Boris Johnson's Catholic wedding: Why didn't the New York Times consult a Canon lawyer?

When preparing news reports about a chess match, it really helps if reporters quote one or more experts on the rules of chess.

The same thing is true when covering the FIFA World Cup. At some point, it would help to have an expert define “offsides” and some of soccer’s other more complicated rules.

When covering the U.S. Supreme Court, it helps to have a reporter on the team with a law degree and some serious experience covering debates in elite courtrooms.

This brings me that New York Times article the other day about that eyebrow-raising wedding at Westminster Cathedral between the current prime minister of England and his latest of many lady friends. The double-decker question covered many essential facts:

Why Could Boris Johnson Marry in a Catholic Church?
The British prime minister was married twice before, but the church didn’t recognize those unions because they were not Catholic.

Now, this article did some things very well, including offering a crisp, clear summary of Johnson’s complicated history as a husband and lover. Read that, if you wish.

However, I was struck by two words that were missing in this article — that would be, “Canonical” and “form” — even though discussions of this legal term was all over Catholic Twitter once the secret wedding was made public.

What, pray tell, is “Canonical form”? We will get to that in a moment.

In terms of journalism basics, the crucial point is that it really would have helped if the Times team had interviewed one or two Catholic Canon lawyers who understand this term and the history behind the church’s teachings on this subject. As things turned out, readers ended up knowing more about how this rite offended the sensibilities of Catholic LGBTQ activists than the specifics of the church laws that allowed the wedding to take place.

The British election December 12 was as dramatic as America’s in 2016. Some claim the smashing triumph of Boris Johnson’s Conservatives over Jeremy Corbyn and Labour means Donald Trump will be re-elected if U.S. Democrats likewise go hard left. Or not.

Whatever the U.S. ripples, the inevitable “Brexit” from the European Union is epochal for the U.K.

Journalists should be pondering an equally historic possibility. Philip Jenkins, a Baylor University historian of religion whose Christian Century columns about overseas trends are always worth reading, posed the following on Patheos.com days before the Brits balloted.

What if Brexit turns the United Kingdom into an untied kingdom? What if the nation with the world’s fifth largest economy dissolves? What happens to ties between some of the churches that are involved?

In terms of history, not long ago we saw the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia break into assorted nation-states, and before that the Czechs and Slovaks split up.

England dominates the four segments of the nation officially named The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Jenkins contends that today’s supposed “British” government sees itself "only in terms of England” and he predicts in coming years “the nation of Great Britain will have ceased to exist.”

A crackup’s first stage would be the departure of Scotland after 312 years. In a 2014 referendum, an impressive 45 percent of Scots voted to quit the U.K. The potential break was further demonstrated in the Britain-wide referendum that backed Brexit when a lopsided 62 percent of Scots voted to remain in the European Union. The pro-independence Scottish National Party surged in last week’s voting. Jenkins claims Scotland’s breakaway is now “just a matter of time.”

Northern Ireland likewise voted to remain in the European Union, by 56 percent.