If you looked for Jackie's Catholic fruit... it didn't exist. 
After JFK's assassination she lived in a scandalous, materialistic manner.
More like a Jєωess than a Catholic woman.

Encouraged by the spirit of ecuмenism engendered by Pope John, Cardinal Cushing seized the initiative and began preaching in Protestant pulpits, visiting Masonic lodges and courting Jєωιѕн congregations.
...
At the third session [of Vatican II] there he made an impassioned plea for religious liberty and for exoneration of the Jews as a deicidal race in connection with the crucifixion of Jesus. Council fathers broke a rule of silence to cheer the crusty Bostonian's spirit.
...
In 1949, Archbishop Cushing ended a revolt by an ultraconservative Jesuit, the Rev. Leonard Feeney, by excommunicating him for publicly attacking [Catholic] teaching that salvation was possible outside the Roman church.

The issue was a delicate one that involved a principal stumbling block between Roman Catholicism and other Christians.

At the Ecuмenical Council in Rome, he told a Protestant colleague: “We're told there is no salvation outside the church— nonsense. Nobody can tell me Christ died on Calvary for any select group.”

I believe in http://www.jfksgunflash.com/ theory that Connally shot JFK, because of the bullet physics which were the hallmark of a close range gunshot. It appears he used a snub-nose 38 revolver frame with reinforced barrel for a 0.375 magnum round

What I have long found interesting is the fact that "they" felt it important to do the assassination in such a public manner. If they had just wanted Kennedy dead, the easiest to conceal way would have been to spike one of Dr. Feelgood's shots.

The idea that Jackie was a spy (and possibly Jєωιѕн) is just mind-blowing.  It answers so many questions and gives the assassination so much more clarity.


Whether she or Connally (or both) shot JFK is immaterial.  They were both probably put in that situation to make sure JFK died (plan A and plan B).  The deep state doesn't take chances on something like this...if they want JFK dead, they aren't going to leave it to a sniper from 100 yards away...they are going to make CERTAIN he dies (i.e. having 2 shooters sitting right next to the target).

All right, I'm kind of lost here, she was widowed, wasn't she, in fact, free to remarry whomever she pleased --- as long as he were a man free to marry in the Catholic Church (or, in the case of someone non-Catholic, "free to marry a Catholic")?  Isn't the latter part kind of implicit?

I don't know whether Aristotle Onassis was considered as already being in a valid marriage or not.  He married a Greek woman (Tina Livanos), presumably in the Greek Orthodox Church, so it would seem to be valid. 

Which raises another question: if two Orthodox schismatics marry before someone other than an Orthodox priest, does the Catholic Church consider their marriage valid? 

You seem rather obsessed with me.  I was in fact listening to someone else whose opinions I respect, unlike yours, which have little value except as a rule of thumb that the opposite is likely true (to at least have a look), but you single me out.  Is your grudge / vendetta because of Valtorta or my attempt to be fair to the SSPX?