Wed 30th Jul 2014 | Last updated: Wed 30th Jul 2014 at 15:38pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

MP says succession Bill is an ‘attack’ on Catholic Church

By on Friday, 25 January 2013

A replica of the Coronation Crown at Sotheby's (Photo: PA)

A replica of the Coronation Crown at Sotheby's (Photo: PA)

A Catholic MP has called the Bill reforming Britain’s succession laws an “attack” on the Catholic Church because it still forbids Catholics from ascending to the throne.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, MP for North East Somerset, said during a debate in the House of Commons that he would like to amend the Bill to allow a Catholic to become monarch.

Mr Rees-Mogg criticised the Bill in both its content and the speed with which it is being processed. He said the Bill was being “done in a rush as if it is counter-terrorism legislation”. He added: “It is an insult to the nation… to our sovereign and indeed to Parliament.”

Throughout the debate, Mr Rees-Mogg voiced concerns about the implications of allowing royal heirs to marry Catholics considering the legislation stopped a Catholic from becoming monarch. He said, in relation to this dilemma: “By amending the statutes, we are saying that all the provisions are modernised, and that the Act of Settlement and all its anti-Catholic provisions are acceptable in a modern world.”

Sir Gerald Howarth MP ended the debate saying: “There is a paradox in the situation in which we find ourselves. The Government are seeking to end part of a discriminatory law, and yet have resurrected rather a lot of hurt.”

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said: “The current law says that our monarch can’t be married to a Catholic. This legal ban doesn’t apply to any other faith.”

He added: “Today we do not support laws which discriminate on either religious or gender grounds. They have no place in modern Britain, and certainly not in our monarchy.”

Mr Clegg proposed the Bill to amend what he termed the “bygone laws” enabling a female first-born heir to be superseded in line to the throne by her younger brothers.

  • Nick

    Would you like them to be as you seem to want to ban them from most everything else?

  • Nick

    Yes but he lost – it cleared the Commons with ease.

  • Nick

    Oh come come, lets not leave it there – the C of E was formed so that its founder could get a divorce and remarry. And that not being sufficient, he went on to further divorces and four additional marriages, chopping the heads of some of the wives off along the way.
    Yep a great historical pedigree the C of E has got.

  • whytheworldisending

    Sex is not love. As St Paul says, Love never seeks its own advantage. God is Love, and God made then Man and Woman. Those who seek to have sex with their own gender do not know what love is. 

  • whytheworldisending

    Nobody voted for the Coalition, and virtually nobody voted for Nick Clegg – who is behind all this gaytheists nonsense (even though he is married to a Catholic in a Catholic church and has vowed to bring his children up in the Catholic faith.) 

  • whytheworldisending

    The so-called Consultation invited submissions on HOW to bring in gay marriage, while explicitly stating that submissions to the effect that gay marriage should not become law would be disregarded. In other words, the government asked gaytheists and only gaytheists for their views, and expressed contempt for the views of ordinary people. If that is consultation then I’m homosexual.   

  • whytheworldisending

    ANY Angican can, in principle, become head of the “Vatican and Catholic Church.” All they have to do is convert, become a priest, work hard to rise to Cardinal and hope they are elected. It is not true that ANY Anglican can ascend to the throne. If they are not born into the Royal Family their religion or lack of it is no help to them.

  • whytheworldisending

    Prejudiced against what? Being treated as a second class citizen simply because of their skin colour? And I thought you were a Liberal. 

  • whytheworldisending

    Nice one Nick. Disrespecting Catholics and Anglicans at the same time. Who are you going to offend next? Muslims ot Jews?

  • Herbertpooler

    drj81

    No it is NOT!!   People in general are fed up to the back teeth with the gay  situation as it always in our faces no matter where you look!  You would have us  believe straight people are in the minoritry. The rights of the child must come first not to satisfaction of a  gay couple..

  • Herbertpooler

    Ask the firm that one but I would think they’d say yes as  they would just to  satisfy the  drj81 s  of this world!!!

