Posted on 03/10/2005 5:57:42 AM PST by NYer
When Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams gives a blessing to Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles at the Guildhall, Windsor, there will, no doubt, be smiles all round. But this royal marriage is both a potential powder keg for the Anglican Communion and a reminder of anti-Catholic legislation.
Prince Charles’s announcement that he is to marry his lover Camilla Parker Bowles in a civil ceremony on April 8 brought relief to those struggling with the prospect of a future Supreme Governor of the Church of England and monarch in an unmarried relationship with a divorcée.
Williams, who has been consistently opposed to a church wedding for the couple, said, "I am pleased that Prince Charles and Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles have decided to take this important step."
While this problem may be solved, a further one emerges: How does the Anglican Communion reconcile that its future spiritual head was not married in a church? The General Synod of the Church of England, which met last week in London, refused to discuss it.
It is worth remembering that in 1936 King Edward VIII abdicated rather than renounce his relationship with American divorcee Mrs. Wallace Simpson, whom he eventually married.
Though giving clergy discretion, the Church of England still opposes remarrying those whose relationship led to the breakdown of a previous marriage. Fifty-six-year-old Charles and 58-year-old Camilla have both admitted to having had an adulterous relationship while both were married. A bitter Princess Diana blamed Camilla for her divorce from Charles before she was killed in a car crash in Paris in 1997.
However, the marriage was criticized by evangelical groups such as Reform. Spokesman Rod Thomas said it would compromise the Prince of Wales’s moral authority when he comes to serve as Supreme Governor of the Church and would add to pressures for disestablishment.
The effects of the royal marriage will be felt not just in England, but also in parts of Africa and Asia, where Anglicans tend to be quite conservative. Around a quarter of the world’s 70 million Anglicans live in Nigeria. How will they react to the Church of England’s seeming endorsement of extramarital affairs?
For news of Charles’ marriage follows the openly-homosexual Canon Gene Robinson being made Bishop of New Hampshire, while another homosexual, Jeffrey John, was appointed Dean of St Alban’s after turning down the bishopric of Reading because of opposition from evangelical Anglicans.
So far, Anglicans in the Third World have remained loyal to Canterbury. But for how long? When 300 bishops met in Nigeria last year, they wasted no time in strongly condemning same-sex "marriages" and homosexual acts as unbiblical. Schism is a word being spoken more and more.
And the Charles-Camilla marriage has ignited another issue in the Church of England, and one that goes to the heart of its identity, namely its role as the established Church in England.
While the Anglican Church in both Ireland and Wales has been disestablished, in England this is not the case. The Church of England crowns the monarchs and 26 of its bishops sit in the House of Lords. But bishops are chosen by the Prime Minister, not the Archbishop of Canterbury.
King Henry VIII broke with Rome in 1533 because Pope Clement VII refused to dissolve his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, and Henry declared himself the head of the Church in England. Under Queen Elizabeth I, the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity were passed in 1559, putting the Church of England under the monarchy.
The anti-Catholic atmosphere of the post-Reformation years led to the passing of the 1701 Act of Settlement, which bars Catholics, those who marry Catholics and those born out of wedlock from the throne. It also stipulates that the sovereign must also be in communion with the Church of England, must swear an oath to preserve the church, and to uphold the Protestant line of succession.
While most of Britain’s anti-Catholic laws have been repealed by the Relief Act of 1793, the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829 and the Removal of Clergy Disqualification Act of 2001, the Act of Settlement still stands.
In recent times, Prince Michael of Kent, who was 16th in line for the British throne, lost his right of succession when he married a Catholic in 1978, as did the Earl of St Andrew, 17th in line, when he married a Catholic in 1988.
While Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, and his predecessor Cardinal Basil Hume, have called for the abolition of the Act of Settlement, the loudest calls have come from Scotland, where sectarianism remains a live issue. At soccer matches between rivals Celtic, whose support comes mainly from the Catholic community, and Rangers, whose fans are mostly Protestant, passion has often turned into sectarian violence.
Addressing the Scottish Parliament last week, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Archbishop of Edinburgh, demanded that the Act of Settlement be repealed, describing it as "an offensive reminder to the whole Catholic community of a mentality which has no place in modern Britain."
He said: "It’s a matter of regret surely that had Mrs. Parker Bowles been a Catholic, Prince Charles would have lost the right to succession to the throne and, similarly, if they had been going to have children they would have been excluded from the right of succession, and that’s hurtful."
"Although it may be argued that this is a piece of arcane legislation very unlikely to affect any of Scotland’s Catholics directly, that would be to miss the point, which is that its effect is indirect," he said. "It causes offence and is hurtful. No other religious group in the UK is similarly excluded or stigmatized in law."
Tony Blair, whose wife Cherie is Catholic, is understood to be sympathetic to reform, but Downing Street insiders have reiterated that, despite Charles and Camilla’s announcement, there are no plans to scrap the act.
The Archbishop of Canterbury will, no doubt, be relieved about this. But the consequences of Charles’ marriage in an Anglican Communion that increasingly lacks any central authority and has little genuine doctrinal unity — the General Synod of the Church of England last week took the first steps towards consecrating women bishops — may be very far-reaching indeed.
Well .... this should make for ripples on the lake.
When Henry VIII subjugated the Church of England to the temporal monarchy, he did something which he never anticipated nor foresaw, in my opinion. He inextricably linked forever, the fates of both. As the Church of England goes, so goes the British monarchy. Rather than subduing a potentially troublesome adversary, he unwittingly made a heavy millstone for the monarchy, which would one day sink and drown it.
The doctrinal chaos and confusion within the CofE coupled with its hemorrhaging membership is mirrored by the dysfunctional lives of its temporal leaders-the Royal Family.
