I ask this question in a different thread but didn't get an answer. I'm not trying to imply any thing, but I am curious as how Ted Kennedy and John Kerry were able to receive annulments? A rumor is that they bought them. I'm not sure how this works, but like I said, I am curious. Thank you.

-- Roger (ro@yahoo.com), July 29, 2004

Answers

BUMP

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 29, 2004.

We know Kerry applied for an annulment. There has been no public proof that he received on or not.

Personally, I think this is a private matter.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 29, 2004.

Thanks Bill. I do disagree however.

-- Roger (ro@yahoo.com), July 29, 2004.

As long as he loses the election, who cares? The guy can call himself a Hindu Eskimo, just don't put him in control of our great Nation!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 29, 2004.

I hear Frank, but I dont see how they could even file for annulment let alone receive one. Like I said, I'm just curious.

-- Roger (ro@yahoo.com), July 29, 2004.

Anyone can simply file for an annulment. Whether one is granted is entirely another matter.

We are all influenced by sin (I certainly am). Annulment tribunals are not immune to this. I'm not making an accusation, but it is a fact that a tribunal, through one individual judge or collectively, could be influenced by money just like any other human or institution.

This sin could come through accepting a direct contribution in the form of a "bribe" to a judge. A less direct route would be a prominent family in the diocese, a large contributor, a member of whom wanted an annulment. The judge(s) on the tribunal would be aware of the prominence or influence of this family to certain members of the clergy. It is only human that the objectivity of the judge could be compromised in trying to please those around them rather than simply ruling objectively on the evidence.

At the same time, you must be aware of the sins of scandal or detraction. We must love the Church and her clergy. To publicly make a such charge without evidence and it turns out to be incorrect is the sin of scandal. It is the tarnishing of the good name of a person, priest or bishop who by natural law is entitled to the maintenance their good name and reputation.

Just as evil as scandal is the sin of detraction. When a person, priest or bishop actually does something evil (such as compromise the objectivity of a tribunal), as it is explained in the Gospel, it is our duty to inform them directly through the proper channels. At the same time, we cannot make this public unless this is absolutely necessary in order to protect another person from actual harm. If we do make this type of evil public prematurely, we deprive the sinning person, priest or bishop of the opportunity to realize their sin themself and reconcile themselves to God privately.

To answer your question directly, their is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that either Kennedy or Kerry actually "bought" an annulment. I kindly point out that people who spread such rumors, whether true or not, could probably benefit by examining their own conscience a bit. I myself have had to do so on this very matter.

Peace.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), July 30, 2004.

Thanks Pat. I think people that are in politics would make things easier if they just came out and gave nothing but the facts.

-- Roger (ro@yahoo.com), July 30, 2004.

I do not know about the Kerry annulent, but the Kennedy annulment was nothing more than a "Catholic divorce". There were no legitimate grounds,and his wife was never even called to give her side of it.

The Church should not be proud of this one.

-- Chasboy (Chico2@southtime.com), August 02, 2004.

You have no reason to believe that Kennedy ever was granted one. He isn't being publicly questioned and never will be. There IS no ''Catholic divorce'' to be proud of or ashamed of.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 03, 2004.

There are times when a spouse ddecides not to participate, add comments, or even make a statement in the annulment process. Spouses can opt to waive their statements. This could very well have been the case in the Kennedy annullment.

-- Jennifer (jrabs@jrabs.com), August 03, 2004.

Everything I've read indicates that Kennedy's wife did not want to participate, for the sake of the children. I can understand that. Divorce is bad enough without the added insult of an annullment.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), August 03, 2004.

If so she was mistaken. Annulment is not an insult. It is merely a finding of fact that the marriage was not valid. It does not mean that people who honestly believed they were married were fornicating, nor does it make the children illegitimate (which is a civil law term, not a Church one. All children are legitimate in the sight of God, otherwise he wouldn’t have created them.) In some cases annulment can help heal the wounds caused by divorce.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 03, 2004.

Everything I've read indicates that Kennedy's wife did not want to participate, for the sake of the children. I can understand that. Divorce is bad enough without the added insult of an annullment

***This strikes me as odd and interesting considering she wrote a book about how the Catholic Church failed her. She has since left the faith because of how her divorce was handled.

God Bless.

-- Jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), August 03, 2004.

"Annulment is not an insult. It is merely a finding of fact that the marriage was not valid."

It is the OPINION of some canon lawyers, that the marriage was not valid. Different canon lawyers might well have decided, with the same "evidence" that the marriage was valid. Even canon lawyers are human. Only the 2 married people know for certain if their situation qualifies for an annulment.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), August 04, 2004.

I don't think a bribe was needed. In the U.S. 80-90% of all petitions for nullity are granted. American catholics represent 6% of the world's catholic population yet account for more than 75% of the world's annulments. American dioceses process about 60,000 annulment cases a year -- accounting for 75 percent of such cases worldwide. As recently as 1968, there were about 400 cases in the United States. Many dioceses alone will handle that many cases in 2004. In 1993, Vatican canon-law expert Archbishop Vincenzo Fagiolo blasted American bishops for "extraordinary" increases in annulments. Fagiolo called it a "grave scandal" that calls into question the church's traditional teaching that marriage is permanent. Those who defend the tremendous amount of annulments granted in the U.S. point to the streamlined process, lower fees etc. (ie, if other countries were as efficient as the US Bishops, they too would have a tremendous amount of annulments) rather than a lack of respect for the sanctity of the sacrament of marriage by the tribunals. The Holy Father is also concerned with the ease of gaining annulments:

Address to the Roman Rota on 28 January 1994

...On the other hand, exploiting justice to serve personal interests or pastoral forms that, however sincere, are not based on truth, will result in creating social and ecclesial situations of distrust and suspicion, in which the faithful will be tempted to see merely a contest of competing interests and not a common effort to live in accordance with justice and right...You are well aware of the temptation to lighten the heavy demands of observing the law in the name of a mistaken idea of compassion and mercy. In this regard, it must be firmly said that if it is a question of a transgression that concerns the individual alone, one need only refer to the injunction: "Go, and do not sin again" (Jn. 8:11). But if the rights of others are at stake, mercy cannot be shown or received without addressing the obligations that correspond to these rights.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), August 04, 2004.