Peter leaves throne for Autumn.

This fantastic pic shows approaching 15,000 of the 40,000 Scouts at the movement's centenary jamboree in Chelmsford this week, attending a Mass celebrated by the Cardinal. I had never understood before how close the affinity between Scouting and Catholicism. Yet just days later, I find myself reporting yet another example of unique but continuing discrimination against Roman Catholicism in British public life. Peter Phillips, eldest grandson of the Queen and tenth in line to the throne, must give up his place in the succession if he wishes to go ahead and marry his Canadian fiancee, Autumn Kelly. Or, The Tablet reports after tracking down proof of her baptism, she must give up her religion.

The couple announced their engagement last week, although no date has been set. The culprit here, once again, is the Act of Succession, the 1701 piece of legislation that allows only someone in communion with the Church of England to become monarch and for anyone but a Catholic to marry the monarch or one of his or her heirs. So a Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish person or atheist could have married Peter Phillips without costing him the succession, but not a Catholic. And yes, she could give up her religion. Although it has never been tested in court, it is possible that all she would have to do for this to be effective would be to sign on to the electoral roll of an Anglican church and perhaps even go to communion once or twice. (Yes, it is that easy. Why aren't we bigger?) But what kind of signals would this send out to our country's six million plus Catholics - and there are a lot of 'irregular' thousands in that 'plus' given the number coming in from our new EU accession states.

The couple could do what Prince and Princess Michael of Kent did when they married. He was eighth in line, and he relinquished this. But they raised their two children as Anglicans so they could remain in the succession.

Editor Catherine Pepinster wrote in her Tablet leader column: 'To change her status under the 1701 Act,
would she merely have to enrol as a member of the Church of England, or publicly repudiate the faith of her fathers, or even have to be excommunicated by Rome? None of these actions would be cost-free in terms of the message they would send about the second-class status of Catholics in Britain and the discriminatory, even sectarian, nature of the British state. The Act of Settlement could be fixed, no doubt with the agreement of those Commonwealth Governments who have the same head of state, were it not for its implications for the establishment of the Church of England. The Queen is its Supreme Governor, and the English State and English national Church are stitched together from head to toe. Could a member of the Roman Catholic Church be the Supreme Governor of another Church that rejects Rome’s authority? Would pulling on that one thread unravel the rest? That question is already a live one, as the appointment
of bishops on the say of the Prime Minister is another such stitch and is about to be pulled out anyway.
It may not be necessary to make a mountain out of this irritating constitutional molehill. If the Church of England were to take the initiative and seek for itself a status similar to that enjoyed by another national Church, that of the Church of Scotland, the personal beliefs of members of the royal family would become the private affair they ought to be. And the British constitution would be less at odds with the fundamental values of a tolerant multicultural society.'

John Gummer, who I remember writing about when he went over from Anglicanism to Rome years ago, was less polite. Earlier this year, he put down a Ten Minute Rule Bill in an attempt to overturn the Act of Settlement. He told The Tablet that he understood that Gordon Brown, when announcing his sweeping constitutional changes shortly after moving into Downing Street, had changed his plans about amending the Act of Settlement at the last minute. He said the new PM was foolish to do so. He said: 'I know for a fact that up until a day or two before Mr Brown delivered his statement he had been willing to put my bill into law. The effect of this ridiculous law is now going to be felt. The best thing would have been to change the law when it did not apply to anybody rather than changing it when it applies to an individual. It is unacceptable that the part of the Christian church that has more active adherents than any other should be discriminated against in this way.'

According to Mr Gummer, Mr Brown had been persuaded to change his plans by 'right-wing nominal Anglicans' who were virulently anti-Catholic and who had persuaded Mr Brown that it would particularly bad for him as a Scot to undermine the Church of England.

Comments

[Geoffrey Smith]

"I would have thought that - in any serious discussion about what does and doesn't constitute true Christianity - what the Bible says would always be the first, the most sensible, and the mainstream port of call".
- David Smith, 5 Sep 2007, 15:22:40

Now why would you think that, Mr Smith? Considering that the Bible did not see the light of day until 419, when the final canon of Scripture was approved by the Council of Carthage II, and its decrees forwarded to Pope Boniface in Rome for his approval and confirmation, I would have said that the Church was clearly the ultimate authority on matters of Christian belief and practice. I mean, the Catholic Church predated the Bible by almost 400 years!
That's an awful lot of Christians who had to go without the Scriptures, having only the Church to teach them what Christianity was all about. But somehow or other they managed, without the Bible, and indeed succeeded in creating some great saints in the process, St Augustine and his mother, St Monica,
among them. Once again, Mr Smith, I need to tell you the facts of Christian history: the Church came first,and then (a poor second) the Bible. But since the New Testament was written by members of the Church, that would be obvious, wouldn't it? Or perhaps not, to someone like you.

