The Link is published monthly at 40p (Senior Citizens 35p), and we deliver free within the parish and post copies (at the reader's expense) to those who request it. Please contact us if you would like a free copy for a trial period.
March 2005, Page 8.
Index of articles:
by subject,
by date.
In this issue:
(March 2005)
Lent,
Sunday Evenings,
Song,
Royal Wedding?
In our "Questions to the clergy" slot, John will try to answer any query you throw at him, without deviation or repetition...
Prince Charles' Wedding?
Q. Do you think Prince Charles should marry Camilla Parker-Bowles? Should he have planned a church wedding? And what about him becoming head of the Church of England?
A. When I started this page in the magazine I did promise I would not duck hard questions, so I suppose I shouldn't complain that you asked me this one!
As Christians we believe in a God who both forgives us and has high standards for us. We're all sinners and we all do things which hurt others and cause havoc in relationships. In 2000 a report on this topic from the bishops said: "The Church's duty is to assure believers of forgiveness. This may take the form of supporting a new marriage, but it would be unwise to suggest this is the only or normal way. When 'forgiveness' is used as a code-word for permission to remarry the gospel is being mistaken for a means of self-justification."
I think God's ideal for the divorced is a single celibate life - but I do realize that in the real world not many choose this gladly!
If Charles has decided he is going to live with Camilla, then I think marriage is better than living together outside marriage. I think couples who live together should make a commitment to each other, and if they live together without getting married they are cheating each other of the security which they could give each other.
Most of the Church of England thinks that although there are some circumstances when a person might be remarried in Church, this isn't one of them. I think Charles and Camilla were right not to ask for a church wedding, and I was pleased they took this line. I think that's what the Archbishop meant when he said this option was within Church of England guidelines.
The Church Council at Eccleshill has discussed this issue both before I arrived and since then, and we don't offer a church service at all if either party was involved in the other's marriage break-up.
I think the monarch's "headship" is rather irrelevant nowadays, although I can see why this was felt to be a reason for abdication not long ago. I've always believed that the Church should be in charge of itself without State interference, able to choose its own bishops and order its own worship. Charles once suggested he might be "defender of faith" rather than "defender of the faith" - so maybe he agrees with me?
John Hartley