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

[buggerbuggery]

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.

It’s easy to just call people ignorant without actually pointing out why. The only thing I really mentioned was indulgences - which I’m sure I didn’t learn about in RE at school. They’re not going to teach you anything controversial in RE (or at least not when I was at school).

@NinaMimi
When you mention 'indulgences', and state that this is a controversial issue in 2021, you are advertising ignorance.

It seems you may have come across the topic of indulgences in a history class? A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Indulgences were controversial way back at the time of the Reformation. They particularly irked Martin Luther. The question of salvation by faith or works arose in this context.

The RC church has moved on considerably since then. You can look up the relevant doctrine for yourself. There is a Papal Bull issued by Paul VI and subsequent notes and clarifications issued by more recent popes.

Essentially, indulgences can be an element of the sacrament of reconciliation, involving spiritual exercises and sincere remorse for sin in hopes of spiritual purification.

Either you accept the theology behind it or you don't.

d2y1pz2y630308.cloudfront.net/3189/documents/2018/4/Indulgences_v2.pdf

You are accusing someone who grew up in the Catholic Church (we attended every Sunday) of bigotry. It's the easy-to-reach-for explanation for anyone challenging you:
"If someone challenges me, or critiques my religion, they must be a bigot or have been inadequately educated in RE." Not necessarily. Maybe you'd do well to listen to what is being said instead of batting it away because you are too fragile to hear something challenging. Be an adult about it rather than an aggrieved child.

@TurquoiseLemur
If you read my comment, you will see that I did not address you specifically at all. So maybe wind your neck in.

A huge number of the comments here are based on ignorance. I am seeing them with my own eyes, and responding

I'm not making up statements and ascribing them to others along the lines of what you have posted here.

Kindly refrain from making up quotes and putting words into my mouth. It's not the grown up thing to do.

My posts here are factual, including remarks about ignorance and bigotry. If someone's 'critique' of my religion includes bigoted comments, assumptions based on half-remembered snippets from History class aged 9, and ignorance of canon law, then I will post facts and call out the bigotry.

I don't really think RE school curriculums are the place for the study of Canon Law with all its intricacies. Many self-avowed Catholics on this thread aren't clear about it themselves! And why would they be, given that they have probably been told one thing officially and several other things today in the media (by priests and theologians among others.)?...
RE classes are the place to teach respect for other people's religions, surely?
They are also the place to teach that there are many, many resources available where you can look up questions that occur to you or questions that arise when you think you are hearing contradictory information.

...And when the official position can, when it suits, be ignored or creatively re-interpreted.
This is the sort of bedrock bigoted assumption I am talking about on this thread.

People often believe this sort of nonsense is true if they are predisposed to negativity about a particular institution.

But taking the trouble to look up the truth will quickly enlighten them.

Thanks @mathanxiety (for answering my earlier question about the annulment in my family.)

I read the petition in the case of my family member, but I can’t remember the grounds it stated. I do remember thinking it odd that the Catholic Church was essentially taking jurisdiction over a Protestant marriage.

The Anglican Communion has in the past treated marriage as a kind of sacrament, even though canonically it is not (as posters have stated above, it recognizes baptism and the eucharist as sacraments, as these are the ones ordained by Christ). Churches in the Anglican Communion have historically placed impediments to re-marriage after divorce. My father was divorced and not allowed to marry my stepmother in the Episcopal Church in the US. When DH, who is divorced, and I married in the Episcopal Church 30 years ago, we had to get permission from the bishop because DH was divorced (no idea if that is still the case).

And of course, the Church of England has a long history of not allowing marriage in the Church after divorce. (I know this has changed, but it’s been fairly recent, I think.)

Speaking of “Protestant,” quite a few Episcopalians in the US don’t consider themselves Protestant, and the Church has an alternate official name that does not have the word “Protestant” in it. Claiming that apostolic succession from St. Peter was not broken when the English Church split from Rome, and emphasizing the inherited liturgy from Roman Catholicism, and the many differences from reformed Christianity, many Episcopalians tend to view their Church as more Catholic than Protestant.

I respect your position absolutely, @TurquoiseLemur, but I think there's at least a breeding ground for bigotry where so many people have breezed onto the thread and effectively said "ah sure, Catholicism, what else do you expect" without engaging with the posts. That's not what you are doing, I appreciate.

