Please excuse me for conflating several people's arguments in one post, but it seems best in terms of putting the whole discussion into a larger context.
First, to deal with the simplest point: in order to claim the impropriety of ANY annulment, you'd have to first list the grounds for the canonical finding of nullity cited by the Marriage Tribunal, and then show that those grounds were specious --- which you have not done.
In order to advance your thesis that canonical jurists produced false judgments in exchange for money, you'd have to name names, dates, and amounts, or at least offer one scintilla of evidence --- which you have not done.
"...and subsequent non-excommunications [of Kerry and Kennedy] for being front and center in the fight for free and easy abortion ..."
This is in fact scandalous, but it does not substantiate your actual charge, which was corruption in the matter of selling ecclesiastical favors for money.
Now, here's the larger context: the genuine corruption involved doesn't involve money: it involves something even broader and more dangerous: a craven reluctance on the part of MANY American bishops to impose any kind of discipline on anyone due to false-compassion and personal cowardice (see "The Battle for the American Church (Revisited)" by Msgr. George Kelly).
"The circumstantial evidence dating from 1995 to 2008 is overwhelming. Only the blind can not see it."
You're convicting the Catholic Church (in general? All of us? The Roman Curia? Bishops? Diocesan Marriage Tribunals in general?> One or two of them in particular? Catholic FReepers? Nancy Pelosi? WHO?) without distinction, of a kickback-related crime or series of crimes, based on admittedly "circumstantial" evidence which you will neither cite nor link?
There would be better ways to present your case, if you would get off your simplistic "selling out for money" theme and address the deeper problem of the cultural captivity of the churches: a critique in which you would find many, many faithful Catholic FReepers in agreement.
I am sure it is inadvertent, but presenting your argument in the way you do makes you look, surely quite contrary to your own intentions, like a person who doesn't know jack chick about Catholicism.
Frankly, I don't know if annulling a Kennedy marriage is evidence of corruption or of inability to consummate on the part of the Kennedy involved ~ my thoughts are that it's probably the latter.
So, what do you think? Did the Kennedy's get annulments on account of sexual dysfunction (all the way back to the date of the marriage) or for some reason not known to any of us?
“Now, here’s the larger context: the genuine corruption involved doesn’t involve money: it involves something even broader and more dangerous: a craven reluctance on the part of MANY American bishops to impose any kind of discipline on anyone due to false-compassion and personal cowardice”
excellent point Mrs. Don-o.
It isn’t just the wealthy or the politicians getting away with this kind of thing.
If this were only a money issue, we would see lots of poor and middle class folks getting excommunicated all over the place.
So then, explain the current situation of the Catholic Church seemingly not caring about all of these goings on.