home
RSS
Strange confluence of Catholic and royal events continues this weekend
Mother Teresa and Princess Diana together in New York in 1997, months before they died.
April 28th, 2011
05:10 PM ET

Strange confluence of Catholic and royal events continues this weekend

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor

(CNN) - Have you heard about the historic event this weekend that's drawing hundreds of thousands to one of Europe’s leading capitals for a long day of pageantry?

No, not Friday’s royal wedding in London. I’m referring to Sunday’s beatification of Pope John Paul II in Rome.

It’s hard to deny that international media coverage of William and Kate’s nuptials is overshadowing preparations for Sunday’s beatification, the last step before sainthood.

A spokesman for the BBC said he didn't know how many of its personnel will be on hand for Sunday’s beatification but estimated that 550 BBCers are covering Friday’s wedding festivities: "It's likely to be the most watched event of the century so far.”

This isn’t the first time a royal happening has eclipsed a Roman Catholic one. In fact, it turns out to be the latest in a series of strange confluences of big events within the two camps, whose relationship has been famously frosty for centuries.

The last time around, it was the church that trumped royalty. Pope John Paul II died days before the last royal wedding - Prince Charles’ marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles in April 2005.

Then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, both of whom were scheduled to attend the wedding, also were expected at the pope's funeral.

“There was a crisis meeting between the Vatican and the British royal family,” says Mark Saunders, a royal biographer and contributor to CNN's royal wedding coverage. “And it was pointed out that it would be easier to put off Charles and Camilla’s wedding than to put off the pope’s funeral.”

“You can imagine that relations are going be strained between those factions during the best of times,” he added.

Relations between the monarchy and the Roman Catholic Church have been tense since King Henry VIII broke with Rome in the 16th century and formed the Anglican Church.

With less than a week till Charles and Camilla's wedding, their ceremony was postponed a day, from Friday to Saturday, to make room for the pope’s funeral.

Eight years earlier, leading lights of the royal family and the church vied for international attention, this time both in tragedy: Princess Diana and Mother Teresa died within a week of each other in 1997.

“Many lamented that Mother Teresa, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and ‘living saint’ if there ever was one, was overshadowed by Diana's death and funeral,” says David Gibson, a Catholic journalist and Vatican expert.

The tragedy of Diana’s death in a car accident at age 36 garnered more media attention than Mother Teresa’s passing at age 87.

“But there were connections between those two women as well,” Gibson notes. In 1992, Diana met with Mother Teresa in Calcutta, a reported high point of the princess’ trip to India, and the two met again in New York just months before they died.

On the 10th anniversary of their deaths, in 2007, the two were featured together on a British postage stamp - an unusual sight in a country where the monarch heads a competing church.

Centuries after Henry VIII broke with the Vatican, a law barring a Roman Catholic or someone married to a Roman Catholic from taking the throne is still on the books in Britain. Prime Minister David Cameron denounced the law this month.

If royal-Catholic tensions continue this weekend - with some Catholics no doubt miffed about the beatification playing second fiddle to the royal wedding - Gibson says he doubts John Paul would have minded.

“He would certainly have loved the focus on the royal marriage as an event undergirding the importance of the family,” Gibson says.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Britain • Catholic Church • Europe • Pope John Paul II

soundoff (259 Responses)
  1. Daniel

    Terribly written article. More errors than one can count. May God bless the writer and those who do not believe in Him, our Savior.

    April 28, 2011 at 10:28 pm |
  2. Mary

    As far as canonization of a Saint- there is a quote in the New Testament on how to give special attention to the life of a person of great holiness, a Saint- it says to mark them well. That is canonization. They are especially honored. That does not conflict with the Biblical understanding of all the saints. It just compliments it.

    April 28, 2011 at 10:10 pm |
    • Up Your Rear Admiral

      No no, it's "cannon", not "canon". It's what we use to launch the rapture capsule.

      April 28, 2011 at 10:56 pm |
    • Up Your Rear Admiral

      "Canon" just sells you expensive ink cartridges to put your cheap printer around.

      April 28, 2011 at 10:58 pm |
  3. Janet

    The beautification of Pope John Paul II is more IMPORTANT than watching the wedding between two dangerously imbred individuals who'll be divorced within five years.

