Trying to do a little research on this topic is very difficult as nobody who comments in the media on the anullment process in the Catholic Church actually knows anything about the process.

As I understand it, John Kerry petitioned for an anullment in the Diocese of Washington in 1994. He married Heintz in 1995. I also understand that his first wife Thorne publicly announced she would not participate in the process.

If these facts are wrong, please let me know. Also, how did it all turn out? Does anybody know if the Kerry annulment was actually granted? If his first wife Thorne refused to particiapte, its probably safe to say that it was eventually granted, or its a 98% probability.

Thanks in advance,

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), April 24, 2004

Answers

Pat,
It is not in the public domain if he received the requested annulment or not. Which seems odd, if he did the papers would be on his campaign's website, everything else 'positive' is ;)

He married Heinz in 1995, however it wasn't until 1997 that he requested the annulment from his previous marriage. On May 8, 1997, Kerry joked about the annulment process on the Don Imus radio show, thus going public about the matter. From this point onward, the media have reported that Kerry 'sought' an annulment, but there is no evidence that it was obtained. When now asked about this question, Kerry's staff goes mute."

In 1997, when Sen. Kerry sought to have the marriage that had produced their two daughters annulled, Thorne was furious at being asked to acquiesce. In an interview with the Boston Globe she said the request "was disrespectful to me ... and devoid of any sense of the humanity of what this means to me and the children." "I cannot look my children in the eyes or stand before them with integrity and know in my heart that I have contributed in any way to a process that invalidates and nullified the union from which they were created," Thorne raged. Still, the spurned ex-wife decided not to contest the annulment.In a statement released to the press, Kerry declined to comment on his request for annulment, except to say that he "very much understands Julia's feelings and appreciates her support." Thorne has since remarried and lives quietly in Montana.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 24, 2004.

Thanks Bill.

This is all hits me where I live. I had a couple of beers last Tuesday sitting right next to his Emminence, Cardinal Mcckarik the archbishop in Washington DC. He was drinking too while fielding questions from an audiance that was absolutely bipolar in its division between orthodox and pastoral Catholics.

I kept my mouth shut. But it was funny to hear how many orthodox were hounding the Cardinal about his recent meeting with John Kerry and that he should be excluding him from Communion. The other half merely tossed Kumbaya softballs.

The Cardinal is meeting with the Holy Father next month to deliver his five-year report on his activities as a bishop. That will be a closed audience, but I already have a very good idea of what will be discussed.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), April 25, 2004.

From the looks of it, he did not get an annulment. I am a Catholic and my wife attempted to get an annulment and had not yet received a ruling. It has been over two years, and in the Arlington, Virginia diocese close to Washington. If he married Heinz without the annulment, then by Catholic law he cannot receive the sacraments. If the annulment eventually comes through, then he might be able to get the Catholic Church to validate the Heinz marriage at which time he can receive the sacraments. I am doing a story on Heinz- Kerry for my website, talkingproud.us, and I understand she has a tradition for being a devout Catholic, though she does have un-Catholic views on abortion. In any event, since she has married Kerry, and Kerry does not have an annulment, then she has in the eyes of the Church married a married man, and she too cannot receive the sacraments. I would like help to get this sorted out. I am not sure it is a political hot-potato, but I want to know how the elite do these things while tghe rest of us have to battle our way through the system.

-- Edward Marek (edmarek@earthlink.net), May 17, 2004.

Ask your local priest about annulments. There are so many misconceptions. My husband and I were married several years before we applied for an annulment. He was Catholic, I was not, although I am now. It is a very private process. I cannot even imagine John Kerry would find it necessary to post his annulment papers on the internet. No diocese is going to give out this kind of information either. Part of the annulment process is internal. If you truly believe your first marriage is invalid, it is. You folks need to worry about your country going to hell in a handbasket not the condition of John Kerry's soul. That is between him and God. "Judge not, lest ye yourself be judged". Good Catholics don't condern themselves so much about other people's shortcomings. Don't flame me. I've got a terrific delete key! God Bless

-- Anonymous (dflory@powersupply.net), May 30, 2004.

Ask your local priest about annulments. There are so many misconceptions.

Yes, do ask your local priest. But ask here too, if you wish, for preliminary information. Several people here can answer basic (and even even more difficult) questions, not the least of whom is a priest who is studying for a degree in Canon Law.

