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?

  • TAFKABO

    Is it perhaps possible that she changed her religion for reasons other than his place in line to the throne?
    Members of the Royal family have converted to catholicism, as have other high ranking public figures, including Blair.
    People do change for other reasons you know.

  • Gregory

    If you renounce your faith youare not a Catholic, so it works out in the end, and if you are prepared to renounce your aith etc. well the starting and end positions are not too far apart.

    It is like this, if asked to sacrifice to Augustus, one has to decline.

    Indeed, so common as to have sold exclusive pre-nuptial photographs and an interview to Hello! magazine for some $1-million. At the same time, he is not so common as to want to sacrifice his place in the line of succession for the woman he loves.

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/05/15/father-raymond-j-de-souza-autumn-kelly-s-cavalier-conversion.aspx

    I apologize for not knowing how to embed the url. I’ll have to take steps.

    So no loss to us, and no gain to them. He has no title,

    “In my eyes, it is, after all, the same religion,” Miss Kelly explained to Hello!. One does not expect either great theological or historical literacy from Hello!, but even then the statement reveals not mere shallowness, but deep ignorance. Miss Kelly was baptized at St. John Fisher parish in Montreal, named after the Catholic bishop beheaded by King Henry VIII. Neither king nor bishop thought the differences Henry was effecting in the Church were inconsequential.’

    There you have it, it is no loss & no gain.

    G.

  • Gregory

    “Is it perhaps possible that she changed her religion for reasons other than his place in line to the throne? ”

    Well a faith so easily set aside couldn’t may not have had the strength to endure the pitch, branding iron and stake,

    but at a wild guess, I would say ‘no’.

    G.

  • CS Parnell

    Perhaps you’ve mistaken us for people who give a toss.

    Up the republic!

  • foreign correspondent

    The great thing about the UK is its liberal pluralist environment. Except that, er, the head of state has to be of the Protestant persuasion.
    Shurely shome mishtake?
    Or maybe it´s a case of ´You can be any religion you want as long as you´re not Catholic.´?

  • PeaceandJustice

    TAFKABO – “Is it perhaps possible that she changed her religion for reasons other than his place in line to the throne?
    Members of the Royal family have converted to catholicism, as have other high ranking public figures, including Blair.
    People do change for other reasons you know.”

    Exactly. Some of the people shouting loudest about this have little to say about the Ne Temere decrees where the Roman Catholic church stated that all children born into mixed marriages had to be brought up as Roman Catholics.

    The Matrimonia Mixta also states:
    “the Church, conscious of her duty, discourages the contracting of mixed marriages”

    “the Catholic partner in a mixed marriage is obliged .. to see to it that the children be baptized and brought up in that same faith”

    “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.”

  • At a time when the USA may have a black President and a woman Vice, had a catholic President long ago, the Windsor’s and the British establishment cannot bear to have a catholic about the place, unless they are token like Norfolk.

    How pathetic is that, and how shabby that these people can change their religion just like they change their knickers.

    What a sad little reactionary country England has become.

  • Greenflag

    Another example of the inherent degeneracy of the British monarchy . Miss Kelly as an individual has every right of course to change /opt out/deny her ‘religious denomination’ but doing so or so to ‘placate’ the sensitivities of the inbreds of British Monarchy and it’s outdated constitution is ‘revolting’.

    Canada is of course the official refuge place of asylum for the day if and when the Monarchy is booted out of England . None of our business of course but the sooner the better IMO .

  • Rory

    Ughh! How absolutely tacky. Still the snabby antics of these pathetic people does serve to allow the rest of us to feel smugly superior. I would just feel so ashamed if my daughter allowed her wedding to become a phot-shoot opportunity for a vulgar magazine like Hello!. But to do it for money – yeuk!! Monetary value is such a poor substitute for a sense of values.

  • Mr Angry

    [i]”…how shabby that these people can change their religion just like they change their knickers”[/i].- Mick Hall.

