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?

How would anyone know whether an annulment had taken place? I can imagine that this would be the stunt which Johnson pulled to stop Carrie wittering on about wanting a Church wedding.

However, I was a bit surprised when they had the baby baptised, but quite a lot of people who have a sort of residual Christian upbringing do this.

I don’t imagine that we (the Catholic Church in this country) will easily find out. I note that in one of the news stories, the statement from the Westminster archdiocese is prefaced like this:

The Archdiocese of Westminster said that, while they did not comment on specific situations...

You bet they won’t want to comment on this specific situation. Doing so will expose them to even more criticism. Massive own goal.

For goodness sake, does it matter if Boris had an annulment? Why all the bitching?
They are married and I wish Mr and Mrs Johnson a very happy life together.

Does it matter? Yes, for those people who are genuinely practicing their religion but were denied a Church remarriage, it is deeply upsetting. To see a man who doesn't seem to have a religious bone in his body have a Church wedding is making a mockery of it.

It would be the same if it were some celebrity - but they usually have the gumption to have either a Civil ceremony or marry in a denomination which is more accepting of divorce.

@yellowspanner

I sincerely hope that you are being disingenuous on purpose, or do you honestly think that being the PM should put him above other people and the petty rules of conduct that bind those 'little people' like ....

Lying to The Queen about proroguing parliament

Routinely lying in parliament for personal and party advantage
Refusing to acknowledge children
Prioritising sorting out personal affaires over the business of governing

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 explanation 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.

Helpful website here;
Diocese of East Anglia, Marriage Tribunal FAQ -

“A friend of mine went for an annulment and it only took a couple of months to sort out; how come this will take up to two years?”

Your marriage is presumed valid by the Catholic Church. If you are a Catholic who was married in a Register Office, or in a non-Catholic church without the necessary dispensation and marriage preparation, then the Catholic Church does not recognise your marriage as valid. This is still true if you have been married for years and have had children. In some cases a couple may have had a Register Office marriage ‘put right’ in later years, and then the marriage would be recognised...

"The only people who get annulments are Royalty or people with inside connections in the Vatican, so how can I stand a chance?"

This is a popular and widespread misunderstanding that refuses to go away. Since the mid 1960’s there has been, sad to say, a vast growth in the number of nullity cases brought before our Church Courts. A tiny percentage of these may involve members of the various royal houses or families with a high media profile, but they are treated all the same...

www.rcdea.org.uk/marriage-tribunal/marriage-tribunal-faq/

So once again Clavinova weighs in with Cut n' paste, of doubtful relevance, since the leading Royals in the UK are Anglicans.

Some Royals, like the Duchess of Kent converted to Catholicism, but she then withdrew from public life.

However, there were some choice paragraphs, particularly this one:

All these questions are very personal! How come the Church has the right to ask such intrusive questions? Marriage is a complex human reality, and when there has been a breakdown that has resulted in the failure of a marriage, the reasons for this need to be understood. Just as when a car inexplicably comes off a straight road, the investigators try and discover there was a ‘design fault’, so the marriage nullity process tries to establish how the relationship came to be put together, in order to understand why it came apart. This involves detailed and personal questioning, and since the sexual relationship is part of the core of a viable marriage we have to ask whether there were any problems in this area. The questions will always be asked in as sensitive way as possible, but the whole picture must be put together, including the intimate dimension of the marital relationship.

I would love to know what the Priest thought of Boris's multiple infidelities - of which we know, at least one child born out of wedlock, not counting the latest, one woman aborting his child and Jennifer Arcuri admitting to an affair while Johnson was still married. Add to that the fact that he was having an affair with Marina before he divorced his first wife.

As I said before, they might have met the letter of Canon Law; they most certainly haven't met the spirit of it.

It must be so depressing standing next to a man listening to him making promises that you know he has absolutely no intention of keeping, because he's broken the same promises so many times before.

Finally,
How do you know Boris lied to the Queen? Were you there?
I don't believe he lied to Parliament.
And I don't care how many children he had or has not fathered. This last is no business of mine.
I am happy with his and the Government's policies and their implementation. I voted for policies not who has the most children.
I hope he will get an even bigger majority at the next election

Peregrina
So once again Clavinova weighs in with Cut n' paste, of doubtful relevance

Extremely relevant in my opinion.

