Boris & Carrie “Marry” in Westminster Catholic Cathedral: Totally Scandalous…

Boris & Carrie “Marry” in Westminster Catholic Cathedral: Totally Scandalous…

From Mail on Sunday…

Boris Johnson married girlfriend Carrie Symonds in a secret ceremony yesterday morning, the Mail on Sunday can reveal.

Mr Johnson, 56, exchanged vows with Ms Symonds, 33, in Catholic Westminster Cathedral in front of a handful of close friends and family – becoming the first Prime Minister to marry in office since Lord Liverpool married Mary Chester in 1822.

It comes just six days after the couple – who became engaged on the Caribbean island of Mustique in December 2019 and have baby Wilfred, aged one – sent out save-the-date cards to guests telling them to keep Saturday, July 30, 2022 free for a marriage celebration.

Despite sending out the cards, the couple are understood to have been secretly planning the small ceremony for six months.

The couple became engaged on the Caribbean island of Mustique in December 2019 and have baby Wilfred, aged one (pictured together with their dog Dilyn)

Under current Covid rules there is a limit of 30 guests at weddings – although the cap is expected to be lifted on June 21st – ‘freedom day’ – when most restrictions are set to be lifted. 

With Mr Johnson pegged to be back at work next week, it looks unlikely the couple – who will make their debut appearance as husband and wife at the G7 summit in June – will have a honeymoon.

One-year-old Wilfred attended the wedding, as did two official witnesses. Ms Symonds shared a picture of their son yesterday in a field of bluebells – which some speculated was a nod to the tradition of ‘something blue’.

Mr Johnson’s sibling’s Rachel, Jo and Leo Johnson are also understood to have attended, along with his father Stanley.

The PM’s top advisers in Number 10 were said to be astonished that the secret wedding had taken place.    Source

The ceremony was officiated by Father Daniel Humphries (pictured). He baptised the couple's one-year-old son Wilfred last year and gave them their pre-marriage instructions.

One “gay” politician, offering  his congratulations on Twitter, added that he now looks forward to the day when a same-sex marriage can be conducted in a Catholic church.  Who can blame him?  Father Humphries’ action (which, of course, obviously has the approval of his Archbishop) has made it seem like public sin is encouraged, even blessed in the Catholic Church. Not true, of course, but who’s checking the details any more? 

What puzzles me is this;  there is no shortage of churches where conducting such a wedding would be par for the course.  Not a problem.  Why pick the one Church which adheres to Christ’s teaching that those who divorce and re-marry commit adultery?  Why pick that one?  I wondered the same thing when reports emerged that their son had been baptised into the Catholic Church. Why?  Neither Boris nor Carrie seem to be remotely religious – their moral compass is certainly broken, big time – so what is the attraction to the Catholic Church when it stands for absolutely everything which they oppose? 

Help me to understand this strange phenomenon.  It really is a mystery to me, greater than any of the Mysteries of Faith. Help! 

Comments (64)

  • westminsterfly

    It was probably some trivial reason that this took place there, like Carrie admired the architecture at Westminster Cathedral, or something like that. You know how vacuous these people are. And even more vacuous the priests that ‘minister’ to them. Carrie was dubbed as Princess Nut Nut by someone in Downing Street (Dominic Cummings? – I can’t recall) – a widely reported item in the mainstream press. When you think of what is going on in the world today, the public letter that she wanted Boris to co-sign (which to his credit, he didn’t), regarding rumours of her dog Dilyn, would suggest that her sobriquet of Princess Nut Nut is well earned:- If she is Catholic, I haven’t seen any evidence of her campaigning against abortion – just ‘green’ and ‘animal rights’ stuff. Apart from the scandal at Westminster Cathedral, and the extremely unhealthy influence the unelected Carrie appears to have over government policy, I wouldn’t fret too much. When Boris is eventually ousted as PM, chances are she will oust him and will sink into irrelevance. These women choose powerful men to advance their agenda. The teachings of the Catholic Church don’t appear to figure too large (if at all) in their lives.

    May 30, 2021 at 7:52 pm
    • editor


      That’s an excellent point about Carrie’s campaigning being for anything and everything except the protection of unborn babies.

      I tend to think, though, that it won’t be she who ousts him, but rather the other way around. Fidelity hasn’t been his strong suit to date, has it.

      May 30, 2021 at 9:33 pm
      • Josephine


        I can’t see Carrie being a pro-life activist. That would never be allowed.

        May 30, 2021 at 9:53 pm
      • westminsterfly

        Point taken!

        May 31, 2021 at 11:08 am
  • editor

    According to the commentary in this Sky News report, Boris’s previous marriages are not recognised by the Church and, surprisingly, Carrie is a “practising Catholic” – of the type which sees no wrong in cohabitation and babies to match. I was definitely under the impression that Boris had already been married in the Catholic Church – where did I get that idea? Does anyone know?

    May 30, 2021 at 9:04 pm
    • westminsterfly

      Apparently, Boris has a Catholic mother and was born Catholic but apostatised at Eton.

      May 30, 2021 at 9:09 pm
      • editor


        That’s probably why I assumed he’d been married in the Church – in fact, I remember one of the bloggers here (Athanasius, I think) saying that Boris WAS/IS a Catholic, albeit lapsed. I think that conversation took place following reports that the baby was baptised into the Catholic Church.