  • Joannespetrus

    More meddling with things that they don’t understand. Getting rid of male primogeniture will inevitably affect other inherited titles. I would object to the sovereign or the heir to the throne marrying a Catholic on the understanding that the offspring be raised as Protestants. (in 1978 Paul VI put the kybosh on Princess Michael’s flash Catholic wedding over this very issue). I certainly wouldn’t be comfortable with a Catholic being Supreme Governor of a schismatic Protestant ecclesial community; at the same time I have sufficient respect for our separated brethren not to wish disestablishment on them.

  • whytheworldisending

    So did the decision to go to war in Iraq.

  • Nick

    But once they convert, they wouldn’t be Anglican would they.

  • Nick

    Actually 59% of those who voted did so for one or other of the two governing parties.Interesting that you find equality nonsense.

    And given you blame Clegg for everything, who will you vote for next time – Miliband? Ah well then you’ll get the excellent Yvette Cooper – she’ll probably force the church to do it.You blame Clegg if you want, but the truth is that politically, you’ve got nowhere to go – everyone supports “all this gaytheists nonsense”. (What do you reckon Miriam González Durántez makes of it all?)

  • Nick

    The only reason someone could be prejudiced against a black person succeeding to the Crown is because they’re racially prejudiced.

    No I’m Conservative – and that’s why I support equal marriage. ;-)

  • Nick

    No, the Government asked everyone for their views.
    You’re correct that the consultation was about how and not whether to introduce equal marrage, but that’s only because its so obviously the right thing to do in a civilised society.
    And no again, because ordinary people weren’t ignored – Gay people are ordinary people – but we would never put the rights of the minority in a position where they could be crushed by the majority.
    And right ok sorry, I didn’t realise you were Gay. Well done.

  • Nick

    You clearly haven’t been looking very hard then because there are 18 polls on there about equal marriage. And yes, that’s been my point all along – most people championing
    equal marriage are actually straight!

  • Nick

    Would you like them to be?

  • Nick

    “People in general are fed up to the back teeth with the gay situation” – Really, what situation would that be then? Please explain… 

  • Nick

    And so will equal marriage.

  • Nick

    Erm why exactly should Catholics and Anglicans be respected – just because they believe in sky fairies? I think not!

    But in any case, how is telling the truth being disrespectful?

  • whytheworldisending

    It’s called equality of opportunity.

  • whytheworldisending

    And 79% of germans voted for hitler or the Independent Party..

  • whytheworldisending

    You think you’re conservative – what do you think you’re conserving? Only the chances of staying in the coalition for a few more weeks. You find nothing patronising about clause c2(1) saying that a person could become monarch even if they married a black person? There are 2 types of racist bigot. One who thinks and one who doesn’t even know that what they say is offensive. Which are you?

  • whytheworldisending

    The nazis asked the rabbis for the names of the members of their congregations before they rounded them up. Banality and evil are close bedfellows. Your comments are untrue and dangerously banal.

  • whytheworldisending

    Now this is just gaytheist propanganda unworthy of reply.

  • whytheworldisending

    That’s your opinion, but that said, what about the aftermath? Its would be very messy if same sex marriage got on the statute books.

  • Nick

    Then we look forward to Gay people have the equal opportunity to get married.

  • Nick

    And how many voted for the Catholic Church?

  • Nick

    The Coalition will last until May 2015 – that’s two more years, not weeks.
    Saying a person could become monarch even if they married a black person isn’t racist or bigoted – it’s clarifying something for the avoidance of doubt!
    I’m not racist or bigoted, but perhaos you could confirm whether you are – do you support equal marriage?

  • Nick

    All of my comments are true and accurate – the problem is, you just don’t like them.
    1) The Government asked everyone for their views.
    2) You’re correct that the consultation was about how and not whether to introduce equal marrage, but that’s only because its so obviously the right thing to do in a civilised society.
    3) Ordinary people weren’t ignored – Gay people are ordinary people – but we would never put the rights of the minority in a position where they could be crushed by the majority.

    What exactly is untrue and dangerously banal about that?

