I just blogged on this below. http://sbarnabas.com/blog/?p=4425
How odd that this is punishable but nothing was ever done about others who clearly ignore the faith.. revealing one might say
The apology is very good. The comment was no more offensive than what many would post online and what various ‘media outlets’ would broadcast. However, the behavior which generated it is terribly reflective of our pre-transformed selves. We all make mistakes like this … this was the mistake of giving in to his old self, rather than being a new creature. Being removed (presumably temporarily) from public ministry makes sense, however, because a bishop is to be held to a higher standard.
I notice you updated your post to take account of Bishop Broadbent’s remarks regarding the likely duration of the marriage. For anyone in Holy Orders to make such remarks is reprehensible, when the parties involved have not been shown to be taking their vows lightly. As a republican I hold no brief for the Royal Family, but Prince and Ms Middleton don’t deserve that. As Bishop Broadbent himself noted, neither of the parties has gone out oif their way to seek media attention; it has pursued them.
Dennis (#4),
You’re precisely right. It [i]is[/i] what many might post online. It is not, however, what one expects from those called to a higher standard of leadership. Is this the stuff of which future members of the Ordinariate are made? The good bishop could quite properly have deprecated an undue focus on the purely material aspects of the wedding plans, commended the couple for remaining committed to each other under very trying circumstances, and used the occasion to speak to what Christain marriage is about.
Actually, since the statistic (IIRC) is that the longer a couple has lived together before marriage, the briefer their marriage will be, the bishop was actuarially correct. I imagine that he, like many of us, is rather depressed by the number of couples who treat marriage as a sort of knees-up, to be indulged in when they can afford it*, rather than as a solemn vow before God and a congregation (or just the latter, if atheists) which will be the beginning of their life as a single entity.
*Not that cost is an issue in this particular case…
I think the issue is not so much the behaviour of the bishop in abstract (yes, bishops shouldn’t be making public comments on the upcoming marriages of others, and especially public figures), as the way the CoE strains at gnats and swallows camels.
The CoE has bishops who question or deny cardinal doctrines, and turn a blind eye to immorality among their clergy. Archbishop Williams is constantly defended for inaction with regards America and Canada on the grounds that he has no authority to intervene. Yet fail to follow English standards of etiquette in public discourse and watch just how quickly a bishop is ‘invited’ to step back from public ministry.
Concern for etiquette, but inaction on substance.
That’s the real issue here – not the bishop’s wrong comments, but the response of the institution in the context of its overall inaction.
When one takes up office in the C of E one makes an explicit oath of allegiance to the Crown and the monarch’s successors. Pete Broadbent, who was described in The Telegraph as “…an evangelical show-off very pleased with himself and jolly cross not to have been given a diocese – has broken his oath of loyalty to the Queen and should resign on those grounds.” Of course, he’s a self-described anti-monarchist, so he must have lied (as well) when he took that oath. Damian Thompson said it best, however, “How can any member of the Church of England feel comfortable with the episcopal ministry of a man who directs a mean-spirited diatribe at a young couple about to enter into the sacrament of marriage?” Pete Broadbent’s prospects of future preferment are done for. And he can kiss any honours goodbye, as well. The Royals have very long memories and they are much more influential than most people are aware.
From the bottom of my heart I wish the Bishop had not made these comments, and am glad to read his gracious apology.
However, the response of the Bishop of London is another matter. Known to be friendly with the Prince of Wales as well as involved with the Chapel Royal, he has joined another friend of the Prince of Wales, fatty Soames, in piling into Bishop Pete with this overwhelmingly pompous statement, timed it seems to coincide with what should be a joyous day with the inauguration of a new Synod, the visit of HM the Queen to open our Synod and the announcement that the royal wedding is to be held on 29th April next year at Westminster Abbey. In doing so Bishop Chartres has ensured that a matter which was disappearing off the public radar, is reignited, and will probably blow up. I have been reading the outraged tweets from the Synod.
And it has to be said that the response of Lambeth Palace that +Pete is entitled to his opinion has some merit. In many ways if the people concerned had exercised more prudence and morality they would not have laid themselves open to this. That applies whether it is:
1. The Prince of Wales who appears to have had sex with Mrs Parker Bowles while he was still married to the Princess of Wales, and Mrs Parker Bowled was still married to Major Andrew Parker Bowles, and who subsequently gave credence to this by admitting to his adultery on national television.
2. The Prince of Wales ‘marrying’ Mrs Parker Bowles, following her divorce and his widowhood in a civil marriage, from which in English law members of the Royal Family are excluded from using, casting doubt on his marital status, and its legitimacy which could be a serious matter in the future.
3. The living together of Prince William with his girlfriend at university in the same house, although this is not an unusual relationship nowadays.
It seems to me that it is quite in order for members of the Church of England to question the probity of those who may in the future become the supreme governor of that Church, and the extent to which they observe the doctrine of the church which in the future they may be asked to promise to defend.
Consider the contrast between the way Bishop Pete ticked off the Church of England vicar who ‘married’ two male clergymen, with the way the Bishop of London has ‘suspended’ Bishop Pete for ticking off an admitted adulterer and friend of Richard Chartres. It raises the question of what interference there has been from the Prince’s office and Soames in his decision.
So I wish Bishop Pete had not said it, and I wish Bishop Richard had not over-reacted, and it remains to be seen what impact Bishop Richard’s actions have on this sensitive Synod session.
But I agree with Dave Walker that this is an own goal from the Church of England.
Of course, Pageantmaster, the Household would have been in contact with Richard Chartres, but +London would have undoubtedly rushed to get in touch first. Pete Broadbent swore an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty and her successors when he received his first cure (as did I), and every time thereafter he moved up the ladder. Pete, in writing, “Need to work out what date in the spring or summer I should be booking my republican day trip to France.†is ipso facto, therefore, either a hypocrite (his words speak for themselves) or was lying when he so swore. In either case he at the very least ought to be deprived of his living. As it is, his career is over. As I commented in another place, “He was mindlessly parroting middle-class Labour party foundational snobbery and not at all considering that Wills and Kate are really a couple of twenty-somethings who love each other and want to make a life together, despite the handicap of his position in the UK’s national life.”
#12 The idea that an oath of allegiance means that one cannot criticise the officeholder for behaviour inconsistent with their role in the church or to observe that their behaviour to this point is likely to mean that their marriage will not last seems strained. The heirs and the occupant of the crown are not above criticism for their manner of life.
You’re beginning to change my view on this matter. Maybe the bishop did the right thing after all. If a bishop or a clergy should not publicly challenge sin that is public knowledge and committed by those holding (or will hold) public office in the church, then what? Leave it to laypeople to do the job of the pastors and only laypeople can publicly challenge the sin? Never publicly criticise the immorality of those who would be governors in the church?
i’m with you senior priest, he obviously disdains the people he has sworn an oath of allegiance to. i’m sad for him because he’s appears to be conservative and that church needs him, but his comments were totally out of line and his apology means nothing.
