Dotz, for the nth time, it is asking mom to sign paper that says marriage never existed that is much more troublesome. I don't care if only for religous purposes, I dont think it is a good idea to sign. And who are you to say what makes kids feel worse?

And for the 9th time, I never told her to sign them, and I felt we were taking away from her thread with all this back and forth..If she s against it, she shouldnt do it.I mean that a divorce, an anullment, no differnce to a young child, the pain is the same...If they are older and see the papers, they just need to be educated to the fact that my parents sacremental marriage was over, that, as the church says, they were born of a union of human love, and they are NOT illegitimate..

dotz how do you know what makes children to feel worse. not for you to decide. it doesn't make any sense.

once again if dad wants to say that he was never married or his marriage was invalid or that the Earth is flat or he is going to worship seven gnomes and Whitesnow or he was abducted by aliens, he can do all of that. We have very little control over what exspouses do.

but for mom to sign such papers is calling for troubles. if he will convert for every woman he meets who knows what mom will need to sign next time, maybe next time he converts he will declare their child to be infidel, who knows. but it is his business what he does. for mom to accommodate his ideas is unreasonable. bad idea.

I thought the argument in the other thread was pretty silly, and now there is a thread all its own. What is the point of insisting on telling people how they are supposed to feel about your religion's practices? I also don't know what makes you privy to the feelings of children of non-Catholics. I think the children of Catholics would feel the same way, but they are convinced of what they're told and put their own good senses aside. I think it is terrible by principle and practice. What Catholics think of it and how they feel about it doesn't matter to me, just as how I feel shouldn't matter to them. But you condemned Sheila Rausch Kennedy for pursuing something she felt degraded her children. She wanted to make sure they never, ever felt the way your magic wand dictates they will never feel, but she had very good reason to think they would because she herself did. It's the same way the OP of the other thread feels. It's the same I would feel. If you would be honest, you would admit it's the same way the Church itself feels (among other things). They only do it - and do it so capriciously - because they were losing members over the debate. So now, they say it's okay and tell you it's an acceptable practice and you believe them. No one else has to though.

my parents sacremental marriage was over, that, as the church says, they were born of a union of human love, and they are NOT illegitimate.

I was typing and on the phone, so I didn't see this response before I hit submit. Thank you for co-signing everything I just said. I sure would like you to explain to me how this is or how children are supposed justify it in their hearts when the Church also declares their parents' marriage never existed. You can't have it both ways between the logical result of annulment and what the Church convinces you to believe. You only think you can, but your own confusion is evident.

I DID NOT condemn Sheila Kennedy...I said if those are her convictions, FINE!!!!There is nothing for a child to feel ashamed of because of an annullment..I am telling NO one HOW to feel, just a small explanation of the process is and isnt..For those of you that think you can Wiki and Google a blurb and understand it.....And I feel a small amount of anti Catholic sentiment coming thru..Stay out of it if you think its SILLY

"There is nothing for a child to feel ashamed of because of an annullment..I am telling NO one HOW to feel, just a small explanation of the process is and isnt."

dotz maybe you missed that, OP is not catholic, her DD is not catholic, i am not, my child is not etc and for you to tell us that annulment of marriage is nothing to be ashamed of is rather strange. If for a catholic it is not shameful, OK, but none of these people care about what other relgion says! we are not Catholics and for us to find out that parents weren't married and marriage is invalid is in fact shameful.

as about explanation. that explanation is from catholic perspective but none of these people in question is catholic! how do you know what is shame and what is not for noncatholic children?

if my parents decide to divorce each other and annul their 45 years of marriage as invalid, I would think they went senile and lost their murbles (if they want to convert, it is fine but if they want to lie and negate 45 years of life, then it is not fine). don't tell me, noncatholic, that i should not be ashamed of it.

This is condemning her......

