# Catholics 1, Scientologism 0, Rest of Us? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 3, 2006, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-1-scientologism-0-rest-of-us/351008 "2006-04-03T02:03:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Operation\_Ripper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/34f0e0/32.png) [@Operation\_Ripper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Operation_Ripper)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2006, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-1-scientologism-0-rest-of-us/351008/1 "2006-04-03T02:03:22Z")
Apparently the whole [Kidman-Cruise episode](http://www.newsdaily.com/TopNews/UPI-1-20060402-20315600-bc-australia-kidman.xml) never occured, so everyone STFU and GBTW. Pitting the Catholic church for silly annulments and Scientolosaifg for being silly. On the upside, now the rest of us have a unrestricted shot at [Nikky](http://web.ukonline.co.uk/nicole-kidman/scansk/kidman/kidman00a.jpg) . ---
**Author:** ![Cunctator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Cunctator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cunctator)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2006, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-1-scientologism-0-rest-of-us/351008/2 "2006-04-03T02:06:09Z")
Do you have a question about the Catholic Church’s marriage/annulment rules? Or did you just post this in the wrong forum? ---
**Author:** ![Operation\_Ripper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/34f0e0/32.png) [@Operation\_Ripper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Operation_Ripper)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2006, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-1-scientologism-0-rest-of-us/351008/3 "2006-04-03T02:06:48Z")
D’oh, Mod please move to The Pit, was distracted by a Seinfeld repeat and prematurely posted in GQ. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![fluiddruid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fluiddruid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fluiddruid)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2006, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-1-scientologism-0-rest-of-us/351008/4 "2006-04-03T02:11:43Z")
Sure. Moved to **The Pit**. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2006, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-1-scientologism-0-rest-of-us/351008/5 "2006-04-03T02:24:22Z")
Alright, annulments are silly in some circumstances… but is this really worth a pitting? ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2006, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-1-scientologism-0-rest-of-us/351008/6 "2006-04-03T02:27:36Z")
It’s easy to get an annullment if nobody believes there was sex in the marriage, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2006, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-1-scientologism-0-rest-of-us/351008/7 "2006-04-03T02:27:36Z")
Scientologism: what is left in John Travolta’s used condom. ---
**Author:** ![Operation\_Ripper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/34f0e0/32.png) [@Operation\_Ripper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Operation_Ripper)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2006, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-1-scientologism-0-rest-of-us/351008/8 "2006-04-03T02:28:25Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > It’s easy to get an annullment if nobody believes there was sex in the marriage, I guess. Well, he did spend most of his time in the closet. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2006, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-1-scientologism-0-rest-of-us/351008/9 "2006-04-03T02:29:38Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > It’s easy to get an annullment if nobody believes there was sex in the marriage, I guess. And in this case, I have to say that’s uniquely believable. ---
**Author:** ![Cunctator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Cunctator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cunctator)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2006, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-1-scientologism-0-rest-of-us/351008/10 "2006-04-03T02:37:12Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > It’s easy to get an annullment if nobody believes there was sex in the marriage, I guess. I’d be surprised if that were the basis on which any annulment were granted. Should she be considering applying for one, I’d suggest Nicole Kidman is more likely to argue lack of the required canonical form. The linked article certainly implies that too. ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2006, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-1-scientologism-0-rest-of-us/351008/11 "2006-04-03T02:38:29Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > Scientologism: what is left in John Travolta’s used condom. "Epstien would love to be there in class to laugh out loud at this, he finding this outstandingly funny, but he was sick today. Signed, Epstien’s Mother." ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2006, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-1-scientologism-0-rest-of-us/351008/12 "2006-04-03T03:32:49Z")
> [@Cunctator](#): > > I’d be surprised if that were the basis on which any annulment were granted. Non-consumation of the marriage is a valid reason for an anullment in the church. ---
