The New York Times is No Friend of Marriage

The New York Times just ran a gauzy thousand word story on the marriage of Robert Kennedy Jr. and actress Cheryl Hines.

They headlined the piece “No Curbs on Their Enthusiasm,” a play on her hit HBO show called “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” but meant to convey how wonderful it all was, how they met, fell in love and here they are getting married by a Unitarian Universalist minister at fairy tale Hyannis Port. There is even a picture of Kennedy and Hines in a sailboat, gazing lovingly, and clapboard mansions behind them.

The portrait the Times paints is fantasy.

This is not another column bashing the Kennedys. I have done my share of those. Rather, it is about marriage in the modern age and the New York Times.

The reality of this scene starts with the fact that Kennedy and Hines began their affair when both of them were still married. The Times almost lovingly reports that producer Larry David first introduced them at a ski resort in Canada, then a year later at another ski resort and the following year at yet another one. Sometime over this two to three year span, they simply fell in love.

The Times refers to Kennedy as a widower, which indeed he was. His second wife hung herself only two years ago in the family barn after an 18-year marriage filled with infidelity. But she was no innocent either. After all, she began her affair with Kennedy when he was still married to his first wife. In fact, they got married only a month after he divorced his first wife, and she gave birth to their first child three months after that.

Before she hung herself she made public a diary of his from 2001 in which he talked about, among other things, his children, his dislike of Jesse Jackson and 37 sexual affairs with other women. He coded the conquests in his diary with intercourse scored as a ten. There were 16 of those in a twelve-month period.

The Times did not report any of that in their fairy-tale love story. Neither did they report that after she hung herself, the Kennedy apparatus set out to destroy her reputation, calling her a psycho and a drunk who ran over the family dog.

It would be a better world if adultery were still actionable in divorce proceedings. It used to be a determining factor in dividing the property and who got the kids. While it’s still on the books in 21 states, it is never used because we have no-fault divorce.

There used to be a thing called “alienation of affection” where Kennedy’s first wife could have sued the woman who became his second wife for luring him away from her marriage. It might have saved the second wife’s life.

It’s not like Kennedy has no conscience. He does. How do I know? Because in the diaries his second wife made public there is a steady drumbeat of conscience. He hated what he called his “lust demons.”

One day he wrote, “I’ve got to do better.” On another he wrote he had “to avoid the company of women” and didn’t have the “strength to resist their charms.” He had “to be humble like a monk.” Keep his hands to himself. Avert his eyes. This is classic advice any spiritual director would give.

On days he did not philander, he wrote, almost pathetically, “Victory.” Sometimes “victory” is scrawled across many days in a row.

When Kennedy was arrested for protesting the use of Vieques Island in Puerto Rico as target practice, he spent five days in jail and he loved it because he was away from temptations. “I’m content here. There’s no women. I’m happy.”

We can feel a profound sadness for the women in Kennedy’s life, the women he married and the women he bedded, though many of then were no doubt just as predatory as he.

We can feel profound sadness for his children who have had a philandering father and, some of them, a suicidal mother.

We can even feel a profound sadness for this very lost man who does these things and knows better but somehow cannot control the demons that rise up in his soul.

But, the New York Times is wicked. They knew all this. They didn’t have to tell it but they shouldn’t have lied to their readers about this fairy tale that is phony from stem to stern.

No wonder it is so hard for the truth about marriage to be told. No wonder we are losing the battle to save marriage, both in the public square and in the lives of the young.

To the media gatekeepers, none of this is a problem. Cheat on the first wife with your second and your second with your third. Who cares? Not the New York Times.

Odds are the train-wreck that is Robert Kennedy’s third marriage will go down the memory hole of the New York Times and they will lovingly tell the story of his fourth marriage. After all, its already been reported he cheated on Hines with a socialite from Connecticut.

What a terrible mess.

 (Photo credit: Patrick McMullan)

Austin Ruse

By

Austin Ruse is president of C-FAM (Center for Family & Human Rights), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute. He is the author of Fake Science: Exposing the Left’s Skewed Statistics, Fuzzy Facts, and Dodgy Data published by Regnery. He is also the author of the new book Little Suffering Souls: Children Whose Short Lives Point Us to Christ published by Tan Books. The views expressed here are solely his own.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    As a lawyer, I remember divorce actions for adultery. Most were “Hotel Cases,” in which the receptionist who booked them in and the chambermaid who brought them their early morning tea proved that the Defender (always the husband), whom they identified from a photograph, spent the night with a lady, who was not the Pursuer; their precognitions might as well have been mimeographed. No effort was ever made to identify the fair unknown and there was never any evidence of prior association.

    The rare cases that were not collusive could sometimes produce intriguing results. To quote the magisterial Lord Fraser’s Husband & Wife, “The confessions of the wife, defender, may warrant the Court in finding that adultery is proved against her, while, not being evidence against the co-defender, he escapes; and thus divorce may be granted against the wife for adultery committed by her with him, while he himself is assoilzied from the action.” Indeed, to have held otherwise would have been to lay it down that the admission or confession of the Defender – which might be quite untrue and which might be induced by hidden and private motives – was to be treated as good evidence against the Co-Defender. And so it happened that the court may quite reasonably conclude that it was proved that the Defender had committed adultery with the Co-Defender, but not that the Co-Defender had committed adultery with the Defender, a subtlety, alas, too often lost on the lay public.

  • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

    What makes the Kennedy clan so repulsive for some of us is the disparity between what they would have us take them for, and what they are in reality. They believe they are some sort of national moral compass, championing every noble cause and calling their fellow citizens (and even their coreligionists) to benefit and better themselves from the Kennedy pontifications. They publish book after book and memoir after memoir, and stand for election after election. In reality, of course, they people you would never want to know or have as neighbors or colleagues.

    • Guest

      But the masses vote for them.

      • DE-173

        Voted. The name is no longer the talisman it once was in politics. Caroline thought her name would be sufficient to occupy a Senate seat but even in the days when Al Franken can be elected, her record was found to be one of vapid pretense and hereditary entitlement.

