The Archbishop of Westminster issued the following statement:
“I welcome the decision of Her Majesty's Government to give heirs to the throne the freedom to marry a Catholic without being removed from the line of succession. This will eliminate a point of unjust discrimination against Catholics and will be welcomed not only by Catholics but far more widely.”
“At the same time I fully recognise the importance of the position of the Established Church in protecting and fostering the role of faith in our society today.”
On the face of it this seems like progress. But I'm not so sure.
The Archbishop's statement contains within it the problem: can a monarch marry a Catholic and still take an oath to uphold the Protestant religion? Will the Catholic consort be dispensed by the Catholic Church from the obligations required by Canon Law under normal circumstances in a mixed marriage:
Can. 1125 The local ordinary can grant a permission of this kind [i.e. for a Catholic to marry a baptised non-Catholic] if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions have been fulfilled:
1/ the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church;
2/ the other party is to be informed at an appropriate time about the promises which the Catholic party is to make, in such a way that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party;
3/ both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage which neither of the contracting parties is to exclude.
It is obvious that any children would have to be brought up in the Church of England since they would have a place in the line of succession and would be potential monarchs who would have to pledge to uphold the Protestant Religion. The establishment of the Church of England depends on this.
Any member of the Royal Family who converted to Catholicism would still have to renounce his/her right to the throne.
I happen to have a high regard for the Royal Family but I wonder if this attempt to make the Royal Family "relevant" will actually result in them becoming irrelevant and, eventually, to the disestablishment of the Church of England.
From the BBC:
On scrapping the ban on future monarchs marrying Roman Catholics, Mr Cameron said: "Let me be clear, the monarch must be in communion with the Church of England because he or she is the head of that Church. But it is simply wrong they should be denied the chance to marry a Catholic if they wish to do so. After all, they are already quite free to marry someone of any other faith."
The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, said the elimination of the "unjust discrimination" against Catholics would be widely welcomed.
"At the same time I fully recognise the importance of the position of the established church [the Church of England] in protecting and fostering the role of faith in our society today," he said.
Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond also welcomed the lifting of the ban but said it was "deeply disappointing" that Roman Catholics were still unable to ascend to the throne.
"It surely would have been possible to find a mechanism which would have protected the status of the Church of England without keeping in place an unjustifiable barrier on the grounds of religion in terms of the monarchy," he said.
"It is a missed opportunity not to ensure equality of all faiths when it comes to the issue of who can be head of state."
Mr Salmond's observation also has its problems: if every Act passed by Parliament requires the monarch's signature to become law, would a Catholic monarch refuse to sign into law Acts that are contrary to the moral law? Or would they do a Juan Carlos?
This is a complete irrelevance. Archbishop Nichols does not speak for this Catholic in this matter. Mr Cameron appears to be casting around for legislative matters - consider also "gay marriage" and changing the clocks - in order to distract attention from his inability to sort out the serious economic problems which are the concern of all citizens.
ReplyDeleteIt strikes me as an exercise in political 'box ticking' for as you point out there would still be major issues regarding the children of the marriage and the prospective role of an heir as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand what about the case of HRH Princess Michael? Her marriage, and agreement that her children would be Anglican, was eventually regularised by Rome. Could that be a precedent?
"At the same time I fully recognise the importance of the position of the established church [the Church of England] in protecting and fostering the role of faith in our society today,"
ReplyDeleteWhat importance? The C of E abdicated any credible position on Christianity years ago. Only someone as ignorant as Archbishop Nichols would fail to recognise that. But then, His Grace constantly fails to recognise the position and responsibility of the Catholic Church in this nation. Mr. Salmond got it right! If I were not taking time out from blogging, though not from commenting, I would have posted a devastating article on Archbishop Nichols!
Do, Father, write!
ReplyDeleteI am no constitutional expert but isn't the monarchy founded on the establishment of the CofE? If the monarch can be Catholic, there ends the CofE (which may or may not be a bad thing), and what then is the role of the monarchy? If a Catholic King/Queen will refuse to sign immoral Acts of Parliament, there will be a constitutional crisis. If the requirement for him/her to sign is removed, then he/she is literally a figurehead with no sovereign power. Either England (and the other nations over which the monarch has sovereign authority) must become Catholic again or the monarchy will disappear. At least now it is relevant. Tinkering (which is all this is) is going to make it irrelevant.
Father, Lead me not into temptation!
ReplyDeleteCast Iron Cameron has now destroyed the monarchy, which of itself is anti equality.
ReplyDeleteSteve
I just don't see how this works without disestablishing the CofE as the established church. I don't think Catholics marrying protestants should be free from not baptizing the children Catholic 2) what Catholic would *want* to be head of the CofE? 3) the problem you mentioned re; the monarch being required to sign all law, and what if the law is immoral and 4) even if the head of the CofE becomes archbishop of Cant.,; what about the coronation ceremonies themselves? Those would have to change too. Cosmetic changes that would do more harm than good. Only thing were it wouldn't 'affect' something is say, for instance, a monarch's spouse were to die, and he/she already has protestant heirs...then on the 2nd marriage it's to a Catholic, who is well past the age of childbearing....
ReplyDelete--Karen gemoftheocean
Just a query, but why is it that it seems as if the English are inching ever more towards a more authentic Catholicism, while America seems to be drifting away... ?
ReplyDelete”Either England (and the other nations over which the monarch has sovereign authority) must become Catholic again…”
ReplyDeleteYes! As the Italians say Father: “From your mouth to God’s ear!”
There is a precedent: the protestant heir of the dutch throne was authorized to marry a Catholic. The Catholic Church gave her a dispenses so as to marry a protestant AND PERMIT HER CHILDREN TO BE RAISED IN THE REFORMED RELIGION. If the royal children were to be Catholic, the dutch parliament wouldn't have given its consent to the marriage.
ReplyDeleteJoseph K @ Defend Us In Battle said...
ReplyDeleteJust a query, but why is it that it seems as if the English are inching ever more towards a more authentic Catholicism, while America seems to be drifting away... ?
Actually, what the English seem to be inching ever more towards is no religion at all. Which is probably why the bishops of England and Wales are taking steps to try to recapture a Catholic identity.
How did the Monarchy manage to be head of the Church of England? The whole thing was founded on a farce introduced by Henry VIII, that the Kings of Israel were the `anointed` of God and therefore ruler of the Church. It ignored the priests of the time such as Samuel, who very much were not subject to the King in religious matters but chose the Kings and taught them. Henry`s actions gave rise to the `Divine Right of Kings` and the bloody Civil War. The State is ruled by Caesar, but the Church is ruled by God
ReplyDeleteThe real issue for Catholics, who recognise the huge value of the monarchy and the example of a Queen who takes her religion seriously, is why we can't go the whole way and let the Monarch choose. While there is no likelihood of a conversion of the heir to the throne, we should give our sovereign freedom to choose. After all the C of E has managed to deal with a 'head of the church' who was a Catholic, a Dutch Reformed, and a Lutheran. Frederick Oakeley
ReplyDeleteJust give the monarch the right to choose to be a Catholic. The C of E has managed with a Catholc, a Lutheran, and a Dutch Reformed King as head of the church. As we know it is infinitely flexible on these matters!
ReplyDelete