One Wedding and a Funeral
I’ve been subjected to a television extravaganza this weekend, what with the late Pope’s funeral and the marriage of the Prince of Wales to Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles.
First then, the marriage which is surrounded with controversy. There is a constitutional crisis revolving around what Mrs Parker Bowles – famously referred to as ‘the Rottweiler’ by the late Princess Diana – will be called should Charles one day become King. The Prince’s press office (always referred to in the media as ‘Clarence House’) in an effort to stem the rising opposition to this marriage said that she would be taking one of Charles’s titles and be known as the Duchess of Cornwall. But last week in Parliament it was revealed that she would be perfectly entitled to use the title ‘Queen’ should she choose. To prevent her from doing so new legislation would have to be put in place, and nobody is suggesting that course at the moment. And later in the week it was reported that Mrs Parker Bowles will formally become Princess of Wales upon her marriage no matter what title she elects to use. But of course, Clarence House has been aware of this all along, and it is typical of its disdain for the general public that it should have pretended otherwise.
Charles is on record as saying that he wishes the British public would show him more compassion. But following his inability to understand the offence his long standing relationship with Mrs Parker Bowles caused his wife, and his unfortunate remark that he wasn’t going to be the first Prince of Wales not to have a mistress, many of the public are simply fed up with him. His plea shows how out of touch the monarchy is with the people. Given the iconic status afforded Princess Diana despite her own failings, one cannot see this situation changing.
It is not surprising in these circumstances that the dreaded word ‘republic’ has appeared in the press coverage again. An increasing number of people regard the usefulness of the monarchy only for its potential for boosting tourism revenue as hundreds of thousands of people flock to this country to view ornately dressed soldiers performing the Changing of the Guard, or to take a guided tour of one of the many grandiose buildings which the family owns. In Britain, the monarchy is too big a money-earner to jettison without careful consideration.
It’s different for those of us from ‘colonies’ like New Zealand of course, where the idea that our liberal democracy needs as its head of state, a British descendant of a German royal house, is ludicrous. Had the Queen taken, as most of her commoners do, the family name her spouse had adopted, she would have become Elizabeth Mountbatten, or more correctly Battenburg, for that was the original family name anglicised during the first world war to dispel anti-German sentiment. I have absolutely no objection to Camilla being known henceforth as Mrs Charles Battenburg. The present Queen (God bless her!) should be the last head of state for both the Commonwealth and the United Kingdom and the last Supreme Governor of the Church of England. If we must have heads of state, they should be persons who are role models and who understand and respect their people. Mr and Mrs Charles Battenburg simply don’t possess those qualities.
As for the Pope’s funeral, we haven’t witnessed such a spectacular farewell for a personage for many years. It is said that four million pilgrims flocked to the Holy City for the ceremonies, most of them of course unable to get anywhere near St Peter’s Square. It was certainly a moving occasion with a great deal of unexpected crowd participation and many banners calling for the immediate beatification of John Paul II.
A great and beloved leader for certain Roman Catholics he may have been, but as one Roman Catholic colleague said to me yesterday, ‘he set the Catholic Church back a hundred years’. We should never forget that despite his many achievements and, as I said last week, his constant stand against violence and war, he was responsible for first slowing, and then virtually putting a stop to the development of ecumenism and Christian unity and banning the use of the phrase ‘sister churches’. He withdrew permission to teach theology from some of the Church’s most distinguished theologians including Eduard Schillebeeckx (Christology) Hans Kung (Ecclesiology), Yves Congar (Ecumenism), Leonardo Boff (Liberation Theology) and Charles Curran (Moral Theology). He excommunicated Father Tissa Balasuriya for writing a splendid book Mary and Human Liberation. He removed French Bishop Jacques Gaillot from his diocese for opposing the Church’s teaching on condoms in relation to HIV/AIDS, and homosexuality. These men were prohibited from teaching not because any errors had been discovered in their work, but because of the opinions they had expressed, and this introduced a new criterion into Catholic orthodoxy. He proved incapable of relaxing the Church’s rules on contraception in order to alleviate the ravages of AIDS in Africa, or of addressing the pain of women called to the priesthood but denied ordination. The man who opposed authoritarian politics in Poland and throughout Eastern Europe, contradictorily established an authoritarian regime at the heart of the Vatican. And that is why many of my Roman Catholic friends are praying that a very different kind of Pope will be elected his successor.