Posted by dotz (My Page) on Sun, Aug 2, 09 at 22:35

KKNY, This is NOT legal advice, your divorce is between you and the state..These are religious convictions...If your child is raised in this religion, they will know what we believe on divorce and end of marriage...And really not feel like a poor lil bas%%%D....Personally, I think Sheila Kennedy just didnt want to let go.... I applaud her if in fact these were convictions, but hanging on for ten years to reverse this seems a bit much to me....

And I think it was pretty cruel and judgmental to be worded that way since she had no control over how long she had to hang on. She simply allow herself and her children to be bullied by the Church. They could have taken care of it much sooner, but it was their tactic not to. According to your statement, she wasn't supposed to endure to protect her former marital status in the eyes of God or her children.

Correct me, please, if I'm mistaken to expect the Church's job is to interpret the Bible and teach that interpretation to the masses. So, how do you explain people marrying in the Church, their union being blessed (highly favored by God) and sacred (holy in God's eyes) only to later claim the union never existed, as if God can't tell the difference. I'm wondering where that is in the Bible. As far as I know, the Bible says "God will not be mocked."

"She simply didn't allow herself" is what I meant to type.

The rules arent just in the bible!!!!Rules and doctrine change in the modern church, yes (Vatican Two for example) ....Sheila Kennedys annulment was granted against her wishes..If the Church investigates and validates the reason for the marriage being declared invald, she has no say....Like I said, if those were her convictions, great. But personally, to not move forward for ten years , to put her life on hold, I dont know how healthy that was really. Cruel and judgemental, I dont know...But it seems like every one commenting is a non Catolic, and to critcize a religious practice you disagree with is wrong..AND ALSO TO LIE TO GET AN ANULLMENT IS ALSO WRONG, AND HYPOCRITICAL....No one knows OP in other threads situation...She did not state grounds...

Dotz, perhaps OP in the other thread read the paper her X asked her to sign incorrectly, or perhaps he wrote more than which is required. In any event, the only thing we have is what she said. Frankly, why should sign it? Her x can get remarried in a civil ceremony, she isnt stopping him.

Please stop critizing Sheila Kennedy. Obvioulsy the Vatican agreed with her. Gee you think the Kennedys might get special treatment?

also, I found the follwoing -

Robert Vasoli, a retired sociology professor at the University of Notre Dame who has done extensive research on the annulment process, wrote that in 1991 the United States accounted for 80 percent of the annulments granted by the church worldwide. Between 1982 and 1984, the Vatican overturned nearly 80 percent of the American annulments it reviewed, he wrote. As Rauch Kennedy learned, however, it can often be a long wait.

I'ld like to know how many children of annulled marriages leave the Catholic church.

"Between 1982 and 1984, the Vatican overturned nearly 80 percent of the American annulments it reviewed"

good point. one actually needs to prove that marriage was invalid. i suspect OP's ex wouldn't be able to prove it so he hopes her signature would give him more hope. i also wonder how is he going to obtain witnesses who will support his case. he cheated and left his wife with a very young child, hhmmm

and good point, he can remarry any time he wants to. nobody prevents him.

I am NOT criticizing her!!!!My personal opinion was she was not going forward....And oh yes I totally agree, the money had a lot to do with Kennedy getting it...From what I understand the decision was handed down in Italian, they didnt give her an English translation, she had to go the extra mile and pay to get it translated to even figure out what it said....Dont get me wrong, I feel for her...It was her choice not to give up something she felt strongly against..Dont mix up my opinion that I dont think it devalues your child in any way....

why does this guy even need an annulment, if catholc church only recognizes catholic marriage why do they even care if he was married in a different denomination? makes me wonder...

Dotz, there you go again.

You say you werent giving legal advice when you say "No legal consequences"

YOu say you werent critizing Rauch Kennedy when you say "Personally, I think Sheila Kennedy just didnt want to let go"

Like I said, I feel for all honorable Catholics who can not remarry in the Church. But it doesnt make the Xwife's problem, and if X needs her to say something in writing to get the annulment, I'ld be concerned about what is written.