        Good riddance to this disgusting vermin.

        • Art Deco

          Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg has a putatively obnoxious husband (trouble mostly to his wife’s relatives and some of the people who retain his firm). She’s otherwise never done anything disagreeable other than lend her name to some silly enterprises (Obama for President, vapid awards committees, &c) and does not merit that sort of contempt.

          I am not sure she made any public statements at all about the Senate seat; it was just sub rosa discussions with Gov. Patterson who was charting his own course in any case. It’s a legislative seat; there are no very fixed ‘qualifications’ for it. You just do not want people with severe character deficiencies or intellectual deficiencies and you do not want career politicians; she was not any of these things.

          Accepting a diplomatic position was seriously stupid on her part (though not as indefensible as nominating her for it).

          • DE-173

            The fact that I know about her interest in the seat means it was somewhere above “sub rosa”,who needs to make public statements when there is a press corps pining for ” Camelot” .As for she’s never done anything “disagreeable”, disagreeable was an unnecessary word, she’s never done anything is all you need say, but being an early Obama supporter is certainly ” disagreeable” to me.

            • Art Deco

              As for she’s never done anything “disagreeable”, disagreeable was an
              unnecessary word, she’s never done anything is all you need say,

              No, that’s not what I need to say. She’s a perfectly unobjectionable upper-class housewife, mother of three, lapsed museum curator, licensed (non-practicing) attorney, patron of various philanthropic causes, author of some inconsequential trade books. She’s done those things.

              Per newspaper reports, she indicated her interest in a seat in Congress to the Governor. That does not mean she felt entitled to it. The other Senator from New York at that time was upChuck Schumer, who has no employment history whatsoever past the age of 25 bar political office and indubitably left the rearing of his children to his wife as he has not lived in Brooklyn full time since 1968. How is Caroline Schlossberg a step down from that?

              No clue why the Administration stuck her in the U.S. Embassy in Japan, unless they figured she’d do the ceremonial functions and the Deputy Chief of Mission would handle the substantive work. Then again, Mr. Reagan put his wife’s secretary in charge of the U.S. Embassy in Vienna. The Secretary of State, presiding over an apparat employing 22,000 people, had never worked as a line administrator before he took the job. Neither had his predecessor.

              • DE-173

                There are thousands of people with the same qualifications, many not the product of political celebrity. The simple reality is she is a product of privilege, with no discernible outstanding accomplishment to recommend her for any office higher than prothonatary.

                • slainte

                  The lion of the senate, Ted Kennedy, knew his time was limited following a diagnosis of glioma and sought to use his political gravitas to cause Caroline to become US Senator from New York following Hillary Clinton’s departure in or about 2008-2009.
                  .
                  For reasons best known to himself, then Gov. Patterson elected to ignore Ted Kennedy’s “suggested nominee” in favor of Kirsten Gillibrand who was subsequently appointed US Senator. Patterson’s political career never recovered.
                  .
                  Caroline was shortly thereafter offered an ambassador role.

                  • Art Deco

                    No. Patterson was one of our better governors, but his problems had to do with his tangles with the legislature and the insistence of our witless electorate in blaming him rather than the goons who run the state capitol. The Gillibrand appointment irritated Downstate pols, who fancy that no Upstate pol should hold a statewide office and who dislike Gillibrand personally (not without some justice).

                    Not shortly thereafter. About four years later.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Wasn’t Patterson forced to leave office before his term expired?

                    • slainte

                      I agree Patterson was one of NYS’s better governors “because” he took on the democrat power structure, including declining to honor Ted Kennedy’s effort at political patronage by launching Caroline’s political career.
                      .
                      Caroline Kennedy was not and is not prepared to be a U.S Senator.
                      .
                      Patterson is now a radio talk show host and a reformed adulterer.

                • Art Deco

                  There are always ‘thousands of people’ who compare favorably in their personal accomplishments to extant office-holders. Look at the Congressional delegation in recent years:

                  1. Brian Higgins, Charles Schumer (no adult employment history outside of political office).

                  2. Maurice Hinchey (employment history in pectoris; political office only after age 36, large blank spaces before that; was evidently a quarry foreman ca. 1961).

                  3. Dan Maffei (three years as a TV reporter; worked for political consultancies from then on when not in office).

                  4. John Sweeney (low rent lawyer, mostly employed by party committees; drunk).

                  5. Louise Slaughter (representative for life, now age 85; long ago and far away a hospital microbiologist; held public office w/o interruption since 1971; given to glaringly silly statements in public and private).

                  • Tony

                    My former student Nicholas Di Iorio, extremely bright and likable and loyally Catholic, is running for Slaughter’s seat this year….

                    • DE-173

                      Good.

                  • DE-173

                    None of this serves to recommend CKS, rather it serves to underscore the pathological nature of politics.

        • Guest

          The same herd the same mentally. Now they vote for Obama.

      • Art Deco

        Since 1968, they have not polled well outside the Boston media market. One of Robert Kennedy’s children has sat on a municipal council around Los Angeles and one of Sargent Shriver’s children served a couple terms in the Maryland legislature (which is the Shriver family’s home base).

        Kathleen Townsend managed to win some Democratic primaries in Maryland but she was zero for two in her attempts at public office. She managed to lose a race for Congress in a landslide in a competitive district in suburban Baltimore against an insecure incumbent, something Democrats seldom do. She later lost the Governor’s race, something that a Democratic nominee has only managed 5x in the last century (3x when the Democratic Party was internally fissured over segregation and one earlier time when the Republican nominee flanked the Democratic nominee on the left); her opponent Robert Ehrlich, while a twit, is the only conventional Republican elected Governor of Maryland in the last century; the other three all were derived from the Dewey-Rockefeller strand in Republican politics.

