 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22nd, 2007 10:13 am |
|
Boston, Jun 21, 2007 / 11:26 am (CNA).- In a decision that does not happen often, the Vatican has reversed the annulment of former Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II's first marriage, which had lasted 12 years and produced two sons. The decision was announced on the Time magazine website.
Sheila Rauch had sharply criticized the Catholic Church for annulling her marriage to Kennedy. She alleged in a 1997 book that the Kennedy family's influence in the Church had made it possible. Rauch appealed the annulment to the Roman Rota.
Rauch and Kennedy, the eldest son of the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, were granted a civil divorce in 1991. She said she only learned about the annulment after Kennedy married his former congressional aide, Beth Kelly, in a civil ceremony two years later.
"The (original) annulment decision totally overlooked the fact that I felt that we had a very strong marriage in the beginning, we had two wonderful children, and it lasted," Rauch told The Associated Press. "I was certainly happy in the beginning. ... things unraveled, but that doesn't mean you didn't have a marriage."
Rauch was told of the decision to reverse the annulment by officials from the Boston Archdiocese in May, although the decision was actually reached in 2005.
Bai Macfarlane of Cleveland, Ohio, also has a case pending at the Roman Rota, in which she is seeking the intervention of the Vatican and challenging a US Catholic Tribunal's failure to uphold marriage.
In May 2004, Macfarlane had asked the Cleveland Tribunal for an investigation of her marriage hoping that the Church would advise her husband that he never had a licit reason to abandon her to seek a civil no-fault divorce.
The Cleveland diocese would not even accept her petition, so she appealed to Rome. In January 2005, the Roman Rota accepted her case, and on May 9, 2007 her advocate submitted a written argument on her behalf.
According to the Church’s Code of Canon Law, there are limited reasons to separate from one's spouse (can 1151-1155). Those who agree to marry following canon law can never seek a civil separation or divorce unless it is foreseen that the civil judgments would not be contrary to divine law (canon 1692).
These cases come at a time when some church officials believe that annulments are being granted too easily in the U.S.
The above article is reposted with permission from the Catholic News Agency.
|
|
|
BodRod
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Apple Valley, California USA |
| Posts: | 849 |
| First Name: | Cliff | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Raised an SDA, then Generic Christian, finally at home with ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22nd, 2007 10:34 am |
|
This sounds to me like a step in the correct direction. 
____________________
Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.
|
|
|
JasPax
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 292 |
| First Name: | James | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Episcopal to Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22nd, 2007 10:41 am |
|
Excellent!
The only thing better would be if his Uncle Ted's annullment from his first wife was overturned also.
____________________
James
"Abide in me, and I in you..." John 15:4
"He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." John 6:56
RSV-2CE
|
|
|
heardclarke
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 230 |
| First Name: | Lisa | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | cradle Episcopalian; confirmed RC Easter 2005 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22nd, 2007 01:02 pm |
|
I was very interested to read this news since an Episcopal priest told me last Easter that annullments were given only to rich poeple "like the Kennedys".
I won't bring this up to him because that was only one of the stupid things he said about the church. But it makes me feel better anyway, and if he mentions it again I will set the record straight.
Thanks for the info!
Lisa
____________________
Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
|
|
|
Annie
Banned
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Columbus, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 731 |
| First Name: | Annie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nothing, Quaker, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22nd, 2007 02:00 pm |
|
That family's Church problems go all the way back to Cardinal O'Connell. I try to look the other way. Sickening.
edited: I got my Cardinals mixed up!
Last edited on Fri Jun 22nd, 2007 02:05 pm by Annie
____________________
Annie
Ora et labora
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22nd, 2007 06:44 pm |
|
More and more, I tend to question the "perspective and judgment" of most American bishops. Seems to me, many of them have the attitude that the American Roman Catholic Church is separate from the Vatican. And along with that comment, I would say that in their "isolationist" policies and viewpoints, they think they are their own popes and they know better than the Vatican, and the rule and deposit of faith of 2,000 years. Just my opinion.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22nd, 2007 10:10 pm |
|
heardclarke wrote: I was very interested to read this news since an Episcopal priest told me last Easter that annullments were given only to rich poeple "like the Kennedys".