[David Smith]

Geoffrey Smith:
' ..the thread was hijacked by a number of anti-Catholic posters with the usual agenda to advance: bash the papists.'

In so far as you are referring to me here, I think you need to be careful not to deploy the same kind of groundless accusation as the pro-homosex lobby that you so oppose. I am anti-Roman Catholicism, but especially pro those caught up in this 'false-christian' belief system, precisely because in my view they are, in the main, people with good motives, who sincerely want to find and follow the true God.

'One such fanatic even thinks that he can quote the Bible to 'prove' how wrong we are!!'

I would have thought that - in any serious discussion about what does and doesn't constitute true Christianity - what the Bible says would always be the first, the most sensible, and the mainstream port of call.

'What this has to do with the main theme of the thread is anybody's guess.'

Mr Anybody may be having trouble seeing the connection between discussing the very nature and validity of Roman Catholicism and whether one of its adherents should be allowed to sit on our throne, but I would have thought this fairly obvious: The Bill of Rights - the original legislation barring a Roman Catholic from ruling - said: ' ..it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this.. kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying a papist.'

'I am supremely confident that my faith can not only stand up to such 'arguments' but even make them look ridiculous. I will not, however, reply to the baseless calumnies of a ranting troll.'

Let's hear your 'arguments' then, Geoffrey... rather than just more personal abuse.

'Ruffling my vanity? That'll be the day!'

It's interesting to know that believe both your 'faith' and your vanity to be equally untouchable. But did anyone ever tell you that in true Christianity vanity is actually seen as a failing rather than something to be proud of?

[J Pearce]

As I recall, Geoff, it was you who decided to endorse the off-topic discussions by introducing the statistical breakdown of global religious belief. I'm still interested in how you can justify the supremacy of Catholicism, given that (mninimum) 4/5ths of the worlds population does not follow it, despite it being over 2,000 years old.

I'd also be interested in understanding under what circumstances exactly "A minority is not necessarily in the wrong, nor a majority necessarily in the right." Do tell.

[Fred]

"Ruffling my vanity? That'll be the day!"

Smug, self-righteous, ranting and abusive would be more accurate than vain, perhaps. But never mind, the poster in question is doing a better job than J Pearce in advancing the extermination of religion - along with Pope Benedict's reassertion of the existence of Hell as a "real" place all non-believers will roast in. Presumably that means all who don't think like him....or the poster...even all who don't "join up" to his church?

[Geoffrey Smith]

This thread began with a posting by Ruth about the coming engagement of Mr Peter Phillips, tenth in line of succession to the throne, with a Catholic. The question arose: would he renounce his claim, as required by the Act of Settlement (1701), or would she renounce her faith in order to marry Mr Phillips? As so often happens in such a debate, the thread was hijacked by a number of
anti-Catholic posters with the usual agenda to advance: bash the papists. One such fanatic even thinks that he can quote the Bible to 'prove' how wrong we are!! What this has to do with the main theme of the thread is anybody's guess. Notwithstanding such drollery, I am supremely confident that my faith can not only stand up to such 'arguments' but even make them look ridiculous.
I will not, however, reply to the baseless calumnies of a ranting troll. Ruffling my vanity? That'll be the day!

[David Smith]

Geoffrey Smith:
'..[I believe that] Mr J Pearce's purpose in posting on this blog is to advance his agenda, which is to bring about the extermination of all religion, and especially Catholicism. May I ask you, as I have asked other posters, not to feed him? If we all starve his vanity, like all trolls he will eventually waste away for want of publicity and attention.'

Ask what you like, but I would say: 'Good for J Pearce!'

If 'religion, and especially Catholicism' can't stand up to his arguments then, Geoffrey, I believe that they deserve oblivion.

If you stick around a bit longer, I think you'll find there is lot more to him than just vanity. (For example I doubt he will wilt at all in the face of your personal abuse.) It couldn't be, could it, that he is ruffling your own just a bit?

[David Smith]

Geoffrey Smith:
' "...what Jesus Himself taught was short, straightforward, and designed to be easily grasped by the simplest of people".
- David Smith, 15 August 2007, 22:43:11

Really, Mr Smith? Jesus Himself didn't think so. You have obviously overlooked John 6:51-71. At least one thing Jesus taught was too difficult for a lot of people to understand. And too difficult for you, apparently.'

Geoffrey, instead of speculating hopefully about what I have overlooked or failed to understand, you may do better if you yourself start first by taking in what I actually write more carefully.

I am well aware of the content and meaning of John 6:51-71. And what Jesus Himself taught was indeed short, and straightforward. It was also very much designed to be easily grasped.

