 |
|
|
|
 Prince William and his wife Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge married on April 29, 2011. Future royal weddings could see a Catholic marrying into the royal family.
December 5th, 2012
03:38 PM ET
Catholics to be allowed into the royal club (sort of)By Matthew Fitzgerald, CNN London (CNN)— Britain is about to change a 300-year-old rule. British kings and queens – who serve as the official leaders of the Church of England – will soon be allowed to marry Roman Catholics. The historic change will end a centuries-long ban on such interdenominational nuptials. British Prime Minister David Cameron announced plans last year to change the law, along with another historic amendment – the end of primogeniture, which says that males come ahead of their sisters in the order of succession, no matter who’s older. It is a move that could affect the younger royals, including the newest member of the royal family, the baby that Prince William and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, are expecting next year. While the new amendment allows for kings or queens to marry Catholics, the monarchs themselves can't be Catholic, because by definition the king or queen is the head of the Church of England. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter This new legislation would mark a monumental shift in religious relations with the Catholic Church in England. Exclusion and persecution of Roman Catholics began with King Henry VIII’s rejection of papal supremacy in 1534 with the Act of Supremacy. This act established the English monarch as the supreme head of the Church of England and severed relations with the Vatican. Under Henry’s son, Edward VI, the Church of England moved further toward Protestantism with the publication of the Common Book of Prayer and the abolition of the Catholic Mass. Edward was then succeeded by his Catholic half-sister Mary I (aka “Bloody Mary”), who shifted England back to a nation aligned with the Vatican. After Mary’s death, her half-sister Elizabeth I took control of the throne and returned England to Protestantism. The last Roman Catholic monarch of England was James II, who ruled from 1685 to 1688, when he was overthrown during the Glorious Revolution. The narrative of conspiracy and violence between Protestants and Catholics continued through the next hundred years, leaving practicing Roman Catholics marginalized at best and brutalized at worst. England began to roll back restrictions on Catholics during the 19th century. Most notably, the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829 permitted members of the Catholic Church to sit in the parliament at Westminster. Yet until now, no British monarch could marry a Catholic. CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories The new legislation announced by Cameron would amend the Bill of Rights and Coronation Oath Act of 1688, the 1701 Act of Settlement and the 1706 Act of Union with Scotland. The various pieces of law explicitly disqualify anyone who becomes a Roman Catholic, or who marries a Roman Catholic, from inheriting the throne. So what comes next? Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said in a statement on Tuesday that all 16 realms of the Commonwealth have consented to the landmark bill and that the government will “seek to introduce the Succession to the Crown Bill in the House of Commons at the earliest opportunity allowed by the parliamentary timetable.” Vincent Nichols, archbishop of Westminster and president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, lauded the move. "This will eliminate a point of unjust discrimination against Catholics and will be welcomed not only by Catholics but far more widely,” Nichols said in a statement. But he acknowledged the role of the Church of England, saying, “At the same time I fully recognize the importance of the position of the Established Church in protecting and fostering the role of faith in our society today.” Historian and writer Antonia Fraser said the government was doing the right thing. “The Catholic question has not really occurred in terms of the heir (before). It’s not to say that it wouldn’t occur, and I think that if they are altering things it’s a good idea because it is a slur on Catholics … and I think they are right to alter it.”
« Previous entryRubio clarifies age of the earth answer
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke and Eric Marrapodi with daily contributions from CNN's worldwide newsgathering team and frequent posts from religion scholar and author Stephen Prothero.  |
|
|
|
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertise with us | About us | Help | Advertising Practices
Humans, my father, thief of Baghdad, not Saddam Hussein, goons, was allowed into the royal International Club of Crooks and Criminals too (sort of)
Ok, that one made me laugh.
As noted previously:
And why would anyone in the 21st century want to be associated with English royality whose roots go back to the killer-king, Henry VIII. They continue to live off the sweat of a lot of hardworking English men and women? These "royals" should turn in their crowns, jewels, race horses, castles and undeserving properties to the modern proletariet.
That's actually not true. They work a lot. They are the most successful PR firm in the world. The ROI on the money invested in the "firm", (the royals) FAR exceeds that which any Madison Avenue firm gets for invested ad dollars. You may not like it, but most tourism to England is "Royal" related in some way. Get your facts straight.
Please define "Far Exceeds" with some monetary values to include the complete costs to keep these royals pampered and the current value of their jewels, farms, castles, cars, et al.