    Mick, thanks for ruining my weekend. I was quite happy to assume that Autumn was a “go commando” type chick.

  • It’s always better to marry a Buddhist!

  • TAFKABO

    The reaction to this news, in contrast to the reaction when someone converts to catholicism leads me to conclude than there is still a rather strng tribalism within some catholics.
    People change their religion all the time, for all sorts of reasons, some of us (I like to think the more enlightened, but I would, wouldn’t I?) even abandon religion altogether.

  • Resolve

    Does not this whole thing reek of outdated and unnecessary formalism? Let’s break it down.

    I may be doing no more than stating the very obvious, but two things are clear. If one is prepared to change one’s “faith” in this way, then:

    *That person was not a true Catholic before they became Anglican, since if they were, they’d hardly be prepared to renounce it for such instrumental reasons; and

    *Neither was that person actually becoming a true Protestant, since their motives were other than personal conviction.

    Thus the whole thing is just a ridiculous formality. What does it actually mean?

    Nothing!

  • Pope advises Thai bishops to respect Buddhists.

    http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=127694

  • TAFKABO

    There’s a sillyness at the very heart of this discussion.
    Two points.

    Firstly, all people adopt religion out of selfish reasons, the most common being a fear of hellfires and the promise of eternal bliss.
    Secondly, Monarchy is, by its very nature, inherrently unjust and unfair, quibbling over one little detail makes about as much point as spending all your time saying that if only we could do something about the hair loss cancer causes, it would make things all right.

  • What a grumpy shower of barstewards you all are today. Any woman marrying into the Windsors should be wished the best of luck and leave it like that – a million smackers won’t compensate for the bull$hit that goes with that. According to press I’ve seen she had no idea who he was until she was well smitten so it’s not like she’s whatever the royal version of a puck-bunny or rugger-hugger is. As for her catholicism, well Quebecers have a funny relationship with the church as evidenced by their most commonly used swear words.

    As for the Act of Settlement that is a matter for Gorn Broon – take it up with him.

  • TAFKABO

    “all people adopt religion out of selfish reasons”

    Not so. My religion was adopted for me by my parents, in common with most Christians. Adult converts are many in number but tiny in proportion.

  • Rory

    “People”, as you say, TAFKABO may “change their religion all the time” but Catholics certainly don’t. We may fall away from practice or abandon it all together but change? No thank you.

    There will always be the odd poor soul who through emotional or psychological disturbance joins up with the Moonies or the Scientologists or some other exploitative cult, but no sane Catholic would ever change for spiritual or theological reasons since any change to another christian sect would always ever be a change downward. Even stepping from Catholicism to High Anglicanism would be like shopping in Tesco’s after a lifetime spent among the goodies in Fortnum & Mason.

  • Rory
    Then better change from Catholicism to the Cao Dai religion.

  • Harry Flashman

    There was simply no discussion when I got hitched, the missus said I was to become a Muslim and that was the end of the matter, no more Catholicism for me.

    But then she’s not seventy-gazillion in line to the British throne so Slugger O’Toole and its many contributors didn’t feel the need to discuss my reasons for converting (actually “reverting” in Islam, they’re a funny lot, they believe everyone is already Islam but they just haven’t realised it yet).

    My brother in law became a Catholic to marry my sister and my uncle gave up Hinduism to marry my aunt, is there any particular symbolism in any of that?

    Odd how so many Slugger contributors seem to have some great inside knowledge of the marital arrangements of a couple they’ve never actually met.

  • Matt

    P+J,
    Problem is all your Ne Temerre stuff finished 20-30 years ago…Act of Settlement is still active thus the thread…you know it dangerous driving forward when looking in your rear view mirror…even historically speaking!

  • susan

    Rory, any religion can be Tesco’s.

