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

‘I think a pp has it bang on, there’s such an authoritarian bitter streak in people, who think they are judge jury and executioner over the morality of others, and it must pain them to see they are less forgiving than the Catholic Church, as these days there seems to be no change of repentance.’

Louise, yes that was me! I agree with what you have said. The Catholic Church, like all other churches, makes its own rules about who it marries.

PigletJohn, I don’t think the authoritarian streak point applies to you. I think you are arguing from a totally different perspective.

If I understand correctly, you think that you consider all marriages to have been joined by God, and that Christian churches shouldn’t allow any divorced person to remarry.

The authoritarian point was about people arguing from a secular perspective.

Merrymouse, I think we should all make moral judgements about Johnson’s fitness to be prime minister, but not about his right to get married, which is not up to us.

I think a pp has it bang on, there’s such an authoritarian bitter streak in people, who think they are judge jury and executioner over the morality of others, and it must pain them to see they are less forgiving than the Catholic Church, as these days there seems to be no change of repentance

Yes, we do get to judge the morality of the PM. I would imagine that the church (and God?) has forgiven many people who fall well below the moral standards that most would require of a PM.

I think a pp has it bang on, there’s such an authoritarian bitter streak in people, who think they are judge jury and executioner over the morality of others

It’s the plain inconsistency and injustice that sticks in people’s craw to be honest. Nothing to do with any “authoritarian streak”.

Kind of ironic to accuse those who speak out against the inconsistent actions of an unaccountable, authoritarian institution like the Catholic Church of having an “authoritarian streak”, just because we have the audacity to criticise it.

*chance of

I think a pp has it bang on, there’s such an authoritarian bitter streak in people, who think they are judge jury and executioner over the morality of others, and it must pain them to see they are less forgiving than the Catholic Church, as these days there seems to be no change of repentance

‘I would imagine, given that he apparently said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" that he probably wouldn't stick his oar into questioning the status of other people's lawful marriages.’

Exactly. The Catholic church has no powers at all over marriage law. That is the job of the state.

Have we established what tune the angels dancing on the head of a pin are dancing to?

“Piglet89”
“That’s why I’ve left the Catholic Church. It’s because, in concentrating obsessively on “the Rules”, I reckon a lot of Catholics forget about what’s actually important in life and what Jesus considered important.”

I disagree, and think a huge number of Catholics do not obey all the rules while still considering themselves Catholic.

As I mentioned before too, the Catholic Church also allows people to follow their own conscience.

‘@Piglet89 i agree. It's not Christian to categorise another Christian church's marriage ceremony in the same category as a marriage performed by an elvis impersonator in vegas but to the catholic church, they're the same.’

Constance, the Catholic Church doesn’t put these two things in the same category for all purposes. I don’t know why you think it does. The Anglican church doesn’t make a distinction between an Elvis impersonator marriage and a Catholic marriage.

PigletJohn, I do completely respect your perspective, and I understand that you value different elements of faith.

To me it is the job of the person to behave in a morally appropriate manner and the job of the church to make sure sacraments are administered correctly. I don’t consider devout or faithful Catholics to be any more moral than any other group of people.

As for the intentions of Christ, I don’t even know in context what he would mean by married.

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.

Jesus didn’t say or intend any of that human overlay.

@Piglet89 i agree. It's not Christian to categorise another Christian church's marriage ceremony in the same category as a marriage performed by an elvis impersonator in vegas but to the catholic church, they're the same.

This seems such a needlessly insulting way to go about things.

I did wonder about this as I wanted to get married to DH in a Catholic church and he had been divorced previously. His previous wedding was a civil one. I asked at a Catholic church and they told me it would only be allowed if they got an annulment but it was too expensive so we gave up and had a civil ceremony.

Anyone who thinks that it is just a technical specification isn’t a devout and faithful Catholic.

This is just so insulting.

I’m not a Catholic, by the way. Not any more. But to say that someone isn’t devout and faithful (regardless of how morally good they are, how much they do for others, how they regularly attend Mass every week and at Holy Days of Obligation, for example, how much they obey the other teachings of Christ) because of what they think of some bit of Church doctrine is just so insulting. And many Catholics are so indoctrinated, they don’t even see the insult. They’re just like “Computer Says No”.

That’s why I’ve left the Catholic Church. It’s because, in concentrating obsessively on “the Rules”, I reckon a lot of Catholics forget about what’s actually important in life and what Jesus considered important.

‘And however much you talk about the particular laws of the Catholic faith, church weddings and white dresses have have a cultural significance that goes beyond religion.’

But there are plenty of churches that will marry people who have been divorced anyway. So if divorced people are just wanting a white dress church wedding for cultural reasons, they can get one.

‘so many obviously more faithful and devout Catholics have been refused marriage in the Church because they didn’t make the technical specifications,’

Anyone who thinks that it is just a technical specification isn’t a devout and faithful Catholic. It is really important to me that my marriage is not treated as a sacramental marriage by the Catholic Church, because I deliberately and specifically chose not to have a sacramental marriage because I didn’t feel that way about it.

The assumption on this thread seems to be that everyone wants their marriage to be seen as equivalent to a one off life long sacrament (or perpetual sacrament in the Orthodox Church!) but many people don’t. That’s why they choose to have civil weddings or marry in non sacramental churches.

