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.
“England was Catholic, yet Rome was also political and wanted Spain to invade and overthrow for political reasons”
Many in England wanted Spain to restore the Church. It wasn’t that cut and dried. Recall that Philip was Mary’s consort and King of Spain. After Mary died, and Elizabeth continued to attack the Catholic bishops in England, the Pope excommunicated her and the armada came to try to restore the heirarchy of the Catholic church in England.
“Yet the silly English paid for it and labored over it, and so they took it under standards of plunder and pillage of the time.”
Yeah, and? English!= Protestant. English Catholics built it. Henry stole it.
“particularly unproductive and unworthy of any debate whatsoever.”
Stolen property should be returned with interest accrued.
“raise an army and take it back, 16th-century style.”
Nah, we’ll wait for the Anglicans to gay themselves out and then buy it and get it back again. Won’t be long.
“Why would Cathedrals built before the reformation be anything but Catholic? Is there a point?”
The point being that they are rightfully Catholic property and should be returned to the Catholic church. Theft is theft.
“What you seem to be arguing against is that the reformation occurred at all.”
I’m saying they should return the property that was stolen from the Catholic church.
“The point is that 500 years ago, England had every reason to oppose the Catholic church”
What reason did they have? England was Catholic! Henry VIII had every reason to oppose the Church. Buth Henry VIII is not England, despite what Louis XIV might say.
“The exclusion of Catholicism in the Royal family is an anachronism - but indeed, so is the Monarchy itself.”
It’s not only an anachronism, it’s also a lie. The origin of the monarchy stems from their Catholic origins. Removing the final block of the test act and restoring the rightful line would go a long way to rectifying all the lies told many years ago.
“Ambivalence towards kings is an American tradition. The English Royal family means something to some in the UK and former British colonies, but they have no real political function.”
America is America. The UK is the UK. What goes for one does not necessarily go for the other.
“You” don’t have any more claim on that which is British than any other religion.”
Far from it. Like I said, we built it. The throne is a Catholic throne, and will eventually return.
“Many in England wanted Spain to restore the Church. It wasn’t that cut and dried.”
Oh but it was cut-and-dried, Henry was king. These were not pluralistic times anywhere in Europe.
“Yeah, and? English!= Protestant. English Catholics built it. Henry stole it.”
You are conveniently leaving out the political angle. Rome subverted England and Henry outmaneuvered them and separated from Rome politically - which meant that he had to necessarily separate religiously. That’s the way it was then.
“Stolen property should be returned with interest accrued.”
You’re being ridiculous. Not even the Catholic Church is calling for the return of this property.
“Nah, we’ll wait for the Anglicans to gay themselves out and then buy it and get it back again. Won’t be long.”
You’re awfully flippant towards others faith, even if they have blatant issues, and go beyond what the Catholic Church would even say about the CoE.
You’re not going to start a Catholic vs. Protestant war here - if you understood your history you wouldn’t even try.
“The point being that they are rightfully Catholic property and should be returned to the Catholic church. Theft is theft.”
Not gonna happen. The political entity no longer exists, it’s like trying to return property to the government of Prussia.
The cathedrals were paid for by the English to be used by the English. But feel free to litigate it, neither Rome nor London is suing for return of property. Why are you?
“What reason did they have? England was Catholic!” So now you are suing for the return of all of England? Read your history. Rome fumbled the political ball, underestimated their ability to control England, and overestimated Spain’s military capability. England left Romes political control, and the rise of the Nation State - free from the political bureaucracy and oppression of Rome, unprecedented prosperity and technological development ensued.
“Far from it. Like I said, we built it. The throne is a Catholic throne, and will eventually return.”
No, you didn’t build it, the English built it, they kept it, and nobody, except you, seems to have a problem with it.
Thrones are earthly errors and impediments to freedom of all kinds and edifices for tyranny. The Catholic Church of today recognizes this. They don’t want it back - not like that. They prefer to stick to enticing CoE members with a consistent religious message. They’ve had some notable success, but it’s far from clear whether it represents a significant stride towards a unified church. I don’t think it does.
Perhaps this discussion of Catholics being allowed within the monarchy one step at a time will help gain acceptance of conversion from CoE to Roman Catholicism. Who knows?
There aren’t any hornets in that hornets nest you keep poking at. Give it up.
“Oh but it was cut-and-dried, Henry was king. These were not pluralistic times anywhere in Europe.”
Which is why Henry had to enforce his will and execute priests. So much so that by the time the Tudors were done with it - they managed to eradicate the entire heirarchy. Again - it was not until 1850 that it was even restored.
“Rome subverted England”
Nonsense. Again - England was Catholic prior to Henry VIII. Nobody forced them to be. England had been Catholic prior to Henry VIII for around 800-900 years.
England has been Catholic for longer (still!) than they have been Protestant.
“You’re being ridiculous. Not even the Catholic Church is calling for the return of this property.”
I’m saying, look at what did happen. The Catholic church built it and Henry took it away. Ergo - the Catholic church does have the right to the return of our buildings plus interest accrued in the meantime.
“You’re awfully flippant towards others faith”
Oh. Perhaps I should quote the purported ‘archbishop’ of Canterbury saying that he’s going to bless gay people and ‘marry’ them.