@llɐq ʎʞɔnq
I'm with you 100% on this one. The Royals cost the taxpayers, on a per person basis, next to nothing.
The anti-monarchy groups estimate the cost of the Royals (including security) at up to £184M. For a population of 62M, this is less than £3 per year per person.
My guess is that you and I spend more on the President of the United States.
Reliable references are? And what are the values of the jewels, crowns, race horses, cars, carriages, castles, hunting grounds, hounds et al???
I so hope the baby is black. I really, really would love that, so as to put an end to the fairytale bullsh.it that allows the Monarchy to survive.
C, that would never happen. They would dip the kid in the MJ white bath to bleach it first.
Oh, come on. I have a soft spot for the royals. What did they ever do to you?
It's very rare, but it's possible. I keep replaying the birthing scene from "Me Myself & Irene" in my head.
It is amazing to me that slightly differing interpretations of the totally fabricated will of a Bronze Age Palistinian sky-fairy can so impact a persons rights in the 21st Century. At times, we are a pathetic species.
I like the ccommercial. I don't remember what it is for, but the voice over is something like "Humans: One minute we figure out the theory of relativity, and the next day...well not so much".
And without the sky fairy we'll still be pathetic. It's why secular society keeps police forces, prisons, courts, lawyers, parole boards, lethal injections.
Such a great story.. Ugh.. UGH.. HRNNNNGGG.. Sorry better clean the splooge off my computer screen, huh..
Ok, that is gross but strangely amusing cuz I get it and I am not proud of that.
Hey, Apple, what's the haps?
Just chillin'...you?
Good take on bucky's discussion. I don't know much about that.
I know Strider = Aragorn = Heir to the throne of Gondor
Is that close?
I am totally psyched that the Hobbit is coming out. I am an UBER Tolkien geek.
Ah, just lounging around...tired.
I've never read The Hobbit...time to pick up a copy, lol.
Or maybe I'll just be lazy and wait for the movie version, lol.
Wait for the movie! Blasphemy!
While I trust Peter, Fran and Philippa will treat the original with respect there's going to be a lot of extrapolation to turn 'The Hobbit' into three movies.
Let me start you off.
"In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort."
I have read the Hobbit and LOTR five times each, and every other book and translation he ever wrote, in addition to all of the books his son published after his death.
GOPer:
I was kidding.
I would much rather read the book.
I have always found that very few movies live up to the books they are based on; given a choice, I'll take the book version any time.
Akira, just curious. Do you enjoy fantasy?
Have you read the Wizard of Oz books? I know you like Wicked, etc. Harry Potter? Norse mythology?
Read the WOO books long ago; I should revisit them. Never got through much of the Tolkien canon. I love fantasy fiction but tend to be more drawn to horror/terror lit.
Hey TT, I enjoy the horror genre too, but what I really enjoy about fantasy is that the universe is just as convincing as this, and fantasy writers respect that and wink at each other. The latest would be the Inheritence trilogy.
Apple:
I read the OZ books years ago...and I mean YEARS ago.
I should probably revisit OZ.
I've got all the Potter books, and enjoyed each one tremendously. I heard Rowling's latest book was a dud, though.
Last time I read any Norse mythology was in middle school; any suggestions?
Really, I enjoy all genres of books...I don't know that I can be pigeonholed into just one category.
Start with Beowulf and follow the thread.....you will end up at Hogwarts.
Apple, wow, really?
Beowulf to Hogwarts. Huh.
Akira, absolutely. And what a ride.
@ Apple. Beowulf to Hogwarts, hmmm. Nice. Stop off for a little Anne Rice and her vampire series.
Baloney.
The pulling away of England from Rome FAR predated Henry VIII. That's the usual tripe the Romans push.
100 years earlier, the historic origins of the split were becoming obvious when (Saint) Thomas a Becket promised to sign the Consti'tutions of Clarendon, (he lied), in order to get back into England, from France, where he had been exiled. When he got back, (after agreeing to sign them while in France), he then refused. Bad faith, as usual by the Roman Church. The roots of the reformation in England were long and complex, and if they had not already been in place, what Hank VIII did would have been impossible. Amazing humans are still living under these ancient political and religious nonsense systems in the 21st Century.
But Henry finally severed the ties.
The final straw was Henry and his desire for a divorce from Katharine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn.
Henry VIII broke with Rome, no matter what preceded it.
