Or is he actually a pagan? (Photo by Rebecca Fulton / Downing Street via Getty Images)
It would have to be him, wouldn’t it? If any twice-divorced man with “at least” six children could somehow wangle a third marriage in a Roman Catholic cathedral, it’s Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson.
Once again he gives the impression of leading a charmed existence, free from the constraints endured by ordinary mortals. Once again he’s been accused of acting as if the rules — even those of Holy Mother Church — are for the little people.
In this particular case, the little people are Johnson’s fellow Catholics, many of whom have made great personal sacrifices to abide by the teachings of the Church — especially those on marriage and divorce. So the news of Boris and Carrie’s wedding ceremony at Westminster Cathedral on Saturday must have come as a shock. It certainly came as a surprise to me.
But perhaps it shouldn’t have. There are some people in this life who are blessed — or, rather, cursed — with the ability to get away with almost anything. Boris Johnson is one of them. And as if to prove it beyond doubt: there he was, at the altar, getting away with it again.
Except that he wasn’t.
It’s not as if the happy couple snuck into the Cathedral, with a tame priest in tow, and got married in defiance of ecclesiastical authority. No, this will have gone through the proper channels and will have received the appropriate approvals. Indeed, given the circumstances, I’d be surprised if Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster, was not informed.
Unless a colossal error has been made or false information has been supplied — and there’s no evidence of either — then this marriage took place within the rules.
And so on to the second charge in the case against Boris’s nuptials — which is that he exploited a loophole in canon law: that his two previous marriages are not recognised by the Catholic Church. If it did indeed come down to a technicality, then Boris could be accused of violating the spirit of the law, if not its letter.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeInteresting article. I was raised a Catholic, but turned into an atheist (and later, an agnostic) in my teen years. But I’m slowly re-examining Catholicism again. Although I’m sure Boris Johnson is different to me, he could be going through what I am. It’s when you admire the Catholic faith, its teachings / traditions, history (with nuance, of course!), art (Baroque? Hello!) but you still feel awkward about it. One can appreciate Catholicism, but not fully embrace it… yet.
Maybe Johnson realised you can’t think about Catholicism unless you think about yourself. Faith requires alot of reflection, and for adults, this means considering your mistakes, when you weren’t good, etc. It’s a humbling experience, usually resulting in a strong desire for privacy. A flirtation with death would’ve heightened this. Perhaps this is why there is no clear answers about Johnson’s Catholicism, for the moment.
Off topic, but I’m kicking myself for not visiting Westminster Cathedral when I was in London. It must be fun, seeing a Church less than 300 years old come into its own and shape history. It’s a similar feeling one from the Middle Ages must’ve gotten from York Minster or Chartes Cathedral.
Catholicism to many Protestants is paganism with a Christian varnish anyway (especially re: the prayer to saints) so I suppose it would make sense it was the denomination Boris was most attracted to.
This article also skips around the fact that this kind of legalistic way of thinking about the word of God and using it to justify political or economic expediencies (selling indulgences to pay for St Peter’s anyone?) was a major impetus behind the Protestant reformation.
Good point. RC faith is alluring and I am sure is a repository of some wisdom, but ultimately is lived without freedom by most of its adherents, and so is a deceptive facsimile of true religion.
And how, exactly, do you happen to know the minds, hearts, and consciences of a billion Catholics, all at once? Not even the Pope claims such angelic knowledge.
The Catholic Church and the Catholic Church alone has the power to make regulations for the Christian life.
Matthew 16:19
“And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven”, Christ said to St. Peter — and to St. Peter alone, of all of the Apostles: “and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”
So it’s not “legalistic thinking”. It’s the way in which Christianity runs.
That’ll be the St Peter who never went to Rome
How do you know?
If you accept that Jesus meant by that the Bishop of Rome. I think you’ll find not just Protestants, but also Orthodox Christians take issue with this attempt to arrogate all the power of the church to the See of Rome.
Go read some decent history. Your comments betray your ignorance.
It’s the way in which Catholicism runs.
Even secular and protestant marriage has a legal form in the UK.
Of course, protestants wouldn’t say that the legal form of marriage is unimportant, it has a clear social and legal role in a harmonious society.
But when talking about remarriage or rather whether one was married in the first place, the question of legal forms sounds, to a Protestant, classic Catholic double talk about what is essentially a moral question. To Protestants what matters is what God thinks: that is the spirit of marriage as documented in the bible not a bunch of rules built up over the years by corrupt popes and their councils filled with greedy bishops. It was clear that the spirit of Boris Johnson’s previous marriages was one of a lifelong committment that he broke.