Thank you Henry VIII for bringing this abomination to England!
“if you understood your history you wouldn’t even try.”
If you understood your history you would understand why the Catholics in England feel the way they do. The ones who survived the purge and weren’t executed.
“Not gonna happen. The political entity no longer exists, it’s like trying to return property to the government of Prussia.”
What political entity doesn’t exist? The heirarchy of the Catholic church? The Crown? Both entities existed then. Both entities exist now. I don’t see what’s the problem. The Crown has an outstanding debt to the Catholic church.
“were paid for by the English to be used by the English.”
Which justifies Henry stealing from the English? Makes no sense to me. They were build by the English Catholics for use by the English Catholics.
“But feel free to litigate it, neither Rome nor London is suing for return of property. Why are you?”
Because they have a solid claim to it?
“So now you are suing for the return of all of England?”
England will return to us again. :)
“England left Romes political control, and the rise of the Nation State - free from the political bureaucracy and oppression of Rome, unprecedented prosperity and technological development ensued.”
Right. As if England wasn’t prosperous in the 13th century. Look it up. England used to be the core of the Danish empire, was the core of the Plantagenet Empire.
England had been prosperous for a long time. It became even more prosperous under the Conquerer. Why do you think they were able to dominate France under the Angevins?
“No, you didn’t build it, the English built it, they kept it, and nobody, except you, seems to have a problem with it.”
Actually, Catholicism in England predates the Monarchy. So yes, yes, we built it.
“Thrones are earthly errors and impediments to freedom of all kinds and edifices for tyranny.”
When in England... Live as the English do.
“The Catholic Church of today recognizes this.”
Euhm. We do? You are Catholic? I see nothing in the Catechism saying that constitutional monarchy is evil.
“They prefer to stick to enticing CoE members with a consistent religious message. They’ve had some notable success, but it’s far from clear whether it represents a significant stride towards a unified church. I don’t think it does.”
It won’t be unified. It will be replaced. The CoE will be dumped on the side of the road once all the faithful members give up on the Archbishop of Caterbury and leave.
Then the Church will be the Catholic church once again. As will the throne.
You suffer from the error of extrapolating modern standards to historical times. Death and mayhem in the name of religion is, unfortunately, part of the human condition, and Catholics are no different, as you well know.
Rome lost England, and indeed the world it previously controlled, because it was distracted by political intrigue and bureaucracy of the time. If Rome focused as you do on “reacquiring thrones” and re-establishing the tyrannies of old, Catholicism would be ill-served. They are properly focused today on religion. If you were to have the same conversation you are having with me with your priest, I think he’d explain the Catholic point of view better than I.
That is probably something you should do sooner rather than later.
As a protestant what makes you a reliable source on Catholicism?
“As a protestant what makes you a reliable source on Catholicism?”
You aren’t a reliable source on Catholicism, yet you are Catholic. What makes you a reliable source on any Protestant religion?
I don’t have to be Catholic to know that you still have much to learn about your religion when it comes to what they believe about interaction with other faiths.
Don’t take my word for it, ask your Priest. He’ll be far less antagonistic than you are on this matter.
This isnt going to turn into a Protestant vs. Catholic fistfight, my friend. Sorry to disappoint.
“What makes you a reliable source on any Protestant religion?”
What makes me a reliable source on the Anglican church? The fact that I was a member.
What protestant church do you belong to? Are you even a reliable source on what the Anglican church teaches?
“I don’t have to be Catholic to know that you still have much to learn about your religion when it comes to what they believe about interaction with other faiths.”
This amounts to saying, “we don’t like you so there has to be a reason we don’t like you. Maybe you suck.”
“This isnt going to turn into a Protestant vs. Catholic fistfight, my friend. Sorry to disappoint.”
Again, I’m questioning why you, as a Protestant, believe you speak for Catholics in general.
“This amounts to saying, “we don’t like you so there has to be a reason we don’t like you. Maybe you suck.””
Since you are expecting a fistfight, you read an insult into what I said, when none was stated.
I was being respectful of the Catholic faith and see them respecting their relations with other faiths. I also respect the Catholic Church though am not a member. I hardly implied “you suck”
So back it down a notch or two and have a nice day.
oh, former Episcopalian/Anglican here, too.
Ok, like I said. Look up the 40 martyrs. Look up the Catholic Empancipation act. There is plenty of evidence that Catholics were persecuted in England as an attempt to convert the populace by force. This was wrong.
England was Catholic, and quite happily so prior to Henry VIII. That is my contention. It wasn’t the Catholics who attempted to exterminate English protestants, quite the reverse.
“This was wrong.”
Anyone who defends persecution or execution by one religious group against another is wrong. Whether it’s Henry, or Bloody Mary or England or Spain or anywhere else.
It was a brutal time that is thankfully past.
You appear to long for the “us vs. them” mentality of the 16th century.
England was politically and religiously Catholic. When politics of Rome turned against England, Rome lost the religious ground too.
Moral high ground is difficult to occupy regarding that time, my friend, no matter who you happen to be. To lament “theft of property” over the human toll is puzzling to say the least.
I really don’t see how fighting to defend yourself is attacked.
Elizabeth executed more than Mary ever did, but we don’t call her ‘Bloody Elizabeth.’
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.