Catholics have a right to regulate and administer their own sacraments, like Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists. I'd have an academic interest in what Anglicans allow - could Charles marry Camilla and be Head of the C of E? So I might post on such a thread. But I wouldn't dream of expecting Anglicanism to conform to the social and cultural norms of wherever I live or grew up, or that its provisions would punish people I didn't approve of. So on a thread on that question, I'd ask what the normal rules and expectations within Anglicanism were. And if someone answered me, I'd pay attention.

Someone referred to casuistry upthread, and that has been a bit of a dog-whistle term for anti-Catholism, historically. One can disapprove of churchmen manipulating technicalities of cannon law without assuming that's what's happening in any case that looks unexpected. As you said, most Catholics aren't experts in cannon law or anything like it. So it would be appropriate to ask whether a term historically offensive to Catholics - started neutral but hasn't been for centuries - should really be applied in this case.

This really doesn't seem a case that could be described as casuistry to me. Johnson hasn't previously entered marriage as a sacrament on the terms expected of a baptised Catholic. It's not a loophole that was dreamed up for him, and it didn't need to be conjured up by some shadowy elite.

The message - and again I'd say this isn't from your post - that of course the Church's dealings in this case must be shady and underhand - does arise again and again on this thread. It's not based on discussion of the posts. I don't know that I'd call it bigoted. I wouldn't make that judgement of individual posters. But it doesn't seem a topic on which people are very open minded, at least.

People can have and express whatever opinion of the church they like. But if they wade in and express an opinion based on patently false assumptions which they them won't reconsider - that is quite disrespectful to the church's adherents. But I'd say that about any debate, really.

No problem with posters not being Catholic, disapproving of Catholicism, disapproving of religion - but why have a position on whom the Catholic Church can marry, then? It does feel as if some posters have joined with misconceptions they're not willing to revisit, and some just to stick the boot in.

‘Speaking of “Protestant,” quite a few Episcopalians in the US don’t consider themselves Protestant, and the Church has an alternate official name that does not have the word “Protestant” in it. Claiming that apostolic succession from St. Peter was not broken when the English Church split from Rome, and emphasizing the inherited liturgy from Roman Catholicism, and the many differences from reformed Christianity, many Episcopalians tend to view their Church as more Catholic than Protestant.’

The Anglican church’s official position was that it is both Catholic and reformed.

There are plenty of Anglicans who are within the Catholic tradition, but they are not of course under the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

The C of E made it possible for divorced couples to remarry in church under certain circumstances around 2002. It is down to the individual priest as far as I know.

The Orthodox Church sometimes annuls Catholic marriages, but that doesn’t mean that marriage is recognised as annulled in the Catholic Church.

The Anglican church’s official position was that it is both Catholic and reformed.

True, but historically there has been a lot of variation in whether individuals and congregations tended more toward "Catholic" or "Reformed", hence the differences in high church and low church. I grew up in the high church tradition; for example, I was taught not to say "Catholic" when referring to the Church of Rome, but always to say Roman Catholic because we were also Catholic. We had incense and individual confession (not required, but available). Low church services were and are much closer to Methodist in feeling.

Yes, I had similar experiences- one RC parent and one Anglo Catholic parent.

The Anglican Communion has in the past treated marriage as a kind of sacrament, even though canonically it is not

This is a difference between Catholicism and Reformation churches.
Maybe it would be more respectful to say 'although Reformation churches do not hold it is a sacrament' instead of a categorical 'even though canonically it is not'??

@belleager

I respect your position absolutely, *@TurquoiseLemur*, but I think there's at least a breeding ground for bigotry where so many people have breezed onto the thread and effectively said "ah sure, Catholicism, what else do you expect" without engaging with the posts. That's not what you are doing, I appreciate.

Catholics have a right to regulate and administer their own sacraments, like Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists. I'd have an academic interest in what Anglicans allow - could Charles marry Camilla and be Head of the C of E? So I might post on such a thread. But I wouldn't dream of expecting Anglicanism to conform to the social and cultural norms of wherever I live or grew up, or that its provisions would punish people I didn't approve of. So on a thread on that question, I'd ask what the normal rules and expectations within Anglicanism were. And if someone answered me, I'd pay attention.