        It remains a scandal because what are the chances that the child will be raised as a fully believing Catholic when the parents are manifestly not fully believing Catholics themselves.

        May 30, 2021 at 9:25 pm
    • Josephine

      What is very interesting in that TV report is that Boris’s sister doesn’t look like she was dressed for the wedding and she didn’t offer any comment. What’s the bet she’s no fan of Carrie Symonds!

      May 30, 2021 at 10:10 pm
  • westminsterfly

    Not sure I got my whole point across but what I meant to say is that women like Symonds can cause all sorts of damage until they lose the power they are linked with. Look at Harry and Meghan. If they split, she’d be finished. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, it’s just frippery with ‘the Johnsons’, as it was with the Blairs.

    May 30, 2021 at 9:06 pm
    • editor


      Yes, I got your drift 😀 And I agree about the frippery. Definitely.

      I always laugh at the talk of a “honeymoon” (theirs won’t be until next year…) What on EARTH is the point of a honeymoon when they’ve been living together as a married couple all this time? The honeymoon is the term that was used in days of yore when the bride was precisely that – a bride, and the couple went off after the wedding for a holiday on their own to allow the bride to become a married woman, if you get my drift 😀

      There’s just no end to the nonsense these days. The saying “If words mean anything …” is now redundant because, these days, words can mean whatever you want them to mean, including the very opposite of their original meaning.

      Gimme a break!

      May 30, 2021 at 9:31 pm
      • Faith of Our Fathers

        ED i lived in Sin for years. Did I know it Yes I did . I was with a Lovely Woman who was Married in a Christian Ceremony I.E. the Church of Scotland I wouldn’t get Married in a Registry Office and The Catholic Church ( as you know) recognises ANY Marriage in a Christian Church then She would have had to get an Annulment Through The Church of Scotland for us to be Married in A Catholic Church. We also had a Child. Personally and it’s only my Belief. I don’t Believe in Annulments. Whether through The Catholic Church or any other Demonation as it more or less says that the First Marriage was outwith Gods Law. As for Boris I was more or less in the same situation so am certainly not going to cast the First Stone. Also I don’t see ( at least at the moment) why He should be Vilvied at least give Him time . You never know He may Change. We all can . He certainly Never got Married in a Catholic Church ( for show) as far as am concerned.

        May 31, 2021 at 9:28 pm
  • Antoine Bisset

    I was not aware that all marriages other than those between two Catholics are invalid, for example between two members of the Church of Scotland.
    Mr Johnson has been through a form of marriage twice before, one annulment, and one divorce.
    He has been living with Ms Symonds in “open and public concubinage” for some time.

    If these are not impediments to a valid Catholic marriage what are?
    If the first is not an impediment it is a philanderers licence. A Catholic night marry many times outside the church, to Protestant, Buddhist, Hindu, before stepping back in to validly marry a Catholic?
    The second, “living together” is seen as an impediment as it degrades the sanctity and dignity of a true marriage?

    May 30, 2021 at 9:44 pm
    • Lily

      Antoine Bisset,

      The Church does recognise marriage between two baptized Christians who are members of the Church of Scotland, to use your example, or members of other Christian denominations.

      I think the issue is that as a baptised Catholic, by marrying in a non-Catholic church, Boris’s marriage is not recognised. You can marry a non-Catholic but you need permission from the Bishop for a mixed marriage like that, but that is if you are marrying in the Catholic church. It looks like Boris married in a non-Catholic ceremony held in a non-Catholic church.

      I agree about the openly living together. The very leas that should happen is that prior to the wedding the couple separate, she goes to Confession and then the marriage takes place. Getting up out of the same bed and into the taxi and off to Westminster Cathedral is a huge impediment, it seems to me. Obviously, Cardinal Nichols wouldn’t agree, nor Fr Humphries. It’s shocking.

      May 30, 2021 at 10:03 pm
    • Eileen McBride

      The Church recognises any marriage between two non Catholics, whether a religious or civil ceremony, as valid. The Church only makes rules for its own members, who are obliged to marry in Church. If a Catholic goes through any other form of marriage it is automatically invalid. A non Catholic or a convert who had previously been married could only marry in the Church if that marriage could be shown to be invalid after the same investigation that Catholic ‘marriages’ go through before being declared invalid, or not.

      June 1, 2021 at 12:06 pm
  • Josephine

    I think it is a huge scandal and I have been checking up about the Church’s position on marrying a divorced person. This is an interesting piece on the subject.

    Boris has shown his contempt for marriage (and for his other children, the exact number of which nobody seems to know!) and this one won’t be any different IMHO.

    May 30, 2021 at 9:52 pm
  • RCAVictor

    This scandal (which will be a scandal to very few) is a result of Amoris Laetitia and the current pontificate which gave birth to that abomination, and which views Joke* Biden and Nancy Pelosi as practicing Catholics who should not be denied Communion.

    So this priest did his Francis duty and “accompanied” this couple through a “marriage” that spits upon Our Lord. Well done, good and faithful betrayer.

    May 30, 2021 at 9:57 pm
    • Josephine

      I agree – this pope has opened the floodgates for all sorts of scandals like this.

      I’d forgotten all about the “accompanying” nonsense. LOL!