@llɐq ʎʞɔnq
Why baloney?
the article says: "Exclusion and persecution of Roman Catholics began with King Henry VIII’s rejection of papal supremacy in 1534 with the Act of Supremacy."
This appears to be an accurate statement to me. It does not state that English Protestantism began with Henry VIII.
He completed an already extant process.
Everyone knows that. But hHe was not responsible for the perceived abuses or the reaction to the abuses by the clergy. The population of England had already begun to throw off the crap long before Henry VIII.
England would have revolted if he had just done it with no cultural context. History doesn't work that way.
It was persecution and exclusion of THE CLERGY. The rich abusive monks, abbots, monasteries, and bishops.
@llɐq ʎʞɔnq
virulent and viseral anti-Catholicism was British policy – both foreign and domestic from the time of Henry VIII though the defeat of Napoleon. It lingered culturally in most of Britain and as a practical day to day reality in Northern Ireland until early this century.
While perceptions regarding the power, prestige, and wealth of the clergy certainly encouraged the protestant reformation in England (as they did in Europe) and factored heavily in Puritanism and the civil war, to say it was limited to the clergy is a gross simplification.
It's my impression that it ceased being about the clergy altogether in the aftermath of the civil war, once the zealotry of Puritanism was replaced with pragmatism during the restoration and subsequently the glorious revolution.
It's Thomas Beckett. The extra a is an anomaly picked up over the years.
Becket, damn. Remember kids to spell correctly when pointing out the errors of others.
All it means is that Thomas was "from" Becket, (the town). It was a common way of describing a location of origin.
I don't disagree "I'm not a GOP".
I'm saying it BEGAN as a reaction to clerical abuse and privilege.
I'm pretty sure there is no such town as Becket.
So what does it mean, then?
Correct. I am wrong. Becket refers to his father's family.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Becket
Becket died in 1170, when Henry II was King.
Conclusion: struggles between the KoE and Rome was present for much longer than just the 100 years preceding Henry VIII's reign.
Akira,
proof please.
There are two layers to look at the relationship between England and Rome in the late Medieval / Renaissance transition period.
1. Political
2. Beliefs amongst the peasantry
If I even half attempted to answer this question, no one would read it because it would be too long and I'm not that qualified.
1. Politics – The Renaissance Roman church was a physical power in the world. Spain and Portugal were the established empires in the early 16th century. England was a growing but nascent power. Kings generally wanted the power of the church on their side – until they didn't. Henry VIII was awarded the t!tle "Defender of the Faith" (Fidei Defensor) by Pope Leo X rewarding a book by Henry, "The Defence of the Seven Sacraments", which attacked Martin Luther. The Britich monarchy still use this honorarium to this day:
(On British currency you will see: ELIZABETH . II . D. G. REG. F. D. which is short for DEI GRATIA REGINA FIDEI DEFENSOR. This means "Elizabeth 2, Queen by the grace of God, Defender of the Faith.)
2. Beliefs of the peasants – for a short answer I would point to people like John Wycliffe 1320 – 1384 and Geoffrey Chaucer 1343 – 1400.
Wycliffe first translated the bible into English. He believed in predestination (two centuries before Calvin) and the secularization of ecclesiastical properties. (The term used for adhering to Wycliffe's beliefs was Lollardy). He really ticked off the Church in Rome. The church exhumed his body and postumously burned his remains as a heretic in 1415. Clearly there were theologies that were popular in England and at odds with Rome in the 14th century.
Chaucer is a famous observer of life and his 'tales' of pilgrimage to the shrine of Saint Thomas Becket at Canterbury Cathedral are a satirical look at all levels of English society and particularly include the clergy.
Tales of the Friar, the Pardoner (seller of indulgences) the Prioress, the Monk, the Nun's Priest, the second Nun, and the Parson all feature prominently in the tales. The emphasis on the Parson is particularly relevant as he is the only cleric pictured positively.
I strongly believe that a basic understanding of English Protestantism is essential to understand the prominence of religion in political life in the US today.
It is a slippery slope man. First interdenominational nuptials, then Momons geting married to African Americans. Next filthy hindu deniers of absolute GAWD getting married to Muslims. Hotdogs in Hamburger buns....not good.
Anyone that believes in magic and angels and god needs to grow up. All religions are the fictional work of men. Stop fighting over fairy tales.
Is there such thing as "right and wrong"? If so, what is it based on?