Someone referred to casuistry upthread, and that has been a bit of a dog-whistle term for anti-Catholism, historically. One can disapprove of churchmen manipulating technicalities of cannon law without assuming that's what's happening in any case that looks unexpected. As you said, most Catholics aren't experts in cannon law or anything like it. So it would be appropriate to ask whether a term historically offensive to Catholics - started neutral but hasn't been for centuries - should really be applied in this case.

This really doesn't seem a case that could be described as casuistry to me. Johnson hasn't previously entered marriage as a sacrament on the terms expected of a baptised Catholic. It's not a loophole that was dreamed up for him, and it didn't need to be conjured up by some shadowy elite.

The message - and again I'd say this isn't from your post - that of course the Church's dealings in this case must be shady and underhand - does arise again and again on this thread. It's not based on discussion of the posts. I don't know that I'd call it bigoted. I wouldn't make that judgement of individual posters. But it doesn't seem a topic on which people are very open minded, at least.

People can have and express whatever opinion of the church they like. But if they wade in and express an opinion based on patently false assumptions which they them won't reconsider - that is quite disrespectful to the church's adherents. But I'd say that about any debate, really.

No problem with posters not being Catholic, disapproving of Catholicism, disapproving of religion - but why have a position on whom the Catholic Church can marry, then? It does feel as if some posters have joined with misconceptions they're not willing to revisit, and some just to stick the boot in.

"Casuistry" was indeed used as a kind of dog-whistle anti-Catholic term. In and of itself though, there is a charge to be made. I myself used the related term "sophistry"which has a similar meaning.

Any church or religion will devise its own rules and regulations. But I think there is a problem with how the whole divorce and annulment thing is dealt with in the CC. You can get an annulment on grounds of non-consummation: I imagine this is quite rare. Also if you can demonstrate to the panel (how, I don't really know) that your spouse entered into the marriage under duress from his/her family and that you were not aware of that at the time. I'm sure it happens and yes, that is very, very disrespectful of the spouse concerned. ("I only married you because my family forced me to.") But you can't get a marriage annulled on the basis of domestic violence or abuse, even if numerous people have seen you covered in bruises, even if there have been criminal convictions. By having such rules, the CC fails to be compassionate or, in my view even understanding of the terrible situations people can find themselves in.

It is telling that on this thread, people who identify as Catholics are at loggerheads about what the rules around all this are. Partly because it's not something many people have first-hand experience of. But also because priests themselves interpret these things slightly differently (and THEY study Canon law as part of their training!).

Anti-Catholicism is a thing. Just as anti-Semitism is. That does not mean that every criticism of the Church is inspired by bigotry or ignorance or malice-some of the Church's fiercest critics were brought up in the Church themselves! The widespread (among Catholics) reluctance to even acknowledge this, or the many questionable and downright appalling practices that the Church is guilty of (fact, not opinion) is every bit as disturbing as people weighing in with very little knowledge of basics. (Not here but I have come across comments on some threads that assume that all anti-abortionists in Northern Ireland are Catholic, for example. One even assumed that the late Ian Paisley was!)

My position on whom the CC chooses to marry? I have no personal skin in the game but it seems ludicrous (and again, lacking in compassion) to refuse to allow a devout Catholic who has divorced a violent spouse to remarry in church while allowing an utterly unapologetic and serial philanderer such as Boris Johnson to do so. A man who won't even publically say how many children he has. (Either he doesn't know the number or he knows but wants something unsavoury to be kept secret, probably his own shabby behaviour in this regard.) Okay, he might technically not be in violation of the rules. . . but he's hardly behaving in the spirit of the thing, is he? And nor is she. And those saying "But the priest had no choice, they live locally so he had to marry them" are mistaken: a priest is not obliged to marry or baptise anyone.

For me, what sticks in the craw is that much more decent people than Boris Johnson and his new missus, people who have got divorced with reluctance because basically it was that or going insane, are frequently told they can't remarry in a Catholic church while he can. No wonder he's laughing, he seems to find enablers wherever he goes, people willing to do what he wants because he wants it. I've seen quite a few comments in the media by priests today wondering why it was allowed and who think that the priest who chose to officiate has made a major error of judgement.