“I have conveyed to Prince Charles and to Prince William and Kate Middleton my sincere regrets for the distress caused by my remarks,” he said. “I recognize that the tone of my language and the content of what I said were deeply offensive, and I apologize unreservedly for the hurt caused.”
no apology for the content, just for the distress it caused. so while it’s honest, this is a frequent non apology done when people are not really sorry for what they’ve done or said.
#11 A senior priest
The Oath of allegiance is to be found in Canon C13 of the Canons of the Church of England
[blockquote]I,AB, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her
Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to
law: So help me God. [/blockquote]
The bishop is entitled to take a view that the monarchy should be changed, or indeed that the CofE should be disestablished [and I have no idea what he thinks of the latter] without derrogating from the allegiance due in the meantime to the Queen. The oath and the constitutional monarchy are a product of English law and its constitution, and they are both amenable to be changed in the future. That would not entitle the bishop to do any act which was antithetical to his oath, for example submitting to the Bishop of Rome, but he is, as Lambeth Palace said, entitled to his opinion.
The oath of allegiance is a red herring. The heirs have no status in English law or the constitution, until such time as they succeed to the throne, which is why the oath is worded as it is. All constitutional power of the monarch, including the duty of allegiance rests in the reigning monarch. If in due course one of the heirs succeeds, they would be entitled to the benefit of the oath, and as far as I know the oaths of allegiance are renewed in many offices, including perhaps those of bishops on a new accession to the throne, although under the terms of the oath that may not be strictly necessary.
I don’t believe that Bishop Pete’s career is over. It will suit some to try to use this against him, particularly bearing in mind that he along with Michael Nazir-Ali was negative about attendance at the Lambeth Conference, although he made no big thing of it. There may also be a political element to this from the pro-Covenant establishment.
Amen to your #11, Senior Priest. While I agree completely with thos commentors who decry the egregious immoral and unChristian behavior of many of the clergy that go unpunished, their conduct is not the subject here. +Broadbent’s behavior was deplorable and he should be sacked.
#12, theres a big difference from “a bishop publicly challenge(ing) sin,” and +Broadbent’s sophomoric, mean-spirited, insulting diatribe. I suggest he take his trip to Calais and take up permanent residence.
HM’s conduct is beyond criticism, and she takes her role in relation to the Church of England very seriously, as we saw today. I am not sure the same can be said for her offspring.
#16, 18. I am certainly not defending the action, or the manner in which it was done. I’ve indicated that I think it was wrong.
My comments in #12 were in response to A Senior Priest’s argument that had the effect of disallowing any public critique by clergy of the lifestyle and actions of the royal family on the basis of the oath of allegiance. They weren’t a justification for this act.
But, watching people react this way to what the bishop did, and the arguments they’re putting forward, and taking on board Pageantmaster’s observations about timing and broader political dimensions, I am beginning to wonder if the problem is that he did the right thing in the wrong way (I haven’t changed my view, but I’m feeling the tug). If a bishop denied the resurrection a week before general synod, or gave a speech to the clergy in his diocese supporting actively homosexual clergy in the previous year, they would not be immediately asked to step back from public ministry.
If all the bishops were above reproach, I could understand this standard being applied. But to pass over gross misconduct by revisionists and to jump on something badly done (very badly done) but not inherently unChristian by a reasserter? Tell me you don’t see a pattern here in the institutional behaviour.
Pageantmaster, I suspect Prince William and Miss Middleton, will accept his apology and forgive him. The attitude that his outburst reveals, and its tone however, are inappropriate for one holding episcopal office in the Church of England. I say this with saddness, mindful of +Broadbent’s stand for orthodoxy.
Imagine… Pete’s name passes the Queen’s eyes, a Conge d’Elir is issued under her Great Seal, and he’s appointed to shepherd not only Christ’s flock, but to a certain extent, be a steward for the property of her church under the Law of Church and Parliament -her church, as Supreme Governor, btw- and then Pete says such terrible things about her grandson, obviously HOPING to undermine the monarchy. This is not about personal opinions, but about ethics, morality, and government. In a very real way no CoE cleric holding a benefice and/or paid with CoE money (which actually belongs to her, and her government, since Henry VII nationalized the Church’s property) should speak like he did. If Pete really believes what he says he believes then he shouldn’t take the Queen’s Shilling.
[i]This is not about personal opinions, but about ethics, morality, and government.[/i]
And so, we have an entire family who have an important role in the government in the church and yet whose ethics and morality is neither a condition for their holding that office (unlike all other offices in the church) nor are even to be the subject of public rebuke (or even negative public commentary) by the shepherds of the flock.
1 Tim 5:20 applies to the shepherds but not to those who have government of the Church? That might be about government, but it’s hard to see how it is about ethics and morality.
Re #26
Mark,
That is certainly an opinion which some might subscribe to. (I do not.) But I would strongly affirm that those holding that opinion could not recite the oath of allegiance to H.M. The Queen without lying. If you want to be a republican fine. But the CofE is a monarchist church as long as that oath is in place.
The guy attacks a young couple publically. Who does he propose William marry? Does Pete think none of the Royals should marry ever? The Ottoman Sultans married only rarely to avoid the inevitable problems which can ensue, opting to create children by female slaves immured in the Harem. Is that preferable? Mama mia!
[i]But I would strong affirm that those holding that opinion could not recite the oath of allegiance to H.M. The Queen without lying. If you want to be a republican fine. But the CofE is a monarchist church as long as that oath is in place.[/i]
Okay. I don’t think I’d agree with this – it sounds too much like ‘my country, right or wrong’: ultimately our human allegilances must bow the knee to Christ our Lord, no ruler can have a blank cheque morally speaking.
But if you’re right, then what do you when young Christian couples emulate Prince Williams’ example and cohabit before marrying? Any criticism will be an implicit criticism of the future governor. What do you do if the future monarch openly repudiates the faith once for all delivered?
I don’t think allegiance works on this ‘all or nothing’, ‘person and office are identical’ kind of basis.
The guy attacks a young couple publically.
The guy is clearly a jerk, I’m not trying to defend him here. Riffing on the jeremiading of someone’s marriage is so many colours of wrong.
Who does he propose William marry? Does Pete think none of the Royals should marry ever?
From what I can see his point is that the royal family have done very badly at holding marriage in honour. And from that pattern, and from the availability of no stigma, no fault divorce, he has speculated on seven years for the marriage to survive.
If they weren’t the royal family, I think most of us would tend to agree with that logic.
No power without responsibility even for monarchs. If they are governors in the church, then they should be held accountable to its norms, they should seek to exemplify the manner of life that befits a follower of Jesus. Not cohabitating before marrying, not divorcing, and not cheating on one’s spouse are pretty basic for God’s people. And if they have a pattern of not doing that, the bishops should be speaking up about it.
This isn’t Cosmo Lang berating Edward VIII for marrying a divorcee.
I suspect most of us are ever more convinced that the case for disestablishment grows stronger by the day, but it isn’t germane to the issue. Nor is the oath of allegiance.