Dear Madeleine,
I too was a Catholic, but away from the Church for 25 years. After a major crisis in the family I realised I needed God, on every level in my life. Reconnecting with Jesus and the Church saved me, my marriage, our children, and I’m now living a life with deep peace, joy and direction – whatever happens. I am so grateful to God who never gives up on us, always going after the lost sheep, and carries it home.
In your continued re-examining of the faith I recommend searching Youtube for Bishop Robert Barron; a scholar with a sharp intellect, a warm heart and a living faith, examining Catholicism in a very relevant and accessible way.
Good luck on your journey and every Blessing!
Most people lack the courage to be honestly reflective.
Two points. Boris Johnson is as much or more of a Catholic than craw thumper Joe Biden. Secondly, the article did a very accurate job of explaining the canon law.
Roman Canon Law and what it says doesn’t make someone a Christian.
Maybe he is a Pelosi/Biden/Kennedy style catholic
I think you’ve got that the wrong way round. The Hamas aim is to kill every Jew in Israel and wipe Israel off the face of the map: “From the river to the sea…”
Absolutely so.
….. and, more closely, Newt Gingrich ( to be bi-partisan).
I think to primary issue ( as the article says) is the idea that the rules are for ‘little people’. Had Boris got married in a civil ceremony somewhere, it would have been a non event. But there are many people who have tales of their prospective spouse being rejected by the Catholic Church or the Church refusing to baptise their children etc etc. It’s them I feel sorry for. Thankfully the other Christian denominations are a bit more pragmatic.
Exactly. Whilst what happened was within the allowed parameters of Canon law marriage, individual priests would not have allowed such a loophole to your average pleb as many stories abound.
The Roman Catholic church has no problem setting aside its doctrine where the famous are concerned. Remember it is the richest church on earth and it ministers to the poorest congregation, a paradox which will only be resolved when the Pope passes through the eye of a needle.
I don’t see what difference it makes. The relationship between Bojo and his religious organization of choice is their problem, not mine or that of anyone else, unless they’re explicitly invited to it by the principals.
He’ll have to come up with a really good excuse if he wants to annul this marriage, so hopefully they are each others sole-mates
As Henry VIII discovered before Johnston.
Since when did the Catholic church refuse to baptise anyone?
Well, when neither parent is a Catholic, for a start.
An interesting exception is when an entire family is converting to Catholicism. I also note the couple do not have to re-marry in the Catholic Church.
I hope sincerely the two of them remain happy, in love.
One could excuse other Christians and more than a few Catholics themselves, for displaying less of that most important virtue towards the Catholic Church. Who, what on earth is this ‘thing’, which gets to judge where, upon whom, Grace is dispensed or not?
Re Canon Law. Didn’t the Jesus figure in the Gospels come to get rid of this very type of adherence to the ‘Letter’. It shouldn’t be the authorities who adjudicate on who is ‘lost’ or not.
The Catholic hierarchy are not ‘higher-grade’ Christians, who get to decide who has really been married and who hasn’t. It’s insiduous sophistry say non-Catholics are married ‘in law’ but not in the ‘eyes of God’. Ask any Orthodox, Baptist or Anglican.
Is Boris Johnson a Catholic? Clearly, the Catholic Church can only decide that. Isn’t it a ‘yes’, but?
As we know the Establishment CoE doing it’s own blocking and shunning, meant any serious ambitious types had to be confirmed Anglicans, certainly not ‘Roman’ Catholics.
(I have nothing against Catholics – how could I? All my best friends are Catholics, as is my partner – in various stages of ‘error’, admittedly.)
You should read Foxe’s Book of Martyrs to see what ‘tolerance’ means in the Catholic Church.
Everybody was burning everybody else in those days.
Not strictly true.
No, you’re right – the prods hung drew and quartered catholics, which was much more humane.
They hung, drew and quartered traitors. The fact that so many of those traitors happened to consider the Pope rather than the lawful authorities of their home country legitimate sources of political power was of course the primary reason why Catholics suffered this particular fate.
This is a tad disingenuous, the Catholic Church has always found a way to allow divorce and remarriage for powerful people.
Louis VII divorced his wife, and Henry !! then married her!
Even Henry VIII, would probably have been allowed a divorce by the Church, but unfortunately Catharine’s nephew had an army in Rome!
