Political implications of Johnson's Catholicisim

Excellent and informative post, grandetante. You obviously know what you are talking about!

I agree this is really non of our business.

A man on his third marriage, who seems to change his religion to suit the circumstances of his life and leaves previous wives and children so disrespectfully should be free to do so even
if he holds a high office of the land, without anyone condoning
it.

ay ya ya!

According to modern Canon Law - that is the law governing matters such as marriage and baptism in the Catholic church all marriages entered into by two baptised people, irrespective of the denominations they belonged to at the time of their marriage, count as a marriage in the eyes of the Catholic church.

Even if Boris Johnsen could be regarded as non-Catholic, which by my understanding he cannot, as he was baptised in the Catholic church, his former marriages (or at the very least the first of them) would even although he was divorced have had to be nullified by a Catholic ecclesiastical court to allow him to marry in a Catholic ceremony, irrespective of whether the woman he intended to marry was a Catholic or not.

This matter has been attended to, of that you can all be sure, otherwise the couple could not have married in a Catholic church anywhere at all.

There is no obligation on the parties to publish the fact that a nullification process has been instituted and completed.

They know that, so do Johnson's former (divorced) spouses as they have been sent the papers and given the opportunity to comment upon them and the priest who officiated has received a copy of the ruling.

British law specifically permits a special licence to be purchased allowing a couple to marry without the banns having been made public.

There is nothing shame-faced about this procedure. I imagine a great deal of public figures would be well advised to marry privately to avoid some of all the publicity that they know they will otherwise have to deal with.

Frankly speculation about Boris Johnson's faith or lack thereof strikes me as uncharitable in the extreme.

By choosing to marry in a Catholic ceremony, he has clearly shown that either he has a personal commitment to the church, or a personal commitment and respect for the faith of the woman who is now his wife.

Whether or how much he believes in the teaching of the church, or more importantly in the teaching of Christ is really none of our business.

Nanna2 - Maybe not a serial cheat but a cheat nonetheless, Prince Charles has said he wants to be Head if All Faiths!!

It matters for inheritance Lazypaws.

For goodness sake, does it matter?

Maddyone- the law that makes the child/ren legitimate is when the parents then go on to marry.It doesn't matter whether its in a church, or just by registrar.But the child then is legitimate.

Eton! Blasted autocorrect.

MaizieD

Impressive, Avalon.

Is that your knowledge or google's? (genuine question. I'm always impressed by the depth of knowledge Gnetters have)

I also heard this on the radio over the weekend. There was a discussion between various experts and Boris did indeed become Anglican at Eaton and was confirmed into that church.

I’m not a Catholic but I am my niece’s Godmother. My husband’s not Catholic but he’s my nephew’s Godfather. My sister married a Catholic and the children were brought up Catholic, but we non Catholics are Godparents to their children, who are now adults of course.

I keep saying it and I’ll say it again

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ILLEGITIMATE CHILD NOW. ALL CHILDREN ARE LEGITIMATE NOW.

Got it?

Youre right Grammagill- when my middle DD was having both her children baptised together in catholic faith, (as our family are) she had to ask me to be one extra God mother on the day as all the God parents they had chosen none were catholic, practicing or otherwise.(I on other hand was attending our local RC church regularly then as it was very close and my son was going regular for 1st holy communion preparation.

But if Boris was true to his faith he would not be a serial cheat.?

When the parents marry it makes any illegitimate children Legitimate.

At least ONE Godparent must be a catholic when you baptise your child in the catholic faith.

ROMAN gah where's EDIT? ;)

The canonical requirements for godparents for Baptism and sponsors for Confirmation are the following:
Must be a Catholic who is baptized and confirmed.
Must be 16 years of age.
Must regularly practice the faith.
Must have membership in a Catholic parish.

My daughter married a Rooman Catholic and they are scraping around trying to find friends who are practising Catholics for a baptism!

However we all know laws of any kind don't apply to Boris Johnson so I'm sure he will be fine.

My RC priest says that a Catholic and a nonCatholic can marry in an RC church with a special dispensation.

I said somewhere up thread, but I’ll say it again, there is no such thing as illegitimate today. A law was passed some years ago, not sure when, that makes all children legitimate. As it should be in my opinion. So now all children can inherit from their parents. I’m not sure if there are any other changes, but I wholly approve of this law.

As C-of-E I'd like to chip in. Most religious I know are very 'live and let live' - to the point of not minding whether you also attend worship houses of other faiths - never mind other denominations of the same faith!

Illegitimate? ??‍♀️

Someone somewhere with too much money would no doubt bail him out

Sadly, these days most baptisms, of any denomination, are purely social affairs - as are First Communions and Confirmations.
The clothes and the celebration afterwards seem to be the focus of the occasion, rather than it’s religious significance, in most cases.

Oh for goodness sake. Does it really matter what religion the prime minister is? It has no baring on the way he does the job ir advises the queen. This is 2021. Get a life and stop worrying about things that really do not matter. There are more important things in life...

Does anybody really care these days? People call themselves ’Christians’ but they most definitely are not living Christian lives.

Reading all these comments, some quite nasty for 'people with religion' proves the old saying that 'religion is the cause of so much trouble and strife in the world today, as it has been over centuries'.