Well maybe so in the fantasy world of this UK Telegraph person. See The Queen will stand up to Pope Benedict -When the Pontiff visits Britain next year he will meet his match, says Vicki Woods
She says in part:
As to the clever Pope Benedict, who plans to visit Britain in 2010 (which is pretty soon, isn't it? Another headache for the Archbishop of Canterbury) on what was apparently "the personal invitation of Gordon Brown during a private audience in February", he should read Carla Powell's diary in The Spectator: "Gordon Brown says he invited His Holiness, which if true would represent a gross breach of protocol. Only the Queen can invite a head of state to Britain." And when he meets the head of state, he'll have the singular experience of being addressed not just by his equal in worldly rank, but in godliness, too.
When Pope John Paul II met the Queen on his visit to Britain, he was for once wrong-footed. She spoke to him not as a fellow head of state but as a fellow head of the Church: Her Church. Her faith. Which she defends. He was quite taken aback.
Popes of course meets many and engge people that view them as their equal. The Orthodox come to mind. This is not going to be a shock to Benedict and I doubt it was a shock(WHO IS THIS WOMAN ) to John Paul the II.
I have to admit I am sort of closet Monarchist at timee and every time the Royal Family visits over here I am pretty clued to all the excitement.
That being said it would have helped if the Supreme Governor of the Church of England had intervened a couple of decades ago to prevent some of the nonsense that was occurring. That being said she is a devout Christian woman and seems concerned about what has been happening the past few years.
Also missed in all these is that many ways Benedict is much more concerned about Anglicanism failing than trying to get butts in the pews.
Further I think the Queen is quite aware that she has many Loyal Catholic Subjects. For instance at a sort of Catholic UK glimpse of how they view their Monarch see this interesting article For God and Queen: The Quandary of the English Catholic
As is well known, the curious twists and turns of English history have resulted in a situation where, in the 21st century, there exists a law banning any member of the royal family from marrying a Roman Catholic without express permission from the monarch, and anyone in direct line to the throne from marrying one at all.
So are most Catholics now calling for a change in the law?
Well, no, not really. Of course the law is absurd. No one thinks it is useful or necessary -- or, at any rate, no one who is prepared to say so publicly. When recently a minor member of the royal family married a Catholic, who was choosing to abandon her religion in order that her new husband would remain eleventh in line for the throne, a discussion on a British radio program had to be abandoned because they couldn't find anyone to defend the current law. It has become a cliché to state that it is possible for the Monarch's heirs to marry a Moslem, Sikh, Hindu, or Buddhist -- but not a Roman Catholic.
Second, any disentangling of this muddled law -- for it is a muddled law -- would lead us all into the depths of the complexities about the exact status of the Church of England. And before you say, "Jolly good thing, too -- high time it was disestablished. Stupid bunch of woolly thinking people with liberal theological and wobbly moral opinions," please think again. The Church of England is only the latest manifestation of a bond between monarch and church that has created our nation. This can't be dismantled so easily.
And is it really useful to spend time -- a great deal of time -- ensuring that Britain becomes, legally and structurally, a totally secular state? There will be implications for a thousand things: Will we be allowed to crown and anoint our monarch in a Christian ceremony? Start Parliament's proceedings with Christian prayers? Have a cross on our flag? We've seen all these dreary debates in America -- and the law suits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. No, thank you.
Third, we need a sense of proportion. As a Catholic teenager, I enjoyed giggling about the idea, when it came up in our history class, that none of us could marry the Prince of Wales. We didn't lie awake at night worrying about it. As an adult, I've found it useful being able to claim my status as that very fashionable thing -- a Member of an Oppressed Minority -- without actually suffering any inconvenience as a result of this oppression. It has proved useful several times in debates; it does no harm to remind people, once in a while, that religious freedom is a fragile thing, and our country's history is proof of it.
And finally, Catholics in Britain are loyal to the crown. We honor the queen, and it is partly our faith that makes us do so. She sticks by things that matter to Catholics: God, personal and public responsibilities, service to others. She is a devout and regular churchgoer. She took her coronation anointing seriously. She makes sacrifices in order to fulfil her duties.
So frankly we aren't bothered in getting a change in the law, and we place a higher value in the stability of the monarchy and its constitutional value than we do any sense of mild irritation that we have about our technical status in the eyes of the law....................
So are most Catholics now calling for a change in the law?
Well, no, not really. Of course the law is absurd. No one thinks it is useful or necessary -- or, at any rate, no one who is prepared to say so publicly. When recently a minor member of the royal family married a Catholic, who was choosing to abandon her religion in order that her new husband would remain eleventh in line for the throne, a discussion on a British radio program had to be abandoned because they couldn't find anyone to defend the current law. It has become a cliché to state that it is possible for the Monarch's heirs to marry a Moslem, Sikh, Hindu, or Buddhist -- but not a Roman Catholic.
Second, any disentangling of this muddled law -- for it is a muddled law -- would lead us all into the depths of the complexities about the exact status of the Church of England. And before you say, "Jolly good thing, too -- high time it was disestablished. Stupid bunch of woolly thinking people with liberal theological and wobbly moral opinions," please think again. The Church of England is only the latest manifestation of a bond between monarch and church that has created our nation. This can't be dismantled so easily.
And is it really useful to spend time -- a great deal of time -- ensuring that Britain becomes, legally and structurally, a totally secular state? There will be implications for a thousand things: Will we be allowed to crown and anoint our monarch in a Christian ceremony? Start Parliament's proceedings with Christian prayers? Have a cross on our flag? We've seen all these dreary debates in America -- and the law suits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. No, thank you.
Third, we need a sense of proportion. As a Catholic teenager, I enjoyed giggling about the idea, when it came up in our history class, that none of us could marry the Prince of Wales. We didn't lie awake at night worrying about it. As an adult, I've found it useful being able to claim my status as that very fashionable thing -- a Member of an Oppressed Minority -- without actually suffering any inconvenience as a result of this oppression. It has proved useful several times in debates; it does no harm to remind people, once in a while, that religious freedom is a fragile thing, and our country's history is proof of it.
And finally, Catholics in Britain are loyal to the crown. We honor the queen, and it is partly our faith that makes us do so. She sticks by things that matter to Catholics: God, personal and public responsibilities, service to others. She is a devout and regular churchgoer. She took her coronation anointing seriously. She makes sacrifices in order to fulfil her duties.
So frankly we aren't bothered in getting a change in the law, and we place a higher value in the stability of the monarchy and its constitutional value than we do any sense of mild irritation that we have about our technical status in the eyes of the law....................
This seem to be a wide held view. A view that I suspect that is mirrored by the Vatican.
So when they meet they I suspect they have a blunt but respectful conversation on many items. What might shock Mrs Woods is how much they agree on in private.
To be a fly on the wall in that meeting...
ReplyDelete