Friday, April 29, 2011
The Catholic Who Would Be King
Mike has a really nice post below criticizing the refusal of the Church of England to overturn the 1701 law which prohibits an heir from marrying a Catholic. I appreciate the sentiment very much -- it seems, somehow, wrong that Catholics are discriminated against in this way. It seems unfair, unequal. I don't share the view that there is something inherently wrong with established churches writ large (though of course I think there is something wrong with them in this country), but I think Mike rightly laments the regrettable anti-Catholic "vestiges" of the Anglican Church.
But whatever one may say about the 1701 law's beginnings, maybe today the law is just fine. Given the cultural history of the Anglican Church, I think it would be quite wrong for a Catholic to want to be head of the Church of England, or married to the head. To assume that position would be to ignore the history of the Anglican Church, and all that it meant for Catholicism in England, just for the sake of gaining a kind of formally equal footing with everyone else. As a Catholic, I'm delighted to be unequal, discriminated against, on this ground. I have no business there. It isn't only that this isn't the sort of discrimination that ought to be concerning. More than that, this sort of discrimination and inequality -- today -- may well be a positive good. It is a reminder and reinforcement of cultural, historical, and religious difference and separateness.
Equalization here would disturb that difference in a way that, to put the matter perhaps slightly bluntly, is a betrayal of the past. If this law prevents the Catholic who would be king from even considering it, might we not say, 'so much the better'?
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2011/04/the-catholic-who-would-be-king.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
Much better for Catholics in Britain to focus on wielding political power where it really counts--in Parliament.* Besides, given the huge problems (e.g, schism or possible implosion)the Archbishop of Canterbury faces within his own ranks, there may be no (or a much diminished) Church of England for the sovereign to be head of. Nevertheless, it is interesting how a church founded in large part to accommodate Henry VIII's desire for a divorce still intersects with Catholicism, even if in an attenuated way. Camilla Parker Bowles, wife of the heir apparent, was originally married to a Catholic, Andrew Parker Bowles. I believe their children were raised as Catholics. Because Camilla was a divorcee, Charles could not marry her in a religious ceremony. Instead, they had a civil marriage (not attended by the Queen) that was later blessed, if I remember correctly, in a private ceremony in the side chapel of a cathedral. Hardly the way for the future head of the Church of England to display his C of E bona fides.
*It's somewhat ironic that one of the parliamentary leaders pushing for repeal or modification of the 1701 law is Deputy PM Nick Clegg. whi self-identifies as an atheist. He is, however, married to a Catholic, and their children are being raised as Catholics.