        But, in Boston and Providence, Ted Kennedy never had a close election, his loutish nephew managed to get elected to Congress over a mess of experienced Democratic pols, and his barely employable lushington son managed to win a seat in Congress over a capable physician who’d done humanitarian work abroad and managed to keep it for 8 terms in spite of his manifest inadequacies.

        • Guest

          Now they vote for Pelosi, Biden, Reed, and all the rest. Same mentality.

    • Fred

      As I mentioned above, the Kennedy’s created a brand image that was successful in that many swooned over them making it easy to overlook because they were the shiny objects to adore. The glamour is mostly gone now thank goodness, and they did have the Irish Catholic heritage which made their situation unique, but think about what you just said in the context of most any progressive politician. Despite their lack of faith other than in enriching themselves Bill and Hill tried to connect to that energy in creating their version of a second Camelot. They all profess to be for the little guy and the middle class from behind the teleprompter, but the policies and personal associations reveal all.
      BTW – Thank you for you service Dr. Tim, and your family.

      • DE-173

        Behind the teleprompter and the trust funds and the gates of. Hyannisport

      • Art Deco

        Someone once called the Democratic Party ‘a Kennedy cargo cult’, and there’s a great deal of truth to that. The original has an amazing hold on public memory given the reality. However, recall that his brother’s presidential campaign in 1968 was hardly a sure thing and the readiness with which Hubert Humphrey collected delegates without entering a single primary suggests that Kennedy’s death was not decisive and he’d have been trounced as readily as Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern were in Chicago. His other brother was ass-whipped by the hapless Jimmy Carter. His niece was given an electoral beatdown by Helen Delich Bentley, a woman who generally had competitive races on her hands and as many losses as wins. The Kool-Aid is in the Boston-Providence water supply, not anywhere else.

      • TERRY

        “Irish Catholic heritage”.

        I vehemently disagree – what do you think Rose Kennedy would say if she knew that one of her grandsons was entering his 3rd marriage via a Unitarian ceremony performed at the Kennedy Compound?

        To me the phrase ‘Irish Catholic’ evokes working class Irish people who take their faith seriously and make every attempt to live by it. The Kennedy family has NEVER fit this type – they have always been ‘patrician’ and 50 years ago were referred to as ‘Irish Brahmin’, when the phrase meant the 1st generation of Irish people who were ‘upper class’.

        When I think of the Kennedy family, which happens very rarely, the adjective ‘Catholic’ does not occur.

        I am an Irish Catholic and proud of it.

        • Art Deco

          what do you think Rose Kennedy would say if she knew that one of her
          grandsons was entering his 3rd marriage via a Unitarian ceremony
          performed at the Kennedy Compound?

          Again, she cut off her daughter in 1944 for this sort of offense, but by the time of her death she appears to have given up attempting to get her brood to straighten up and fly right. Her 2d son was as astonishing a case of satyriasis as has ever been in public life, her 4th son manifested a stew of drunken and lecherous behavior and general unscrupulousness, and at least six of her grandchildren were at the epicenter of public scandals in her lifetime (and the worst was yet to come).

          • John200

            It is a kind of mercy that she did not have to watch the whole story unfold before leaving this vale of tears.

            Rose Kennedy was married 100 years ago. I know because I had the newspaper that announced her wedding. I got it from pulling apart an old house. The builder had used newspaper as insulation. In Massachusetts, Holy Moses! Those were tough people. The date was October 7, 1914 (I peeked on Wikipedia).

            I wonder what she thought of her decision over the next 81 years (d. 1995).

            She can handle it much better now.

            • ForChristAlone

              I wonder if she’s lonely.

              • John200

                My guess = Not any more. The possibility of loneliness ended if she made it into heaven.

                Unless you are implying she was a cause of the damage and has been so judged … oh, I see. Whattamess.

                One is never sure, but I hope she made the eternal cut.

    • John O’Neill

      Indeed, Robert Kennedy Jr. is the biggest sanctimonious hypocrite in the American State. He has appeared on TV shows denouncing anyone who dares to question his absolute allegiance to his neo religion of Environmentalism. This serial adulterer places himself and his family on the higher level of the “good Americans” who follow everything that the secularist American State teaches. His sister wrote a book wherein she took the Catholic Church to task because it did not reflect the morality of her family.

      • ForChristAlone

        Makes one wonder whether immorality is genetically transmitted..

        • Howard

          Romans 5:12.

  • fredx2

    But you misunderstand – the New York Times believes that sex outside of marriage is simply part of marriage. This is part of their attempt to rationalize gay marriage. Since most gays have great difficulty with monogamy, therefore sex outside of marriage must, in the future, become a normal and part of marriage. The Times itself has reported on the need that lesbians have for “play” outside of marriage. (That’s what they actually call it)
    So, you see, in the bizarro world of the Times, sex outside of marriage is something to be celebrated. It’s liberating, see?

  • TERRY

    Recently Bill and the Hill were guests of the royal family at ‘the Port’.

    The next week Elizabeth Warren was there, again – by invitation (command?) of the royal family.

    (What does it all mean? My response to that would be to echo Mr. Natural, and there are a few of you out there who know what I mean.)

    From far and wide across our great country comes the cry “WGAS”? (figure it out)

    I for one certainly don’t, but I just thought I’d bring that up.

  • Elaine Steffek

    The belly of society is filled with rot and evil like this. The New Evangelization can’t come fast enough.

    • DE-173

      Society will always be filled with rot like this. The best defense against this sort of familial hagiography is to picture them seated on porcelain, then their Olympian pretenses vaporize.

