I’ve been reading Sheila Raunch Kennedy’s interesting book about her ex-husband, Rep. Joseph Kennedy III, and his rude petition for the annulment of their marriage (four years after they had divorced).
Leaving aside my feelings on the complete absurdity of an annulment of a 12-year marriage that resulted in twin sons, I am interested in learning the final outcome of Sheila Raunch Kennedy’s battle with the Roman Catholic Church. The book notes that she lost her battle with the Boston Archdiocese and that the annulment was granted to JKIII, but that SRK was taking the fight to Rome (as of 1998). Does anyone know how this ended?
Your point is wel, taken. Not only did the Church grant an annullment to Joeseph kennedy, it gave one to his uncle (Senator Ted Kennedy). Ted Kennedy was married for 30+ years, and had more children.
The role of annullments in the RC church is quite strange-officially it is a recognition that the parties did NOT have a valid marriage to begin with! Actually, it often amounts to just another name for divorce.
My understanding is that the Kennedy annullments were facilitated by the “special” relationship that the Kennedies (and many rich people) have with those in authority. I wonder what Jesus would have to say about such an arrangement.
I know very little about the two Kennedy cases (most of my information comes from my father, who is extremely biased), but I can say a thing or two about annulments in general. First off, they are never reversed, since they are so difficult to get in the first place, and any evidence that the Church would consider is brought up before it’s granted. An anulment could, of course, be effectively reversed by the re-marriage (strictly speaking, first marriage) of the man and woman involved, but this, of course, would require the voluntary action of both parties.
Secondly, an annulment does not end a marriage; it just acknowledges that the marriage never existed in the first place. The most clear-cut example would be if a person who was already married “married” someone else. Since that person was not free to marry, the second marriage is null and void. They’re most commonly given out due to lack of intent or in cases of mental illness, where it can be argued that one party was not mentally competent to enter into a marriage-- This was the ruling in the case of my father.
Third, while the length of the “union” and the presence of children may be factors that are considered, they do not in themselves make an annulment impossible-- Again, I’m an example of a child born to an annulled marriage.
Back to the Kennedys for a moment: If wealth and political power are sufficient to get an unjustified annulment on demand, then why wasn’t Henry VIII able to pull it off? He had more wealth and more power than the Kennedys, and the Church is generally considered to have been more corrupt in his time, yet the Pope turned down his request.
Because Katherine of Aragon’s close relative (nephew, I think) was the King of Spain. Spain was the leading European power in the era, and its ruling family directly or indirectly controlled many Italian states.
First off, as a RC, I don’t like the concept of an annulment - I think its bogus. However, pretty much anyone can get one. My parents did, and that was after 3 boys and 23 years. The Kennedy’s wealth and power had nothing to do with it.
Secondly, I’d reread that piece about appealing to the Vatican. The Vatican is the only authority that can issue the annulment in the first place. A bishop cannot do this.