      When will it dawn on this pope and his followers that he is accompanying these souls to hell?!

      May 30, 2021 at 10:12 pm
  • cbucket

    “A second marriage is a triumph of hope over experience” ― Samuel Johnson

    Getting married in the cathedral may prove to be a curse. God is not mocked.

    May 30, 2021 at 10:33 pm
  • Laura

    I do find this scandalous because if Carrie was a real practising Catholic she wouldn’t have been cohabiting – or as we used to call it, and I think it’s more accurate. living in sin.

    I agree that God will not be mocked. I can’t help wondering, though, how long it will be before he acts – the world has never been so filled with evil.

    May 30, 2021 at 11:34 pm
  • Athanasius


    Since his previous marriages were not recognised by the Church, he was free to marry for the first time in the Catholic Church. The problem, though, is the strange understanding he, Carrie and the officiating priest appear to have of “practicing Catholics”, as you correctly point out.

    Let’s face it, we would all love to think that Boris and Carrie were directed by Fr. Humphries to make a good confession of their mortal sins before God – in Boris’ case a general confession including repentance for his apostasy – along with a firm purpose of amendment and a determination to practice their religion faithfully henceforth.

    Is that likely to have been the case, though? It seems highly unlikely given that Boris was not required to make public restitution, as required by the Church, for his very public and scandalous support for abortion and “gay marriage”.

    In addition to that, Boris has imposed a Nazi regime on the British people these past 15 months in the name of the fake killer pandemic, ruthlessly using the media to psychologically terrorise the population into sacrificing their God-given freedoms while destroying the national economy at the behest of the Davos people. Now he coerces the population into a Dr. Mengele-like mass vaccination experiment which has the potential to kill millions.

    The fact that he has not been asked to repent of any of this in public, as he must if he values his eternal salvation, tells us all we need to know about Fr. Humphries and his “Catholic” beliefs.

    At least Boris is open about his use of people to suit his own ends and passions – this marriage just being the latest example – but what of the priests and hierarchy who empower people to mock God and the Church, people like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, not to mention Boris?

    With Vatican II a new religion replaced the old faith of the saints and martyrs. Paul VI correctly called it “the cult of man”, in which Our Lord Jesus Christ has His divine justice severed from His divine love and is portrayed as a hippie who came to earth to found a morally and religiously indifferent commune of humanists who pay lip service to God while living whatever way they like with the hierarchy’s silence, if not its blessing. It’s the bishops and the priests who are the most scandalous of all because they preach this false charity that kills souls as surely as the abortionist kills innocents in the womb.

    Pope Francis and his hierarchs preach this new religion all the time, constantly sermonising on the environment, immigration, the poor, social deprivation, inequality, etc., while not a word about the immortal soul, grace, sin, the four last things or anything else that’s of supernatural urgency. They have turned naturalist, singing from the same hymn sheet of Communists and Freemasons, even to the point of countering Catholic doctrine with the fallacy of earth as “our common home”, knowing that those who belong to Our Lord are, like Him, “not of this world”.

    This world is but a temporary exile, as they well know, a place of trial and tribulation whose spirit is that of Lucifer, not Christ. Our true common home is heaven and it has to be earned by a good life in the true Catholic religion, excepting invincible ignorance on the latter.

    I’ve said before and I say again, the world is presently in the mess it is because of these Vatican II clergy and their “cult of man” doctrines. That’s why the Church has gone from being feared and respected just 60 years ago to being despised in our time – it’s because people have recognised the hypocrisy of the Vatican II religion, which is nothing more or less than humanism with a religious facade.

    May 30, 2021 at 11:53 pm
    • Fidelis


      Your first sentence made me question, for the first time actually, whether “being free to marry” is the only thing a priest looks at when a couple approach him about getting married in the Church.

      I’m asking, not just because of the Boris news, but because of people I know in my own family who have been using the Church to get married when they are not practising but go along to make a show for a few weeks before going to see the priest, and also have no intention of practising or raising any children after they marry.

      Half the time they’re using contraceptives and so they are not intending “to accept children lovingly from God” – which used to be one of three questions put to a couple before even the vows were taken.

      My point is, even if Boris was free to marry because his previous marriages were not recognised by the Church, surely on other grounds he should have been refused or Carrie should have been refused a Catholic wedding. It doesn’t make sense to me that people who are at odds with Catholic teaching on so much, should be allowed a Catholic wedding just because they are “free” to marry.

      May 31, 2021 at 9:06 am
    • Antoine Bisset

      “No Abiding City” by Bede Jarrett OP covers this very point in an encouraging and optimistic way.

      May 31, 2021 at 11:32 am
    • Faith of Our Fathers

      Athanasius as You say by Catholic Law concerning Marriage He was allowed to be Married in a Catholic Church. I as I said before do not Believe They have done this for Show as I was more or less in the same situation as he was but couldn’t get Married in a Catholic Church as I have stated above. We are all Sinners and can change. As I said. Give the Guy time then Vilifie Him . Who knows He may change we all can . Also Gods ways are not ours . If He does not change his stance on Abortion Etc then by all means pounce on Him .