    Autumn Kelly’s conscience is of course her own. I took belfast Gonzo’s point to be — and if memory serves from his earlier blogs Gonzo is from the Protestant tradition, with a spouse from the Catholic tradition — that in 2008 it is not right — in other words, it is wrong — that the Act of Settlement bars an heir to the throne from marrying a Catholic for no other reason than he or she is a Catholic.

    Of course it is wrong for a state, any state, to dictate the terms of who can marry based on race or religion or ethnicity.

    As Gonzo points out, the Act of Settlement does not bar an heir to the throne from marrying a Jew, a Muslim or a Wiccan. If it were not Autumn Kelly but, say, a hypothetical Autumn Shapiro, great-grandaughter of Holocaust survivors, required to break with her family’s faith tradition, perhaps the discrimination would be more immediately repugnant to all. (On the other hand, if a member of THAT family ever does become affianced to a practicing Wiccan, even I would buy HELLO again).

    Declaring that you know all of a person’s motivations for choosing a religion, or choosing religion at all, is like declaring you know all of a person’s motivations for choosing their sexual partner, or partners.

    if you haven’t been alone with them in the dark, you probably don’t know.

  • And I thought it was all about tackiness and hello magazine.

    I do not know the statistics, but I doubt even one in ten choose their religion, for as someone has pointed out above, we are born what ever our parents are. We then opt out if we so wish.

    Although I’m told that this ‘go commando type chick’ told some magazines that it would be her husband who would be converting to Catholicism. seems she overestimated her powers of persuasion.

    My wife’s mother refused to convert to catholicism her husbands faith, but went on to have eight children, I often wondered if that might have been my wife’s dad stamping his feet/whatever.

  • Susan

    Out of interest could the Windsor kiddies marry an atheist and retain access to the throne. Or is my granddaughter out of the race?

  • Gregory

    “Ne Temere decrees where the Roman Catholic church stated that all children born into mixed marriages had to be brought up as Roman Catholics. ”

    Catholic marriages.

    G.

  • BfB

    taffie

    Funny how those of you enlightened ones that have seen the light, and abandoned religion, can’t shut up about everyone else’s choices…..eh?

  • Gregory

    “According to press I’ve seen she had no idea who he was until she was well smitten ”

    What?

    G.

  • Henry94

    To quote the the old joke, by her action she has raised the average IQ of both faiths 😉

  • TAFKABO

    BfB.

    Funny how this thread is about discussing someone’s choice, why should my contributions be different than anyone else who has stayed on topic?

  • joeCanuck

    Canada is of course the official refuge place of asylum for the day if and when the Monarchy is booted out of England

    No, thanks. Your problem; you deal with it.

  • BfB

    ‘leads me to conclude than there is still a rather strng tribalism within some catholics.’
    ‘Firstly, all people adopt religion out of selfish reasons, the most common being a fear of hellfires and the promise of eternal bliss.’
    ‘some of us (I like to think the more enlightened, but I would, wouldn’t I?) even abandon religion altogether.’

    Discussing someones’ choice?

    Seemed like ego/atheist anti-religion ranting to me..
    Sorry…

  • TAFKABO

    BfB.
    Do fuck off and stop trolling, there’s a good chap.

  • Resolve

    BfB

    So what you’re saying is that you actually believe in the physical existence of the hell fires?

    I await your obfuscation….

  • BfB

    taffie,

    With your nose so high in the air, can you still see your shoes?

  • TAFKABO

    BfB

    When I start telling other human beings that they will be tortured for an eternity, unless they agree with my belief in middle eastern fairy tales, then I might start to think I was acting as if I felt superior.

  • Rory

    Are we sure that this Ms Kelly was ever a Catholic? If so why was she not christened Mary, or Anne or Bridgid or Bernadette? Her forename, “Autumn”, is most certainly not a Christian name and reeks suspiciously of Pantheism to me. Or perhaps she’s an Albigensian. I hear that they are very big at Hello! magazine.

    ..and while we’re at it could we all not agree to excommunicate BfB (BullshitforBrains?). He’s in danger of uniting us all to a common cause (his early demise) and that would never do on Slugger.