  • John O’Neill

    I remember my mother and my aunt Bridget, both Irish immigrants to America, and how proud they were on the day JFK became the president of the Americans. We were all so proud that one of us had made it; since then I have become not so proud to be Irish Catholic. The Kennedy family portrayed themselves to be God fearing Catholics and pro family people but underneath was the serpent. The Kennedy men went on to become the primer advocates of adultery and fornication. Many of them bragged about their ability in the field of seduction. Many believe that Marilyn Monroe met her death because of the machinations of this man Robert Kennedy Jr.’s father. Ted Kennedy drove his first wife to alcoholism and eventually mental illness. The really sad thing is how much the Irish American community overlooked their flaws; when Ted Kennedy was buried several years ago in Boston, Cardinal O’Malley and the Boston archdiocese pulled out all the stops to celebrate the greatness of this man, Teddy Kennedy; it was a sad day for the Church when such a man was held up as a virtuous follower of our religion. So many Irish Americans even today revere this family and its political empire; so sad. I know the present pontiff teaches us that we are not to judge anyone. So I confess I am not living up to those high standards of Francis.

    • FrankW

      It is not up to us to condemn others; that role belongs to God alone. However, it is precisely the inability of our society to look at immoral behavior and call it out for what it is which has led our nation down its current path of destruction.

      If we are a nation that can no longer tell the difference between right and wrong, and openly stand up for what is right, or if we are a nation that lacks the courage to stand for what is right, then we are, as a nation, no longer capable or fit to govern ourselves.

      I believe it was John Adams who said that our Constitution was designed for a moral and a religious nation, and would be wholly inadequate to the governance of any other. We are seeing in these times just how correct Adams was.

    • ForChristAlone

      Doesn’t sound to me like you’re making a judgment on the ultimate fate of the Kennedys’ souls. You are simply recounting facts which speak for themselves.

      Americans give the Kennedy’s a pass on their immorality so that no one can hold them to account for theirs. It’s all a convenient game. But the game’s up when we face God, isn’t it?

      • TERRY

        Gotta disagree with “Americans give the Kennedy’s a pass on their immorality”.

        Most Americans I know don’t give a flying s##t about the Kennedys, and NONE of them pay any attention to the New York frigging Times.

        FYI I am an Irish Catholic born and bred and the older I get the more Catholic I get, Grace a Dieu.

        DON’T FORGET – Today is a Holy Day of Obligation – the Feast of the Assumption.

        • ForChristAlone

          I am unsure what exactly is the difference between my saying that Americans give the Kennedy’s a pass on immorality and your saying that most americans don’t give a flying ….about them.

          • RCPreader

            The difference is that, today, the Kennedys aren’t even on most people’s radar screens. Someone has to be of some significance, and held in some esteem, for you to “give them a pass on immorality.” For most people today, the Kennedys aren’t.

            • TERRY

              Couldn’t put it better, won’t even try.

              Thanks

            • ForChristAlone

              I disagree. They are on no one’s radar until one of them decides he or she will run for office and then the media begins to circle the wagons. You’ll be able to know this is happening when (some) voters begin to swoon.

              Let’s just recall the fawning over Princess Caroline’s being named Ambassador to Japan. One would have thought she was the apotheosis of Thomas Jefferson.

    • Fred

      John, be proud of your Irish Catholic heritage because the Kennedy’s are in no way a reflection of your faith. I understand your feelings though and also hear it from a different perspective from having been raised in a more or less agnostic family who despised the Catholic church largely because of the hypocrisy they saw in the church’s embrace of the Kennedy’s. Unrelated, I was also taken aback during a recent assignment overseas in Italy where I saw JFK’s picture in so many store front windows which I thought odd so many decades removed. I attribute it to pure unadulterated brand marketing which for most is little deeper than that. It is a black eye for the church to still embrace the filth they represented solely because of their heritage. Thankfully that era is slowly being expunged from memory, except with Bill and Hill tried to play up their Camelot.

      • TERRY

        Don’t forget the 2008 campaign when teddy said that with bo the wonderfulness was back. That was a stomach-churner.

        • ForChristAlone

          you mean Baraq?

          • TERRY

            b – barack

            o – obama

            Of course ‘bo’ also stands for other things (snarkle snarkle)

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      Reminds one of Lord Melbourne, Queen Victoria’s first Prime Minister. Although he not infrequently referred to “our happy constitution in Church and State,” he once declared that “Things have come to a pretty pass, when religion is allowed to invade the sphere of private life.”

      • TERRY

        You speak as if you were there.

        (Joke)

    • DE-173

      A guy who serially breaks his vows to his wife can’t be trusted to remain faithful to his oath of office. If you can lie to one face, you can lie to millions you don’t know.

      • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

        I remember the days when adultery used to be grounds for a court martial
        in the military. (Technically, it still is, but it is almost never
        enforced, unless it involves an allegation of sexual assault.) And even
        when adultery did not lead to criminal (yes, criminal) charges in the
        military, it was always a career ending situation if it became public,
        making further promotion absolutely impossible. The idea was simply that
        if someone could not keep a promise to a spouse, one could not be
        trusted to honor one’s oath of service. (Of course, high ranking
        officers have always been able to get away with more tomfoolery than the
        rank and file, but that is how things work in all areas of society.)
        But towards the end of my military service, I sat on a jury that
        recommended a general discharge for a female sergeant who committed
        adultery with a corporal in her husband’s unit. And we were overruled by
        the higher-ups, who covered everything over. I am glad that my highly-decorated father, who loved the Army, never lived to see the depths of its degradation
        today.

        • Art Deco

          There was a highly public court-martial of an Air Force officer for adultery in 1998. She was an officer who had bedded down the civilian husband of an enlisted (female) airman, who had complained. There was a certain amount of public complaint at the time from the usual sorts but IIRC the Air Force released statistics on the frequency of these prosecutions and this Lt. Flinn’s case was hardly unique that year.

          • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

            I don’t doubt it. But in terms of what is happening at lightening speed in the military these days, 1998 is ancient history. Still, officer-enlisted liaisons are serious business.

            • Fred

              Actually, what seems to happening with lightning speed to our country in general. My heart especially goes out to our men and women in uniform who never thought in a million years that their faith would be under attack from within and are being persecuted in the ranks.

        • Fred

          Since you know what it takes to get a security clearance you know the scrutiny you are under for any degrading behavior that could be used to blackmail for secrets. Imagine the thoughts when the man at the top of the pyramid was found committing a sexual act in the WH with a barely of age intern. I still recoil in revulsion when I think about it today. People still love him for some reason and if he could run I have no doubt he could be re-elected. Now that makes me sad just thinking about.