As for the intentions of Christ, I don’t even know in context what he would mean by married. In many ancient cultures the first person you have sex with is then your spouse. In others it is anyone you have a long term life with. In others it requires a specific ceremony. Without theological scholars, I don’t have a way of interpreting it.

But you've complained that somehow the Catholic Church is being unfair to them in saying they didn't recognise their marriages as being within the rules of canon law.

@SmokedDuck I didn’t say that, actually; you are thinking of other posters.

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.

And however much you talk about the particular laws of the Catholic faith, church weddings and white dresses have have a cultural significance that goes beyond religion.

Given that his previous wives didn't care to have a Catholic marriage I don't see why they would be bothered that the Catholic Church says that they failed to perform the marriage in the way that the canons required.

Because the marriages were presumably still important to them at the time, and, given Boris' behaviour, the implication that they were somehow not proper marriages is offensive.

It reeks of "Of course he told me it hadn't been a real marriage for a long time, so it wasn't really cheating".

Again, this is a criticism of Johnson, not the church. And again, caveat emptor, leopard ands spots, made bed, will have to lie in it.

Though I find theology and textual analysis much more understandable than, say, the mathematics or gravity or how light moves or how many dimensions there are, none of which I could work out on a piece of paper. Or really even make sense of reading on a piece of paper.

I only understand it insofar as someone tried to explain it to me in plain language which I know involves all kinds of simplifications and approximations.

So maybe not really so straightforward after all. But then, my training is in ancient and medieval philosophy, and not mathematics. Perhaps if it were the other way round Id have the opposite perspective.

It's all very well to say that Christians should take a simple view of things based on the Bible, but it's interesting that even those most committed to that, as soon as they start to ask more complicated questions, they find they have to start giving more complicated answers, and ultimately they tend to develop their own "common sense" theology that is not really any simpler than any of the mainsteam churches, it just uses more modern and imprecise language.

But you've complained that somehow the Catholic Church is being unfair to them in saying they didn't recognise their marriages as being within the rules of canon law.

If they didn't care then, why do you think they'd care now? They know they weren't married according to Catholic law.

BJ now cares because he wanted to get married in the Catholic Church. So he's had to put himself under their rules, which luckily for him, worked out. If he's never been baptised a Catholic it easily could have gone the other way.

And after all, he’s the “Catholic”.

Given that his previous wives didn't care to have a Catholic marriage.

Why are you laying the responsibility for this at his former wives’ doors? Neither did Johnson himself care to have a Catholic marriage, presumably.

That's rather like saying physics must be bollocks because you need to know a lot of math to really understand it at the highest level.

It’s totally distinguishable from that. When I say it’s “bollocks” what I mean is that it is laughable that there is such a complex and unclear human overlay on Christ’s teachings. Ambiguity like this can be bent and manipulated by human interpretation at will (and that’s what actually happens, as also happens with state law). Laws of physics are objective, evidenced truths - patently not the case with moral laws.

Being a lawyer myself, I fully appreciate that the only people who could really understand the complexities of Canon Law are, indeed, lawyers. But Canon law comprises the rules and ordinances governing the Catholic community. It’s supposedly a moral law that determines matters of faith and affects people’s lives in fundamental and important ways and it should be clearer and easier to understand by the ordinary person.

The policy behind much of it doesn’t make much sense, but that’s neither here nor there now I’ve used my common sense and decided to leave the Catholic faith (even if, officially, it won’t even let me leave).

The question of form in this is really not all that complicated.

From a Catholic perspective, there are two elements to marriage. There is the underlying "thing" the actually nature of the bond of marriage. Between two Christians this is considered to be a sacrament, but it's still a real, physical reality for non-Christians as well.

The canon law element is just the regulations around administering the whole thing. These are related to the underlying understanding but they can and do change over time. For example today a priest won't normally marry a couple who is not also legally married with the civil authorities, but that rule didn't make sense 500 years ago and didn't exist.

But these rules only apply to people who have been baptised Catholic or later joined the Catholic Church, in much the same way that the laws of a country you are not a citizen of don't apply to you. Two non-Catholics who marry according to civil law are not in breach of these kinds of rules as they don't apply to them, so it doesn't mean that their marriage is in question.

But a Catholic who breaches these rules, by say marrying in a registry office without permission, is like a person who has married without bothering to get a licence properly. The marriage is considered legally invalid in a very similar way. It's a technical distinction, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't matter, any more than not bothering to get a marriage licence doesn't matter when you want to do something like claim a death benefit.

Given that his previous wives didn't care to have a Catholic marriage I don't see why they would be bothered that the Catholic Church says that they failed to perform the marriage in the way that the canons required.
It's obviously true. It would be like someone saying they didn't believe in legal marriage and then complaining that the state didn't recognise cohabiting as the same.

[quote Piglet89]@mathanxiety probably missing some complicated interpretation of the rules that means the second Vatican counsel didn’t change any doctrine, or some such other nonsense.

Honestly, the contortions of apologetics, meaning one needs to be a Doctor of Divinity to understand it all: it’s all such complete and utter bollocks to any right-thinking person.[/quote]
That's rather like saying physics must be bollocks because you need to know a lot of math to really understand it at the highest level.

Theology is a subset of philosophy, it should be no surprise that the people who do it at the highest level are trained in theology and philosophy.

The people who are experts in canon law are, typically , trained lawyers. Just like other forms of law.

Yes, smoke and mirrors and casuistry. It reflects well on no one.