It appears that Nicole Kidman was granted an annulment regarding her marriage to Scientology’s “Top Gun” Tom Cruise because it “did not conform to the requirements of the church,” according to Jeanette Walls at MSNBC.

Nicole Kidman without Cruise controlBut what does that mean?

Does this mean that the Cruise/Kidman marriage was somehow sexless or that matrimony Scientology-style is outside the parameters of what the Roman Catholic Church considers reasonable?

Maybe religious organizations like Scientology, which have been called “cults,” can’t “conform” to its “requirements” and therefore Ms. Kidman is off the hook.

How ironic that Tom Cruise’s Oscar-winning ex has returned to embrace the church, just as the next Mrs. Cruise has apparently rejected that same religious heritage.

Perhaps the conservative Catholic parents of Katie Holmes should look into the process of obtaining an annulment, given their future son-in-law’s marital track record?

But would their daughter giving birth before walking down the aisle be OK with Catholic clergy?

Probably not.

Looks like if things don’t work out for Katie Holmes she will probably have to get along without an annulment.


3 comments untill now

  1. Poor Katie. She needs to escape. she needs to escape now, while she still has the chance!

    Celebrity Religion!

  2. Actually, she could get an annulment, providing she doesn’t push for a Church blessing or Catholic wedding. Tom was baptized Catholic and, as we say in the Catholic Church, once a Catholic, always a Catholic. Therefore, if she and Tom are both baptized but never get their marriage blessed by the Church, the marriage is considered illicit and invalid. Plain and simple, they are just playing house, according to the Church teaching. Even if both were to renounce their Catholic Faith, there is always forgiveness in the Catholic Church, so Katie could easily request an annulment in the future after confessing to a priest and reaffirming her baptismal vows.

    Sorry Tommy…it’s all pretend, no matter WHAT you do. Might I suggest a good counselling session to work out the suppressed anger you feel towards your abusive father???

  3. realpotential @ 2006-04-29 10:15

    mtaheny> LOL! You are so right on!! ie: “Sorry Tommy¦it’s all pretend, no matter WHAT you do. Might I suggest a good counselling session to work out the suppressed anger you feel towards your abusive father???”

    I laughed so hard when I heard Tom talking about his abusive father…not that abuse is fumnny at all, it’s not, but what struck me so hilarious was that the “church of scientology” has a term they use: “Clearing” or “clear”… which is SUPPOSED to mean that any problem that was an emotional/mental/spiritual hang-up, after doing the scientology lesson for it, should be “cleared” or FORGOTTEN, never to be an issue again!

    Just the fact that Tom even MENTIONED his father’s abuse tells me that scientologies lessons don’t work!~ and here was Tom trying to promote scientology while he was confirming it’s BS.

    As for Nicole and the annulment, (bravo to her, BUT>)what concerns me is: Now that the catholic church has granted her this “annulment”, does that mean (since according to that she was never acctually “married” to Tom), that she was never really “Mrs. Tom Cruise” as in the same WIFE who with Tom, adopted two kids? Did she adopt those children as “Mrs Tom Cruise”, or as “Nicole Kidman”>>>??? And if she adopted under the name “Cruise”, and she is now claimed to have never been married to him, mean he has rights to claim full custody of those kids?
    I am totally confused ….does this mean her adopted kids aren’t really hers? I’d be curious to know what the church has to say about that.