Thursday, December 11, 2008

Jack Straw 'leading Government plans to end ban on Catholic monarchs'

Justice Secretary Jack Straw is apparently 'working hard' to abolish/amend the Act of Settlement which prevents Roman Catholics acceding to the Throne of the United Kingdom. It also prevents the Monarch from marrying a Roman Catholic.

Cranmer has already rehearsed the arguments for retention of this Act, so he will not bore his readers and communicants with the details.

He is only covering the issue again because Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy has revealed that ministers were 'working hard' to overhaul this foundational constitutional piece of legislation. Chris Bryant, the deputy leader of the House of Commons and a former Anglican priest, is also pushing for the law to be changed.

Jim Murphy is yet another Roman Catholic Scottish politician (...John Reid, Michael Martin, Des Browne, David Cairns, Charles Kennedy, Michael Ancram, Alex Salmond [a pre-conversion Blairite type of closet Catholic?]) who insists that the law is not only ‘divisive, discriminatory and offensive’, but ‘almost certainly’ a breach of human rights.

It is nothing of the sort.

Prince William - as any member of the Royal Family - is perfectly free to marry whomsoever he wishes. That is his human right. But Prince William is not then free to accede to the Throne and become Supreme Governor of the Church of England. But acceding to the Throne and becoming Supreme Governor of the Church of England are not human rights.

Mr Murphy is of the opinion that ‘It's wrong to have a settled constitutional position that discriminates. It's not because I'm a Catholic that I feel it. It's unfair, wrong, and does not fit well into a modern sense of what Britain is about.'

He feels it? It’s just not fair...

He sounds like a spoilt child.

Cranmer feels it is not fair that should a Roman Catholic accede to the Throne, his or her children will have to be brought up in that faith. That does not seem quite fair, does it? Where is this child’s ‘human right’ to freedom of religion? With such a ‘divisive’ and ‘discriminatory’ article of faith, how could a Protestant ever again occupy the Throne?

But all this detracts from Cranmer’s gripe.

Jim Murphy reveals that the Jack Straw is 'working hard' on plans to reform the Act. And not only is he working hard, ‘he is putting an awful lot of work into it,' he said. 'He is working hard and is pretty focused on it.'

So, here we are approaching three million unemployed; a ‘credit crunch’ in which hundreds of thousands more are being made redundant; people’s levels of debt rising inexorably; the cost of heating your home soaring; taxes are rising; poverty increasing; drug and alcohol abuse spiraling out of control; family breakdown and divorce becoming commonplace; child abuse increasing; crime rates soaring; immigration rates unknown and unknowable; for God's sake, Woolworths is closing down...

...and Jack Straw is focused on amending a three-hundred year old constitutional settlement which will have absolutely no effect until, at the very earliest, the death of the next Monarch but one.

It beggars belief that the next Labour government will spend parliamentary time – possibly an entire legislative year - amending not only the Act of Settlement 1701 but several other statutes which are inseparably fused with the Act, including the Bill of Rights 1688, the Coronation Oath Act 1688, Act of Union 1707, the Princess Sophia's Precedence Act 1711, the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the Union with Ireland Act 1800, the Accession Declaration Act 1910, and the Regency Act 1937.

These are hardly at the forefront of people’s everyday concerns.

Labour is pushing this issue now for one reason alone: it is a puerile attempt to win back the Catholic vote after manifesting itself as the most anti-Catholic government of modern times.

One has to hope and pray that the Roman Catholic community will see through this patronising ploy, and vote Conservative at the next General Election. It is a party in which they will find a most conducive and tolerant political home.


Anonymous John Reid said...

'It's not because I'm a Catholic that I feel it.' He reminds me of Calamaro of TV fame. 'Its not fair. Its an injustice'.

So no agenda them Jim. Well done you.
Enjoy the game at the weekend Jim.

11 December 2008 at 09:40  
Anonymous Nelson said...

Well, I am not suprised that this 'important' piece of legislature has at last surfaced' it was only a question of time. If I recall correctly the ex Mrs Camilla P Bowles is both Catholic and a divorcee, now I personally have nothing against either state, but I knew it was just a question of time before Brown & co stepped in to curry favour by liberal application of lubricant to ease the problem & avoid squeaks.As you so rightly observe Cranmer this Karma Chameleon government will sidle up to anyone like a spiv with a fake Rolex to win votes. Alas what a sad state this once great country has been bought to by these clowns & their friends in the E.U.