If, as some are suggesting here, Bishop Broadbent was seeking to indict the culture of cohabitation, there were better ways to do that (he could have recommended, for example, that any priest counselling the couple take the time to remind them of what the Church calls them to be and do.) I don’t expect “heretical” bishops to behave pastorally (though some do), but I do expect orthodox ones to do so. And being pastoral does not involve using people to make a point, not unless they are sinners of a peculiar order of magnitude. Ideas, yes; sin, certainly; people, not so much.
Prince William is not the yet the head of the Church of England (and may never be). Considering his upbringing, he seems a reasonably decent Millennial and not particularly publicity-seeking (never thought I’ld be so defensive about a member of the Royal Family).
Re # 29
Mark
I am not defending modern culture or disagreeing with a clerics right to condemn immoral behavior. But his comments went way beyond that and were effectively an attack on the Royal Family. And then we return to that pesky oath. If you want the liberty to attack the monarchy and publicly espouse republicanism then don’t swear false oaths.
I addressed the question of the CofE’s historical relationship with the crown in some detail back in my comment #24 along with the point that those who swear allegiance to the Queen as a condition for serving a bishop in Her church forfeit any right to advocate the overthrow of the monarchy. (I am guessing at least one of the Elves is not sympathetic to monarchism.)
As a simple American Anglican, I am furious at this “Bishop” who dared to criticize HRH Prince William and his future wife.
In Anglicanism we have a very clear “chain of command”.
the individual is under the authority of the priest, the priest is under the authority of the bishop, the bishop is under the authority of the primate of their province who is under the Archbishop of Canterbury who is under the Queen who is under GOD!!
Just as our Roman Catholic brethren have a “dual loyalty” to both their own country a well as to the Bishop Rome, we Anglicans have a “dual loyalty” to our own country as well as to Her Majesty (and her heirs when their time comes.) I owe NO allegiance to the British Monarch as head of the Government of the United Kingdom (at least not since 1776-GRIN), but I still owe fealty to her as the head of my faith. (Only under God’s authority).
Mark (#29), I do not see how Charles or Andrew can be faulted for being so stupid and clueless as to marry the people they did. Charles, I think, “fell in love” with his eventual wife partly because she was the best option -a virgin (pretty much required in those days), from a good family who had been courtiers for 8 generations, her grandmother was best friends with his grandmother (the Queen Mother) and lived at Clarence House with the Queen Mum for 20+ years. I can just see it, the two old ladies over a couple of Dubonnets or martinis hatching a plot to marry off their grandkids. Alas, they didn’t consider Diana’s Borderline Personality Syndrome coupled with being a rather extreme case of an adult child of a raging alcoholic, which pretty much doomed the relationship before it started. Charles, by his own admission, didn’t start fooling around with Camilla till 1985, well after his wife had pretty much run off with more than one guy (which was legally Treason, btw). Definitely sub-optimal, but Camilla has turned out quite all right for him and the nation. That William should be somewhat gun-shy is understandable. I’m just glad he made the leap to making it a respectable relationship.
Bishop Broadbent may have apologized, but there are apologies, and there are apologies.
After reading his comments about a trip to France, and particularly his reference to “Big Ears and the Porcelain Doll”, it would seem that his apology is not from the heart, but rather an attempt to stave off the consequences of being caught making completely baseless and patently injurious statements. The fact that he both posted this in Facebook and Tweeted it tends to disprove any notion that he simply made a mistake. IMHO, he knew exactly what he was doing, and felt that public opinion would support him. He has now discovered that what he thought was “cute and trendy” is, instead, offensive and totally unjustified. Hence – the apology. But saying “I’m sorry” doesn’t mitigate the hurt and damage already done. There was a purpose and intent behind his original words, and he has discovered – the hard way – that his view is not in line with just about anyone else. Now, he has to face the consequences – and just saying “I’m sorry” doesn’t relieve him from the responsibility for admitting his original intent, and explaining exactly why it was out of line.
I think that we should be pleased and congratulate Prince William and Kate Middleton. Hopefully they will not have taken this to heart. They seem pleasant young people with some good characteristics which will hopefully grow.
As for the Bishop of London, it is worth remembering that one of the people surrounding the Prince of Wales who was most vitriolic in his attacks on the Princess of Wales was Soames. This group were part of the problem with the marriage and the Princess’s problems. He was also part of the small group around the Prince who about 10 or more years ago was campaigning for HM to abdicate in favor of Charles. Fortunately HM took no notice of this, but it was very unpleasant for a while.
+Richard Chartres should take care to remain professional and keep his distance from the nest of vipers that surrounds the crown prince, who are now campaigning to foist Mrs Parker Bowles on us as queen in due course, something denied at the time of her re”marriage” and which we are not having. Hopefully the Queen will live as long as her mother, and the problem may solve itself.
My, my Pageantmaster. Nest of vipers. Do you know any of them personally? Do you know anyone who works at the Palace? Or hangs out with him/them? Is that information from real sources, or just from what the tabloids reported in Sept 1997? We really ought to avoid saying things of which we do not know.
Et moi, aussi. 🙂 Someday we’ll compare lists. Courts are always hotbeds of this and that. I often think of that fact when observing my bishop in action. But, trying to stay on thread… since the CoE is the established church, and exists because of HM, and many legal autorities might opine, holds its possessions because it is the established church (what would the CoE be without its buildings and endowments, which are entrusted to it by the Crown), it behooves their functionaries to be honest and forthright about their principles. Pete Broadbent was either lying when he swore the oath of allegiance, or has experienced a change of heart. Since he was a functionary of the Labour Party prior to his elevation, I suspect the former. He ought to resign. Full stop.
I don’t read the Bishop of challenging Charles’ or Williams’ choice of marriage partners. Here’s what I understand to be the transcript of what he said:
[i]Need to work out what date in the spring or summer I should be booking my republican day trip to France…
I think you’ll find that God and the Bishop of London are my bosses. I am a citizen, not a subject!
The Windsors and their predecessors don’t have a good track record on the permanence of marriage. But their marriage is their business. I don’t know them, and have no part in celebrating it. I just wish we weren’t paying for it.
I think we need a party in Calais for all good republicans who can’t stand the nauseating tosh that surrounds this event. Never underestimate the capacity of the media to descend into the most fawning deferential nonsense and to rake up trivia and irrelevance until it comes out of their every orifice. I managed to avoid the last disaster in slow motion between Big Ears and the Porcelain Doll, and hope to avoid this one too.
Yes, but the wedding belongs to the family. It’s their celebration. Not some piece of national flim-flam paid for out of our taxes, for a couple whose lives are going to be persecuted and spoilt by an ignorant media. I wish them well, but their nuptials are nothing to do with me. Leave them to get married somewhere out of the limelight and leave them alone.
(a) I don’t care about the Royals. I’m a republican.
(b) History: more broken marriages and philanderers among these people than not. Count them up, back through the ages.
(c) They cost us an arm and a leg
(d) Talent isn’t passed on through peoples’ bloodstock. The hereditary principle is corrupt and sexist.
(e) As with most shallow celebrities in our society, they will be set up to fail by the gutter press, who don’t care about them unless they sell newspapers. And that means hounding them to death.
