The following regarding Ted Kennedy's annulment appeared in an on-line report:

"Joan later said that Kennedy requested the annulment, which she did not oppose, on grounds that his marriage vow to be faithful had not been honestly made, Clymer said." (Adam Clymer, who worked with Kennedy on his biography).

How does a tribunal determine if a vow to remain faithful has been honestly made? Does it simply accept the word of the party seeking the annulment?

Hi Curious,

Please know that the media rarely gets anything right about annulments [in my simple observations]. There is no ground for marriage nullity which is "[ones] marriage vow to be faithful had not been honestly made". I suppose it could be fraud; partial simulation, an intentional exclusion of the good of fidelity, contra bonum fidei; condition; partial simulation, an intentional exclusion of the good of perpetuity, contra bonum sacramenti; partial simulation, an intentional exclusion of the good of the spouses, contra bonum coniugum; or total simulation. Those are actual marriage nullity grounds and the phrase above may fit into any one of those, so, please understand I don't really know how to answer your question any further, because and throw no fault of yours, the on-line report was so far off base to begin with.

Blessings, Bob

COPYRIGHT 2009

Click here to send this Question and Answer to a friend