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 Settlement—the law that bars Catholics from the line of succession to the crown—Lord 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.
/s
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.
/johnny
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.