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?

“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.

Rather think this person is torn between liking Boris Johnson and being displeased at his disregard for the institution of marriage.

Well, it’s great to hear Harry, Norilyn, Flo and Herminia’s thoughts on the marriage, but how about you put your money where your mouth is and show me where I’ve supposedly made incorrect statements, according to your study of the diocese of East Anglia’s website? This is the second time I’ve asked.

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

Just checked Twitter -

Edwin Poots MLA
Congratulations & best wishes to Boris and Carrie.

It seems that some posters have come over from another place to criticise Boris because they are remainers and in their eyes everything Boris does is evil, immoral or illegal or all three.
Well, I support his policies including Brexit, recruiting all the additional police officers and having a points based immigration system. The immigration system will be fairer to people from across the world.

Peregrina, why are you concerned about whether Boris cheats on his wife. How do you know other politicians don't?
Surely you are more interested in his policies.

@Clavinova

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

Just checked Twitter -

Edwin Poots MLA
Congratulations & best wishes to Boris and Carrie.

Cute.

And if you don't believe that was typed through a gnashing of teeth, a thumping of the bible, and a comfort rage eat of some of the finest Protestant traybakes in Lisburn, well I've got some magic beans to sell you.

Why bother? Because if someone cheats on his wives, also gets sacked twice for lying, you wonder who else will be lied to and cheated on. I would like to think that the person representing the country had some sort of moral compass. May certainly did, and was treated shabbily by Johnson.

Hmm yes, something to do with um, integrity? The sort of thing desired in a leader

Unless you're in a totalitarian regime in which case voting isn't a thing.

Iamthewombat
how about you put your money where your mouth is and show me where I’ve supposedly made incorrect statements, according to your study of the diocese of East Anglia’s website? This is the second time I’ve asked.

Apologies - I missed your first request.

Here surely;
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...

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...

Compared to 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...

"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.

"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/

And if you don't believe that was typed through a gnashing of teeth, a thumping of the bible, and a comfort rage eat of some of the finest Protestant traybakes in Lisburn, well I've got some magic beans to sell you.

It did come with an oversized photo of the happy couple as well.

The DUP may not mind because they know that Johnson's Catholicism isn't real. It was just to have a wedding in attractive surrounding.

Really if they had been genuinely Catholic they would probably have had a quiet ceremony in the Church of St Obscure of Somewhere. A real Catholic would have them worried, I think.

There is no contradiction or conflict between what I posted and what appears on the diocese website.

I said that they had undoubtedly been granted an annulment, since his prior marriages would have been recognised by the Catholic church.

I said that annulments are not automatically handed out on request.

I said that a case had to be made for each annulment and that each case was judged individually, usually by a bishop.

I said that the past behaviour of both parties would be considered during the judgment process.

I said that they had probably used the quirk of canon law that enabled Johnson to claim that, having been baptised Catholic, and having neglected to secure the permission of his bishop for his two previous non-Catholic marriage ceremonies, his two previous marriages could be argued to be null and void, despite their having lasted for 33 years in total and his having produced four children by his second wife.

Which is at best annulment based on a technicality, and at worst the cynical use of a convenient loophole. In either case I’m surmising that they engaged a canon lawyer, since, as I pointed out upthread, you don’t just turn up at a church pointing to the ladybird book of canon law and expect to have an annulment handed to you.

So, no conflict and no incorrect statements. I hope that helps.

So, no conflict and no incorrect statements. I hope that helps.

Not really - you clearly haven't dealt with the statements I quoted, e.g.

using their influence, their money...
Be in no doubt that a special case has been made for these people...
these people get the special treatment

Ok. I’ll spell it out.

They used their money to engage a canon lawyer.

They used their influence to convince a priest to champion their cause. As I pointed out upthread, do you really think that ordinary Joe Soap twice-divorced Bob Johnson and Carrie Smith, who had Bob’s baby whilst Bob was still married to his former wife, would have got the same enthusiasm from Westminster Cathedral? No.

I don’t doubt that their influence has had an effect on the verdict. An annulment is seldom an open and shut case, as I point out, unless the prior marriage took place under duress or one party was underage. They benefited from both a carrot (Catholic PM!) and a stick (what might he do to make life difficult for the Catholic Church if his wishes are not accommodated?)