  • Driftwood

    More importantly, she’s a classy looking bird, Autumn Kelly. Not quite as top notch as Kate Middleton, but slightly ahead of Harrys bit of stuff.

    As an atheist, I’d convert to any church if it meant a dalliance with Autumn, Chelsy or Kate.

    But I may be guilty of shallow thinking here.

  • BfB

    Resolve,

    Hellfire?
    It’s you and taffie who are hiding you’re true disbeliefs, not I.

    It makes your sad, little, empty, meaningless, unexplained, randomly occurring, life a tad more bearable….
    Look at your sig…..obfuscation at it’s best.

  • Resolve

    BfB

    Who’s the big lad slabbering at me? Sheltered by your cosy internet anonymity, BfB suffers from delusions of grandeur! I’d like to hear you having a go at me off these boards! Unlikely…

    To be specific…

    Who exactly is “hiding” their beliefs? Evidently not TAFKABO, given his statements above. Evidently not me, as i’ve never done so. Given this, I find it hard to even understand where you’re coming from…

    Next, in relation to your criticisms, I take them as compliments!

    I can safely ignore the “sad, empty, meaningless” part, since they just show you to be the sort of person who is prepared to judge on matters not within their knowledge. You don’t know me, so don’t judge me. I would’ve thought a disposition like that would follow from your Christian ethic… evidently not…

    However, this predisposition to judge matters beyond your comprehension extends to the second set of criticisms. You have criticized my life as “unexplained”. In fact, we all exist with this dilemma facing us. Belief in God presupposes agnosticism.. that’s why it’s called “faith”. Yet, when a person decides which side of the debate to opt for in default, the scales are hardly evenly weighted. I don’t know that there is no God, I merely refrain from making presumptions of exact knowledge. This is something you seem quite comfortable of being guilty of. Indeed, your answer implies the reason for your belief… to give the unexplainable an explanation… to make an unbearable existence bearable. I need no such comfort blanket BfB. My life is easily bearable. It has plenty of meaning. I’m quite happy the way I am, thank you.

    Also, you never answered my question. Do you believe Hell exists? If so, where?

  • ulsterfan

    Lets put the world to right

    1 repeal the Act of Settlement

    2 Allow anyone to become head of the Vatican State
    ( the Pope must always be a Catholic but the political head can be anyone)

    Any supporters?

  • Driftwood

    ulsterfan
    Kate or Chelsy? That’s the real debate, although Autumn isn’t bad for a 30 year old. You gotta love posh totty.

  • Rory

    Ulster Fan,

    Anyone can already become Pope. All it requires is that, upon the death of a pope, the Holy Ghost inspires the cardinalature in conclave to select that person.

    So far it seems that the Holy Ghost has tended to inspire the cardinals towards the selection of Catholics in Holy Orders but as the eccentric English writer, Frederick Rolfe (aka “Baron Corvo”)fantasised in his much read 1904 novel Hadrian the Seventh it might be possible (and indeed according to Rolfe) really ought to be that a crazy, chain smoking English homosexual be elected pope – as he is in Rolfe’s novel.

    Who knows, Ulster Fan, you might even be considered papabile yourself one day.

    For more on “Baron Corvo”:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Corvo

  • Reader

    Rory: Anyone can already become Pope. All it requires is that, upon the death of a pope, the Holy Ghost inspires the cardinalature in conclave to select that person.
    But, in practice, my wife would have to convert to Roman Catholicism first, wouldn’t she?

  • Reader

    Rory: Anyone can already become Pope. All it requires is that, upon the death of a pope, the Holy Ghost inspires the cardinalature in conclave to select that person.
    Oh – and would my wife have to get rid of me before getting the job?
    The constitutional problem is that the UK head of state is also the head of the Church of England. Break that link, and the rest will relatively easily fall into place. There can’t by that much antidisestablismentarianism left, these days.

