I have been inundated with people asking for clarification regarding the marriage of Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister. How, they ask, was this man granted sacramental marriage in a Catholic church given an infamous colourful past? This being, according to civil law, wife number three…
The official answer resides in the nitty gritty of canon law. Because the previous marriages were not held in a Catholic Church they were annulled on grounds of form. In the eyes of the church then this was actually his first sacramental marriage. Otherwise it would not have been possible.
Do remember that the annulment process is not about judging the worth or the past of candidates but rather looking at the cold hard facts regarding the legitimacy of previous unions. And the simple fact is that annulling marriages conducted outside the Catholic Church has always been more straightforward than annulling those conducted by her. Regardless of the personal lives of those involved.
Is this fair? Well not always. Which brings us to the real issue in this case. A neat use of canon law might satisfy ecclesial lawyers but it doesn’t satisfy the questions of the scandalised. And whatever this marriage was or wasn’t in the eyes of the law- many felt it proved bad optics on behalf of the faith. How can the church claim to uphold marriage as a life long union when marrying a notorious womaniser for the third time according to civil law?
The question is fair. Many people feel the granting of a church marriage in this case was unfair; on the wives and children he has abandoned and on Catholics unable to take communion, week by week, despite a less colourful past than Boris, because they too are divorced and in a new relationship. Is it one rule for the privileged but another for everyone else?
As for my take? Well I always try to be generous in such cases because I am acutely aware I too am a sinner in need of forgiveness. The church should never be a club for the judgemental pious but a hospital for sinners. And I think we should always strive to help people as much as we can when marriages have gone wrong in life. So let us give the benefit of doubt here and wish the couple well. If the canon lawyers were satisfied who am I to judge?
But that said, as a Catholic, one would really hope there was sincerity in what unfolded in that church. Because Catholic sacramental marriage should never be entered into lightly or without a clear understanding that the union is for life. So let us hope the Prime Minister has had a conversion and, being contrite, confessed past sins and now plans to honour his Catholic marriage by living out a Catholic life. Let us hope he now plans to be at Mass each Sunday with his wife and that he will raise his children in the faith.
Because if, on the other hand, the couple have no intention to live a Catholic life then the whole enterprise descends into farce and it becomes reasonable to ask why they were granted a Catholic marriage at all? To just go through the motions only cheapens sacraments and robs us of intended grace. And I wouldn’t want that for any couple no matter their standing in life.
Okay, I can understand (just about; it’s all somewhat ‘Monty Python’ to me) this rather surgical application of RC “Canon law”- but, given ALL the facts what we know involving, ahem, the PM’s love-life, he must, to any sane observer, be seen ‘playing fast & loose’?! Did anyone in the RC church, (to quote the C of E), not “observe a due process of reflection & discernment” over this particular case?
Say what you will – a lingering, ill-at-ease taint persists over the church’s decision – and held at the flagship of Westminster Cathedral too! – “it’s okay for some..” It will also cause many ordinary RC parishioners/priests to question “Why give a hoot what the church officially teaches about the sanctity of marriage?”
I agree the optics are bad here for many reasons.
Living in open for months sin in one of the most famous addresses in the land is the greatest scandal despite the correct use of canon law.
If I can say a word on this issue, as a husband who was abandoned and had to see all the devastation that the end of my family has brought into the lives of my children…
We are surely not entitled to judge Mr Johnson or his wife. Even judging their wedding is risky, because we don’t know enough about their lives.
Still, there is Someone who is entitled to make this judgement and Who’ll actually make it, for Mr Johnson, for his wife and for all of us, at the end of our lives.
Marrying someone in a Catholic church is no guarantee of approval by God, for the wedding itself and for the lifestyle of which the wedding is a ratification. This applies to Mr Johnson, as well as to all the people who get married in the Church.
Saint Paul says that adulterers and fornicators will not enter the Kingdom. The Church may well make a judgment in foro externo, and say that you may get married. But God knows the heart, and His judgment is the only one that counts, ultimately.
Thank you for this, sorry about your painful situation.
I have a special care for the abandoned, and I think the God of the Bible seems to have that special care. My thoughts are with you, and I am on your side.
So this means that you’re not married in the eyes of the church then?
Not at all. Where did I say all Anglican marriages are invalid? I simply said marriages conducted outside of the Catholic church are often easier cases for annulment tribunals.
It sounds as if your marriage has the status of Schroedingers cat then. It is valid now but at the stroke of a canon lawyers pen it can be declared null and void.
As usual, one rule for the rich and influential and one rule for the poor and powerless.
Really – how so? Which rule was broken here?
Thank you Fr Ed for that generous explanation. It is shocking to Christians, not just to many Catholics who feel bitter about their own situation. Interestingly, it is highly unlikely they would have been given permission to marry in an Anglican church.
I don’t believe you when you say the Anglican church would have refused it. Second and third marriages are conducted there all the time. Indeed there is a rich irony in Anglicans getting the vapours over this given that second marriage has, in fact, been embraced in all but name.
Yes, but the fact that Carrie was directly involved in Boris’s 2nd divorce would indicate against them. Second, or even third marriages where neither party was instrumental in the breakdown of the other’s marriage are, regrettably allowed.
Yes that is the Anglican teaching. The Catholic way is much less subjective and more legalist- hence it simply investigates and asks ‘was marriage A’ validly conducted or not? If not there is no impediment. If it was there is. It doesn’t get into the messy business of making moral judgements as such. Because both of Boris’ previous marriages were, I believe, in registry offices they were fairly easily dealt with in regard to sacramental assurances.
Fr Ed, can you explain why many Catholics in the same position have not been afforded the same treatment as our twice divorced and multiple partnered Prime Minister with the result that this has caused them to abandon their faith (at least I the RC Church as an institution)? Just read the media fallout.
I understand the same rules applied to the prime minister as applies to anyone else. Does the law sometimes make for hard cases. Yes.
Leaves a lot unsaid. We were told B.J.’s first marriage was ‘annulled’. Does that mean it was in a Catholic Church? Probably not, meaning that, like the second, was a civil divorce. But in either case the likely grounds would be that one or both partners entered on the ‘marriage’ without the right intentions: most probably the commitment ‘until death do us part’.
In which case it is perfectly legitimate that the pm (and his spouse, who has not previously entered on a marriage) be granted the opportunity to make a genuine commitment for the life of one or other of them.
That does not imply that the p.m. is a Catholic, since although he was baptised in the Catholic Church he has not practised as such and has accepted Anglican Confirmation. Carrie now Johnson is the Catholic partner and as such charged with giving the example of the Faith.
a more interesting question. Is it not against the law of the land for a Catholic to be Prime Minister? I’m not aware of the situation having changed.
That is not so. The monarch may not be a Roman Catholic, but there is no such restriction on any other office of state.