Boris Johnson in marrying as a "Catholic" has annulled his previous marriages and delegitimesed his children - these are the ethics of our current prime minister

[stumbledin]

On one level I dont care either way about this but thought it strange who could get married in a Catholic ceremony. But as ever our resourceful PM has "negotiated" a path that suits him - and insults his formes wives and their children. As someone on facebook said, this is how Etonians learn to rule the world! What an utter w*er!!

" ... Catholic canon law does not permit the marriage of a divorcee whose former spouse is still alive.

However, the church confirmed that as neither his six-year first marriage to Allegra Mostyn-Owen, nor his second 27-year marriage to Marina Wheeler were Catholic ceremonies they are not recognised in the eyes of the church.

... In order to marry in a Catholic church, Mr Johnson could have had his two previous marriages recognised as annulled.

(or) ... his previous marriages, for which he would have required special dispensation from the Catholic church, those marriages would have "had a lack of canonical form" and could therefore be considered invalid. ... "

Interestingly these comments are from a Telegraph article late yesterday www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/29/boris-wedding-did-prime-minister-marry-carrie-symonds-catholic/ which has now disappeared and been replaced with this much less questioning article www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/30/boris-johnson-carrie-symonds-catholic-church-wedding-married/

Wonder if some Telegraph Tory leaders got in touch and said dont be so mean!

As they say, one rule for the rich, one rule for the poor.

I kind of understand that point you're making, Merry Mouse. But Canon Law may be amended and, if it results in an unjust or illogical conclusion (under what many would term "natural law"), then I'd argue it should be amended.

From what Mathanxiety has explained, if I were drafting the Canon Law rule myself, it seems it would look something like this:

A person (A) who was baptised as a Catholic, and has subsequently been married in a non-Catholic ceremony (such marriage being referred to as the Previous Marriage) may be married in the Catholic Church if A failed to seek permission from the Catholic Church to celebrate the Previous Marriage. That lack of permission renders the Previous Marriage invalid.

In my view, in Johnson's case (and perhaps in many others) that's resulted in an illogical conclusion, especially for a Christian faith that claims to be the One True Church in following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

It really makes sense to return to the teachings of Christ himself. The following passage from Mark 10 lies at the centre of Christian teaching on marriage and divorce:

1He left that place and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan. And crowds again gathered around him; and, as was his custom, he again taught them. 2 Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3 He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" 4 They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her." 5 But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. 6 But from the beginning of creation, "God made them male and female.' 7 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." 10 Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.

This requirement for permission bit is really just complicated human rule overlay on Christ's relatively simple teaching. Christ himself criticised the Pharisees for this kind of stuff; pointless, complicated religious rules.

So, yes - I expect Canon law to be amended to a simple rule (which clearly heaps of people thought was the rule in the first place) that you may not be married in a Catholic church if you have previously been divorced. If that's the case, just make it so.

But, to be honest, the arbitrary decision-making, the arrogance, the swathes of doctrine with which I just don't agree - makes more sense for me to leave the Church because I'm guessing it isn't going to change. But I can't even fully do that, it seems, because (as mentioned above) the Church considers you a member even if you don't want to be any more!

In my view, in Johnson's case (and perhaps in many others) that's resulted in an illogical conclusion

And many agree.

Even though from what I understand the church would have needed to change the rules to prevent him from getting married in the cathedral, (which I don’t think is a reasonable expectation) the impression has been given that the church made an exception for a serial adulterer who put pressure on at least one of his mistresses to have an abortion, and who has denied his responsibilities as a father.

If he takes these vows as seriously as his previous wedding vows, the optics will be even worse.

Though not strictly pertinent to the Boris Johnson’s marriage-thread subject, but in response to the idea of needing to leave the church if you don’t agree with certain rules, people forget that in the Catholic Church, in spite of the church’s laws, says that individual’s true conscience takes precedent.

Maybe Mathsanxiety can find the relevant teaching.

I do think Piglet89 is right in saying the simple teachings of Christ are always worth returning to.

It is nice though for Carrie and the child that she was able to have this marriage one way or another.

The passage from the bible is correct.

Johnson’s marriage was never two people joined by God because he already vowed to God that he would marry in the Catholic Church, hence he was not married in the eyes of God as far as the church is concerned.

Thus spiritually this is his first and only marriage and he is entitled to the sacrament of marriage.

It isn’t any kind of loophole. Marriage is not some kind of moral prize. Someone could have spent forty years sleeping around and having all sorts of long term relationships, and they are still entitled to the sacrament of marriage, but only once.

Johnson’s marriage was never two people joined by God because he already vowed to God that he would marry in the Catholic Church

Not saying you are wrong, just interested to know when it’s assumed he made this vow?