      May 31, 2021 at 9:36 pm
  • westminsterfly

    Perhaps I can just tell CT readers about what happened to a non-Catholic close relative of mine (I’m a convert). She was married in the C of E and as far as she was concerned the marriage was for life. Problem is he turned out to be a serial adulterer and the marriage broke down beyond repair. There were no children. A civil divorce followed. She remained unmarried. He ‘remarried’ another woman and had two children by her. That marriage broke down as well. Then we heard that he was going to marry a ‘Catholic’ woman and we learnt that he was already co-habiting with her. The Catholic Church contacted my relative as the ex-husband was trying to annul his previous unions so he could get married in the Catholic Church to this ‘third wife’. He used the excuse that both parties (i.e. my relative and him) were emotionally immature at the time and he tried to get an annulment that way. My relative was asked to make a statement by the Church and she said that if he wanted to say that about himself, that was fine, but it wasn’t true about her as she wasn’t ’emotionally immature’ either then or now. To cut a long story short, he was granted an annulment and married this other woman in the Catholic Church. It put the Church in a very bad light with my relative and caused real scandal, and a sense to her that it was all a load of rubbish and the Church just made up the rules as it went along. She told the Church (it was a nun in Westminster who was corresponding with her) that she couldn’t care less what it decided, but she did not agree to his statement as it contained falsehoods, and as far as she was concerned she was divorced from him and well rid of him. How could I, as a Catholic, even begin to justify what had happened? I couldn’t. It was shameful and I think the episode has made her a bit anti-Catholic. These clergy and religious will have a lot to answer for.

    May 31, 2021 at 9:40 am
    • editor


      That is a total disgrace and there is no justification for it. I know of two people at the present time going through the annulment process and I’ve been impressed at the thoroughness of the investigation. So, it’s a pity that your relative has had the opposite experience. I think Westminster – the fact that there is a “nun” involved in the process raises a warning flag – is questionable is so many ways and the attitude to marriage is clearly highly questionable.

      May 31, 2021 at 10:43 am
      • westminsterfly

        From what I gather, it is a bit of a lottery if you get a proper investigation or not. But too many people are using ‘psychological immaturity’ as a reason for annulment and I don’t think it’s a valid one.
        I suspect a lot of annulments are invalid. There was that case in the USA where someone famous (I can’t recall who – I’ll ask the person who told me this and let you know) had their marriage annulled by the diocese even though it was against her will. I think the husband got ‘remarried’. Anyway, the woman petitioned Rome and the annulment was overturned by Rome, and the original marriage declared valid. Good for her, for taking her marriage vows seriously. It just shows you that some of these tribunals who investigate these things are not fit for purpose. Also, annulments used to be few and far between. They hand them out like Smarties now. The process really has become divorce by the back door in the Catholic Church.

        May 31, 2021 at 11:02 am
      • westminsterfly

        I found the details of the abovementioned case:-

        May 31, 2021 at 11:17 am
      • editor


        That is truly scandalous. I only know the two people already mentioned who have applied for annulments. One of them had entered into a marriage with a man who later divulged, both in word and in deed, that he did not want to be married – I won’t say more than that, but when I heard the whole story I suggested that the young woman apply for an annulment. She is a novus-ordo raised post-Vatican II Catholic and hadn’t even heard of the process. I had to explain what annulment meant and in doing so I told her that Pope John Paul II had warned the American bishops because there were a huge number of annulments being handed out (as you say, like Smarties) over there. I was pleased that her immediate response was “I don’t want one unless I’m genuinely entitled to it.”

        I felt that it was important to let her know about the process because she had entered into the marriage fully intending to keep her vows, and was horrified as the reality unfolded and she was ultimately abandoned. My fear was that, having suffered such an injustice, she may be tempted to fall into sin later, although she assured me that that would never happen. Bearing in mind that it’s important to “never say never” however, I encouraged her to seek an annulment, in the spirit of “you never know…”

        However, it’s proving to be a very long-drawn out process. On paper, on hearing, it seems a very straightforward case, so that is why I have been impressed at the thoroughness of the process. The other case seems similarly straightforward, but she, too, is having a long wait for the outcome. Better that, though than the appearance of “divorce by the back door”.

        PS – thank you for the link to the report about the Vatican overturning an illicit annulment. That is very good news. Should not be necessary, of course, and I’m sure you are correct about illicit annulments being more common than we may imagine.

        May 31, 2021 at 11:20 am
      • RCAVictor

        Editor and WF,

        This is very interesting. The husband of a dear friend of mine, at my former SSPX parish, got a civil divorce and then an annulment from the local diocese after they had separated – they had been married 26 years. The annulment was granted due to “lack of form,” which is apparently how the Church views – or used to view – SSPX marriages.

        My friend contested the annulment all the way to Rome, but I don’t think Rome ever responded. Meanwhile, the husband, who is a person of questionable character, married the woman with whom he was having an affair while married to my friend. She, however, still considers herself married but separated, despite being treated like dirt by the man with whom she had 8 children.

        What a tragedy when marriage is reduced emotional and psychological warfare.

        May 31, 2021 at 2:51 pm
      • westminsterfly

        The whole annulment procedure needs to be completely reviewed, reformed and standardised – but not under this pontificate!

