Saturday, May 17, 2008
Keep the faith? Not likely, old chep…
PRINCESS Anne’s son Peter Philips will be married to Canadian Autumn Kelly at Windsor Castle later today. Thanks to the Act of Settlement, Ms Kelly had to renounce her Catholic faith in order for her husband to retain his claim to the throne. He’s only be 11th in line (and a commoner), so her conversion was pretty token. While it may be natural for those born with a silver spoon in their mouths not to rock the boat, had Ms Kelly been a Muslim, Jew, witch or Satanist none of these problems would have arisen. And if she’d kept her faith, perhaps the couple would be getting more than half a million from Hello! - perhaps they might have even earned some wider respect?
Belfast Gonzo @ 08:03 AM
Anyone else ever see that movie ‘Society’?
Posted by on May 18, 2008 @ 09:07 AMSusan
Out of interest could the Windsor kiddies marry an atheist and retain access to the throne. Or is my granddaughter out of the race?
Posted by Mick Hall on May 17, 2008 @ 02:31 PM
Apparently the answer is yes, Mick, heirs to the throne are free to marry individuals of all faiths or none, bar Catholics. Although it is difficult to imagine an heir to the House of Hall taking up the fox hunting and necessary bland facial expressions. :o) In my exhaustive research into your query—in other words, I just now typed your question directly into Google— I came upon this 2007 opinion piece from the Telegraph:
‘The legislation remains, a blot on our constitutional landscape: undemocratic, unfair, and, to foreign eyes, unbelievable. What? Britons, who pride themselves on being a freedom-loving people, forbid a citizen to marry whom they please?.....
The ancient fear of popish plots seems outlandish in the era of our down-sized monarchy and shrunken Papal power. Benedict XVI is too busy fighting secular indifference to plan a takeover of the British Isles. The days when Catholics risked excommunication if they failed to bring their children up in the Faith are over.....
The time has come for Catholics and non-Catholics, religious and secularists, to join forces in a nationwide campaign to repeal this offensive piece of legislation. Peter Phillips’s engagement should serve as the (perhaps unlikely) trigger to detonate debate, and then action. Gordon Brown should look on this as a perfect opportunity to take his reforms one step further, and show that under his watch no minority, whatever their creed, will suffer an injustice.’
At the moment I have a mac with a pc keyboard, and so I won’t even attempt everyone else’s pretty ways with a hyperlink, but the rest of the piece can be found here, ‘uncut and uncensored’:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/08/04/do0406.xml
It would seem a less arcane and anachronistic example of institutionalised sectarianism if the Act specified that as titular head of the C of E an heir must marry another Anglican, but it doesn’t. Scientologists, Mormons, and Richard Dawkins himself all have a shot at the title. The fact that monarchy itself is an anachronism and that a vast percentage of the UK’s four million Catholics have no desire to meet an heir to the throne let alone marry one is also beside the point.
Nonetheless, Peter and Autumn look over the moon in their wedding photos. I wish them the best in a world ‘they never made,’ etc. etc. etc. and as I am in no way, shape or form a monarchist I cannot help but hope that the Scientologist masterminds that gave the world Tom Cruise have noted their loophole to the throne and are planning their next move accordingly.
Posted by on May 18, 2008 @ 09:16 AMGeorge - “Perhaps you could be so good as to explain why you felt it necessaray to put in three dots in the above quote”
My previous quotes were just extracts from the Matrimonia Mixta. But the full quote is:
“the Catholic partner in a mixed marriage is obliged, not only to remain steadfast in the faith, but also, as far as possible, to see to it that the children be baptized and brought up in that same faith”
Another quote I posted was:
“To obtain from the local Ordinary dispensation from an impediment, the Catholic party shall declare that he is ready to remove dangers of falling from the faith. He is also gravely bound to make a sincere promise to do all in his power to have all the children baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church.”Quite uncompromising language. Ask you local ‘father’ if you have any doubts.
To susan - again you concentrate on the head of one family with a specific role in this nation. Have you anything to say about the Roman Catholic church bullying thousands of mixed marriage families to bring their children up Roman Catholic?