I won't bring this up to him because that was only one of the stupid things he said about the church. But it makes me feel better anyway, and if he mentions it again I will set the record straight.
Thanks for the info!
Lisa
If you go to the CNA site linked at the bottom, you can get an easily printable copy of the story. Then you can just hand it to him without comment. 
|
|
|
Ali
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 689 |
| First Name: | Ali | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | JW, finally fully Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 25th, 2007 08:53 am |
|
So what is really gained by this? I must not be getting it. How does this help her? Honestly, it reminds me of a first wife who can't get over losing her husband and can't move on.
I do agree that in our disposable society marriage is one more thing that can be easily disposed of, wrongly is many instances. But it takes two people to continue working on the marriage. If in the instances cited, only one person is willing to do the work, how is it helpful for a declaration of nullity to not be issued.
Maybe I've just heard and seen to many examples of woman staying and being encouraged to stay in a marriage for all the wrong reasons (abuse, mainly) that I can't wrap my brain around this.
Ali
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 284 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 25th, 2007 02:00 pm |
|
thanks for the posting Rick! good one!
Hey Ali, there is some confusion about the need for separation [for really bad cases] with denying the existence of the marriage. If the marriage really and truly sacramentally occurred, then abuse, infidelity, and all the other adverse factors don't make a marriage any less valid.
In other words, the Church allows couples to separate for severe cases but still upholds the existence of the Sacrament. I'm not discounting the terrible misfortune of spouses in these situations.
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
Talithacumi
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Eastern Ohio, USA |
| Posts: | 317 |
| First Name: | Cheri | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic - Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 27th, 2007 09:58 pm |
|
Like Ali, I too, "must not be getting it," though perhaps for different reasons...
I often have a tendency to put myself into a situation when I read about it. To me, this just seems kind of - I don't know - the phrase "Indian Giver" comes to mind because I don't know what else to compare it to at the moment. I mean, let's say I'm married, things aren't working out for whatever reason, I get divorced, I feel that maybe there's good reason to get an annulment, I take my situation to the Church who then grants me that annulment. I'm free now to get married to someone else because those in authority have already granted me an annulment. It's a done deal. So later on I find someone else and I get married. Then, suddenly, years later, I get a notice from the Vatican saying, "Uh, sorry. We've decided your first marriage shouldn't have been annulled after all. Sorry for your luck. But the person you've been married to for the last several years will have to go now. Since you're considered to be married to your first spouse, your current marriage is null and void."
Well, sorry, but... wow. I love the Church, and I've always thought I would be willing to follow Her in everything. But this seems so unfair, and so un-Christian-like. I'm not speaking of the Kennedy situation per se. I guess I just don't understand how the Church could give me - or anyone - a decree of nullity that would say that I'm free to re-marry and then after I've spent several years in a loving union with a new spouse, one that I think I'm really married to, the Church can potentially come back and say "Sorry, somebody screwed up. Now you can't be that person's spouse anymore"...??!! I'd always heard that if a Church Authority told you something that was wrong and you took them up on it in good conscience, then any blame to be had would be on their shoulders, not yours. Am I wrong about this? I don't understand how the Vatican can reverse a decision that had already been made in stone like that. I mean, in civil terms, that would be sort of like being tried for the same crime twice (analogously)... you know... Double Jeopardy and all that.
Forgive me if I seem all defensive here, but for some reason, this just really bothers me if I'm reading the situation correctly... Can someone ease my mind and tell me I'm reading it all wrong?
JMJ
- Cheri
____________________
“We do not want a Church that will move with the world; we want a Church that will move the world.”
