Archbishop of Canterbury expresses 'deep concern' over Episcopal approval for same-sex weddings [CC]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Contarini said:
Right. But the point is that the indissolubility of marriage was maintained in the C of E until very recently.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Edward VIII (who lived in the 20th century) had to abdicate because he wanted to marry a divorcee, which conflicted with the doctrine of the Church of England of which, as king, he was governor.
 
Not to go so far astray from OP, but why didn’t Edward VIII just get a bishop to grant her an annulment?
 
Duane1966 said:
Not to go so far astray from OP, but why didn’t Edward VIII just get a bishop to grant her an annulment?
Click to expand...
No such provision in the CoE at the time. Had there been, there would have of necessity been a need for some defined and undispensed impediment to justify the decree of nullity.

C.S. Lewis ran into the same problem when he was attempting wed with Joy Davidman, sacramentally, in 1957.
 
Duane1966 said:
I was under the understanding that the Church never granted Henry VIII an annulment from Catherine of Aragon. The church he ended up establishing granted him one, but not the church to which he originally applied.
Click to expand...
👍

The Pope did not grant him the annulment he so wanted. He failed in that petition. He really did tried, as it finally reached the Pope.

Disobeying the Pope, he fell back and got the annulment from a lesser Bishop and for that both of them were excommunicated. Obviously.

Now he got what he wanted but not from his Pope or from his Church. He had to make one that allowed him to do so for that.
 
EasterJoy said:
Although a church that holds to the teaching of the Apostles in not allowing divorce is not likely to redefine marriage in a far more drastic way, admitting divorce and supporting the contention that two persons of the same sex are capable of marriage are hardly the same thing. The latter is a far more drastic change in the understanding of marriage.
Click to expand...
The Road to Hell is often charted by choosing the “Lesser Evil”. A variation on this is to argue “this dogma is less crucial than that dogma”; eventually the “less crucial” dogma becomes optional. Eventually forgotten. And the lesser evil becomes normal practice. Contraception, deemed “less bad” than abortion, goes from being regarded as evil, to defined as lesser evil, to then becoming acceptable, to nowadays being the virtue of Prudence in many religious circles.
 
Reuben_J said:
👍

The Pope did not grant him the annulment he so wanted. He failed in that petition. He really did tried, as it finally reached the Pope.

Disobeying the Pope, he fell back and got the annulment from a lesser Bishop and for that both of them were excommunicated. Obviously.

Now he got what he wanted but not from his Pope or from his Church. He had to make one that allowed him to do so for that.
Click to expand...
But originally, he was trying to keep the issue in the kingdom, not appeal to the rota, but hold it before Cantuar. It is not known why he suddenly took it to Rome; probably because he thought it was likely to succeed (it was a commonplace action and his case was no more or less robust than was customary at the time). And Katherine could have appealed a local decision, anyway.
 
Very strange that almost every time the Church of England comes up in discussions, well at least in discussions on the Internet by Catholics in the United States, HVIII, his marriages, becomes the centre of attention. Not only does Harry really not figure much in the thoughts of members of the Church of England, but I don’t think (no evidence, admittedly) you would get the same obsessive concern among British Catholics. Why is this, I wonder. Contributions from obsessive Anglicans such as GKC also welcome.
 
GKC said:
No such provision in the CoE at the time. Had there been, there would have of necessity been a need for some defined and undispensed impediment to justify the decree of nullity.
Click to expand...
Another problem was that the Prime Minister was against it, and if Edward just ignored the church and his government then it would have caused the government to resign and that would have created a constitutional crisis.

On the question of a potential annulment, Wallis Simpson was actually twice a divorcee. She was already divorced from her first husband when she met the king, and she was not yet divorced from her second husband at the time she began her relationship with the king. So, even if the CofE had been willing to consider the annulment route, it would have been a complicated and scandalous process.
 
Picky_Picky said:
Very strange that almost every time the Church of England comes up in discussions, well at least in discussions on the Internet by Catholics in the United States, HVIII, his marriages, becomes the centre of attention. Not only does Harry really not figure much in the thoughts of members of the Church of England, but I don’t think (no evidence, admittedly) you would get the same obsessive concern among British Catholics. Why is this, I wonder. Contributions from obsessive Anglicans such as GKC also welcome.
Click to expand...
I have wondered the same thing. was it because of what was taught in Catholic schools in the U.S. in the 50’s and 60’s? I don’t have an answer. One poster called me an angliophile on another thread because I had read Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies and watched the show on PBS. I am Catholic now, but I did grow up in the Episcopal church and I like books and films from that era. England still has their monarchy. The schism between England and Rome was a loss to the Catholic realm at the time since they had already experienced the problem of Luther in Germany and other parts of the continent.
 
