Kennedy Annulment Reversed By Vatican

[regnaD kciN]

I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up on this forum yet:

BOSTON -- The Vatican has reversed the annulment of former U.S. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II's first marriage, nearly a decade after the church's original decision prompted a scathing book by his ex-wife.

Sheila Rauch on Wednesday confirmed a report on Time magazine's Web site that her appeal of the annulment to Rome has succeeded.

"I'm very grateful that the marriage was validated," Rauch told The Associated Press.

"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 said. "I was certainly happy in the beginning ... things unraveled, but that doesn't mean you didn't have a marriage."

More here.

I was wondering what people here thought about the matter?

[hedgehog]

1. It sounds as if this was poorly handled all the way around.

Call it annulment, call it divorce, it is shattering when one person wants out and the other doesn't. If the annulment somehow proceeded without her knowledge, then it was absolutely wrong. If she was aware of it and refused to participate, then the Vatican was wrong to interfere. There are cases where one partner refuses the annulment. Is it fair to the other partner to lock them into a marriage that they don't want any more?

As I understand it, the entire notion of sacramental marriage is paradoxical. It is a sacrament when it is a sign of God's love when both partners are dedicated to each other. When one wants out of the relationship, that means the relationship isn't forever and therefore isn't a sacramental marriage. That sounds nice and clean, but the truth is that when the separation isn't a mutual decision, people are devastated. Toss in all the old notions of illegitimacy and you have a real mess.

[shrike]

2. It always seemed to me to be a vindictive measure on her part

But then again, I don't know the woman or her motives, and may be judging her by the few women I've known who have challenged annulments for vindictive reasons -- messy marriages and divorces anyway, and yet another chance to get back at the spouse.

My husband, who is not Catholic, annulled his first marriage so ours could be blessed by a priest. His ex, who is also not Catholic and basically non-religious, was very cool about it, thus earning my everlasting gratitude. Then again, they had a good relationship post-divorce.

[Matilda]

3. I read Sheila Rauch's book, and she didn't come across as vindictive.

What I saw was pain and hurt.

It's bad enough I would think when one partner says the relationship is over and the love has gone,
but quite another when he in effect says there never was a marriage, there never was love, the
children were conceived without love and the whole thing was a sham from the beginning. That must
be quite shattering, and I have doubts about a Church system that forces people to do this.

I know that the children are not illegitimate in the eyes of the law, and the Church doesn't hold
that they are, but that's hair-splitting, because if the Church recognises the non-validity of the
marriage, it is saying that they were born out of wedlock. Just because this is an emotional and
religious viewpoint and not a legal one doesn't make it any less hurtful.

And reading the book, one couldn't escape the conclusion that the power of the Kennedys had more to
do with the judgment than the validity of Joseph Kennedy's case.

[shrike]

12. My parents got an annulment after 30-some years of marriage

And it never bothered me a bit, quite frankly.

In fact, I hoped -- though it didn't quite work out that way -- that it might give them a sense of closure, some healing: their marriage was VERY bad for quite a long time. And if a marriage is bad, children know it, believe me.

Any damage done to us was done long before the marriage was annulled.

[DemBones DemBones]

4. I think it's a bad situation when one partner

can get a declaration that a sacramental marriage never existed against the other partner's wishes and testimony, particularly when there are children involved.

In this case it's unfortunate an annulment was granted and I don't blame Rauch for standing up for herself since she believes the marriage was sacramental. I wonder if Kennedy had handled the situation better if she might have been willing to agree to the annulment.

But mostly I wonder how all this has been for the Rauch-Kennedy children.

And will priests in Boston deny Joe Kennedy Communion after this? He should know not to attempt to receive but will he?

From the article:

"Rauch said the Vatican's written decision to reverse the annulment said Joseph Kennedy hadn't proven that he lacked the psychological capacity to get married, the grounds cited by a church tribunal in Boston that granted the annulment."

[hedgehog]

5. The sad fact is that it takes two to make a sacramental

marriage and only one to break it. Clearly, Mr. Kennedy has testified that he no longer is committed to the marriage which by that very fact means that a sacramental marriage doesn't exist regardless of Ms Rauch's opinion.

