« "44" | Main | There Goes The Neighborhood? »

February 10, 2005

Comments

Blimpish

Oh no, let's be brutal about this... Anglicanism was born out of a King's wish for a more permissive matrimonial environment (if you will). Let's not get too precious about Charles today.

He is going to be the King, you know.

Mrs. Peperium

I know. I decided today I'm not a monarchist. Did you see that Lord Carey, the former ABC, said the absolutists won't like this but they're a small number...I would have thought he may have had a tad of concern for the devout in the C of E. Also the gays. He's just happy he was able to broker the deal he offered Charles 5 years ago. By the concern for the gays I meant isn't the Church of England somehow saying we will bless the union of adulterers but not of homosexuals?

Blimpish

The truth is (you'll have to tell me if it's the same in ECUSA) that adulterers have been openly getting married in Anglican churches for years - it's yet another closing-the-stable-door-after-the-horse-has-bolted thing. I know this: my uncle got remarried in a church a few years ago. I also would say that the Church allowing adulterous remarriage seems less of a danger than allowing gay marriage - you aren't going to tell me that Rome has never annulled a marriage to the benefit of an adulterer? (I do accept that this is an exception to the rule and therefore not on the same level as Anglican permissiveness - my point is only that gay marriages are a whole different ballgame.)

To be fair, Mrs. P, I'd rather hope you aren't a monarchist, given 1776 and all that! But you will understand if I remain loyal to my future King (even if I do have some sympathy for what you say). I don't believe it is for me to choose against the monarchy.

Mrs. Peperium

This is tricky. No doubt adulterer's have gotten remarried. However that is not what is truly at issue. Repentance can be real. It is that Charles was the corespondent in Camilla's divorce and she was in his. Because both were the reason named for the breakdown of the marriages in legal divorce preceedings, cannon law in C of E as well as Rome prohibits their marrying. It is wrong (please check) to say that they can't remarry simply because Camilla's husband is still alive. Now when Edward VII abdicated over Mrs. Simspon there was more to the two divorces I think...She was married when she met Edward wasn't she? Then her marriage conviently crumbled? When JFK Jr. died in the plane crash his family did an odd thing with his remains. They were cremated but then mixed? with his wife's and sister's and sprinkled into the sea. At the time Cardinal Law was on a talking head show and was asked about this. He said it was fine to cremate but there were other things that weren't right but he didn't want to get into it on TV. He did not spell it out for the faithful. That is a derelection of his duty. Later, we unfortunately came to learn of far worse derelection's of duty on Cardinal Law's part. Did Law choose not to use the opportunity to instruct because a powerful family was involved? Is that what is going on with the ABC's, C of E and Parlaiment? Is the Archbishop clearly explaining why Charles is not allowed to have a church wedding? He is the future Head of Church and State. Is the lack of explanation out of embarrassment -let sleeping dogs lie...or would it give ammo to the anti-disestablishment crowd? As Freddy Threepwood would say, wheels within wheels, old boy... As you say, the church remarried your uncle. Why not Prince Charles?

Mrs. Peperium

The homosexual/gay issue is simply this (feel free to correct) all sex outside a valid marriage is a mortal sin in the Catholic/Orthodox churches. Heterosexual and Homosexual are equal in God's eye. They are both cited by St. Paul as activites that will prevent you from the Kingdom of God. So if the church allows the civil marriage of two known adulterer's and then blesses that union (the Acrchbishop of Canterbury himself) how can they turn around and say no to the gays? What theological or compassionate leg do they have to stand upon? Honestly, the Church of England is not doing Charles, Camilla, their children or its flock any favors. The enormous outcry over Harry's Nazi uniform seems so silly at this point. The boy must really confused or angry right now.

Monjo

I have no sympathy for Diana - you don't marry a man who went out with your sister. Charles and Camilla were meant to wed 30 years ago, it didnt happen. Now they can be happy.

Mrs. Peperium

No, you don't marry a guy who went out with your sister. Unless he's going to be the King of England...Yes, Fred and Gladys ought to have been married 30 years ago but Charles was headstrong and dare I say it...stupid. Camilla then made a disasterous marriage. Diana was decided to be the perfect wife and the whole thing is a Royal mess. Lady Femroy is one to be looked at more closely. She was Diana's maternal grandmother and the Queen mother's Lady-in-Waiting. She was keen on one of the Spencer girl's marrying Charles. The Queen Mum had a great influence over Charles. The Family may not have wanted Mrs. Keppel's great-granddaughter in the family....