Posted by on May 18, 2008 @ 11:19 AMPeaceandJustice, George has already directed you to the phrase “as far as possible.” I do not need to act “my local ‘father’’ what that means, thank you kindly. You are naturally at all times free to seek any outside counsel you require if you are still uncertain.
I am not sure what you mean about the Church “bullying” thousands of mixed marriage families to bring their children up Roman Catholic. I do know the Church sometimes exerts pressure—I say sometimes because I know personally of exceptions—if the Catholic spouse wishes to be married in a Catholic ceremony. What other observations of “bullying” do you have to share with us?
Your second question presupposes that representative democracies, republics and/or constitutional monarchies can be judged by the same standards as religious sects. They can’t. I have never heard of anyone—least of all Pope Benedict XVI and the College of Cardinals—who has ever claimed the Catholic church was a democracy. I would venture all of us at Slugger, religious and secularists alike, share a passionate preference to live under a state governed by rule of law, rather than a theocracy. I would have thought it self-evident that citizens (even if those citizens are technically subjects) should be equal under the law. how does it serve that the head of one family with a specific role can marry persons of all faiths or none, save Catholicism?
As the Telegraph commenter pointed out, neither the monarchy nor the Papacy are up to much in terms of temporal powers. Catholics can and do act on their own conscience, as routinely and matter of factly as Christians from other sects make their own decisions on literal interpretations of Scriptures. So what is the big problem?
Posted by on May 18, 2008 @ 12:55 PMP&J;,
You are clearly confused on this issue. The Roman Catholic Church’s insistence that its members observe their obligations as members to preserve, protect and nourish the faith is perfectly reasonable. One is not obliged to be a Catholic but if we choose to be or choose to remain in the Church then it is reasonable that we adhere to its rules. Any institution would require the same of its membership. If a Jewish man marries a shiksa piece of posh totty he may or may not gentrify any offspring as a result but he will certainly “gentilise” (i.e. ensure that they are Gentile). Tough! But there you go. For that reason many Jews think twice before entering into marriage with a Gentile - and who could blame them?
I know lots of Ulster protestant families who would not entertain the idea of one of their children marrying a Catholic whether they rejected their church’s teaching on Matrimonia Mixta or not. But then Ulster protestants tend to be almost pathologically tribal whereas Catholics (as the name implies) are universal and are willing to bless the marriages of their faithful to any baptised Christian of good conscience who will respect the obligations of the Catholic partner.
Posted by on May 18, 2008 @ 01:13 PMPeaceAndJustice,
you still haven’t explained why you left out the most important couple words of the quote and instead replaced them with dots.As it obviously wasn’t for the purpose of brevity, the only logical conclusion is that it was a conscious misrepresentation of the facts for the purpose of trolling.
The evidence speaks for itself and until such time as you provide evidence to the contrary I will simply have to assume you are a person more interested in trolling than honest debate.
Posted by on May 18, 2008 @ 01:16 PMWith an Irish surname like Kelly is this Irish blood infiltrating the royal blue blooded 11th in line to the throne?
Regarding the religious dilemma, the anti-Catholic stance from bygone times is rather futile today, bout time it was changed (and it will too in time considering that England grows less Christian day by day; the crown and bible in British society are now merely pointless and meaningless symbols).
Posted by on May 18, 2008 @ 02:34 PMPeace & Justice…
Nietzsche posed the question “Was Man God’s mistake or was God Man’s mistake.”
A good dose of Schopenhaur, Nietzsche, Darwin, Hume, Sartre, Camus, Freud, Dawkins, etc… should be prescribed to counter the effects of your religious zealotry!
Posted by on May 18, 2008 @ 02:43 PMResolve
Ya, you’re a tough guy, good for you. Your caterwauling when called out, cements the fact that you’re a thick as a wall, egomaniac prat. I’ll respond with my opinions when I feel you anti-American, anti Catholic/religion dipshits get your rant on. I can respond with tons of facts articles etc. but I don’t get paid by the word, like many of you....
So on this wonderful southern Florida day, I’m going to enjoy my comfy notsobad US life.
