The most controversial "marriage that never was" in recent U.S. political history is back. Sources tell TIME that the Vatican has reversed the annulment of Joseph P. Kennedy II's marriage to Sheila Rauch. The annulment had been granted in secrecy by the Catholic Church after the couple's 1991 no-fault civil divorce. Rauch found out about the de-sanctification of their marriage only in 1996, after Kennedy had been wedded to his former Congressional aide, Beth Kelly, for three years.
The annulment was the subject of Rauch's 1997 book Shattered Faith, which lambasted her ex-husband and was severely critical of the Catholic Church's proceedings, which made the marriage (which had produced twin boys) null and void in the eyes of the church. Rauch argued that Kennedy was able to unilaterally "cancel" nearly 12 years of marriage because of his clan's influence in the church. Kennedy argued at the time...
Of course the Romish Church lies when it says it's annulment, because Kennedy wouldn't live to his marriage vows. He had two children with his first wife, and he wanted another. You should read the Boston Globe article, and the main article for that matter. Catholics use annulments for divorce. There is no proof the first wife cheated on Kennedy (It might be the other way around?) and she certainly didn't seek an annulment/divorce, Divorce on Trial. So, no, Kennedy used this as a divorce to stay in good with his pagan church -- you know, Should Roman Catholicism really be classified as a Christian religion? -- No. In this instance even the apostate church agreed with the wife, so what's the complaint?
Jim Lincoln wrote: Ah, John, as the article most accurately pointed out, the annulment wasn't an annulment either. Vatican reverses Kennedy ruling Ex-congressman's annulment voided. The wife was totally in her right, as the Vatican even agreed.
The only reason that Kennedy's first wife objected to the annulment was that she was angry with her husband. And the Catholic Church is against divorce. So it is inaccurate to state that a Catholic annulment is a Catholic divorce.
Ah, John, as the article most accurately pointed out, the annulment wasn't an annulment either. Now,Divorce on Trial, doesn't mention anything about annulment, because that is an anti-biblical idea of the Romish church, this commentary gives the only reasons that a divorce could ever take place.
So, John, you did a good service in pointing out the immorality of annulments. Surprisingly, more Catholics--and one out of 10 do quit the Romish church, q.v., The hidden exodus: US Catholics becoming Protestants don't quit just for these immoralities of the Romish church?
Jim Lincoln wrote: John Y. We should have thank you for bringing up this article, which brings up the hypocrisy of the Romish annulment. it was Mrs. Kennedy who did such a good job of doing it. Just another feature of the sinfulness of the Romish church! Divorce on Trial
The Catholic Church annulment is not a divorce. It is a declaration of nullity of the marriage. Kennedy's first wife is not even Catholic but is Episcopalian. So why was she making such a big deal about Kennedy getting a Catholic annulment of their marriage?
John Y. We should have thank you for bringing up this article, which brings up the hypocrisy of the Romish annulment. it was Mrs. Kennedy who did such a good job of doing it. Just another feature of the sinfulness of the Romish church! Divorce on Trial
Actually, you want to read the effect of Catholic policies concerning divorce, and why people leave the Romish Church, you might want to read this commentary out of England/Ireland John Y., and Lurker. Lurker, who knows it might give you some talking points?
True, Henry's concern about succession *was* understandable, since the Yorkists had plausible claims on the throne & would've been happy to "do their bit" in the absence of a Tudor heir. Being king was a hard job, but somebody had to do it!
Whats wrong with Henry VIII anyway? It wasn't his fault. All he tried to do was produce an heir. It was the women who were at fault. They couldn't produce the goods. I ask ya!" What could poor old Henry do? The popery rules were not as agreeable in those days as in modern America. Henry couldn't get a cheapy annulment like you can in the colonies today.
Correction: how Catholic of him. He was "Defender of the [Romish] Faith;" the pope said so, & who am I to argue? Henry was Catholic in theology if not ecclesiology, & would've executed Luther if he had the chance (they exchanged harsh words). He did get some English Lutherans along with papists like More, though. Equal opportunity persecution.
So it is amusing when papists think bashing Henry aids their cause. He was a spoiled, tyrannical brat, & only did good in approving English Bibles for his personal church (*after* Tyndale was burned, alas). His break with Rome was largely pragmatic.
33k...thats a pretty snappy retort that you have their but its only words. Henry asked for a dispensation from Church teaching to marry Catherine, then asked for a dispensation from his dispensation. When the answer was not to his liking, he destroyed Christ's Church in England and began killing people. How very Protestant of him.