On our wedding day we virtually ran back down the aisle the second the ceremony ended. "I thought you were going to trip up, you were in a such a hurry," I remember one guest saying. Why the rush? Because it wasn't really a wedding at all, but a blessing – and throughout the ceremony the vicar had not let us forget it.And why was this?
My husband had been married before and, in the Church of England, remarriage is at the vicar's discretion. Our vicar had decided against it.His choice. You could always have sought a more sympathetic vicar, couldn’t you?
Throughout the ceremony he referred repeatedly and pointedly to "new beginnings" as opposed to just "beginnings". He insisted that there be no exchange of rings, because we were, technically, already man and wife.By the rules of the church, as he interpreted them, you were.
It did not come as a huge shock, then, to discover this week that the same vicar who married us is now seeking to defect wholesale – with his parish – to Rome.No, I can imagine it wouldn’t…
I would not describe myself as a religious person but I do have some sort of faith.Well, clearly, since you insisted on getting remarried in church!
Ten years on I'm disillusioned for the opposite reasons to the angry Anglicans. I would like to see the Church of England be more inclusive not only towards women priests but towards people like me – people who rarely attend church, often question their faith, but who are, essentially, supportive of the church.So you want to join a club, but you don’t want to abide by any of those icky rules? Are you going to stamp your feet if you don't get your way?
Those, like Bould, who look to Rome would say this is right. That if you want to marry in our church, you follow our rules.And that’s perfectly correct.
But this is completely unrealistic in modern society.I can see why you’d think so. You'd think so because, despite your years, you've never really grown up, have you?