        May 31, 2021 at 3:36 pm
  • wendy walker

    Thank you dear Editor for your wonderful input and Athanasius always is spot on …….today[ Mondays] D Mail goes to excess to sugar coat this sick situation with the look of love .and photos …tragic all the way round that a rabid pro abortion man who also like his Dad wants to depopulate the World [while having numerous offspring themselves ]….and opened the floodgates with his sickly sidekick Hancock to hundreds of thousands of DIY aborted babies and his Wife who seems to have caused mayhem within The Conservative Party in many ways DARE stand in front of a Catholic Priest .in a Catholic Church to take vows !…tragically they now join a long line of pick and mix so called Catholics most of whom are at odds with some if not all of the Churches most sacred teachings which they flaunt …..Pelosi,The Blairs,Biden,The Gates ………despicable

    May 31, 2021 at 9:55 am
    • westminsterfly

      Wendy – the link you post is just Westminster PR damage limitation blurb.

      May 31, 2021 at 12:01 pm
  • wendywalker95

    Please watch the video above it shows how deluded people are.

    May 31, 2021 at 10:50 am
  • wendywalker95

    May 31, 2021 at 3:10 pm
  • westminsterfly

    You have to understand that Boris doesn’t give a fig about Catholicism and this whole fiasco is just some weird anomaly that Princess Carrie wanted, for whatever perverse reason. And why should you give a fig about what some ‘retired Anglican priestess’ thinks? Like she has some kind of authority to pronounce on the matter?

    May 31, 2021 at 6:24 pm
  • Eileen McBride

    A bit of basic Canon Law

    May 31, 2021 at 6:55 pm
    • Athanasius

      Eileen McBride

      It is well known that the new Code of Canon Law (1983) downgraded almost all punishments for serious sin with the exception of a bishop who consecrates without Papal permission – that particular act was upgraded in punishment from non-censurable (assuming the consecrating bishop believed he was acting in the best interests of the Church) to excommunication. Of course that was because of the Archbishop Lefebvre situation and the hatred for the ancient Faith and Mass.

      Now to the point. If I understood your Facebook post correctly, it is your contention that the new Code of Canon law allows a Catholic to formally apostatise from the faith, provided his bishop accepts a formal written declaration from the apostate, in which case he is then permitted to marry lawfully in a Protestant church.

      Now I do not doubt that the 1983 Code says such a thing, nor am I surprised by such false teaching. What I would say in response, however, is that when a person receives Catholic baptism he is forever a Catholic in his soul. It makes absolutely no difference whether he apostatises with or without formal notice, he never ceases to be Catholic in God’s sight and is therefore never free to add to his apostasy the sin of adultery, which is effectively the sin he commits if he marries unlawfully in the church of some Protestant sect.

      May 31, 2021 at 11:35 pm
      • Eileen McBride

        As you say, a person never ceases to be Catholic in God’s sight, therefore the PM was always obliged to marry in a Catholic Church, therefore his previous unions can be discounted. The priest who officiated at my wedding did not grill us on whether we had a sexual past, either together or with other people. As Canon Gargarro says in the post it is to be hoped certain issues were discussed with the couple, but it would be a breach of confidentiality for us to be told. We have to accept this marriage in good faith, although I suspect it might also be invalid, on the grounds that any woman choosing to spend her life with Boris Johnston must be insane.

        June 1, 2021 at 8:43 am
      • Lily

        Eileen McBride,

        “I suspect it might also be invalid, on the grounds that any woman choosing to spend her life with Boris Johnston must be insane.”

        Love it! LOL!

        I have to say, though, that it’s not about the priest grilling them about their sexual past, it’s about their future. Are they going to be using contraception or will they accept ALL children lovingly from God? If they have decided not to have children, or to space them out artificially, then my understanding is, that is not a valid Catholic marriage. I even remember hearing a priest saying years ago that it is a fact that most Catholic marriages are probably invalid because they are not living out the Church’s teaching, which is what the marriage is based on. Unfortunately, because of the dissenting priests, most couples won’t be grilled on that one, so they won’t necessarily understand that. The truth is that these days people want a church wedding for the surroundings and the photos, nothing more, sad to say.

        June 1, 2021 at 9:34 am
      • Eileen McBride

        All that applies to any couple marrying in a Catholic Church, but it’s really not our business how that discussion proceeded for any individual couple, even if they are in the public eye. My gut feeling is that the PM is thumbing his nose at having got one over on the Church – not even the Catholic Church stops him getting what he wants. I have no right to think of anyone so uncharitably, I accept that, but I am hoping God will cut me some slack because of who it is I am judging harshly!

        June 1, 2021 at 11:22 am
      • RCAVictor


        I even remember hearing a priest saying years ago that it is a fact that most Catholic marriages are probably invalid because they are not living out the Church’s teaching…

        Pope Francis said the same thing, early in his Pontificate! Hmmm…

        June 1, 2021 at 3:39 pm
      • Athanasius

        Eileen McBride

        You’re absolutely right to say that priests should not grill others on their sexual past, but rather set them straight on what they need to do before God to put things right and live according to the Church’s teaching going forward.

        Where the Boris/Carrie marriage fails for me is in the officiating priest not insisting that before absolution was granted to Boris in Confession, without which, in both their cases, the Sacrament of matrimony could not be validly administered, he would have to make public restitution for the public scandal he has given on abortion and “gay marriage”.