    As far as saints go, when we die and go to heaven, we all become saints. We as Catholics do not worship saints but we do pray for their intercessions. No one goes to hell when they die either. You can only go to hell if you want to, and that is why we go to confession. The Vatican has no authority to ordain women as priests: if women were present in the Upper Room during the last supper then Jesus would probaby have had ordained them.

    You can learn all these great things at RCIA(Rites of Christian Initiation for Adults). They're held at your local parrish if you so choose to go to them! Or you can listen to The Catholic Guy Show on Sirius Satellite Radio ch. 117 or XM Satellite ch. 159. Monday through Friday at 1pm/4pm.

    April 28, 2011 at 10:03 pm |
    • Up Your Rear Admiral

      Ed can't become a saint. He said "git" first. He did he did he did.

      April 28, 2011 at 10:49 pm |
    • Cedar Rapids

      'between two dangerously imbred individuals who'll be divorced within five years. '
      Actually Kate Middleton is of 'comon stock', there is no history of the two families mingling in the past so the imbred bit doesnt exactly tally here.

      April 29, 2011 at 1:57 pm |
  4. me

    they should hold both events together! at circus circus in nevada, or maybe mcdonalds.....

    April 28, 2011 at 9:59 pm |
    • Daniel

      One will definitely be a circus. The other will be an occasion for the faithful to forever remember when necessary.

      April 28, 2011 at 10:30 pm |
    • Up Your Rear Admiral

      One event will be a circus. The other will have performing animals, crowds of spectators, hawkers, overdressed buffoons, and lots of funny hats.

      Can you see a difference? There isn't one.

      April 28, 2011 at 10:53 pm |
  5. Adelina

    Confluence of a lot of natural disasters lately. I don't feel celebrating anything today although I wish salvation and the best happiness for the British royal couple.

    April 28, 2011 at 9:53 pm |
    • NL

      Well, the happy couple lived in sin for a period and are older than Diana was when she went through this so I'm betting they have a better chance at avoiding divorce.

      April 28, 2011 at 11:16 pm |
    • Adelina

      NL, I agree they should have married much earlier.

      April 29, 2011 at 2:30 am |
    • NL

      Adelina-
      Early marriages don't have such a great track record for the Royals, or anybody else lately either.

      April 29, 2011 at 12:08 pm |
  6. Nick

    I'm sure the wedding will have better snacks, but the beatification will be more important over the long haul.

    April 28, 2011 at 9:41 pm |
    • Maybe

      The beatification has not one whit of importance to anyone but Catholics.

      At least at the wedding a marriage of someone of va.gue significance is really taking place. I might take a look at a short video clip of it, but that's about it.

      April 28, 2011 at 10:40 pm |
  7. Nightlight

    The writer has made an error. the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches are not "competing churches" in any meaningful sense. In living memory, neither has made serious attempts to proselytize adherents of the other. And for the vast majority of members of both churches, if not always for the leadership, their interactions have been carefully respectful for a long time. Their commonalities are far greater than their differences.

    April 28, 2011 at 8:48 pm |
    • BobbyDazzler

      "In living memory, neither has made serious attempts to proselytize adherents of the other."

      I think you will find that the Catholic Church has made enormous concessions to potential Anglican defectors over women bishops.

      April 28, 2011 at 8:58 pm |
    • FaolRua

      Maybe not in living memory, but certainly historically.

      April 28, 2011 at 9:24 pm |
    • Sasha

      Bobby Dazzler, providing refuge is hardly the same as seeking converts.

      April 28, 2011 at 9:37 pm |
    • Cedar Rapids

      'Sasha – Bobby Dazzler, providing refuge is hardly the same as seeking converts'
      I think they call that semantics.
      the catholic church in the uk deliberately and openly appealed to Anglican priests that were upset over the idea of women priests, pure and simple.

      April 29, 2011 at 1:54 pm |
  8. dude

    Yeh, which event is more a bunch of horse hockey? The one in Rome!

    April 28, 2011 at 8:34 pm |
    • NL

      Horses play hockey?

      April 28, 2011 at 11:18 pm |
  9. littlelamb

    I hav embraced the "greatest faith on earth!" though I d love to both watch the beatification of JPII and the Rweddding ceremony!!!

    April 28, 2011 at 8:13 pm |
    • BobbyDazzler

      You should be OK, United won't be playing for a couple of days.

      April 28, 2011 at 9:01 pm |
  10. bailoutsos

    Yep. Both a bunch of crap.