What’s to like?
I give the marriage seven years.
Pathetic gutter press now trying to make this thread into a story. But watch their hypocrisy when they go for the Royals later on.
It’s the gutter press. You can bet your boots they won’t quote anything I’ve said about their responsibility for persecuting the Royals. It’ll be partial quotes and out of context journalism.
Yes, that would be the same Daily Mail which described the Royal family only last week as “notoriously dysfunctional”. Interesting double standards – but what can you expect from journos?[/i]
Now, I get that you’re upset about his republicanism, but that’s more an issue with you and Pageantmaster, I’d rather put that to one side for our discussion.
I read the bishop as saying that the royals have a bad track record on holding marriage in honour. That’s hardly news. And that the ‘gutter press’ will make use of the marriage to sell papers – putting it firmly in the spotlight and trying to make news out of every up and down. As a result of those two dynamics, the marriage is unlikely to last more than seven years – the common fate of many ‘celebrity marriages’. It’s as much an attack on the press as anything – which is probably why the Mail went for him so strongly.
His point is that the marriage is best served by not making it a big public affair – neither the wedding, nor the marriage itself. Along with that there is a republican concern, but it’s mixed with a view that the cards are stacked against the marriage and that making it a big public thing is profoundly unhelpful for it.
As for this:
[i]Charles, by his own admission, didn’t start fooling around with Camilla till 1985, well after his wife had pretty much run off with more than one guy (which was legally Treason, btw). Definitely sub-optimal, but Camilla has turned out quite all right for him and the nation. That William should be somewhat gun-shy is understandable. I’m just glad he made the leap to making it a respectable relationship.[/i]
This is where my concern with your position lies. That’s all well and good, and the way you’ve put it here would be hard to disagree with.
But these men are in line to have a role in the government of the church. Having an affair on your wife after she’s been unfaithful (’85 is some eleven years before the marriage ended in divorce) hardly befits the standards of Christian profession, let alone leadership in the church. And yes, Williams’ behaviour is understandable, and tying the knot is a good thing. But he’s in line to be governor of the church. Being in a long-term committed fornicating relationship before getting married is not consistent with a Christian profession, let alone leadership in the church.
I think the scandal here is not that the Bishop of Willesden criticised the royals, but that Charles and Williams haven’t been publicly as well as privately taken to task by the bishops.
Their behaviour is inconsistent with the role that birth allocates to them. If the Bishop of Willesden should resign if his republicanism is inconsistent with his role in the church, then Charles and Williams should bow out of the line of succession if they are not in a position to embrace the demands of the Christian faith. Their role as monarchs requires them to take up governship in the church and that comes with its requirements as to profession and manner of life. The principle you invoke cuts two ways.
“I do not see how Charles or Andrew can be faulted for being so stupid and clueless as to marry the people they did”.
For the record, I wish Bishop Broadbent had refrained from commenting. He did make some effort at apology. It is true we are talking about public figures here, but we are probably all guilty, at some point or another, of shooting off mouth before engaging brain. He apologized and is indefinitely suspended; he will have to work that out with the Bishop of London–no more need for me to be on that subject now–prayers for all concerned.
Regarding the above quoted statement, Charles was 32 and should have known better than to enter any marriage with infidelity in the wings, or already taking place. Infidelity is not limited to sex acts, and, while I could be wrong, it was Charles’s and Mrs. Parker-Bowles’s plan to simply do as they pleased, from the beginning, regarding anything to do with their relationship, regardless of what was right, fair, or how the Princess of Wales felt about it. This is no longer the time of Eleanor of Aquitaine when all of this was tolerated and the marriages were for life; today people have different expectations, and divorce is, in many ways, “easier” but not recommended, especially not for members of the royal family.
I didn’t miss the subtle sniping going on in the press around the time of the engagement announcement, with William rightfully saying that he wanted to avoid the mistakes of the past(ie, his father’s mistakes) and Dad responding by saying that “it was high time they were getting married, they’ve ‘practiced’ long enough”. Charles should talk, and that’s right out of the Prince Consort’s playbook; could it have been any more snippy, childish, and vulgar? It’s high time Charles grew up, and it would probably be decent for Mrs. Cornwall to avoid the poor taste of attending Diana’s son’s wedding with Charles, but that will, I’m sure, be lost on her.
I think William IS making a great effort to right the mistakes of the past, and he should be supported in that, not jeered at or undermined. Kate Middleton is smart, poised, solid, and beautiful–I wish them all luck and every happiness–it seems a love match, and, even though they begin with that, their family experiences(hers good, his not) have shown them that what can also matter significantly in a marriage is fidelity. “Those whom God have joined together, let no one put asunder”. May He bless their union, and keep it safe for all the years to come.
Lastly, regarding the current “union” of the Prince of Wales, it was and is lost on a lot of people that the bride and groom had to first confess their sins at their “wedding blessing”. They’re probably the only people in history who had to “acknowledge and bewail their manifold sins and wickedness” prior to saying “I do”–and one case where I applaud the AB of C for actually having a spine. It’s not something of which I would be proud, as a spouse or anything else, and speaks volumes.
Well now, there are reports today on the internet that Bishop Pete Broadbent has been released from the Bishop of London’s dungeon after a Christmas diet of gruel and solitary confinement. Using the church’s new medium of choice when releasing news, a tweet claims an ad clerum issued by +Richard [Toady] Chartres has this news and he is back in post.
One will remember that he was very publicly and outrageously humiliated by the capricious and conflicted +London in a ridiculous letter posted at the start of Synod which led to howls of protest, but +London hasn’t had the guts to make public this news in in spite of defending himself at his diocesan synod by threatening Bishop Pete with decapitation.
What is one to make of this? Has the Bishop of London relented after a season of stuffing himself to excess chez Cornwall? Has +Chartres had an outbreak of Christian remorse and charity after waddling back to Dean’s Court, his beard glistening with goose fat and gravy? Should Pageantmaster believe this diocesan news release by tweet and change his moniker?
The Diocese of London seems to have gone slightly further up the tree of formal statements which started with Twitter, with news of +Pete in the Telegraph and Guardian today, so perhaps it is true that +Toady has relented and +Pete has been reinstated. Nothing has been posted on the Diocesan website where the original letter regarding his suspension appeared. A serious question remains however about the conflict of interest the Bishop of London has with his personal relationship with Prince Charles, and the complete absence of formal process in his “suspension” of +Pete.
There is absolutely no point in us having church rules and procedures and lecturing others on the rule of law if we ignore them ourselves as +Chartres has in this case quite outrageously. Are we going to be as lawless and capricious as TEC?
Since we are not able to comment on the apology may I say here that it was very classy and a good model for occasions when we all mess up.
I just blogged on this below.
http://sbarnabas.com/blog/?p=4425
How odd that this is punishable but nothing was ever done about others who clearly ignore the faith.. revealing one might say
I put it here so you could comment on them both #1 as I thought one set of comments on the topic would be preferable.
