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.

There's something really distasteful about a so- called feminist forum giving the time of day as to whether children can be deemed legitimate or illegitimate under canon law.

This isn’t based on the most recent posts on here, but based on the incomprehension across both threads.

But I am wondering if people see Catholicism as a benchmark of judgeyness against which they measure themselves. So people think of themselves as tolerant because they are more tolerant than the Catholic bad guys.

And as secular society develops a bigger and bigger authoritarian streak and people become less tolerant, it actually disturbs them to find that they are actually more morally strident than the church.

So

I think it is a massively important feminist issue who can and cannot deem a child illegitimate.

There are frequently people rocking up on here to demand that mothers have fewer rights on birth certificates, despite the fact that illegitimacy rules lead to many children in other countries being rendered stateless.

@LibertyMole

This isn’t based on the most recent posts on here, but based on the incomprehension across both threads.

But I am wondering if people see Catholicism as a benchmark of judgeyness against which they measure themselves. So people think of themselves as tolerant because they are more tolerant than the Catholic bad guys.

And as secular society develops a bigger and bigger authoritarian streak and people become less tolerant, it actually disturbs them to find that they are actually more morally strident than the church.

So

I think there is something like that.

So people assume that when the church does something they wouldn't, it's hypocrisy.

Of course the church and it's representatives are capable of hypocrisy. But this isn't an example of that.

This is as if a barber had checked t&c's, honoured a gift voucher, and cut Johnson's hair and the whole country erupted in fury because we all know he never brushes it ...

Why do people care so much about what a religion thinks or does?

Surely it’s the law that matters rather than religious beliefs or convention, which is largely irrelevant to most of us. It’s not as if we’re a devoutly christian country, our rules follow the law, not religion.

@LibertyMole

I think it is a massively important feminist issue who can and cannot deem a child illegitimate.

There are frequently people rocking up on here to demand that mothers have fewer rights on birth certificates, despite the fact that illegitimacy rules lead to many children in other countries being rendered stateless.

Well isn't it a good thing that UK law doesn't declare any children to be illegitimate.

The only thing that needs to be said is it's an abhorrent idea and the only shame is on anyone who can even contemplate such a principle.

I was given a form by the registrar at my wedding so that I could legitimise the births of my children. I assume that illegitimacy does exist from this, but I am prepared to be corrected if someone has a source.

*LibertyMole

I think it is a massively important feminist issue who can and cannot deem a child illegitimate.

There are frequently people rocking up on here to demand that mothers have fewer rights on birth certificates, despite the fact that illegitimacy rules lead to many children in other countries being rendered stateless.

Well isn't it a good thing that UK law doesn't declare any children to be illegitimate.

The only thing that needs to be said is it's an abhorrent idea and the only shame is on anyone who can even contemplate such a principle.*

Yes, and that such a principle has no relevance whatsoever in this case.

I also don’t think feminism works by just declaring things an abhorrent idea and that is the end of the matter.

You actually have to explain what the consequences are of supporting birth certificate restrictions over and over again or people just don’t get it, and you have to campaign to end the suffering in other countries where it is allowed.

And as it such an important issue, it is important to correct people who think that the Catholic Church denies legitimacy to the children of canon or civil invalid marriages because it doesn’t.

And that could be really important for Catholics in countries where the state is trying to deny rights to their children.

I suppose illegitimacy is still relevant to succession law? The crown, earldoms, that kind of thing?

AFAIK it's referred to as a technicality in cannon law - i.e. instructions on how to record father unknown at baptism. And there's a move to remove the terminology entirely from cannon law. Annulment doesn't affect the position that children were born within the marriage. And it's decades since there's been any differentiation between offspring of married / unmarried mothers in cannon law.

I agree with @LibertyMole - if we find it distasteful and damaging to differentiate between children this way, it's important that we can point out that that is not what's happening here, regardless of the claims in the opening post.

@LibertyMole

I was given a form by the registrar at my wedding so that I could legitimise the births of my children. I assume that illegitimacy does exist from this, but I am prepared to be corrected if someone has a source.

This explains it.

There's no legal concept of illegitimatcy in the UK.

salaw.com/views-insights/do-i-have-to-re-register-my-childs-birth-if-i-marry-his-father/

Thank you Arcadia.

Hopefully nobody will notice and I will avoid the £2 fine.

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.

Agree. Throw in Non-conformists, Jews, and others too, and teach history chronologically, not dipping into a decade here or a major event there. The development of trends over long periods of time is important.

The RC church sees all marriage between men and women as a pillar of society, a fundamental good, and absolutely necessary for the welfare of children, involving parents who are a man and a woman. Hence the RC church's opposition to gay marriage or gay civil partnership.

However, Boris Johnson (and latterly Carrie Symonds) did not appear to recognise or respect his previous marriage for reasons that have nothing to do with faith. To use this particular loophole to have a church wedding lacks grace and seems more in line with the entitlement shown over wall paper than devout belief.

However I accept that, just as a C of E church must marry anyone in the parish, they ticked whatever boxes were necessary to have this wedding.

As a QC (and functioning adult) Marina Wheeler will have had a better understanding of marital law than Boris, so it’s very likely that she is better off without him.