    April 28, 2011 at 8:11 pm |
    • Daniel

      Lord, where would we be today without You in our lives?

      April 28, 2011 at 10:32 pm |
  11. Jim

    Mother Teresa was a horrible person. She wanted us to be overtaken by overpopulation. No condems.....
    She was perhaps the worst enemy of mankind, she and the Polish Pope.
    Princess Diana was an airhead, a stupid, spoiled twit......

    April 28, 2011 at 8:10 pm |
    • Jobin

      The only trash i can think of is the atheist jokers called Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Kim Jong Il and son, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Hugo Chavez and other robot sheep of the former Soviet Union.
      False shepherds with robotic unthinking non-rational sheep who were forced on what to think/ not to think or to even speak about on fear of death or the gulag.

      April 28, 2011 at 9:50 pm |
    • KakoosReplies

      Learn how to spell right – its called "condoms". Was your dad's broken when you were conceived ? Explains the dim intellect

      April 28, 2011 at 9:56 pm |
    • NL

      Jobin-
      "False shepherds with robotic unthinking non-rational sheep who were forced on what to think/ not to think or to even speak about on fear of death or the gulag."

      Subst.itute "Hell" for "gulag" and that sentence describes Christianity during the hunt for heretics, the Inquisition and the witch trials.

      April 28, 2011 at 11:27 pm |
    • Cedar Rapids

      sorry Jim but I disagree with you. I am no royalist by any means but Diana at least lent her weight behind meaningful charities and organizations such as removing landmines and such.

      April 29, 2011 at 1:42 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      All you non-believers who never read, or if they did, do not comprehend Jesus' truth, let alone never to understand His truth about abundance. Lack of anything and over population is man made nonsense.

      Amen.

      April 30, 2011 at 6:57 pm |
  12. Hannah

    There are a number of errors in this article.

    1. "In 1992, Diana met with Mother Teresa in Calcutta, an reported high point of the princess’ trip to India, and the two met again in New York just months before they died." -No factual error here (I assume), but "an reported" is grammatically incorrect and should be changed to "a reported".

    2."Centuries after Henry VII broke with the Vatican, a law barring a Roman Catholic or someone married to a Roman Catholic from taking the throne is still on the books in Britain." It was, as mentioned earlier in the article, King Henry VIII (the eighth) of England, not his father King Henry VII (the seventh) of England, who broke from the Catholic Church.

    3."Prime Minister David Cameron denouncing the law this month." This is simply not a complete sentence.

    April 28, 2011 at 7:56 pm |
  13. LBCSongbird

    The Bible refers to the word "saints" meaning all the true followers of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church has this all wrong.

    April 28, 2011 at 7:12 pm |
    • Mezzo

      Allow me to clarify something on behalf of the Catholic Church: All true followers of Jesus Christ are saints – the CC believes this and teaches it. The specific people who are called saints in the church are simply those that have led exemplary Christian lives and the church has identified as being true followers. They are the heroes of Christianity in a way, sort of like certain sports players who make their way into the hall of fame. It doesn't diminish every Christian's calling to be a saint by identifying people who provide a real-life example of what it means to be a Christian.

      April 28, 2011 at 8:00 pm |
  14. HenryVII

    I am the King of England!

    April 28, 2011 at 7:10 pm |
    • Nightlight

      Yes, but you died of consumption 500 years ago. It's time to go back to your tomb and let others have the last word.

      April 28, 2011 at 8:54 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Finally. A non-believer writing truth about it's all about them, them, them and their lofty dreams to rule.

      Amen.

      April 30, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
  15. HMPO

    As a Polish-American and a distant relative of John Paul 11, you obviously are unaware of his great contributions to this country as well as Poland, East Germany and the the downfall of the cold war with Russia.

    Reagan and Pope John Paul 11 worked together to bring down the wall between East and West Germany as well as to bring democracy to the Poland.

    April 28, 2011 at 6:18 pm |
    • Cedar Rapids

      Well thats nice and all but what has that got to do with declaring someone an official saint?

      April 29, 2011 at 1:40 pm |
  16. Kat

    It was Henry VIII who broke with the Vatican. Henry VII was his father and claimed the thrown after defeating Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field, becoming the first monarch of the House of Tudor.