The apology is very good. The comment was no more offensive than what many would post online and what various ‘media outlets’ would broadcast. However, the behavior which generated it is terribly reflective of our pre-transformed selves. We all make mistakes like this … this was the mistake of giving in to his old self, rather than being a new creature. Being removed (presumably temporarily) from public ministry makes sense, however, because a bishop is to be held to a higher standard.
Throw him in the Tower.
Rugbyplayingpriest,
I notice you updated your post to take account of Bishop Broadbent’s remarks regarding the likely duration of the marriage. For anyone in Holy Orders to make such remarks is reprehensible, when the parties involved have not been shown to be taking their vows lightly. As a republican I hold no brief for the Royal Family, but Prince and Ms Middleton don’t deserve that. As Bishop Broadbent himself noted, neither of the parties has gone out oif their way to seek media attention; it has pursued them.
Dennis (#4),
You’re precisely right. It [i]is[/i] what many might post online. It is not, however, what one expects from those called to a higher standard of leadership. Is this the stuff of which future members of the Ordinariate are made? The good bishop could quite properly have deprecated an undue focus on the purely material aspects of the wedding plans, commended the couple for remaining committed to each other under very trying circumstances, and used the occasion to speak to what Christain marriage is about.
It was a teaching moment and he blew it!
Actually, since the statistic (IIRC) is that the longer a couple has lived together before marriage, the briefer their marriage will be, the bishop was actuarially correct. I imagine that he, like many of us, is rather depressed by the number of couples who treat marriage as a sort of knees-up, to be indulged in when they can afford it*, rather than as a solemn vow before God and a congregation (or just the latter, if atheists) which will be the beginning of their life as a single entity.
*Not that cost is an issue in this particular case…
I think the issue is not so much the behaviour of the bishop in abstract (yes, bishops shouldn’t be making public comments on the upcoming marriages of others, and especially public figures), as the way the CoE strains at gnats and swallows camels.
The CoE has bishops who question or deny cardinal doctrines, and turn a blind eye to immorality among their clergy. Archbishop Williams is constantly defended for inaction with regards America and Canada on the grounds that he has no authority to intervene. Yet fail to follow English standards of etiquette in public discourse and watch just how quickly a bishop is ‘invited’ to step back from public ministry.
Concern for etiquette, but inaction on substance.
That’s the real issue here – not the bishop’s wrong comments, but the response of the institution in the context of its overall inaction.
When one takes up office in the C of E one makes an explicit oath of allegiance to the Crown and the monarch’s successors. Pete Broadbent, who was described in The Telegraph as “…an evangelical show-off very pleased with himself and jolly cross not to have been given a diocese – has broken his oath of loyalty to the Queen and should resign on those grounds.” Of course, he’s a self-described anti-monarchist, so he must have lied (as well) when he took that oath. Damian Thompson said it best, however, “How can any member of the Church of England feel comfortable with the episcopal ministry of a man who directs a mean-spirited diatribe at a young couple about to enter into the sacrament of marriage?” Pete Broadbent’s prospects of future preferment are done for. And he can kiss any honours goodbye, as well. The Royals have very long memories and they are much more influential than most people are aware.
From the bottom of my heart I wish the Bishop had not made these comments, and am glad to read his gracious apology.
However, the response of the Bishop of London is another matter. Known to be friendly with the Prince of Wales as well as involved with the Chapel Royal, he has joined another friend of the Prince of Wales, fatty Soames, in piling into Bishop Pete with this overwhelmingly pompous statement, timed it seems to coincide with what should be a joyous day with the inauguration of a new Synod, the visit of HM the Queen to open our Synod and the announcement that the royal wedding is to be held on 29th April next year at Westminster Abbey. In doing so Bishop Chartres has ensured that a matter which was disappearing off the public radar, is reignited, and will probably blow up. I have been reading the outraged tweets from the Synod.
And it has to be said that the response of Lambeth Palace that +Pete is entitled to his opinion has some merit. In many ways if the people concerned had exercised more prudence and morality they would not have laid themselves open to this. That applies whether it is:
1. The Prince of Wales who appears to have had sex with Mrs Parker Bowles while he was still married to the Princess of Wales, and Mrs Parker Bowled was still married to Major Andrew Parker Bowles, and who subsequently gave credence to this by admitting to his adultery on national television.
2. The Prince of Wales ‘marrying’ Mrs Parker Bowles, following her divorce and his widowhood in a civil marriage, from which in English law members of the Royal Family are excluded from using, casting doubt on his marital status, and its legitimacy which could be a serious matter in the future.
3. The living together of Prince William with his girlfriend at university in the same house, although this is not an unusual relationship nowadays.
It seems to me that it is quite in order for members of the Church of England to question the probity of those who may in the future become the supreme governor of that Church, and the extent to which they observe the doctrine of the church which in the future they may be asked to promise to defend.
Consider the contrast between the way Bishop Pete ticked off the Church of England vicar who ‘married’ two male clergymen, with the way the Bishop of London has ‘suspended’ Bishop Pete for ticking off an admitted adulterer and friend of Richard Chartres. It raises the question of what interference there has been from the Prince’s office and Soames in his decision.
So I wish Bishop Pete had not said it, and I wish Bishop Richard had not over-reacted, and it remains to be seen what impact Bishop Richard’s actions have on this sensitive Synod session.
But I agree with Dave Walker that this is an own goal from the Church of England.
Of course, Pageantmaster, the Household would have been in contact with Richard Chartres, but +London would have undoubtedly rushed to get in touch first. Pete Broadbent swore an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty and her successors when he received his first cure (as did I), and every time thereafter he moved up the ladder. Pete, in writing, “Need to work out what date in the spring or summer I should be booking my republican day trip to France.†is ipso facto, therefore, either a hypocrite (his words speak for themselves) or was lying when he so swore. In either case he at the very least ought to be deprived of his living. As it is, his career is over. As I commented in another place, “He was mindlessly parroting middle-class Labour party foundational snobbery and not at all considering that Wills and Kate are really a couple of twenty-somethings who love each other and want to make a life together, despite the handicap of his position in the UK’s national life.”
#12 The idea that an oath of allegiance means that one cannot criticise the officeholder for behaviour inconsistent with their role in the church or to observe that their behaviour to this point is likely to mean that their marriage will not last seems strained. The heirs and the occupant of the crown are not above criticism for their manner of life.
You’re beginning to change my view on this matter. Maybe the bishop did the right thing after all. If a bishop or a clergy should not publicly challenge sin that is public knowledge and committed by those holding (or will hold) public office in the church, then what? Leave it to laypeople to do the job of the pastors and only laypeople can publicly challenge the sin? Never publicly criticise the immorality of those who would be governors in the church?
Etiquette over manners, all around.
i’m with you senior priest, he obviously disdains the people he has sworn an oath of allegiance to. i’m sad for him because he’s appears to be conservative and that church needs him, but his comments were totally out of line and his apology means nothing.
“I have conveyed to Prince Charles and to Prince William and Kate Middleton my sincere regrets for the distress caused by my remarks,” he said. “I recognize that the tone of my language and the content of what I said were deeply offensive, and I apologize unreservedly for the hurt caused.”
no apology for the content, just for the distress it caused. so while it’s honest, this is a frequent non apology done when people are not really sorry for what they’ve done or said.
