Is Camilla a Catholic?

[Duchess]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

The Catholic ban makes sense for as long as the monarch remains the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, when that's no longer the case then the Act of Settlement can be revised.

quite right. since the Catholic Church is well known for not changing it's mind on issues(i.e. in this case, that the non catholic should convert) we will(and i feel quite confident in saying) NEVER see the ban lifted. most people feel it is discriminatory and it is if you look at it in the "human rights" sense but it makes complete sense if you look at it from the viewpoint of the 2 churches. since the monarch is the head of the CoE why would you want them to convert to catholicism (if the couple were devout enough to follow that rule) and if the monarch is the head of a church then they should be devout. HM takes her role as the head of the CoE very seriously and her faith has probably sustained her throughout many trying times. for the record, i'm Roman Catholic but don't see the ban as discrimanatory at all.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Duchess

one big issue with changing the law is that in order for a catholic to marry a non catholic (if they were going to do things by the book so to speak) would need to get a dispensation from the church. The following are 2 of the 3 requirements (the first one stating simply that the catholic be allowed to practice their religion) by the Roman Catholic church to grant a dispensation and is taken from the website Fisheaters.com:

that all the offspring are to be brought up Catholic; and
that the Catholic party promise to do all that is possible to convert the non-Catholic.

these 2 alone would cause huge problems because 1) the heir to the throne would have to be raised Catholic and 2) the current monarch would be under pressure to convert to Catholicism.

Perhaps these are the reasons that the law has never, and likely will never, be changed.

This doesn't apply just to Catholics, though. I think many religions tend to want spouses and children to convert. As long as we have an established church, it makes sense for the monarch to have to be a member, which is required at the moment. But I think that either the spouse should also have to be a member of the established church (as I think is the case in other monarchies with an established or official church) or there shouldn't be any prohibition. To me, it makes no sense that you can have a Satanist or Rastafarian or Eastern Orthodox spouse but not a Catholic one.

[BeatrixFan]

The thing is that no other religion is as forceful in asking the Catholic partner to convert as Catholicism is. The Eastern Orthodox church will marry a non-Orthodox to an Orthodox faithful if the non-Orthodox has been baptised. If not, they won't carry out the marriage and though they accept divorce they won't perform more than 3 marriages. You also get into the mess of Autocephalous churches, that is, one autocephalous church might not recognise another and so if someone has been baptised and catechised by the Finnish Autocephalous Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church might not recognise their baptism and therefore wouldn't conduct a marriage service. However, in all the rules and regulations on Orthodox mixed marriage, it at no point requires the Catholic spouse to "recruit" the non-Catholic spouse. And similarly, no other denomination has that requirement which means that it's impossible to have a mixed Catholic/Anglican marriage where the monarch is concerned.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by marian

I belive that Camila "was" catholic because she was married with Andrew Parker Bowles as catholics. But Charles, as heir the british throne, should abdicated if he wanted married with her. So, I think that this is a great secret of State: the goverment and the royalty have this as a secret, a very important secret.

My goodness. Talk about wishful thinking. I think we all know how much you dislike Camilla and you think Charles shouldn't become King - basically on account of your loyalty to Diana - but this is really going a bit far, isn't it? You know she's Catholic because there's no evidence that she's Catholic and therefore it means she must be?

[cde]

Originally Posted by marian

I belive that Camila "was" catholic because she was married with Andrew Parker Bowles as catholics. But Charles, as heir the british throne, should abdicated if he wanted married with her. So, I think that this is a great secret of State: the goverment and the royalty have this as a secret, a very important secret.

The only reason Camilla has any Catholicism surrounding her is due to her Mother in Law-Ann de Trafford and to a lesser extent Andrew. Ann was a serious Catholic. If they were married in a Catholic service it was due to Ann forcing the issue. (Although what type of service has never been established.) The children were also raised Catholic due to Ann. Camilla never converted to Catholicism. After Ann died, Camilla brought them the children up in her own religion CoE. Hardly the actions of a convert.

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Camilla is not a secret Catholic. She is CoE. Which, by the way, is Catholic to some extent, just not Roman Catholic. The Liturgy is the same, obstensively. The reason people are speaking out against the Act, is that in this day and age, to have this, even tiny form of discrimination, looks at best silly, at worst ugly. Basically, you can marry a Druid, but not a Catholic. Just in case anyone flips, I have nothing against Druids.

I never said that Catholic was a secret Catholic.

I was responding to an earlier post that said that she was.

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Well, the Church of England isn't Catholic in any sense because the fundamental belief of Catholicism is transubstantiation which isn't accepted as a doctrine of the Anglican church - if it was, the Church of England wouldn't exist. Though the liturgy is similar, there are fundamental differences that make the two Churches world apart but the main one is the Eucharist. The Catholic ban makes sense for as long as the monarch remains the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, when that's no longer the case then the Act of Settlement can be revised.

Actually the Church of England is Catholic in the sense that 'Catholic' is a fundamental term in the Church of England Apostolic creed which summarises the beliefs of the church.

The words of the creed are 'I believe in a Catholic and Apostolic church'. I say this every Sunday at my local Church of England church and asked my minister the meaning in the lead up to my confirmation as a member of the Church of England. His response was very clear - the Church of England church is Catholic but not Roman Catholic - we don't acknowledge the Pope as Head of the Church but do acknowledge much of the same ideas.

Transubstantiation is the reason why the two churches can't come together but there are regular talks at very high levels (maybe not directly involving the Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury but certainly some of their staff - according to my minister and a very good friend of mine who is a bishop in the Church of England and has been to a couple of these meetings) about reuniting the two churches if an agreement can be made on transubstantiation. It is the only sticking point because both churches do have a 'Catholic and Apostolic' belief and structure.

[BeatrixFan]

Well yes but he was using Catholic as pertaining to universal rather than Catholic as Catholic.

[Aurora810]

Originally Posted by Warren

We have no idea of the feeling within the Royal Family.
The Act of Settlement is a law passed by the Parliament and can only be changed by the Parliament. The Act can't be repealed in its entirety without being replaced by something else as it provides the legal basis for succession to the throne as determined by the Parliament.

I see your point! I have a feeling that Charles at least doesn't feel that way. He talks about on his web site of understanding different faiths. But I get your point we really don't know how they each personally feel. It's just the law they have to abide by.

[chuchu]

Originally Posted by izumi

Although I have no intention to deny their tradition, I cannot understand the reason the British Royal Family reject only Catholics. The matter would be logical and understandable to me if they limited successors and their wives only to members of the Church of England because it is their state church and the king or queen is its head. But the reality is that their law seems to mind only Catholics.

Prince Charles would be king if Princess Camilla were a Lutheran, Orthodox, Buddhist, Muslim, Jehovah's Witness, Raelian or anything else, wouldn't he? However, he would not be allowed to be king if his wife were a Catholic. Why do they disfavor Catholics so much though they had Catholic kings and queens in the past? It looks unreasonable to me.

It is a long story but started when the Pope refused to annul Henry VIII marriage to Catherine of Aragon so he could marry Anne Boleyn. Henry made himself the head of the church of England and since then there has been an unfavorable law against Catholics.

[Duchess]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

This doesn't apply just to Catholics, though. I think many religions tend to want spouses and children to convert. As long as we have an established church, it makes sense for the monarch to have to be a member, which is required at the moment. But I think that either the spouse should also have to be a member of the established church (as I think is the case in other monarchies with an established or official church) or there shouldn't be any prohibition. To me, it makes no sense that you can have a Satanist or Rastafarian or Eastern Orthodox spouse but not a Catholic one.

i think the whole things just goes back to Henry VIII. we will never see this law change. it did just occur to me though that in a situation such as charles and camilla's where there's no (and will be any) children resulting from it, if camilla were Roman Catholic it wouldn't pose the problem that the two churches probably see would result in the event that there were children.