I understand that the wedding could be celebrated in a Catholic cathedral on a technicality, but I think on wider level, given the growing use of food banks, below inflation pay rises for front line workers, etc,etc, the Church had an opportunity to refuse, in a token of solidarity with the poor and oppressed and the immigrants.

Let’s not forget too that Boris Johnson bullied a former girlfriend (Wyatt) into having an abortion. I’m firmly pro-choice but the Catholic Church is not. It all smacks of the Church toadying up to the rich and powerful, and the rich and powerful are not the only people the Church is here to serve.

But perhaps Boris Johnson is a sinner on the road to grace.

@Libelula21

I understand that the wedding could be celebrated in a Catholic cathedral on a technicality, but I think on wider level, given the growing use of food banks, below inflation pay rises for front line workers, etc,etc, the Church had an opportunity to refuse, in a token of solidarity with the poor and oppressed and the immigrants.

Let’s not forget too that Boris Johnson bullied a former girlfriend (Wyatt) into having an abortion. I’m firmly pro-choice but the Catholic Church is not. It all smacks of the Church toadying up to the rich and powerful, and the rich and powerful are not the only people the Church is here to serve.

But perhaps Boris Johnson is a sinner on the road to grace.

I don't think the Catholic Church intervening in party politics by treating the PM differently from any other Catholic would be at all a good development. Marrying him is not, remotely, an endorsement of his policies or their effects.

They're not toadying up to the rich and powerful here - they are treating him the same as anyone else.

‘When people say that religion and politics don’t mix, I wonder which Bible it is they are reading.’

Bishop Desmond Tutu

To the OP-I saw that too and I think it's a filthy thing to do, and quite typical of his morals. Does what suits his own needs right now.

I’m a Catholic and I personally know quite a few people who were not permitted to have a marriage or even blessing in the Catholic Church because they were divorced - it didn’t matter where they were married previously- whether a civi marriage or other church.

This is the issue. I also have heard of such cases. It’s the inconsistency and different treatment and general unfairness that has irritated people. I was raised Catholic but, honestly, this is the final nail in the coffin of my faith. Married in the mother Church of the Catholic faith in England and Wales, no less! Many devout and faithful Catholics have been denied a Catholic wedding because of arbitrary rules applied inconsistently. But, as usual, Boris Johnson just does as he likes.

Westminster Cathedral has claimed they’re both parishioners. What, you’re telling me BJ has attended Mass every single Sunday? It is absolutely blatant hypocrisy - but it’s hardly the worst thing to be uncovered in the Catholic Church in recent years.

It’s a pretty corrupt (and, in my experience, fairly disorganised) institution.

They’re users; Carrie unlikely to be a regular churchgoer as well. Part of the reason she’s rediscovered her faith because her mind is turning to her kid’s education.

I think on wider level, given the growing use of food banks, below inflation pay rises for front line workers, etc,etc, the Church had an opportunity to refuse, in a token of solidarity with the poor and oppressed and the immigrants.

The Church is regularly hauled over the coals for its stance on other issues, which it considers important, and in fact told to butt out and that it has lost its moral authority.

It's not there to fight on behalf of everyone's favourite pet issue.

However, Boris Johnson (and latterly Carrie Symonds) did not appear to recognise or respect his previous marriage for reasons that have nothing to do with faith. To use this particular loophole to have a church wedding lacks grace and seems more in line with the entitlement shown over wall paper than devout belief.

It's not a 'loophole', and (unlike the CoE) the RC priest doesn't have to marry any Catholic who rocks up to the church.

It's not there to fight on behalf of everyone's favourite pet issue.

Nice work - describing the huge moral issues by which our country is burdened as “pet issues”.

What is it there for? Like, really? What’s it there for? I’ve come to the distinct conclusion that it’s just an archaic collection of arbitrary man-made rules, over layered upon Christ’s simple teachings, applied completely inconsistently.
God gave humans free will for a reason - and in my case, it seems it’s to make up my own mind about the faith into which I was baptised, take a long hard look at how it has behaved and continues to behave and reject it.

Boris Johnson is asking us to believe that, despite all evidence to the contrary, he suddenly takes the sacrament of marriage seriously and that his previous marriages had less meaning to him.

I don't think that he's asking us to believe anything. He probably regards it as a private matter and it was probably what his new wife wanted.

It's none of our business.

Nice work - describing the huge moral issues by which our country is burdened as “pet issues”.

@Piglet89
Your opinion of what constitutes the huge moral issues besetting the country may not coincide with the RC Church's. It may well be that your opinions coincide, but you haven't been paying attention to the work the RC church does to further causes it considers important?

When it does speak on issues it considers important it usually gets shot down. Do you want it to be all powerful or do you want it to be your personal lapdog?

cbcew.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/07/Pastoral%20Statement%20on%20Migrants_Apr08.pdf
Without condoning illegal immigration, the Church’s position on this, as in other fields of human endeavour, does not allow economic, social and political calculations to prevail over the person, but on the contrary, for the dignity of the human person to be put above everything else, and the rest to be conditioned by it...

...In making this call, the Church upholds the sacredness of life, the value of family life and the dignity of labour - principles that are central to Catholic Social Teaching.

Maybe there's more fighting of the good fight than you think there is? It is entirely up to the faithful (and everyone else too) to decide how to respond to the guidance of the RC church. Free will is a basic element of doctrine after all.