Both are sliding arm-in-arm towards oblivion.
Where do we begin....
I guess Charles and Camilla could simply give a large, undisclosed amount of money to the church in exchange for an "annulment" of their previous marriages from the bishop.
.......
Henry the VIII pushed through legislation removing the Bishop of Rome's authority in England (a process that had begun in 1214) in order to ensure the succession to the throne. In order to avoid another civil war upon his death (remember, Henry's father, Henry VII, had ended the the Wars of the Roses), Henry needed an heir; in order to have an heir, Henry needed a wife who could provide him one; in order to get such a wife, he needed an annulment from his current one on the grounds that she could not provide an heir (usually granted by the Bishop of Rome after payment of a large sum of money). The problem was that Catherine's nephew, Emperor Charles V, had captured Rome and thrown Clement VII in jail. In another words, the politics of continental Europe were preventing England from establishing a stable succession.
Here we have the occupant of the Chair of St Peter, St Clement, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, and Innocent III jailed by a member of his own flock. Who could blame Henry for wanting to get away from that mess?
.......
Everytime I see the seasonal missilettte (sp?) being used in Roman Catholic churches, I remember that the man who championed the concept of printing the service and Scriptures in the verbnacular language books so that the whole congregation could follow along and participate. That man was Archbishop Thomas Cranmer of Canterbury, who was burned at the stake for his reform by the Inquisition.
Charlie is totally irrelevant to real Christianity and just about anything else; he's out there where the busses don't stop. As for Camilla..........
Regarding Williams, he once again shows that non-Third World Anglicanism (with scattered exceptions, like the various Anglican groups that broke from Canterbury) is a post-Christian "spiritually" and irrelevant. As I called it when I was still on the other bank of the Tiber, this is just another instance of episcopaganism.
C.S. Lewis would not recognize Anglicanism if he came back. He'd be horrified.
If the British government divests itself of the CoE, the next thing it divests itself of should be the Act of Settlement.
Succinctly put.
I’m not a monarchist, so have no axe to grind so far as the issue of The Act of Settlement is concerned but it is illuminating to hear of Cardinal Keith O’Brien’s chagrin that we still can’t have a Catholic on the throne:-
“He said: "It’s a matter of regret surely that had Mrs. Parker Bowles been a Catholic, Prince Charles would have lost the right to succession to the throne and, similarly, if they had been going to have children they would have been excluded from the right of succession, and that’s hurtful."
Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the good Cardinal makes no mention of the fact that Camilla was married to a Catholic - Andrew Parker-Bowles – in a Catholic ceremony. So far as is known that marriage was never annulled. Ergo, as far as the Church is concerned, she is still married. However, since O’Brien and his English counterpart Cardinal “Comic” Murphy-O’Connor were among the frontrunners to join Arch Druid Williams in the headlong rush to congratulate the “happy couple” and wish them every happiness, it rather takes the edge of his faux-protest.
Worth noting, too, that O’Brien is more frequently to be found addressing the General Synod of the Church of Scotland and apologising for Catholicism. That’s when he’s not busy decorating Scottish Catholic altars with Buddhist statues. That said, most British Catholics appear to be indifferent to the whole Charles and Camilla road show. My sympathies lie with our conservative Anglican brethren who have to put up with this whole nonsense of this farcial, royal non-wedding.
It already has; there has been a bit of discussion about this out on the Anglican blogs, though it's being drowned out by the roar over the Windsor Report.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. Dear Selous,
Another poster, Tantumergo, has previous stated that the Parker-Bowles had received an annulment. Thus, from the standpoint of the Catholic Church, Mrs. Parker Bowles is free to marry. As well, since Prince Charles' first wife is deceased, he is, also.
sitetest
It's good to see the case for the British Reformation so well put. I'm tired of always hearing that the Anglican Church only exists because Henry wanted a divorce.
Annulments aren't granted on that basis, and nothing in Henry's claim to the Pope asked for one on that basis.
In point of fact, Queen Katharine had provided an heir, but not a male one. Failure to provide a male heir, or any heir for that matter, does not prove that no valid Catholic marriage had ever existed, which is what would have been required for a decree of nullity. The idea that Pope Clement would have done Henry's bidding had he been free to do so is speculation, nothing more.
All of the history is interesting.
But query: should people who marry Catholics TODAY be barred from the British throne?
Prince Charles may matter to British Anglicans, but he has NO importance whatsoever to the worldwide Anglican Communion. I could give a rat's butt what he does, and obviously the Primates feel the same way. This is a non-story.
I haven't been able to find any supportive evidence of that - though lots of conjecture to the contrary. The conjecture, of course, could be just that.
Perhaps Tantumergo could comment further.
no church wedding if the partner is the cause of the break up...these are the exact reason why Rev. Robinson should not have been elevated to Bishop of the ECUSA!!
The Inquisition?
This dramatic account of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer's execution was written by an anonymous bystander. Cranmer was executed on 21 March 1556. Imprisoned by the Catholic Queen Mary I, Cranmer wrote a recantation of Protestantism, but he denied that recantation before he died.
Mary had good cause to dislike Cranmer. Not only was he the premier Protestant in England, he also annulled her parents' marriage and subsequently married King Henry VIII to Anne Boleyn.
If all Henry needed was an annulment, let's just issue one ex post facto, the nobility can return all the property they confiscated, and we can all past few hundred years of unpleasantries and get back together again. Sounds simple, right?
Dear Selous,
I haven't either.
However, here is a link to the thread where Tantumergo said this. He seemed pretty sure of this, and he is a reliable fellow:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1345608/posts?page=12#12
sitetest
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.