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 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’

I didn’t know about this at all. It casts a very different light on things and makes me feel much more comfortable about going through the annulment process.

[quote Iecydda]@belleager But Boris has been married twice before? I believe his second marriage was 25 years long?[/quote]
Sure.

And a registry office could marry him a third time, following the rules they'd follow for anyone else - i.e. the marriages ended in divorce.

And the Catholic Church can marry him as a Catholic sacrament for the first time following the rules they would follow for anyone else - i.e. he has annulments or the previous marriages weren't valid under the rules he was bound by as a baptised Catholic.

I think a lot of hurt is being caused by the impression that he is being treated differently from other Catholics, some of whom are likely much more committed to the church than he is. But he's not. As LibertyMole has explained, she's in the same position as he is, and the rules are objective.

If they wouldn't have married other Catholics in his position, I'd 100% agree with you, but they would.

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

Can I get married again in a Catholic church?’

Nobody can answer that without further information.

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

Can I get married again in a Catholic church?[/quote]
Quite likely, if you're a baptised Catholic marrying another, yes.

Belleager, I would just like to clarify, for the benefit of my online reputation, that I am not a serial philanderer!

I married a Catholic in a registry office and he did not have a dispensation. Following DV and divorce, I am now converting to Catholicism and getting my marriage annulled by the church, with no plans to remarry.

www.archchicago.org/documents/70111/70558/Tribunal+FAQ.pdf/8b014b66-1156-40ab-befc-33a4d36d3135

Some FAQs on annulment here ^^

@belleager Is BJ a baptized Catholic?

So you can have been married previously but as long as it wasn't in a Catholic church you can marry again in a Catholic church. Is that right?

I thought there were much stricter rules than that re annulment etc

@LibertyMole What info would they need?

@LibertyMole

Belleager, I would just like to clarify, for the benefit of my online reputation, that I am not a serial philanderer!

I married a Catholic in a registry office and he did not have a dispensation. Following DV and divorce, I am now converting to Catholicism and getting my marriage annulled by the church, with no plans to remarry.

Gosh, yes, sorry.

Even on the very limited evidence of this thread, I'd never have thought that of you. I am sorry to hear of the DV and wish you every happiness in future. And thanks again to you, @mathanxiety and others for a really interesting discussion.

lecydda, it depends on what grounds you are getting it annulled. There are many different reasons for annulment.

But one of you being a Catholic would be a reason.

@LibertyMole Ah I see. I thought the reasons for annulment were quite specific.

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'??

I was referring only to the canons of the churches of the Anglican Communion.

There have been several references on this thread to Henry VIII suggesting that he is responsible for the Reformation in England. Certainly the split with Rome accelerated it considerably, as did some of Henry's actions such as dissolution of the monasteries, but he was actually much more Catholic than Reformed (to sort of summarize it in a rough way). His last wife Catherine Parr very nearly lost her head for her Protestant zeal.

[quote Iecydda]@belleager Is BJ a baptized Catholic?

So you can have been married previously but as long as it wasn't in a Catholic church you can marry again in a Catholic church. Is that right?

I thought there were much stricter rules than that re annulment etc[/quote]
Apparently, yes. Was news to me too. It was in the statement from the Cathedral - both baptised Catholics.

And yes, a Catholic who breaks the rules by marrying in a non-Catholic ceremony without the Church's permission hasn't yet had a marriage recognised by the church.

The other information needed - not expert but would definitely include: has your partner had a marriage the church would recognise? Are any marriages in law legally dissolved? Is one of you a baptised Catholic. Do both of you understand the church's expectation that you raise children Catholic?

Pope Francis relaxed rules on annulment considerably a few years ago, though there will always be grey areas if you are asking about people's personal intentions when they contracted a marriage. But, for example, any form of pressure or coercion; marrying to avoid having a child out of wedlock; partner sleeping around after engagement - all of that would call intentions into question as well as the setting for ceremonies.

Iecydda@ presumably yes.

@mathanxiety

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.

How can it be bigoted, fgs? I have seen it within the Catholic Church with my own eyes. I am a baptized Catholic, I was brought up in the Church. And I have seen those resources so at least step back from the patronizing tone. You are dismissing what I have said about my background, presumably because you don't agree with me.

And you are using the word "bigotry" to try and silence any kind of critique. That really isn't on.