You're entitled to your opinon -- I just hope the OP on the other thread thinks this through.

GAH, Dotz, I understand.... Lots of anti-Catholic sentiment.

Oh, and FD, the Catholic church recognizes marriages of all denominations. You just need to be married in the Catholic church to receive the Eucharist. It doesn't make me less Catholic that I wasn't married in the church. I go up and get a blessing instead of receiving the Eucharist. No big deal.

I dont see anti-Catholic sentiment. I see a man who wants to be married in the church and will walk over anyone to get there.

Asking for the ex to sign annulment papers is NOT walking all over them... She's free to not do it. Case closed. Who cares?

For some reason, she states she is being forced into it, I asked her to come back and clarify.

Asking for the ex to sign annulment papers is NOT walking all over them... She's free to not do it. Case closed. Who cares?

He is so walking over them. He wants the Church to declare the marriage invalid, it never existed, it wasn't ever supposed to happen, excuse his decision/actions as if he were unconscious at the time and therefore, his son should never have happened either. Of course she is free not to sign it, but that was an invalid statement since no one is talking about anything she did or is trying to do, and you already know he will be granted an annulment whether she signs it or not.

kkny, between these two threads, dotz refuses to see what she constantly does over and over. After repeatedly being shown her own words, she keeps denying them. On top of it all, we're being called "anti-Catholic." This is unreal to me, but I sure can understand why we were called that. Is it that they only believe what they are told to believe? So much so that they make statements and don't believe what they, themselves, said because the Church didn't tell them to believe it?

children of course are upset with end of marriage, annulment makes it no worse for them

There is nothing for a child to feel ashamed of because of an annullment..I am telling NO one HOW to feel

Personally, I think Sheila Kennedy just didnt want to let go.... I applaud her if in fact these were convictions, but hanging on for ten years to reverse this seems a bit much to me....

I DID NOT condemn Sheila Kennedy

I mean, if the Pope told her she stated/wrote these words, would she believe it then? If the Pope told them that non-Catholics are entitled to evaluate the theoretical impossibility, the theological anomaly, and the psychological ramifications and find the practice unnacceptable, would they believe it then? Of course, I don't expect him to reveal such a truth. (and that was the closest thing to remotely resembling anti-Catholic between these two threads, and it wasn't anti-Catholic either.)

I will so NOT defend my faith on a message board...

You are the ones trashing a process that you don't fully understand and reading horrific things into a piece of paper the contents of which you have never seen.

Googling does not an expert make.

I don't hear disrepect of the Catholic Church here. I here advice to a woman where her husband has broken his maritial vows not to sign anything agreeding that the marriage never occurred. It seems to me that advice is more in keeping with the prinicipals of the Church, than trying to lie to accomodate her cheating X.

Vivian, AMEN LOL.... Last word from me on this to Thermy, yeah ,I would have to believe the Pope if he told me this..When he speaks, he speaks Ex Cathedra, meaning he is infallible...Der, I m such a gullible dope....

I will so NOT defend my faith on a message board...

You are the ones trashing a process that you don't fully understand and reading horrific things into a piece of paper the contents of which you have never seen.

Googling does not an expert make.

That's the thing, Vivian, and what you and Dotz don't seem to understand. You have been defending your religion from the start, the start of which was what a woman deduced from that piece of paper. Whether or not we have seen it, this is the understanding she inferred from it. We all simply concur based on our understanding from what you and Dotz have explained and from what we (or just me?) read from googling. We feel the same way she does. Or, are you saying she has never seen it either? And nor has Sheila Rausch Kennedy? If we are so ignorant, why have neither of you succeeded in enlightening us in all your effort to explain and "defend" your religion's doctrine? You have both only served to confirm what we think and not only that, but you've revealed your own confusion of the matter in the process without even realizing or understanding that's what you've done. When pointed out, you deny it or get defensive.