Blimpish

A few points back, Mrs. P - I know you've got some more recent posts on the issue:

1. I agree with your basic point that it isn't the best possible scenario, but I think there are far worse problems in the world and I think it better (in terms of his role as Supreme Governor) that he marries Camilla than live in sin with her. These are flawed times, and that does force us sometimes to take inferior lines - but I don't think that this is a compromise with evil (which would be wrong) because the marriage is to be civil. (I think that this is something more difficult to understand from across the Atlantic: you have to realise quite how secular and permissive English society has today become in order to understand the stakes.)

2. Re the point about gays - I think you might be over-egging the pudding (you of all people!) here. Don't get me wrong, I agree that the tradition of Christian sexual ethics places all sexual relations outside marriage as sinful (I'm in no position to speak on that score...), but I don't think fraying the edges on marriage and divorce - however wrong that may be - invalidates the reasons as to why marriage is a heterosexuals-only institution.

3. Be careful of using the Abdication Crisis as precedent. The truth is that it was a very unique episode that has also to be read in the context of constitutional development - the final defanging of the monarchy achieved (as it could only be) by a Tory Prime Minister. That's not to question Stanley Baldwin's religiosity (which is central to any understanding of him) or the sincerity of Cosmo Gordon Lang... but politics, and can't be avoided. After all, Edward VIII was seen to be potentially dangerous as King - "something must be done," you might remember?

Re Cardinal Law, by the way - I don't think you can compare the relationship of an R.C. Cardinal and the Kennedy family to that of ABC and the Windsors. An Anglican Archbishop is answerable to the Queen as a Cardinal is to the Pope.

Mrs. Peperium

Yes, that is why the Pope removed the Cardinal.

Blimpish

Indeed - correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Cardinal Law quite a respected, high profile figure (I mean, compared to most Cardinals) before the scandal did for him?

Mrs. Peperium

Truthfully, all Cardinals are respected and high profile. I lived in Boston at the time Law recieved his appointment. It was a very big deal. I didn't understand it at all because I wasn't Catholic. Once the scandal broke, Father Neuhaus used to openly wonder in the pages of First Things when Law would step down and posit theories why he hadn't. Law never did step down. The Pope took him out and gave him a place in the Vatican, I think. It was and remains a huge mess. I understand Cardinal Law did do great things for the people of Boston. He was a servant to the poor and the unborn. It just probably will be forgotten because his derelection of duty was so enormous and so bad. The diocese of Boston has been forever altered as have people's lives.

Mrs. Peperium

Truthfully, all Cardinals are respected and high profile. I lived in Boston at the time Law recieved his appointment. It was a very big deal. I didn't understand it at all because I wasn't Catholic. Once the scandal broke, Father Neuhaus used to openly wonder in the pages of First Things when Law would step down and posit theories why he hadn't. Law never did step down. The Pope took him out and gave him a place in the Vatican, I think. It was and remains a huge mess. I understand Cardinal Law did do great things for the people of Boston. He was a servant to the poor and the unborn. It just probably will be forgotten because his derelection of duty was so enormous and so bad. The diocese of Boston has been forever altered as have people's lives.

Blimpish

Interesting, isn't it, that the Church - an institution built to stand the tests of time - had such an organisational breakdown over this incident? I guess that the Church is so well constrained in its external dealings, to avoid boxing itself into corners, that they never prepared for the possibility that the problem could come from within.

Mrs. Peperium

The Vatican warned the American church in the 60's to stop accepting homosexuals into the priesthood. We didn't listen. We thought we knew better. Then the same winds of modernity blew through with Vatican II and progressives interpreted changes then in the most liberal way. Now, we will be paying for all of our disobedience for a long, long time. The Vatican never wavered, it was the branch offices.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

It Goes Without Saying

  • All original material published here is the property of the writer who penned it. Stealing is not only frowned upon but will be dealt with by strong-armed men trained in the art of legal jujitsu. The views put forth here are not the views of any employer we know which is most unfortunate.
Blog powered by Typepad