No, from what I remember reading, it’s that he felt in his Catholicism, he was still married to his first (deceased) wife, and that his faith would not allow him to remarry (but apparently the fornication part was OK). I can’t tell you what I had for breakfast, but this is just one of those stories I will never forget, because unlike most “baby mamas”, this woman really wanted to marry the father, and as I wrote earlier, she was devastated over his refusal to marry at the time.
It was at a time when I questioned my own Catholic faith, and his logic made no sense - he somehow felt he was not able to remarry (even after the death of his spouse), but the sex outside of marriage thing was OK?
But their official reasoning for delaying the marriage was not for waiting for an annullment, but out of “convenience”, I guess. Certainly a delay over the son’s car accident is justified, but the other reasons? I would think a pregnancy would be a reason to marry, not a reason to delay:
“After postponing their wedding three times, Pierce and Keely were married on August 4, 2001 in Ireland. Their reasons to postpone the ceremony included schedule conflicts with Pierce’s career, son Sean’s serious injuries from a car accident, and Keely’s second pregnancy.”
http://marriage.about.com/od/entertainmen1/a/piercebrosnan.htm
By today’s standards, Hollywood people having children out of wedlock is the norm and barely worth a comment. But I just don’t see how this long-time “good Catholic” can justify having two kids out of wedlock, over a period of five years! He can do whatever he wants, but I don’t think he and his faith are worth the adoration that is shown on this post.
I understand. I just don't let anyone else's practice of their faith undermine my own faith. I know how a Catholic is supposed to live, so I try to live my life that way, and teach my kids the right way.