[chuchu]

Originally Posted by Duchess

quite right. since the Catholic Church is well known for not changing it's mind on issues(i.e. in this case, that the non catholic should convert) we will(and i feel quite confident in saying) NEVER see the ban lifted. most people feel it is discriminatory and it is if you look at it in the "human rights" sense but it makes complete sense if you look at it from the viewpoint of the 2 churches. since the monarch is the head of the CoE why would you want them to convert to catholicism (if the couple were devout enough to follow that rule) and if the monarch is the head of a church then they should be devout. HM takes her role as the head of the CoE very seriously and her faith has probably sustained her throughout many trying times. for the record, i'm Roman Catholic but don't see the ban as discrimanatory at all.

It is discriminatory since other religions (Muslim, Judaism, Hinduisim, Buddhsim, etc) ar not banned; just Catholics.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Duchess

it did just occur to me though that in a situation such as charles and camilla's where there's no (and will be any) children resulting from it, if camilla were Roman Catholic it wouldn't pose the problem that the two churches probably see would result in the event that there were children.

Yes, but the legislation as it is provides that if Charles married "a papist" he would be treated as if he were "naturally dead" for the purposes of the succession, which is rather final and gives nobody any discretion in the matter.

I think it's high time this anachronistic and divisive piece of legislation was repealed and replaced.

[Duchess]

Originally Posted by chuchu

It is discriminatory since other religions (Muslim, Judaism, Hinduisim, Buddhsim, etc) ar not banned; just Catholics.

as i said earlier, i don't feel it's discriminatory. it makes perfect sense. you're perfectly entitled to feel that way though.

[Duchess]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

Yes, but the legislation as it is provides that if Charles married "a papist" he would be treated as if he were "naturally dead" for the purposes of the succession, which is rather final and gives nobody any discretion in the matter.

I think it's high time this anachronistic and divisive piece of legislation was repealed and replaced.

if the law were changed and the heir married a roman catholic, then the children would be raised as RC and then who would be the head of the CoE?

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by Duchess

if the law were changed and the heir married a roman catholic, then the children would be raised as RC and then who would be the head of the CoE?

So long as they promise to uphold the established church, etc., would it matter? Right now, a person with any other faith can do this. Would it really be harder for a Roman Catholic to be the ceremonial head of the church than say, a Muslim or a Jain? The monarch doesn't take an active role in church politics, so I don't see how it matters.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Duchess

if the law were changed and the heir married a roman catholic, then the children would be raised as RC and then who would be the head of the CoE?

The children wouldn't necessarily be raised Catholic; Prince Michael of Kent's children weren't, despite having a Catholic mother.

If the law remained the same that the monarch had to be a communicant of the CofE, then Catholic children of the monarch would be excluded from the line of succession. In that case, there are other people further down the line of succession who are CofE. If William married a Catholic and his children were received into the Catholic Church (or any other church or mosque or whatever), then the succession would move to Harry and his children.

[Duchess]

true but wouldn't that cause some sort of crisis, not unlike the abdication crisis?

[Elspeth]

It probably wouldn't because it'd be part of the system. But I'm sure it'd give rise to a major debate about the position of the Established Church and its effect on the monarchy.

[Russophile]

Yes, indeed it goes back to Henry 8th and his divorce to Catherine of Aragon which the Pope wouldn't recognize. Don't forget Catherine's parents were Ferdinand and Isabella, heavy hitters in the Catholic realm for the Pope. So that didn't sit well at all! Henry made himself head of the church and confiscated all the churchs lands for his own. He taxed them and took the wealth to fill his coffers because he was running into some expense entertaining lavishly at court. When Mary Tudor came to power, she turned the apple cart upside down and went back to Catholicism executing all those who didn't agree to re-convert. It wasn't for naught she was called "Bloody Mary". (And it's an awfully nice drink if made with horseradish and worchestershire) Elizabeth 1 went back to CoE. The people must have been mixed up and upset.
Well, long story short, marrying a Catholic DOES NOT make you Catholic. You have to be baptized and take communion, confession, etc. Mr. Russo's a Catholic and I'm a Jack Mormon. Go figure!
There is no way that the Royal Family wants to open that can of worms. If they reverse the law, what is to say that the current sitting Pope won't request all his lands and churches back that Henry took?? It could happen! Blacks are asking for reparations in America because their ancestors were brought here against their will.