          • ForChristAlone

            I just wonder whether his wife will demand a different desk for the Oval Office when she takes over the reins of government and becomes the leader of the “Free” World.

            • John200

              Mr. and “Mrs.” Clinton took the desk with them when they left. Do you think they will return it? Properly cleaned?

              No matter, they are not going to be reinstalled in the White House.

              • TERRY

                I remember that. From that emerged the immortal phrase “democrats are immune to embarrassment.” I forget where I first saw it but it sure did fit.

                Then

                and

                now

          • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

            The problem is that “degrading” is being redefined yearly, if not monthly. Thus, homosexuality is no longer an obstacle to a security clearance, because people are openly “gay.”

          • TERRY

            My favorite t-shirt – only worn on ceremonial occasions and if/when I can again fit into it – says”Only in America does a homeless vet sleep in a cardboard box while a draft-dodger sleeps in the White House.”

        • Anna Githens

          The difference today is that viewing pornography is also a form of adultery. This is presently a rampant problem affecting countless marriages. Married men (and women) are allowing themselves to indulge in this activity as if it has no affect on their spouse or their marriage. This is selfish and self-delusional behavior. There are many, many practices (pre-marital sex, contraception) that have weakened the marital sacrament and a variety of reasons why we have gotten ourselves into this mess. ( I posted this above by accident)

    • TERRY

      I was visiting a friend who is a Franciscan Priest in Pittsburgh the day Ted died and I can assure you that not too many complimentary things were said about Ted. They prayed for him – as they should, but no one was describing him as a ‘good Catholic’.

      I agree wholeheartedly about the Boston Archdiocese pulling out the stops for him. To me it was a disgrace, and the day has to be coming when some Bishop will find the stones to call some a prominent ‘catholic’ (small c) politician on his or her support of abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage – all positions in direct defiance of accepted Church doctrine. Either Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden would be a good start. The immediate liberal media response, of course, will be the separation of church and state and THEN we can have the discussion that we need to have.

  • ForChristAlone

    His grandmother used to attend daily Mass.

    • Art Deco

      She disowned one of her errant children in 1944. I’m not sure she attempted disciplinary measures after that.

      • ForChristAlone

        Was that Kathleen?

        • Art Deco

          Aye.

    • RufusChoate

      Paul Johnson wrote a damning and brutal synopsis of her faith. It was a primitive superstitious and shallow affectation.

      • Art Deco

        Paul Johnson was a British opinion journalist. How would he know squat about what Rose Kennedy thought about much of anything. She was not a public figure.

        • RufusChoate

          Paul Johnson was opinion journalist in the 1960’s he has been a highly regarded Historian for quite some time.

          Most people in Boston who knew Rose Kennedy knew this as a well established fact as well.

          • Art Deco

            What was his source material? Did he have her diaries? The woman wasn’t Eleanor Roosevelt; she did not write newspaper columns.

            • Watosh

              If the Paul Johnson under discussion was the Paul Johnson who wrote “The History of the Jews,” then having read this book some time ago, I would have to agree with Art Deco’s characterization of him as a “British opinion journalist” who wrote some histories. I don’t know about his source material, all I know is that he didn’t always stick to the facts, and he was careful not to rock any boats.I really don’t know much about Rose Kennedy, except she has my sympathy.

  • guest

    Kennedy suffers–yes, suffers–from sex addiction. He can get help, and one would think he knows where and how to do so. His writings indicate he is aware of Step One: “We admitted that we were powerless over lust, and our lives had become unmanageable.”

    We cannot count on the NYT to report this story as an illness because the secular media are pimps. We are losing the battle to save marriage; but the problem is not the pimps writing for the NYT, but the disease called lust.

    Many men and women, once they realized that they were powerless over lust and their lives had become unmanageable, joined a twelve step group for their addiction. Keep writing about the disease. There are men and women who need to know how they can get help.

    • RufusChoate

      Blah Blah… I love my sin so much it must be an addiction. blah blah…blah.

      Coffee is more addictive than the majority of “addictive” illicit drugs including alcohol and undoubtedly sex but some how no one claims it is an insurmountable obstacle to overcome but every other addiction is the ultimate get out jail card of moral dilemmas.

      • guest

        Precisely, the point: the addict loves his/her sin, but also recognizes that its hold on them must be broken. My post is not intended to be a “get out of jail card of moral dilemmas.” I don’t see coffee as the thing that breaks apart marriages, drains bank accounts, or all the other types of side effects caused by real addictions that you seem to minimalize.

        I’ve read some spot-on comments here from you, but this one isn’t one of them.

        • RufusChoate

          My apologies, I might have been hasty in my response and misinterpreted your post as a plea for accepting Lust as an addiction and morally neutral.

          This Kennedy like others also has a long history of other addictions from drugs to alcohol. He is a moral degenerate.

          Coffee has no history of negative effects because it is an unalloyed good.

          Cheers.

          • guest

            Like Kennedy, I am also a moral degenerate, except I am proactively trying to maintain sexual sobriety in the hopes that I might learn what real love and intimacy are. His diary tells me a lot, so I have tried to reach him via email. I want to tell him where he can get help. When he writes, “victory,” that’s code for “help me”. I’m now thinking of The Exorcist, when those words appear on Regan’s torso as she is possessed by the devil.

            Time to go. Too much coffee this morning.

