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.
Ping worthy?
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.
If they debate about state religion, they acknowledge the validity of same. What pathetic pukes!
Ahhh, the 1500’s. That was about the time of all the peasant revolts to feudalism. (Monarchies & Catholic Church)
Abuses? Yes.
Persecution? Yes
Consequences? Ahhh Yes.
It was early but eventually all that Divine Right of Kings BS eventually ran it’s course.
Where do you think the idea of disestablishment of a State Religion came from?
And as amazing as it seems, there are still those who are convinced that Monarchies are an acceptable form of government. (The Founders of this Nation would disagree with that)
I have read that “in the 16th century a man who did not drink to excess, curse, abuse his workmen or family could be suspected of being an Baptist (several flavors) and therefore persecuted”
I am not a sports fan, football or otherwise. My daughter graduated from OU but I refused to get wrapped up in that tribal thing.
However, when the seed licensing thing got totally out of hand at Texas A&M (my dad is an Aggie) we looked for options that made sense. OSU is still one of the puddles of sanity left in that mine field. Good honest people, good program and I enjoy doing business with them.
h/t to verga for the ping!
“conflict between Catholics and Church of England were causing civil wars, revolutions, etc”
It’s more complex than that. The Catholic Church was the center of political and religious power at the time. They actively supported Spain to defeat and overrun England, while actively draining funds from English dioceses by refusing to replace Bishops (alms went directly to Rome).
The break from Rome was a matter of survival of England - and geography ensured that England would likely be the first successful departure from Political Rome, which necessitated the Religious departure as well.
The separation was first political then religious.
Granted, that time has passed, and the Catholic Church is no longer the political center of the world, so the actual threat of a Catholic monarch to England is also in the past, but traditions take on lives of their own whether in a Church or a monarchy.
“Yeah, there was a reason - the civil wars STARTED BY the COE attempting to strip civil rights from Catholics.”
This is at best a gross abbreviation of history.
The Catholic Church was OPENLY HOSTILE, and wanted a Spanish invasion of England (and inevitable massacre if successful). What were the English supposed to do? sit around and wait to be killed by the Pope’s Spanish Minions/
Those that bore allegiance to the Catholic Church were taken rightly or wrongly as the enemy.
So who really started the wars? Those that expelled and converted their enemy, or those that wanted to invade and kill the English?
Point is, there is plenty of tribal indignation to go around, your attempt to resurrect ancient political hatreds is childish.
” A country with a monarch, who embodies the traditions and values of a nation.... “
The problem is that they (monarchs) never do what you suggest. They are necessarily tyrants, something our founding fathers clearly understood.
If you want to get a good feel for how Monarchies really work, move to Saudi Arabia. You won’t like it.
“And that idea of King Henry the VIII (who just wanted to validate serial polygamy) is based on pure evil (Satanism).”
Please. The Catholic Church had a political beef with Henry VIII, not a religious one. They routinely sanctioned serial polygamy for monarchs (maybe not always to the level of Henry, but that’s splitting hairs).
They wanted to deny him a legitimate heir as much as he wanted one.
The Catholic Church did not deny Henry sanctioned serial polygamy out of any moral principle. That wasn’t how the world, or the Catholic Church worked at the time.
OB pinged because he made a similar assertion above.
Wondering if either of you can provide some specific examples.
Completely, ridiculously untrue - have you ever been anywhere? No European monarchy has been a tyranny since the middle ages.
And obviously, I was spreaking about a civilized western nation, so your reference to Saudi Arabia is pointless.
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.