First then, the marriage which is surrounded with controversy. There is a constitutional crisis revolving around what Mrs Parker Bowles – famously referred to as ‘the Rottweiler’ by the late Princess Diana – will be called should Charles one day become King. The Prince’s press office (always referred to in the media as ‘Clarence House’) in an effort to stem the rising opposition to this marriage said that she would be taking one of Charles’s titles and be known as the Duchess of Cornwall. But last week in Parliament it was revealed that she would be perfectly entitled to use the title ‘Queen’ should she choose. To prevent her from doing so new legislation would have to be put in place, and nobody is suggesting that course at the moment. And later in the week it was reported that Mrs Parker Bowles will formally become Princess of Wales upon her marriage no matter what title she elects to use. But of course, Clarence House has been aware of this all along, and it is typical of its disdain for the general public that it should have pretended otherwise.
Charles is on record as saying that he wishes the British public would show him more compassion. But following his inability to understand the offence his long standing relationship with Mrs Parker Bowles caused his wife, and his unfortunate remark that he wasn’t going to be the first Prince of Wales not to have a mistress, many of the public are simply fed up with him. His plea shows how out of touch the monarchy is with the people. Given the iconic status afforded Princess Diana despite her own failings, one cannot see this situation changing.
It is not surprising in these circumstances that the dreaded word ‘republic’ has appeared in the press coverage again. An increasing number of people regard the usefulness of the monarchy only for its potential for boosting tourism revenue as hundreds of thousands of people flock to this country to view ornately dressed soldiers performing the Changing of the Guard, or to take a guided tour of one of the many grandiose buildings which the family owns. In Britain, the monarchy is too big a money-earner to jettison without careful consideration.
It’s different for those of us from ‘colonies’ like New Zealand of course, where the idea that our liberal democracy needs as its head of state, a British descendant of a German royal house, is ludicrous. Had the Queen taken, as most of her commoners do, the family name her spouse had adopted, she would have become Elizabeth Mountbatten, or more correctly Battenburg, for that was the original family name anglicised during the first world war to dispel anti-German sentiment. I have absolutely no objection to Camilla being known henceforth as Mrs Charles Battenburg. The present Queen (God bless her!) should be the last head of state for both the Commonwealth and the United Kingdom and the last Supreme Governor of the Church of England. If we must have heads of state, they should be persons who are role models and who understand and respect their people. Mr and Mrs Charles Battenburg simply don’t possess those qualities.
As for the Pope’s funeral, we haven’t witnessed such a spectacular farewell for a personage for many years. It is said that four million pilgrims flocked to the Holy City for the ceremonies, most of them of course unable to get anywhere near St Peter’s Square. It was certainly a moving occasion with a great deal of unexpected crowd participation and many banners calling for the immediate beatification of John Paul II.
A great and beloved leader for certain Roman Catholics he may have been, but as one Roman Catholic colleague said to me yesterday, ‘he set the Catholic Church back a hundred years’. We should never forget that despite his many achievements and, as I said last week, his constant stand against violence and war, he was responsible for first slowing, and then virtually putting a stop to the development of ecumenism and Christian unity and banning the use of the phrase ‘sister churches’. He withdrew permission to teach theology from some of the Church’s most distinguished theologians including Eduard Schillebeeckx (Christology) Hans Kung (Ecclesiology), Yves Congar (Ecumenism), Leonardo Boff (Liberation Theology) and Charles Curran (Moral Theology). He excommunicated Father Tissa Balasuriya for writing a splendid book Mary and Human Liberation. He removed French Bishop Jacques Gaillot from his diocese for opposing the Church’s teaching on condoms in relation to HIV/AIDS, and homosexuality. These men were prohibited from teaching not because any errors had been discovered in their work, but because of the opinions they had expressed, and this introduced a new criterion into Catholic orthodoxy. He proved incapable of relaxing the Church’s rules on contraception in order to alleviate the ravages of AIDS in Africa, or of addressing the pain of women called to the priesthood but denied ordination. The man who opposed authoritarian politics in Poland and throughout Eastern Europe, contradictorily established an authoritarian regime at the heart of the Vatican. And that is why many of my Roman Catholic friends are praying that a very different kind of Pope will be elected his successor.
posted by MichaelElliott @ 8:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home