Adultery, the Church of England and the Coronation of Charles & Camilla

[Inspectamus]

Discussed as a thread on Gransnet, but not on Mumsnet. What does Mumsnet think?

"The Church of England has never crowned a divorced man as King, let alone one who has publicly confessed to adultery – with the relevant woman expecting to be crowned Queen Consort," Holden writes.

I think that in these corona-virus and coronation times the Church of England should not be taking liberties with God’s Ten Commandments. But they’re doing it anyway, without explaining to the people and the world how they’re reconciling the conflict in what they preach and their new King & Queen’s actions.

How can Charles and Camilla view their adultery as a mistake if it was the means to achieve what they desired?
This, in my view, sets a bad example as Supreme Governors of the Church of England’s Christian faith and as defenders of the faith.

I’m having a crisis of faith, as it happens. For me, Charles and Camilla’s religious coronation will be evidence that the God behind the Ten Commandments cannot exist.

On the other hand, you do have a point about misinterpretation, mistranslation and the like.

Maybe Charles has a copy of the Wicked Bible.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible

If the humans of yesterdays, are anything like humans today, with spin, ect then god help us,

Charles and Camilla should not be allowed to be crowned

How very unforgiving and unchristian

Doesn't Jesus say something about removing the beam from your own eye before sneering at the mote in anothers?

Have you forgotten that H.R.H. Princess Margaret was not allowed to marry a divorced man.

Well thank the stars that things have changed then.

I am divorced. Mainly occasioned by the fact my husband beat 23 colours of shite out of me and left me for dead on the floor.

Should I ever find myself in the position to marry again, I am glad that I wouldn’t be banished to the outskirts of the village for being used goods.

There but for the Grace and all that. You too could be a bastard fallen woman like me.

"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

It si about being a hypocrite. Please do not quote scripture if you have zero understanding of it. As a Christian I find it really offensive.

Do you also stay silent in church and only ask your husband questions when you get home?

The poster she was replying to was being a hypocrite by assuming moral superiority whilst being a human being who will have sinned herself

@ConfusedNT Everyone sins. The scripture would be relevant here if the poster was herself committing adultery, doing nothing to change that, but criticising someone else's adultery.

Have you forgotten that H.R.H. Princess Margaret was not allowed to marry a divorced man

Seventy odd years ago. We have moved on since then.

I was also about to say that things have changed a lot since Princess Margaret was young. It’s more about social change than religious observance.

Divorced people weren't allowed in the Royal Enclosure at Ascot until sometime in the 50s/early 60s.

I disagree as per the Christian analysis below:

*The Bible calls hypocrisy a sin. There are two forms hypocrisy can take: that of professing belief in something and then acting in a manner contrary to that belief, and that of looking down on others when we ourselves are flawed.

Jesus addressed the other form of hypocrisy in the Sermon on the Mount: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:3-5). Jesus is not teaching against discernment or helping others overcome sin; instead, He is telling us not be so prideful and convinced of our own goodness that we criticize others from a position of self-righteousness. We should do some introspection first and correct our own shortcomings before we go after the “specks” in others (cf. Romans 2:1).*

I think it is a very relevant use of the passage as per the discussion above. Every Christian may not agree but some certainly would that it was not quoted out of context at all

The poster was criticising C and C from a position of self-righteousness

There’s more representation of women in gospels that didn’t make it into the officially sanctioned New Testament though - the Adventures of Paul and the Virgin Thecla is quite the story! Thecla is definitely a bit of a Penelope Pitstop character. 😀

It was written about 180 AD however, and when Justinian II as the Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire in Constantinople held an Ecclesiastical conference in 692 to agree on what gospels were in or out of the officially recognised New Testament, only gospels written before 120 AD were included. Many of the ones that didn’t make the cut still exist though, but are regarded as Apocrypha. The Ecclesiatical conference would all obviously have been men, and so while they were aiming to only include gospels that they thought were closest in time to the events they were describing, I’m fairly sure it completely slipped their minds that it might be good to highlight the role women played in the early Christian religion…

And yet the under-representation of women, and the exclusion of women from mainstream spaces, has also created opportunities for women-only spaces where they have been able to exercise their leadership and calling.

Women-only spaces may have been created for the wrong reasons, but they have also given (some) women a way to have (some) autonomy from male authority. Not perfect from the standpoint of equality (are we perfect yet, in a largely secular society?), but in a context where women were the possessions of their male relatives, faith could provide an acceptable reason to stand outside of the norm and 'normal' expectations.

Serenster · Yesterday 22:25
There’s more representation of women in gospels that didn’t make it into the officially sanctioned New Testament though - the Adventures of Paul and the Virgin Thecla is quite the story! Thecla is definitely a bit of a Penelope Pitstop character. 😀
Thank you! I'd heard of Thecla, but knew nothing about her. Have just ordered a copy of her Adventures with Paul on my Kindle. My (slightly unconventional) book for Lent.

Some people on this thread spend a lot of time preaching forgiveness for Charles and Camillas adultery
Yet you don't preach forgiveness for Harry writing his book about his family

So you clearly believe Harry's sin is much worse .
How do you come to this conclusion ?

Really, which users?

I certainly think that Charles and camilla can do what they want and so can Harry.

Forgive me father for I gave written a book.

Said no one ever.

Have.

And Harry plans to do it again (or at least, he did before the fallout from this one) And he thinks the RF owes HIM forgiveness.

Well Charles as head of the CofE has to give him Christian forgiveness and turn the other cheek. Harry is just a civvy now free to sin if he so chooses to do. And lest we forget Justin Welby the Archbishop of Canterbury has said...

'She's a person of profound humanity and deep concern for people, seeking to carry out her role with every ounce of her being – and I think she's a remarkable person.'

In 2021 he expressed sympathy for Harry, telling the Financial Times that being in the Royal Family was 'life without parole' and the public expected them to be 'superhuman'.

So who will be picking up the stones now ...

Amen

vera99 · Today 07:25
Well Charles as head of the CofE has to give him Christian forgiveness and turn the other cheek. Harry is just a civvy now free to sin if he so chooses to do. And lest we forget Justin Welby the Archbishop of Canterbury has said...

1. Nobody HAS to extend forgiveness - yes it is the Christian thing to do, and I'm sure Charles has forgiven/or is trying to forgive his son. Doesn't mean he has to give him chance to collect gossip for his next book.

Where did you get the idea that "civvy's" are free to sin if they chose? We all are, and all face the consequences.

Welby is an idiot in many ways

Maybe we should applaud Charles as the first king in the nation's 1000 year history NOT to have a mistress? Excluding those whose tastes ran to male "favourites"