        I don’t think anyone is particularly fixated on his and Carrie’s past sins of adultery, which are between them and God, but rather with the seriousness of the very public scandal he has given as a politician by openly and aggressively promoting the aforementioned evils. It is an absolute must before God and the Church, if he is to be taken seriously as a Catholic penitent, that he publicly repair that scandal to souls. He should not have been allowed to marry without promising to do this, which tells me that the instructing priest also has serious questions to answer.

        Justice demands that we all make reparation in some way for our sins, whether it be the thief who repents and is obliged to return stolen money or the calumniator who has a duty to restore his neighbour’s trashed reputation. This is so much more necessary when the sin is hugely scandalous and very public. Without such public restitution, demonstrating true sorrow and humility before God, it would have to be concluded that Boris’s Confession before marriage was not genuine.

        It will be very interesting to see what his position on abortion and the LGBT agenda is going forward. If he demonstrates anything less than complete opposition then it will be certain that he used the Church for his own ends and committed sacrilege. If that proves to be the case then Fr. Humphries will share his sin before God for not doing his priestly duty to express the Church’s teaching correctly in the matter of public restitution, thereby facilitating the worse crime of sacrilege.

        Besides all of that, there is the question of his involvement in the COVID pandemic scam – his willing participation in the use of psychological warfare against the population through the media, the unlawful removal of human freedoms and civil liberties, the wilful destruction of the UK economy and the launching of a coerced mass vaccination experiment which contravenes medical ethics, the moral law, international law and the protocols of Nuremberg. In fine, “crimes against humanity”.

        I hope I’m wrong but I don’t see Boris Johnson as anything other than a man who will resort to any means to get what he wants. Carrie was the one who insisted on a Catholic wedding and I think Boris just paid lip service to that for peace’ sake.

        June 1, 2021 at 2:24 pm
      • Eileen McBride

        Mr Johnston sins are not our business. The priest cannot and should not enlighten us about any conversations he has with the couple.
        As far as I can see the PM has not voted on abortion or same sex “marriages”. Not as good as voting against if course, but we can’t assume he is aggressively in favour of those things either. I suspect that like many people he sees these (wrongly) as “women’s issues” which don’t concern him.
        He was entitled to a Catholic marriage. Legalistic as that sounds, marriage is governed by civil and Canon law. Mr Johnston and his wife met the requirements of both and are now married in the eyes of God and state. His perceived sins and shortcomings are not our concern. As Catholics we believe in forgiveness and fresh starts, don’t we?

        June 1, 2021 at 3:31 pm
      • Athanasius

        Eileen McBride

        When he was London Mayor, at the height of the “gay marriage” debate, Boris came out very publicly in the newspapers and said it was high time opposition voices were silenced and “gay marriage” enshrined in law as a human right. Oh yes, he has been extremely vocal in his support of the LGBT agenda!

        June 1, 2021 at 4:05 pm
      • Eileen McBride

        That was then and this is now. His past conduct has no bearing on his right to a Catholic wedding. Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.

        June 1, 2021 at 4:34 pm
      • Athanasius

        Eileen McBride

        No, you’re wrong about that. In cases of public sin and scandal divine justice demands public reparation.

        Had Boris intimated at some point, say during an interview or in his Telegraph column, that he regrets his support for “gay marriage”, then yes, that would have sufficed. The fact that he hasn’t done so tells us he still approves and consents to this manifest mockery of a Christian Sacrament.

        June 1, 2021 at 5:18 pm
  • Antoine Bisset

    It is not that simple. The mixed marriage conundrum is one thing, and it is complex, as these two articles demonstrate. The matter of bringing marriage into disrepute by flagrantly living together and producing a child while unmarried is something else.

    May 31, 2021 at 9:21 pm
  • gabriel syme

    I agree that the Church makes a fool of itself and causes confusion with its lax implementation of its own rules.

    My understanding was that the Church only recognised marriages it conducted itself as being sacramental marriages. (Including if, as in my own case, the marriage is between a Catholic and a baptised non-Catholic party).

    I understood that the Church viewed other marriages (including civil marriages) as being “natural marriages”. That is, marriages which are correct according to the natural law, but which lacked the sacramental character.

    However when this Boris news broke over the weekend, my wife – who was curious as to how this had been allowed – produced a source claiming the Church considered even protestant marriages sacramental (the particular example given was of 2 lutherans marrying in the lutheran Church).

    is this right? I would not have thought so. For example, not all protestants consider marriage to be a sacrament to start with (eg Church of Scotland). Also, do not Lutherans have “women priests” and so surely if a marriage conducted by such a person could never be validly sacramental?

    Surely a sacramental marriage could only ever occur in the Catholic Church (including the schismatic Eastern Orthodox parts)?

    I would appreciate any advice on this – thanks.

    Of course, like the protestants, the novus ordo Church is really just a “wedding venue” for hire, given how it gives annulments out like sweeties and would grant even Attila the Hun a Catholic ceremony.

    When I got married, I took all the preparations very seriously, but was disappointed by how obviously the novus ordo Church treated it as a process of “going though the motions”, just as it does with everything else.

    Only the subject of marriage, I saw recently that the Church of Scotland is to introduce same sex marriage. Presumably they feel they have time to give God “the fingers” one last time, before their denomination passes into history. They are obviously chasing money, feeling the pinch due as their inexorable decline progresses.

