The centuries-old law barring the British monarch from marrying a Catholic has been scrapped, but not the rule forbidding the monarch from being a Catholic.
“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,” said British Prime Minister David Cameron as he announced the change Oct. 28.
“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 decision was made at a summit of the 16 countries that still retain the British monarch as head of state. The gathering took place in the western Australian city of Perth.
The bar on the monarchy marrying a Catholic or personally being one has been British law since the passing of the “Act of Settlement” in 1701.
“I welcome the statement from the prime minster indicating that his government, together with all of the Commonwealth heads of government, intend to reform the Act of Settlement,” said Cardinal Keith O’Brien of St. Andrews and Edinburgh, Scotland.
The cardinal previously labeled the act as “discriminatory and offensive,” which led him to say today that he is “pleased to note that the process of change, which I hope will lead to repeal of the act, has started.”
He was backed in that call by Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond, who also welcomed the lifting of the marriage ban, but said it was “deeply disappointing” that 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.
However, the president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales said he would not go as far as calling for the Act of Settlement to be entirely repealed.
“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,” said Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster, England.
He described the move as eliminating “a point of unjust discrimination” against Catholics.
“At the same time,” added Archbishop Nichols, “I fully recognize the importance of the position of the established Church in protecting and fostering the role of faith in our society today.”
Later, in an interview with BBC News, he explained that “while the Church of England is the established Church,” it is “not unreasonable to expect the head of the Church of England should be an Anglican.”
The 18th-century Act of Settlement was aimed at preventing the descendants of the Catholic King James II from ascending to the throne. He was deposed in the 1688 “Glorious Revolution” by supporters of the Protestant William and Mary. Mary was the eldest Protestant daughter of James II and was married to William of Orange, who later became William III.
The question being asked by some today is what religion the children of an Anglican-Catholic royal wedding would be raised in? The Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law (Canon 1125) only permits a mixed marriage where the Catholic party makes “a sincere promise to do all in his or her power in order that all the children be baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church.”
Archbishop Nichols said such a scenario “would be a very difficult situation indeed,” but stressed that he did not “think we should try to pre-judge” it because “it’s not even a practical possibility at the moment; it’s a theoretical possibility.”
He told BBC News that the Catholic Church’s practice of “sitting down with Catholics who are marrying outside of the Catholic community and trying to see how the marriage will develop” was “actually quite subtle” and “quite advanced.”
He explained that if and when the hypothetical case ever arose, the Church would talk to the Catholic party “about the duty and expectation of the Catholic to give their best endeavors within the unity and harmony of the marriage to bring up their children Catholic.”
But Archbishop Nichols added that having that discussion “does not guarantee that the children in every mixed marriage are brought up Catholic.”
He explained that no guarantees can be given because the non-Catholic party “is not required to give any explicit undertaking about what they will do,” while the Catholic party is only expected to do “their best.”
Jimmy Akin: Was James, not Peter, the head of the Church after Jesus?
Matthew Warner: Ask Fr. Barron: What gives you hope for future of the Church?
Comments
Post a Comment
As indicated in the article, and notwithstanding the view of Cardinal O’Brien, to change the Act of Succession is a very bad idea. Taking his reasoning further, why should there not be a Protestant ruler of Belgium or Spain, or a non-Catholic Premier of a Catholic country ? Those who object to the Act as discriminatory, and see that as a bad thing (which it is not), need to be consistent. For commments on a previous recent attempt to change the Act, see this:
*
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/5065063/Gordon-Browns-assault-on-the-traditions-of-the-monarchy-is-preposterous.html
A lot of people will - very reasonably - see this whole wretched business as an attempt at “Romanisation through the back door”, seeking to take advantage of the weaknesses of the established churches of England & Scotland - as a resort to destroying Protestantism by guile when first, force, and then, honesty, have not served. They will say that if Catholics are sincere, they cannot fail to treat Catholicism as the only truly valid religion, and that requires them - including those who are members of the Royal Family - to do their utmost to have their children brought up as Catholics. That is how people reason, for that is what they have said. The logic of the objection is unassailable. This attempt to undermine the Act lends itself very easily to this way of seeing things, especially given the recent paper from the Vatican that calls for a world government. A better means than the abolition or weakening of the Act for stirring up fear, and with it, hatred, of Catholicism can hardly be imagined. Besides, how many Catholics is this going to affect anyway ?
“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.”
*
## That is a political view of religion. Those who regard a religion as exclusively true and as Divinely revealed are sinning enormously if they ignore what they admit to be true and revealed, & marry someone whosse religion is opposed to theirs. The entire case for weakening the act is based on mere worldly calculation, and treats Christian faith as nothing better than a mere human concoction. It’s a disgrace that two Catholic archbishops, one of them a Cardinal, cannot see this. An amended Act is not worth having at such a price.
The scenario of children born to an British monarch with a Catholic partner has me puzzled.Many Mixed marriages I know the non Catholic had to sign a paper to say they would allow the children to be Catholic or the Catholic partner would not get the dispensation to marry .What gives now?It looks like the rules can be stretched whenthe people invoved are royalty
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.