Originally Posted by AfricanAUSSIE
This is a good point.
I think I would have been more convinced of Charles conviction (for being sorry) if he had given Camilla up just as other Christians have done when they have truly repented. Someone gave an example earlier...the greedy priest that gave up all his possessions when he repented.
To repent is not only to say sorry but to turn a new leaf. Give up the sinful way. It is very difficult indeed if one is doing it on one's own strength.
Of course, now that they have repented and married, they are no longer estranged from God. It's similar to William and Catherine marrying after years of living together. Once a person repents and receives forgiveness, there is no need for him to give up him lover to "prove" his repentance. The church only requires them to get married and avoid the sin in the future.
The reason I initiated this conversation is because I wanted to know whether the objection to Charles becoming the head of the Church of England was grounded on his decision to have a civil ceremony (and a blessing is different than being married in the church--which is why they chose to do it that way) or his affair with Camilla during his marriage to Diana.
It seems obvious to me that the posters who have responded just haven't forgiven him for his infidelity to Diana and probably never will. My sense is that the same people would not have an objection if in an alternate universe, Charles and Diana (both guilty of adultery) were still married when Charles ascends to the throne.