    As well as timely remember of what a joke ecumenism is, it means we will all have to suffer newspaper photos of Baroness Ruth Davidson “marrying” her girlfriend in the CofS, IVF child in tow.

    June 1, 2021 at 2:40 pm
    • Athanasius

      Gabriel Syme

      I think the first thing to address is that when the Protestants broke away from the true Church they took with them certain Catholic elements which, if properly observed in accordance with Church teaching, can still be valid.

      The two Sacraments that fall into this category are baptism and matrimony, the only two Sacraments that lay people are permitted to administer. Indeed, in the case of the Sacrament of matrimony, it is always administered by the lay spouses through their exchange of vows before God with the minister of religion playing the part witness, as required by the Church for licitness.

      Hence a marriage between two Lutherans witnessed by a female minister would not be valid or licit because all parties commence from a position of opposition to God’s will as established by Church teaching and Christian tradition in respect to Our Lord’s institution of a male-only clergy. In other words, the correct form and intention necessary for the valid administration of the Sacrament is defective and therefore void supernaturally.

      As for two Protestants marrying in a Protestant church, the Catholic Church does recognise these as valid, assuming invincible ignorance of the true faith on the part of the spouses and a genuine desire to marry before God in a Sacramental way and in full compliance with the divine law.

      Conversely, if a Catholic tries to marry a Protestant in a Protestant church then obviously that marriage is invalid due to the apostasy of the Catholic, who can hardly claim invincible ignorance of the True religion.

      I think this is generally the understanding and I hope it helps. Maybe a reliable priest can come on the blog to confirm, or, if necessary, correct, what I have stated here. I think it’s right, though.

      June 1, 2021 at 3:59 pm
      • gabriel syme


        Thanks for that information.

        I actually now remembering hearing that previously, that in matrimony the spouses are the ministers of the sacrament to one another.

        I feel suitably silly for having forgotten – a combination of a poor formation and a heid like a sieve, I would bet!

        Your reply has given rise to another question:

        If the Church recognises some protestant marriages – presumably Anglican and Lutheran (Methodist too?) as being valid sacraments – does this mean it would forbid parties to such marriages (which had failed) from re-marriage in the Church?

        I know the modern Church dishes out annulments all too easily, but surely the ecumenically minded modern Bishops would not presume to rule on a marriage conducted elsewhere by their protestant friends?

        June 1, 2021 at 10:34 pm
      • Athanasius

        Gabriel Syme

        I’m afraid you have me stumped on that second question. I would speculate that the Church would have to investigate individual cases of Protestant converts whose marriages in Protestant churches had broken down in order to assess whether the marriage was valid to begin with and what the circumstances surrounding the breakdown were.

        Suffice it to say that in many, many cases there is insufficient grasp of the sacredness of the vows spouses make before God in Protestant denominations due to the ease with which these sects accept divorce, so that may have consequences. The question, though, requires a qualified person to answer it properly.

        June 1, 2021 at 11:55 pm
      • Josephine

        Gabriel Syme,

        I don’t think you can describe Protestant marriages as “sacramental”, not true sacraments anyway. They are “valid” because they are between two people who have contracted a union in marriage, according to their own beliefs. The Church recognises that marriage between those two, but if later the marriage is dissolved through divorce and one partner wants to marry a Catholic in the Catholic church, that is allowed. I’m not sure this is clear, but I think the clue is in “true sacrament”? Are there true sacraments outside the Catholic Church?

        June 2, 2021 at 12:27 pm
      • Athanasius


        The answer to your question: “Are there true Sacraments outside the Catholic Church?” is – no, there are no true Sacraments outside the Catholic Church.

        Marriage and baptism, however, are Sacraments of the Catholic Church that can be administered validly by lay people, even non-Catholics, assuming the administration of such Sacraments is done with the correct form and with the supernatural end intended by the Church.

        In the case of a marriage between two Protestants in a Protestant church, then, again assuming the aforementioned conditions for validity to have been present, there can be little doubt over the “validity” of those Sacraments.

        I think the idea that a sacrament can be “valid” while at the same time “not a true sacrament” is a false statement. Sacraments are either validly and truly administered or they are not. That a Sacrament can be validly administered in an illicit manner is certainly worth looking at because the Church teaches that the spouses should take their vows as Catholics before a Catholic priests as witness. Failure to abide by that teaching does not invalidate the administration of the Catholic Sacrament, though, it merely renders its administration illicit.

        Hence it follows that a validly married Protestant whose marriage went pear shaped can not simply become a Catholic have the freedom to remarry, as though the Church did not recognise the validity of his first Protestant marriage. Rather, such a person would have to seek annulment of his first marriage by the Church in the same way a cradle Catholic would if their marriage failed. The Church would then examine all the circumstances surrounding the preparation for that marriage, how the Sacrament was administered, what the spouse believed when they took vows before God, if there were serious impediments that should have prevented such a marriage, why the marriage broke down, etc., before making a decision on annulment. It wouldn’t just be done automatically because the person had become a Catholic.

        I hope this helps to clarify rather than me having made myself perfectly obscure!

        June 2, 2021 at 4:35 pm
      • Josephine


        I was meaning that the marriage between two Protestants marrying in a Protestant church would be valid because the couple marry each other, the minister of religion is just officiating, I didn’t mean that their marriage was “sacramental”. I think I’ve caused confusion there.

