Monachy, Gender and Religion

The UK government has recently come to realise that the Act of Settlement, governing the rules of succession, is a terribly prejudiced and out-dated document. Well, derr!
So, instead of doing the sensible thing and just getting rid of the monarchy altogether, they're thinking of allowing the oldest child to succeed, regardless of sex. Really, is that it? Surely they're not going to change the rules for all those peerages that use a similar rule. (That would be almost impossible as the rules of succession for each peerage are set down in letters patent for each creation. And it doesn't matter at all any more because peers have no power.)
This is relevant outside the UK because, if Westminster passes this law, they're going to ask all the other Commonwealth monarchies to pass the same law (so that William and Kate don't end up with a daughter who is queen of the UK and a son who is king of Canada and Australia). But, as far as I've heard, the Poms aren't considering taking out any of the religious rules and asking the Australian and Kiwi PMs to sign off on a law requiring that someone be a member of the CofE and never marry a Papist seems a bit suss. It might even be against Australia's constitution. The most sensible solution would just be to become a republic and I'm hoping increased scrutiny of these rules will incline more Australians to see it that way too.
But assuming we don't get rid of the monarchy, what would we have to do to make it religiously acceptable? Why was it they included all the clauses banning Catholics (and those married to Catholics)? Enoch Powell, whose views on most other matters are thoroughly reprehensible, thought there was a pretty good reason:

When Thomas Hobbes wrote that "the Papacy is no other than the ghost of the deceased Roman Empire sitting crowned upon the grave thereof", he was promulgating an enormously important truth. Authority in the Roman Church is the exertion of that imperium from which England in the 16th century finally and decisively declared its national independence as the alter imperium, the "other empire", of which Henry VIII declared "This realm of England is an empire" ... It would signal the beginning of the end of the British monarchy. It would portend the eventual surrender of everything that has made us, and keeps us still, a nation.

There could be a grain of truth here. Not many twenty-first century Catholics heed the pope the way they did in the eighteenth century (or even in JFK's generation) but the monarchy is not about how things actually work, just about how they could happen in extreme situations. The reason why no one wants to introduce the guillotine is because all the British monarchs since William IV have behaved themselves and acted on the advice of their PMs. As good little Anglicans, they believe that only God is above them and so there isn't really any devil on the other shoulder to tell them to ignore the PM. But a Catholic monarch might be tempted to veto bills on abortion, contraception, etc.
Obviously I'd like to see them get rid of the bit that requires communion with the CofE. (I'm surprised that the UK still hasn't disestablished, Scandinavian countries have done it already.) And clearly an atheist monarch would have a similar, if not better, relationship with parliament. But if the goal is to open this up to as many people as possible, then we should probably say that the monarchy is open to people of any religious persuasion so long as they don't have any pontiff lording it over them. So Baptists, yes; Catholics, no. Sunnis, yes; Shi'ites, no. What could be more reasonable? (Only a republic.)

20th May 2011
This is why I'm right:

Representative Dale E. Kildee, an anti-abortion Democrat from Michigan who decided this week to support the Senate bill, said: “I will be 81 years old in September. Certainly at this point in my life, I’m not going to change my mind and support abortion, and I’m not going to risk my eternal salvation.”

French Catholicism

They say that Catholicism as practised in France is a bit more permissive than elsewhere, e.g. Ireland. Combined with the fact that most of them are only nominally Catholic (like so many Australians), the actual image of religious dogma that you hear from French agnostics can be a little unorthodox. On the nature of the trinity:

C'est toujours au bébé Jesus qu'on prie. Parce que p'tit Jesus, d'accord ; Dieu, il met la lumière sur le berceau du bébé... Mais on ne prie pas au grand dadais qui s'est tapé Marianne.

And her interpretation of the issue of monophysitism vs dyophysitism:

It's like being an angel, when they get a kicked in the butt, they're put back into human form. It's a big disappointment for their families that they're not angels any more. Same for God.