    April 28, 2011 at 6:16 pm |
    • steve N JXN

      I think you mean "throne", not "thrown"

      April 28, 2011 at 6:37 pm |
    • Dee

      Still Henry always considered himself a Catholic – not Roman Catholic but Anglican Catholic and certainly not protestant.

      April 28, 2011 at 7:37 pm |
    • GreenieInPA

      I'm glad I'm not the only one who paid attention in history class to know it was Henry VIII, not his father.

      April 28, 2011 at 10:09 pm |
    • Forrester

      The "Henry VII" reference is a typo...there are several mistakes in this article.

      April 28, 2011 at 10:14 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Henry VIII was the poster boy for carnal lust blinding him.

      Amen.

      April 30, 2011 at 6:45 pm |
    • Jesus

      He is correct. He was "thrown". Actually launched from a catapult 50 yards. BTW, why are we worshipping bronze age Gods, Kings, Queens, and Popes??? Are we that lacking in intelligence as a species?

      May 1, 2011 at 9:57 am |
  17. Simi

    As a catholic also, I really dont know of anyone who is upset by this. This just sounds like an article written to instigate issues that aren't that serious at all, if they exist. Things have been frosty since the 16th century between the Church and Britain...really? Breaking news material! The only people that care about this are probably those who have to pay higher airline tickets to get to Europe.

    April 28, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
    • Tia

      That is what CNN does best - create stories and issues were there are none.

      April 28, 2011 at 7:31 pm |
  18. NYCMovieFan

    Glad you brought up Mother Theresa – who should be a saint by now, except that her process is being held up by a bunch of men who hope to make money out of making JP2 a saint first. Yep, it costs millions to become a saint, with all the rules, meetings, confirming miracles, meetings and paperwork and more meetings. The Vatican boys are no doubt hoping to make a fortune out of JP2, but in fact, they won't. We remember some good things about him, but we also remember some bad stuff, like turning his back on the rights of women to be priests, and also ignoring the pedophilia going on, the massive scandals that he should have dealth with years ago, and all the ensuing suffering due to pretending that priests were not abusing kids. There is no way JP2 should be a saint, it's just wrong. Whereas, Mother Theresa should have been sanctified years ago. She actually helped people and did NOT live a life of luxury based on the takings of collection plates passed among the poor. Shame on the Vatican,shame. May be the Sunday do is not overshadowed, may be it is just something we are rightly not interested in at all.

    April 28, 2011 at 6:09 pm |
    • Simi

      Its not up to the pope to single-handedly decide whether or not women can be priests, its a lot more complex than that. Also – for the record, all collections are voluntary and never forced. I grew up in a small poor village in India where we also gave to the Church. The money doesn't just go directly to the Vatican. You may or may not get this, but, giving something you prize and value sometimes even when you think you need has great value and helps you to remember what is really important in life. Read: not money. On another note, I agree the Church should have acted sooner on behalf of the innocent children hurt and the actions are not acceptable: no qualifications to that statement. And if I were you, I would be a little more careful before I decided I could make the call about who can and cannot be a saint.

      April 28, 2011 at 6:17 pm |
    • BR

      Regarding the idea that JPII didn't confer the priesthood on women, it might be helpful to note that the priesthood, regardless of who attains it, is not a right. It is a gift. And a gift is given freely, or should be. People don't demand gifts but are grateful and humble about being given them. That certainly does not apply to all men who have been chosen to be priests, but it should, as it should to those who are not given that particular gift but are given other gifts. This might be helpful when we talk about the nature and practice of the priesthood when we talk of the Catholic Church.

      April 28, 2011 at 6:45 pm |
    • BR

      Oh, and the whole of the Vatican budget in any one year is less than $400 million (public information). It is very difficult to believe that becoming a saint, which is a fairly common event in the life of the Catholic Church, amounts to costing anyone "millions," indicating some kind of real significance when one considers that we are speaking of a sovereign nation which, by definition, has a global presence. (Incidentally, what was the increase in the American budget for "defense" under the Obama administration?) Most of the cost/revenue of declaring JPII "Blessed" (not "saint" yet) is undertaken by the civil (non-Catholic) government (also a matter of public investigation). Essentially, the Catholic Church will celebrate a liturgy. The Italians will manage the rest. Perhaps it might be useful to discuss Italian politics and finance, but that has not entered here... As one who has worked extensively (10 years +) with the Missionaries of Charity (Kolkata, Chicago, New York, Washington D.C. and Rome) and who had the great fortune to meet JPII, I have to say (and this is merely my opinion) that it would seem that Mother T, and the order she left behind, are the most supportive in seeing JPII being elevated in this manner. I suspect that if you happen to catch the beatification on TV, you might find several Missionaries of Charity present and lending their support to this event.