#11 A senior priest
The Oath of allegiance is to be found in Canon C13 of the Canons of the Church of England
[blockquote]I,AB, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her
Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to
law: So help me God. [/blockquote]
The bishop is entitled to take a view that the monarchy should be changed, or indeed that the CofE should be disestablished [and I have no idea what he thinks of the latter] without derrogating from the allegiance due in the meantime to the Queen. The oath and the constitutional monarchy are a product of English law and its constitution, and they are both amenable to be changed in the future. That would not entitle the bishop to do any act which was antithetical to his oath, for example submitting to the Bishop of Rome, but he is, as Lambeth Palace said, entitled to his opinion.
The oath of allegiance is a red herring. The heirs have no status in English law or the constitution, until such time as they succeed to the throne, which is why the oath is worded as it is. All constitutional power of the monarch, including the duty of allegiance rests in the reigning monarch. If in due course one of the heirs succeeds, they would be entitled to the benefit of the oath, and as far as I know the oaths of allegiance are renewed in many offices, including perhaps those of bishops on a new accession to the throne, although under the terms of the oath that may not be strictly necessary.
I don’t believe that Bishop Pete’s career is over. It will suit some to try to use this against him, particularly bearing in mind that he along with Michael Nazir-Ali was negative about attendance at the Lambeth Conference, although he made no big thing of it. There may also be a political element to this from the pro-Covenant establishment.
Link to Canon C13
Amen to your #11, Senior Priest. While I agree completely with thos commentors who decry the egregious immoral and unChristian behavior of many of the clergy that go unpunished, their conduct is not the subject here. +Broadbent’s behavior was deplorable and he should be sacked.
#12, theres a big difference from “a bishop publicly challenge(ing) sin,” and +Broadbent’s sophomoric, mean-spirited, insulting diatribe. I suggest he take his trip to Calais and take up permanent residence.
It also means that +Pete has been prevented from speaking at Synod – how convenient is that?
mark i think it is bad form to viciously tear down your boss in public which is what he has done, not the Big Boss obviously but the next one down.
#16 evan miller
+Pete has apologised unreservedly for his comments on Facebook. As a Christian do you not believe in forgiveness?
HM’s conduct is beyond criticism, and she takes her role in relation to the Church of England very seriously, as we saw today. I am not sure the same can be said for her offspring.
#16, 18. I am certainly not defending the action, or the manner in which it was done. I’ve indicated that I think it was wrong.
My comments in #12 were in response to A Senior Priest’s argument that had the effect of disallowing any public critique by clergy of the lifestyle and actions of the royal family on the basis of the oath of allegiance. They weren’t a justification for this act.
But, watching people react this way to what the bishop did, and the arguments they’re putting forward, and taking on board Pageantmaster’s observations about timing and broader political dimensions, I am beginning to wonder if the problem is that he did the right thing in the wrong way (I haven’t changed my view, but I’m feeling the tug). If a bishop denied the resurrection a week before general synod, or gave a speech to the clergy in his diocese supporting actively homosexual clergy in the previous year, they would not be immediately asked to step back from public ministry.
If all the bishops were above reproach, I could understand this standard being applied. But to pass over gross misconduct by revisionists and to jump on something badly done (very badly done) but not inherently unChristian by a reasserter? Tell me you don’t see a pattern here in the institutional behaviour.
Pageantmaster, I suspect Prince William and Miss Middleton, will accept his apology and forgive him. The attitude that his outburst reveals, and its tone however, are inappropriate for one holding episcopal office in the Church of England. I say this with saddness, mindful of +Broadbent’s stand for orthodoxy.
[Comment deleted by Elf – please watch abuse in comments and cynicism please]
[Comment deleted by Elf]
Imagine… Pete’s name passes the Queen’s eyes, a Conge d’Elir is issued under her Great Seal, and he’s appointed to shepherd not only Christ’s flock, but to a certain extent, be a steward for the property of her church under the Law of Church and Parliament -her church, as Supreme Governor, btw- and then Pete says such terrible things about her grandson, obviously HOPING to undermine the monarchy. This is not about personal opinions, but about ethics, morality, and government. In a very real way no CoE cleric holding a benefice and/or paid with CoE money (which actually belongs to her, and her government, since Henry VII nationalized the Church’s property) should speak like he did. If Pete really believes what he says he believes then he shouldn’t take the Queen’s Shilling.
[i]This is not about personal opinions, but about ethics, morality, and government.[/i]
And so, we have an entire family who have an important role in the government in the church and yet whose ethics and morality is neither a condition for their holding that office (unlike all other offices in the church) nor are even to be the subject of public rebuke (or even negative public commentary) by the shepherds of the flock.
1 Tim 5:20 applies to the shepherds but not to those who have government of the Church? That might be about government, but it’s hard to see how it is about ethics and morality.
Re #26
Mark,
That is certainly an opinion which some might subscribe to. (I do not.) But I would strongly affirm that those holding that opinion could not recite the oath of allegiance to H.M. The Queen without lying. If you want to be a republican fine. But the CofE is a monarchist church as long as that oath is in place.
“strong” should read “strongly.”
The guy attacks a young couple publically. Who does he propose William marry? Does Pete think none of the Royals should marry ever? The Ottoman Sultans married only rarely to avoid the inevitable problems which can ensue, opting to create children by female slaves immured in the Harem. Is that preferable? Mama mia!
[i]But I would strong affirm that those holding that opinion could not recite the oath of allegiance to H.M. The Queen without lying. If you want to be a republican fine. But the CofE is a monarchist church as long as that oath is in place.[/i]
Okay. I don’t think I’d agree with this – it sounds too much like ‘my country, right or wrong’: ultimately our human allegilances must bow the knee to Christ our Lord, no ruler can have a blank cheque morally speaking.
But if you’re right, then what do you when young Christian couples emulate Prince Williams’ example and cohabit before marrying? Any criticism will be an implicit criticism of the future governor. What do you do if the future monarch openly repudiates the faith once for all delivered?
I don’t think allegiance works on this ‘all or nothing’, ‘person and office are identical’ kind of basis.
The guy attacks a young couple publically.
The guy is clearly a jerk, I’m not trying to defend him here. Riffing on the jeremiading of someone’s marriage is so many colours of wrong.
Who does he propose William marry? Does Pete think none of the Royals should marry ever?
From what I can see his point is that the royal family have done very badly at holding marriage in honour. And from that pattern, and from the availability of no stigma, no fault divorce, he has speculated on seven years for the marriage to survive.
If they weren’t the royal family, I think most of us would tend to agree with that logic.
No power without responsibility even for monarchs. If they are governors in the church, then they should be held accountable to its norms, they should seek to exemplify the manner of life that befits a follower of Jesus. Not cohabitating before marrying, not divorcing, and not cheating on one’s spouse are pretty basic for God’s people. And if they have a pattern of not doing that, the bishops should be speaking up about it.