Right and Wrong is based on "Apple's Rule of Parallel Necessity"
my taliban father, goon, told me flying carpets are real
read the bible
Describe your principle and its origin?
“Apple’s Rule of Parallel Necessity”.
Should I even ask?
Well, if you won't, I will. What is that?
Theen ism, absurdities of Allah, deniers of truth absolute GAWD, not your GOD, imposer of Sunni Mithra ism, kung-fu panda savior ism labeled as Khristianity on humanity to justify themselves as dog's by Salafism, terrorism, Wahhabi Satan s, filthy man gods of panhandler's, ignorant of royal dark ages, king's criminals pretending to be, what they have never been, nobles. spit on them for their filthy blood contaminated with Dracula, filthy leaches blood of suckers of humanity and preachers of Is Lamb ism, racism, skunk ism, goon ism, exploitation ism, wall street ism, spit on my face, I am ashamed to be a muslim, spit on my face, I am ashamed to be a human garbage.
hinduism, absurdity of a hindu, copy cat
I am better than you are, goon
Again with the spitting. Oy!
people say you don't want to stand too close to lamas, they spit on your face
I wish to refute materialism now.
Youre walking along a rural road in ireland and see something. It is wooly, white, 4 legs, and eating grass. You judge this to be a sheep. Another things walks next to the sheep. It has three eyes, is brown, 800 feet tall, and a tail. You judge this is not a sheep. (No jokes against the Irish!) Then another wooly, white, 4 legged, grass-eating thing walks up. You judge this to also be a sheep.
This, believe it or not, proves that immaterials exist. There is a category "sheep" that exists. Only "sheep" fall into this group. There is a specific order that the DNA must take for it to be a sheep. This is not a concept within our minds, but the "form" exists in reality. Our minds perceive this "form" and from this, we distinguish the species of the world.
If you argue against me, you must throw aside that there are "species". The conclusion is that there is no difference other that organization of matter. The difference between a human and a spider is DNA, nothing more. Fair enough, right?
Wrong. There is an "organization of matter". We recognize an "organization". An organization is not material. There may be things that are organized, such as DNA, a room, a schedule, whatever, but we see an organization. There is an organization in reality, not in our minds.
Please comment, refute, debate, ad hom, cry, threaten my mother, or whatever below.
Note: this is not a proof for a god. I just hate materialism.
im sorry but you failed
How?
Making assertions does not create reality. Reality isn't real. Why do you state that organization is real when it is no more real than material which is only the shadow of the 11th dimensional vibration of a string? Your hatred of materiality is soley a function of excess negative electron spin and could more easily be eliminated than even reality.
I am a realist, stating that reality is how we can measure it. You are an anti-realist, claiming that reality is not how we see it (and that it is in fact a string vibrating). Either way there is a reality. However, you also are a realist and don't know it. You claim that in the 11th dimension there is a string vibrating. We are seeing the end result of the vibration. Does the vibration not exist? We're not seeing a lie, we're seeing what the string is communicating.
Since we are seeing the string's communication, we can still analyze the material world and claim true knowledge. The string vibrates and it creates how we see things. It doesn't create things itself. However, we can say there are multiple things in the observable universe and distinguish these things. We recognize "form". If the string is true, then all that comes from it is true.
@Xian
I'm already having this same discussion with you on another article. Are you even interested in debate or are just trying to make an argument ad nauseum?
I'm bored. I thought I could have 2 debates going at once.
I'm not a materialist, but I don't believe the fact we create categories is in itself proof against materialism.
My claim is that these are not categories we make up, but categories that we perceive. My basis, though, is not on our language or anything like that, but in the objects themselves. On the other place/thread/story/idk mentioned, I gave the example of the Milky Way galaxy. Its a spiral galaxy. Why is it "spiral"? Well, there is a "form". We can calculate the distance, the angles, and everything in it, but the combination of those numbers itself is not a number. Its not able to be calculated. This combination exists in reality. This combination is not from our heads, but we perceive it.
@Xian, yes, I recognize Plato, I just don't see it as proof. I think we start getting valid philosophical arguments in this area with Kant and Berkeley. Both have other issues, but provide the initial historical insights that support a nonmaterialist view...or at least a criticism of the more simplistic materialist views.
Plato isn't all bad. His assertion that we know the immaterials from existence, get a body, forget the immaterials, and then rememeber them through life is a little off, but there is still some good philosophy there. I do think that "organizations" or "combinations" show the basics to immateriality. I do think these are existent in reality.