  • John Albertson

    We have watched cardinals Cushing, Law, and O’Malley
    practically jumping into the graves of the Kennedys despite their
    lurid histories. The exception was Cardinal Madeiros and he was disdained in Boston for being a “foreigner.” Rather like Dubois, appointed New York’s only non-Irish bishop in 1826: he asked to be buried under the sidewalk, to be walked over in death as he had been in life, and the people obliged him. But the nightmare of the Kennedys was inflicted on the nation by the Catholic voters themselves, just like the racial voting
    for Obama. A wise Irish grandmother said that the Irish built the
    Church in this country and they have also destroyed it. Reform may take
    a while, if there is anything left to reform. Eg: the Irish-American
    cardinal of New York has just got three new auxiliary bishops, all
    Irish-American in an archdiocese with a nearly fifty per cent Latino population.
    Then there is Ireland itself, in total ecclesiastical collapse, where Bobby Kennedy, Jr would be welcomed with greater reverence than any bishop. The
    days of Bing Crosby Catholicism are long gone, but in many of our
    Chanceries they still are singing those old tunes as the walls tumble around them.

    • Art Deco

      The star-f***** behavior by O’Malley has been as appalling as anything. I think EMK managed to wangle an annullment during the Law years.

    • RufusChoate

      I think you are over estimating the influence of the Irish in National politics and in the Church except in the Northeast but I tend to agree with your contempt for the adulation the Bay State Catholics for this odious and cretinous clan. I am Irish Catholic and lived in Massachusetts but have loathed them all from what I read of Kennedy’s Presidency, their behavior which is legendary for its churlishness.

      • Art Deco

        Joseph P. Kennedy had 28 grandchildren who survived infancy. Roughly a third have a known history of bad behavior. That proportion is a variant of normal. His three younger sons, each in his own way, were pretty ghastly. Other than Kathleen, his daughters were not.

        • DE-173

          .667 is a fine completion rate in football, in raising morally functioning adults, it is abysmal.

          • Art Deco

            Yes, but that’s the world we live in; families are like that nowadays.

            One granddaughter is a known adulterer, one grandson was not only an adulterer but his paramour was 14 years old (and it says something about Kennedy retainers that her mother and father let it slide), three grandsons have a history of alcoholism and drug use, one grandson has been both an adulterer and a drug user, and one grandson landed someone in a wheel-chair through reckless driving (and is loutish as a matter of course).

            RFK jr’s stew of pathologies is unusual, as was Michael Kennedy’s Humbert Humbert problem. The rest, not so much.

            • DE-173

              “Yes, but that’s the world we live in; families are like that nowadays.”
              1.) We aren’t talking about “nowadays”, we’re talking about most of the last century.
              2.) In other words “everybody is doing it”.

              • ForChristAlone

                Eloquent, as usual.

                • DE-173

                  Thanks.

  • Marianne

    good article. They’re also no friend of women who hurt tremendously from philandering men.

    • RufusChoate

      They also have an impressive body count of dead women as well.

      • Art Deco

        I draw a blank. There was Mary Jo Kopechne. Joan Kennedy is quite a ruin but I believe still alive. One of Robert Kennedy’s brood left a young woman paralyzed in a road wreck (which really was his fault). I think it rather de trop to add the Bessette sisters to this line up, and I wouldn’t attribute to RFK jr his wife’s suicide; the woman was trouble.

        • DE-173

          My understanding is that John Jr. was not an instrument rated pilot and flew over open water inbad weather, if that is so he is guilty of at least some form of negligent homicide.

          • Art Deco

            Pretty difficult to prosecute him given that he died in the same accident.

            • DE-173

              Now Art, you know I am using that term as a moral judgment and not as a section of a criminal code.

              • Art Deco

                Yes, but your moral judgement in this case is bad.

                • DE-173

                  Actually, the bad judgment here is yours and it is abysmal.

                  If the man flew a plane where he SHOULD or perhaps MUST have had a certain qualification with that qualification, it was a breach of safety, and negligence-that caused two others (and an unborn child if the tabloids of the time are to be believed) to die. His own demise isn’t a defense, it’s an additional count.

                  • Art Deco

                    You are one nasty piece of work.

                    • Crisiseditor

                      Let’s keep it civil. It’s one thing to go after the trolls; another to beat up on the regulars. Disagree all you want. Just don’t make it personal.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Where is Erick by the way? I miss him. Someone should write a piece on “Saving the Amazon Rainforests” but title it “Gays .,,,,” He’d resurface in a minute.

                    • DE-173

                      In other words, you can’t contest the argument, so you are resorting to name calling. Got it.

                    • DE-173

                      In other words, you can’t contest the facts so you resort to frustrated name calling. Got it.

                      I’ve spent twenty years providing for the safe transport of other people, and if you had some experience in such an enterprise, you have some appreciation for how reckless and irresponsible it is to operate a conveyance without proper consideration for the limits of the machine or one’s personal limits.

          • ForChristAlone

            I think besides being a family of drunks, drug addicts, adulterers and fornicators, they are also a family of high risk-takers a la John Jr, the Swimmer, the nephew who died in that ski accident, Ethel’s nephew who went to jail over the death of a teenage girl, and another Kennedy nephew who had some incident that ended badly at the Palm Beach estate a few years back. Is there a Wikipedia site devoted solely to the hapless Kennedy clan? If not, there ought to be.

            I shudder to think how many abortions lay at the feet of the Kennedy clan.

            • Art Deco

              EMK, two of the in-laws (Joan Bennett Kennedy and Peter Lawford), and 4 (of 28) of the grand-children are known to be either alcoholics or have history with street drugs. For an Irish Catholic family of that dimension, that level of this sort of pathology is normal. The sexual transgressions of three of the 2d generation (JFK, EMK, and Lawford) and four of the 3d (Wm. Smith and 3 of RFK’s brood) are a matter of public knowledge; w/ regard to that, it’s less the prevalence than the incidence which strikes you.

              As for clan Skakel, in spite of an unwholesome upbringing (left in the care of ineffectual domestic staff by their parents, alcoholic father who periodically cycled into stone cold reserve and insensate rage, death of their mother, and the distortion and disfigurement of family life caused by Michael and his problems), six of the seven are not known to be troublesome people (bar their incredible public insistence that no one from their household killed Martha Moxley).

              • ForChristAlone

                What a detailed accounting, Art. Thanks.