  • yingyangsang

    thick bitch

  • yingyangsang

    thick wagon;want’s to be rich;wait smart wagon ;bought

  • PeaceandJustice

    Matt – “Problem is all your Ne Temerre stuff finished 20-30 years ago”

    I went on to talk about Matrimonia Mixta which replaced Ne Temere:
    “the Catholic partner in a mixed marriage is obliged .. to see to it that the children be baptized and brought up in that same faith”

    Rory – “Anyone can already become Pope. All it requires is that, upon the death of a pope, the Holy Ghost inspires the cardinalature in conclave to select that person. So far it seems that the Holy Ghost has tended to inspire the cardinals towards the selection of [Roman]Catholics in Holy Orders..”

    That made me laugh!!

    Many Pan-Nationalists talk about Roman Catholics not being able to become King or Queen. That’s the head of one family with a specified role within the country. Yet they agree with the Roman Catholic church bullying thousands of mixed-marriage couples to make the non-Roman Catholic one feel that they have to convert.

  • Rory

    “Oh – and would my wife have to get rid of me before getting the job?”

    No, Reader, but it would probably be a great incentive for her. If I were you I wouldn’t let on to her. Once they get an idea into their heads….

  • George

    PeaceAndJustice
    “the Catholic partner in a mixed marriage is obliged .. to see to it that the children be baptized and brought up in that same faith”

    If you want to talk about such issues, why don’t you at least do it honestly. Otherwise, you risk being considered nothing more than a troll.

    Perhaps you could be so good as to explain why you felt it necessaray to put in three dots in the above quote to replace two very important words:

    where possible

    Theologically and practically, those two words make all the difference and actually explain the difference between Ne Temere and its successor.

  • Dave

    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…

    My wife asked me before we married if I would consider embracing the catholic religion because she didn’t think it practical to raise Jewish children. I still get a laugh out of that. I told her that Jewish ethnicity is passed by the mother’s line and that unless her mother was Jewish (and my best guess was that with an Irish surname and a Sacred Heart picture in the kitchen, she wasn’t), then the kids wouldn’t be Jewish anyway. So, we agreed that she could raise the kids as Catholics.

    I am quite happy with the old religion even if don’t really have a strong faith. I don’t think I could ever renounce it.

  • RepublicanStones

    Anyone else ever see that movie ‘Society’?

  • susan

    Susan

    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.

  • PeaceandJustice

    George – “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?

  • susan

    PeaceandJustice, 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?

  • Rory

    P&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.

  • George

    PeaceAndJustice,
    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.

  • Gréagóir O’ Frainclín

    With 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).

  • Greagoir O’ Frainclin

    Peace & 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!

  • BfB

    Resolve

    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….

  • BfB

    One 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.

  • Resolve

    BfB

    Pathetic. Simply pathetic. You need to cultivate a little more Jesus in your heart, and a little less religion. It would do you good.

  • TAFKABO

    I 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.

  • Gregory

    “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.

  • Reader

    Rory: 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.

  • Driftwood

    As 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 goes

  • Rory

    Reader,

    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.

  • Reader

    Rory: 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?

  • Greenflag

    Rory,

    ‘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 .

  • Seimi

    Rory

    ‘…but you can’t play for Arsenal and support Spurs.’

    Umm…Pat Jennings? ;0)

  • Rory

    Reader,

    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.

  • TAFKABO

    Rory.

    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.

  • Seimi

    Good 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 🙂

  • Greenflag

    Rory,

    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’

  • Greenflag

    Tafkabo,

    ‘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 !

  • Gregory

    “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 .”

    DOMINIC BARBERI

  • Gregory

    http://www.keysofpeter.org/w.project/barberi.htm

    There was an inquisition to convert England.

    What did I do wrong with the embedding?

    G.