It is a very private process. I cannot even imagine John Kerry would find it necessary to post his annulment papers on the internet. No diocese is going to give out this kind of information either.

There is no need to make public a lot of private details. It is enough to state whether or not a Decree of Nullity has been granted. To avoid possibility of scandal, this is something that a person in the public eye ought to do, although he is not strictly obliged to do it.

Part of the annulment process is internal. If you truly believe your first marriage is invalid, it is. It is true that part of the "process is internal." But it is FALSE that, if "you truly believe your first marriage is invalid, it is." That is completely incorrect. A ruling is to be made only by the Catholic Church's courts, not by one spouse or the other (or both). If the writer got that idea from her "local priest," he doesn't know or understand the facts.

You folks need to worry about your country going to hell in a handbasket not the condition of John Kerry's soul.

The writer needs to worry about her soul going to hell for giving seriously wrong advice. Orthodox Catholics in the U.S. have been worrying for decades about the state of their nation, and they don't need to be lectured by a foreigner. They also have every right to be concerned about "the condition of John Kerry's soul." Not only do we have a right but a duty to be concerned about each of our fellow men, but, since Kerry (God forbid!) could be elected, we need to be concerned about his soul being in a state of grace, which would help him to be a good leader.

That is between him and God. "Judge not, lest ye yourself be judged". Good Catholics don't condern themselves so much about other people's shortcomings.

The condition of a person's soul matters both to God and to his fellow man. Apparently the writer is a liberal who tolerates the commission of mortal sins, for only such as those wrongly use Jesus's words ("Judge not ..."). Jesus meant that we should not assume that anyone is damned. He did not mean that we cannot judge others' individual actions (or inactions) as morally right, wrong, or indifferent. We MUST do that kind of "judging," and the writer probably does it frequently herself. In fact, it was her negative "judgment" of others' actions that moved her to post her message.

Don't flame me. I've got a terrific delete key!

Correcting a writer's errors is not "flaming." In addition, the writer is incapable of deleting this message, no matter how "terrific" her keys are.

Henry IX

-- (Defender@fThe.Faith), May 31, 2004.

This response is in the form of a question. If John Kerry has not been granted an annulment, my understanding is he should not be given Holy Communion. If the Church decides to withold Communion based on his stance on abortion, are they not picking and choosing sins ?

-- Richard sheehan (sheepaint@att.net), May 31, 2004.

There may be one further possibility that has not been suggested. It is my understanding that a divorced person who remarries but does not obtain an annulment may participate in the Eucharist if he practices total continence in the second marriage. While it may sound fine in theory but unlikely in practice, some people do have the discipline required to do so in honor of Christ.

-- (KAPatch@aol.com), June 17, 2004.

Theoretically true, but with the following amendments ... A divorced Catholic cannot "remarry". Therefore there is no "second marriage" within which to practice continence. More correctly stated, if a divorced person cohabits with a person of the opposite sex, and there is no sexual relationship, then a person in such a theoretical situation could theoretically receive the sacraments. However, if the reason for cohabitation is romantic attraction, then a married person has no business being in such a situation, whether committed to sexual abstinence or not, and at best is placing himself/herself in a grave occasion of mortal sin.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 17, 2004.

All of these things are extremely personal matters. I think the Church would favor not making them public.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 17, 2004.

As a Catholic, I would say that if John Kerry receives Holy Communion and has Not been granted an annulment of his first marriage he is committing a mortal sin. He, as a Catholic, should know this and refrain from receiving Holy Communion on his own.

It is a sacrilige to receive Holy Communion when you are in the state of mortal sin. I have known Catholics who divorce and remarry and do not stop going to Sunday Mass however, they would not think of going forward and receiving Holy Communion. In one case, the person filed the papers neccesary to obtain an annulment and while waiting for an answer, they lived as brother and sister. When the first marriage was annuled then they were married in the Catholic Church and both could once again receive Holy Communion.

I would also like to say that annulments are NOT just granted for the Rich. These two people were absolutely NOT from wealthy families. An annulment is granted under certain circumstances, such as, if you were forced to marry, if you said you were open to children but really not, if you promised to raise your children Catholic and then one person refuses. These are just some of the reasons and I am sure there are others.