        • DE-173

          Mary Jo was an occasional visitor to my late grandmother’s late neighbor.

    • guest

      You are correct; but remember this: it takes two to philander.

  • Art Deco

    Thirty-Seven trysts (not affairs), and that’s the subset he recorded. One ought to recall in this connection that RFK jr. had remarkably little trouble finding women willing to roll in the hay with a married man. Also, what gets you about stories re his uncle is the absence of stories of women slapping him across the mouth and telling him to get lost.

    Chicks dig jerks.

  • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

    I’m reminded of an old country-western song, “If she wants a man, who takes the ring off of his hand and turns around and says he’ll be true….she deserves you.”

  • TERRY

    I posted at about 12:30 indicating my and my best friends’ almost total lack of interest in affairs Kennedy. Foolishly I assumed that I was speaking for a majority of us.

    Silly me.

    The sheer volume of posts that I read tell me that I was quite wrong, never mind that many of those who might agree with me would indicate their agreement by skipping the article outright, never mind commenting on it.

    Join us in not giving a s##t about the Kennedys – it’s not really that difficult.

  • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

    This story reminds me of a loony conversation I had with one of my professors in graduate school. He was reminiscing about his wonderful days in Paris. I’ll never forget his vacant gaze as he crooned: “J’ai eu cinquante-sept amantes!” I don’t know which is more revolting, bedding 57 Parisians during the filthy 1960s, or keeping score.

    • ForChristAlone

      When I have been told stories like this from clients I see, I usually ask them if they can give me the first names of 5 of them. They cannot. Funny that they refer to them though as “amantes.”

    • Art Deco

      I don’t know which is more revolting, bedding 57 Parisians during the filthy 1960s

      Yeah, given French hygiene…

    • Guest

      The difference today is that viewing pornography is also a form of adultery. This is presently a rampant problem affecting countless marriages. Married men (and women) are allowing themselves to indulge in this activity as if it has no affect on their spouse or their marriage. This is selfish and self-delusional behavior. There are many, many practices (pre-marital sex, contraception) that have weakened the marital sacrament and a variety of reasons why we have gotten ourselves into this mess.

    • John200

      … or lying about the number. Consider the possibility, hmmmm, the high likelihood, that he was impressing a grad student by “adding” to the truth, just among us cool guys.

      If there is no way to verify the report, then there is no solid reason to believe it. Give a little chuckle, nod your head sagely, and I reckon you let it go at that.

      Pray for his wife’s well-being.

      • ForChristAlone

        However, a client I had seen for counseling actually told me that he had slept with about 100 women (at the ripe old age of 38). It’s then that I asked how many of their first names he could remember. He got my point as i was trying to orient his lifestyle for a discussion about ToB.

        • John200

          Aha! Now that is a good use for the self-reported number of victims.

          God permits evil so that a greater good can come from it.

  • littleeif

    Points well taken. Thank you. In crooked carnival games, there’s a tactic called fair-banking in which the carnie allows a person every now and then to win so that all the other suckers in line play all the harder for that stuffed animal that cannot be won. I think the devil fair-banks. These people all conspire to make immorality seem so ordinary, painless, enabling and possible. They grow more wealthy by it. They are made famous by it. Then an entire generation of suckers come along and can’t believe it when they learn it’s a game that can’t be won. There’s only pain, misery and final condemnation.

    • Jude

      Yes!!! I remember first learning about “shills” in a college class on Mass Communications, and being very taken aback by the casual acceptance of dishonesty. And no matter how old I get, it still surprises me here and there that people are able to somehow commit bad, even evil, acts and consider themselves good. How do they sleep at night?

  • montanajack1948

    “This is not another column bashing the Kennedys.” Thank goodness; I can only imagine if it had been.

    • mitch64

      LOL..I love how the title comes off as a serious discussion of the NYT and their treatment of marriage, with a statement like the one quoted above and quickly dissolves into some really down and dirty comments about the Kennedys (booze, affairs and running over a dog no less) and breathlessly repeating gossip from some other site…( It reminds me a neighborhood trouble maker, “Well, now I would never accuse anyone of this but what I was told was….”) You sure did read those diaries didn’t you (hopefully with a bowl of popcorn and a few beers, they sound edge of your seat juicy!) Schadenfreude is written all over this piece. A little political too, (and believe it or not I am not a Democrat) did we hear something similar about Gingrich and his serial marriages?

      • Art Deco

        Much of the Kennedy claque is down and dirty. The comments are not.

        • mitch64

          Be that as it may or may not, that is not what the art have been fine if the title of the article was “The history of a really depressing marriage and an abusive sex addict who is a Kennedy, and a little bit of smarmy gossip” The article in the NYT’s was a typical puff piece in their social pages, so of course its going to be about anything but blowing smoke up our you know whats. I am surprised we didn’t get some comments here and gaskets blown aplenty on the top of page which had a gay couple getting married (breathless descriptions of the flower arrangements I am sure followed.) I am surprised and bit disappointed that Austin didn’t use that include that banner into the information about the NYT and their war on marriage.

          I feel sorry for the poor previous wife, whose body gets pulled out of her grave as a prop to knock this guy and make some kind of point (oh yes, back to the point the NYT’s is “wicked.”) Some sympathy is thrown her way when Ruse says he feels “sadness,” for the Kennedy women and then turns around and is “sure” that some of them were as “predatory,” as he was.

          However, I do like to think of the actress reciting her vows in her “Suburgatory,” character’s voice, “I promise to love honor and obey you…until I find you in the sack with the maid and the waitress, and the caterer.. then Im gonna try to take you to the cleaners to pick whatever is left in those pockets!”

        • ForChristAlone

          These guys are doing double duty. Not only are they apologists for homosexuality, they even rush to the defense of the Royal Clan. I wonder if there is a connection between the two. Hmmm.

          • mitch64

            LOL…as if that would be an insult…time to go back to the 1950s and maybe that “insult,” would work. Hmmm..if only JFK Jr. was….wow.