Don’t hurt yourselves wailing, screaming, ranting, looking over at all the other poor sods in this world, and wondering WHYYYYYYYY they don’t listen to YOU.....
resolve. in the highly unlikely event that we were to meet, I won’t be as hard on you as you would be on me.....
I’m done with this one....Posted by on May 18, 2008 @ 04:08 PMOne other thing. You, socialist buttplugs should be happy about this bit of EU progress....since you’ve marginalized Catholicism/religion and all. Right proud you must be, eh?
Ok, now I’m done. <applause>
Posted by on May 18, 2008 @ 04:15 PMBfB
Pathetic. Simply pathetic. You need to cultivate a little more Jesus in your heart, and a little less religion. It would do you good.
Posted by on May 18, 2008 @ 04:25 PMI can respond with tons of facts articles etc
Yeah, and not one of them proves your imaginary friend with the big beard exists.
Throw a few more insults why don’t you, it really shows us how sure you are of your argument.Posted by on May 18, 2008 @ 05:10 PM“It does highlight the absurdity of expecting Catholics to become loyal to a State that discriminates against Catholics at the constitutional level of Head of State. Moving quickly along…”
I don’t blame the English establishment for being anti-Catholic, look at what they’ve got to deal with, it is such a poor example.
It’s brothel time in Portsmouth for the Catholic Bishop there, it’s immunity from prosecution for child sex offenders everywhere else.
The Catholic hierarchy of England are paid up front for the sleight against them.
We need to get smaller, we need to preach to the allegedly converted and let the Saxons do their own thing.
G.
Posted by on May 18, 2008 @ 06:20 PMRory: I know lots of Ulster protestant families who would not entertain the idea of one of their children marrying a Catholic whether they rejected their church’s teaching on Matrimonia Mixta or not. But then Ulster protestants tend to be almost pathologically tribal whereas Catholics (as the name implies) are universal and are willing to bless the marriages of their faithful to any baptised Christian of good conscience who will respect the obligations of the Catholic partner.
1) And yet it still takes one of each to make a mixed marriage.
2) Can’t always blame themmuns (usuns?) for any problems: http://www.nimma.org.uk/3) I can only hope you might agree with me that, in a mixed marriage containing loving and devout partners, it is as right to raise the children in one faith as in the other, and either way round ought to be as common. Of course, that might just be me being “pathologically tribal”, as you put it.
Posted by on May 18, 2008 @ 09:22 PMAs someone who is in a long term relationship/parther (11 years) of so called “mixed” marriage- i come from what would be called a prod background, partner from catholic one. We are both atheist/agnostic in outlook and abhor the attitude of the RC church in particular. (Not saying the prod churches are better, but CoI especially more liberal certainly) That children should be brought up as “catholics” or “muslims”??? They should be brought up as human beings and can decide for themselves whatever philosophy, if any, to follow in life.
I hope they regard themselves in the following , free to swap order as needs be
Human, Primate, Mammal, responsible ethical mindset, liberal, and hopefully marry someone very rich.
So it goesPosted by on May 18, 2008 @ 10:10 PMReader,
It is simply no business of mine what religious upbringing (or none) any couple choose to give their children.
My point is simply that it is perfectly reasonable that any church ask that its members abide by its rules. Now they are not obliged to - they can always simply leave, but you can’t play for Arsenal and support Spurs.
Posted by on May 19, 2008 @ 07:59 AMRory: My point is simply that it is perfectly reasonable that any church ask that its members abide by its rules.
And is that your line on contraception, too?
Posted by on May 19, 2008 @ 11:36 AMRory,
‘My point is simply that it is perfectly reasonable that any church ask that its members abide by its rules.’
But not it’s clergy ? Seems the RC Curch has been almost bankrupted by the numbers of it’s clergy found not just in default of the church’s rules but in default also of the civil law in many states around the world .
If one is to count as Catholics only those who adhere to the Church’s teachings and prescriptions on contraception, family planning and abortion then ‘real ‘ Catholics may account for 1 to 2 % of those nominally RC .Posted by on May 19, 2008 @ 12:35 PMRory
‘...but you can’t play for Arsenal and support Spurs.’
