About that Ordinariate

Here are links to three stories relevant to the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham in England.

On Fr. Blake’s excellent blog we find that there will be a talk given my Msgr. Andrew Burnham, of the Ordinariate, a St. Magdelen parish in Brighton.

Damian Thompson asks a burning question many of us have been wondering about: Why doesn’t the Ordinariate have a church yet in London?

And on a slightly tangential vector, MSNBC has a story that a proposal has been made by Prime Minister David Cameron to overturn the English law discriminating against Catholics and marriage to royals.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to About that Ordinariate

  1. mike cliffson says:

    Royal liberty to marry Catholics along with everyone’s right to marry any or everyone , goats not excluded, not so vectorally tangential,( the “Magic Circle”, wherein the Bishops are NOT prayed for enough, mea culpa interalia, could do a better job of giving the impression of a higher priority being given to obedience to the Pope, support of the ordinariate, zero women priests, and defence of marriage and life, and a lower priority to being well thoughtof in places where they think )

    Twere better Mr Conservative- inname only left well alone : marriage betwixt one man and one woman, and forget getting creds with msm, BBC, and the luvvies- Catholic royals could suffer a few more years.
    Personally, I pray the bishops don’t buy the packadge.
    Mutatis mutanandis : Politicians are often lessers of two weevils, but if a noncitizen may be be allowed a suggestion to you cousins: ware Rinos of a Camaroonish stripe: at least you´ve got primaries! Right now, too.

  2. Gail F says:

    Not so thrilled about the British proposal. It seems to me that this is another instance of “discrimination” claims where they don’t belong. Although it has a long history of actually discriminating against Catholics, English law doesn’t “discriminate against Catholics” when it says that heirs to the throne can’t marry Catholics. That’s the logical consequence of having the king or queen be head of a Protestant church. My goodness, it makes no sense at all for the head of the Church of England to be married to a Catholic! Unless, of course, you think that the Church of England is completely irrelevant, or you intend to get the monarchy out of the Anglican Communion altogether. To me, this sounds more like political correctness at the expense of common sense, and/or the British having so little regard for religion now that they think it doesn’t matter at all.

    Mike Cliffson: Are you British? Your post made this American’s head hurt. It reminds me of letters to the editor I’ve read when in England — so pithy that it’s practically unintelligible. “ware Rinos of a Camaroonish stripe: at least you´ve got primaries!” Wha???????

  3. JonPatrick says:

    Seems to me that having the the King/Queen be the head of the church is an anachronism and the C of E should be divorced from the Crown. Then there would no need for the restriction on royals marrying Catholics.

  4. Legisperitus says:

    Seems to me the Church of England itself is fast becoming an anachronism. Wasn’t there a report earlier this year that the average C of E member is 61 years old? In a few more generations there might be no one left in Britain except atheists, Catholics, Muslims, a few Jews and Hindus, and the royal family. At that point the whole “Head of the Church” thing would be an empty title and could easily be discarded.

  5. pattif says:

    When I first heard this latest proposal to end the “discriminatory” prohibition of royals marrying Catholics and retaining their place in succession to the crown, I wondered what parallel universe the Prime Minister inhabits. In the universe I inhabit, people lie awake at night worrying about how to pay the mortgage, heat the house, feed and clothe the kids, but in Cameronworld, it seems they lie awake at night worrying about Catholics being denied the right to marry the heir to the throne and the abolition of primogeniture.

    Then I read mike cliffson’s comment, and it reminded me that Mr Cameron’s predecessor started talking about the Act of Succession when there was a crucial by-election pending in a constituency with a significant Catholic population. Since politicians seem to think that all they have to do is dangle the bait and Catholics will rise to it, it seems at least possible that Mr Cameron thinks he will get away with bundling the right of Catholics to marry members of the royal family with his gay marriage proposals. He can try to bribe us in any way he likes, but it still won’t make the word “marriage” mean anything other than the life-long, indissoluble union between a man and a woman.