A special case has been made for these people. As I note above, each annulment request is assessed and judged individually, taking into account, amongst other things, the past behaviour of the parties. Do you genuinely think that if Bob Johnson had procured an abortion for one of his past mistresses, was a serial adulterer and had had a baby with Carrie Smith whilst married to his ex-wife, he would have attracted a favourable judgment? Do you think that Carrie Smith’s wishes would have been accommodated so enthusiastically, when she told the priest that she had had Bob’s baby whilst he was still married to his previous wife? If so, you are deluded.

@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.

Just to be picky - catholic churches can appoint persons to take the place of the registrar. So you are right in that legal marriage can take place in a catholic church (and the words required must be included) but not that a registrar has to be present.

Seems quite straightforward to me:

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..."

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...

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

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.

(Boris Johnson was baptised Catholic)

twice-divorced Bob Johnson

I thought Boris Johnson's first marriage had already been annulled in the 1990s?

the same enthusiasm from Westminster Cathedral?

Didn't another poster say that Westminster Cathedral was their parish church in any case?

I didn't know that someone could be appointed instead of the Registrar. Has that changed in the last 40 years? After all, a lot of things with marriages have changed - it never used to be possible to get married in hotels, in England and Wales, and it now is.

Wlifred was born after Johnson's divorce was finalised but was conceived before it was made absolute.

Just to add probably unhelpfully that from all I've read, and from the school parents chat at my dc RC school I'm #teamwombat

But if their nearest Catholic church had been St Obscure of Nowhere in Particular, would they have wanted to get married there? I suspect not - although they are not alone in that. In my town, the old Churchy type churches with the spires and not the boxy modern ones are the ones which have the most weddings. There are two Anglican Parishes covering the town - one with a traditional parish church 100s of years old, and one with a more modern one. The modern one is very happy clappy so it attracts a certain type of couple, but most seem to prefer the traditional one. Nothing to do with looking better in the wedding photos.

It probably does seem straightforward to you, but you have little knowledge of the subject and are basing your rather weak argument on things you have culled from one page of the Diocese of East Anglia’s website. You’re missing the fact tht annulments are not automatic but are the subject of judgment, which the webpage makes clear further down.

You don’t say whether you yourself are Catholic, or grew up Catholic, or have personally experienced negotiating marriage in the Catholic Church after divorce, or your partner’s divorce. I’m assuming not. If I’m correct, then you don’t have a particularly deep or well-developed evidence base.

Did anybody say that they didn’t qualify for consideration for marriage by Westminster Cathedral on location grounds? I don’t think so. However, other Catholic Churches are available in the archdiocese of Westminster.

Are you sure that Johnson’s first marriage was annulled? Not that it makes any difference. He is still divorced from Marina Wheeler. His first marriage, to Allegra Mostyn Owen, took place at her father’s posh house in Shropshire, so would not have been a Catholic ceremony. Perhaps it is not the first time he has weaselled his way into an annulment on the same rather shaky grounds.

Iamthe wombat wrote: "You’re missing the fact tht annulments are not automatic but are the subject of judgment, which the webpage makes clear further down."

I don't understand why you are so fixated on annulment. As stated in the current edition of The Tablet, Johnson's previous weddings did not take place in Catholic settings and so were not in canonical form and are therefore not recognised as sacramental marriages by the Catholic Church, leaving him free to remarry if he wished. Annulments were unnecessary because, in the eyes of the church, there were no previous marriages to annul.

The Tablet also quotes the papal biographer, Austen Ivereigh: “When the canonical form of marriage has not been observed and the marriage was not later validated in the Church, a simple administrative process is used to declare such marriages invalid in church law." Note, "simple administrative process", not annulment - for there is nothing to annul if the marriage was invalid.

You’re not going down without a fight, are you?

Face it: irrespective of how the position is summarised in news stories, his previous marriages were recognised by the Catholic Church (see the source you posted, upthread, which you thought would support your argument but in fact contradicted it).

That the annulment has been described by somebody in a news story as ‘a simple administrative process’ doesn’t mean that it is not an annulment.

But I wouldn't mind betting that there are a lot of divorced Catholics out there who suspect that the administrative process was much simpler for Boris and Carrie Johnson than it would have been for Jo and Jane Soap.

@Iamthewombat

You’re not going down without a fight, are you?

Face it: irrespective of how the position is summarised in news stories, his previous marriages were recognised by the Catholic Church (see the source you posted, upthread, which you thought would support your argument but in fact contradicted it).

That the annulment has been described by somebody in a news story as ‘a simple administrative process’ doesn’t mean that it is not an annulment.

THIS 👍🏻