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?

@Iamthewombat
The Archdiocese said Boris's previous two marriages don't count in terms as they were not Catholic marriages. www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/boris-johnson-baptised-catholic-and-cannot-defect-from-church-says-canon-law-1.4579760
This has, to my knowledge, been the official position of the church for a long time (I am a Catholic who grew up in an overwhelmingly Catholic country and know many people who were married the second time in the church after divorced from their first register-office only marriage). It's a hypocrisy but then when has that ever bothered the Church?

You will always find priests and bishops who take a hardline position and complicate things for people.

The whole business to me smacks of the pair wanting to make a big show. Otherwise, they would have had a quiet wedding somewhere else.

Yes, I know that Carrie hasn't been married before and therefore might have wanted the white wedding, but most would expect her to have to sacrifice that because she's taken on a twice divorced man.

We must see what happens now when other couples rock up asking for a Catholic wedding when their first marriage(s) were conducted outside the RC church.

What I have stated is exactly the position of the Roman Catholic church. You surely don't believe that Westminster Cathedral, the mother church of Catholicism in this country, went against Roman Catholic doctrine and married Johnson and Symonds against its own rules?

Most of the country's newspapers have carried articles by distinguished catholic writers explaining that the pair were married because neither had previously had a sacramental marriage.

It is quite possible that you encountered a priest who went further than the church requires, and banned anyone from marriage who was previously divorced. There are several catholic priests who are reported to believe that following the PM's wedding. That does not make it church doctrine, though. As I said, it is not conceivable that the top Catholic cathedral in the country would break its church's own rules in such a public manner.

You will always find priests and bishops who take a hardline position and complicate things for people.

I suppose that's it - you shop around for a Priest with more flexible beliefs.

Iamthewombat, please read the post from Frezia, which quotes the spokesperson from the Archdiocese of Westminster confirming what I have said: "a baptised Catholic who has contracted a marriage recognised in civil law but without observing the requirements of Catholic canon law is not recognised as validly married in the eyes of the Catholic Church.”

What's the point in arguing over canon law and how they were allowed to marry.

Surely the question is why did they? And because they have, ask if current lockdown restrictions will ever end. And certainly in June.

Florianus, if that is true then it sounds as though Johnson has done a lot of couples a favour - the local Priest can't say, "No, divorced, get lost". They just quote Boris Johnson and bingo, the marriage can go ahead.

I have to admit it's not often Johnson does something to the benefit of others.

Have they been

• married according to the Roman Catholic church ?
• legally married in a civil addition to a RC wedding ?
• had a RC blessing of a civil marriage ?

I think those are still the options.

Why am I not surprised that these points are not already clear, in spite of a lot of column inches used over the weekend.

Almost as if there were other stories they wanted to knock off the agenda.

Well played. And plenty of wiggle room left, too.

@Peregrina not often- is there another example of Mr Johnson doing anything for the benefit of others?

I am not RC. An RC friend who married in a registry office was uncomfortable with the issue of it not being a 'valid' Catholic marriage. When he divorced her a few years later, it was suggested that her children might be more comfortable in a new, non-Catholic, school and that a church in another area might also be a better choice for their regular attendance. So, the marriage 'not recognised' but the divorce definitely recognised. Why people put up with such absurdities is an utter mystery to me.

No, you have selectively read the statement from Westminster Cathedral quoted by the Irish Times. It said this:

in general terms, a baptised Catholic who has contracted a marriage recognised in civil law but without observing the requirements of Catholic canon law is not recognised as validly married in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

What they are saying, in a weaselly way, is that Johnson’s second marriage, which would otherwise have been regarded as valid by the Catholic Church, has been retrospectively annulled using the “I was baptised Catholic and didn’t ask the bishop for permission to get married outside the Catholic Church” defence. That is why they refer to ‘the requirements of Catholic canon law’. That argument is akin to “the dog ate my homework”, which is the reason for the obfuscation.

As for “priests can pick and choose whether they recognise previous legally valid marriages and you just got a hardline one”: no. The church’s position on this has always been clear.