His teaching in this passage is a very good example of this. The essence of His message here is extremely simple: just as food like bread (or manna) can be staple to sustaining physical life, so He Himself (what He teaches and does for us by giving Himself and going to the cross) is staple to supplying and feeding a healthy inner spiritual life that goes on into eternity. He sums this up with the very simple metaphor: 'I am the bread of life.' (NOT, note, as the Roman Catholic Church teaches - by now, over thousands of pages of often extremely tortuous reasoning - and as you presumably accept: 'A piece and a drop of supposedly 'transubstantiated' bread and wine are the bread of life.')

There are many places in the Bible where the theme of the simple picking up what the supposedly educated and clever fail to comes out. St Paul, for example, wrote: 'God deliberately chose what in the world is foolish to put the wise to shame, and what the world calls weak to put the strong to shame.' Jesus Himself repeatedly had to tick off the 'clever religious' for failing to grasp concepts and see truths that the common man and woman received much more easily.

You clearly have a sharp intelligence and know a lot. But, with respect, if I were you, I should be more careful, if I didn't want to become ever starker proof of the above tendency myself.

[Martin]

"I've always wondered why Catholic babies are never born to Protestant parents"

On this occasion, you're wrong. I am a Catholic with Protestant parents. I have other Catholic relations, but my parents are not.

[J Pearce]

Conor & Mr. Smith,

All I'm doing is letting Geoff's stats do the talking for themselves. If you don't like the stats, attack them (or perhaps the person who posted them...).

The conclusions are blindingly obvious - while the Pope is claiming Catholicism to be the "one, true" religion, the numbers show that only a minority of the total of the worlds current population actually follow said religion.

Given that Catholicism has been around for 2,000 years, I'd say thats a pretty poor performance for God's own religion.

By the way, I usually find that people who slag off other arguments as "juvenile" are usually the kind of people who dislike facing simple, obvious facts and arguments. A trait shared by many of the religious persuasion, I have noticed...

[Geoffrey Smith]

Please be aware, Conor, that [I believe that] Mr J Pearce's purpose in posting on this blog is to advance his agenda, which is to bring about the extermination of all religion, and especially Catholicism. May I ask you, as I have asked other posters, not to feed him? If we all starve his vanity, like all trolls he will eventually waste away for want of publicity and attention.

[Conor]

J Pearce,

Do you post on this blog solely to bait Catholics with juvenile, strawman, undergraduate arguments that would embarrass the most hardened of anti-Catholic polemicists?

[Geoffrey Smith]

"...what Jesus Himself taught was short, straightforward, and designed to be easily grasped by the simplest of people".
- David Smith, 15 August 2007, 22:43:11

Really, Mr Smith? Jesus Himself didn't think so. You have obviously overlooked John 6:51-71. At least one thing Jesus taught was too difficult for a lot of people to understand. And too difficult for you, apparently.

[heredal]

Jpearce, your facts miss one vitsal point, to which the letter writer in the Indie alluded.

Like many cults, it builds its 'membership' by claiming innocent new borns as adherents. Seems a rather desperate and pathetic way to build a movement.

I've always wondered why Catholic babies are never born to Protestant parents, and vice versa. Isn't it odd that childen always grow up to have the religion of their parents?

However, in adulthood things can change. See "Your God Shall Be My God: Religious Conversion in Britain Today " by Rabbi Jonathan Romain. An interesting read.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Are you really saying that 3.75 billion people have no interest in politics or economics?"
- hugh manitas, 16 August 2007, 10:46:43

Did I say that? No, I did not. A straw man argument! Human beings are social and political animals, as well as spiritual ones, and they have every right to try to improve their economic lot in life. Ever since Pope Leo XIII and his encyclical 'Rerum Novarum' (1896), the Church has been supporting these aspirations and ambitions. If some Christians today are living in poverty, it is not because of their faith but as a result of the greed of their rulers, who prefer to buy weapons of war from the Western nations rather than provide their people with the necessities of life. Zimbabwe comes to mind, in this respect, with its Jesuit-educated fascist tyrant, Mugabe.

"I must admit I never had Geoffrey pegged as a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who believes that Bush orchestrated the whole thing".
- heredal, 16 August 2007, 11:55:15
It's a pity you don't have a sense of humour, Mr H. Apparently, you can't even spot a send-up when it's staring at you from your monitor!
"Like it or not, Geoffrey, I am afraid the Pope is an atheist..."
- op.cit.
An atheist is a person who 'disbelieves in the existence of God' (O.E.D.) The Pope believes in the existence of God. Ergo, the Pope is not an atheist. What is it about that axiom that you don't understand, Mr H? If it is outside the parameters of your secular acumen, perhaps I may be able to explain it to you?

"...Geoffrey Smith inadvertantly touched on a problem for the Attas,..."
- Fred, 16 August 2007, 12:52:04
Careful now, Fred! Don't forget what happened to Theo Van Gogh!
You are making a mockery of the Muslims most cherished belief, and you really don't want to do that, no sir!

