Anti-catholism athe heart of the british royal family

OS119

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I think a bigger issue for British people is the fact that as long as they have a monarch church and state cannot be separated, like they should.

doesn't seem to be true with other European Monarchies.

personally i have no problem with dissestablishmentarianism - i'm perfectly in favour - and even without dissestablishment i have no problem with the Governments' current policy of seeking agreement from the other commonwealth states who have QEII as their Head of State to have the 'no catholics' along with male hereditory supremacy laws abolished.

the harsh truth is the CofE is so inoffensive (the LibDems at Prayer) that the links between church and state are frankly irrelevent - they exist, yet they have no effect.

do i get a prize for the longest word in the thread so far?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

JustinDee

OS119 wrote: »

do i get a prize for the longest word in the thread so far?

Not if antidisestablishmentarianism is brought into it

OS119

JustinDee wrote: »

Not if antidisestablishmentarianism is brought into it

hence the 'so far'...:D

Dozen Wicked Words

JustinDee wrote: »

Not if antidisestablishmentarianism is brought into it

OS119 wrote: »

hence the 'so far'...:D

Well both your efforts were Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

getz

a english history lesson made easy,QUEEN ELIZABETH 1,in 1870 pope pius v issuad a bull excommunicating her,pope gregoryX111,conspired to have her assassinated after his initial failer to get emperor king philip 11 of spain to attack ireland,netherlands and england. in 1569 . a catholic plot to overthrow elizabeth and reinstate catholicism failed.in 1572 in france tens of thousands of french protestants were massacred. in 1585 fanatical catholics in spain saw a war,and the conquest of england as a religious crusade with papal blessing in 1588 catholic spanish armada was defeated.in 1895 catholic spain invaded and landed in cornwall and burned penzance,1587 king philip 11 sent a seconed armada,a storm scatters his ships,the catholic plots,and the catholic wars all played a massive part in the decline of protestant/catholic relations all this in the reign of queen elizabeth 1

blinding

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Why.

I do sometimes wonder why some people think that the british monarchy is so fragile when change is brought into the discussion ?

blinding

getz wrote: »

a english history lesson made easy,QUEEN ELIZABETH 1,in 1870 pope pius v issuad a bull excommunicating her,pope gregoryX111,conspired to have her assassinated after his initial failer to get emperor king philip 11 of spain to attack ireland,netherlands and england. in 1569 . a catholic plot to overthrow elizabeth and reinstate catholicism failed.in 1572 in france tens of thousands of french protestants were massacred. in 1585 fanatical catholics in spain saw a war,and the conquest of england as a religious crusade with papal blessing in 1588 catholic spanish armada was defeated.in 1895 catholic spain invaded and landed in cornwall and burned penzance,1587 king philip 11 sent a seconed armada,a storm scatters his ships,the catholic plots,and the catholic wars all played a massive part in the decline of protestant/catholic relations all this in the reign of queen elizabeth 1

All happened along time ago. You have to let this stuff go or so I am sometimes told !

KeithAFC

Why are people so interested in it anyway? So what?

blinding

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I thought the catholics had given up this "must bring up the kids as catholic" but if I am honest I had my doubts that they would give it up.

If the catholic church forces the one catholic in a mixed marriage to bring up the kids as catholics then that would be wrong. Could they actually enforce this in any case.

It would muddy the waters with regard to the british royals if it were still true.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

OS119

blinding wrote: »

Why.

I do sometimes wonder why some people think that the british monarchy is so fragile when change is brought into the discussion ?

you've got the wrong end of the stick - Permabear, like myself - is saying that the Monarchy can survive quite happily without any formal position or ties to the Church of England. the current moves to remove the bars to Catholics from the Act of Succession are a fundamental part of that.

later12

blinding wrote: »

I thought the catholics had given up this "must bring up the kids as catholic" but if I am honest I had my doubts that they would give it up.

The Catholic party to the marriage must promise to do his or her best to ensure that the children are raised as Catholics, however it is not an express necessity for the marriage to remain valid, simply a promise of intent. Theoretically, the spouse of a monarch could insist on the offspring growing up as non Catholics, and the marriage would be perfectly valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church (for what it is worth...).

blinding

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

OS119 wrote: »

you've got the wrong end of the stick - Permabear, like myself - is saying that the Monarchy can survive quite happily without any formal position or ties to the Church of England. the current moves to remove the bars to Catholics from the Act of Succession are a fundamental part of that.

My mistake I read that as it would be quite impossible.
I should'nt jump to conclusions

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

blinding

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The catholic church needs some more lessons learnt. They do like to lay down the law without keeping on the right side of it themselves at times.

later12

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The Catholic spouse is asked to promise to do what is in his or her power to raise them as Roman Catholics. Obviously it could be beyond the Catholic spouse's ability to convince the non Catholic spouse of such necessity, and the children will inevitably be raised according to the outcome of the negotiation between the couple, not necessarily as Catholic. The marriage will remain valid as an approved marriage, either way.

For a religious organisation like the catholic church, it actually appears extraordinarily grown up.

