Boris and Carrie married?

[DonkeysNotDisney]

Anyone else seen the news?? Another baby on the way, relationship on the rocks, or good old fashioned age gap love?

@Frazzled2207

Quite interesting that none of his 5(?) adult children attended.

I’m sure some of them might turn up next time he gets married

I'm imagining Carrie like the evil stepmum from The Parent Trap. Threatening to have them shipped off to boarding school.

Even though they're in their 20s.

And have probably already been to boarding school.

Well, if my father were re-marrying and his 27 year marriage to our mother had just been declared as 'not really a marriage cos not RC', I wouldn't be inclined to be celebrating with him and number 3. I'd be extremely pissed off to say the least.

Didn’t his eldest daughter Lara call him a “selfish bastard” and reportedly they’re not on speaking terms.

It must be pretty awful being one of his kids, aside from the way he’s treated their mum (god knows how many affairs) there are also the siblings & rumours of siblings with various women. Imagine reading in the paper your dad may or may not have yet another child with yet another woman

Yeah, they must have known from a young age that he was dipping his dick all over town. Seeing your mother being hurt and humiliated for years and then off he bounces off to his new family to start all over again.

You don’t turn up at a church with your annulment voucher and have the annulment handed to you

*they must have known from a young age that he was dipping his dick all over town
*
Oof, eating my breakfast here, or I was ...🤢.

Also knows as the Community dick. Seriously hope Carrie gets herself checked for STIs on a monthly basis. Doesn’t seem like he believes in using condoms.

Doesn't seem like he believes in using condoms

Perfect Catholic then 🤦🏻‍♀️.

Doesn't seem like he believes in using condoms
Perfect Catholic then

I think the idea was to have your 8, 9, 10 children with the one woman though, not half a dozen.

Good point.

I heard she was sacked for lying to the press so if that’s true they have a lot in common

@Peregrina

I would have thought an Anglican marriage was regarded as a sacrament. In the same way that Baptisms in other denominations are accepted as being a sacrament. Not that I know, of course.

No, Article 25 of the Church of England's 39 Articles makes it clear that for Anglicans there are only two sacraments: baptism and communion. It goes on to say that things such as matrimony, ordination and extreme unction are not to be counted as sacraments.

This is the root of the entire argument. The Roman Catholic Church believes that while marriage in a registry office or in a Church of England is legal in the eyes of the state, it is not a sacrament in the eyes of the RC church. Only the canonical form of marriage conferred by a Roman Catholic priest or bishop is a religious sacrament: registry office marriages do not claim to be a sacrament, and the Church of England specifices that its marriages are NOT sacramental. Johnson has never previously personally experienced the sacrament of marriage, which is why no annulment of his earlier (non-sacramental) weddings was necessary. In the view of the Roman Catholic church, they were legal, but not religious, marriages.

@Peregrina

The Roman Catholic religious service is not one of the type that counts (Civil, Anglican, Quaker and Jewish are the only legal forms )

Sorry, that it not true either. Methodist Ministers can be licensed to conduct weddings, which means that a Registrar need not be present. Certain words common to all legal marriages have to be included.

For Catholic weddings the Registrar does the legal bit in the vestry.

Although many catholic priests are, like methodist ministers, licensed to conduct weddings and can therefore act as registrars. I think that would be highly likely among the clerical staff of Westminster Cathedral which is, after all, the mother church of Catholicisim in the UK.

@Copperas

I heard she was sacked for lying to the press so if that’s true they have a lot in common

You heard wrong. She resigned after being told that her work was poor and that her expenses claims were disproportionately large.

@Iamthewombat

If failing to ask permission from the Bishop is grounds for annulment within Catholic law, then surely any issues with this should be directed to the Catholic Church and the Pope? Whether people agree with the rules or not, it seems that it is currently allowed.

You don’t automatically get an annulment. You don’t turn up at a church with your annulment voucher and have the annulment handed to you. The request has to be assessed and judged, usually by a bishop. The past behaviour of both parties forms part of the evidence base.

What people are objecting to here is why an annulment has (presumably) been handed to this gruesome pair on grounds that are generously described as a technicality. He’s a serial adulterer. She had a child with a man who was married. There are thousands of well-behaved Catholic people who cannot get married in a Catholic ceremony because they, or their partner, are divorced. Why do these two get the get out of jail free card?

No annulment was involved. What happens in a Catholic marriage is that the couple will have had to present baptism certificates to show that they are baptised Roman Catholics. The celebrant (at Westminster Cathedral) will then have contacted the parish in which they were baptised, to ask if there is a record of either Johnson or Symonds ever having had a marriage in canonical form (i.e. conducted by a Catholic priest or bishop). The answer would have been no, so there would have been nothing to annul. Johnson's previous marriages, while legal in the eyes of the law, were simply invalid in the eyes of the Roman Catholic church - so nothing to annul.

I get the feeling then that the Catholic Church needs to come out with a clear statement - something to the effect that if someone gets divorced after a marriage contracted by the law of the land, then that person is not eligible to get remarried in a Catholic church. Otherwise, it's a clear mockery. Although I suspect that a more strict clergyman could have made it clear to the Johnsons that their behaviour fell far short of what is required by a good Christian.