However, there were some choice paragraphs, particularly this one:
All these questions are very personal! How come the Church has the right to ask such intrusive questions?

The intrusive questions are not for everyone it seems;

"We’re both divorcees, but I’m the Catholic, how come my non-Catholic partner has to do all the hard work?"

This situation occurs relatively often and is an understandable dilemma. If two divorcees, one a Catholic and one not, but both having been married in a Register Office, come along to see if their situation can be resolved it is more than likely that it is the non-Catholic who will be faced with the formal process and its thorough questioning whereas the Catholic party will only have to produce evidence of their baptism and their marriage and divorce documentation to be able to establish that they are free to marry.

Also, did you read Florianus' link? Here;

Canon law means you can check out but you can never leave [the] Catholic Church ...

It was also the case that it was understood in canon law that “the ontological character of baptism can never be lost or renounced. Therefore, once baptised, a Catholic is subject to canon law in regard to the sacramental celebration of marriage,”

Link from her link;

Boris Johnson baptised Catholic and cannot defect from Church, says canon law.

www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/boris-johnson-baptised-catholic-and-cannot-defect-from-church-says-canon-law-1.4579760

A child being baptised isn't making their own commitment. Hence some churches having adult baptism.

But well done Clavinova for weighing in with pages of cut n paste. There are people on these threads like Iamthewombat who clearly have a much better and fuller understanding of the issues involved.

@longwayoff

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.

That's awful.

I can never understand why religions which are generally about go's loving everyone and forgiveness can simultaneously be so judgemental and excluding.

@yellowspanner

For goodness sake, does it matter if Boris had an annulment? Why all the bitching? They are married and I wish Mr and Mrs Johnson a very happy life together.

How's life in the world of rainbows and unicorns?!

Of course it matters.

Iamwombat thanks for all your information. Can I ask - I didn't think a RC church would marry someone who had a child out of wedlock? Was this once a rule or have I just imagined that?!

@yellowspanner

How do you know Boris lied to the Queen?

I observed the results of the advise Her Majesty received from her ministers.

Johnson told The Queen that it was lawful to prorogue parliament, so that parliament was prorogued. And then he had to send a minister to let her know that oops, no it wasn't and parliament was back in session.

Either he lied to The Queen or the The Queen and the PM colluded. Which do you think is more likely ?

Peregrina
There are people on these threads like Iamthewombat who clearly have a much better and fuller understanding of the issues involved.

According to the Diocese of East Anglia, Iamthewombat has clearly made some incorrect statements.

Oh yes, what are they? I’m all ears. The extractvposted by Peregrina tends to back up my assertion that nnulemnts aren’t delivered automatically and are subject to judgment.

Iamthewombat appears to have some detailed first hand knowledge, which is more than you do Clavinova. Yet again it's wodges of Cut n paste to back up your hero worship of Johnson.

I have friends who were committed Catholics, whose marriages broke down despite their best efforts to save them and were denied re-marriage in the Catholic Church. At least one found a welcome in a Church of another denomination, but being made to feel unwelcome in their original church caused deep hurt. Yet Johnson can swing it on a technicality. It's those people who rightly feel very very annoyed.

Iamwombat thanks for all your information. Can I ask - I didn't think a RC church would marry someone who had a child out of wedlock? Was this once a rule or have I just imagined that?!

In the past maybe not, but now they will marry people who have had children out of wedlock. That’s been the case for quite a long time.

That was one of the bizarre things I found when I was speaking to the parish priest and the bishop: they couldn’t marry me because of the impediment of my now husband’s previous civil marriage, but they could marry women who had had several children by different fathers out of wedlock to men who had fathered children by different women but never married any of them.

Not that I’m condemning people who have children without being married. I’m not a hardcore Catholic in that way, the way we live now has changed and let he who is without sin cast the first stone etc etc., but it does seem weird that someone who has been a model Catholic all their lives is denied a nuptial mass whilst somebody who never goes to church and has popped out children outside marriage gets the full works.