"I did my homework, Geoff. Apparently, the Catholic Church has been around for the best part of 2000 years".
- J Pearce, 16 August 2007, 12:54:45
Thank you very much for that endorsement of the Catholic view of history, Mr P. Of course, you have now upset our evangelical buddy, Mr David Smith, who, I feel sure, will very shortly be tearing a strip off you for agreeing with the papists.
Be warned, my friend! The Bible-thumper's wrath is about to descend on you!

"...because the large majority of the world's population appears to have rejected that [Catholic] claim for the better part of two millenia"".
- op.cit.
Actually, no, they haven't. They have not even heard what that claim is or what it entails, so how could they reject what they don't know?
The Muslims in Arabia, the Hindus in India, the Shintoists in Japan, the Buddhists in China, and even the pagans in Britain, all of them largely ignorant of the Catholic Church and what she teaches. With the coming of the Internet, we have the opportunity to correct that lamentable state of affairs, and so the 21st century will see a huge increase in the Church's membership.
Would you like to be one of the lucky ones and join us, Mr P?

[J Pearce]

"A hundred years ago, the Labour Party was a small political party; today it forms the government. A hundred years from today, who knows?...And don't forget, do your homework before you write again to this blog!"

I did my homework Geoff. Apparently, the Catholic Church has been around for the best part of 2,000 years. So, that’s 2,000 years and still only one in five of the worlds population is classed as Catholic. If I were calling my religion "the one true faith" then clearly, there is something seriously wrong with the message, because the large majority of the worlds population appears to have rejected that claim for the better part of two millenia.

What your statistics tell us, is that Catholicism is actually is a minority cult, when compared to the overall distribution of religious faith on a global scale.

'Dems da facts.

PS:
"A minority is not necessarily in the wrong, nor a majority necessarily in the right."

Is it fair to say that we can apply this to heuristic to Catholic doctrine on abortion and homosexuality, then?

[Fred]

I know this a bit of a side-issue for those on this blog who think only Catholic things or even Anti-Catholic Evangelical things are of any interest on a religious blog, but Geoffrey Smith inadvertantly touched on a problem for the Attas, future Attas and wannabe Attas when they get to the 72 virgins. Can anyone say whether each gets 72 personally allocated or are there just 72 to go round everyone? Whatever. The real question is, do the virgins themselves get a say in who they are paired up with - or aren't women supposed to mind? Another thing, with only 72 virgins to go round the whole of heaven not only would the queues be interminable but time 'on' would have to be severely limited even in eternity. And has anyone said what female suicide bombers get - or do they have to make do with virgins too, lesbit or lump it, so to speak?

[heredal]

Oh dear, we seem to have rattled Geoffrey's cage more than a little. I must admit I never had Geoffrey pegged as a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who believes that Bush orchestrated the whole thing. Well I never.

As for the subject of atheism, it's quite clear, no matter how nuch Geofrey tries to harrumph his way out of it. If you believe in one god and utterly reject all others, then you have, literally, an absence of belief in those other gods. That is what atheism is - an absence of belief - based, by the way, on the corresponding complete absence of any evidence to back up the claim that this or that deity exists.

Like it or not, Geoffrey, I am afraid the Pope is an atheist, and a pretty fundamentalist one at that, as far as all other gods but his are concerned. Some of us have just gone one god further than him in our atheism.

And as for Amnesty, if it does change its position, it will simply show that the Catholic Church hasn't lost its centuries old ability to be the biggest bully in the playground, and that threats and intimidation do work. What a good example to set.

[Hugh Manitas]

Geoff, the wider point is just how 'doshy' the huge number of religious fanatics actually are. An enormous proportion of those you cite live in abject poverty; ergo they do not fit the description, although if they are putting faith before money (or have no choice)they might. Are you rerally saying that 3.75 billion people have no interest in poltics or economics. Where are your barons and sheiks in all of this then are none of them religious?

[Hugh Manitas]

It takes courage to reject an institution that displays a vested interest in capturing the mental attitude of its members for life in order to control them. I trust that Dr Bannon will not suffer a nuclear blast of invective from the overly pious, for whom he is now anathema.

Visit www.amnesty.org for all other donations to this most worthwhile of humanitarian causes.

[David Smith]

Martin:
'It's not a repeat. It is the same sacrifice. Perhaps you ought to study Catholic doctrine before atacking it.'

Thank you for your kind concern, Martin, but I know what the semantics of Roman Catholic teaching on this are only too well.

The word Rome's version of the Bible (aka The Catechism) uses is actually 're-presentation' (a re-making-present). Rome's problem in looking for something seemingly indispensible for itself and its employees to do (often for money) was that the Bible said that what Jesus did on the Cross was a once-for-all sacrifice. i.e. there was no need to repeat it ever. So Rome came up with the idea that this sacrifice needed somehow to be extended instead! Seen this way, re-peating the sacrifice could then go ahead but be claimed inter alia not to conflict with the Bible.

