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.

Know plenty, @mathanxiety know quite a few.

It’s fine, you’re obviously completely comfortable belonging to a hypocritical, flawed and arrogant organisation.

You do you.

Merrymouse, I don’t really have an issue judging him! Let’s face it, we all make moral judgements about people all the time!

Your perspective is pretty far from people who think someone has done something immoral (but legal) and that some kind of a punishment should be exacted upon them by someone in a position of authority. And that’s what I mean by authoritarian. Not the kind of thing you’re saying.

The plural of anecdote isn't data.

I prefer a more scientific approach.

I prefer a more scientific approach.

From a believer in transubstantiation.

Ok, then.

‘However, the outward characteristics of bread and wine, that is the 'eucharistic species', remain unaltered."In this teaching, the notions of "substance" and "transubstantiation" are not linked with any particular theory of metaphysics.’

For “are not linked with” read “contradict”.

“The manner in which the change occurs, the Roman Catholic Church teaches, is a mystery: "The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ."”

Science doesn’t tend to just leave stuff that’s unexplained and accept it as a “mystery”, in my experience.

From a believer in transubstantiation.
It hasn't been disproved. Doubted, yes.

@mathanxiety that’s not how the burden of proof works. You don’t make claims about an outlandish, nebulous concept like transubstantiation and challenge science to disprove it.

You prove it: you don’t just dub it a “mystery” and hope rational folk are going to just go away.

The meaning of "substance" in transubstantiation isn't scientific, it's metaphysical. It doesn't mean the molecules change.

Yes yes, I know that's not how the burden of proof works.

You don't have to believe it, but plenty of rational people do. Nobody is stopping you from walking away from it all.

Because I am a rational person, I'd like to see facts and solid evidence when someone posts that a certain institution applies its rules unevenly.

You seem to be on the one hand dismissing belief on the basis that there is no scientific evidence for it, while at the same time reserving the right to make allegations without offering supporting evidence.

The meaning of the word 'mystery' in the context of the Judeo Christian tradition doesn't involve a shrugging of the shoulders, accompanied by lack of curiosity or intellectual laziness.

It's a term that expresses recognition of the otherness and transcendence of God, the limitations of human rationality and intellect (amply demonstrated by virtually all of human history), and is an element of humble worship.

If you accept that there are unknown unknowns in the physical universe, then you can apply the same understanding to the idea of a mystery in the sacred sense.

Nobody is stopping you from walking away from it all.

Correct, thank goodness.

It’s a waste of time anyway: it’s not as though we are ever going to agree, because I believe you’re irrational and nothing you’ve said have convinced me otherwise.

Philosopher Jamie White, in his excellent book “Bad thoughts” expresses it far more eloquently than I ever could.

amply demonstrated by virtually all of human history

“Bad” human history usually demonstrates a discarding of rational logic, not application of it. But questioning unfounded “mysteries” is a really worthwhile use of that logic.

@aloris @mathanxiety
Thank you for your lucid and simple explanations for ‘transubstantiation’ and ‘mystery’.

I once heard a famous scientist, who was born a Catholic, say to the radio presenter who was interviewing him’s surprise - because she presumed he wouldn’t believe in God- that yes he did; and that science and religion are looking for different things.

I think this was where I heard him say it.
BBC Radio 4 - Desert Island Discs, Professor Carlos Frenk, Professor Carlos Frenk: ‘Science is hard and full of failure’

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p069dxdt

“Bad” human history usually demonstrates a discarding of rational logic, not application of it.

@Piglet89
You will find that at the time any given instance of 'bad' history happened, the actors involved were utterly and completely convinced that they were not only rational, but reasonable and justified in their decisions.

The heat of the moment is full of shortsightedness and pigheadedness and hubris. Hindsight is 20/20.

But hindsight has demonstrably never prevented a recurrence of the same old folly. This is because there are serious limitations to our intellect and flaws in our nature.

Well, I’m not about to switch off my intellect just to believe in some “mystery” (despite being the only child of extremely devout Catholics whose devotion has increased in direct proportion to their age).

Are you based in the US, @mathanxiety? Don’t even start me on American Catholicism and its apparent very close links with the practically-fascist right.

But questioning unfounded “mysteries” is a really worthwhile use of that logic.

It all depends on the basis of your questioning and the grounds you use to inform your assumptions as you proceed.

I see you are an expert on the American Catholicism too.

I will try very hard not to start you on that topic.

Similar, I imagine, to your being an “expert” on how the law works.

If that's sarcasm, and you are disparaging my expertise on 'the law' (not something I've claimed, btw) aren't you saying that your expertise on American Catholicism is also spurious?