The Act Of Settlement (UK, Commonwealth)

[PADem]

I'd be interested to hear from anyone who thinks that this ancient clause that forbids Catholics from marrying into the royal family or suceeding to the throne should be upheld..

Regardless, do you think it would be enforced? Say if Prince William were to want to marry a Catholic?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's a bit of a daft law isn't it? And pretty hard to justify now that the U.K is not a political enemy of the Vatican and that the monarch has been stripped of any real power.

[PADem]

It's a bit of a daft law isn't it? And pretty hard to justify now that the U.K is not a political enemy of the Vatican and that the monarch has been stripped of any real power.

Apparently each commonwealth country would have to ratify any changes made in regards to the sucession as King or Queen of Australia, New Zealand, Cook Islands etx

[Emsworth]

A clarification on the Act of Settlement: Only Protestants may succeed to the throne; Catholics are not the only ones barred. However, someone married to a Catholic may not succeed, whereas someone married to anyone else (an atheist, for example) may do so.
 
Whatever method is chosen to decide who succeeds to the throne, it will still be arbitrary. Some group - such as elder children, males, or Protestants - will be favored over some other group. So it is rather pointless, in my opinion, to worry about whether someone marries a Catholic or not, etc.

Prince William of Wales simply will not marry a Roman Catholic as long as this provision is in effect and expect to inherit the Crown. The law will not be merely ignored - it may be changed, however, to permit him to succeed.

[Peter]

Like some of the Royal Marriages Act that came up recently in the Charles-Camilla marriage, there are many archaic, stupid laws concerning the Royalty on the books.

Should it look possible that William might marry a Catholic, then, no doubt, the Law would be altered to allow his accession.

[KEmperor]

As I am not British (or a Commonwealth citizen of any form) I really don't care.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In order for this to be undone, they will need to undo having the King of England being also the titular head of the Church of England.  Granted, I don't know of a king since James I who took an interest in the affairs of church beyond how it would affect him as head of state, but such a decoupling will have a profound effect on the Tories.  There's also the potential turmoil that would be caused in Northern Ireland if they were to have a Catholic royal once more.  I sort of like the silliness that might result in having a King William V of Great Britain and a King Henry IX of Northern Ireland.

[J. J.]

There is the possibility that the Anglican and Roman Churches will enter into Communion at some point, making the law moot.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There is the possibility that the Anglican and Roman Churches will enter into Communion at some point, making the law moot.

It will be at least a half-century before that could happen.  There is no way that the Anglicans will adopt priestly celibacy and no way that the RCC will abandon it in that time and without harmonization on celibacy I can't see full communion being established.  Far likelier would be a full merger of the Anglican and Porvoo Communions leading to a general Anglican-Lutheran merger.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

they will need to undo having the King of England being also the titular head of the Church of England. 

What a lovely thought

[Democratic Hawk]

Not unless the Church of England is disestablished. I think the law prohibiting heirs from marrying Catholics should be repealed

I'm English and an Anglican (most of us are by baptism anyway) and naturally prefer that my Head of State share my faith and that of the majority of his/her subjects

That said Scotland has the Presbyterian Church of Scotland and the faith (Reformed Church of the Netherlands) of the Dutch Queen is shared by only 15% of her subjects. Until recently, I always thought the majority of Dutch were Calvinists - but it would seem they never were

Furthermore, the predominantly Muslim state of Kashmir is part of India only at the behest of its Hindu Maharajah prior to independence when British India was partitioned between the Hindu majority and the Muslim minority

Dave

[minionofmidas]

Not unless the Church of England is disestablished. I think the law prohibiting heirs from marrying Catholics should be repealed

I'm English and an Anglican (most of us are by baptism anyway) and naturally prefer that my Head of State share my faith and that of the majority of his/her subjects

That said Scotland has the Presbyterian Church of Scotland and the faith (Reformed Church of the Netherlands) of the Dutch Queen is shared by only 15% of her subjects. Until recently, I always thought the majority of Dutch were Calvinists - but it would seem they never were

No, they used to be. Two Southern provinces were staunchly Catholic, and remain so. Everybody else, back in the 17th century, used to be a Calvinist. Since then, of course, there's been Muslim and Catholic immigration, lots of people leaving the Calvinist church but far fewer people leaving the Catholic church, and of course several ultra-conservative splinters off the Calvinist church.

[Democratic Hawk]

Not unless the Church of England is disestablished. I think the law prohibiting heirs from marrying Catholics should be repealed

I'm English and an Anglican (most of us are by baptism anyway) and naturally prefer that my Head of State share my faith and that of the majority of his/her subjects

That said Scotland has the Presbyterian Church of Scotland and the faith (Reformed Church of the Netherlands) of the Dutch Queen is shared by only 15% of her subjects. Until recently, I always thought the majority of Dutch were Calvinists - but it would seem they never were

No, they used to be. Two Southern provinces were staunchly Catholic, and remain so. Everybody else, back in the 17th century, used to be a Calvinist. Since then, of course, there's been Muslim and Catholic immigration, lots of people leaving the Calvinist church but far fewer people leaving the Catholic church, and of course several ultra-conservative splinters off the Calvinist church.

