Page 10 | To think Boris should not have been married in Westmister Cathedral?

buggerbuggery · 2021-05-30T13:19:31+00:00

Divorced people are not allowed to be married in a Catholic church. Boris Johnson has been married twice before. His first marriage was annulled, so the church does not count. But his second marriage does count. So he should never have been allowed to marry in a Catholic Cathedral.

youvegottenminuteslynn · 31/05/2021 01:50

Being surprised that the Catholic Church has displayed a 'one rule for the common people, another for the important ones' shows an impressive level of cognitive dissonance tbh OP!

mathanxiety · 31/05/2021 02:25

Impressive displays of prejudice and ignorance here as usual.

belleager · 31/05/2021 02:42

@youvegottenminuteslynn

Being surprised that the Catholic Church has displayed a 'one rule for the common people, another for the important ones' shows an impressive level of cognitive dissonance tbh OP!

So where did they do this, then?

(They didn't)

Butchyrestingface · 31/05/2021 07:45

That is not what the church teaches to parishioners and is not what catholic websites say aimed at parishioners.

I am lapsed Catholic (in my 40s), attended Catholic schools. Being able to (re)marry in the Catholic Church if previous marriages were not performed in the Church, was absolutely something I was taught as a teenager - and heard from various priestly sources.

I can see the articles you have quoted don't mention anything about this. Fair enough. But it's definitely not a new thing that's just been cooked up for BJ.

Toddlerteaplease · 31/05/2021 08:29

@mathanxiety yes. Another Catholic Church bashing thread again.

thegcatsmother · 31/05/2021 08:41

Iirc, Boris was christened in the RC Church, but confirmed in the CofE. I don't suppose for a minute he gives a stuff about the religious aspect of his wedding, nor would he consider his previous marriages invalid. I assume that getting married in Westminster Cathedral was important to Carrie, so he went along with it.

MiaMarshmallows · 31/05/2021 09:00

I know a woman who cheated on her husband and was named as doing so on the divorce papers. Then 2 years later had a huge extravagant wedding at St Paul's Cathedral. Never understood how she managed that. Marriage didn't last either. Now talking about marrying her current partner....

forinborin · 31/05/2021 09:21

I think annulment of previous marriages in Catholic Church is a technicality these days too. They use a bit of circular time-travelling reasoning there - the marriage was invalid in the first place as parties entered it without a genuine intention of living together "until the death does us part" as evidenced by the later divorce.
I know someone who had their Catholic marriage (reasonably long-term, three children) annulled. Costed around £10K and some nominal "counselling" attendance (not counselling, but I forgot the right name for it).

jakalaka · 31/05/2021 09:25

Are you offended your marriage is not a valid Muslim marriage? Or a valid Wiccan one? Doubt it! Are you desperately offended that in the eyes of Thor your handfasting was never properly completed with a binding cord?

If not, consider what might be different for you re Catholics. Hint: it might be the same thing that drives the Baby Names board to unreflectively reject certain names as obviously 'unsuitable'.

youvegottenminuteslynn · 31/05/2021 09:25

@belleager

OP was surprised they married there because:

I know plenty of people who could not marry in a Catholic Church because their partner was divorced and the first marriage was not in a catholic church.

One rule for the common people.

This is simply because he is Prime Minister and is totally hypocritical of the church.

And one rule for the 'important' people.

Palavah · 31/05/2021 09:27

[quote buggerbuggery]@Aquamarine1029 because some of us are Catholics? This is not a private matter. It is about church rules.[/quote]
So then write to the cleric who authorised it and express your displeasure.

honeylulu · 31/05/2021 09:58

I know plenty of people who could not marry in a Catholic Church because their partner was divorced and the first marriage was not in a catholic church

The Catholic Church recognises as a sacramental marriage a ceremony where two (non Catholic) baptised people marry. This does not need to be in a Catholic Church. If one or both are baptised Catholic then there are other special rules that apply for the marriage to be considered sacramental. Namely, that the marriage must be either be in a Catholic Church or conducted by a Catholic celebrant, or that permission has been given by the Catholic Church for a Catholic to marry a non Catholic, and/or to marry at a location which is not a Catholic Church. Or, if both are baptised Catholic but do not marry in Catholic Church, that their marriage is later "convalidated" by a church ceremony.

There are therefore lots of technical reasons why Boris (a baptised Catholic) did not have previous sacramental marriages and therefore could marry in Catholic Church. Despite what some posters have said the church did not consider his previous marriages "invalid" but "natural"/legal only, cessating upon legal dissolution. The key difference is between sacramental and natural marriage.

A previous sacramental marriage would need to be annulled by the Catholic Church for a future Catholic marriage ceremony to be allowed.

ResIpsaLoquiturInterAlia · 31/05/2021 10:16

So in this holly thread I can legitimately use the following relevant b word in the context of this flowing discussion on rules, (selective twisted application or non compliance of) authority (morally lack of) of "Saint" Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson and his many (known) issue/offspring. I intend no offence as the intention is technical correctness as after all this is a technicalities discussion regarding rules be it religious or otherwise. It is useful to know more about a leading public figure's character especially when it comes to rules so one can judge for themselves the significance if such people are above the rules or not etc. The pragmatic implications of the concept of null and void hypocrisy!

bastard:
noun person born to biological parents who are not "married" to each other (according to selective interpretation of inconclusive(?) canon law) so illegitimate

LibertyMole · 31/05/2021 10:23

No. A marriage invalidated, whether by civil or canon law, does not make the children illegitimate.