For people who want to make their own ‘simple’ interpretation of what constitutes a marriage (and certainly the bible didn’t mean a registry office and arguably didn’t mean a church outside of apostolic authority) that is literally why Protestantism exists.

Protestantism allows each person their own interpretation of the bible outside of RC church interpretation and allows marriage outside of the authority of the RC church.

If you want to be a Protestant, be a Protestant, but it is completely pointless out that the RC church doesn’t do all these Protestant things. It is never going to. It expects Catholics to be under its authority and follow its teachings and rules.

Merrymouse, by agreeing to be a member of the Catholic Church, and therefore under the church’s authority in sacramental matters.

Merrymouse, by agreeing to be a member of the Catholic Church, and therefore under the church’s authority in sacramental matters.

Does baptism count as agreement to be a member of the Catholic Church? He was confirmed in the C of E.

@libertymole I am (was?) a Northern Irish Catholic. There are definitely political connotations in converting to Protestantism where I'm from, and I'm battling whether I have any faith.

Johnson’s marriage was never two people joined by God because he already vowed to God that he would marry in the Catholic Church

I understand Johnson's mother Charlotte Fawcett is Catholic and had him baptised into that denomination as a child.

One has no capacity to make such a grave vow as a child. So, he never actually agreed to become a member of the Catholic Church, if you really think about it.

Yet another illogicality of Canon Law.

I would assume both baptism and the very many times he will have participated in other Catholic sacraments prior to confirmation in the C of E - through confession and mass.

...and certainly the bible didn’t mean a registry office and arguably didn't mean a church outside of apostolic authority

This is really, really arguable.

the very many times he will have participated in other Catholic sacraments prior to confirmation in the C of E - through confession and mass.

Sorry - how do you know he did this?

If you don’t agree with infant baptism, many others agree with you. They are called Baptists. There are whole Baptist churches full of them.

I am sorry that Catholicism and Protestantism have become identities where you live rather than simply spiritual, religious belief systems. But the purpose of Catholicism is as a spiritual, religious belief system; it isn’t there to transform itself into whatever its adherents want. It is a hierarchical authority.

I don’t know. None of us actually know what has gone with regards to religion. But if he was raised a Catholic until he went to Eton, he will have had confession and first holy communion, and may even have been confirmed a Catholic prior to conversion.

‘This is really, really arguable.’

Yes. The Catholic and Anglican Church argue about it all the time.

‘Yet another illogicality of Canon Law.’

Baptism is a universal sacrament. Every church that baptises children believes that infant baptism makes the child a church member. Parents and godparents say vows on the child’s behalf.

That's fine @LibertyMole

However, what have you to say about my, of my own free will, wanting to leave the Catholic Church - but its (mad) doctrine won't let me because I was baptised as an infant and that, apparently, is a bond that cannot be broken?

It isn’t there to transform itself into whatever its adherents want

Didn't it do exactly that via the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s? Or am I missing something?

Baptism is a universal sacrament. Every church that baptises children believes that infant baptism makes the child a church member. Parents and godparents say vows on the child’s behalf.

Can't you see the illogicality of this?

Your earlier post said he will have participated in other Catholic sacraments prior to confirmation in the C of E - through confession and mass.

Then you said But if he was raised a Catholic until he went to Eton, he will have had confession and first holy communion, and may even have been confirmed a Catholic prior to conversion.

Those are big assumptions. Probably wise not to assert things as facts when we cannot be sure they are.

I think the bottom line is, guys - I'm with Thomas. Wise man, asking Christ to show him his wounds.

Rational logic is all I want to be guided by.

‘Can't you see the illogicality of this?’
Presumably if you think the sacrament of baptism followed by both the Anglican and Catholic Church is in itself illogical, it becomes a bit irrelevant whether or not the sacrament of marriage has or has not been correctly carried out in either church as well.

You fundamentally disagree with most Christian churches, so it is a bit pointless quibbling over who they marry.

‘Those are big assumptions. Probably wise not to assert things as facts when we cannot be sure they are.’

Indeed. It is almost as if this is a private matter between Boris Johnson and the church which none of us are actually in a position to make a final judgement upon.

‘but its (mad) doctrine won't let me because I was baptised as an infant and that, apparently, is a bond that cannot be broken?’

All sacraments are bonds that can’t be broken. I thought that was your point about how people should only be married once?

It is almost as if this is a private matter between Boris Johnson and the church which none of us are actually in a position to make a final judgement upon.

Not until 2nd May 2024 at the latest anyway.

I am not voting for him regardless of how many more times he’s got divorced by then!!