The many, many pages in the Catechism and other Vatican pronouncements on the 'Lord's Supper' are, like much other Roman Catholic teaching, so long, complex, slippery, and often boring at the same time, when what Jesus Himself taught was short, straightforward, and designed to be easily grasped by the simplest of people. The effect of this has often been that 'the Roman Catholic faithful' have thrown their hands in the air and said effectively: 'This is all far too complicated for me. I think I'll just leave it to the experts to understand it, and just do what they tell me will see me right with God.'... which suits Rome just fine!

[Geoffrey Smith]

Well, well, well, my arithmetic lesson does seem to have provoked an enthusiastic response from my pupils, doesn't it, Ruth?
Right then, let's go to work:

"Is it comforting for you to know that when you get to this better life, you can spend an eternity asking Mohammed Atta where he learned to fly jets?"
- heredal, 15 August 2007, 08:51:21

No, Mr H, because I already know. Philomena Cullen has told us in her Caritas report that the CIA taught him as part of the Bush conspiracy to justify the attack on Iraq. We all know, don't we, that 9/11 was organised by George Bush and his neo-con religious right-wing, right? Perhaps, Mr H, I would need eternity to persuade Mr Atta to drag himself away from those 72 virgins to answer my questions?

"...if there are 1.1 billion Catholics and 5.2 billion non-Catholics, does that not make a mockery of the Pope's assertion that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of God? Four out of every five people can't be wrong..."
- J Pearce, 15 August 2007, 15:35:03

That is what is known as a non sequitur, Mr P. A minority is not necessarily in the wrong, nor a majority necessarily in the right.
A hundred years ago, the Labour Party was a small political party; today it forms the government. A hundred years from today, who knows?

"Since the Pope thinks that his faith is the one true faith, as he reminded the rest of the world recently, that means that as far as he is concerned, everybody else is an atheist".
- heredal (again!) 15 August 2007, 15:47:55
It means nothing of the sort. You just haven't been paying attention, have you, you naughty boy?! Go to the bottom of the class!
Mr David Smith is not a Catholic and neither is Mr Alan Marsh, but they are not atheists, either.
Try not to wander so far off the thread, Mr H, and perhaps you will avoid making such an elementary mistake.
Incidentally, Dr Colin Bannon is acting somewhat prematurely. In view of the Vatican's strong opposition to the mass murder of infants - NO MATTER WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES - Amnesty International are now reconsidering their position. Dr Bannon's cheque may already be on its way back to its donor.

"Presumably, it [3.75 billion people]comprises the billions living in pious squalor?"
- hugh manitas, 15 August 2007, 16:39:01
Yes, it's all those Christians living in their little mud huts without any light-bulbs or modern appliances ( a real gem from Mr Pearce, that one). It does tend to make blogging on a laptop somewhat difficult, you know. It will also include all those poverty-stricken sheikhs in Riyadh, the destitute oil and gas barons in Orthodox Russia, not to mention the impecunious 120,000,000 Shintoists in that electronics giant, Japan. Had enough, Mr M? Very well, then, class dismissed. And don't forget, do your homework before you write again to this blog!

[Alan Marsh]

I think, Martin, you need to study the RC doctrine of baptism before making so many rash assertions about other Christians.

[Mary Shelley]

Heredal posits: "One billion Catholics all believing that Jesus is the son of god, the same number of Muslims believing he isn't. Interesting."

Last time I looked Protestant Christians and Orthodox Christians also believe that Jesus is the son of God--Christian *mean* believer in Christ--while Jews agree with Muslims that he isn't.

Not really interesting to me--in fact ruddy obvious!--but I guess atheists find these things fascinating.

[Hugh Manitas]

Geoff: Thanks for reminding us all of the figures. So how many of the 3.75 billion consider 'ours' to be a 'doshy prelude'? Presumably it comprises the billions living in pious squalor? And who exactly are 'us'?

[heredal]

It apperas there is one les Catholic in the world, so Geoffrey can revise his numbers again. This appeared in the Independent today:

http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article2864168.ece

Sir:

As a "Catholic" (I was signed up as a baby) and as a supporter of Amnesty International, I am interested in the conflict between the Vatican and the human rights group over the issue of availability of abortion for the victims of rape.

I am sending a cheque to Amnesty to do my bit to counter any losses the Vatican may cause the group, and their oppressed clients. I am also contacting the archbishop of the diocese where I was baptised to ask to be formally excommunicated, in accordance with the Pope's instructions to anyone who supports Amnesty's position.