11 December 2008 at 09:41  
Anonymous Henry Quisling said...

Does Your Grace have any proof that Alex Salmond is a Catholic? I dimly remember you saying the same thing about Boris Johnson quite a while ago, and that wasn't true...

11 December 2008 at 09:42  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Nelson,

Mrs Parker Bowles is not Roman Catholic; she simply used to be married to one, but never hersef converted.

Mr Quisling,

You may be correct about Mr Salmond - and His Grace would be prepared to amend - but it is becoming increasingly difficult to know who is Catholic and who is not, since the criteria for identification appear to have become somewhat fluid.

11 December 2008 at 09:48  
Anonymous John Reid said...

Your Grace - the usual method for discovering if a person is of the catholic persausion is if they tell you. They have a habit nowadays of confessing their faith as though a badge of honour.
Being a Celtic supporter, singing IRA songs, wearing a Celtic top are other signs of religious faith in Scotland.
Jim Murphy and John Reid both fit some of this criteria.
Tony Blair on the other hand hid his 'faith' until he had achieved the goals set for him. He, as far as I know, was not a Celtic supporter. But as we know with Blair what you see is not what you get.

11 December 2008 at 10:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For them it is exactly the right time to work on this, when peoples minds are focused else where and will not notice. sneaky and snakelike!!

11 December 2008 at 10:18  
Blogger Unsworth said...

Your Grace

It seems that Blair's conversion was more of an insurance policy than genuine conviction. I guess that as a manipulative ex-lawyer and politician he's been studying the get-out clauses fairly carefully.

As to Straw, is he not working on his Earldom? I'd have thought that would be roughly his price. He's surely not going to settle for anything less?

I do not believe that true Catholics will accept a bribe to the Monarchy. After all, what difference will it make to them? Or is Straw also proposing that the Reformation should now be countered by some sort of Great Restoration? So, when does the handover begin, then? It must be fairly soon to have any effect on a General Election.

In the meantime Judgement and Eternity await.

11 December 2008 at 10:28  
Blogger Anoneumouse said...

Oh hum

The Crown belongs to all sixteen Commonwealth Realms and whatever the House of Commons may debate, let alone legislate, it will affect all of Her Majesty's subjects outside the Kingdom.

It is for this purpose that the Statute of Westminster 1931 requires:

"that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom."

And whereas it is in accord with the established constitutional position that no law hereafter made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend to any of the said Dominions as part of the law of that Dominion otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that Dominion:

11 December 2008 at 10:37  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why the dickens anybody would aspire to govern supreme over the empurpled Lambeth-liberals [present company excepted] is beyond me. A distinct absence of turbulent priests [beyond African shores] would make for a boring tenure for any titleholder.

11 December 2008 at 10:51  
Anonymous Henry Quisling said...


I don't know why that clause is there in the Statute of Westminster, being as it is completely void. (Parliament cannot its successors.)
Besides, in the meantime other Realms have changed the style and titles of the Crown.
See also the abdication of Edward VIII: it needed to be brought about by separate Acts in each Realm. As the Irish Act was passed a day later, Edward VIII was King of Ireland for a day when George VI was King everywhere else, and there is no question that that was constitutionally legitimate.

And Your Grace, is it not better to err on the side of caution was describing somebody? Harriet Harman has not, as far as I know, disclosed her religion, but that doesn't mean I can say she's a Muslim...

11 December 2008 at 11:27  
Blogger The last cause said...

Fundamentally, won't Straw's efforts disclose once and for all whether or not the Catholic Hierarchy (not lay members mind you) really is in some sort of subversive mode in the UK?

I do think the C of E has a right to remain separate from the Church in Rome and I'd think it would be an unpleasant vista for the C of E to have a newly installed Catholic Monarch decide "We will rejoin with Rome" at some future date..

11 December 2008 at 11:51  
Blogger dizzyfatplonka said...

Being King should be made a human right, we should all be Kings, if just for one day.

And we should all be servents for the rest of the time.

11 December 2008 at 12:42  
Blogger McKenzie said...

My advice to William is to marry a Catholic and leave the mean and nasty spiteful poofs to their own ends, or up their own ends...whatever.

11 December 2008 at 12:58  
Blogger McKenzie said...

You haven't been frequenting the Pink church down their have you old man? I am starting to worry about you.

11 December 2008 at 13:02  
Blogger McKenzie said...

I keep using the incorrect version of Their/There, Don't ask me why, it must be some sort of Freudian slip thing.