For me, Unherd is the best thing that has happened to journalism in many years and I’m loving it. But, with the present discussion of Catholic canon law, and a present example of the corruption and pragmatism where church and state have always made their dirty deals, I’m feeling that this discussion should be confined to the Society of Jesus or The Tablet rather than a rational 21st century forum of opinion. Whether it’s “How many angels on the head of a needle?” or whether the Catholic Church has a monopoly on blessing a union in such and such a way – are discussions that belong to the distant supersticious past.
Too little attention is paid to the spirituality of our leaders. Can anybody doubt that the Queen’s sense of service comes directly from her very strong faith? And one of the most interesting things about Mr Blair is that he did have a strong faith, and that he did convert to the RC Church. There was no political advantage to him in doing the latter, and it speaks very well of his genuine conversion. There are politicians who lack any sense of a spiritual dimension – D Cameron step forward – and at the very least, I trust a politico with a visible faith more than one without.
That is an excellent point about the Queen’s faith girding her sense of duty.
I pray for Meghan and Harry to spend time in prayer and religious learning, rather than follow the Church of Oprah, so to speak. They are so lost.
You are absolutely right about the Queen, and the Christian faith was also a big part in Prince Philip‘s life. Sadly Meghan and Harry‘s attachment to the faith and spirituality of the Church of Oprah and her ilk will give them little in times of future hardships .
It’s true, a few ‘angels’ are being buffeted for a short while because it’s Boris Johnson. Who knows? The Church may even attract a few adult raw recruits from this little episode. (I don’t go to church any more myself but it must be OK to discuss what is a significant founding faith tradition in this country.)
Given that Protestantism still figures strongly in our constitution we should be discussing it.
Well wasn’t this originally founded by Timothy Montgomerie who was Anglican? I definitely sensed a shift in authors from Anglican-tinted commentary a few years ago to Freddie Sayers now who shifted to a more Catholic bias. After all it was he who wrote for the Catholic Herald and seems to have bought along quite a few Catholic friends. Though of course in a Protestant country like Britain it always has to be done a little sotto voce.
In your humble opinion. I am very interested in the subject
Very unlikely he would have received the divorce even without the emperor. It would have required the Pope to totally contradict a previous papal dispensation.
Doubtless Boris is Catholic insofar as it suits him to be Catholic, just as it suited him to become a Brexiteer. His whole career has been centred around being what was expedient at any given moment.
On the matter of the validity of marriage outside the Catholic faith, it’s precisely these distinctions ( ” That is non-Catholic, hence not valid”) that makes me glad I am not a Roman Catholic. Canon law so often seems an alien concept to a New testament view of inclusion. Maybe Paul’s letter should read ” In Christ there is no Catholic nor Protestant..”.
Apart from your last line you are spot on. He is a pragmatist in his pursuit after power.
Your last line misses the significant differences of theology between Bible and Protestantism on one hand, and Rome on the other.
What makes you think he wasn’t a Brexiteer? His writing is consistent on the point. This criticism is based on his statement that he wrote out both a ‘pro’ and an ‘anti’ reasoning, which seems quite a good idea. Because of the gravity of the decision, I went through much the same thought process before finally deciding how to vote, despite voting the same way I had thought for about 20 years.
Well, the Church of England allowed the at least once divorced Megan Markle to be married with full ceremony in Windsor Chapel, a privilege denied to the Prince of Wales. Apparently, this sort of ‘marriage’ is at the archbishop’s ‘ discretion’ (or lack of it) ; odd how that discretion is exercised in favour of the more famous, but not for ordinary faithful parishioners.
I just wish these women didn’t doll themselves up in the full virgin bride gear, when they have already given birth.
It was somewhat sickening and hypocritical (MM). People happily break the laws of God as written in His Word, and deny Him as what He says He is, but then want those who are supposed to uphold His Word to give them whatever they want.
Yes, but in stories, princesses are always married in cathedrals, aren’t they?
The 1894 papal bull Apostolicae curae claimed all Anglican ordinations to be ‘absolutely null and utterly void’. It remains in effect. Presumably this means that the Catholic Church views all Anglican clergy as, essentially, laymen in fancy dress – hence Rome’s reluctance to accept that any marriages that they conduct have any significance beyond the narrowly ‘legal’ sense.
Yet Anglican baptisms are recognised as valid. All very confusing
On Quora, an Anglican vicar claims that the RCC will go so far as to recognise any baptism with water, no matter who does it. He gives as an example a Hindu midwife working in a hospital, armed with an ’emergency baptism’ kit, enabled to ‘baptise’ the critically ill newborn baby of Catholic parents. You might sum up this view as, ‘Better that, than nothing.’