That Johnson and Symonds (presumably) chose to engage a canon lawyer at considerable expense to help them slither around the rules applying to the little people, and that they found a priest star-struck or obsequious enough to help them to do it, is another matter.

No lawyer was necessary. As I have already told you, the process (for everyone) is simple: the couple have to provide certificates of baptism to the celebrant, who then contacts the baptismal parish to ask if there is a record of either party ever having been wed in canonical form (i.e. married by a catholic priest or bishop). Neither Johnson nor Symonds have, so there was no bar to their marriage in Westminster Cathedral on Saturday. This has been confirmed by the Archdiocese of Westminster and by many catholic experts, such as
the papal biographer Austen Ivereigh, who has pointed out that the PM's previous weddings were not Catholic ceremonies in canonical form and would thus be unlikely to be recognised in under the rules of the Catholic church. Ivereigh specifically points out that this is a simple administrative matter - no lawyers required, no annulments needed because, from an eccleiastical point of view, Johnson's previous marriages were invalid and therefore never existed as far as the Catholic church is concerned.

No, that is not correct, I’m afraid. The Catholic Church does not simply disregard previous marriages because they weren’t conducted in a Catholic Church.

I forgot to add that I have no idea what you mean by the couple "finding" a priest. The celebrant, Father Daniel Humphreys, is on the staff of their parish church (he is sub-administrator of the cathedral).

@Iamthewombat

No, that is not correct, I’m afraid. The Catholic Church does not simply disregard previous marriages because they weren’t conducted in a Catholic Church.

So now you think the Archdiocese of Westminster doesn't know what they are talking about! Sorry. but are you really a catholic? You don't seem to understand much about the faith.

"Fr Gary Dench, a canonist with Brentwood Cathedral in Essex, pointed out that marriages “in registry offices, hotels, non-Catholic Churches, beaches, (before) Elvis impersonators” and such, “do not require a formal annulment procedure” in the Catholic Church as such marriages involving baptised Catholics “are invalid” in the eyes of the Church."

www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/canon-law-means-you-can-check-out-but-you-can-never-leave-catholic-church-1.4580343

I'm not going to keep publishing these references, Iamthewombat, for some reason you seem incapable of admitting that you are wrong, however many Roman Catholic authorities are cited. So be it.

Because they would need to find a priest sympathetic enough to their rather weak case to champion their request for an annulment, that is why. I know that you keep claiming that no annulment was necessary, but you are incorrect.

Not every priest would engage in what a poster upthread described as ‘theological acrobatics’ to accommodate the wishes of 1. a serial adulterer who has fathered at least two children out of wedlock and has never been seen at mass and 2. a woman who had a child with a man who was married to somebody lose when the child was born. Most would not.

But then, most priests have more sense than to make a special case for rich powerful people. Do you think that if twice-divorced Bob Johnson and Carrie Smith, who had Bob’s child when Bob was still married to his previous wife, had turned up at Westminster Cathedral asking for a full Catholic ceremony that the priests there would have said, “OK, why not?”. As if!

Be in no doubt that a special case has been made for these people, most likely using a specific and rather dodgy interpretation of canon law, and Westminster diocese have gone along with it. Probably a combination of carrot and stick, with the stick potentially being an implied threat to funding and support of faith schools.

That is why normal Catholics, who have not been permitted to marry divorced partners in a Catholic ceremony, are unhappy. Because these people get the special treatment and “we wish them every happiness” whilst the ordinary people marrying divorced partners, or who are themselves divorced and remarry, are told that technically they shouldn’t receive communion and are committing adultery.

So now you think the Archdiocese of Westminster doesn't know what they are talking about! Sorry. but are you really a catholic? You don't seem to understand much about the faith.

No, I am telling you that the statement from Westminster Cathedral was very carefully worded and that you have read it selectively.

You obviously missed this bit, from Father Gary Dench’s statement to the Irish Times:

Impediments to valid marriage in canon law include age. Both parties must be old enough to marry and usually this is in accord with the relevant civil law. Another impediment would be a previous marriage, whether conducted in the Catholic Church, in another church, or by the State, and not yet declared null and void

So a prior marriage is an impediment, unless it is declared null and void. That is what annulments are for, and that is why the most likely exp,a nation is that the Johnsons have been helped to an annulment. Which they wouldn’t get automatically, and which they have probably secured using their influence, their money, and the “I forgot to tell the bishop and also the dog ate my homework” strategy.