Either he lied to The Queen or the Queen and the PM colluded.

Neither -

Aidan O’Neill QC, the advocate who led on the anti-prorogation case in Scotland...successfully persuaded three senior Scottish judges...that Johnson was abusing the government’s powers to suspend parliament in order to prevent it from carrying out its constitutional duties to scrutinise and approve the government’s decisions on Brexit.

Yet judges in London and Belfast had ruled in two very similar cases that Johnson’s action was lawful: they supported the government’s views that prorogation was a purely political decision and the courts had no right to interfere...

The prime minister’s right to recommend prorogation to a monarch was not in doubt. The question was whether suspending parliament for such a long period at a crucial, constitutional moment without sufficient reason undermined parliament’s authority and duty to subject the government to scrutiny...

Did Boris Johnson lie to the Queen?
The inner house of the Scottish court of sessions concluded Boris Johnson’s advice to the Queen had been “motivated by the improper purpose of stymying parliament”.

The supreme court in London, however, avoided making direct, personal criticism of the prime minister. It decided simply that the effect of a lengthy, parliamentary suspension at this time was unlawful...

www.theguardian.com/law/2019/sep/24/uk-supreme-court-ruling-key-issues-behind-judges-decision-boris-johnson-suspension-parliament

Peregrina
Yet again it's wodges of Cut n paste to back up your hero worship of Johnson.

I certainly had to correct you recently when you claimed that Boris Johnson was cheating behind his wife's back when she had cancer. Not true.

Bet his Catholic wedding has gone down like a lead balloon in NI Unionist circles!

@CheneHetre

Bet his Catholic wedding has gone down like a lead balloon in NI Unionist circles!

I never thought of that! Poots et al will have been most displeased

I didn't think a RC church would marry someone who had a child out of wedlock? Was this once a rule or have I just imagined that?!

I'd imagine about 30% of Irish church weddings these days occur after the arrival of a child!

Johnson had been cheating on his wives for decades - I don't think any 'correction' is needed there.

It will be interesting to see how this marriage plays out. What if Carrie wants a divorce and another Catholic wedding in a couple of years time? Should be easy enough for Johnson to say that he didn't really mean it when he made his vows.

Despite a reference to Johnson's infidelities in this article, members of the Westminster congregation seem pleased here;

Westminster Cathedral congregation welcome Prime Minister’s marriage news.

Worshippers at the cathedral said they were ‘honoured’ to learn of his marriage to Carrie Symonds and shared their views on re-marriage in the faith. ...

Retired friends Norilyn King, 64, Herminia Supan, 73, and Flo Zerrouk, 70, who attend services at the cathedral together twice a week, congratulated the newly-weds and said that “times are different nowadays” allowing for re-marriage under some circumstances.

Ms Zerrouk, a former hotel secretary from Westminster, said: “It’s a great feeling that our Prime Minister and the wife got married here, because I’m proud to be a Catholic and they’re Catholic.

“At last they have finally married – we give them our congratulations.”

On re-marriage, former retail estate broker Ms King, from Fulham, said: “It’s a personal choice, and they should be respected for it.

“I think marriage is a very solemn thing, so for him to marry for a third time, you know, times are different nowadays, we should just accept people for how they want to live their lives and that’s the way it is.

Retired schoolteacher Harry Groenen, from Kingston-upon-Thames, who has been a member of the congregation at Westminster Cathedral for 15 years, said it was an “honour” for the Prime Minister to have been married there, and described what the ceremony might have looked like.

He added that under Pope Francis’ influence, the Catholic church has been “much more liberal and open” to re-marriage, but that some members of his congregation would find it “challenging to accept” the Prime Minister’s nuptials.

Mr Groenen said: “I think that they will be pleased, but there will always be a number of conservative people – some of them younger than I am – who would probably find it a bit challenging to accept, but the world we live in I think it’s no bad thing to show good will and common sense.”

www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/boris-johnson-prime-minister-westminster-cathedral-carrie-symonds-metropolitan-police-b938001.html