Picky_Picky said:
Very strange that almost every time the Church of England comes up in discussions, well at least in discussions on the Internet by Catholics in the United States, HVIII, his marriages, becomes the centre of attention. Not only does Harry really not figure much in the thoughts of members of the Church of England, but I don’t think (no evidence, admittedly) you would get the same obsessive concern among British Catholics. Why is this, I wonder. Contributions from obsessive Anglicans such as GKC also welcome.
Click to expand...
Hank was that fascinating train wreck, and much of what is waved, about re:him are cardboard cutouts.
 
ltwin said:
Another problem was that the Prime Minister was against it, and if Edward just ignored the church and his government then it would have caused the government to resign and that would have created a constitutional crisis.

On the question of a potential annulment, Wallis Simpson was actually twice a divorcee. She was already divorced from her first husband when she met the king, and she was not yet divorced from her second husband at the time she began her relationship with the king. So, even if the CofE had been willing to consider the annulment route, it would have been a complicated and scandalous process.
Click to expand...
it would involve a private act of Parliament, and I don’t think the CoE would have had competent jurisdiction to get involved in the status of Mrs. S’s marital condition. And in any case, such special pleading would resonate poorly with the Sovereign’s role as Supreme Governor of the CoE. There was no way to do it, satisfactorily, plus the aforementioned constitutional crisis.
 
Let us not forget Anglicanism’s other notable contribution to the destruction of the family, the approval of birth control in the 1930 Lambeth Conference. The camel’s nose in the tent, if you will, and especially appalling when coming from an ecclesial community that ten years prior stated,

“We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception, together with the grave dangers – physical, moral and religious – thereby incurred, and against the evils with which the extension of such use threatens the race. In opposition to the teaching which, under the name of science and religion, encourages married people in the deliberate cultivation of sexual union as an end in itself, we steadfastly uphold what must always be regarded as the governing considerations of Christian marriage. One is the primary purpose for which marriage exists, namely the continuation of the race through the gift and heritage of children; the other is the paramount importance in married life of deliberate and thoughtful self-control.”
 
Katherine of Aragon should
be declared a saint and a martyr.
In a very real way she died
of heartbreak whilst defending the Faith.
 
commenter said:
The Road to Hell is often charted by choosing the “Lesser Evil”. A variation on this is to argue “this dogma is less crucial than that dogma”; eventually the “less crucial” dogma becomes optional. Eventually forgotten. And the lesser evil becomes normal practice. Contraception, deemed “less bad” than abortion, goes from being regarded as evil, to defined as lesser evil, to then becoming acceptable, to nowadays being the virtue of Prudence in many religious circles.
Click to expand...
Well, there is no reason to “choose” either one of of those roads, so it doesn’t quite fit the usual “lesser of two evils” conundrum, in that sense. Yes, once you have decided not to hold fast on one matter, it does become easier to give in on another. It is not always a foregone conclusion, though. Some of the polygamists are planning on rushing the Supreme Court to have a hearing for what they want the government to consider as a matter of “marriage equality.” I can see the temptation, because the last decision does seem to lead directly to that. In theory, it would work that way. In practice, however, the Supreme Court is not totally divorced from public opinion. On that account, while I wouldn’t be astonished if the Court recognized a right to polygamy, I wouldn’t be astonished if the Court found it to be an entirely different animal.
 
" let us not forget Anglicanism’s other notable contribution to the destruction of the family, the approval of birth control in the 1930 Lambeth Conference"

the above statement to me is so bizarre that I have no reply-remember the overwhelming percentage of American Catholics practice birth control-as the Roman Catholic bishop of the Diocese of st. Petersburg (Florida) said " that horse has left the barn"

at my Episcopal Church today -not one mention made of the issue of same sex marriage -really amazing -the Priest did speak last week about our New Presiding Bishop-my Parish will likely go along fine-

to the poster of the quote above-sorry if we do not desire to have 10 children -or like many good roman catholics live in poverty in Latin America with our family of 12

sorry for the sarcasm but the above comment really set me off-

the 3 legged stool of scripture-the Tradition of the Church and reason is our bedrock
 
cmodrmac said:
" let us not forget Anglicanism’s other notable contribution to the destruction of the family, the approval of birth control in the 1930 Lambeth Conference"

the above statement to me is so bizarre that I have no reply-remember the overwhelming percentage of American Catholics practice birth control-as the Roman Catholic bishop of the Diocese of st. Petersburg (Florida) said " that horse has left the barn"

at my Episcopal Church today -not one mention made of the issue of same sex marriage -really amazing -the Priest did speak last week about our New Presiding Bishop-my Parish will likely go along fine-

to the poster of the quote above-sorry if we do not desire to have 10 children -or like many good roman catholics live in poverty in Latin America with our family of 12

sorry for the sarcasm but the above comment really set me off-

the 3 legged stool of scripture-the Tradition of the Church and reason is our bedrock
Click to expand...
Not to go off topic, but do you believe that children are a gift from God?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top