I get the impression that the Catholic church went along with it, so that they could have the political capital of an RC PM. If so, it's backfired because it's annoyed so many people who weren't allowed to remarry in Church. Besides that, neither of the Johnsons, Boris especially, seem especially good role models for Christian values.

@Peregrina

I get the impression that the Catholic church went along with it, so that they could have the political capital of an RC PM. If so, it's backfired because it's annoyed so many people who weren't allowed to remarry in Church. Besides that, neither of the Johnsons, Boris especially, seem especially good role models for Christian values.

Boris Johnson effectively renounced Catholicism when he chose to be confirmed in the Anglican faith (I know that Catholics might say that, like Hotel California, you can check out but never cease being a member). There are some particular problems in having a Catholic PM, not the least of which is that the prime minister recommends the appointments of Anglican bishops to the Queen (who invariably follows his advice on the matter). It would be entirely inappropriate for a Catholic to recommend the appointment of Agnlican bishops, which is why Tony Blair didn't convert to Catholicisim until after he left Downing Street.

I don't understand why people want to pretend thatJohnson's marriage was so complicated. Westminster Cathedral "went along with it" because Johnson and Symonds live in its parachial area and, having never had a previous catholic marriage, there could - as the Archdiocese has pointed out - be no objection (apart from a few people who don't seem to understand the rules).

@Peregrina

I get the impression that the Catholic church went along with it, so that they could have the political capital of an RC PM. If so, it's backfired because it's annoyed so many people who weren't allowed to remarry in Church. Besides that, neither of the Johnsons, Boris especially, seem especially good role models for Christian values.

My thoughts exactly!

@Florianus

"Fr Gary Dench, a canonist with Brentwood Cathedral in Essex, pointed out that marriages “in registry offices, hotels, non-Catholic Churches, beaches, (before) Elvis impersonators” and such, “do not require a formal annulment procedure” in the Catholic Church as such marriages involving baptised Catholics “are invalid” in the eyes of the Church."

www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/canon-law-means-you-can-check-out-but-you-can-never-leave-catholic-church-1.4580343

I'm not going to keep publishing these references, Iamthewombat, for some reason you seem incapable of admitting that you are wrong, however many Roman Catholic authorities are cited. So be it.

@Iamthewombat is correct.

Westminster Cathedral "went along with it" because Johnson and Symonds live in its parachial area and, having never had a previous catholic marriage, there could - as the Archdiocese has pointed out - be no objection (apart from a few people who don't seem to understand the rules).

I think it’s time that you stopped (1) being insulting and (2) embarrassing yourself.

You produced a piece of evidence in support of your position, which is that the Catholic Church will ignore all previous marriages if they took place outside the Catholic Church. Hence, according to you, no annulment was necessary.

You then declared that I couldn’t be Catholic, thought I knew better than the Westminster diocese, etc. You’re clearly not somebody who can argue in a civilised way.

You added a link to Father Gary Dench’s statement to the Irish Times which, you claimed, proved that previous non-Catholic marriages would be ignored and that no annulment was needed.

Wrong. Your own evidence contradicted your position, because Father Dench explicitly stated that a prior marriage of any kind - religious or civil - would be an impediment to a Catholic marriage unless the prior marriage was declared null and void.

Here is the quote again:

Another impediment would be a previous marriage, whether conducted in the Catholic Church, in another church, or by the State, and not yet declared null and void

The mechanism for declaring a marriage null and void is an annulment, which nobody is given automatically unless the circumstances are extreme (e.g. the marriage took place under duress, or one of the parties was underage).

So yes, they would have needed an annulment. As your own evidence confirms. It’s difficult to see why you can’t accept that. Perhaps it is embarrassment, because you have tripped yourself up.

I would be of the impression that having chosen to be confirmed in the Anglican church, he had renounced Catholicism, but there are those who say once a Catholic, always a Catholic.

DH was a Catholic, but rejected it well into adulthood, after having been quite committed.