  • Nick

    Catholics and the Church said that about Civil Partnerships and there’s been no messy aftermath there. They’ve worked better than anyone dared hope and now even the church is trying to pretend they’re in favour of them.

  • Nick

    I’m not tyring to offend anyone, I’m just stating fact.

  • whytheworldisending

    They can’t, because it is logically impossible. Marriage involves the physical union of a man and a woman, so that the two “become one flesh.” Not only do are they become one flesh in that their bodies are united during intercourse; They also “become one flesh” when their genes unite to allow the birth of a child – their own flesh and blood.

    That is physically impossible for two people of the same sex, therefore it is impossible for them to be married.

    Finally – since I sense somehow that you will fail to be persuaded by this argument…….

    …… if it WERE possible for 2 people of the same sex to be married, there would be no need to change the definition of marrriage would there…..?

    Q.E.D. 

  • whytheworldisending

    What is 16.83% of 7 billion? That is how many – according to the CIA website as at July 2012. Its about  1.2 billion.

  • whytheworldisending

    Still trying to move those goal posts? Try reading the post again…..

    Imagine if clause 2(1) said that a person could become monarch even if they married a black person. Would that be OK? Of course not. Even though there is no express prohibition on a black person succeeding to the Crown, it would still cause offence to many people. Now imagine there IS an express prohibition on black people succeeding to the Crown. Does that make it less offensive or more offensive?

    Now try to continue to pretend that you don’t understand how patronising, discrimnatory and offensive it would be to black people, for the government to say that it gives its permission for a future monarch to marry a black person. 

    I’m sure you’re going to try, so here’s an illustration of how such attitudes offend. Some years back the magazine Cosmopolitan voted boxing legend Mohammed Ali as their “Man of the Year.”

    Ali went ballistic. “Who the hell do they think they are,” he said, “.. to name ME as their man of the year?!” (or words to that effect)

    As if – in their widest dreams – he (or any other rational person) woul dgive a damn WHAT they thought. Likewise real people and and this virtually all-white gaytheist coalition government of nancy boy toffs.

  • whytheworldisending

    You are wrong. Bald assertion that you are right is not argument,, however many times you repeat yourself. - it is simply contradiction., and evidence that you have no argument that stands up to scrutiny.

    Having bothered to make a submission in response to the so-called consultation, I know exactly what they asked for.

    They asked for everyone’s views while stating that they would not listen to any views which opposed their proposals.

    Who decided that same sex marriage “is so obviously the right thing to do?” Not the British people, since they were not warned in any manifesto that it would be proposed. This iniquitous proposal was concealed from the British public before the election because it would have been a vote-loser. It is a conspiracy, by self-appointed elites against the British public – and they don’t like it. Contempt for the public breed contempt for politicians -  as if their standing in the eyes of the people could sink any lower.

    Thus were the views of ordinary (Non-gaytheists) people ignored. Homosexual practices are about as far from being ordinary as one could get, so you cannot get around this by changing the definition of “ordinary.”

    Like your first 2 comments, your 3rd comment is untrue and inaccurate. Society “crushes the rights of minorities” all the time. For example, paedophiles, necrophiles and those inclined towards bestiality. All of those people would also argue that their activities should not be prohibited. I disagree. I am glad that what you would call their “rights” are (for the moment at least) crushed by the law.

    But don’t tell me. I know what you’re going to say….

    That’s only my opinion.

  • whytheworldisending

    More untrue and inaccurate propaganda. You cannot change people’s natural, hard-wired, powerful an deep seated feelings of repugnance, which have evolved over tens of thousands of years, by endlessly repeating banal untruths.

  • whytheworldisending

    This IS the aftermath, and its only just beginning. By the way, you unfortunately missed the pun. Perhaps you do not follow the sport of Kings. “Cleared” means jumped over. Parliament was and is treated with contempt and either ignored or so whipped (no pun intended) out of shape as to be unfit for purpose.

  • whytheworldisending

    You think you’re not offending anyone AND you think you are stating facts. Amusing.

  • Nick

    The most sensible thing I’ve ever read of yours is that
    “I sense somehow that you will fail to be persuaded by this argument”.