I haven't directly studied Berkley, but Kant does some good stuff too. I love Aquinas, even though I am not catholic, Heidegger is wonderful, and then Husserl is my favorite contemporary philosopher.
If God created Universe, Earth, Planets, Humans,, what did Thin Allah, secular s, denier of truth absolute GAWD created just animals or animals like people!!!!? I don't get it, goons
And you are hindu, stupid copy cat.
Thin Allah created flying horses, magic lamps,
we should just kill them all,... what I'm a republican, the only good royal is a dead royal.
when did republicans become Jesus (the king of kings) its just so oxymoronic to me.
Death to the queen.
and death o the tyrant God who gave here the throne
and my Charlemagne rot in Heaven for all eternity,...
(to me heaven is worse then hell[ i mean seriously setting around all day worshiping a psychopath{no thank you}]l)
I guess your version of what heaven is may be worse than hell. I wouldn't want heaven if I thought it was that.
great for religion great for everyone
please support all including our troops
http://www.airsplat.com/
Unless the Royals are caught doing nude Tai Chi with Lindsay Lohan, they are as interesting as last weeks used taco wrapper.
LL is as interesting as last week's used taco wrapper.
I agree they themselves are boring, but this has political significance forwhat is still one of the most politically significant countries in the world. It opens up the very real possibility that an heir could be influenced by an non COE religion which would then bring further change up for question.
Now that Britain is ready to drop this bit:
The Bill of Rights – 1689 (1688 Julian)
That all and every person and persons that is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall professe the Popish Religion or shall marry a Papist shall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit possesse or enjoy the Crowne and Government of this Realme and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same or to have use or exercise any Regall Power Authoritie or Jurisdiction within the same.
Perhaps we can take a leaf out of their book and get rid of this old colonial throwback to the evils of popery from the same docvment:
And thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation takeing into their most serious Consideration the best meanes for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Auncestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their auntient Rights and Liberties, Declare
...
Subjects’ Arms
That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.
Of course in the US we dropped the "Protestant" part, but this is the source for what we call the second amendment. The 1689 Bill of Rights was signed by William and Mary after the so called 'Glorious Revolution'. It was the law in the colonies.
Some things never change even when their origins are forgotten.
Yippee! Arcane accepts archaic! Let's look backwards and celebrate undeserved authority dressed in brocade and silk.
The House of Windsor Inc. is good for business in Britain. It's a great tourist attraction and sells a lot of magazines. They are 'job creators' of the highest order. Frankly they work pretty hard at it.
Why do you object?
"Yippee! Arcane accepts archaic! Let’s look backwards and celebrate undeserved authority dressed in brocade and silk."
Such as the Pope?
hinduism, absurdities of hindus, deniers of truth absolute, imposer of hindu Mithra ism, pagan savior ism labeled as Christianity on humanity to justify themselves as god's by hinduism, terrorism, hindu sanatans, filthy man gods of hindu's, ignorant of hind dark ages, hindu's criminals pretending to be, what they have never been, nobles. hind, spit on them for their hindu filthy blood, hindu, filthy leaches blood of suckers of humanity and preachers of hinduism, racism.
goon
Maybe we're getting a baby step closer to reconciling.
And why would anyone in the 21st century want to be associated with English royality whose roots go back to the killer-king, Henry VIII?
Thier roots go back to hindu dark ages of hindu filthy Pharaoh's. hind stinky of hindu filthy blood.
You sure you want to go down that road? Cause the Catholic Church has blood on it's hands from before the Crusades to this very day, ie the poor woman denied medical treatment (an abortion of pregnancy that could never result in a child, only a woman's death) in Ireland thanks to 'Catholic conscience' and sentenced to death in the backhanded way the Church always has always had in treating women.
Both have faith in hinduism, gangster ism, also known as Mafia ism, yesterdays hindu's, thugs, today's noble.
Why would sane, seemingly intelligent, allegedly educated people, even debate such foolishness in the 21st Century?
I tend not to choose who I associate with based on the actions of their anscestors.
And why would anyone in the 21st century want to be associated with English royality whose roots go back to the killer-king, Henry VIII. They continue to live off the sweat of a lot of hardworking English men and women? These "royals" should turn in their crowns, jewels, race horses, castles and undeserving properties to the modern proletariet.