Gransnet forums

News & politics

Political implications of Johnson's Catholicisim

(309 Posts)

GNHQ have commented on this thread. Read here.

Kali2 Mon 31-May-21 08:52:41

So it seems it is not 'just about' the wedding, but other implications

''Apparently the catholic church states that if a catholic marries a non catholic in any marriage not conducted by the catholic church, the marriage is not recognised as valid. By accepting those terms in order to proceed with his marriage, Johnson is accepting that having been baptised a catholic, he not only still is a catholic, he has always been a catholic.
This has important constitutional implications which I am sure will not have entered his head. Firstly, he has just "come out" as the first catholic Prime Minister in the UK's history.
Secondly, there are certain functions which are the sole responsibility of the Prime Minister which Johnson, as a catholic, is actually barred by law from performing.
The one which come immediately to mind is that under an act passed in the early 19th century and still in force, no catholic is permitted to advise the Queen on the appointment of any office holder in the Church of England.
Any catholic doing so is immediately rendered ineligible to hold any office under the crown for the rest of their life. This is where it gets interesting. Since Johnson became PM, a new Archbishop of York and at least one other diocesan Bishop have been appointed.
The procedure for such appointments is that a committee of the Church of England select a nominee and forward the details to the Prime Minister for approval. This is not automatic. Margaret Thatcher turned down one nomination for a bishop when she was PM. Assuming the PM is agreeable however, they advise the Queen to make the appointment. It would appear therefore that Johnson, a catholic, has advised the Queen regarding at least two appointments in the Church of England contrary to English law, and is therefore barred from life from holding any office of state, and is consequently no longer Prime Minister. I await developments with interest.
I think we should all speak out in mass, not just the Pope. As he is well over due a comment on the UK's human rights issues alone. As now even Amnesty International have Johnson and his vile Conservative Government on their list.''

as explained by an expert responding to an article in The Telegraph.

Callistemon Sun 06-Jun-21 11:09:06

Our whole history since the reign of Henry VIII has been intimately bound up with anti Catholicism and the integration of the Anglican church in government

The Anglican church is a worldwide organisation.
Do you mean the Church of England, MaizieD?

The Church in Wales is Anglican but not established.

MawBe Sun 06-Jun-21 12:02:05


^The Church of England is the established church (not “official”) just as the Scottish Presbyterian Church or Church of Scotland to give it its official title is in Scotland.^

So, on the topic of religion, rather than name calling and accusation.... surely there is no established church in Scotland?

The Church of Scotland (CoS; Scots: The Scots Kirk; Scottish Gaelic: Eaglais na h-Alba), also known by its Scots language name, the Kirk, is the national church of Scotland.It is Presbyterian, having no head of faith or leadership group, and adheres to the Bible and Westminster Confession; the Church of Scotland celebrates two sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, as well as five other rites, such as confirmation and matrimony.It is a member of the World Communion of Reformed Churches

Despite being brought up in the Church of Scotland, I realise I was wrong to refer to it as the “established” church, when I should have said “National”.

Alegrias1 Sun 06-Jun-21 12:34:02

Thanks for the clarification MawBe.

lizzypopbottle Sun 06-Jun-21 14:30:53

I have no religion and would prefer to live in a secular state but I would uphold anyone's right to worship inside their religious building in company with others of a likemind. I'm happy for people to wear their choice of clothes to attend worship, although I'm not sure if e.g. there's any religious text that forces women to cover themselves completely.

What I dislike is having someone's religion practised in my face. I was on a long train journey yesterday, (over five hours cross country, stopping everywhere) and the train manager reminded passengers, on pulling out of every station, that face coverings must be worn and only window seats used.

At Sheffield, a young couple joined the train. Despite yet another announcement about masks and seating, neither of them wore a mask and the young man sat next to his companion in the aisle seat across from me, thus shortening the distance between him and me.

After a while I became aware of ceaseless, irritating muttering. I glanced across to see the young man reading, his lips moving. I realised it was a prayer book and both had rosary beads and a crucifix. They prayed audibly, non-stop until the guard appeared to check tickets. He asked why they weren't wearing masks. Apparently, both were exempt. They were so devout, I'm sure they wouldn't lie.

He made them separate so both were in a window seat. As he moved away down the carriage, they both moved into their respective aisle seats, leaned out and conversed diagonally across the aisle. At this point, the girl was even nearer to me. The guard returned and made them sit back at their windows. As soon as he had left, after a good look to make sure he'd gone, the guy rejoined the girl, they had a laugh about it and then resumed their annoying praying. I'm sure their devotions would guarantee them forgiveness for risking others' health!

I was very glad when they left the train at York.

theworriedwell Sun 06-Jun-21 15:40:23

I was on a train a while ago, young man spent the whole journey, nearly 3 hours, announcing details of his sex life in a loud voice. I think he was trying to impress the two soldiers in uniform who were sitting near him. He was particularly keen to inform everyone of his girlfriends "party piece."

When I got up as the train approached my station he also got up to leave the train, as we waited to get off he started again. I asked him if he really thought the children, the young months, the elderly people on the train really wanted to hear it? To give him his due he didn't get stroppy, said, "Have I been told off?" and thankfully shut up.

I'm afraid if I had to choose between someone muttering prayers and him I'd choose the prayers every time.

I have no idea of his religious beliefs or lack of them just to clarify.

theworriedwell Sun 06-Jun-21 15:41:00

Mothers not months!

lizzypopbottle Sun 06-Jun-21 17:31:13

At least you didn't have to put up with total hypocrisy, theworriedwell! Of course he might've been exaggerating! Who knows? 😂

theworriedwell Sun 06-Jun-21 21:13:33

To be honest with you a bit of quiet hypocrisy would have been a welcome relief. Who wants little kids listening to filth for 3 hrs? Apart from that it was very boring, I mean sex is fine but listening to an immature young man going on about it isn't my thing particularly when it is so loud that you end up with a headache.