@mathanxiety

You are accusing someone who grew up in the Catholic Church (we attended every Sunday) of bigotry. It's the easy-to-reach-for explanation for anyone challenging you: "If someone challenges me, or critiques my religion, they must be a bigot or have been inadequately educated in RE." Not necessarily. Maybe you'd do well to listen to what is being said instead of batting it away because you are too fragile to hear something challenging. Be an adult about it rather than an aggrieved child.

@TurquoiseLemur
If you read my comment, you will see that I did not address you specifically at all. So maybe wind your neck in.

A huge number of the comments here are based on ignorance. I am seeing them with my own eyes, and responding

I'm not making up statements and ascribing them to others along the lines of what you have posted here.

Kindly refrain from making up quotes and putting words into my mouth. It's not the grown up thing to do.

My posts here are factual, including remarks about ignorance and bigotry. If someone's 'critique' of my religion includes bigoted comments, assumptions based on half-remembered snippets from History class aged 9, and ignorance of canon law, then I will post facts and call out the bigotry.

I have already made it clear in several posts that i was brought up in the church. My mother is an active member. While some are coming up with half-remembered snippets from history class or RE, I am not.

There are plenty of practising Catholics who know little about canon law! And surely there should be more to a religious tradition than just a focus on rules and regulations? Maybe you have studied it in great depth, most people (Catholic or not) don't see the need.

I haven't made up any quotes. I have simply reposted what you and some others have said in their comments.

Are you saying the cover-up of child abuse by Catholic clergy at the highest level is NOT a fact? That the Church, as an institution, has not been guilty at various times, of anti-Semitism? When I refer to those things, I myself am being factual. Deny them all you like but it's not a good look when the proof is overwhelming.

‘But you can't get a marriage annulled on the basis of domestic violence or abuse, even if numerous people have seen you covered in bruises, even if there have been criminal convictions. By having such rules, the CC fails to be compassionate or, in my view even understanding of the terrible situations people can find themselves in.’

You could in some circumstances get a marriage annulled if the DA was happening prior to the marriage or if the DA after the marriage was evidence the other person did not mean their vows.

The church also frequently advises separation in cases of DA.

‘It is telling that on this thread, people who identify as Catholics are at loggerheads about what the rules around all this are. Partly because it's not something many people have first-hand experience of. But also because priests themselves interpret these things slightly differently (and THEY study Canon law as part of their training!).’

But this isn’t a complex case that requires interpretation. It is a really straightforward case that people are simply ignorant about.

It really doesn’t say anything about Catholicism or Catholics that people don’t know the facts. It is just that people love to play intellectual parkour on the internet, and put forward completely ignorant opinions on every topic imaginable. Hence how suddenly huge numbers of people were suddenly experts on epidemiology during the pandemic.

I think the broader point is also that whether or not someone can get married isn’t decided by making a moral judgement about their past wrongdoings.

That isn’t what is happening here.

If someone wants to get married specifically in a Catholic Church then the reasons for that presumably are:
A. They believe in the sacraments.
B. They accept the authority of the church.

If they don’t believe those two things, why don’t they go and join a different church? That is literally the point of Protestantism.

A priest isn't obliged to marry or baptise anyone, but he needs a better reason not to marry two baptised Catholics than "one of you is Boris Johnson". Or even, one of you has a public reputation as a serial philanderer. Where does that end? I'm sure the clergy would have loved to make it a secret marriage but that would be a tad hypocritical, surely?

Re not allowing remarriage for victims of domestic abuse - I see your point, yes. But you don't need to agree with the church's position on marriage to recognise that in this case, Johnson is being treated according to the same rules as everyone else.

It's just not about how "decent" you are.

As for Catholics being "at loggerheads" - not really. The only information made public has been that both are baptised Catholics and the marriage is regular. So there's been some speculation. But it's clear there are both straightforward and - had they been needed - less straightforward grounds to consider the previous marriages void. You need to know Boris's personal history and a bit about canon law to get there. And unless Catholics have been in this position, no reason why they should have details to hand. It's like house insurance, isn't it? You'll make broad assumptions about the terms until you need it. The question is whether you can find the terms and expect them to be honoured. The church is honouring its publicly stated terms here, if what we've learned about Johnson's personal life is correct.

(And while I've been disregarding the scenario in which Boris is in fact a sincerely repentant dinner returning to the bosom of the church - because that's not implied if we assume it's Carrie who was driver here - if he had, what should the church do? Broadcast his confession? Because his philandry was covered in the Daily Mail unlike most people's?)