Yes, anyone can baptise a child, in extremis. But on the ‘better than nothing’ principle, surely other Christian marriages should be acknowledged? Indeed, I thought this was confirmed by Pope Francis in 2015 (?), stating that such marriages would need to be annulled before one could remarry in a Catholic church. It’s possible I suppose that Boris Johnson’s previous marriages have been annulled; if so I’d be interested to know what the grounds for annulment would have been.
I don’t think they can be annuled; they haven’t been recognised by the Church as ‘full’ marriages. But then if Boris Johnson were to convert he wouldn’t be able to receive Holy Communion as a divorced man? I pretty sure I’ve got this right. It seems such a nonsense.
Well if they weren’t marriages, then ergo he isn’t divorced, so can receive communion?! Meanwhile there are those Catholics (such as me) who are divorced – in my case after wifely abandonment – who cannot remarry without excommunication. Seems rough!
I’m predicting Boris will be in your boat soon enough.
He was of course born and raised a Catholic, only converting to the C of E at Eton; so his true church may be especially happy to have him back; I’m not sure if that might help things along
But I don’t think he’s a Catholic now. That’s not been said. His wife is a Catholic, hence the RC wedding.
Johnson can’t ‘convert’ because he is already a Catholic. (I’m not claiming he’s a ‘good Catholic’!)
So, now as a confirmed Anglican he just has to say ‘sorry’?
I am not sure why you write in extremis. Surely one does not need to be baptised to go to heaven, eg the thief on the cross who was told, ‘TODAY you will be with me in paradise.’ He went to heaven because of his faith.
Which indeed it would be
Not any Baptism, but any baptism perfomred in the name of the Trinity.
As I have added further up the comments,
Rome adheres to “Ex opere operato” which is a Latin phrase meaning “from the work performed” and, in reference to sacraments, signifies that they derive their efficacy, not from the minister or recipient but from the sacrament considered independently of the merits of the minister or the recipient.
Not really. If you’re a believer, you’re baptised. The ritual is, hopefully , a moment of grace.
Not in Protestant theology – it is a response to grace.
Also baptism by a parent or any other layman, if the baby is in severe danger of dying.
The RC church distinguishes between valid and licit sacraments. The former means that the sacrament is real. The latter means that they are real but also more easily recognised as real because they followed the RC church’s canons. So as I understand it, marriages between two baptised Christians in a Christian marriage ceremony will be recognised as valid by the RC church though not licit. As not licit, they need to investigated to be recognised.
This still remains the case as I understand it. So the marriage of Doris is most peculiar. However, the great and the good have long been given carte blanche by Rome to do whatever they want regarding marriage in order to further their cause (excepting Henry of course, who wasn’t given permission to do whatever he wanted, which was also in order to further the cause of Rome!).
I don’t understand why they wanted a church wedding. As one of the comments mentions below, Catholicism requires a lot of keeping rules, not JOhnson’s long suit!
What is really sickening is that he, apparently, sought to get a bargain price for one of the abortions he has been involved in, and yet Rome still let him in.
It doesn’t matter if you don’t understand.
God bless their marriage, but punish the Catholic Church which tolerates politicians who tolerate abortion.
Used not there be a law against papists becoming PM of the UK? I guess its a dead law now.
That died with the catholic emancipation act during the reign of William IV
That act allowed Catholics to become members of parliament but prohibited them from advising the crown. So it effectively barred any Catholic from becoming PM.
So it was just ‘custom’? Likewise. I read somewhere that as the PM has always recommended the CofE Archbishops, that person has to be Anglican. Of course that can be ‘worked around’, such is the beauty of our ‘constitution’.
It didn’t. It prevented them from being Lord Keeper or Lord High Chancellor. but said nothing about being First Lord of the Treasury.
I dont think so. Catholic Emancipation Act 1829 allowed a catholic to be an MP. Blair waited til he left office to convert. Boris is the first Catholic PM. PM Brown’s constitutional fiddles in 2008 seem to have allowed, finally. a Catholic PM
Or maybe not. In which case the plot will yet thicken.
Also allowed them military and civil offices.
One of the seven sacraments is ‘anointing of sick’ which I’m sure the vaccine roll out has him covered there. However when it comes to ‘confession and reconciliation’ I’m guessing he was a long time in the booth!
Boris Johnson in the confessional: the idea is unimaginable surely.