Thanks for clarifying things for me. I believe the Reformed Church split at one stage. I can't remember the full names but the original begins Her and the main splinter begins Ger, among others. I believe that "Protestants" form the largest pluralities in most provinces; however, I understand that within many of these provinces there is a significant Catholic population and many people who profess to being "non-religious"; while the two southern provinces of Brabant and Limbourg are almost homogenously Catholic. I think the Muslim population's around 4%

I was reading about the Dutch Revolt against Philip II of Spain recently and it was estimated that only 10% of the population of the North were Calvinist, which is why I came to believe the majority never were

However, before I started reading about the Netherlands, I'd assumed that they were mainly Calvinist. Calvinism must have grown following independence from Spain and is now in retreat as a consequence of modernity

Dave

[minionofmidas]

The 10% figure probably applies to the undivided Netherlands as existed before the revolt. I think mass calvinistization (can you say that?) occurred early on during the war; which also explains Limburg and Brabant - they were probably Spanish held during that phase.

[J. J.]

There is the possibility that the Anglican and Roman Churches will enter into Communion at some point, making the law moot.

It will be at least a half-century before that could happen.  There is no way that the Anglicans will adopt priestly celibacy and no way that the RCC will abandon it in that time and without harmonization on celibacy I can't see full communion being established.  Far likelier would be a full merger of the Anglican and Porvoo Communions leading to a general Anglican-Lutheran merger.

Ah, I hate to tell you this, but  Anglican clergy can remain married if the convert to the Roman Catholic Chuurch.  It's been that way since the 1980's.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There is the possibility that the Anglican and Roman Churches will enter into Communion at some point, making the law moot.

It will be at least a half-century before that could happen.  There is no way that the Anglicans will adopt priestly celibacy and no way that the RCC will abandon it in that time and without harmonization on celibacy I can't see full communion being established.  Far likelier would be a full merger of the Anglican and Porvoo Communions leading to a general Anglican-Lutheran merger.

Ah, I hate to tell you this, but  Anglican clergy can remain married if the convert to the Roman Catholic Chuurch.  It's been that way since the 1980's.

I was aware of that particular economy on the part of the RCC, but it is one thing for an occassional married priest to be allowed in.  It's something completely different for the church to sanction Catholic priests marrying.  The strong imprint of traditionalism that John Paul II has left on the church heirarchy makes it at least a quarter century before there is any chance of that the RCC will even begin to reconsider its stand on issues such as celibacy.  Even then, it is far likelier that the RCC will loosen the strictures on the deacons still further (allowing them to marry once already consecrated as deacons) and expanding their use still further (most likely by allowing them to perform either the Eucharist, the Reconciliation, or both)  than by having any loosening of the strictures on priestly celibacy.  (A likely side effect of allowing Deacons to perform the Eucharist is that as Deacons would then be capable of performing all the sacrements recognized by the Anglican Church, any future Anglican priest converts would be shunted into the deaconate rather than the priesthood.)

[ag]

Actually, Roman Catholic Church has numerous married priests, and has had them for centuries, just not in the Latin Rite. For the Church it is purely a matter of internal organization and tradition, not of dogma or doctrine. In the Orthodox Church married men can become priests (though not hierarchs - those have to be monks). When some Orthodox churches accepted the Union with Rome (the so called "Uniates" -  Ukrainian Greek Orothodox, I think, may be the largest of these in numbers), in addition to beeing allowed to keep the Byzantine Rite for their liturgy, they were allowed to continue the practice of having married men ordained priests.  In fact, I believe, a majority of parish priests in Eastern Rite dioceses of the Catholic Church are married. These dioceses are in a complete doctrinal and organizational Union with the Vatican, their bishops can (and do) become Cardinals and participate in the Conclave (and, in principle, might one day be elected Pope).  Once ordained, though, as is the case among the Orthodox, an unmaried priest can't get maried - in this case he is a monk for life. Only (celibate) monks can go on to become bishops, Cardinals, etc. (so the issue of a married Pope can't arise). In a sense, before ordination the man has to make a choice: does he want a nice parish and a family, or a career in the hierarchy. 

For a while the same principle was applied to Anglican priests converting to Catholicism, as it has been mentioned above, though, I believe, the practice is now discouraged, if not completely stopped for the new converts. I would believe, the main reason here is the lack of separate Church organization for the "Anglican Rite" in the Catholic Church (aside from a Vicariate or two) - whereas the Eastern Rite churches are clearly distinct in organization, the numbers of formerly Anglican converts do not justify it so far. It may thus have been difficult to accomodate married priests within the normal Latin Rite dioceses. In case of a mass convertion or even merger of the Churches that would not be an issue.