Given the choice between one organisation that puts policy before people and another which helps those who suffer at the hands of false beliefs, political or otherwise, I know where I'll put my money.

DR COLIN BANNON

[heredal]

All Geoffrey Smith's numbers prove for sure is that we should take care never to underestimate the power of gullible people working together. One billion Catholics all believing that Jesus is the son of god, the same number of Muslims believing he isn't. Interesting.

As Alan Marsh said, stats prove to be "shaky ground". A billion Catholics largely as a result of those with no choice being "baptised" as such when mere days old. What a way to build a following. But how many of the billion follow the Vatican's lead on anything?

Since the Pope thinks that his faith is the one true faith, as he reminded the rest of the world recently, that means that as far as he is concerned, everybody else is an atheist. I reckon that changes Geoffrey's percentages a bit!

[J Pearce]

Interesting stats, Geoff. Tell me, if there are 1.1 billion Catholics and 5.2 billion non-Catholics, does that not rather make a mockery of the Pope's assertion that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church of God?

Four out of every five people can't be wrong, Geoff. Seems someone in the Vatican needs to do some basic maths.

[heredal]

"Maybe that's because political beliefs or economic opinions are of no great importance in the scheme of things, whereas religious faith is a matter of real concern for those who regard this doshy existence of ours as a prelude to a much better life? " Geoffrey Smith

That still doesn't explain why we need to ask about it in the census.

It is "a matter of real concern" for those who fear that "this doshy existence of ours" is threatened by global warming, but we don't ask about people's 'green' beliefs and credentials in the census.

As to "a prelude to a much better life", belief in that concept can lead people to indiscriminately slaughter others in order to get to it quicker. Is it comforting for you to know that when you get to this better life, you can spend an eternity asking Mohammed Atta where he learned to fly jets?

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Of course, those for whom 'religious faith is a matter of concern' (in what they see as a 'doshy' prelude to somewhere else) are vastly outnumbered by those for whom it is of no consequence whatsoever".
- 14 August 2007, 14:40:46

An arithmetic lesson for the gentleman concerned:
(1) Number of Catholics in the world = 1.1 billion
(2) Number of Protestants in the world = 400,000,000
(3) Number of Orthodox Christians in the world = 300,000,000
(4) Number of Muslims in the world = 1.1 billion
(5) Number of Hindus in the world = 800,000,000
(6) Others = at least 50 million.
Grand total = 3.75 billion
World population = 6.3 billion
% of religious believers = 59.5%, a clear majority.
The foggy assumption that 'those who actually believe the occult to be worthwhile pursuing' are in a minority is about as rational as an obeisance and respect for republicanism - the worshippers of which are in an even smaller minority, being such a dubious tenet and not worthwhile pursuing.

[Martin]

It's not a repeat. It is the same sacrifice. Perhaps you ought to study Catholic doctrine before atacking it.

[Hugh Manitas]

For all those worried about the wholly privileged and undeserving royal family which, for centuries, has championed neo-colonial elitism and social inequality, demanding obeisance and respect through birthright and nothing else, please visit www.republic.org.uk for a perspective on an elected head of state.

[David Smith]

Martin:
'..the vast majority of [those baptised as Anglicans] have not seen the inside of an Anglican church since.'

Very true, Martin.

'There are not only more Catholics who practice than Anglicans in the UK as a whole, but this also applies to England, and the idea that the majority of the English people look to Anglicanism is risible.'

If true also, this may not though be exactly a feather in the cap of Roman Catholicism. It may just be that Rome has historically done a far better job - on the supposed pain of otherwise going to hell - of terrifying its captives into regularly attending its ghastly and fraudulent so-called 'repeat' of Jesus' once-for-all sacrifice of Himself on the cross.

[Hugh Manitas]

Well done Geoff for putting us straight on this. Of course, those for whom 'religious faith is a matter of real concern' (in what they see as a 'doshy' prelude to somewhere else) are vastly outnumbered by those for whom it is of no consequence whatsoever. Since this is the case as you quite correctly say, politics and economics which actually involve everybody else can and should exist outside of religious dogma and remain unaffected by it.

Your post clearly demonstrates that religion needs to play no part whatsoever in the socio-political affairs of the nation and should be a matter of personal concern only for those who choose to embrace it in its various forms. In this way all dubious tenets, foggy assumptions, misleading moral interpretations and endlessly-repeated unproven assertions will only apply to those who actually believe the occult to be either substantive or worthwhile pursuing.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"It's not clear why the census should be concerned with people's religious beliefs, as opposed to any other beliefs. Why doesn't it ask about political beliefs, or whether we are monetarists or fiscalists?"
- heredal, 13 August 2007, 10:55:42

Maybe that's because political beliefs or economic opinions are of no great importance in the scheme of things, whereas religious faith is a matter of real concern for those who regard this doshy existence of ours as a prelude to a much better life?