11 December 2008 at 13:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only thing that can save England from the Muslim taking over the country are the Catholics. England should return back to been catholic and the Pope will make sure England stays a Christian nation instead of a Muslim one.

11 December 2008 at 13:26  
Anonymous Unite or Die said...


11 December 2008 at 14:13  
Blogger Jonny Mac said...

"...the Roman catholic community..."?

I can only hope Your Grace used that dreadful formulation with tongue firmly in cheek.

11 December 2008 at 14:31  
Anonymous John Reid said...

'The only thing that can save England from the Muslim taking over the country are the Catholics. England should return back to been catholic and the Pope will make sure England stays a Christian nation instead of a Muslim one.'

This is the best laugh I've had since GB saved the world.

11 December 2008 at 14:52  
Anonymous Here's a little Agreement he / they did earlier said...

The Euromed Agreement signed by Westminster behind the Backs of the British People, Unlimited Muslim immigration and the British people forced to accept Islam.

11 December 2008 at 16:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't George Bush planning on converting to the catholic faith once he leaves office?

11 December 2008 at 17:14  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

"So, here we are approaching three million unemployed; a ‘credit crunch’ in which hundreds of thousands more are being made redundant; people’s levels of debt rising inexorably; the cost of heating your home soaring; taxes are rising; poverty increasing; drug and alcohol abuse spiraling out of control; family breakdown and divorce becoming commonplace; child abuse increasing; crime rates soaring; immigration rates unknown and unknowable; for God's sake, Woolworths is closing down..."

"Our" government has given away sovereignty to Brussels, they no longer have any say in the above matters. What they can do is vicariously enjoy trashing the last of our nation's tradition's, by reference to the "Human Rights" act - also an EU invention.

We can't vote out Brussels. If we try they will deploy economic terrorism and "anti-racist" goon squads. We're living in a dictatorship.

11 December 2008 at 17:21  
Blogger Christian-Jedi-Alliance said...

Ihave just been thinking about a video clip which shows a monk talking about living each moment as if it were your last etc. I have considered this in relation to the ancient Jedi belief that death is a flow of energy back into the universe in order to be used for a larger purpose. It follows from this that if our energy is to be used for a higher purpose then we will always be part of the future.

Given that all of us now can assume with great confidence that we will be dead in another 200 years, what ever the condition maybe like here on Earth, our energy will be out there actively engaged in the fairy tale, or, the horror story, which ever the case may be.

If there is a higher purpose, then our only HOPE is in our FAITH for a greater plan other than mere human aspirations. We therefore have a duty to act accordingly with our ambitions and goals, both long and short term. Do you want to be part of the fairy tale, or part of the horror story?

There are some people who just simply wish they could opt out of the modern life style, me being one of them. However, we have to get on with things and make the most of what we have. A few alternatives to the singular theme would be nice, but there will always be the mind set who will abuse everything in their search for a purely hedonistic and selfish life.

There was a time when we could turn to our spiritual leaders for guidance about these things, in full confidence that we would be talking with mature and wise people, but no longer is this the case. Our spiritual leaders have become secularised and impotent, equally wrapped up in the modern world, and equally affected with all it's modern hang-ups..

It is a sad state of affairs for us all that we no longer have a firm and common foundation in our culture, a landmark so to speak to look upon as a corner stone supporting everything that we do, and hope for, and aspire to achieve, both for ourselves now, and for the higher purposes of our energy when working alongside future generations of brothers and sisters.

May this change for the better, and with the FORCE being with us.

11 December 2008 at 18:07  
Blogger Jomo said...

What about a Republic instead!

11 December 2008 at 18:18  
Blogger Christian-Jedi-Alliance said...

If you think in terms of Law: for instance our law is based on presidents set by other cases and judges decisions, and European law which is termed as codified law. I think what has happened is that our religion has become devoid of spirituality because God's word has become codified over time. It has been transcribed into set dogma and set procedures, and set practices. It has become dry and spiritless. I have read things about why people are turning to new age theories etc, and how this is because of the modern immature and selfish mind. This is only part of a problem that also relates to the secular and dry spiritless scientific-like order of the modern church. A church that seems to be embarrassed and ashamed of it's own idea.