I've never heard the explanation of natural as opposed to sacramental marriage as given above, but it makes sense to me. Of course, it is also possible to interpret that explanation as a way of dancing around the problem of divorce.

We think we know what Jesus said about divorce, but does that mean we know what he meant about divorce? Consider the case of a woman who marries a nice young man only to discover that he is a wife beater. she divorced him to save her life. Would Jesus condemn her to remain single the rest of her life or would he approve of her remarrying and building a family? Does Jesus's statement on divorce mean exactly what it says, or is it somewhere between an ideal to strive for and an all out exaggeration?

The process of annulment is the Church's way to recognize facts and to try to normalize the situation. In some dioceses, part of the process is a serious examination of the marriage and of the partners. Whether any marriage has ever been saved or not, I don't know. My understanding is the goal is to help people recognize their mistakes so they don't repeat them

The only way around this is to make it harder to get married, but we are not likely to see that solution take place. My Pre-Cana was a joke. I've heard it's gotten better in 30 years, but I'd like to see intensive and personal counseling and examination of the couple before the wedding. Even then, there is no guarantee that marriages will never fail.

[Matilda]

6. A marriage doesn't cease to be a sacrament just because one party gets bored.

For an annulment to be granted, it has to be proven that the marriage was never valid at the time.
It could be because the parties were far too young to understand the commitment they were making,
or were pressured into the union, or one never wanted children, or any other reason the Church
considers precludes a true sacrament. But a later decision that the marriage has grown stale, or
even the infidelity of one of the partners, does not itself invalidate the original sacramental
nature of the marriage. If it did, there'd be annulments in the hundreds of thousands every year.

This was Sheila Rauch's point - she never disputed that the marriage had broken down, but she did
contest Kennedy's assertion that it had been wrong from the beginning - they'd know each other for
years beforehand, they had children, and it lasted for, I think, more than ten years before he
decided he wanted out. She agreed to a civil divorce so he could be free to remarry, but she
contested only the annulment, on the grounds that it had been a good and valid marriage up until that
point.

The odd thing is that according to this article Kennedy remarried in a civil ceremony, so why did
he go to all the trouble of obtaining an annulment, whose purpose to allow the couple to remarry in
the Catholic Church?

[Beer Snob-50]

9. I think that sacramentally, when a marriage breaks down

it was never valid in the first place. when we marry, we pledge to love, honor . ect til death do us part. by wanting to divorce, we are saying we never agreed with the til death do us part thing. that means, in my humble opinion, that these vows were flawed. why don't more people do this then? they believe in those vows and feel that there was no flaw.

[DemBones DemBones]

7. I'm surprised that you would say this:

"Clearly, Mr. Kennedy has testified that he no longer is committed to the marriage which by that very fact means that a sacramental marriage doesn't exist regardless of Ms Rauch's opinion."

To declare that a marriage never existed, Canon Law requires proof that it was not a sacramental marriage at the time the couple married.

Falling out of love with your wife and in love with your secretary and getting a civil divorce does not negate the sacramental marriage that once existed. The Church says that Rauch is still Kennedy's wife and will be until one of them dies.

This is not a matter of Ms. Rauch's opinion but of the Vatican's determination that the annulment should never have been granted to Mr. Kennedy because the marriage was sacramental at the start.

As for a woman who marries a wife-beater, there is a woman in my parish who had this sad experience. He also wouldn't give her enough money to feed herself and their child properly. She finally realized there was no way to save the marriage. The marriage was annulled and she later married a nice man. They've been happily married for more than forty years.

[hedgehog]

8. I'm not familiar with Canon Law, just going by what I've read over the years.

It's my understanding that what makes the marriage sacramental is the fact it lasts. The love between the two partners is the symbol and partakes of the love between God and us. If one stops loving, then it is no longer a sign and therefore not sacramental.

I am dubious myself about applying this definition retroactively. I think at this time we are caught between an evolving understanding of the nature of sacramental marriage and the desire to present an unchanging system of rules. This isn't the only area of marriage caught in this bind. The current teachings on artificial birth control owe more to an effort to shore the authority of the Pope, Vatican and bishops than it does to any understanding of the role of sexual intercourse in marriage.

