Meghan Markle: Citizenship and Religious Conversion

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Lady Reem

I’m very uncomfortable with ongoing attempts to cast her as someone who is so different from the norm. Her parents are of christian faith so it stands to reason their child was born a christian and taken to church at some point as a child, perhaps even frequently. In any case none of us here can be 100% sure either way. I wouldn’t cast aspersions about her on that basis.

The CoE recognizes baptisms performed by any other mainsteam Christian church and won't baptize someone again under those circumstances. So I think it is safe to assume that either Meghan has never been baptized before or, if she was, it was done in a non-mainstream Christian denomination using an improper (e.g. non-Trinitarian) formula, in which case the CoE, like the Roman Catholic church, would not recognize it as a valid baptism.


I find it hard to believe that someone who considers herself a Christian would not seek to be baptized at some point in 36 years of her life, especially if she attended services in a mainstream church. A non-baptized person could not receive communion for example in any mainstream church or participate in many aspects of church life, so it wouldn't really make sense for her to attend under those circumstamces. Therefore, I think we can safely assume that, unless Meghan was affiliated with some kind of unconventional , non-denominational Christian movement, Christianity was not an important part of her life, which is OK really as there is nothing wrong with being agnostic or non-religious. What is intriguing though is going so quickly from being non-religious to being baptized and joining a mainstream Christian church seemingly just because she is marrying into a family that is closely associated with the CoE.

[wyevale]

is going so quickly from being non-religious to being baptized

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the 'conversion on the Road to Damascus' ?

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

A non-baptized person could not receive communion for example in any mainstream church or participate in many aspects of church life, so it wouldn't really make sense for her to attend under those circumstamces

This isn't strictly true.

During her time at the Immaculate Heart, I would imagine that Meghan attended (or at least had the opportunity to attend) Mass within the school's weekly schedule. She would have been refused the eucharist because Roman Catholic teaching is very clear that only those in full communion with the church and who are in a state of grace (that is, they are free of mortal sin) are allowed to receive communion. It's important to note that whilst the Catholic church may have recognised any baptism Meghan may have had as a child (and we know now she has never been baptised, at least not in the trinitarian tradition), she would only have been allowed to receive communion if she was confirmed according to the Roman Rite - that is, she had been given all the Sacraments of Initiation as defined in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church.

This greatly differs in the Church of England because there is a greater sense of autonomy and individual interpretation allocated to individual priests. Some churches will offer communion to anyone, even if they are not baptised, as long as they identify as a Christian. Others in the same communion (that is, Church of England clergy) will refuse communion to those who haven't been baptised. Others will refuse it to those who haven't been confirmed. If Meghan has attended Anglican services before, it's not impossible that she wouldn't have received communion even though she hasn't been baptised.

[Curryong]

She will be baptised and confirmed in the Chuch of England. Before I was confirmed in my early teens I couldn't receive the sacrament at my local church, an extraordinarily important part of the Anglican service. Nor presumably could Kate, who did not seek to be confirmed until she was in her late 20s and about to become engaged.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by wyevale

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the 'conversion on the Road to Damascus' ?

You are comparing apples and oranges and St. Paul was hardly non-religious. On the contrary, he was a very observant Jew. Besides, there is no evidence that Meghan suddenly had an epiphany or a personal "conversion on the Road to Damascus" other than getting engaged to Harry.

As I said in my very first post on the subject, I will not second-guess or judge Meghan's motivation. I just hope she is doing it out of conviction, on her free will and with proper instruction/preparation, and not just because the CoE happens to be the state/established religion in England and, therefore, senior members of the Royal Family are expected to belong to it. As I said before, it bothers me how many previous royal brides converted to the denomination of their husbands' families seemingly just because it was an institutional requirement.

[Gaudete]

With the changes in law within the last 5 years, I wouldn't say that new members of the Royal Family are expected to become Anglicans. Realistically, they never were - they just couldn't be Roman Catholics.

Let's say that Meghan was a Roman Catholic. Under the law of the United Kingdom she could absolutely still marry Harry with no ramifications for his position, title, style, rank or succession rights even if he became King by some fluke of chance. The law now says that only the monarch must be in full communion with the Church of England. Of course, this would be a matter for the Roman Catholic Church to deal with but that would be a private and personal matter for Meghan, it wouldn't affect their marriage legally.

So whilst it may be a requirement set by the Queen privately or by the Archbishop as a parish priest, there's definitely no legal (or even social) requirement that any member of the Royal Family become an Anglican prior to their marriage.