Umm...Pat Jennings? ;0)
Posted by on May 19, 2008 @ 01:18 PMReader,
My line on contraception is not at issue here. The Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception requires obedience from its faithful. Not all of the faithful comply but that is a matter for them and their confessor.
Each church has a right to set its own doctrines and rules. The Church of England is perfectly entitled to insist that they have safeguards against the possibility of a potential head of that church embracing the Roman Catholic faith and thus its prohibition on those with any potential of inheriting the title form marrying a Catholic is a reasonable precaution.
The problem lies in the unhappy coincidence that the Anglican head of church also happens to be the monarch and such a prohibition is unseemly in a modern state with pretensions to democracy. It seems to me that the problem can be easily resolved by having the monarch abdicate, forswear any claim to the throne for her and her heirs for now and evermore and have England declared a republic.
Greenflag,
I don’t understand what it is that you are getting at. Why would anyone make such a narrow definition to qualify a Catholic? All would fail. Baptism in the Church suffices. After some are good, some less so and some very bad indeed - but all are imperfect just like practising Muslims, Jews and (for all I know) even Baptists.
It would really annoy me if I were obliged to forego the delights of pork with crackling and apple sauce and I am sure glad for that reason that I did not come from the Jewish or Muslim tradition but I don’t see it as any of my business that these faiths require such abstinence from their followers.
Sexual predators among the clergy are certainly a problem for the Church (and for criminal investigators and the courts) but do not at all impinge on this discussion and I fail to see any relevance. Are you asking me to say that these men are very naughty? O.K. “They are very naughty indeed”.They really ought to behave themselves. But then the same applies to Anglican sexual predators and to Methodist, Presbyterian and Greek Orthodox ones and to agnostic scoutmasters and militantly atheist gym mistresses.
Seimi,
Pat Jennings is a distant relative of mine and the family like to draw a veil over that shameful period when good taste deserted him to the extent that he found himself at White Hart Lane. We have since forgiven him.
Posted by on May 19, 2008 @ 02:59 PMRory.
Of course there are sexual predators in all walks of life, but the issue of sexual predators amongs the priesthood is not so much that they exist as much as how they were protected and even enableb by the church itself.
As for your suggestion that we solve the problem at hand by having a republic declared, seems like a sensible idea to me.
I just wish more people would stop quibling over a little detail and see the bigger problem for what it is, the very existance of a monarchy in the first place.Posted by on May 19, 2008 @ 04:02 PMGood to hear that Rory. As a Gooner it’s good to hear Pat didn’t feel too good about goin’ to the Dark Side for a while :)
Posted by on May 19, 2008 @ 04:03 PMRory,
I think Tafkabo hits the right note with his comment
‘the issue of sexual predators amongs the priesthood is not so much that they exist as much as how they were protected and even enabled by the church itself’
The RC Church is not a democratic organisation and as we know from the political world that although ‘democratic politics’ are at times corrupt and corruptible the non democratic variety usually excell in such matters .
The British Monarchy is of course not a democratic institution either being founded on principles even less democratic than the papacy .To quote Master Shakespeare - ‘a pox on both their houses the bawling blasphemous in corgi able dogs’
Posted by on May 19, 2008 @ 06:24 PMTafkabo,
‘the very existance of a monarchy in the first place.’
Well yes but this is surely a matter for the English people and other Britons . They pay for the upkeep of the House of Windsor afterall . Has crossed your mind that the English /British need their monarchy if not for the tourist dollars then as a symbol of ‘unity’ between all classes and groups within the UK (apart of course from the RC’s who oddly enough even pray for her majesty’s good health in church every sunday or so I’m told ). I’m not sure if they pray for her conversion to the one true faith in the manner in which they formerly prayed for the conversion of Russia . Perhaps the medium these days is somewhat debased by recent performance and thus the ‘message’ is no longer being heard ? assuming of course it ever was !
Posted by on May 19, 2008 @ 10:15 PM“I’m not sure if they pray for her conversion to the one true faith in the manner in which they formerly prayed for the conversion of Russia .”
<a >DOMINIC BARBERI</a>
Posted by on May 19, 2008 @ 11:37 PM