OS119

blinding wrote: »

...Could they actually enforce this in any case....

depends on the veiws of the individual Catholic involved.

if the individual were a devout Catholic they would - by definition - be susceptable to the views of the Pope and RCC of the day. if they were 'Catholic' in the way that most people in Ireland are 'Catholic', and most people in England are 'Protestant' - in that they say prayers at funerals, and like getting married in attractive churches but draw the line at no sex before marriage, no meat on fridays, no divorce and actually believing that Mary was a Virgin, then it wouldn't be a problem - the individual would almost certainly decide that not only do they not pay much attention to what the Pope and RCC say anyway, but that even if they agreed with them on any particular occasion, their greater loyalty lay with the domestic Laws and customs of the UK.

as you can imagine, its rather difficult to draft a law that says, 'casual Catholics are ok, but the more committed ones are a no-no...'.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

getz

later10 wrote: »

The Catholic spouse is asked to promise to do what is in his or her power to raise them as Roman Catholics. Obviously it could be beyond the Catholic spouse's ability to convince the non Catholic spouse of such necessity, and the children will inevitably be raised according to the outcome of the negotiation between the couple, not necessarily as Catholic. The marriage will remain valid as an approved marriage, either way.

For a religious organisation like the catholic church, it actually appears extraordinarily grown up.

you think so ?read this CANON LAW 2319/1 catholics are under excommunication catac sententiae reserves to the ordinary.1 who contracts marriage before non-catholic minister.2 who contracts a marriage with a explicit agreement that all children or any child educated outside the catholic church.3 who knowingly presume to present their children to non-catholic ministers to be baptized.4 parents who present their children to be educated of trained in the non-catholic religion. that says you are wrong

later12

getz wrote: »

you think so ?read this CANON LAW 2319/1 catholics are under excommunication catac sententiae reserves to the ordinary.1 who contracts marriage before non-catholic minister.2 who contracts a marriage with a explicit agreement that all children or any child educated outside the catholic church.3 who knowingly presume to present their children to non-catholic ministers to be baptized.4 parents who present their children to be educated of trained in the non-catholic religion. that says you are wrong

You are either misreading my post, or misreading the church's rulings. I suggest you look over both again. This has been abrogated.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

getz

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

thats a question that has been raised in the last two weeks,and from what i believe ,is going to be changed

OS119

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

whats the situation for a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic in a non-Catholic church?

obviously, in any remotely realistic hypothetical, the marriage ceremony would be in an Anglican church or a civil ceremony in a Registry Office - whats the score then?

later12

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Possibly.

The princess herself would be regarded by Catholics as a turncoat who betrayed her commitment to raising her offspring in that faith.

Probably.

The couple's children, if raised "according to the outcome of negotiations" between a Catholic mother and Protestant father, would be regarded as suspect by hardcore members of both faiths. The squabbles and recriminations would persist, possibly for generations—and so it's perfectly understandably why any potential royal couple would wish to avoid the issue from the outset!

Certainly.

I'm just pointing out that there is no legal (and i use that term ridiculously generously!) obstruction to the marriage in canon law, nor any question of the marriage become invalid in the eyes of the Catholic church should the children be raised as Anglicans, Hindus, Quakers, whatever.

From your own link

The Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith, and to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power in order that all the children be baptised and brought up in the Catholic Church

If the Catholic party to the marriage failed in his or her bona fide attempts to persuade the non catholic spouse of the necessity, as a catholic may see it, of raising the children in the church, there would, to my knowledge, be no serious theological consequence for any of the parties involved. Apart, obviously, for the husband and kids enduring Satan in Hell for all eternity!!!111!!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Einhard

It is a daft law, but from what I understand it is so enmeshed in British legislation and statutes, that it would be a huge task to remove it. On top of that, the Church of England, would have to be split from the monarchy, or some system found to accomodate a Catholic sovereign. It's not simply a matter of deleting the law with the stroke of a pen, as some are wont to point out.

There are few in Ireland, for example, who would argue that a Constitutional provision for children is not a good thing, but even before a referendum is considered, a huge amount of preparatory work has to be undertaken because the existing wording on the family is so integral in the Constitution. The situation viz the Catholic exclusion in the UK is vastly more complex and labyrinthine, and nothing is likely to be done about it until it becomes an issue.

RDM_83 again

I really don't see how people don't think this is important*, symbolism and ritual is important, ask an aethist to go to mass because it doesn't have an effect and see what sort of response you get. Whenever people are asked to swear an oath etc to the Monarch your doing a similar thing.

In addition though slightly off the topic of the Monarchy itself, the Church of England has actual power by having the Lords Spiritual (which may include other religions but has never included a Catholic), in the house of lords, a chamber that unlike the Senate here actually has an impact on the political process




*Yeah this thread should be in a UK or NI related politics sub-forum but there isn't one for some reason

blinding

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I really don't see how people don't think this is important*, symbolism and ritual is important, ask an aethist to go to mass because it doesn't have an effect and see what sort of response you get. Whenever people are asked to swear an oath etc to the Monarch your doing a similar thing.

In addition though slightly off the topic of the Monarchy itself, the Church of England has actual power by having the Lords Spiritual (which may include other religions but has never included a Catholic), in the house of lords, a chamber that unlike the Senate here actually has an impact on the political process

Some interesting additions to the debate. It certainly is a debate worth having. There have been many excellent replies and I must say that I am pleasantly surprised that the debate did not sink to places that this type of topic sometimes can.