Don't forget, the beaten wife in our previous example would have been SOL not so long ago as long as she and her husband met all Church requirements as far as being baptized, not too closely related, the banns properly announced etc and the marriage actually consummated. Our understanding of all the sacraments evolve as time goes on. Marriage was a fairly late addition to the list which is why some Christian denominations don't even treat it as a sacrament, reserving that status for Baptism and Communion.

I think the ultimate test has to be to ask WWJD? We have to remember it's up to us to try to heal broken families as best we can, not to serve as enforcers.

[Matilda]

10. Canon Law has strict definitions of what constitutes the Sacrament of Matrimony.

It has nothing to do with our perception, and eveything to do with Church Law.

To be valid, the marriage must be between partners of the opposite sex, they must be free to marry,
they must enter the marriage willingly and voluntarily, and they must carry out the physical
requirements of the contract.

So for a marriage can later be declared invalid, a case has to be made that one or more of the pre-
conditions were not met - such as a prior marriage that was not revealed, coercion of one of the
parties, or the physical requirements not being met (that includes non-consummation of the marriage,
or the unwillingness of one party to have children). An annulment can also be granted on the
ground that one or both of the parties was too young and/or inexperienced to understand the
commitment they were making, because full, free and informed consent is considered to be of
paramount importance. This is because the parties actually confer the Sacrament of Matrimony on
each other; the priest only presides.

No matter what happens later, the Church is concerned only with the intent of the parties at the
time of marriage to carry out the commitment they made, not with conditions that developed later.
Of course, facts that arise later can be "backdated" in order to obtain an annulment, and that's
where hypocrisy comes in, but an annulment can still only be obtained on presenting a convincing
case that one of the parties did not intend to carry out the requirements of the Church at the time
of the marriage, or was not in a position to do so.

That doesn't mean that the Church doesn't acknowledge that a marriage can be irretrievably broken
down, but without an annulment dissolving the marriage, neither party is free to remarry in the
Church as long the spouse is living. The Sacrament holds - under Canon Law, the couple are still
married, whether or not they have obtained a civil divorce and remarried outside the Church.

[hedgehog]

11. This is where the dancing around part comes in.

If someone promises to be true to another, then starts looking around, can that person be said to have been capable of making the statement in the first place? Going back to the example I gave, if a woman freely marries a man with the full approval of all her family and friends who also think the guy is OK, if they are both free to marry and the marriage is consumated with no obstruction to bearing children, what is she to do if he starts beating the hell out of her? Years ago, the Church would have told the woman to bear with the situation and offer up her pain as a sacrifice. Is emotional torment less than physical torment even if emotional torment leaves no bruises? We are always learning what is involved in a marriage. When Canon law is written by grandmothers, then I think it will have something to say on this subject.

[DemBones DemBones]

15. As I said, I know a woman who's been married more than forty

years to her second husband after having her first marriage annulled because her husband abused her. To be precise, this couple will celebrate their 50th anniversary in December 2008, meaning they've been married almost 48.5 years now.

So it has been quite a long time since women had to stay with abusive husbands and when they did, it had to do with civil law and the social reality of their time as much as with Canon Law.

In the Fifties and before, Protestant women were trapped in bad marriages, too. It used to be far more difficult to get a divorce. Being unhappy did not cut it as grounds for divorce until no fault divorce was legislated. A spouse could fight a divorce before "no fault." There was a much greater social stigma attached to divorce as well.

[shrike]

13. FYI, Cardinal Edmund Szoka, Detroit Diocese, mandated that annulments

in his diocese be adjudicated, and either rejected or approved, free of charge.

Szoka grew up in a bad family situation, as I understand it, and he would have very much liked it if his parents could have remarried and moved on. His goal was to make annulments available to EVERYONE, and, I believe, make them easier to obtain, as I've been told.

Szoka is now in the Vatican, last I heard.

[DemBones DemBones]

14. That's a good thing; I hope he convinces the pope to

make that apply worldwide.