To be honest with you, there is nothing more depressing for me than going to church and listening to the holy sage prattle on about paying your taxes and the evils of substance abuse. If you haven't figured things like that out for your self then you need to be taken aside so the rest of us can enjoy some spiritual guidance. Of course there has to be a connection between the secular and the spiritual, but leave your worldly status at the church door and don't be a prick all your life is what I say.

Why cling on to this failed constitutional monarchistic cock up? The Anglican Church, you can't even say it without wrapping your tongue around an imaginary marble. A bunch of prehistoric old fuddy duddies. It is time that you boring bastards wake up and admit that you have jack shit in common with the vast majority of the people you live with. The fact that we have a constitution which is based on the bloody Anglican church is enough for any normal right thinking individual to realise that we are not facing up to reality. The Queen, the defender of a faith that nobody gives a flying figaration about.


11 December 2008 at 19:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Labour is pushing this issue now for one reason alone: it is a puerile attempt to win back the Catholic vote after manifesting itself as the most anti-Catholic government of modern times.

That may or may not be true as far as the ordinary Roman Catholic voter is concerned. However as far as elections are concerned the power of a floating Roman Catholic voter does not extend past a very few seats in the houses of Parliament. Which is very close to no power at all.

Therefore IMO this is can not be the primary or even secondary reason.

This government may have tried its best to seem to be in conflict with the Papal authorities. But in reality it is following a Papal Agenda, to the letter "OR ELSE..."

Tony Blair is a Knight of Malta, and he and Gordon Brown are high ranking in other words aristocratic members of Free masonry. Therefore both ultimately answer to Papal authority.

The Pope in Rome is not just a King prime minister and president maker. He is the spiritual head of the entire worlds aristocracy. The Arch Bishop of Canterbury is a constitutional position. Which is now and has long since been a constitutional act, designed only for the convenience of the establishment.

To my knowledge.

All but a very few Kings or Queens of Europe including our very own Queen Elizabeth of England have seen and still do see the Pope in Rome as their penultimate true spiritual and if not also their material master.

Whatever lies and general nonsense they have always told us in the past, and continue to tell us today. Or indeed any other dis information contained within our unwritten constitution.

I stand to be corrected, by anyone that has any real evidence that what I have stated is not or can not be true. I say this in complete and absolute confidence, that they can not possibly have any. However the circumstantial evidence that I am in detail or in essence absolutely correct is overwhelming.

This change in the Act of Settlement being a prime example of circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy acting at the very top of the establishment.

That therefore has absolute priority over just about everything. Including trying to mitigate the worst affects of the most damaging deliberately caused financial crisis/protracted economic meltdown since 1929, for the common people that lent them their only vote and trust.

Remember Cranmer the establishment don't just think in the long term, they believe in the very real subliminal power of symbolism.

After all you can not be the Pope and be conspiring to inflict a more obvious one world religion on the world. If things like The Act of Settlement are still in place. Now can you?

Atlas Shrugged

Atlas shrugged

11 December 2008 at 19:21  
Blogger Christian-Jedi-Alliance said...

I can't help thinking what a load of crap that is, but at the same time, lets be fair about this needs to happen mate.

11 December 2008 at 19:48  
Blogger Viator Catholicus said...

Your ploy to speak of the child's "human right" is a pathetic strawman, unless you think no child should be brought up in his parent's faith. Parents raise their children as best as they can, including imparting their faith. But, the child, as he grows, retains freedom and the right to seek the truth.

But I agree that "acceding to the Throne and becoming Supreme Governor of the Church of England are not human rights." Human rights flow from natural law understood as the human being's participation in divine eternal law. The natural law teaches human beings to conform themselves to their common ultimate goal in so far as they recognize it. Rights flow from natural law to engender duties in other human beings to not interfere with our pursuit of the natural goals and ultimate goal of life - even if we cannot achieve that goal by natural power.
Being king or queen is therefore not a human right, but liberty to pursue the truth is and worship of God as one in convinced he or she must is.

If the English people choose, by positive law, to deprive themselves of a Catholic monarch (having gone so far as to commit treason in 1688 to allow a foreign power to seize the throne) it is their prerogative to make such a law. One might argue it is a defective law because - from a Catholic perspective - because it requires the monarch be attached to error. However, since the kingship is not a human right, I would agree governments can make particular criteria for such leadership.

What is ironic is that you so much fear a Catholic monarch (such as Alfred the Great or St. Edward - but they were also true Englishmen and not foreigners on the English throne). Yet, you are more likely to have an atheist or perhaps even a Muslim. But, as long as he's not Catholic, right?