OK let’s suspend, hang, veritably kill disbelief and indulge the fantasy. When it’s all over the priest must prescribe a suitable penance: I’m not sure whether the priest ending up with that duty is to be envied or pitied!
On the other hand, if ever there were a good reason to join the priesthood, I can think of none better than the prospect of one day getting the chance to assign Boris Johnson’s penance. (I think the fear of any penance would probably keep Mr Johnson out of the confessional till his politics career is well over though.)
Having said all that, no-one should forget that an important aspect of Christian belief is the idea of redemption, and that is available to Boris, too.
I’m sure too that Johnson’s marriage ticks the right canonical boxes, but that only proves that the RC church is a cesspit of legalism, and that decent people are better off working out what’s right and wrong according to their own lights, rather than the arcane laws of the RC church.
As for Johnson “getting Brexit done”, I’ll believe it when I see it
Northern Ireland are far from convinced he has even tried to ‘get Brexit done’.
I take comfort in knowing that, despite the millions of books and scholars, and, churches and dollars, the most educated among us know no more about death and afterlife – the vital substance of religion – than the illiterate drunk who sleeps on the park bench.
I take your point, but am reminded of the great amazement I experienced watching a shelterless person in Amsterdam correctly guessing the country of origin of passers by. This enabled him to plead for funds in five languages, sometimes with quite involved exchanges.
If Mr Johnson had not been baptised as a Catholic, his previous marriages would have been recognised by the Church and, as a result, no marriage in Westminster Cathedral.
One is irresistibly drawn to the wonderful TV version of Brideshead Revisited and the marvellous, delicious spectacle of Rex Mottram being received into the Roman Catholic faith so he could marry Julia Flyte, with the instructing priest played by magnificent John Le Mesurier. For all those who wonder as to Boris receiving such guidance do watch it. Priest: “Has Our Lord more than one nature?” R Mottram “Just as many as you say, Father.”
The faith will be in ‘the church’, if he is really claiming to be a Catholic. And indeed you hint at that when you speak of the necessity of sacrament. No Protestant churches recognise marriage as a sacrament as it wasn’t brought into being by Jesus Christ – he only started baptism in the name of the Trinity, and the Remembrance of the Lord’s Supper. Rome holds to Ex opere operato. The words said make it happen, and their theology doesn’t require faith for the sacrament to be effective. [Ex opere operato is a Latin phrase meaning “from the work performed” and, in reference to sacraments, signifies that they derive their efficacy, not from the minister or recipient (which would mean that they derive it ex opere operantis, meaning “from the agent’s activity”), but from the sacrament considered independently of the merits of the minister or the recipient.]
And your last paragraph is incorrect. The Roman marriage service doesn’t contain a profession of faith in the Trinity.
Wilfred (I don’t think the Johnsons adopted the Anglo-Saxon spelling) was also baptised in Westminster Cathedral. So either Boris was thinking three moves ahead, or maybe he’s genuine about his Catholicism.
Boris grandad was a Turkish Muslim and he seems to love his Muslims that’s why he sells them rubber boats on French eBay and pays the French Navy to escort them. Then puts them up in 4-star hotels???
That Carrie! Not only got her marriage to Boris to be the one “true” marriage, and keeping it more probable that he would ever divorce her, she also showed up every woman who spent thousands on her bridal gown.
So little understanding here. So much self-contradiction! If, as the article itself says, this was done according to the canons, then it was done according to the canons, and all of the possible impediments to the marriage have been resolved.
It’s certainly not true that civil marriages, or marriages otherwise outside the Church, are automatically invalid. That has to be decided by case; and so too does the spiritual state of the participants. None of which is a matter of public record. These, as matters of conscience, are strictly secret, held within the tribunal and its records.
The only public evidence is the public celebration of the sacrament itself; and if that happens, it means that everything is legal and proper.
However, it is shameful for people who don’t know the laws, who don’t know Christianity, and who don’t know the individual case to snipe about “strangeness” or to presume wrongdoing. After all, the Catholic Church is the mother and the standard of all Western law; to despise her is foolhardy at best and idiotic at worst. Not to mention that any journalist really ought to get good information about whatever it may be that he’s supposed to be writing about.
Many thanks indeed! aside from the one (biblical quotation) as below , yours is the best comment yet.
I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Well, it’s their business, nobody else’s. I’m more concerned about his governance of the United Kingdom. That is my business, and I am entitled to have an opinion about it. His marriage, not so much.
Congratulations, Carrie and Boris.
(Better late than never.)