[Martin]

"Currently some 24 million are baptised as Anglicans in England."

And the vast majority of them have not seen the inside of an Anglican church since. There are not only more Catholics who practice than Anglicans in the UK as a whole, but this also applies to England, and the idea that the majority of the English people look to Anglicanism is risible.

[David Smith]

Alan Marsh:
'Currently some 24 million are baptised as Anglicans in England. Even the more extreme RC interpreters do not dare to claim that these are not baptised Christians - or that the Orthodox churches (among the fastest growing in England, which rudely rebut the claims for Peter) are not churches.'

I don't know what 'the more extreme RC interpreters' may or may not claim. But, the since the Bible does not say a ritual of 'Baptism' performed by men (or women) in special clothes on a 'passive' baby that has no clue at the time what is going on in any way makes it a christian, then there must be an awful lot of people wandering around this country who have been told that they are Christians who aren't by God's definition.

I wonder where you think that leaves your approach to defining either a 'church' or what the C of E's status in this country should be?

[heredal]

"Statistics, dear Martin, are shaky ground on which to stand"

Alan Marsh is quite correct. Even the Government's Stats office has admitted the flaws in the last census which claimed to show that 72% of Britons were Christian.

It's not clear why the census should be concerned with people's religious beliefs, as opposed to any other beliefs. Why doesn't it ask about political beliefs, or whether we are monetarists or fiscalists?

No doubt Anglicanism uses this dodgy stat to justify its seats in the House of Lords. As far as I know, I think the only other legislature that grants seats as of right to 'clergy' in its parliament is the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Another argument for disestablishment!

[Shaun]

On the subject of statistics, there is an important difference between UK and England, given that RCs are RCs throughout the UK, but protestants are far less likely to be Anglicans in Scotland, Wales & NI. If I remember right the 1991 Church Census figures had RCs in the majority for the UK but not England. Don't know about the 2001 figures.
Of course there's the world of difference between the sort of nominal allegiance figures by which the CofE is sometimes reported to bte the largest in the Anglican Communion and actual committed membership.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Statistics, dear Martin, are shaky ground on which to stand. The fact remains that the great majority of the English people, when looking for spiritual ministry, look to the Church of England. Currently some 24 million are baptised as Anglicans in England. Even the more extreme RC interpreters do not dare to claim that these are not baptised Christians - or that the Orthodox churches (among the fastest growing in England, which rudely rebut the claims for Peter) are not churches.

[Mephostopholis]

"... There were more practising Catholics than Anglicans in the UK even BEFORE Poland entered the EU."

Really? I suspect you are a little out of date Martin. Dates and corresponding statistics from reliable (verifiable i.e. referenced) independent sources would help substantiate your assertions.

[heredal]

"Any convincing arguments out there for retaining Establishment for a minority Christian community?"

Fear of the consequences, maybe?

But is it convincing?

[Martin]

"the appearance of a transient RC congregation, Polish economic immigrants, the vast majority of whom will return to their country of origin"

this is actually not the case. There were more practising Catholics than Anglicans in the UK even BEFORE Poland entered the EU.

[Andrew]

Alan Marsh sidesteps the real issue. In 'this more ecumenical age', why should any Christian community need to retain the monarch as its supreme governor?
If the Anglican Church were not Established, the question of the faith in which the English Royal family raised its children would be irrelevant - as is only right.
Any convincing arguments out there for retaining Establishment for a minority Christian community?

[Mephostopholis]

"There are more Catholics in England than Anglicans."

Wishful thinking or reality? "Between 1998 and 2005, half a million people stopped going to church on Sunday. ... The Roman Catholics have recorded the largest drop [...], it has halved over the past sixteen years." (The Telegraph, Sep 22, 2006), Jonathan Petre comments on the English Church Census 2005.

In 2006, Tearfund found that two thirds (66% - 32.2 million people) in the UK have no connection with any religion or church. It is unlikely that this secular majority would acquiesce to 'take-over' by Rome; whatever their disquiet with C of E as the Established Church of England.

Martin's offensive arrogance is, of course, based on the appearance of a transient RC congregation, Polish economic immigrants, the vast majority of whom will return to their country of origin.

"Nearly all Church 'growth' is due to immigrants. A massive influx of Polish workers have filled some [RC] churches." (The Christian Research English Church Census 2005).

“'Catholics' the largest group, estimated to number about a million by the year 2000 are declining the fastest, but what demands notice is that charismatic Evangelicals, still one of the smaller groups in the Church, are growing rapidly - by around 6,000 every five years."

"Evangelical Christians, according to the nomenclature of Religious Trends, are also growing and moving up towards the half million mark." (Church Times, Sep 22 2006.)