I was trying to see if John Kerry did receive an annulment and I stumbled upon this site. I am Catholic and am having trouble deciding how I am going to vote. I am not a GWB fan even though his stance on abortion is the way I see things. I don't want to decide based on one issue but I do want to know John Kerry's character. I admire the fact that Kerry went to Vietnam and fought in a war that by the end was totally wrong and recognized that fact. He went about it in the right way, he didn't go to North Vietnam and sit on tanks and smile and make nice with the Enemy. In case, you don't know who I am referring to, (Jane Fonda) The Traitor!

Sorry, I digress. Anyway, I don't want waste my vote!

-- Dolores McGuigan (happylady222002@yahoo.com), June 30, 2004.

Try explaining to any Viet-namese american that the war against communist aggression was "unjust" and wrong. Try talking to people who whose fathers, husbands, and sons were summarily executed by the NVA immediately following April 1975...those spared were hauled off to "re-education" camps, whose liberty and dignity were mauled for A DECADE...and still today live under totalitarianism.

Yeah, if that war was "unjust" and wrong...tell me, why is the status quo so unjust?

I'll tell you one thing...lots of Americans who just wanted us to pull out of Vietnam in the 1960's didn't care about the Vietnamese. They also believed that the commies "weren't so bad" and that after April 30, 1975, when our TV cameras pulled out...suddenly the place found "peace"... so they don't feel guilty knowing intellectually that the war endured for years, that millions of vietnamese were killed or died trying to flee... for them, since it wasn't shown on TV and Walter and Dan didn't keep harping about on the nightly news...it didn't exist.

Today millions of Africans are being killed...but you don't see the awful photos on TV so "it doesn't happen".

I vividly recall Rwanda...it wasn't until we got footage of dead bodies floating down rivers that the News Media and outraged environmentalists (apparently more worried about the harm rotting flesh has on the purity of lake water than these murdered peoples' lives) sought UN action.

Yet we all heard the news reports and read the news wires... but words didn't convey the horror so the wonderfully sensitive liberals didn't demand action. They need pictures. They are visual-only. Don't try arguing with them; this is the crowd that bases their judgments on impression and feeling, not thought and moral discourse: the only way to inspire them is to show them graphic horror with commentary.

So with Iraq, we get nothing but bad news...not a single photo or video of good news. Impression? They hate us, we're terrible. Bush is to blame. Pull out and all peace and harmony and joy will again flourish.

In Afganistan: the only news you hear (every now and then) is bad. No good news. Impression? they hate us, we're terrible. Bush is to blame. Pull out and all peace and harmony and joy and brotherhood of man will again flourish.

Meanwhile millions of these poor 3rd world people are left to die at the hands of real thugs and murderers and rapists...and the Left doesn't care, all while priding themselves on their humanity and open- minded concern for "rights" and "the children".

Breathtaking.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 30, 2004.

You should review the Iraqi blogs. The tone has definately improved. Not everyone is happy, but the vast majority are. Here is an example:

Congratulations to Iraq and Iraqis on this great day.. A day which is considered a big blow on the heads of those who call the United States and the coalition: ‘occupiers’.. Well.. thank you very much for the ‘occupiers’.. Those who helped us in liberating our country from the tyranny, the ‘occupiers’ who liberated Iraq on the 9th of April, the ‘occupiers’ who sent Mr.Paul Bremer as we did not have a governor at that time..the ‘occupiers’ who helped us in forming a governing council.. The ‘occupiers’ who helped us in the interim constitution.. The ‘occupiers’ who stood against the terrorists.. The ‘occupiers’ who helped us in forming and training our army......etc.. then those ‘occupiers’ handed over the sovereignty to the Iraqis.... they are the best ‘occupiers’ I’ve ever seen.. I hope they’ll ‘occupy’ the countries who are in need to be improved !
Thank you very much...

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), June 30, 2004.

offitalics

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 30, 2004.

So Joe and Bill, this has exactly what to do with Kerry's marital status?

-- Joker (joker@cybernet.com), July 01, 2004.

Joker, Don't know.. threads tend to wander off topic at times.....

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

Hi Dolores,

The Archbishop of St. Louis just this past week issued a statement that anyone who voted for a pro-abortion candidate would be in a state of grave moral sin and should not receive communion until a repentence/confession.

Here's the link to the story

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0403600.htm

Here's the link,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 02, 2004.