- G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 28th, 2007 01:20 am |
|
Talithacumi wrote: Forgive me if I seem all defensive here, but for some reason, this just really bothers me if I'm reading the situation correctly... Can someone ease my mind and tell me I'm reading it all wrong?
As we mentioned in Chat tonight, the decree of nullity was never properly issued. The Tribunal originally approved it but the wife appealed, and her appeal was granted. The story indicates that the Tribunal issued the ruling without informing the wife and seeking her testimony, which is improper. I would assume that's the reason the decision was overturned. The story also indicates that the husband was married again in a civil ceremony, but does not say that the marriage was ever validated by the Church.
As the story indicates, this is a very rare event. Tribunal matters are reviewed by a provincial Tribunal, and the decision is usually finalized. However, anyone has the right of appeal to the Tribunal in Rome, which is known as the Rota.
Last edited on Thu Jun 28th, 2007 01:26 am by
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 284 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 28th, 2007 01:36 am |
|
If an annulment is granted based on false statements, the annulment cannot be valid.
An annulment is based on thoroughness and complete honesty. If those that granted the annulment found that they had been lied to, then they MUST reverse the decision based on the truth of the case.
It would be as if you had gotten divorced, then lied to the Church about what happened at the time of the marriage. Knowing you had lied, covered it up, gotten the annulment, and then eventually been found out even after you were living with a new spouse would be more like simply being caught. This is not a case where an annulment was honestly sought. I"m guessing the Kennedy knew that the spouse's testimony was incomplete or misrepresented.
Does that help?
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
Talithacumi
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Eastern Ohio, USA |
| Posts: | 317 |
| First Name: | Cheri | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic - Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29th, 2007 01:44 am |
|
Rick and Tina,
Yes, thank you both for your responses. They do help. I knew I could count on someone here to set me straight. It makes a bit more sense now.
JMJ
- Cheri
____________________
“We do not want a Church that will move with the world; we want a Church that will move the world.”
- G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
Ali
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 689 |
| First Name: | Ali | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | JW, finally fully Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29th, 2007 10:43 am |
|
Talithacumi wrote: Rick and Tina,
Yes, thank you both for your responses. They do help. I knew I could count on someone here to set me straight. It makes a bit more sense now.
JMJ
- Cheri
I'll second Cheri's Thank You. I hadn't followed this in the news, it just was't on my radar, but knowing that important steps in the process were skipped altogether, it makes total sense that this case (and maybe other's) should be reexamined. Unfortunately this sounds like a great example of God's perfect church run by imperfect men 
Ali
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Hadley, Absurdistan, AKA , Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 1566 |
| First Name: | Steven | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Episcopal communicant, Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 3rd, 2007 03:30 am |
|
Darlene,
Amen to what you said about the American Catholic Hierarchy. Yes, they do act as if for some reason or another American exceptionalism has more to do with their dealings with the Vatican than plain old fashioned foreign policy matters that are routine handled by the State Dept.
Anybody who wishes to call themselves Catholics first, Americans second, will have grabbed a part of my heart. All the liberal bishops who'd rather be like their Episcopalian counterparts and fashion themselves as Americans first, Catholics, (much less bishops, no less!) second, will soon find themselves having to take this pope and his inner curia very seriously. After all, I'm not too sure that the perks for retired bishops amount to much.
Insofar as Kennedy's reversed annulment, all I can say is Bravo for the Vatican to tell the Kennedys that there's a new sheriff in town, and no hanky panky will be allowed and fopped off with a sham for an annulment; and Bravo for Sheila Rauch. So far she's the only former Kennedy women who had the guts to stand up to the Hyannisport gang.
Let's pray that Uncle Ted's annulment is next on the pruning list.
As one of the Republican Kennedy's would say in his deep German accent, "I'm Back"
s.
Last edited on Tue Jul 3rd, 2007 03:34 am by Steven Barrett
____________________
James Michael Curley to a young Thomas “Tip” O’Neill -- “Son, it’s nice to be important, but it’s more important to be nice.”
|
|
|
Current time is 11:33 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