Unlike priestly celibacy, which is purely a matter of Church governance, female ordinations to priesthod might be a matter of doctrine, and thus a lot more intractable.  Likewise, I am not sure about the celibacy for bishops - in every "traditional" (Catholic, Orthodox, or Eastern) Church I know of, bishops must be celibate.  Whether that is a matter of doctrine or not, I don't know. There are also other issues of Church Doctrine (not having anything to do with sex), that are a lot more difficult to resolve than the matter of priestly celibacy, which not even such a traditionalist as the late John Paul has ever suggested being a serious obstacle - it simply is not.

[patrick1]

Discussion of the Act of settlement on the 12th of July?  Pure treason;)

"It is old but it is beautiful, and its colors they are fine
It was worn at Derry, Aughrim, Enniskillen and the Boyne.
My father wore it as a youth in bygone days of yore
And on the Twelfth I love to wear the sash my father wore."


I personally believe the  Act is an anachronism- just like the monarchy.   

[Emsworth]

I personally believe the  Act is an anachronism- just like the monarchy. 

I'm not particularly opposed to the monarchy, and I would not be even if I were British, despite my libertarian views. Yes, the monarchy does cost some money, but the revenues earned from tourism, etc., more than make up for it, so the economic argument against the monarchy fails to convince me. The Sovereign, furthermore, has practically no political power, and is no threat to democracy either.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If I lived in a Commonwealth country, I'd support becoming a Republic (actually I would in the UK as well, but that's about as likely to happen as opebo converting to religion). This isn't because of anti-monarchism much as it is opposing having a foreign national be the head of state of my country, even with no real power.

Now if I lived in the UK, I'd support deestablishizing the Church of England, hence basically making such a law pointless.

As for non-celibate priests, the Catholic Church is going to have to make a choice in the next decade: Married priests or women priests. Or they can simply slide more into irrelevancy, at least in the western world. This is exactly what I'd like to see (hell, I'd prefer the RCC simply not exist.), but they're going to have to go with married priests, since the celibacy requirement is really just a traditional matter stemming from an obsolete reason.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No, I think the RCC will keep celibacy for the Latn Rite but expand the authorities of the deacons.  Deacons can already preach, baptise, and marry.  Unless there is a doctrinal as opposed to a traditional reason, adding confession and the eucharist would enable priests to be reserved for those sacraments that require a greater degree of perceived authority.

[ag]

No, I think the RCC will keep celibacy for the Latn Rite but expand the authorities of the deacons.  Deacons can already preach, baptise, and marry.  Unless there is a doctrinal as opposed to a traditional reason, adding confession and the eucharist would enable priests to be reserved for those sacraments that require a greater degree of perceived authority.

Quite likely.  In fact, this is the way in which the current priesthood developed in the early church: it is now often forgotten, that early on administering many of the sacraments, such as baptism, was the exclusive prerogative of a bishop.  The bishop, in fact, performed many of the roles of the modern priest. He would travel around the diocese, but he would not be able to be everywhere often, so it could be that all baptisms in a parish had to be within one or two days in a year. This was satisfactory when the numbers of the flock were small and concentrated in towns (the rural areas remained pagan for a long time), but became inadequate eventually. Hence, the expanded role of the priest developed, taking over some of the prerogatives of the bishop. What was once a solution to the shortage of bishops (expansion of the role of the priest) could become a solution to the shortage of priests (expansion of the role of the deacon).

On the other hand,  allowing married men into priesthood, while tradition-shattering, is not in any way heretical. The reason celibacy requirement is maintained, aside from tradition, is that it is viewed (not entirely without a justification) that a single man can dedicate more of his time to the flock an to God, then a family man could. There are many arguments against this policy, but, in the end, it is the matter of Church organization, which, in the absolute monarchy that is the Church, is up to the current Pope. If the shortage becomes severe, it can always be gradually relaxed. Surely, the Vatican II reforms (entirely new liturgy! in vernacular!) were much more of a break with tradition than this.  Priestly shortage is not the issue that the Church can't surmount. Any of the two legitimate solutions (expansion of the role of deacons or ordination of married men) would do the job.

Ordination of women is quite another matter. There is a biblical precedent (the apostles were all male) and it has been construed as a matter of the doctrine. While it is not exactly a part of the Church core belief, it would require a substantial reversal to change it. In a sense, the Church would have to acknowledge an error here. Not entirely impossible (it has never been proclaimed as "infallible" truth by the Church, as far as I know, so acknowledging an error is not "faith-shattering"), but extremely unlikely in any forseeble future. As with any law, the authorities would loath to reverse the precedent. I would think, traditionalists are safe here for at least another 50 years, if not forever.

[Platypus]

who cares?, Australia

[Emsworth]

This isn't because of anti-monarchism much as it is opposing having a foreign national be the head of state of my country, even with no real power.

In principle, the Queen is equally the ruler of each realm. She is not just a British "national"; her status in each other realm is theoretically the same.

[Democratic Hawk]

Ah, I hate to tell you this, but  Anglican clergy can remain married if the convert to the Roman Catholic Chuurch.  It's been that way since the 1980's.

I think that's pretty hypocritical. Catholic priests are forbidden to marry, so why should converted Anglicans be any different? It's hypocrisy

Dave