You imply that the church should take a much more intrusive and judgemental approach than anyone could accept nowadays, surely? Marriage isn't a declaration on an individual's virtue.

Sinner not dinner

And @LibertyMole says it all better, anyway. I've learned lots.

I'm not remotely religious but I absolutely agree with you, OP. This marriage should have been a civil one. Yet another thing he gets away with, and shame on the church for helping him do it.

I also feel for his previous wives, and children. He is saying to the world that his marriages were not valid. He is a poor example of a man.

I have learned a lot from your posts too Belleager, and from Mathanxiety’s.

There is clear a very deep need in society to publicly shame people for things which are immoral but not crimes. They seem annoyed that it isn’t actually the role of the Catholic Church to do that. The Catholic Church isn’t Twitter with some fancy statues.

I don't think he should have been allowed to, no.

But then again many, many people get married in churches despite not being religious in the slightest which I find bizarre.

Personally I wouldn't choose to make vows to a god I don't believe in.

Same for Christenings.

Why would a civil marriage have been acceptable if a church one wouldn't?

@Iecydda

I don't think he should have been allowed to, no.

But then again many, many people get married in churches despite not being religious in the slightest which I find bizarre.

Personally I wouldn't choose to make vows to a god I don't believe in.

Same for Christenings.

I wouldn't assume he's religious or believes in God, though who knows. On the limited evidence we have - looks like Carrie's an observant Catholic. She's allowed to marry him in a Catholic church, if so - they basically just ask that he respects her belief.

But you can't get a marriage annulled on the basis of domestic violence or abuse, even if numerous people have seen you covered in bruises, even if there have been criminal convictions. By having such rules, the CC fails to be compassionate or, in my view even understanding of the terrible situations people can find themselves in.

The annulment process is about figuring out if the parties were psychologically and emotionally mature enough and capable of sound judgement about entering into the responsibilities of sacramental marriage at the time of the marriage.

The annulment process isn't specifically concerned with what happened within the marriage, though the course of the relationship within the marriage is investigated in detail by the matrimonial tribunal as that can shed light on patterns of behaviour or attitude or underlying beliefs which might not have been obvious at the time of the marriage, or just starting to make themselves known.

You are wrong to categorically state that no support or concern is offered to victims of domestic abuse by the RC church.

To state that on the basis that the RC annulment process is concerned only with sacramental validity that the RC church isn't compassionate toward victims of spousal abuse in a marriage is like saying that because there are tax laws that the government spends time and effort enforcing, the government isn't concerned about murder.

I have experienced the annulment process, in a diocese that was headed at the time by a bishop appointed by Benedict XVI. It couldn't have been a more compassionate and cathartic experience. My former H ended up with a 'vetitum' issued prohibiting him from further marriage within the RC church. Yes, such a thing exists.

Anti-Catholicism is a thing. Just as anti-Semitism is. That does not mean that every criticism of the Church is inspired by bigotry or ignorance or malice-some of the Church's fiercest critics were brought up in the Church themselves!

Straw man there.
Nobody here has stated that every criticism of the RC church is bigotry or based on ignorance or malice.

What I and some others have stated is that there is ignorance, bigotry and malice here, on this thread, specifically related to the topic of annulment and Catholic marriage. Ignorance has been dealt with in many well informed posts. Malice has been pointed out, as has bigotry - the 'what do you expect; it's the Catholic church?' comments, the 'money makes a difference' comments. It has also pointed out that the use of the word 'casuistry' is an old slur, which is akin to old slurs against the Jews - 'citizens of nowhere', etc.

The widespread (among Catholics) reluctance to even acknowledge this, or the many questionable and downright appalling practices that the Church is guilty of (fact, not opinion) is every bit as disturbing as people weighing in with very little knowledge of basics.

This is a thread about Boris Johnson's marriage in a Catholic church to Carrie Symonds Johnson, who is a Catholic.

If, as seems obvious, you want to discuss anything else related to the RC church then start another thread about it.

@belleager But Boris has been married twice before? I believe his second marriage was 25 years long?

Does it really matter. As pp said it’s because it’s his first church wedding according to the news.

@Pixxie7 So I'm a divorcee but my first marriage was a civil ceremony.

Can I get married again in a Catholic church?