And when the official position can, when it suits, be ignored or creatively re-interpreted

The bigotry is there, right in front of my eyes. It's snide but it's obvious.

You claim to have seen a certain thing, but it's very possible you were not privy to all the details about each individual instance you've met or that you misunderstood points on which decisions were made.

I haven't addressed your background at all, let alone dismiss it. I'm also also a baptised Catholic, and a victim of DV in my marriage to a person who unknown to me at the time we married was not a candidate for marriage. I've gone through the annulment process. I have experienced something different from what you claim to have seen.

I refer you to the FAQ link I posted. Annulment is a long and detailed process involving the input of many people, and the decisions of the matrimonial tribunal are subject to verification and double checking. Ignoring of the rules and creative re-interpretation of the requirements of the process isn't something you can seriously claim happens. You can persist, but it just makes you look like a person with a personal axe to grind.

This whole debate is really meaningless. Religious laws have no basis in a secular country. They were married in a church by a consenting priest, end of, they are married. Same with abortion, it's legal, regardless of what the church says. Millions of baptised catholics, practising or not, get married all over the place, take the pill, have abortions. Our local Catholic priests are even married (shock horror) and have children. Times are changing, and the church is changing as well.

@MissTrip82

It’s not a new rule. I’m a 40 year old Catholic and have always known that marriages outside the church don’t count.

I’ve known a few people who’ve been married in a civil ceremony and divorced who’ve been able to be married in the church, over a period of about thirty years in multiple dioceses.

Perhaps it’s applied differently in different dioceses if people are having the opposite experience. But certainly nothing about this was surprising or curious to me.

Back in the early nineties, a friend of mine who was a practising Anglican took religious instruction at her local CC in order to become a Catholic as she had strong feelings against the ordination of women. She was married, but her OH had been married previously (no DC). She was prohibited from being received into the CC, because her OH had already been married, even though it was a civil ceremony. she was told that she would need to 'remarry' him in a Catholic ceremony. The only way that this could happen was for him to annul his first marriage. You can imagine the pain this caused.

But the difference is that because Boris Johnson had been baptised a Catholic, his previous marriages weren’t recognised at all. This does seem to be an unfair loophole, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the church would have been able to ignore it.

However, the wedding is over now and, (if previous performance is a predictor of future behaviour), Carrie will learn the hard way that the white dress and flowers have just created a vacancy.

But the difference is that because Boris Johnson had been baptised a Catholic, his previous marriages weren’t recognised at all.

No - it's because Boris Johnson decided to flout the rules that his previous marriages didn't have to be held up to the usual scrutiny of prior marriages. The fact that he ignored the rules was proof that he was not serious about his vows.

The marriages were valid in the civil sense but not sacramental. The RC church is concerned about an individual's understanding of sacramental marriage. When Johnson went ahead with marriages outside of the church he demonstrated his lack of understanding of sacramental marriage, an open and shut case.

When Johnson went ahead with marriages outside of the church he demonstrated his lack of understanding of sacramental marriage, an open and shut case

I think that is more or less what I said - the marriages didn’t require annulment because they weren’t sacramental because Boris Johnson was baptised a Catholic and therefore from the POV of the church should have had Catholic weddings.

If he had not been baptised in the church that expectation would not have existed.

Au contraire, if he had not been baptised in the RC church, had married outside the church, and then wished to marry in the church, his previous marriages would have been scrutinised to find out what if anything he understood about marriage, whether the marriages were valid or putative. The RC church in that case could well have decided his previous marriages were valid, and in that case there would have been no wedding in the RC church for him.

Has anyone mentioned that Carrie has been married before as well?

Has she really?

@mathanxiety

Au contraire, if he had not been baptised in the RC church, had married outside the church, and then wished to marry in the church, his previous marriages would have been scrutinised to find out what if anything he understood about marriage, whether the marriages were valid or putative. The RC church in that case could well have decided his previous marriages were valid, and in that case there would have been no wedding in the RC church for him.

Yes - that is what I said.

The marriages didn’t require annulment because they weren’t sacramental because as Boris Johnson was baptised a Catholic he was expected to have Catholic ceremonies.

This contrasts with people who have needed to obtain annulments because there was no prior expectation that previous marriages would be in a Catholic Church.