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.

@WoolOfBat
Mon 31-May-21 10:06:23

Absolutely agree.

You’re misunderstanding Catholic Church doctrine.
He hasn’t annulled his first two marriages. In the eyes of the Catholic Church, those marriages never counted because they took place outside the Catholic Church. If you want to look at things through the Catholic Church’s view, technically all children born outside of a Catholic marriage are born illegitimate/out of wedlock whatever.
So Boris has not asked for an annulment or actively sought one because he never needed one.

Now, if either of his first two marriages had been Catholic, then that would have been a BIG problem and he would have needed an annulment, which is normally very difficult to get.

Absolutely fine if a religion wants to exclude same sex couples from their marriage rights. I don't agree with it, but I will agree they have the right to refuse to perform or recognise SSM. They shouldn't have a say in the civil part, however.

There is such a thing as freedom of speech. As an institution they are free to take a public stance on matters they consider important, just as any other institution or pressure group can, and any individual too. All opinions can be expressed and discussed. That is how the law on gay marriage was changed in the first place.

If you want to look at things through the Catholic Church’s view, technically all children born outside of a Catholic marriage are born illegitimate/out of wedlock whatever.

No, the RC church considers all children born of both valid and putative marriages to be legitimate. Putative means the belief on the part of at least one of the parties that the marriage is valid. All marriages, in other words.

The RC church assumes that the husband of the woman is the father of all children. It also assumes that any child born at least 180 days after a wedding or within 300 days of the end of a marriage was conceived or born within the marriage, and is the child of both parties to the marriage. If parents marry after the birth of a child, that child is legitimate.

However, this is all 'how many angels can fit on the tip of a pin' stuff. The distinction between legitimate and illegitimate is moot in the RC church for all purposes anyway. It is a meaningless concept.

What I find distasteful is the "Respect our right to disrespect other christians ceremonies".

Your assumption is wrong.

Where are so many of you getting all this misinformation?

The RC church respects all marriages regardless of where they take place. The RC church considers marriage to be a fundamentally important part of society.

However, the RC church doesn't just marry everyone who rocks up to a church, hires a florist, and pays a fee to the organist. It insists on assessing readiness for marriage of all Catholics. It often gets the assessment wrong of course.

If a Catholic gets married outside of the RC church and without any assessment of readiness for marriage, without any permission, then that marriage is invalid. It is not because the ceremony itself is invalid, be that CoE, CoI, humanist, Hindu, registry office, whatever. It's because the Catholic individual didn't comply with RC church rules about getting married.

If a non-RC divorces and wishes to marry a RC in a RC church, the circumstances of the previous marriage at the time it took place are examined - this goes for all marriages at all venues, in all religions both Christian and other.

The RC church considers all marriages regardless of where they took place to be valid until proven otherwise. There are conditions that have to be met in order for a previous marriage to be considered invalid. They are the same conditions that Catholics have to prove.

mathanxiety

Thank you for your knowledgeable answer which explains a lot.

I agree with the “How many angels could fit on the tip of a pin analogy.” !

all the non-catholics who suddenly give a shit about how cannon law works because it gives them a reason to slag off BJ.

We don’t need another reason to despise a serial adulterer who famously isn’t sure how many children he has fathered, and who moved into Downing Street with his girlfriend while his wife was having treatment for cervical cancer.

It’s just the sheet hypocrisy of suddenly coming on as a devout Catholic that sticks in people’s throats.

I have seen a few Catholic friends post on social media about how unhappy they are about this as they were not allowed to remarry in a church in similar circumstances.

If a Catholic gets married outside of the RC church and without any assessment of readiness for marriage, without any permission, then that marriage is invalid.

I wonder how Boris’s precious wives would answer those questions and I bet they would say that there was no doubt in either bride or groom’s mind that they were both ready for marriage.

Casuistry. As usual with the Catholic Church.

I wonder how Boris’s precious wives would answer those questions and I bet they would say that there was no doubt in either bride or groom’s mind that they were both ready for marriage.

That isn't relevant here. Johnson went ahead with two marriages outside of the RC church, without RC preparation or permission, and he is the one at fault in both cases, not the women. The ceremonies are completely respected as religious or civil weddings, and no judgement is cast on the weddings or the beliefs or intentions of the spouses involved. The marriages are considered invalid because Boris Johnson cut corners, did things his way, disregarded the rules.