This isn’t Cosmo Lang berating Edward VIII for marrying a divorcee.
I suspect most of us are ever more convinced that the case for disestablishment grows stronger by the day, but it isn’t germane to the issue. Nor is the oath of allegiance.
If, as some are suggesting here, Bishop Broadbent was seeking to indict the culture of cohabitation, there were better ways to do that (he could have recommended, for example, that any priest counselling the couple take the time to remind them of what the Church calls them to be and do.) I don’t expect “heretical” bishops to behave pastorally (though some do), but I do expect orthodox ones to do so. And being pastoral does not involve using people to make a point, not unless they are sinners of a peculiar order of magnitude. Ideas, yes; sin, certainly; people, not so much.
Prince William is not the yet the head of the Church of England (and may never be). Considering his upbringing, he seems a reasonably decent Millennial and not particularly publicity-seeking (never thought I’ld be so defensive about a member of the Royal Family).
Re # 29
Mark
I am not defending modern culture or disagreeing with a clerics right to condemn immoral behavior. But his comments went way beyond that and were effectively an attack on the Royal Family. And then we return to that pesky oath. If you want the liberty to attack the monarchy and publicly espouse republicanism then don’t swear false oaths.
I addressed the question of the CofE’s historical relationship with the crown in some detail back in my comment #24 along with the point that those who swear allegiance to the Queen as a condition for serving a bishop in Her church forfeit any right to advocate the overthrow of the monarchy. (I am guessing at least one of the Elves is not sympathetic to monarchism.)
As a simple American Anglican, I am furious at this “Bishop” who dared to criticize HRH Prince William and his future wife.
In Anglicanism we have a very clear “chain of command”.
the individual is under the authority of the priest, the priest is under the authority of the bishop, the bishop is under the authority of the primate of their province who is under the Archbishop of Canterbury who is under the Queen who is under GOD!!
Just as our Roman Catholic brethren have a “dual loyalty” to both their own country a well as to the Bishop Rome, we Anglicans have a “dual loyalty” to our own country as well as to Her Majesty (and her heirs when their time comes.) I owe NO allegiance to the British Monarch as head of the Government of the United Kingdom (at least not since 1776-GRIN), but I still owe fealty to her as the head of my faith. (Only under God’s authority).
Mark (#29), I do not see how Charles or Andrew can be faulted for being so stupid and clueless as to marry the people they did. Charles, I think, “fell in love” with his eventual wife partly because she was the best option -a virgin (pretty much required in those days), from a good family who had been courtiers for 8 generations, her grandmother was best friends with his grandmother (the Queen Mother) and lived at Clarence House with the Queen Mum for 20+ years. I can just see it, the two old ladies over a couple of Dubonnets or martinis hatching a plot to marry off their grandkids. Alas, they didn’t consider Diana’s Borderline Personality Syndrome coupled with being a rather extreme case of an adult child of a raging alcoholic, which pretty much doomed the relationship before it started. Charles, by his own admission, didn’t start fooling around with Camilla till 1985, well after his wife had pretty much run off with more than one guy (which was legally Treason, btw). Definitely sub-optimal, but Camilla has turned out quite all right for him and the nation. That William should be somewhat gun-shy is understandable. I’m just glad he made the leap to making it a respectable relationship.
Bishop Broadbent may have apologized, but there are apologies, and there are apologies.
After reading his comments about a trip to France, and particularly his reference to “Big Ears and the Porcelain Doll”, it would seem that his apology is not from the heart, but rather an attempt to stave off the consequences of being caught making completely baseless and patently injurious statements. The fact that he both posted this in Facebook and Tweeted it tends to disprove any notion that he simply made a mistake. IMHO, he knew exactly what he was doing, and felt that public opinion would support him. He has now discovered that what he thought was “cute and trendy” is, instead, offensive and totally unjustified. Hence – the apology. But saying “I’m sorry” doesn’t mitigate the hurt and damage already done. There was a purpose and intent behind his original words, and he has discovered – the hard way – that his view is not in line with just about anyone else. Now, he has to face the consequences – and just saying “I’m sorry” doesn’t relieve him from the responsibility for admitting his original intent, and explaining exactly why it was out of line.
I think that we should be pleased and congratulate Prince William and Kate Middleton. Hopefully they will not have taken this to heart. They seem pleasant young people with some good characteristics which will hopefully grow.
As for the Bishop of London, it is worth remembering that one of the people surrounding the Prince of Wales who was most vitriolic in his attacks on the Princess of Wales was Soames. This group were part of the problem with the marriage and the Princess’s problems. He was also part of the small group around the Prince who about 10 or more years ago was campaigning for HM to abdicate in favor of Charles. Fortunately HM took no notice of this, but it was very unpleasant for a while.
+Richard Chartres should take care to remain professional and keep his distance from the nest of vipers that surrounds the crown prince, who are now campaigning to foist Mrs Parker Bowles on us as queen in due course, something denied at the time of her re”marriage” and which we are not having. Hopefully the Queen will live as long as her mother, and the problem may solve itself.
subscribe
My, my Pageantmaster. Nest of vipers. Do you know any of them personally? Do you know anyone who works at the Palace? Or hangs out with him/them? Is that information from real sources, or just from what the tabloids reported in Sept 1997? We really ought to avoid saying things of which we do not know.
“Do you know any of them personally?”
Yes.
Et moi, aussi. 🙂 Someday we’ll compare lists. Courts are always hotbeds of this and that. I often think of that fact when observing my bishop in action. But, trying to stay on thread… since the CoE is the established church, and exists because of HM, and many legal autorities might opine, holds its possessions because it is the established church (what would the CoE be without its buildings and endowments, which are entrusted to it by the Crown), it behooves their functionaries to be honest and forthright about their principles. Pete Broadbent was either lying when he swore the oath of allegiance, or has experienced a change of heart. Since he was a functionary of the Labour Party prior to his elevation, I suspect the former. He ought to resign. Full stop.
#32: A Senior Priest
I don’t read the Bishop of challenging Charles’ or Williams’ choice of marriage partners. Here’s what I understand to be the transcript of what he said:
[i]Need to work out what date in the spring or summer I should be booking my republican day trip to France…
I think you’ll find that God and the Bishop of London are my bosses. I am a citizen, not a subject!
The Windsors and their predecessors don’t have a good track record on the permanence of marriage. But their marriage is their business. I don’t know them, and have no part in celebrating it. I just wish we weren’t paying for it.
I think we need a party in Calais for all good republicans who can’t stand the nauseating tosh that surrounds this event. Never underestimate the capacity of the media to descend into the most fawning deferential nonsense and to rake up trivia and irrelevance until it comes out of their every orifice. I managed to avoid the last disaster in slow motion between Big Ears and the Porcelain Doll, and hope to avoid this one too.
Yes, but the wedding belongs to the family. It’s their celebration. Not some piece of national flim-flam paid for out of our taxes, for a couple whose lives are going to be persecuted and spoilt by an ignorant media. I wish them well, but their nuptials are nothing to do with me. Leave them to get married somewhere out of the limelight and leave them alone.