        I’m sorry but I’ve never heard of any Protestant having to seek an annulment although I’ve known plenty to have been divorced and married in the Catholic Church.

        June 2, 2021 at 4:51 pm
      • Eileen McBride

        I know two converts to Catholicism who applied to have their marriages in their previous churches declared invalid. Both were divorced before their conversion. One was successful. I believe the other decided not to bother in the end and withdrew from the process. Both were considering marrying but neither has done so.

        June 2, 2021 at 5:24 pm
      • Athanasius


        Thank you for clarifying what you actually meant. I would stipulate, however, that the Church recognises, as supernatural and Sacramental, all marriages between two baptised Christians whether they are Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or whatever. She also recognises the marriages of non-Christians such as Jews and Muslims, but only in the natural, non-sacramental sense.

        Hence any divorced Protestant seeking remarriage in the Catholic Church as a convert would have to have their first marriage scrutinised by the Church to see if there are sufficient grounds for annulment of that marriage. I checked this out and it definitely is correct.

        June 2, 2021 at 5:38 pm
      • Josephine


        I’m sorry but we are obviously at cross purposes. I am not talking about a Protestant who converts. I am talking about a Protestant who is going to marry a Catholic in the Catholic Church.

        He was previously married to another Protestant in a Protestant church, then they divorced.

        Now he has met a Catholic who wants to be married in the Catholic church.

        He is not converting. What happens in that situation. That was what I was meaning.

        June 2, 2021 at 7:14 pm
      • Athanasius


        It wouldn’t make any difference if the Protestant was converting or not, he/she could not marry a Catholic until the Catholic Church investigated the first marriage of the Protestant and found grounds for annulment. If there were no grounds found then the marriage to the Catholic could not be permitted.

        It’s all to do with the Church recognising marriages between two Protestants in a Protestant church as sacramentally valid, assuming conformity with form and intention in the supernatural sense.

        June 2, 2021 at 11:32 pm
      • Josephine


        Right, I’ve got to hand it to you, you’ve done your research and I’m grateful to you.

        I’m also surprised, though, because I didn’t think the description “sacramental” could possibly apply to a Protestant service of any kind, but I am wrong on that one, obviously.

        I just wish we would be taught this sort of thing both in Catholic schools and in sermons. The priests waffle on about stuff that is really irrelevant to most of us, and don’t tell us what we need to know to live in the real world.

        June 3, 2021 at 11:11 am
      • Athanasius


        Yes, the two Sacraments of baptism and matrimony were stolen from the Catholic Church when the “Reformers” of the 16 century rebelled against the true Church. And since they are supernatural Sacraments, they don’t cease to have effect because they are used illicitly. That’s the secret to understanding the situation.

        June 3, 2021 at 12:25 pm
    • Athanasius

      Gabriel Syme

      You last sentence is so true – they mock God beyond belief while still calling themselves Christians. If it hadn’t been for the lifeline Vatican II offered through ecumenism, Protestantism would have died the death 50 years ago, the natural result of having cut itself off from the true vine – the Catholic Church instituted by Our Lord.

      June 1, 2021 at 4:02 pm
      • gabriel syme


        I agree entirely.

        That ecumenism has persisted so long is a disgrace, given it has long since been clear that the protestant groups were never really interested in working for unity, but only in the credibility which they perceived the exercise lent them.

        The Church of Scotland moving to embrace same sex marriage is only the latest example of this. The parties are now much further apart than when ecumenism began.

        It has made a mockery of Christianity, and for what?

        June 1, 2021 at 10:39 pm
  • Antoine Bisset

    We have discussed some of the detail, but the big picture is clear. Regardless of the intricacies of the legalities of the validity of the marriage, looking at it from a slightly different angle we perceive it as a scandal. That is the aspect that Church has previously dealt with by refusing to admit to the Sacrament of Marriage those who were living in “open and public concubinage” as their behaviour was disrespectful and demonstrated disregard of the importance of marriage as regards the Church and society.

    Allowing for repentance and change, is it really possible to see this as anything other than a scandal?

    If it is really this easy, why would anyone bother attempting to live a spiritual and chaste life?
    “Give me chastity and continence, but not yet.” I am not sure that St Augustine was offering that as a life style suggestion.

    (As an aside, I do not see that a marriage held in private meets the social requirements, but that is another matter.)

    June 1, 2021 at 4:39 pm
    • editor


      I remember hearing tales from members of the Legion of Mary years ago, that when they encountered cohabiting couples who wanted to have their situation “regularised” the priest would bring the couple into the sacristy after Mass and, with nobody but the required witnesses present, would “marry” the couple.

      Part of the worry for such couples had been “what if the neighbours find out that we’re not married?” So, that pastoral solution made sense and removed any danger of the kind of scandal caused by Boris & Carrie. Of course, if it’s a razzmatazz wedding that’s important, well… that’s a very different matter.

      It’s also a very different kettle of scandal when even the clergy don’t see the problem with cohabitation. Hence the proliferation of such scandals. Wedding photos now routinely include the couple’s children (and maybe the previous boyfriends’ children as well – and no, I didn’t put the apostrophe in the wrong place! ) Gimme strength!

      June 1, 2021 at 5:35 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: