Skip to comments.British lawmakers assured: Catholic royals not required to raise children as Catholics
Posted on 04/27/2013 6:58:41 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
Catholic Church officials in Great Britain have reportedly assured lawmakers that Catholics who marry into the royal family would not be expected to raise their children in the Catholic faith.
During debate in the House of Lords on proposed changes in the Act of Settlementthe law that bars Catholics from the line of succession to the crownLord Wallace of Tankerness reported that he had been assured Catholics marrying a member of the royal family would not be held to the usual requirement that their children be raised as Catholics. Citing the general secretary of the bishops conference of England and Wales, Lord Wallace said:
I have the specific consent of Msgr. Stock to say that he was speaking on behalf of Archbishop Nichols as president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales and can inform the House that the view taken by the Catholic Church in England and Wales is that, in the instance of mixed marriages, the approach of the Catholic Church is pastoral.Where it has not been possible for the child of a mixed marriage to be brought up as a Catholic, the Catholic parent does not fall subject to the censure of canon law, Lord Wallace explained. He indicated that he had been assured that for the Catholic spouse of a member of the royal family, it would be regarded as impossible to raise a Catholic child.
Let’s raise them Muslim!
Don’t the Anglicans have more pressing issues to attend to?
Besides, it’s not like any Catholics are close enough to impact succession drastically.
I don’t think this is a good idea. I think if you’re a catholic you just have to accept that your child will not sit on the throne of england, not at this time. Or Jewish or any other religion (besides c of e, obviously).
In fact, I think that stupid Prince Charles should just have renounced the throne and gone off with Camila, but of course, then we wouldn’t have had Prince William and he seems to be a right guy. And that Kate Middleton is really something. She may not be Catholic, but the woman must be a saint, to let her sister look that good as her maid of honor.
As far as religion is concerned, that is an individual decision, we are responsible for our own actions.
There are some historic reasons for the English to have such laws. I will not pursue that line of thought, because I hold all Monarchist in high contempt, Catholic or otherwise.
Except that isn't how it works. There is no clear law to prevent a Jew or a Moslem or a Wiccan (or any other religion) or a Lutheran or a Methodist (or any other Christian denomination) from being King or Queen of the United Kingdom. The law only excludes Catholics and those married to Catholics. Yes, it would be awkward given the Monarch's position of Supreme Governor of the Church of England if they were not a member of the Church of England, but the law does not require that - it simply excludes Catholics and only Catholics.
When the law was made, there were actually reasons for it - conflict between Catholics and Church of England were causing civil wars, revolutions, etc, and it was still the official position of the Catholic Church that the Monarchy of England should be overthrown - but those conflicts gradually ended.
In fact, I think that stupid Prince Charles should just have renounced the throne and gone off with Camilla
He couldn't - there's no power in British law that allows somebody to renounce a claim to the throne. A person can abdicate once they become King or Queen, but they cannot renounce a claim in advance.
From personal experience, the Prince of Wales is far from stupid but he also has a strong sense of duty to hos country - which is why he did not propose marriage to Camilla back in the 1970s - because at that time, he was told that that was not compatible with doing his duty to his country.
They actually keep track of one another ~ there's a website run by one of the members of what is called THE FAMiLY. At least some of these people are Catholics.
THE FAMILY has some illustrious ancestors, and some not so illustrious. For example, almost all of them, including all the nobility in Europe, are descended from Gilles de Rais ~ and you'll want to read about him ~ fascinating serial killer. He was part of the house of House of Montmorency ~ Laval. They, in turn, although second only to the Bourbons, seemed to have not had all the money they wanted. One of them, on the Protestant side, married Ann Bot, the last really wealthy Breton left in Brittany after the Religious Wars, and they absconded to England with what must have been most of the gold in Europe.
I’m sure glad they got that settled. That’s a serious problem.
That said, a merit based limited constitutional monarchy might not be that bad for a few hundred years.
It's fairly obvious that a constitutional limited republic devolves into a rabble of feral democracy.
This is nothing new. In a mixed marriage the Catholic spouse is obligated to insist that the children are raised Catholic but if he fails, that does not open him/her to any censure. Whoever marries into British royalty obviously has considered the many implications of such a step, including the peril to the childrens’ souls. May God be merciful in His judgment.
The noteworthy thing here is the Act of Settlement inserting itself like a ghoul at a wedding; whatever good it ever did is now void due to the evident apostasy of the Church of England which has become the laughingstock of Christendom.
They are afraid of us, because they took something from us in the first place. The thief always is worried that the title deed might be discovered.
Yeah, there was a reason - the civil wars STARTED BY the COE attempting to strip civil rights from Catholics.
I’m sorry, this won’t fly. Catholics are required by the Church to educate their children as Catholics. Why should we accept thin gruel from the Anglicans who don’t have our best interests at hand?
What ever good was ever intended by it?
It was created to exclude James III and VIII. The irony is that the entire line that was grafted in failed. Then they had to scuttle around and put Germans on the throne rather than their Catholic englishmen.
He had exactly one child, a daughter named Marie, who apparently died without issue.
I'm not sure where you got this notion.
I LOVE that term ... so appropriate in many ways!
Oh, yes, they are. Raising children as Catholics is one of the marital promises made in front of the priest and congregation.
My guess is, stability as opposed to the country going back and forth with each royal generation. But I am trying to be charitable here, as the Church of England stood for something meaningful back in the day.
Hi naturalman, good to see you!
Of course, you are right, I actually did know that about the English laws. I’m a little surprised they didn’t forbid the other protestant sects, but I guess they just weren’t worried about that at that time. As for those other “heathen” religions, I’m sure it never crossed their minds that any thing like that could happen.
I still think my original point has validity, they might just have to revisit those laws.
It might be a good time to get that “no throne for allah” down in writing, if you know what I mean and I think you do!
You are kind to stick up for Charles, I’m sure he’s tried to be a good person and no doubt he takes his role seriously (which is more than many, many people do) and he’s raised 2 fine sons through some very hard times. Clearly he loves Camilla and I hope they are happy together.
See - I can be mushy like that.
Good point about “hey, I don’t want to be in line for this job”
In the Trial of St. Joanne d'Arc one of the two Johns testifies regarding any desire he felt towards Joanne ~ which was quite a relevant question since the custom of the times was that any woman alone was fair game for any man afoot.
Gilles was a man of his time until he went crazy.
You must not have noted the list of palaces he owned and needed to sell to support his bad habits ~ in their day they were all located where you'd imagine only the highest of high borns would have them ~ particularly those along the Loire.
England sucks like a vacuum do.
There was unity. Then the COE divided the nation and they complain that there was resistance to the change the COE imposed on the people.
The COE only valued stability when they were in charge.
I thought Gilles De Rais died without issue, he was a pretty sick pup, so it’s probably for the best.
However, what is the nearest Catholic relative in succession? I think it’s all the way down to the Duke of Kent’s grandchildren, which isn’t really as pressing as it was say in the twilight days of the Stuarts.
That has happened because our leaders have chosen to ignore the Constitution. Had we followed what the Constitution says, it would not have happened.
They did, but not directly. Among its provisions is The monarch "shall join in communion with the Church of England."
At this point the stolen property is pretty beaten up.
Although the romantic streak in me sees a picture of the ruined monasteries and wonders, “Imagine one day if this was restored to its ancient splendor”.
Again, I am being charitable to the intent, I do not like the outcomes either.
Here is a pertinent question: does the Church of England tolerate the Lodge, or do they pretend it is not there?
Monarchy is a great thing - I am considering going to live in England for that very reason - it provides continuous leadership that isn’t held hostage to polling and pandering. A country with a monarch, who embodies the traditions and values of a nation - doesn’t fall for an Obama or the Kennedy garbage as its political leader.
We had plenty of politicians.
That Canterbury Cathedral looks pretty spiffy.
I pray for that, and their return. Though - they’d probably sell it for a mosque before they’d ever sell it to the Catholics.
Thank you for writing and posting this - I am sick of the ignorant, stupid comments that are constantly made on this topic. It’s okay to not be informed about this - or about anything else - but then, why oh why opine.
Bye Bye hope you like it.
But after living in NY, you might find it an improvement.
My daughter & son-in-law have been to England several times. She told me they have the most expensive and worst food in that part of the world.
De Rais' proclivities were not normal - not really conducive to Henry VIII levels of illegitimate fecundity.
Moreover, almost every noble house in Europe can trace their ancestry to at least the eleventh century, some to the eighth.
There are no historical records tracing any of these houses to de Rais, who died in 1440. Name one European noble descended from de Rais - it should be easily checkable.
De Rais was wealthy because he was awarded lands on account of his military accomplishments, being named Marshal of France. He was not the highest of high borns, and was actually disinherited. His remaining wealth and lands were seized by the King, his brother and his cousins.
I have been going there since childhood, so I know what it is like. The food can be great if you know where to go, and of course when one has friends, the home food is a diferent story.
Gillis was close enough related to this crowd to be considered an ancestor ~ Ann's the one who ends up in everybody's genealogy ~ and Gillis will be off on a jig on the Montmorency's a mere 20 years earlier. BTW, records generated in France from about 1380 to 1440 are not terribly reliable ~
Whatever makes you happy.
I am not going anywhere abroad. Will be going to the NC in a month or so to see my grandson and let grandma play in the surf with him.
“Yeah, there was a reason - the civil wars STARTED BY the COE attempting to strip civil rights from Catholics”
Complete nonsense. We wont bother mentioning the Catholic Church calling for the assassination of Elizabeth I.
There are a whole variety of reasons why Catholics were increasingly discriminated against. Trying to blame it all on the COE is factually incorrect. Intolerance on both sides was to blame - the Martyrs under Bloody Mary testify to that. Catholics were just as bigoted and intolerant as the COE.
I take it your family doesn’t come from the Jacobites.
“The English King & Queen stuff is nonsense. I have some respect for the Queen, she is a classy lady, but the very idea of our betters deciding for us what we should do is dumb.”
Hmmm, somehow you must have missed our current King Obama and his lovely banged Queen Moochelle. Are they not “our betters” whom we are allowing to rule us?
Actually, the Church of England should be thrown out and return to the One, True, Catholic, Apostolic Church. The Theology is near perfect (pre-Vatican II, of course) -—the Catholic Church never “evolved” on Jesus’s idea of sodomy and divorce and sex outside of marriage, much less abortion and contraception.
And that idea of King Henry the VIII (who just wanted to validate serial polygamy) is based on pure evil (Satanism).
The Church of England was founded on heresy-—and can not be moral. There was no “God Given Right” to divorce and kill his “ex” wives and have sex validated with numerous women. You can never use human beings as a commodity to be discarded-—and the Catholic Church is the only Church which is consistent on all life issues—and aligned with Natural Law Theory (Science).
You obviously are not a fan of “Leftist Revisited” which actually argues the merits of hierarchy and the need for such a system where uniformity and heresy is nearly (if not) impossible. It is why the Protestant Churches have “evolved” to what Bonhoeffer stated in the 30’s when he visited Rockefeller’s church in New York City——”Religionless Christianity”. The Catholic Canon has been virtually unchanged for over 400 years. There is no “flaw” in their “thinking” as I have studied the Canon. It is pure genius and Common Sense, as G. K. Chesterton stated many times (The man in the 20th century with the most Common Sense).
Interesting that you think individuals can decide their own “Right and Wrong” or interpret “Good and Evil” without the thousands of years of debate and an intense study of history and ideas. (Philosophy/Theology). Return to the “tribal” cultures which never resulted in the “Age of Reason” and the Renaissance? Machiavelli would laugh at that “thought”. Actually, that leads to anarchy every time and only ignorant masses to be controlled by the evil.
Organization of society (as with all animals) must contain an order (hierarchy). It is the Design of Nature. Hierarchy is the most efficient system-—ask any CEO.
With hierarchy (if not corrupted)-—merit-—talent is released and rewarded and uniqueness and excellence is rewarded. All cultures flourish when structured where “roles” are different according to ability.
Radical egalitarianism erases every quality that makes human beings “unique” and “special” (e-quality)-—and dehumanizes everyone. Only a culture where certain people can “rise” to the top-—like cream-—can flourish. Even Athens—who had the first Democracy knew the evil of non-structured societies where everyone is treated the same.
There are no two people who are “equal” . No such thing. So “hierarchies” always occur “naturally” whether you want it or NOT-—so a system which allows such a structure-—could be called the most Natural thing of all-—which, of course, is what the Catholic Church “thinks”.
I think they are correct, like always.
Not allowing their children to be raised “Catholic” is allowing their kids to be ignorant of the Truth.
I am a Monarchist myself, to a degree—although I think the Republic, which is a system which absorbed both Democracy and Monarchy-—is the most perfect for Freedom——when our Constitution and Bill of Rights are not thrown out.
BTW, traditions are necessary for the continuation of a culture. Without traditions, the children never learn about the past. Without knowledge of the past-—children will not “progress”-—they will regress.
Throwing out traditions is the Marxist concept-—so they can redesign human beings-—into this artificial world of no freedom where no one understands the history and past-—so they believe any lie they are told.
Only knowledge of history and the Classics/philosophies gives people the understanding of reality-—so they do not repeat the past. Monarchies create a timeline where history can be organized and understood. There is beauty and dignity in the system-—as long as they are moral human beings (devout Catholics). (Philosopher/King concept goes back to Socrates and he was one profound thinker).
Technically, monarchies are always oligarchies in reality.
OH, so. Catholics were just as intolerant for defending what was theirs?
Who built Canterbury Cathedral. Look at the dissolution of the monasteries where Henry VIII helped himself to everything.
What happened to the Catholic church afterwards? Are you aware that the entire heirarchy in the Catholic church was executed?
Every single one - it took nearly 250 years for it to be restored.
Catholics built it all - Henry took it all away. Catholics fought to keep it and Elizabeth finished them off.
Have you heard anything about the 40 martyrs?
Nor do we endorse the junk theology you mentioned.
You waste the long cut and paste. I will not read them. Never understood how your friends want to argue with people who don't share your opinions. You will never “convince” anyone that way. Only annoy.
Bump for later.
I’ll stick my oar in:
“The Catholic and the Communist are alike in assuming that an opponent cannot be both honest and intelligent.”
George Orwell, ‘The Prevention of Literature’ (1946)
OK, here we go ... I’m just an Okie. Back to you, Tex.
I lived in Piedmont, OK for 7 years and was in an out of Oklahoma on business for over 15 years.
We liked OK and my Okie friends.
I do business with OSU’s seed program now. Could not be happier with that relationship.
Okies are OK with me.
My Dad’s an OSU Cowpoke. They’ve got a good football team in recent years.
The Catholics aren’t gonna drag us outta our beds and burn us, ya think?
(With it bein’ Sunday and everthin’ ;^)
No, the Baptists and the Super-Baptists (CofC) claim to have gone underground for 1500 years.
>>>Where it has not been possible for the child of a mixed marriage to be brought up as a Catholic, the Catholic parent does not fall subject to the censure of canon law, Lord Wallace explained>>>
There’s obviously a little paraphrasing here. What it SHOULD have said is, “When the Catholic parent has been promised, as required by the Catholic church for permission of the marriage, that children of the marriage will be raised Catholic, and the promise has not been kept, the Catholic is blameless.”
SHEESH! Talk about twisting facts.
The only problem at that time was the Pope was prisoner of Katherine's of Aragon nephew, and so was forced to refudiate the divorce.