Your remark on 'casuistry' is an old element of anti-Catholic bigotry related to the Jesuits, btw.

It’s just the sheet hypocrisy of suddenly coming on as a devout Catholic that sticks in people’s throats.

I doubt he has suddenly become a devout Catholic (but who am I to judge?).

It may well be that Carrie's sincere Catholicism was the deciding factor in allowing the church wedding.

As a cradle Catholic I was probably doing endless stations of the cross and yawning through Friday benediction before most people on mumsnet were born...

Incidentally the most ultra Catholic person I know is a professor of philosophy and he could make an argument for almost anything based on logical loop the loops.

@mathanxiety

It’s just the sheet hypocrisy of suddenly coming on as a devout Catholic that sticks in people’s throats.

I doubt he has suddenly become a devout Catholic (but who am I to judge?).

It may well be that Carrie's sincere Catholicism was the deciding factor in allowing the church wedding.

Exactly. Nobody is claiming that Boris has become a devout, practicing or believing Catholic, or a tolerable human being. If that's what's sticking in people's throats, they should be pleased to hear that it's not a requirement to get married in a Catholic ceremony. One moderately observant partner wanting the sacrament, agreeing to give serious thought to children's Catholic upbringing with the other's consent, is enough. Think of it like a mixed marriage, if that helps?

And yes, a bit of a surprise to see Catholic casuistry trotted out this side of the penal laws.

At risk of reinforcing the misconceptions about it all though ... this is brilliant

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2021/may/31/martin-rowson-on-boris-johnson-in-the-confessional-cartoon

And yes, a bit of a surprise to see Catholic casuistry trotted out this side of the penal laws.

I'm not surprised. I've seen it here before, and that remark using the actual word isn't the only incidence of it on this thread. (See the remark on the 'professor of philosophy'/'logical loop the loops').

Not for the first time, I am wondering what is taught in the UK's RE curriculum and what is the point of it.

As far as I can discern most teenagers and many of their elders conceive, vaguely, of Catholicism as a more rigorous version of Protestantism, and Catholics as more religious Christians than other Christians. Does RE cover inter-denominational business at all?

No problem with people not knowing. People assuming they know and piling on because the church doesn't act out their precise moral code and that code only, and apply its rules by their criteria? I don't get it.

That would be an ecumenical matter!

Belleager, it depends upon what the school decides to teach. DD did Islam for the main religion at GCSE and Buddhism for the main one at A level, so she has done very little study of Christianity.

That makes sense. And I think that's fine. I'm not sure people need to know about doctrinal differences.

But there is quite a bit in the history of Catholicism, Anglicanism and their relationship to each other and the state in the UK that you need to know to grasp British politics and prejudices. So maybe it's education in history we should worry about.

@AdHominemNonSequitur

That would be an ecumenical matter!

I think most kids do cover Christianity as the main religion at GCSE. DD’s school made a less common choice.

Kids do pick up bits of the difference between Anglicanism and Catholicism from English Literature and History.

@mathanxiety

And yes, a bit of a surprise to see Catholic casuistry trotted out this side of the penal laws.

I'm not surprised. I've seen it here before, and that remark using the actual word isn't the only incidence of it on this thread. (See the remark on the 'professor of philosophy'/'logical loop the loops').

Not for the first time, I am wondering what is taught in the UK's RE curriculum and what is the point of it.

If that's directed at me, I spent a lot of time studying 16th century history: both the Reformation and the Catholic (Counter) Reformation for my history A level at my Catholic school (as I was a Catholic until about eight years ago). This included quite a lot of doctrinal discussion.

I'm afraid not a lot of inspired me to carrying on my faith once I was middle-aged and gave up trying to reconcile my Catholicism with what life taught me was true and just. That was just after the discover of the Tuam babies: the very Sunday the usual basket came round collecting for SPUC, the very last straw as far as I was concerned.

Until then I'd been pretty religious: reading at Mass, helping out at children's liturgy, etc. I even went on a short pilgrimage.

Never mind Bojo, it just shows how hypocritical some religions are.

How?