Church leaders have told the British government that members of the royal family who marry Catholics under recently passed legislation will not be obliged to bring up their children in the Catholic faith.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness, speaking on behalf of the government, said he had been assured personally by Msgr. Marcus Stock, general secretary of the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, that the canonical requirement of Catholics to raise their children in the faith was not always binding.
"I have the specific consent of Msgr. Stock to say that he was speaking on behalf of Archbishop (Vincent) Nichols (of Westminster) as president of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales and can inform the House that the view taken by the Catholic Church in England and Wales is that, in the instance of mixed marriages, the approach of the Catholic Church is pastoral," he said.
"It will always look to provide guidance that supports and strengthens the unity and indissolubility of the marriage," Lord Wallace said.
"In this context the Catholic Church expects Catholic spouses to sincerely undertake to do all that they can to raise children in the Catholic Church," he continued. "Where it has not been possible for the child of a mixed marriage to be brought up as a Catholic, the Catholic parent does not fall subject to the censure of canon law."
I'll start by saying that I assume that this communication actually occurred. It would be awfully bold to fabricate something like this and then announce it for the public record.
That being the case, what the hell? What the hell?
First, let's remember just who it is that we are talking about here. These aren't even real monarchs. They are fake monarchs who basically get lots of free stuff with pretty much zero accountability whatsoever.
Second, even if they were real monarchs, they are usurpers and thieves. Their whole sham regime arises from the fact that stuff was stolen from our ancestors in blood and faith, our brethren were murdered, and an empire was built from the bounty of all these sins.
Third, when did we start exempting anybody in this situation from Canon Law?
That Archbishop Nichols feels free enough to offer such a dispensation is an insult to all the English Catholics who had the misfortune of living under persecution.
I haven't heard the Queen, William, or Kate make any mention of returning any of the Church's property or offering any kind of reparations. Hell, at least Mussolini was willing to pay for what was stolen.
Of course, this doesn't even bring up the utter callousness of any child born under such circumstances. Making nice with the Usurper Clan apparently carries a bit more weight than the salvation of someone's soul these days.
What is the world coming to when a reigning archbishop declares that it is ok for a Catholic parent to neglect the religious upbringing of their child?
2 comments:
This might be somewhat of an overreaction.
First, regarding the status of the royal house of England: even if a dynasty or group has acquired political power by illegitimate means, it gains authority once the situation has stabilized. Otherwise the Americans would still be subject to the King of Britain, and the Dutch to the King of Spain. But if those monarchs would send armies now to enforce obedience, that would probably count as an unjust war. It would not serve any common good.
Second, canon law does not specify that one Catholic parent is obliged to raise his/her children in the faith, but "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" (can. 1125.1). In some cases, this power is highly limited. A similar situation obtains in the marriage between Prince Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands, from a Protestant royal house, to Princess Maxima, a Catholic from Argentina. It was clear from the outset that the children would be baptised and raised Protestant and that there was little Princess Maxima could do about it.
Of course I'm hoping that the Prince's eldest daughter (soon to be crown princess) will become Catholic.
Well, just because the regime (if we can even call it that, has achieved de facto legitimacy doesn't mean we have to like it.
The problem is that the statement is given in the context of the canonical requirement and their being exempted from it. Why should they get any preferential treatment? Because they still have a bigoted law on the books?
Given that the Anglican Communion is a shambling wreck, does it even matter if the monarch is Catholic anymore?
Post a Comment