Boris Johnson in marrying as a "Catholic" has annulled his previous marriages and delegitimesed his children - these are the ethics of our current prime minister

If that's sarcasm, and you are disparaging my expertise on 'the law' (not something I've claimed, btw) aren't you saying that your expertise on American Catholicism is also spurious?

Similar, I imagine, to your being an “expert” on how the law works.

I see you are an expert on the American Catholicism too.

I will try very hard not to start you on that topic.

But questioning unfounded “mysteries” is a really worthwhile use of that logic.

It all depends on the basis of your questioning and the grounds you use to inform your assumptions as you proceed.

Well, I’m not about to switch off my intellect just to believe in some “mystery” (despite being the only child of extremely devout Catholics whose devotion has increased in direct proportion to their age).

Are you based in the US, @mathanxiety? Don’t even start me on American Catholicism and its apparent very close links with the practically-fascist right.

“Bad” human history usually demonstrates a discarding of rational logic, not application of it.

@Piglet89
You will find that at the time any given instance of 'bad' history happened, the actors involved were utterly and completely convinced that they were not only rational, but reasonable and justified in their decisions.

The heat of the moment is full of shortsightedness and pigheadedness and hubris. Hindsight is 20/20.

But hindsight has demonstrably never prevented a recurrence of the same old folly. This is because there are serious limitations to our intellect and flaws in our nature.

I think this was where I heard him say it.
BBC Radio 4 - Desert Island Discs, Professor Carlos Frenk, Professor Carlos Frenk: ‘Science is hard and full of failure’

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p069dxdt

@aloris @mathanxiety
Thank you for your lucid and simple explanations for ‘transubstantiation’ and ‘mystery’.

I once heard a famous scientist, who was born a Catholic, say to the radio presenter who was interviewing him’s surprise - because she presumed he wouldn’t believe in God- that yes he did; and that science and religion are looking for different things.

amply demonstrated by virtually all of human history

“Bad” human history usually demonstrates a discarding of rational logic, not application of it. But questioning unfounded “mysteries” is a really worthwhile use of that logic.

It’s a waste of time anyway: it’s not as though we are ever going to agree, because I believe you’re irrational and nothing you’ve said have convinced me otherwise.

Philosopher Jamie White, in his excellent book “Bad thoughts” expresses it far more eloquently than I ever could.

Nobody is stopping you from walking away from it all.

Correct, thank goodness.

The meaning of the word 'mystery' in the context of the Judeo Christian tradition doesn't involve a shrugging of the shoulders, accompanied by lack of curiosity or intellectual laziness.

It's a term that expresses recognition of the otherness and transcendence of God, the limitations of human rationality and intellect (amply demonstrated by virtually all of human history), and is an element of humble worship.

If you accept that there are unknown unknowns in the physical universe, then you can apply the same understanding to the idea of a mystery in the sacred sense.

Yes yes, I know that's not how the burden of proof works.

You don't have to believe it, but plenty of rational people do. Nobody is stopping you from walking away from it all.

Because I am a rational person, I'd like to see facts and solid evidence when someone posts that a certain institution applies its rules unevenly.

You seem to be on the one hand dismissing belief on the basis that there is no scientific evidence for it, while at the same time reserving the right to make allegations without offering supporting evidence.

The meaning of "substance" in transubstantiation isn't scientific, it's metaphysical. It doesn't mean the molecules change.

@mathanxiety that’s not how the burden of proof works. You don’t make claims about an outlandish, nebulous concept like transubstantiation and challenge science to disprove it.

You prove it: you don’t just dub it a “mystery” and hope rational folk are going to just go away.

From a believer in transubstantiation.
It hasn't been disproved. Doubted, yes.

‘However, the outward characteristics of bread and wine, that is the 'eucharistic species', remain unaltered."In this teaching, the notions of "substance" and "transubstantiation" are not linked with any particular theory of metaphysics.’

For “are not linked with” read “contradict”.

“The manner in which the change occurs, the Roman Catholic Church teaches, is a mystery: "The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ."”

Science doesn’t tend to just leave stuff that’s unexplained and accept it as a “mystery”, in my experience.

I prefer a more scientific approach.

From a believer in transubstantiation.

Ok, then.

The plural of anecdote isn't data.

I prefer a more scientific approach.

Merrymouse, I don’t really have an issue judging him! Let’s face it, we all make moral judgements about people all the time!

Your perspective is pretty far from people who think someone has done something immoral (but legal) and that some kind of a punishment should be exacted upon them by someone in a position of authority. And that’s what I mean by authoritarian. Not the kind of thing you’re saying.

Know plenty, @mathanxiety know quite a few.

It’s fine, you’re obviously completely comfortable belonging to a hypocritical, flawed and arrogant organisation.

You do you.

I am “complaining” that the Church is being inconsistent in its treatment of Johnson and other divorcees. Which, on this issue, it is. The Church will argue Johnson was entitled to a Catholic marriage - but, in my mind, this is an unjust conclusion when so many obviously more faithful and devout Catholics have been refused marriage in the Church because they didn’t make the technical specifications, which make no sense.

If you are privy to every single case you have in mind, and can prove that all these other people were refused a church wedding while Johnson got one in exactly the same circumstances, then please provide the evidence.

Otherwise, what you are posting is nothing but anecdote.

"Think it’s fair to say he’d probably consider a marriage in a non-Catholic Christian denomination still to be a marriage."

But the Catholic Church doesn’t, unless you’ve sought permission from the Catholic Church first.

If a RC decides to get married without reference to the RC church, the Catholic party's (or parties') understanding of marriage (i.e. a sacrament) is automatically considered flawed. This is the case with Boris Johnson.

It doesn't mean the RC church doesn't accept there is or was a marriage. You have to be legally divorced before proceeding with an annulment or a subsequent marriage in the RC church, and in any other wedding venue too.

What it means is that that particular form of marriage is something the RC church thinks a RC shouldn't undertake.

And he bullied petronella wyatt in to having an abortion which she was v upset about at the time. I know nobody's perfect but he had balls going for a church wedding (any church)

Libertymole I don't think the Catholic Church's rules on marriage have anything to do with me, and I accept the logic of the rules you have explained.

However, when there is such a yawning chasm between his behaviour and the moral values signified by his marriage, I don't think that can be divorced (pun not intended) from his behaviour as PM and I do think I can judge him on that.

It's such a cliche for a 56 year old man to leave his wife of 25 years and mother of 4 of his children for a co-worker more than 20 years his junior who he was shagging at a works do. And thats before you think about his 12 year old from a different relationship who he doesn't acknowledge. Or Petronella Wyatt. Or Jennifer Arcuri. And those are just the affairs we know about. For him then to choose a wedding that implies from any point of view that this is his first marriage is tacky in the extreme.

I would give him some credit if I felt this marriage showed genuine evidence of faith, but if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you. (Over the Thames, a snap at £43 million...)

I would also agree that if he were just a newspaper columnist this would have nothing to do with me.

I also judge him for his wallpaper choices.

I accept that we are never going to agree on this!