Truthfully, we don't know what exactly took place - the legal bit happens in front of the Registrar, so it could technically have been a service of blessing and we would never know, unless one of the 30 guests spills the beans.

@Iamthewombat

As has been pointed out numerous times, annulment does not enter into the matter. In the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, Johnson has never experienced the sacrament of marriage - getting wed in a register office or in an Anglican church is not a sacramental matter

I don’t know where these myths come from, or why they persist.

As other posters better-informed than you have pointed out, repeatedly, the Catholic Church does recognise all legal marriages as valid, irrespective of whether they took place in an Anglican Church, a synagogue, a mosque, a register office or anywhere else. If it was a legal marriage, the Catholic Church recognises it and will not permit a subsequent marriage in a Catholic ceremony without an annulment.

You misunderstand. The Catholic church recognises marriages conducted by registry officers and Anglican priests as legal, but it doesn't regard them as being sacramental. Such marriages are not recognised under the rules of the church, just as gay marriage may be legal in many countries, but is not recognised as valid by the Roman Catholic church.

So Catholic weddings have the bit where the priest asks if anyone knows of any impediment then they should step forward etc?

If so, I can imagine Boris had his fingers crossed, hand behind back at that bit.

Peregrina, I think people might want that, but not sure the Catholic Church feels answerable to the general population. It isn’t the church of the State and is confident in Canon Law.

On this subject, there is no need to comment anymore than on any other couples wedding.

@Peregrina

I get the feeling then that the Catholic Church needs to come out with a clear statement - something to the effect that if someone gets divorced after a marriage contracted by the law of the land, then that person is not eligible to get remarried in a Catholic church. Otherwise, it's a clear mockery. Although I suspect that a more strict clergyman could have made it clear to the Johnsons that their behaviour fell far short of what is required by a good Christian.

Truthfully, we don't know what exactly took place - the legal bit happens in front of the Registrar, so it could technically have been a service of blessing and we would never know, unless one of the 30 guests spills the beans.

Your opening statement is incorrect. The Roman Catholic church does not believe that divorce, in itself, is an impediment to marriage in one of its churches. It is only an impediment if the previous marriage was conducted by a catholic priest or bishop. If it wasn't, the marriage was invalid in the eyes of the church, so can be discounted.

I agree that a statement to that effect would be useful, as large numbers of people seem very confused about the church's position.

The Roman Catholic church does not believe that divorce, in itself, is an impediment to marriage in one of its churches.

I am curious then - what happens in countries like France or Italy were the legal marriage takes part at the Town Hall or Mayor's office, which is then followed by a Church service. Can people keep coming back then to keep having a Church ceremony?

I agree that a statement to that effect would be useful, as large numbers of people seem very confused about the church's position.

The Catholic Church itself appears to be sending out a mixed message - you can be as dissolute as you like, but if you didn't marry in a Catholic Church, that's fine. You have to wonder what will happen when the next divorce is required. I expect the Registry Office will be fine next time.

You heard wrong. She resigned after being told that her work was poor and that her expenses claims were disproportionately large.
I think that’s called jumping before you’re pushed.

No annulment was involved. What happens in a Catholic marriage is that the couple will have had to present baptism certificates to show that they are baptised Roman Catholics. The celebrant (at Westminster Cathedral) will then have contacted the parish in which they were baptised, to ask if there is a record of either Johnson or Symonds ever having had a marriage in canonical form (i.e. conducted by a Catholic priest or bishop). The answer would have been no, so there would have been nothing to annul. Johnson's previous marriages, while legal in the eyes of the law, were simply invalid in the eyes of the Roman Catholic church - so nothing to annul

The Roman Catholic church does not believe that divorce, in itself, is an impediment to marriage in one of its churches. It is only an impediment if the previous marriage was conducted by a catholic priest or bishop. If it wasn't, the marriage was invalid in the eyes of the church, so can be discounted.

No, no, no. These statements are incorrect.

Can we finally put this myth - that non-Catholic marriages somehow don’t count if a divorced person wants to marry in a Catholic Church - to bed, please?

Are you seriously suggesting that someone could turn up and tell a priest, “I’d like to marry this Catholic person. I’ve been married four times, once in the Cof E, once in a synagogue and twice in a register office, but we can overlook those because they weren’t sacramental in the view of the Catholic Church”, and the priest would say, “Oh, OK, let’s get the banns read”?

You must see that that is nonsense? If what you say is true, why are Catholics all over the country prevented from marrying divorced people irrespective of where that divorced person was married?

I stand by the assertion that the Catholic Church recognises all prior legal marriages, whether conducted in a Catholic Church or otherwise. That’s because I have been Catholic all my life and I’ve been through the process of finding out whether it was possible to marry in a Catholic Church despite my husband having been married before in a register office. Your “there was nothing to annul” statement simply isn’t true.

This thread is full of misleading assertions from people who don’t know much about Catholicism, although it doesn’t prevent them from chiming in, does it? My favourite was the poster who informed us that Westminster Cathedral wasn’t Catholic.