  6. thefeds says:

    Dear Father Z, since it seems you are still in the UK, I have a question I hope you will be able to answer. What is the status in the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham of John Hunwick? I know that he had stopped blogging because of some misunderstanding about the orthodoxy of his beliefs. I hope that he still aspires to the Priesthood in the Ordinariate, and I believe that his voice is part of the Patrimony that our Holy Father has spoken of.
    Thanks!

  7. Centristian says:

    @pattif:

    “My goodness, it makes no sense at all for the head of the Church of England to be married to a Catholic! Unless, of course, you think that the Church of England is completely irrelevant, or you intend to get the monarchy out of the Anglican Communion altogether.”

    Well, I can see that it wouldn’t make much sense for the Supreme Governor of the Church of England to be anything other than an Anglican, but not necessarily the Supreme Governor’s spouse. There are precedents, of course. King Charles I had a Catholic queen. The royal spouse has no constitutional role and no hand in the Church or government, of course, so his or her religion is really inconsequential. And whether it makes any sense or not, several Roman Catholics have, themselves, held the position of head/supreme governor of the Church of England:

    1. King Henry VIII
    2. Queen Mary I (upon her accession and until the title was legally reprobated)
    3. King Charles II (upon his deathbed he, the Supreme Governor, became a Catholic)
    4. King James II (both a Roman Catholic and Supreme Governor throughout his entire reign)

    The whole situation whereby the head of state of a country claims to be head of the Church of Jesus Christ within his country makes no sense, to begin with, so, of course, the entire scenario and all of its tangential issues can only be at least as nonsensical as the premise, itself. Since none of it makes any sense to begin with, why not a Catholic queen for an Anglican king? Or even a Catholic head of the Church of England?

    @Legisperitus:

    “At that point the whole “Head of the Church” thing would be an empty title and could easily be discarded.

    It is an empty title and always has been, but it isn’t easily discarded, I’m afraid. It’s thick into the constitution, despite it seeming like meanspirited nonsense in this day and age. This issue actually came up in Canada not very long ago, giving the Canadian government a headache because they were compelled to explain whether they thought it was right in principle that the Head of State of Canada cannot be a Roman Catholic. Practically speaking, of course, it doesn’t matter, anyway, since no Canadian is capable of becoming the Head of State of Canada, but how could Canada, with her huge Roman Catholic population, justify specifically discriminating against Roman Catholics in law?

    The problem is, undoing the injustice represents a monumental undertaking involving not only the UK, but all the countries that call Elizabeth II their queen, and neither the British Parliament nor the parliaments or governments of any of the Commonwealth nations want to devote so much as a minute of their time to this symbolic issue. Because it wouldn’t be a minute, it would be a herculean task to untangle this constitutionally enshrined thing spanning continents and would take up truckloads of everyone’s time to amend the situation in such a way that everyone would be pleased.

  8. mike cliffson says:

    @Gail:
    Well,33% Irish, and expat anyway. It’s as bad the other way round, you know: Ive made daft comments here given my understanding , for example, of a pastor as only referring to a protestant clergyman.( I’d say PP, for Parish priest.)
    Ware for beware Id thought transatlantic; of such and such a stripe, akin to, similar to, like, of the same breed, horses out of the same stable.
    The Uk Premier’s name is Cameron, leading to his supporters etc being referred to as cameroons. Rino Ive seen as Republican in name only. While not perfect, your system of primaries allows voters, including I would hope conscientious catholics, that touch more choice in deciding on who governs you. Equally, if I am not mistaken, a sweetener for catholics included in immoral laws is just as much an American problem: has this not happened with abortionincluding obamacare? A lot of the history of the English Bishops’ conference is readable as falling for such sweeteners. So, just a suggestion, lokking at the UK where the lefties have gone but their replacement is so little better,try to ensure you get genuinely prolife, promarriage candidates, not cultureofdeath conmen who get the catholic vote by cheap flashy tricks.
    Pattif’s thinking above is in line with mine.
    Bottom line : under very different circumstances ,on both sides of the Atlantic, there is this same attack on marriage. We Catholics are remiss in not making our votes.. more expensive, shall we say?