church is NOT following the Bible. At some point you must decide, WHO are YOU going to follow? Perfection or a fallible mortal?

Just pointing out the obvious minus the unbiblical rationalizations.


36 posted on 10/15/2004 9:22:50 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad

Is this another vanity?


37 posted on 10/15/2004 9:23:03 AM PDT by rabidralph (Take responsibility for your life. Vote Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no dems

It's more than a "technicality". It's simply wrong. It's a scam put forward by the Catholic church to allow DIVORCE and NOT call is a divorce. Honestly after EIGHTEEN YEARS OF MARRAIGE and TWO kids later, it's laughable that this is an "annulment."


38 posted on 10/15/2004 9:24:20 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: nmh
Being married to TWO women at the same time IS a problem.

You have no idea!

39 posted on 10/15/2004 9:25:33 AM PDT by PBRSTREETGANG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever

"Um, when someone calls the Catholic faith "not Biblical and is that of another Gospel as well as illogical," I'm going to come out swinging.

Practicing Catholics are an evangelical's best friend, and a very powerful component of the Republican party."

Swing all you want but it doesn't change the FACT that the Catholic church is NOT Biblical on the issue of annulment. This is an add on by a mere mortal to allow for DIVORCE without saying the word DIVORCE. It's illogical, unBiblical and WRONG.


40 posted on 10/15/2004 9:26:18 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson