London, England, Nov 29, 2017 / 04:52 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- In 1936, when British King Edward VIII declared that he was intended to marry Wallis Simpson, he abdicated the throne.
Opposition to the union was strong – Simpson was doubly-divorced, and many thought she was only after Edward for his money.
Besides general disapproval from the elite, a more definite obstacle stood in the couple’s way – as King, Edward VIII was the head of the Church of England, which at the time did not allow divorced persons to remarry if their first spouse was still alive. In order to marry Simpson in a civil ceremony, he abdicated the throne in December, and was succeeded by his brother, George VI.
Earlier this week, another royal engagement was announced. On Monday, Kensington Palace announced that Prince Harry, who is fifth in line for the throne, is engaged to Meghan Markle. Like Simpson, Markle is an American and divorced. Furthermore, Markle has Catholic ties in her family, and is possibly a baptized Catholic herself.
Obstacles which just a few years ago might have disqualified the couple from ascending to the crown – divorce, Catholic ties – no longer require the Prince to abdicate his place in the line of succession to the British throne.
What has changed?
Father James Bradley, a Catholic priest in the U.K. and a former Anglican, told CNA that because of the previous rules of the Anglican Church, Edward was essentially obligated to abdicate because “he would have been in a relationship which the Church of which he was Supreme Governor did not approve,” he said.
In 2002, a synod of Anglican bishops officially changed Anglican doctrine regarding divorce, declaring that while “marriage should always be undertaken as a ‘solemn, public and lifelong covenant between a man and a woman’…some marriages regrettably do fail and that the Church’s care for couples in that situation should be of paramount importance…there are exceptional circumstances in which a divorced person may be married in church during the lifetime of a former spouse.”
The Anglican Church does not define exactly what qualifies as exceptional circumstances; this is primarily left up to the presiding minister to determine whether a second church wedding can be allowed.
One instance in which the Anglican Church forbids a second church wedding for divorced persons is if the new relationship contributed to the breakdown of the first marriage, Ed Condon, a Catholic canon lawyer in the U.K., told CNA. This was what prevented a church wedding for Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles in 2005.
“If there’s been no openly scandalous reasons or contributing factors, that would allow the Anglican authorities to say well, you can have a church wedding,” Condon said. Harry and Markle are expected to be married at St. George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle.
But accepting attitudes about divorced monarchs is indicative of a broader breakdown of marriage that can be seen, particularly in the West, Bradley noted.
“The opposition to Edward VIII was, first of all, that society didn’t recognize divorce as something that was good at the time, and now it does, unfortunately,” he said.
Currently, “(the) new head of the [British] Supreme Court is pushing for no-fault divorce. We’ve gone from a situation where divorce was such a social issue that you couldn’t remain monarch and be married to a divorced person, and now we’re in a situation where the Supreme Court is pushing for no-fault divorce,” he said. “So it’s the complete collapse of marriage as we see in America and the rest of the West.”
Royals marrying Catholics
While Markle attended an all-girls Catholic school in L.A., it is unclear whether she was baptized as a Catholic, and she told Vanity Fair earlier this year that she was not raised as one.
Numerous British sources report that Markle has identified as a Protestant for some time before the engagement, and plans to be baptized and confirmed in the Church of England before marrying Harry.
However, if she were a Catholic, this too would have been an obstacle to her marrying into the royal family until very recently. Opposition to Catholics ascending to the throne dates back to King Henry VIII, who broke from the Catholic Church in the 1500s in order to divorce his wife, Catherine of Aragon, and marry another, because he blamed Catherine for failing to produce a son who could succeed to the throne.
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 allowed heirs to the throne to marry Catholics, among other changes. However, the law still stipulates that the acting British sovereign mustn’t be a Catholic.
Catholics and the indissolubility of marriage
The Catholic Church teaches “that marriage is indissoluble, it is literally black and white,” Bradley noted.
“It’s a bond that cannot be broken, because God respects the promises that the husband and wife make to each other, and he does what’s asked. He binds together these two people who are asking to be bound together, it’s a respecting of the free will of the individuals,” he added.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 1614, states that: “In his preaching Jesus unequivocally taught the original meaning of the union of man and woman as the Creator willed it from the beginning permission given by Moses to divorce one’s wife was a concession to the hardness of hearts.The matrimonial union of man and woman is indissoluble: God himself has determined it “what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”
The Catholic Church recognizes as sacramental the marriages between two baptized persons of any Christian community, Bradley noted.
“If there are two baptized Anglicans marrying, the Catholic Church would recognize that as a sacramental marriage,” he said, because the Catholic Church recognizes all Christian baptisms as valid.
“If both parties are baptized it’s a sacramental marriage, and non-Catholics are not bound by canonical form, so they’re quite at liberty to be married in the Church of England, and we recognize that they’re being married according to the rights of their ecclesial communities.”
However, if Markle’s first-marriage were valid, she would not be free to validly marry Harry. An annulment, or declaration of nullity, of her first marriage, would establish that her previous marriage was invalid, Bradley said.
Condon noted that the Catholic Church also presumes the indissolubility of all marriages, whether those be marriages of Catholics, Christians, believers, or nonbelievers.
“The life-long partnership of one man and one woman is part of the natural law and God’s plan for all humanity. The Church’s presumption of validity pertains to all marriages, including Ms. Markle’s,” he said.
“That having been said, we don’t know any of the details of that union, or if a canonical process is underway regarding it. Catholics should, I would suggest, understand the royal engagement the same way they would the marriage of any two people they don’t know personally: be happy for them.”
Bradley added that the fact that royal engagements are always met with a resounding reaction of “joy and happiness,” which “shows that even when, in some sense, the marriage isn’t everything we would want it to be, society as a whole has a natural inclination towards the good and towards what marriage represents.”
“So people see the goodness of marriage, even people who are opposed to the institution of marriage will cheer when a couple like this get married, or get engaged, because it takes a very hardened heart not to be happy that two people are seeking this good.”
[…]
Which “homosexuality” are they referring to? The sanitized for Western consumption, post-AIDS homosexuality where “gay marriage” is still largely “open marriage?” Or the inherently self-injurious “gay lifestyle” due to psychological and physical challenges to immunity (including substance abuse)even in the most accepting of cities, communities?
In the spirit of Aristotle will “gay awareness” include the actual facts/statistics?
Which one is a “misread” of Scripture?
Every single one of them should be pitched out of whatever offices they hold, and laicized, perhaps even excommunicated. And if I were the civil police I would be carefully investigating to see what crimes they have been committing that makes them want this evil legitimized.
Here is more evidence of the spread of the influence of Satan through sexuality. Homosexuality is a deviant sexual behavior along with Pedophilia and TransGenderism. We have already seen liberals calling for an “understanding” and acceptance of Pedophiles as simply another sexual orientation. They want to open the doors to public acceptance of child abuse. So far they have begun to make legal infanticide so it’s not that far a leap to child sexual abuse given the ease at which they have reduced a living human being to nothing more than a clump of cells even after birth. The evil of the past is showing it’s face and the destruction of the human soul starting with the most innocent has begun.
A synodal church to be.
In short, “We make these demands! Have a nice trip to Rome and say hi to the pope for us.”
What is Holy Mother Church in America doing about punishment for convicted child molesters? Celibacy is one of the vows a priest makes when receiving the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Obviously when a priest breaks his vow of celibacy he needs to speak with not only his bishop, to find out if he would be better suited as a married man; but, he also needs to speak with a licensed trained psychiatrist to help discover why he should remain a priest or live the rest of his life as a married Roman Catholic husband and future father of children. I’ve seen priests who were almost forced into the priesthood by parents who simply had to have one son who would be the priest of the family. Child molestation is another matter altogether. Convicted pedophiles should never be shuffled from parish to parish. These men are preditors and not merely men who made poor career choices. The Roman Catholic Church should never try to hide these men. Of course pedophiles require intensive therapy by trained psychiatrists. As an almost 68 year old Roman Catholic woman, I am ashamed that my beloved church has covered up for these men. I truly believe that the pedophilic priest must be defrocked and never, even as a Roman Catholic layman, be permitted to work with children as long as he lives. Permitting the pedophile to continue as a priest is wrong. He is a mentally disturbed person who needs help, of course. He is not a man to be trusted with the innocent child, ever again. The priest should always be able to be trusted by children and adults, especially those who have no one else to comfort them in their day to day life. I’ve always put my priests upon a pedistal because I realized, especially as I became an adult, they gave up married life, a wife and family, to deserve me calling him, with the greatest of love, “Father.” When I go to Confession and hear a priest encouraging me to empty my heart of troubles, as I say, “Bless me, Father, for I have sinned.”, I know that the holy and celibate priest, who deserves all my respect for all his sacrifices, knows how to help me make peace with God and he will absolve me of my transgressions. There is no room for convicted pedophiles in the priesthood of Holy Mother Church. He has stolen the innocence of a trusting and helpless child. He has murdered Innocense itself, as surely as those Roman soldiers tried to murder Baby Jesus while killing the Holy Innocents.
“Obviously when a priest breaks his vow of celibacy”
If I’m understanding correctly, “celibacy” means not marrying. So the problem with most of those priests is that they are not being chaste, as we are all called to be according to our states in life.
“he needs to speak with not only his bishop, to find out if he would be better suited as a married man;”
That should have been done before he was ordained. Added to which, something like 80% of the “pedophilia” cases were actually cases of homosexual assault on post-pubescent boys, which isn’t actually pedophilia.
“he also needs to speak with a licensed trained psychiatrist”
I wouldn’t trust a psychiatrist. Listening to psychiatrists’ advice was part of what led to moving abusers around; and the psychiatrists’ association also decided that homosexuality is not a mental disorder anymore, and that “transgenderism” is just fine.
“I’ve seen priests who were almost forced into the priesthood by parents who simply had to have one son who would be the priest of the family.”
Somehting which, again, should have been discovered during the discernment process, during their time in seminary – in short, *before* they were ordained. Why wasn’t it? How many priests was this that you’ve seen? When? How did you know that was why they became priests?
“poor career choices.” The priesthood isn’t a career, it’s a calling. Any man who thinks of it as a career shouldn’t be one.
The only absolute Dogma Cardinal Marx believes in is the Church Tax he and his cohorts extort from the Catholic Faithful in Germany.
More probing than spearhead. Prominent Catholic Black Ops Led by Fr Wucherpfennig openly homosexual rector mission to test enemy assets Cardinal Marx their Quisling [since it’s so ludicrously obvious I’m compelled to resort to humor however true]. As prev acknowledged the true enemy are advocates of normalizing the abomination of homosexuality posturing heroic aware as devious cowards they have Vatican and majority societal support. Quislings abound among German Hierarchy very few comparable to 1941 Hierarchy led by Augustus Cardinal von Galen. Although there are a few good men among them. With faith and God’s arm they can win the day. Even if vanquished by the morally disabled their strong resistance is in itself victory.
Open Letter to a group of Nine prominent German Catholics who want a new morality, women priests, etc. Your demands are not exactly a news bombshell. The Catholic faithful worldwide have been hearing this rubbish on and off for over 50 years. Your heretical gripes are getting old and boring. And there exists a fast solution to your unjust gripes: Leave the Roman Catholic Church and start your own church. It’s that simple. No sense sticking with the Church with over 2,000 years of constant teachings about morality and doctrinal beliefs when you Nine prominent German Catholics can start your own new-wave type of church. Frankly, I have more respect for the 16th century Protestant Reformers who left the Church instituted by Christ rather than sticking with it when they no longer believed in its core teachings. You have the full freedom to leave because no one is pointing a gun to your prominent heads, demanding your life or your consent. Parting advice: It is not psychologically sound to with an institution which you find abhorrent.