11 December 2008 at 20:05  
Blogger len.allan said...

Gods authority on earth is the Holy Spirit.
Not the pope.
Christ is the head of the church(eph.5:23.

11 December 2008 at 20:06  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Viator Catholicus,

That is not all His Grace's position.

He simply wants a Monarch who is 'in communion with' the Church of England.

That would exclude those others you specify, but also Roman Catholics since they are not permitted to be 'in communion with' the Church of England. Indeed, that specific prohibition might be considered by many Anglicans to be a manifestation of bigotry itself. Alas, the doctrine of the Lord's Supper is mostly forgotten.

11 December 2008 at 20:21  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Church of England is dying and soon it will be replace by the Muslims. It's time to come back to the true church before it's not to late. We must all united to stop the Muslims from over taking Europe and the World.

11 December 2008 at 21:56  
Blogger Sam Tarran said...

With all due respect, this isn't a religious issue and never has been.

The 1701 Act of Settlement was not an act of religious discrimination, but an affirmation of the political independence of England from Rome. A Catholic monarch would hold a loyalty to an authority higher than to the Crown-in-Parliament. Therefore, the crown being an integral part of Parliament, the sovereignty of Parliament itself would be jeopardised.

It's the same reason I and so many others oppose the European Union. The Reformation was a political event far more than a religious one.

11 December 2008 at 23:00  
Blogger Theresa said...

Your Grace,

Cardinal Winning was once asked about whether the Act of Succession should be repealed and his answer was 'It's not a priority.'

Neither is it a priority for myself and other Catholics I know; we don't have a problem with the Head of the Church of England having to be a member of the Church of England and we are rather bemused by all the fuss.The Pope is a Catholic after all. As to the other aspects of the Act of Succession about Catholic Prime Ministers and suchlike; well, I think when and if it comes to it, the same will happen with that, that happened with the rule at my university that you couldn't cross the quad without a sword on; it'll just be quietly ignored.

12 December 2008 at 00:51  
Blogger Theresa said...

I completely disagree with you that Labour is going through with this to win the Catholic vote. What Labour is actually trying to do, is disestablish the Church of England and remove the Bishops from the House of Lords. Like all political parties, it fears the churches because they cut across political loyalties and have an influence to rival theirs on people. This bill will shove the C of E to the political sidelines and you need to act on it.

12 December 2008 at 01:04  
Anonymous woman on a raft said...

O/T Care to comment on this story, Your Grace. This looks to me like an abuse of human rights as the school choir had a right to express religious belief and has been prevented from doing so.

12 December 2008 at 09:24  
Anonymous woman on a raft said...

For info: Thurrock ex-Councillor Tony Benson (Lab), who kicked the kiddies' choir out of the fun because he didn't like the C-word, is now chair of the Corringham Town Festival and was happy to describe the event as "the best Christmas lights show in Thurrock" when seeking permission to hold a fund-raising event on the recreation ground.

(This wv thing is remarkable - before I even started writing it selected the word 'wican'.)

12 December 2008 at 09:46  
Blogger Man in a Shed said...

Labour will be looking for something to neutralise its pro-Abortion anti-Christian agenda with its Catholic voters for the spring smash and grab general election.

This will do ...

12 December 2008 at 11:38  
Anonymous bugs bunny said...

The repeal of this senseless act will ensure the return of the Republic of Ireland to the Commonwealth and facilitate the return of the Stuarts. The current Jacobite heir is the ninty year old Duke of Bavaria. After him, the succession will pass to Alois, Prince of Liechenstein. When Alois dies, his London-born son will inherit the succession and become head of the House of Stuart.Lord Lumsden wrote to the Telegraph in 1995 pointing out that he will be the first Pretender to be simultaneously a ruling sovereign which should greatly increase his chances of reclaiming his rightful thrones. He is a Catholic and since this illegal Act would preclude his accession, it should be repealed as a matter of high priority. His Majesty will then be positioned to restore the stolen lands and churches to Catholics and Gaelic lords.

12 December 2008 at 17:31  
Anonymous judith said...

Well, presumably repealing the law would mean the throne would have to be open to individuals of any religion, or none, why should there be favouritism towards the Catholics?

Or how about negotiating a quid pro quo: a Catholic can become King of England if a Protestant can become Pope?

In all seriousness, this preposterous time-waster fits neatly into Labour's favourite nostrum: 'if it works, let's smash it!'.