    And you’ve also seriously contradicted yourself, because you spent the whole post telling me that its impossible for two people of the same sex to get married and then concluded by conceding that we’re changing the definition to allow just that. (The first vote is in the Commons on Tuesday by the way) ;-)

  • Nick

    16.83% – is that all?
    Equal marriage will pass the legislature with a far higher percentage in favour.

  • Nick

    “this virtually all-white gaytheist coalition government of nancy boy toffs.” – Now whose not only revealing their racist prejudice, but also their homophobia and a massive social chip on their shoulder to boot.

  • Nick

    I also made a submission in response to the consultation, so I also know exactly what they asked for.

    They asked for everyone’s views on how best to implement the change – not whether it should be implemented. 

    In respect of equal marriage being the right thing to do – in the latest  polls, 60% of the population support it, so it can’t be a vote loser or a conspiracy so you’re assertion that the British people don’t like it is clearly inaccurate.And in any case, all the major parties and party leaders are in favour. – So if there was a General Election tomorrow and the Coalition were voted out, you’d get Labour who are even more in favour. It wouldn’t surprise me if Yvette Cooper forced it on the church. – So be thankfull for the Coalition Government.

    In respect of ordinary people being ignored – well with 60% in favour and far more straight people pushing for equal marriage, you’re clearly wrong on that as well.But now we come to the crux of it “Homosexual practices are about as far from being ordinary as one could get, so you cannot get around this by changing the definition of “ordinary.””
    Here is what its all about – your prejudice towards Gay people. Whilst all the time forgetting that, numerically, more straight people than gay people indulge in “homosexual practices”.
    Why are you so obsessed with sex?
    And then you go on about paedophiles, necrophiles and those inclined towards bestiality – what are you, some kind of a pervert? 

  • Nick

    With 60% popular support for equal marriage, all party leaders and most MP’s in favour and all of the various courts of law finding in favour of gay people every time there’s a case, how can it possibly be the case that people have deep seated feelings of repugnance about it and how can it possibly be untrue that more straight people than gay are in favour?The only thing people seem to find repugnant are views like yours. Tell me, what did Jesus in his teaching to us as recounted in the gospels have to say about homosexuality? How many references to homosexuality are contained in the Gospels? NOT ONE. Hahahahaha.Still, not long now until the vote on Tuesday. How big will the majority in favour be do you reckon?
    Think before you answer now, remember – most of those voting are straight people with powerful, deep seated feelings of repugnance. Hahahahaha.

  • Nick

    “This IS the aftermath” – What that civil partnerships have worked better than anyone dared hope? And now even the church seems to support them?Great.And no ones going to be whipped – its a free vote. For all parties. ;-)And if you don’t like Parliament, there’ll be a General Election in 2015 and then we can have a change.

    What next do you think – a Labour majority?The wonderful Yvette Cooper in charge of Equalities maybe?

  • W Lewis513

    I do not understand this clamour for the Soverign to be allowed to marry aCatholic, I presume you mean Roman Catholic, and the Soverign shuld be allowed to be one also.Catholics have managed well of late and i se no reason for the staus quo to change. But of course there are tohse lkie BCEW woh would love to be  part of the establish ment e.g. House of Lords.We have dome well to stay apart from this and thus free to raise our voice, to tjt we believe to be wrong. Vis a Vie Cof E. 

  • Jonathan

    Well, so long as you’re arguing on the basis of “natural, hard-wired, powerful and deep seated feelings of repugnance”, what’s not to take seriously about your arguments?

  • whytheworldisending

    You recognise yourself as someone so devoted to your opinions that nothing could persuade you to change them. That’s a start I suppose. (Notice I didn’t use the more concise - Gordon Brown – way of putting this)

    You see a contradiction where this is none. If I told you that you cannot be a banana because you are the wrong size, shape and colour, and said that I know you understand this, because your campaign to be recognised as a banana involves changing the meaning of the word “Banana,” to mean “a human being who thinks they are a fruit,” I would not be contradicting myself.

    More importantly, YOU STILL WOULDN’T BE A BANANA!!!