  • Lenny

    Seimi and Rory

    Will you Gooners give it a rest about Pat Jennings? He was a Spurs legend and just because Burkinshaw had a crazy moment and sold him to you lot doesn’t change that. His heart was always at the Lane.

  • Gert

    When you look at the variety of Protestantism, in theology and practice, from smells and bells to electric guitars, from unitarianism to believing in transubstantiation, and indeed looking at many forms of Roman Catholicism incorporating speaking in tongues and other new practices, there is only one thing which separates Roman Catholics from Protestants per se, and that is accepting the authority of the Pope as a divinely empowered person who must be obeyed. Nothing else is unique to Catholicism.

    If you don’t believe it then there is no sense in calling yourself a Roman Catholic, and you will be able to find a Protestant church which reflects whatever other views you have about religion. If you do believe it then you cannot be other than a Roman Catholic. Therefore the Catholicism / Protestantism difference simply boils down to whether someone accepts that the Pope has a divine right to tell them what to do or not. Such a concept of fealty is medieval, anti-democratic and illiberal. It is a cut down version of the divine right of kings such as putting divine power through Shinto onto the living Japanese emperor or on Kim Jung-Il in the Juche religion. Therefore Catholics can only be liberal to the extent that they behave in a way that they do not believe in the only thing that makes them different from Protestants. Yet “Catholics” ignore these teachings all the time, making them hypocrites. In truth most Catholics in Europe and North America today are actually de facto Protestants. They just, like Luther for a time, never formally left the Catholic church.

  • Pax

    The Pope is the figurehead on earth of the Catholic faith. He speaks for the Church; he doesn’t dictate. If people no longer identify with any expressed views they are free to associate to other belief systems. In this way the Church and the people are free. Any faith system can (and should) publicly state what they believe. It seems perfectly reasonably to assume that any faith system will want it’s beliefs passed on to future generations.

    The issue here deals with the fact that the British head of state discriminates against the subjects of the monarch on grounds of religion. In the 21st century, all belief and specifically all “religious” belief is not respected in the UK. Because this is a reflection of the British head of state, it consequently says much about the UK, it’s people and what they are – none of it complimentary.

  • Rory

    Gert,

    You correctly point out that many, perhaps most, Catholics are hypocrites. So indeed they are as are most Baptists, Muslims, Buddhists and Jews. So too I would venture are the many rationalists who cross their fingers when walking into danger or consult their horoscopes “just for a laugh”. And a good job too, I say.

    Hypocrisy is an essential element for a peaceful life in any rule driven environment and it is the martinet who would eschew the practice of tolerance that hypocrisy allows for who gets up rverybody’s arse and makes life uncomfortable for the rest of us.

    God bless the hypocrites say I – it is the zealots that cause all the trouble.

  • Greenflag

    Rory ,

    ‘Hypocrisy is an essential element for a peaceful life —– makes life uncomfortable for the rest of us. God bless the hypocrites say I – it is the zealots that cause all the trouble.’

    As long as they don’t make it (their hypocrisy) too obvious 🙂

    About the ‘zealots’ ? burn em all at the stake say I – somewhat hypocritically 🙂

  • BfB

    Roary, Greenie…

    Nitwits. You kids keep grasping at straws

  • BfB

    and make sure you have plenty of mirrors in the house to admire your good selves. You are so separated from normal, good, religious people, and you only are fed this anti-religious foolishness that you actually believe it!! I can understand a bit how the brownshirts came about reading your spiteful rants.
    Of course you have this and this as an example of your secular agenda…
    You can look forward to this and this down the line a short way. But at least you’ll be rid of those damn cafflics…..
    Tsk, tsk.

  • Gregory:Good Popish name that. I was reading on one of the conspiracy sites that MI5 have for long used religion as a cover. The Brits are prattling on about Myanmar that they insist on calling Burma. I bet the first plane full of relief will be full of MI5 agents working for Goal or some other shady crew.

    Any woman who would change her religion for a yard of Royal Dick is suspect in my humble opinion.