Not to Be Served , but to Serve.

What is your authority for saying that the church would not employ a cleric with Charles’s marital background?

Smileless2012

Charles is not employed by the C of E Glorianny so disciplinary guidelines for members of the clergy do not apply. Our minister is married to her second husband and was divorced when she became ordained.

If a member of the clergy is dismissed due to misconduct, that does not mean they haven't been forgiven. God forgives, not the institution of the church.

Of course there are divorced and remarried clergy. However as previously posted Charles could not be married in the church because of the involvement of Camilla in the breakdown of his first marriage. Which is a No-no for the church.
They have both apparently been forgiven.
But the church would not accept someone with the same background as clergy. So forgiveness is selective.

Charles' role is one of a figure head. He formerly appoints high ranking members of the church, on the advice of the PM who will have been advised by the Crown Nominations Commission.

That is the extent of his role and influence.

Charles is not employed by the C of E Glorianny so disciplinary guidelines for members of the clergy do not apply. Our minister is married to her second husband and was divorced when she became ordained.

If a member of the clergy is dismissed due to misconduct, that does not mean they haven't been forgiven. God forgives, not the institution of the church.

eazybee

Charles was not Head of the Church when he sinned, so he has not been permitted to remain.

That's true eazybee
I think though that the same rules would apply to the appointment of clergy who were remarried to someone involved in the break up of their first marriage. They would not be forgiven and would not be able to become a vicar, but are apparently able to become head of the church. Which isn't as far as I can see equal forgiveness for equal sins but special treatment for Princes

Everyone sins. Everyone can seek forgiveness.

Charles was not Head of the Church when he sinned, so he has not been permitted to remain.

Yes. Annie would say rock bottom …

Glorianny

Of course anyone can sin, but shouldn't the concept of forgiveness apply equally across the church? Why should the clergy be dismissed for actions similar to those of Charles, but he be forgiven and permitted to remain as head of the church?

Glorianny, this looks like one of your famous diversions.
🤣🤣🤣

Of course anyone can sin, but shouldn't the concept of forgiveness apply equally across the church? Why should the clergy be dismissed for actions similar to those of Charles, but he be forgiven and permitted to remain as head of the church?

Thank you NanaDana.

Bizziebe

The Pope is infallible.

The Catholic dogma related to Papal infallibility is limited to the occasions when he is pronouncing on the Doctrine of the Church. It does not extend to his general behaviour, and most certainly does not mean that he cannot sin. Essentially, he remains a potentially fallible human being, even in the eyes of his own Church. His confession is regularly heard by sundry Catholic priests, often after major Church services such as the annual Lenten Penitential Festival.

oops. Didnt read the post above one, from Smileless2012

The Pope is not infallible.
All people sin. Sometimes we dont even know we have.

No one is infallible.

The Pope is infallible.

Your post @ 18.26 was about rules that apply to the clergy Glorianny. The role of the clergy is vastly different to the role of the head of the Church of England.

As Supreme Governor and Defender of the Faith, it is not Charles' role to preach the word of God. Standards are equally applied to all and it's because we are all fallible that Christians need and seek God's forgiveness.

As Jesus said 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'.

Smileless2012

What do the rules for the clergy have to do with this discussion? Charles isn't a member of the clergy.

Charles is head of the church, Supreme Governor to be exact. Surely standards should be applied equally to all ?

What do the rules for the clergy have to do with this discussion? Charles isn't a member of the clergy.

Mollygo

Oh I see. It doesn’t suit you, so it’s wrong. That’s OK then.
The teachings of the church have changed over the years. It is no longer necessary to remain in a marriage where one or both parties are unhappy.

I don't think that has been said by anyone. There are however certain restrictions on re-marriage in the C of E. which are dealt with earlier.

Oh I see. It doesn’t suit you, so it’s wrong. That’s OK then.
The teachings of the church have changed over the years. It is no longer necessary to remain in a marriage where one or both parties are unhappy.

I think you just have to read the thread Mollygo As far as I'm concerned it is a theoretical discussion about someone who is head of the C of E, how his actions have conflicted with that role and if it is compatible with the teaching of the church.
I think you questioned me about my beliefs and I answered.

It is quite interesting that one of the rules for C of E clergy is that they should have the highest moral standards and vicars who commit adultery are suspended or dismissed.

I'm a Christian but the more I read this thread the more confused I am becoming.

So whose beliefs are you talking about, if not yours Glorianny?
You said Oh I believe in forgiveness then went on to make statements about people who have done you no harm, whose personal beliefs and practices you know nothing about, except what you have read in the media.
So what sort of forgiveness are you talking about?

Mollygo

Excellent post NanaDana

Glorianny

Oh I believe in forgiveness (as long as it’s on my terms).
There is no limit on God’s forgiveness. If you want to be stingier than that, and hold a grudge against someone who hasn’t harmed you, so be it.

Weird how some people think criticism necessarily involves holding a grudge or hating someone.

As I said my personal beliefs have little to do with the matter