TheCreationOfDistance · 31/05/2021 10:26

They are both “allowed” but whether they “should” is a different matter. To whom have they been offering the sign of peace every Sunday? Has anyone actually seen them in any church? And their reproductive behaviours suggest anything other than Catholicism.

jakalaka · 31/05/2021 10:29

How about you criticise Johnson based on his execrable politics, not your totally made up version of another religion's beliefs. Because the things said here are simply not the case. You can google it. Canon law is online. People have explained it here as well.

You don't have to believe these things. I don't believe them. But it's wrong to make things up and then attack people based on your own lies.

I can think of someone who feels free to tell obvious lies in order to further his political position...

honeylulu · 31/05/2021 10:31

As explained above his two previous marriages would be considered valid (just not sacramental) in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Even if annulment had been required this does not alter the legitimacy of children of the prior marriages. This is also the position at law, even where a marriage is found to be legally invalid, for example where a bigamous marriage has taken place (surprisingly).

belleager · 31/05/2021 10:33

[quote youvegottenminuteslynn]@belleager

OP was surprised they married there because:

I know plenty of people who could not marry in a Catholic Church because their partner was divorced and the first marriage was not in a catholic church.

One rule for the common people.

This is simply because he is Prime Minister and is totally hypocritical of the church.

And one rule for the 'important' people. [/quote]
But it's not simply because he is Prime Minister.

Any baptised Catholic in his position, "common" or not, could have done the same thing.

People have explained that on this thread, time and time again, but posters seem determined that the Church should ignore its own rules and apply some kind of mob justice.

RedcurrantPuff · 31/05/2021 10:36

My husband was baptised Catholic (he doesn’t follow the faith now) and we were married in the Church of Scotland where marriage isn’t a sacrament, I had thought that meant if we split up he’d be able to marry in a RC church in future if he chose.

youvegottenminuteslynn · 31/05/2021 10:36

@Branleuse

I completely agree! Maybe I haven't explained myself well. OP felt a special exception was made for him and was surprised at that.

While it is in fact not be the case he received special treatment, my comment re cognitive dissonance was that as someone raised Catholic (now atheist) such dissonance is required so often that OP's surprise at what she felt was special treatment (one rule for regular folk and another for important folk) was surprising to me.

youvegottenminuteslynn · 31/05/2021 10:37

[quote youvegottenminuteslynn]@Branleuse

I completely agree! Maybe I haven't explained myself well. OP felt a special exception was made for him and was surprised at that.

While it is in fact not be the case he received special treatment, my comment re cognitive dissonance was that as someone raised Catholic (now atheist) such dissonance is required so often that OP's surprise at what she felt was special treatment (one rule for regular folk and another for important folk) was surprising to me. [/quote]
Sorry this was to @belleager - I think I recently replied to branleuse on a thread so their name popped up after b!

honeylulu · 31/05/2021 10:54

@RedcurrantPuff

My husband was baptised Catholic (he doesn’t follow the faith now) and we were married in the Church of Scotland where marriage isn’t a sacrament, I had thought that meant if we split up he’d be able to marry in a RC church in future if he chose

Yes in theory he could, assuming he did not seek special permission from the Catholic Church to enter into the first marriage. Here the issue is his Catholicism/permission being required rather than the Church of Scotland being the venue.

I married my husband in the Methodist church. Neither of us are Catholic. I am baptised but he isn't so the Catholic Church would not consider our marriage to be sacramental and either of us would be free to marry in Catholic Church in future (though I'd presume the remarrying person would need to convert or at least be marrying a baptised Catholic). Curiously, if my husband WAS baptised our Methodist marriage would be considered sacramental (even if we'd married at the register office) - neither of us had had a previous sacramental marriage. (Husband was married before but he wasn't baptised then either, obvs!) Only if one party is Catholic does the additional requirement for permission kick in.

I find this all fascinating. I'm a lawyer. Boris' ability to marry in Catholic Church was quite correct though morally it seems akin to being acquitted on a technicality!

LibertyMole · 31/05/2021 10:57

Your marriage isn’t automatically invalid just because one of you isn’t baptised. The Catholic Church considers Hindu weddings valid and Hindus are obviously not baptised.

RedcurrantPuff · 31/05/2021 11:10

Thanks @honeylulu he didn’t seek permission to marry, no. He doesn’t follow the faith so wasn’t bothered. We are both baptised though him in Catholic Church me in Church of Scotland but baptism is a sacrament in the C of S too so not sure if that makes any difference to anything

sadeyedladyofthelowlandsea · 31/05/2021 13:29

@ResIpsaLoquiturInterAlia

So in this holly thread I can legitimately use the following relevant b word in the context of this flowing discussion on rules, (selective twisted application or non compliance of) authority (morally lack of) of "Saint" Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson and his many (known) issue/offspring. I intend no offence as the intention is technical correctness as after all this is a technicalities discussion regarding rules be it religious or otherwise. It is useful to know more about a leading public figure's character especially when it comes to rules so one can judge for themselves the significance if such people are above the rules or not etc. The pragmatic implications of the concept of null and void hypocrisy!

bastard:
noun person born to biological parents who are not "married" to each other (according to selective interpretation of inconclusive(?) canon law) so illegitimate

Sun over the yardarm for wherever you are, I'm guessing?

The law changed in the UK quite some years ago.