[Somebody]

Roman Catholics are still banned from the Line of Succession - only the ban on marrying a Roman Catholic has been lifted (and those that were affected by that ban were reinstated).

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Roman Catholics are still banned from the Line of Succession - only the ban on marrying a Roman Catholic has been lifted (and those that were affected by that ban were reinstated).

Roman Catholics would be yes but not Anglicans who marry Roman Catholics. For example, Prince Michael is now back in the Line of Succession after such a long time of being barred from it. Meghan would never be in the line of succession anyway, only her children would be if they were raised as Roman Catholics and received into the church at any time. But my point was that if this were the case, this would be a matter for Rome to decide in terms of Meghan's private communion with the church. It wouldn't make any difference to her wedding according to the Anglican Rite in St George's Chapel.

Legally there's no reason Harry couldn't have married her in an Anglican church service had she been a Catholic - or an Orthodox Christian, Muslim or Jew for that matter. Legally there is no requirement for the bride to be a member of the Anglican communion nor is there a social expectation that she should be either.

[Juliette2]

Originally Posted by Denville

At any rate I hope she does get something out of the C of E..

I agree!

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

With the changes in law within the last 5 years, I wouldn't say that new members of the Royal Family are expected to become Anglicans. Realistically, they never were - they just couldn't be Roman Catholics.

Let's say that Meghan was a Roman Catholic. Under the law of the United Kingdom she could absolutely still marry Harry with no ramifications for his position, title, style, rank or succession rights even if he became King by some fluke of chance. The law now says that only the monarch must be in full communion with the Church of England. Of course, this would be a matter for the Roman Catholic Church to deal with but that would be a private and personal matter for Meghan, it wouldn't affect their marriage legally.

So whilst it may be a requirement set by the Queen privately or by the Archbishop as a parish priest, there's definitely no legal (or even social) requirement that any member of the Royal Family become an Anglican prior to their marriage.

There was no legal requirement either for Henri de Monpezat or Mary Donaldson to convert to Lutheranism (only the Danish monarch has to be Lutheran by law and, at most, by implication, the princes and princesses in the line of succession are expected to be Lutheran too, but not necessarily their spouses). Yet, both Mary and Henri converted.

In Belgium, Queen Astrid didn't have to convert to Catholicism either as Belgiium has no religious tests to ascend the throne or to join the Royal Family. However, when she got married, then Princess Astrid said she wanted to convert because the Belgian royal family was Catholic, Belgium was a Catholic country and, as the future queen, she had to be Catholic too; it is the old "cuis regio, eius religio" mentality from the 16th century that Astrid brought with her from Sweden and also explains Anne-Marie's and Sofia's conversions upon marriage. To the Catholic Church's credit though, Astrid was not allowed to convert right away and only did so a few years later, allegedly out of conviction and on her own free will according to whoever was in charge of preparing her for reception into the church.

My point here is that, even if a legal requirement is not in place, there is an institutional expectation that the wife of a senior prince would convert. As I also mentioned before, Maxima Zorreguieta was the most signifcant example of a royal bride who tested the effectiveness of the lack of a legal requirement when she openly declined to convert to the Dutch Reformed faith. Still, she was required to marry in the Protestant church (she diidn't have a Catholic wedding) and to baptize and raise her daughters in the PKN (Amalia is even attending a denominational High School now).

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

My point here is that, even if a legal requirement is not in place, there is an institutional expectation that the wife of a senior prince would convert. As I also mentioned before, Maxima Zorreguieta was the most signifcant example pf a royal bride who tested the effectivenes of the lack of a legal requirement when she openly declined to convert to the Dutch Reformed faith. Still, she was required to marry in the Protestant church (she diidn't have a Catholic wedding) and to baptize and raise her daughters in the PKN (Amalia is even attending a denominational High School now).

I totally agree with all you've said but I don't think there ever has been an institutional expectation in the British Royal Family, even prior to a change in the law. When Prince Alfred married the Grand Duchess Marie, there was no expectation that she would become an Anglican. Indeed, the pair were married in the Winter Palace and not an Anglican church. When Princess Marina married Prince George, there was no expectation that she would become an Anglican either. She remained Greek Orthodox, though she was married in an Anglican church. The present Duchess of Kent left the Anglican communion and became a Roman Catholic, a matter which caused no rift or division within the Royal Family because it wasn't seen as being a rule that she absolutely had to be a member of the Anglican communion.

Socially perhaps, years ago, that expectation existed from the general public. However nowadays, barely 1% of the population attend regular Anglican services and I don't think anyone among the Great British public really cares if Meghan is an Anglican or not. The Queen may, the Archbishop of Canterbury may, Prince Harry may. But it's not an obligation or expectation from the institution and never has been.

[jacqui24]

I think it's a choice. Even before the clarification of her parents' faith yesterday, there were some discussion of her religion as in we don't know what religion she belongs to. However, it wasn't ever seen as an issue that would raise public outcry or prevent them from getting married. I think if she wished to remain another religion and have an inter-faith wedding even, it might cause some ruffle, but at the end of the day, it'd be okay as long as all future children would be raised in CoE. It's clear that she choose to take this step.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

she was, it was done in a non-mainstream Christian denomination using an improper (e.g. non-Trinitarian) formula, in which case the CoE, like the Roman Catholic church, would not recognize it as a valid baptism.


I find it hard to believe that someone who considers herself a Christian would not seek to be baptized at some point in 36 years of her life, especially if she attended services in a mainstream church. A non-baptized person could not receive communion for example in any mainstream church or participate in many aspects of church life, so it wouldn't really make sense for her to attend under those circumstamces. Therefore, I think we can safely assume that, unless Meghan was affiliated with some kind of unconventional , non-denominational Christian movement, Christianity was not an important part of her life, which is OK really as there is nothing wrong with being agnostic or non-religious. What is intriguing though is going so quickly from being non-religious to being baptized and joining a mainstream Christian church seemingly just because she is marrying into a family that is closely associated with the CoE.

Agree. if she was a part of a church, odds are that she would consider making a formal commitment which usually involves baptism. I thnk that it is likely that she wasnt', and is doig this to fit in. Nothing wrong with that, per se but i'd like to think that there si some spiritual "connextion" if she joins the C of E.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Denville

Agree. if she was a part of a church, odds are that she would consider making a formal commitment which usually involves baptism. I thnk that it is likely that she wasnt', and is doig this to fit in. Nothing wrong with that, per se but i'd like to think that there si some spiritual "connextion" if she joins the C of E.

I think someone has mentioned it earlier, but a lot of people do become more religious or think about this more carefully when they decide to have children and start a family. It puts a different perspective on things.

[tihkon2]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

As I said in my very first post on the subject, I will not second-guess or judge Meghan's motivation. .

Eh...it seems to me you're in fact, doing that in every post you make on this subject. As is almost everyone else. In my opinion, it's none of our business. At all. It's between her and God.

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

I think someone has mentioned it earlier, but a lot of people do become more religious or think about this more carefully when they decide to have children and start a family. It puts a different perspective on things.

Any children Harry and Meghan have will be baptised as Anglicans so I can see how she would want to belong to the same church as the rest of her family. It makes good sense to me, especially as she has a Christian background. I hope that she takes comfort from it and feels at home. But then I hope that for her regardless of religion. It must be very difficult to be so far from home in a strange new land where everybody wants to know every minute detail about your life.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

Roman Catholics would be yes but not Anglicans who marry Roman Catholics. For example, Prince Michael is now back in the Line of Succession after such a long time of being barred from it. Meghan would never be in the line of succession anyway, only her children would be if they were raised as Roman Catholics and received into the church at any time. But my point was that if this were the case, this would be a matter for Rome to decide in terms of Meghan's private communion with the church. It wouldn't make any difference to her wedding according to the Anglican Rite in St George's Chapel.

Yes, that is exactly what I was saying I was just adding that piece of information as your post suggested that the only rule that was still in place was that the monarch him/herself needed to be Anglican but that was not the whole story. Glad to be in agreement

Legally there's no reason Harry couldn't have married her in an Anglican church service had she been a Catholic - or an Orthodox Christian, Muslim or Jew for that matter. Legally there is no requirement for the bride to be a member of the Anglican communion nor is there a social expectation that she should be either.

Not sure about the 'social expectation' - probably depends on who you'd ask. And the Catholic church would most likely have an issue with a Catholic marrying an Anglican - as that would require dispensation and a promise to raise their children Catholic (one that Máxima couldn't make - but still they 'allowed' her to marry and have a reformed church blessing service and remain Catholic - and one that someone in Harry's position wouldn't be able to make either).

