Prince’s wedding sparks apology dispute
-27/03/05
Two Anglican bishops today became embroiled in a dispute over the nature of the contrition that Prince Charles should express for the adultery in his previous marriage ñ before he receives a Church of England blessing after his forthcoming wedding to Camilla Parker-Bowles.
The Bishop of Salisbury, the Rt Rev David Stancliffe was misleadingly reported in some of the Sunday media today as demanding a ìpublic apologyî from the Prince.
He has in fact spoken of the ìputting rightî involved in the Churchís teaching on re-marriage, so that past hurts and wrongs are appropriately faced by those seeking to move forward in love and forgiveness.
Bishop Stancliffe indicated that since marriage was a public act of commitment, the expression of contrition and the offer of Godís forgiveness involved in any Church blessing was a public matter too.
The Bishop of Lichfield, the Rt Rev Jonathan Gledhill, believes that any apology made by Prince Charles to his fiancee’s former husband before their wedding should be a private matter. ìThat’s between them. It’s nothing to do with me,î he said
But speaking on BBC Radio this evening, Ekklesia director Jonathan Bartley pointed out that it was unhelpful to confuse particular apologies to individuals in broken relationships with the practice of the Church in linking a new start to the need for repentance and forgiveness.
Mr Bartley said that to seek a Christian blessing for a marriage was to put it in a new context of Godís capacity to change and renew us. This should be the case for a Prince as much as for anyone else. It was not a matter of being ìjudgementalî but of being honest.
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles, both divorcees, are to be married in a civil ceremony on 8 April 2005. They will then attend a blessing service in St George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle conducted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams.
ìThe Church of England is in something of a mess over all this,î acknowledged Jonathan Bartley, highlighting the anomaly of the Churchís future Supreme Governor ìhaving difficulty in being married in one of his own churches.î
It would be better for all to effect a separation between Church and State, said Mr Bartley. This would ensure that people seeking Christian ceremony and support would be doing so freely, and that the Church would not have to face unfair accusations of ìimposingî ideas like confession, repentance and reconciliation on them. Instead it would have a new opportunity to witness to these as vital resources in the face of broken relationships.
In February this year Ekklesia called for moves towards the formal disestablishment of the Church of England and for an ecumenical reconsideration of church-state relations. However the Christian think-tank stressed that its case for ending the State-Church link is not based on the wedding controversy.
Explained Jonathan Bartley at the time: ìThat the Church should be subject to the Crown compromises its ability to proclaim and live the Gospel free of state interests. It inhibits equal relations with other Christian churches. It goes against the new community of equality cretaed by Jesus. And it is also inappropriate in a plural society. Faith cannot be imposed.î
The forthcoming marriage of the beleaguered Prince Charles and his fiancee has been mired in a series of seemingly unending public squabbles involving the Royal family, the Church and the media.