      April 28, 2011 at 7:03 pm |
    • Peter

      The Pope and the cardinals don't have the authority to ordain women priests even if they wanted to. ....The Catholic Church is a Monarchy with a King his name is Jesus Christ who called men to be his disciples. This does not degrade women in any manner, in fact the Catholic Church believes that the highest of all God's creation was a woman...The mother of Jesus who was born immaculate without any stain of Sin.

      April 28, 2011 at 7:13 pm |
    • BR

      Peter,

      Quite right!

      April 28, 2011 at 7:17 pm |
    • BobbyDazzler

      @Peter

      Peer reviewed references please.

      April 28, 2011 at 7:39 pm |
    • Sasha

      You clearly know nothing about the Church; if you google, "cause for canonization" you'll find information on the process, which has shifted over time. In this case, John Paul II waived the waiting period to open Blessed Teresa's cause; the Pope has that discretion. Jesus Christ chose men as his Apostles so the Church doesn't have the ability to ordain women; as others have noted, ordination isn't a right. Most of the women of whom I'm aware being interested in becoming priests are on a power trip. They wouldn't pass the psychological tests that seminarians undergo. With regard to coverups, in case you aren't aware, leading experts were the ones who advocated transferring priests and said they would be able to reform their lives; note that abusive priests are in the same proportion to the population in general who abuse and that public school teachers are frequently shifted to schools or districts where they're unknown so they can abuse more. Nobody talks about that.

      April 28, 2011 at 9:29 pm |
    • Finger Puppet

      @Peter,
      I suppose that must be why St Thomas Aquinas said women were "defective" versions of men.

      April 29, 2011 at 1:02 am |
    • at

      yes... because Thomas Aquinas = Voice of the Catholic Church....

      April 29, 2011 at 2:42 pm |
    • Josh

      No person nor any amount of money can make anyone a saint or sanctified.

      Only Jesus Christ the living son of God can do this.

      Do you want to become a saint? Ask Jesus to come into your heart and repent of your sins and declare him as your personal Lord and Saviour.

      Man can do none of these things alone, but we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us.

      April 29, 2011 at 4:53 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Actually MarkinFL, God chose what gender we would come in to this 2nd earth age being born of woman. It takes more to be of the female gender than the male gender while housed in human flesh on earth. Hence, why God only chose souls that could endure all obstacles given the gender of female for this earth. When we die, there is no gender in Heaven.

      Amen.

      April 30, 2011 at 6:43 pm |
  19. Ed

    it would have been better if I spelled right too

    April 28, 2011 at 6:03 pm |
    • susanna

      It would help to use proper capitalization and punctuation as well – especially when acknowledging spelling mistakes.

      April 28, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
    • Ben

      Lighten up susanna, chris, and jg. Is Ed's poor spelling and grammar really upsetting you to the point you feel the need to bash him for comments made that weren't even offensive to begin with? There are so many jerks who post on CNN available to vent your anger towards, why are you focusing on someone leaving a neutral and non-offensive post? Also, jg, I am from the south, and based on your single post I would have to say I am far more intelligent than you.

      April 28, 2011 at 6:46 pm |
    • Mary

      "Lighten up susanna, chris, and jg. Is Ed's poor spelling and grammar really upsetting you to the point you feel the need to bash him for comments made that weren't even offensive to begin with? There are so many jerks who post on CNN available to vent your anger towards, why are you focusing on someone leaving a neutral and non-offensive post? Also, jg, I am from the south, and based on your single post I would have to say I am far more intelligent than you."

      Got to love bashing those that bash others. Thanks for the laugh.

      April 28, 2011 at 6:53 pm |
    • Ed

      @Ben and Mary, Thanks, I should proof read better besides and they were nicer then some.

      April 28, 2011 at 7:02 pm |
    • Tommy2Tone

      @Ed,
      It would have been better if you had spelled CORRECTLY too.

      April 29, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      ATEFHNJ.

      Amen.