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Not sure about the 'social expectation' - probably depends on who you'd ask. And the Catholic church would most likely have an issue with a Catholic marrying an Anglican - as that would require dispensation and a promise to raise their children Catholic (one that Máxima couldn't make - but still they 'allowed' her to marry and have a reformed church blessing service and remain Catholic - and one that someone in Harry's position wouldn't be able to make either).

That's a good point. Most regular worshippers in the Church of England tend to be over 65 and I imagine they'd feel that they did want any new royal bride to be a member of "the Queen's church" but outside of that, the UK really is so secular now and Christian religious observance tends to be the domain of the Catholic Church or the smaller evangelical/pentecostal churches in the inner cities.

I agree with you on the dispensation - I wonder what the context of that would be in this hypothetical situation? Presumably it wouldn't be so pressing as Harry's children will never be King or Queen so Rome would be less likely to make an exception on that rule even if a dispensation was given for an Anglican/Catholic wedding to take place.

[Lady Nimue]

At some point I suspect this conversation will be 'cleaned up' though my wish would be that it not be. There are many significant issues embedded in this topic.

I am not here to claim I have the ultimate insight into religious matters. I only offer my perspective, which is limited by my own failings. I was educated by Jesuits (however, I may not have been as attentive 100% of the time to make me a worthy debate partner on doctrinal matters), but the merest mention of the Jesuits would for many (evangelicals in particular) make me the 'spawn of the devil'. What that reference to the Jesuits does mean is that I am in the liberal stream of the Catholic Church, which would include things like 'liberation theology' and respect for individuals like Dorothy Day, etc.

Following Vatican Council II in the early 60's there was a significant push back against the liberal stream in the Church. Conservatism has reigned in the Catholic Church since the late 60's, until we reach the present pope.

I present the above to give context to politicized Catholicism/Christianity as distinct from the essence of the New Testament teachings. What is occasionally referred to as 'churchianity' is precisely the kind of 'doctrinal' hair splitting that has plagued christian sects and denominations for centuries. thank fully we have not engaged in religious wars over the differences in recent times.

So saying, I just want to clarify some wordage I used.

Originally Posted by COESpiral

Sorry, but you are quite wrong on that definition. Christianity solely centers around Jesus Christ and worship of him and his divinity. "Christos" is a Greek word that translates as "to anoint". That is from a translation of a Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ (mashiyach), which also means "anointed". It's where we also get the word Messiah to refer to Jesus. A person very much has to utter the name of Jesus in order to profess belief in the faith. Otherwise, it's not Christianity, it's just a generic religion. Read Romans 10:9.

If you're referring to love, perhaps you meant the Greek word "agape", which is defined as a holy, all-encompassing kind of love from us to God and from God to us.

There is so much in this. Yes, Christos is from the Greek. When one references 'the Christ' one is referencing 'the anointed one' (the divinity that incarnated into the human Jesus). There is an esoteric substrate as to why Jesus is linked to 'the anointed one'. The Christos is the divinity of Jesus (and now one gets into a doctrinal issue that split the protestants and the Catholics 600 years ago. The divine aspect is a hot potato: the splice-and-dice is around Jesus being human, a good man, but the Christos descending at the Baptism in the Jordan, thus creating 'Christ Jesus', a human merged with divinity).

Declaring that 'A person very much has to utter the name of Jesus in order to profess belief in the faith.' is what is called a materialist stance. Speaking a word is empty. The essential 'message' of the Christ Jesus is Love (not just agape as you are defining it). The message was revolutionary in it's time, shattering the ancient world's framework: love ye one another. Equality. The transformation of the religious/spiritual/social fabric out of the ancient pagan world stems from this, as incoherently and imperfectly as it has been across the centuries. It remains a work in progress.

Meghan's experience with liberal Catholicism, and the essential Christian message of 'love thy neighbor' and 'do unto others', via parental guidance, school culture, university political/economic activism, is unknown in any detail, but there is enough already out there for us to recognize the christianity of her up-bringing. But anyone's actions in the world ('By their works you shall know them') are the determining factors that make her (or anyone) a member of the 'mystical body of Christ'. (not Jesus, but Christ).

Originally Posted by Denville

True, Christos or the Christ is a Greek word which means the anointed one. it is certainly not "love" and Jesus is at the cenetre of Christianity...

Here I would amend: Love is the center of Christianity. Jesus is the great human initiate who was able to sustain the Christ into his being at the Baptism in the Jordan.

Making christianity about an individuality is snag. It is limiting.

Originally Posted by Gaudete

Again I would stress the importance of words like "conversion". Meghan is (and supposedly always has been) a Christian, she's simply being received into a new Christian communion. This is reception, not conversion. The same would be true if she was an Anglican becoming a Catholic. The Duchess of Kent didn't convert to Roman Catholicism, she was received into the Roman Catholic Church as she was already a Christian by practise if not by sacraments recognised as valid by Rome. If Meghan was Jewish or Muslim however then yes, she would be converting.

I like your phrase 'into a new Christian communion'. In practical terms there is only one Christian communion we are all a part of, but there are varying physical representations of that communion.

It might interest people (maybe) to know that the Christ Being is recognized by every major religion or spiritual discipline that I know of. Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan (when alive), Head of the Sufi Order in the West, mentioned the Christ Consciousness one enters in meditation. The Dali Llama has mentioned the Christ Being one meets at a certain juncture in meditation. In esoteric parlance the Christ Being is known as the Greater Guardian of the Threshold. This Being is significant, and the Divinity expresses as pure love, not as doctrinal niceties, not as a word that must be spoken. JMO. As I understand it.

[Lady Nimue]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

Lady Nimue-

I enjoy your posts so much and admire you as well, so it pains me to disagree with you on the rare occasions that I do. I will try to stick to the important points so as not to veer too far off topic.

It's okay, we can disagree. All good. It is the mind which is the battleground in our modern times after all (tangled up with emotions).

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

Anglicans and Catholics have a similar outward appearance in ritual and liturgy. But the few differences that do exist are profound game changers...how many Sacraments and what do they mean, ordination of female priests, the nature of the priesthood, the Mass, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the biggest sticking point of all ... the Primacy of the Roman See.

Here I will rely on my Jesuit education in these matters (keeping in mind that I come from the liberal stream of Catholicism, that has been eclipsed in recent decades by the conservatives). Most all of what you mention are not essential doctrines of the Catholic Church. Most arose out of political expediency and have become ingrained traditions.

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

It's true that the two Churches have come far since the Reformation, but we have miles to go. I am a little confused about "fixing" papal infallibility and what you mean by that. It is certainly not a "new addition". It was formally defined at Vatican I in 1870 but has been a belief of the Church from the very beginning. St Augustine referred to it as far back as the 5th century...."Roma Locuta Est-Causa Finita Est" (Rome has spoken, the matter is finished).

Can't get into the history of this (obviously) but in no way is the pope infallible, and you can be a 'good Catholic' without accepting that piece of political theater. There is this little slight-of-hand about speaking 'ex cathedra' but most all of these accretions of power to the pope are rooted in political/military/economic history related to the fact that Christians took over the structure of the Roman Empire's administrative network.

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

The current Pope Francis is a good Jesuit, but I doubt if even he will be able to resolve the fundamental differences that have separated the Anglican and Catholic communions for the last 500 years.

Yes, he's good, but not good enough, as he's not going up against the conservative element regarding women priests, and married clergy. Maybe he knows the limits he can push. (BTW unmarried clergy pertains only to the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, and a sprinkling of others; John Paul II forced the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church to dispense with married clergy in the 80's).

I'm acquainted with issues between the two churches and the differences are minor. Again, doctrinal hair-splitting. IMO.

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

I agree that Meghan Markle has demonstrated a spirit of generosity and goodwill from the little that I know of her, but that does not mean she has lived a Christian life. The Dalai Lama-one of my heroes-has those qualities and is not a Christian and my(beloved) quasi-atheistic landlady does as well. Those are human qualities, admirable ones true-but not necessarily limited to followers of Christ.

I would offer that anyone who has encountered the Christ Being (entered the Christ Consciousness) is Christian. You will 'know' such by their actions (and words are actions of a kind). You will know them by their manifest love. A true Christian is not bound by doctrines and 'correct words and practices', mental constructs. It is this very earth-bound material thinking and doing that the Christ came to release, into a global cosmopolitanism.

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

As another poster stated-a true Christian lives a Christocentric life with Jesus Christ and the reality of the Incarnation at the foundation of all he/she believes and the guide for the way they conduct their lives.

A 'true Christian' is not for me to judge, that I know. My 'job' is to love and accept others with compassion, recognizing that the Christ appears in all garbs: when I was hungry you fed me, when I was homeless you housed me, when I was lonely you sat with me. The Christ is in all of us and is not limited by a word, a name, a doctrinal nicety. JMO.