(a) I don’t care about the Royals. I’m a republican.
(b) History: more broken marriages and philanderers among these people than not. Count them up, back through the ages.
(c) They cost us an arm and a leg
(d) Talent isn’t passed on through peoples’ bloodstock. The hereditary principle is corrupt and sexist.
(e) As with most shallow celebrities in our society, they will be set up to fail by the gutter press, who don’t care about them unless they sell newspapers. And that means hounding them to death.
What’s to like?
I give the marriage seven years.
Pathetic gutter press now trying to make this thread into a story. But watch their hypocrisy when they go for the Royals later on.
It’s the gutter press. You can bet your boots they won’t quote anything I’ve said about their responsibility for persecuting the Royals. It’ll be partial quotes and out of context journalism.
Yes, that would be the same Daily Mail which described the Royal family only last week as “notoriously dysfunctional”. Interesting double standards – but what can you expect from journos?[/i]
Now, I get that you’re upset about his republicanism, but that’s more an issue with you and Pageantmaster, I’d rather put that to one side for our discussion.
I read the bishop as saying that the royals have a bad track record on holding marriage in honour. That’s hardly news. And that the ‘gutter press’ will make use of the marriage to sell papers – putting it firmly in the spotlight and trying to make news out of every up and down. As a result of those two dynamics, the marriage is unlikely to last more than seven years – the common fate of many ‘celebrity marriages’. It’s as much an attack on the press as anything – which is probably why the Mail went for him so strongly.
His point is that the marriage is best served by not making it a big public affair – neither the wedding, nor the marriage itself. Along with that there is a republican concern, but it’s mixed with a view that the cards are stacked against the marriage and that making it a big public thing is profoundly unhelpful for it.
As for this:
[i]Charles, by his own admission, didn’t start fooling around with Camilla till 1985, well after his wife had pretty much run off with more than one guy (which was legally Treason, btw). Definitely sub-optimal, but Camilla has turned out quite all right for him and the nation. That William should be somewhat gun-shy is understandable. I’m just glad he made the leap to making it a respectable relationship.[/i]
This is where my concern with your position lies. That’s all well and good, and the way you’ve put it here would be hard to disagree with.
But these men are in line to have a role in the government of the church. Having an affair on your wife after she’s been unfaithful (’85 is some eleven years before the marriage ended in divorce) hardly befits the standards of Christian profession, let alone leadership in the church. And yes, Williams’ behaviour is understandable, and tying the knot is a good thing. But he’s in line to be governor of the church. Being in a long-term committed fornicating relationship before getting married is not consistent with a Christian profession, let alone leadership in the church.
I think the scandal here is not that the Bishop of Willesden criticised the royals, but that Charles and Williams haven’t been publicly as well as privately taken to task by the bishops.
Their behaviour is inconsistent with the role that birth allocates to them. If the Bishop of Willesden should resign if his republicanism is inconsistent with his role in the church, then Charles and Williams should bow out of the line of succession if they are not in a position to embrace the demands of the Christian faith. Their role as monarchs requires them to take up governship in the church and that comes with its requirements as to profession and manner of life. The principle you invoke cuts two ways.
“I do not see how Charles or Andrew can be faulted for being so stupid and clueless as to marry the people they did”.
For the record, I wish Bishop Broadbent had refrained from commenting. He did make some effort at apology. It is true we are talking about public figures here, but we are probably all guilty, at some point or another, of shooting off mouth before engaging brain. He apologized and is indefinitely suspended; he will have to work that out with the Bishop of London–no more need for me to be on that subject now–prayers for all concerned.
Regarding the above quoted statement, Charles was 32 and should have known better than to enter any marriage with infidelity in the wings, or already taking place. Infidelity is not limited to sex acts, and, while I could be wrong, it was Charles’s and Mrs. Parker-Bowles’s plan to simply do as they pleased, from the beginning, regarding anything to do with their relationship, regardless of what was right, fair, or how the Princess of Wales felt about it. This is no longer the time of Eleanor of Aquitaine when all of this was tolerated and the marriages were for life; today people have different expectations, and divorce is, in many ways, “easier” but not recommended, especially not for members of the royal family.
I didn’t miss the subtle sniping going on in the press around the time of the engagement announcement, with William rightfully saying that he wanted to avoid the mistakes of the past(ie, his father’s mistakes) and Dad responding by saying that “it was high time they were getting married, they’ve ‘practiced’ long enough”. Charles should talk, and that’s right out of the Prince Consort’s playbook; could it have been any more snippy, childish, and vulgar? It’s high time Charles grew up, and it would probably be decent for Mrs. Cornwall to avoid the poor taste of attending Diana’s son’s wedding with Charles, but that will, I’m sure, be lost on her.
I think William IS making a great effort to right the mistakes of the past, and he should be supported in that, not jeered at or undermined. Kate Middleton is smart, poised, solid, and beautiful–I wish them all luck and every happiness–it seems a love match, and, even though they begin with that, their family experiences(hers good, his not) have shown them that what can also matter significantly in a marriage is fidelity. “Those whom God have joined together, let no one put asunder”. May He bless their union, and keep it safe for all the years to come.
Lastly, regarding the current “union” of the Prince of Wales, it was and is lost on a lot of people that the bride and groom had to first confess their sins at their “wedding blessing”. They’re probably the only people in history who had to “acknowledge and bewail their manifold sins and wickedness” prior to saying “I do”–and one case where I applaud the AB of C for actually having a spine. It’s not something of which I would be proud, as a spouse or anything else, and speaks volumes.
Well now, there are reports today on the internet that Bishop Pete Broadbent has been released from the Bishop of London’s dungeon after a Christmas diet of gruel and solitary confinement. Using the church’s new medium of choice when releasing news, a tweet claims an ad clerum issued by +Richard [Toady] Chartres has this news and he is back in post.
One will remember that he was very publicly and outrageously humiliated by the capricious and conflicted +London in a ridiculous letter posted at the start of Synod which led to howls of protest, but +London hasn’t had the guts to make public this news in in spite of defending himself at his diocesan synod by threatening Bishop Pete with decapitation.
What is one to make of this? Has the Bishop of London relented after a season of stuffing himself to excess chez Cornwall? Has +Chartres had an outbreak of Christian remorse and charity after waddling back to Dean’s Court, his beard glistening with goose fat and gravy? Should Pageantmaster believe this diocesan news release by tweet and change his moniker?
The Diocese of London seems to have gone slightly further up the tree of formal statements which started with Twitter, with news of +Pete in the Telegraph and Guardian today, so perhaps it is true that +Toady has relented and +Pete has been reinstated. Nothing has been posted on the Diocesan website where the original letter regarding his suspension appeared. A serious question remains however about the conflict of interest the Bishop of London has with his personal relationship with Prince Charles, and the complete absence of formal process in his “suspension” of +Pete.
There is absolutely no point in us having church rules and procedures and lecturing others on the rule of law if we ignore them ourselves as +Chartres has in this case quite outrageously. Are we going to be as lawless and capricious as TEC?