      April 30, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  20. Ed

    as a catholic it doesn't bother me at all I hope its a great wedding> I'm not going to watch it but then I not going to watch the beatification either. Its not my thing and I have a perfessional license I need to study for. I'm sure both will be beautiful ceremonies and I wish the couple the best.

    April 28, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
    • chris

      A "perfessional" license is much more important.

      April 28, 2011 at 6:01 pm |
    • jg

      A 'perfessional' license? Doing what, being Southern?

      April 28, 2011 at 6:07 pm |
    • Trish

      According to the Bible those who have put their faith and trust in the atoning power of Jesus Christ, God incarnate all become saints. Read the Bible and found the Truth and the original meaning of saint hood.

      April 28, 2011 at 6:39 pm |
    • Mumsy

      I am more concerned with the grammar in the article. "I’m referring Sunday’s beatification"–missing the word "to", and "an reported"-should be "a reported".

      April 28, 2011 at 7:29 pm |
    • BobbyDazzler

      @Trish
      It's very unlikely that there is a god and most rational people will find your post totally incomprehensible.

      April 28, 2011 at 7:32 pm |
    • bailoutsos

      Yep. Both a load of crap.

      April 28, 2011 at 8:12 pm |
    • Mezzo

      @Trish: I gave this response to someone down below. Hopefully it will help clarify a misunderstanding.

      Allow me to clarify something on behalf of the Catholic Church: All true followers of Jesus Christ are saints – the CC believes this and teaches it. The specific people who are called saints in the Church are simply those that have led exemplary Christian lives and the church has identified as being true followers. They are the heroes of Christianity in a way, sort of like certain sports players who make their way into the hall of fame. It doesn't diminish every Christian's calling to be a saint by identifying people who provide a real-life example of what it means to be a Christian.

      April 28, 2011 at 8:12 pm |
    • Jameson

      Trish, the Catholic Church teaches the very same thing you just said. All in Heaven are, in the technical sense, saints, since they are believed to be completely perfected in holiness. This was a Catholic teaching long before your church was even a thought. I'm not saying "My church is better than yours" or anything of the sort, I'm simply saying it appears you have no basic comprehension of the actual Catholic teachings and stances on what sainthood is. Perhaps you should do a bit of research before you talk about this 'Truth' that you believe the Catholic Church missed in the Bible.

      "A saint is always someone through whom we catch a glimpse of what God is like - and of what we are called to be. Only God 'makes' saints, of course. The church merely identifies from time to time a few of these for emulation. The church then tells the story. But the author is the Source of the grace by which saints live. And there we have it: A saint is someone whose story God tells." Kenneth Woodward – Making Saints: How the Catholic Church Determines Who Becomes a Saint, Who Doesn't and Why

      April 28, 2011 at 8:19 pm |
    • Pete

      Royals and Catholics don't mix. I mean, they can't even marry a Catholic. Its forbidden.

      April 28, 2011 at 8:35 pm |
    • toronto fan

      I really hope that 'license' isn't a teaching degree.

      April 28, 2011 at 9:44 pm |
    • The Perfessional

      What type of perfession will you be doing with that "perfessional license"?

      April 28, 2011 at 9:54 pm |
    • Up Your Rear Admiral

      Ed said "git" first on April 26th. Then he went all ad hominem.

      He's becoming a "perfessional" gitter. It takes a lot of preparation, but then he just lets it out.

      April 28, 2011 at 10:46 pm |
    • Free

      Maybe it's a dog licence he's studying for?

      Sorry Ed, couldn't resist. 🙂

      April 28, 2011 at 11:11 pm |
    • MarkinFL

      "Royals and Catholics don't mix."

      What if you use a blender?

      April 29, 2011 at 1:46 pm |
    • KraminLF

      How about a mixer?

      April 30, 2011 at 2:14 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      MarkinFL, learn your heritage. The Queen is responsible to keep and guard Jesus' truth just as was every King and Queen of England.

      Amen.

      April 30, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
    • Maybe

      "What if you use a blender?"

      Then you get 'whirled domination' 🙂

      April 30, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
    • tldixon

      I'm w/Ed-I would like to have watched the wedding but had to work... JP was a good man and would probably have enjoyed seeing to happy young folks get married-everybody don't take thing so personal

      May 1, 2011 at 1:18 pm |
1 2 3 4
Advertisement
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 with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.