"The fastest rates of decline were among Roman Catholics and Methodists; whereas the Pentecostal Churches showed significant growth over the period. ... If these rates continue, the C of E will overtake the RC Church within the next four years". (The Christian Research group's fourth English Church Census (2004).

What is interesting on this forum is the easy excitation and willingness to manipulate facts on the part of certain RC contributors.

In direct contrast, I applaud Alan Marsh for his measured and factual contributions as an informed Anglican:

"Martin, the "Church" is rather more than its Roman Catholic component. The Church of England has a duty to care for the souls of the people of England and so must ensure that the work of the Reformation is not undone."

[Martin]

"the "Church" is rather more than its Roman Catholic component."

Indeed, Oriental Catholics and Orthodox are also part of it.

Anglicanism, however, is not, and you will note that the soi-disant "Church of England" is rejected by the vast majority of the English people. There are more Catholics in England than Anglicans. I do not need some heretical "church" founded by a murderous adulterous bigamist to "save my soul", thank you very much. It is time that this "church" was consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs.

[Malcolm+]

Peter Kirk considers Mary Tudor in reflecting on the question, "Could a member of the Roman Catholic Church be the Supreme Governor of another Church that rejects Rome’s authority?"

Of course, there has been one more recent example - indeed, the example which led directly to the coup d'etat of 1688 and the Act of Settlement.

And what was the sin of James II and VII which led to these developments?

He issued a Declaration of Indulgence in which he proposed that all persons should be free to worship God as their consciences dictated.

For this he was driven from his throne and for this were his descendents (and his father's descendents as it happened) excluded from their inheritance.

And yet the anti-Catholic mythology of England still claims that the Declaration was an attempt to impose Roman obedience on the Church of England.

A simple review of the Declaration of Indulgence (http://www.jacobite.ca/documents/16870404.htm) reveals this calumny for what it is - and reveals the moral bankrupcy of the Act of Settlement.

[Alan Marsh]

Martin, the "Church" is rather more than its Roman Catholic component. The Church of England has a duty to care for the souls of the people of England and so must ensure that the work of the Reformation is not undone. This is in part secured by the Monarchy, which itself is required to be Anglican (in England) and Presbyterian (in Scotland).

If the RC Church insists on maintaining implacably its requirement that the children of an Anglican monarch, theoretically married to a Roman Catholic, are brought up as Roman Catholic, this would exclude the children of the marriage from any part in the succession.

If, however, in this more ecumenical age, the RC Church could bring itself to accept that Anglicans are perfectly capable of bringing up their children as Christians, it could remove the barrier to reforming the legislation and we could all move on. But at present it is the RC Church which is blocking the way.

[J Pearce]

"Dear Ruth I am trying to understand Mr Flinn’s words and why he wants to compare Catholics and Islam."

Why not? Both claim to be God's religion yet have nothing to with God whatsovever, spawning endless bloodshed and conflict. Both assume to be able to interfere with, if not outright remove, hard-won secular democratic freedoms. Both attract people who seem to revel in narrow minded and dangerous anti-human bigotry. To wit:

"The danger of corruption inherent in mixed marriages means that allowing them at all is quite a concession…"

If this is not a religious supremacist statement, then I don't know what is. It is precisely the kind of statement one would expect from a neo nazi or an islamist extremist. If this statement was attributed to a couple who were of differing ethnic origins, it would be rightly eviscerated for its inherent racism. Yet apparently, it is perfectly acceptable for this particular Catholic contributor to demonise people of differing faiths who choose to get married.

Yet again we see the dangerous authoritarianism inherent in Roman Catholicism, which amply justifies the comparison to Islam.

[heredal]

"another example of unique but continuing discrimination against Roman Catholicism in British public life"

"This is just plain bigotry to the Catholics."

But what of the unique and continuing discrimination in the favour of Catholics that sees them able to hive off taxpayer-funded schools for their exclusive use, and practise blatant discrimination - and 'plain bigotry' - against all other faiths?

And what of this?

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/blackburn/headlines/display.var.1588271.0.church_school_pupils_retain_free_bus_travel.php

Pupils at church schools will continue to receive free bus travel until at least September 2008. The children currently travel rather than attending their nearest community school, because their parents prefer them to go to a school of their religion. The move to scrap such discriminatory travel would have saved the authority £450,000.

Here's the big surprise: "A consultation with parents, schools and governors showed that the majority were in favour of free transport continuing for those who already receive it until they leave school." Would you Adam and Eve it, eh?

So, let's keep discrimination in our favour, say Catholics, but not if it goes agin us? Such hypocisy!

But why don't the loving quasi-royal couple get with the growing trend and have a humanist wedding, one they can enjoy free from the this horrid religious rancour and posturing?

[John Gregory Flinn]

WETZVONKEN - oops, and such irony!
By the way I am a Roman Catholic, my children are baptised Roman Catholics.....