Why I think Sheila Rauch Kennedy's annulment fight is vindictive.

[pnwmom]

If Sheila Kennedy were a Catholic, I would have no problem with her appealing the annulment. In fact, I would encourage her to -- it would be her right. If her appeal succeeded, they would both have to live with the consequences, in an equal manner.

But she isn't. She's an Episcopalian and as such won't be personally bound by any decision of the Catholic Church.

In other words, the annulment she has fought would allow her former husband to remarry in the Catholic Church, and to continue to receive Communion. But she herself is free to receive Communion as an Episcopalian AND to remarry in her Church -- with or without an annulment.

So she is seeking to bind him in a way that she isn't bound herself.

Seems awfully vindictive to me.

It's also ignorant, because I have heard her express the opinion that an annulment makes their children illegitimate. Of course, it does no such thing. All children are born equal in the eyes of God, whether their parents' marriage was sacramental or not.

[Matilda]

1. I can't really agree with you on that.

I did read her book, and she was quite agreeable to a civil divorce from Kennedy, in spite of her
shock that he wanted out of the marriage.

What upset her was the fact that by applying for an annulment, he had to say that there never was a
real marriage from the beginning - no strong relationship, no depth of commitment on either side.
She felt that was false - they'd had a good marriage in her view, had known each other for many
years before they married, had children - and she felt that no matter what had gone wrong, it was
a real marriage to start with. He was saying (whether or not he believed it) that the marriage was
a sham from the beginning and meant nothing to him.

I can understand her feelings - she wasn't trying to punish him by fighting the divorce or contact
with his children, she just didn't want him saying it was a mistake from the beginning. She felt
that it was a false statement, and she was defending what she perceived to be the truth.

And he re-married in a civil ceremony anyway, so I don't understand why he had to put her through
all that pain.

[pnwmom]

2. He went through the annulment because it was the only way to have

the marriage blessed AFTER the civil ceremony.

People are often advised that their chance of getting a first marriage annulled will increase if they already have a successful (civil) second marriage.

I still contend that it was wrong of her to deprive him of the chance to remain as a Communicant in his Church AND remarry, when she doesn't have to make the same choice herself.

It was correct for her to state her views about their marriage in the documents she was asked to provide in the course of the annulment. But, having stated her opinions about the sacramental nature of their marriage, I think the decision to APPEAL the annulment was vindictive.

[DemBones DemBones]

3. Did he mention the annulment when they were in the process

of divorcing or did he spring it on her afterwards? If the latter, I imagine she felt doubly betrayed.

In any case, he should have known that he could end up excommunicated, but like Henry VIII, he was bound and determined to marry this other woman. Not thinking with his brain, I'd say.

Maybe he could do like Henry VIII and start his own branch of the Catholic Church. :evilgrin:


I always sympathize with the party who's cast aside, whether it's the wife or the husband.

[Matilda]

4. It wasn't mentioned at the time he told her he wanted out of the marriage.

It did come later, and if I remember correctly, the first she knew of it was when she received
papers from him. She was definitely in complete shock about it, but her main reason for fighting
it was the children. She felt it cast a slur on them.

I recall a similar situation with the Sinatra children - I saw an interview with Tina Sinatra after
their father had his first marriage to their mother annulled, and the reaction of his kids was the
same, that they were branded as the offspring of an illegitimate union. That's why they hate
Barbara Marx with a passion, because she was the one who wanted the Church to bless her union with
Frank, and she drove him to seek an annulment.

Of course the children are not legally illegitimate, but even though it's an emotional reaction, it's
a valid one, I think.

[pnwmom]

5. I would have been one of those children, if my parents had gotten an

annulment, and it wouldn't have bothered me a bit.

It would all depend on how the parents framed it for the child. Rauch obviously wanted to frame it in the most negative way possible.

[shrike]

6. My folks annulled their marriage after 30+ plus years

and it never bothered me a bit.

The marriage had been dead for so long, and the divorce process itself so deadly, that the annulment was an anticlimax. I actually saw it as a positive step, that they might be able to heal and move on. Unfortunately, that didn't happen.