England a tough sell for Church

DEAR EDITOR:

A recent letter to the editor (Herald, Sept. 17) yoked together King Charles III and the present Pope. Oh dear, what a bad misconception. Nothing at all even similar!

Admittedly, they both belong to the past history of their particular present positions, the history of which some find interesting.

The difference is mammoth: One is head of an organization largely based on family and country/commonwealth, maintaining success and well-being and being a figurehead to respect; the other is head of an organization known to be corrupt for many years and for many reasons; not just for abusing young boys, but nuns being unnecessarily brutal to kindergarten and school children, and leaving mothers to die after a complicated birth to welcome yet another little soul into their grip. All of which seems to be accepted by Rome, even now.

And, oh yes, the English monarchy did their share of bad things in the past, but not currently.

A former English monarch broke away from Rome in 1534 for more reasons than one and established the Church of England based on Protestantism. Rome had rapidly taken over most of Europe for years, and the final prize could be England and Wales.

The Pope was refused entry to England. On a lighter note, this was brilliantly played by the late Peter O’Toole in the historical television series, “The Tudors,” bringing It home to those who saw it (“You will not set one foot on here”).

So, please sort out the two very, very different personages and what and how they stand for.

Incidentally, the current senior clergyman in the Church of England Is a well-educated, happily married man with family – rarely seen in fancy ecclesiastical robes, and very approachable to anyone who meets him, not acting as if he were God and untouchable.

Marjorie M. Montgomery Penticton