12 December 2008 at 20:26  
Anonymous bugs bunny said...

The pope and the British monarch cannot be compared. While Elizabeth II is a perfectly nice woman she is not the sucessor of Saint Peter, the leader of the Church Militant or the Vicar of Christ on earth. It is necessary for the pope not to a heretic and we still regard Protestantism as heresy and its adherants as heretics. Some will of course argue that since the British monarch is ex officio Governor of the Anglican Church, they need to be in communion with that Church. Certainly that is true, however we want an end to Established Protestanism and a return to the old faith.

12 December 2008 at 22:03  
Anonymous some bloke said...

As you suggest Your Grace, Mr. Straw should be spending his time ( paid for by me ) on more urgent matters.
Perhaps I might make a claim for being 'excluded' in that I am not a Windsor ' ?

13 December 2008 at 04:43  
Anonymous Dave J. said...

Bugs Bunny, repealing the Act of Settlement would be prospective only: it would not restore the Stuarts to the throne. I note that the Jacobite pretenders (or their followers, since the Wittelsbachs have never publicly pressed their Stuart claims), still also maintain Edward III's claim to the throne of France. Shall we recommence the Hundred Years War forthwith?

13 December 2008 at 16:57  
Blogger Laurelian said...

Unfortunetly this is a ruse to try and break up the Union rather than any "concern" about Catholics rights. As a British Catholic (and a royalist), I'm happy enough with the way things are, when William comes to the throne we will have a descendant of James II and Charles II on it. Leave it at that.

Nobody should even think about fiddling with the Act of Settlement until all this hateful, seperatist SNP nonsense is out of the way and we have sufficiently secured ourselves against the hungers of the European Union.

There are 1000 more important things to deal with first, before this.

13 December 2008 at 19:04  
Blogger len.allan said...

Religion was judged at the cross and found to be a total sham!
It was the religious community that crucified Jesus Christ.
The apostle Paul persecuted the church until his eyes were opened by the Lord Jesus Christ.
Countless people have been martyred by "the church".
If your denomination is more important to you than the Lordship of Jesus Christ you have missed the point altogether.
All that matters is a new creation all the rest is in the words of paul = manure.

13 December 2008 at 20:16  
Blogger Mark Dowling said...

As I recall from living in Glasgow in the early 90s, Cardinal Winning's priorities included closing two schools in one community because of his refusal to countenance the underenrolled Catholic school's kids enrolling in the underenrolled State school, resulting in all of the kids in that area being bussed to schools elsewhere. This is because of the usual line that State schools have no morals (I'm RC by the way).

15 December 2008 at 18:25  
Blogger ZZMike said...

This is probably a moot point, as when Prince Charles ascends the throne, he'll be a Muslim.

But maybe that's OK - just so long as he isn't a Papist.

17 December 2008 at 01:12  
Anonymous Prince charles has converted to Islam said...

You can Google this..

So our elites obviously want us enslaved under Islam.

17 December 2008 at 11:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was intrigued by Bugs Bunny's offering....when I was a very naive protestant I had naturally assumed that all denominations were Christian first of all and that they all respected each other....of course I failed to realize that, underneath the veneer, the Church of Rome believes all protestants to be heretics. Just the same as the JW's believe that anyone who isn't a JW is lost. In protestant churches, anyone who "takes communion in their own church" is usually invited to do so. Not so the church of Rome. One way traffic, see. Interesting that the muslim world takes the same line, that it's outrageous for Christians to do missionary work, but quite OK for them. So Rome and Islam do share something in common, after all! But thanks for the tip, Bugs, at least we all know now that for all the platitudes there's no chance, ever, of a "union" with Rome. And, I note, you want all the churches back, too. Good to know, all this. Thanks.

18 December 2008 at 22:00  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Quisling,

With respect to Boris Johnson. The words of Stuart Reid:

"At the party that followed the service, as the congregation scoffed mince pies and glugged mulled wine, Stanley Johnson, Boris's father, asked me if I had ever found out whether Boris was baptised a Catholic.

It was what my youngest son would call a 'surreal' moment. I said that my inquiries had satisfied me that he had indeed been baptised a Catholic - when I'd asked Stanley about it in the summer, he said he couldn't remember - and furthermore that I had written as much in The Catholic Herald.

Oh, said Stanley cheerfully. 'But I think he was confirmed an Anglican at Eton.' Too late, mate. Boris is one of us."

23 December 2008 at 15:50  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older