The best way to learn more about Catholicism is to learn more about it. :- ). Father Mark-Mary and other Ascension Presents You Tube presenters, Ascension Presents The Bible in a Year (not on You Tube but on their own website or by App), Taylor Marshall, LOTS of others and places to read about saints and culture such as Catholiccculture dot org and others. It is interesting and moving, even, if you are lucky! :- )
Also, thank goodness that there are saints and good people you know, as well as your own experiences, so you don’t have to have Biden’s or Johnson’s experience of the faith, or trot out the same silly society invective about paedo priests and the like. Check it out, you might be amazed.
Blair too had form on this kind of thing.
He wanted to take communion even though he was not a Catholic.
From memory, I think he made some remark along the lines of that Jesus, ever eager to take care of the lambs of his flock, would not have treated him in this way.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/blair-embroiled-in-dispute-over-communion-1.63787
I was always amazed that he wanted to join a faith while rejecting it’s fundamental tenet. Blair clearly indicated that he himself was infallible NOT the Pope!
I have to say, when I read he’d married in Westminster Cathedral I spluttered into my tea. I suspect this has as much to do with the fact that Catholics no longer control the Catholic Church. Like the SNP, it’s run by people with no understanding of or commitment to it’s foundational principles. Basically, for no reason incomprehensible to man or beast, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is presently engaged in turning it into the Church of England, complete with tinny guitars and situational ethics. Quite why the oldest continually existing institution on the face of the planet needs to re-model itself on the religious fig leaf of a Tudor looting operation, and one which will almost certainly be gone within the next twenty years is a mystery. And not, I think, a divine one.
Yes, in his taste for women. Other than that the essay is full of sophistry. Am I to think that the Catholic Church approves of fornicators?
I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
The real point is, BJ, as a Catholic, knew he wasn’t really getting married to his first two wives. Therefore he has sinned, in that he deceived them, for which he can be forgiven, but he was never actually married in the eyes of the Church. His former “wives” are the wronged innocents in this. The fact that BJ decided to get married as a Catholic indicates a) he may this time genuinely mean it or possibly, and as well, his “girlfriend” (is Carrie Catholic?) wants to be a little more sure of his commitment, understandably. Which argues for the intelligence and seriousness of both parties.
That somewhat limits the number of faithful Catholics to be found in this country.
Interesting picture released by downing Street (and reproduced everywhere). She is gazing adoringly at him, as if she can hardly hold herself back from devouring him, despite the artfully arranged symbols of purity. He, however, is only half paying her attention. He seems to like being adored, to like the fact that people can see his trophy, but to have his mind on some higher destiny.
That, at least, is not evidence of him leading a charmed existence. That’s evidence of him carefully crafting the myth that he lives a charmed existence.
Whatever.. like whi cares? It’s between the two themselves. Tine to tender unto Caesar now!
Almost NOBODY is REALLY a Catholic. People say they’re Catholic because they were raised in a Catholic family but chances are the family knew little of the history doctrines or observances of the Church, so the kids don’t either. And for that, I blame the Church, not the individuals. When someone failed to learn, it’s because others failed to teach.
Call me old fashioned, but looking at that headline picture, it’s still a lovely sight to see a father accompanying his daughter down the aisle on such a special day and giving her away like that.
You’ll have to change that to grand daughter in ten or fifteen years.
Who knows, he might start to lose seats then. Still, when you’ve got over 600 seats in parliament you can afford to lose a few.
This article sheds some light on the final authority of the papacy over civil matters, https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/why-was-the-twice-divorced-pm-allowed-to-marry-in-the-catholic-church?utm_source=Premier%20Christian%20Media&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=12384882_Voice%20of%20hope%2001.06.2021&dm_i=16DQ,7DG8I,61AKFS,U0W0H,1. Boniface’s notorious Una Sanctam (1303) lies at the root of all this. It has never been renounced. Henry VIII must be turning in his grave! Bojo owes allegiance to a Protest monarch!
I suppose he does have the right to be forgiven by the priest for his sins. I am sure he took advantage of that too in the confession box.
The issue with this though is that this person is a manipulator and a scoundrel who like all manipulators is an accomplished liar.
As far as leading the UK through its most testing time since the Second World War is clear that the author too was mislead. He changed his tune halfway through the hoax.
Being manipulated isn’t immoral, being a manipulator is.
How similar to Henry VIII! He argued that his first marriage was illegal because it was illegal under Catholic doctrine (he married his widowed sister-in-law), but the Pope allowed it anyway.