            Anyway,clear my head of that thought… I know its odd to have any poster disagree, even slightly with the herd , but if you read my post clearly (and if you have a problem with reading comprehension I apologize..) you would see I am not defending the Kennedy clan, I am simply pointing out that Austin’s article is not what the headline suggest it is, Austin seems to be into reading salacious diary entries and other tawdry goings on of the rich and famous, and repeating them and enjoying it and really who doesn’t, but don’t mask that as a serious piece about the NYT and their liberal slant.

            Now I also notice that many here don’t like the sandbox invaded by kids from another neighborhood. I realize that this one of the few places you can come to and find kindred souls and actually write out your thoughts and feelings which would be laughed off by the rest of the world. But don’t you find that excessively boring this preaching to the choir?

            • Guest

              In times of universal deceit the truth is revolutionary. This article points out the vapid nature of the NYT and the junk it represents. What is so appalling is that you and your ilk fancy yourselves smarter than the average bear, yet all you do is spout the same old relativism.

              This site is soap to your dirt and grime.

            • Art Deco

              Now I also notice that many here don’t like the sandbox invaded by kids from another neighborhood.

              Because the kids from the other neighborhood whine and wet their pants as a matter of course.

              • Jude

                Yes, i visit here for a respite of sanity and reason. Those other kids can go hang out in the HuffPo sandbox.

              • mitch64

                Hmmmm, I have not whined or wet my pants so it must be someone else you speak of!

            • Tony

              Austin did not choose the title for his article. The editors do that.

              I think the point was to show the absolute irresponsibility of the NYT. It is not a “liberal slant.” It is an abject failure to report the facts of the case. It goes downhill from there, because it also celebrates the wedding — why? It is as if you had an arms manufacturer who had been caught selling to both sides in a war and secretly using agents to stir up the conflict; and then you wrote a puffball article lauding a party he held for World Peace.

              It would be interesting to consider what things would be like if our news reporters actually did their jobs. For instance, I would like to know about the jobs of the relatives of ALL Congressmen and Senators, irrespective of party; I’d like to know about the jobs of all former Congressmen and Senators, irrespective of party; I’d like to know which lobbyists have what hammers held over the heads of which of our august politicians … Naw, but that doesn’t sell papers these days. Not enough like Entertainment Tonight.

              • Crisiseditor

                You nailed it Tony. I purposely avoided highlighting Kennedy’s behavior in the title because the inaccuracy of the Times article was the main point of the column. The only way to demonstrate the stark contrast between what the Times article said and the facts is to document the facts. Readers should be offended by how the elite media coverup for the privileged class. If the title was worded exactly the way Mitch wanted, he would have found something else to gripe about but the title was all he could come up with.

          • Guest

            Indeed.

          • Scott W.

            It’s an overarching hatred of Chastity.

  • John200

    Now that the bride has won the prize, she can look forward to losing him. He has already shown her how this will end and that she will lose him. One cannot say when, but the “how” question is settled.

    That NYT story really was sappy, incomplete, and misleading. Good call, Austin.

  • slainte

    The exemplary role and behavior of a husband and father, his presence or absence in the lives of his children, form and shape the character and self confidence of his children.
    .
    Joseph Kennedy modeled a poor example of a Catholic husband to Rose. Several of his sons and grandsons continued that regrettable legacy with their spouses. The cycle needs to be broken.
    .
    The New York Times will print what sells; a legacy that has been around since the advent of yellow journalism.

  • Guest_august

    From reading St. Augustine of Hippo’s city of God, one thing is clear:

    “Lust has no master but itself.”
    In the context of fallen human nature: Lust has no master but itself. But with God all things are possible.
    .
    And that applies to us all
    http://popeleo13.com/pope/2014/08/13/category-archive-message-board-95-st-augustine-on-sex-2/#more-731

  • FW Ken

    Some years back, I would watch Entertainment Tonight waiting for Nightline to come on. One week, they had a 5 day gushing run up to the marriage of Mary Kay Latourneau to Ricky, the student she bedded when he was 13, and by whom she had two children, one while she was one parole with a condition to have no contact with him. But for ET, it was pure celebration, as is every celebrity wedding.

    Which is to say that the New Yorks Times has placed itself in the same category as Entertainment Tonight: a cheap tabloid. In addition, they continue the tradition of obeisance to the Kennedy name, which was, after all, brought to prominent by a rum smuggler during prohibition. And Ol’ Joe was no slough either, if memory serves.

    • Tony

      That is most interesting. Note it well. A 13 year old boy who is seduced by a male will often say that he was devastated by the experience, scarred for life. A lot of those boys end up in deep depression, or they take up the gay lifestyle. But a 13 year old boy who is seduced by a woman has bragging rights, in our sleazy world. And yet — as far as ET is concerned — she has done nothing other than what the man did. So, ET — what accounts for the harm done to the boy by the elder man, eh? You think you can figure it out, ET? Maybe something unnatural? A perversion, maybe?

  • TERRY

    What was Ruse’s reason for writing this, what was Crisis’ reason for publishing this? Were there any among us who had any lingering doubt about the new york times and their overall attitude toward the Faith? ? Were there any left among us who had any doubt about the kennedy family’s practice of the faith?

  • John Grondelski

    But we should certainly not be so judgmental as to suggest that all this in any way affects one’s ecclesiastical good standing…..

  • Edie

    What is a shame is that the media lies about President Kennedy and Bobby too – they are brought up as philanderers when the younger Kennedys misbehave and are a disgrace. Some people love to pile on the Kennedys – and these younger ones deserve it, but not JFK and RFK – they were American patriots and all the lies and innuendo cannot change that. They died for their country and all of us, things have never been the same. It is tragic what has become of the family since – and America too. The media likes to set the narrative but they have an agenda to denigrate our slain president and his brother – there is a world of difference beween Bobby Jr and Bobby Sr.

  • Howard

    Yes, it’s a sad story. The headline, however, is in the “Water Is Wet” category.

MENU