Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverwar
"forced to convert" - get real. He got married to a Catholic in 1980, and converted in December 2007 - real rush job there!  |
He admitted that he didn't do it sooner for political reasons. It's not as if that is the only case. An example is just that, an example of other occurences of the same thing.
Quote:
|
"Frankly, this all began with my wife," he said in August this year. "I began to go to mass and we went together. We could have gone to the Anglican or Catholic church – guess who won?"
|
From an article in the Guardian(an approved publication, I hope):-
Quote:
|
The agnostic liberals who govern us want the act repealed. Tony Blair does, too, but he refused to pursue the matter when he was prime minister because he was too busy doing other stuff: going to war, promoting abortion rights, sucking up to the military-industrial complex, encouraging safe sex among teenagers.
|
Like the good Catholic he is.
Quote:
|
Let's flip the argument. Suppose a Catholic were allowed to marry the heir to the throne – ie, the future supreme governor of the Church of England and defender of the Protestant religion. Her (or his) children, the eldest of whom would in turn become supreme governor, would presumably have to be brought up as Anglicans and at the very least therefore she (or he) would have to show a decent respect for the C of E. But that would not be easy. Rome is rather more discriminatory than the English establishment. Even if she is far too polite to say so these days, Rome regards Anglicanism as a heretical sect, and its bishops as no more than laymen in drag. Reflections of this sort might lead to the sort of insupportable tensions that can arise from cognitive dissonance.
|