**Author:** ![Cunctator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Cunctator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cunctator)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2006, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-1-scientologism-0-rest-of-us/351008/13 "2006-04-03T04:08:09Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Non-consumation of the marriage is a valid reason for an anullment in the church. Yes, I’m aware of that. I’m simply saying that I doubt that’s the argument that Nicole Kidman will run with if she does apply for an annulment. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2006, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-1-scientologism-0-rest-of-us/351008/14 "2006-04-03T04:20:10Z")
Oh, sorry, when you said “any annulment”, I thought you meant annulments in general. As for the OP, if you want a shot at Nicole, you’re going to have to kill Keith Urban first. ---
**Author:** ![Cunctator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Cunctator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cunctator)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2006, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-1-scientologism-0-rest-of-us/351008/15 "2006-04-03T04:35:38Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Oh, sorry, when you said “any annulment”, I thought you meant annulments in general. Having re-read my post I now realise that it was actually poor wording on my part. If she does succeed in getting an annulment I just hope that she doesn’t marry the new bloke in the MacKillop chapel at North Sydney as other newspaper reports have suggested. The chapel’s about 100 metres up the road from my place and I’d rather not have the inevitable media scrum/chaos that the wedding would produce. ---
**Author:** ![Shirley\_Ujest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shirley\_Ujest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shirley_Ujest)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2006, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-1-scientologism-0-rest-of-us/351008/16 "2006-04-03T11:19:17Z")
It also helps to have loads of money as well. One of the 10,000 Kennedy’s divorced his wife of X years ( they had natural children together) and the church gave them an annulment , IIRC, based on lack of consumating the union. Apparently, he was going to get married again and wouldn’t be able to do so in the church unless he was a born again virgin, et al. I read it in People Magazine. ---
**Author:** ![cckerberos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@cckerberos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cckerberos)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2006, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-1-scientologism-0-rest-of-us/351008/17 "2006-04-03T11:36:21Z")
> [@Shirley Ujest](#): > > It also helps to have loads of money as well. > > One of the 10,000 Kennedy’s divorced his wife of X years ( they had natural children together) and the church gave them an annulment , IIRC, based on lack of consumating the union. Apparently, he was going to get married again and wouldn’t be able to do so in the church unless he was a born again virgin, et al. > > I read it in People Magazine. It was Joe Kennedy (though I think your details are a little messed up). ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2006, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-1-scientologism-0-rest-of-us/351008/18 "2006-04-03T11:39:27Z")
> [@Shirley Ujest](#): > > It also helps to have loads of money as well. > > One of the 10,000 Kennedy’s divorced his wife of X years ( they had natural children together) and the church gave them an annulment , IIRC, based on lack of consumating the union. Actually, when she came through Cleveland on her book tour promoting her biography, the local I-hate-everything-Catholic dj tried on at least five occasions during the interview to get her to talk about how it was a matter of “buying” the annulment and she shot him down every time, noting that money had nothing to do with the situation. And while I would not be surprised if _People_ claimed that it was for a lack of consummation, the lady in question noted that it was based on the perceived “defect” of the marriage–which is standard language in such situations that indicate that one party was not mentally competent to choose to marry at that time–in this case, the Kennedy, not the wife. (This is _not_ to suggest that a Kennedy in Boston might not get a better deal from the local authorities than Joe Nebbish in Des Moines, but the tales of money and failed consummation are generally inaccuarate speculation by people who are outside the loop.) ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2006, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-1-scientologism-0-rest-of-us/351008/19 "2006-04-03T13:12:38Z")
I just feel sorry for those kids. What effed up lives they must lead. Celebrities’ kids have it rough anyway (or so I’m told), but Cruise and Kidman…actually, a comparison just occurred to me–Jolie and Pitt. What is it about some celebs who seem to need kids as props?-they should content themselves with dogs, IMO. Sorry to skew the thread, but I’m curious. Other celebs seem to do OK raising kids-Tom Hanks, Ron Howard, Susan Sarandon come to mind–but others… :eek: IMO, not that any of you asked, NK is one giant inflated vanityhead, TC is batshit insane and the day is coming when their kids will follow in their hallowed tabloid footsteps. I find the Catholic church’s anulling of marriages so inexplicable (this is not based on celebs, but people I know who have gotten anullments) as to be mind boggling. It makes no sense to me, but that’s religion for you. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2006, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-1-scientologism-0-rest-of-us/351008/20 "2006-04-03T13:38:21Z")
> [@Cunctator](#): > > I’d be surprised if that were the basis on which any annulment were granted. Should she be considering applying for one, I’d suggest Nicole Kidman is more likely to argue lack of the required canonical form. The linked article certainly implies that too. Yeah, I’m sure you’re right, I was basically making a joke. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-1-scientologism-0-rest-of-us/351008.md?page=2)