Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive …
After 310 years the anti-Catholic (and technically illegal) act of settlement, which barred a British monarch from either being a Catholic or marrying one, has been amended. The British monarch can now marry a Catholic, though he or she is still not allowed to become one.
The irony, and the sick historical joke, is that the act of settlement is itself illegal because it was passed by an illegitmate revolutionary government. The true king, James II, was deposed by force by the Orwellian-named “Glorious” Revolution of 1688. The illegal and usurping government that passed the act of settlement had no contitutional right, therefore, to pass it.
And as for the Church of England, of which the usurping monarchs are titular heads, it was not founded on the rock, which is Peter, but on the adulterous loins of Henry VIII. In short, and in sum, Britain is in a right royal mess of its own meritricious making.
The saddest part of the news surrounding the amendment to the act is the flaccid and facile response of the head of the Catholic hierarchy in England. Achbishop Vincent Nichols appears to know only one commandment: thou shalt not be impolite. He has shown consistently throughout his ecclesial career that he is much more concerned with being accepted in polite (apostate) company than in teaching the Faith with courage and candour. So be it. No doubt he will have his reward.
I am reminded of the “glorious” founding of the Anglican Church, of which the “Glorious” Revolution was but one of many numerous disastrous consequences. In the wake of Henry VIII’s apostasy on behalf of the whole nation, only one English bishop had the courage to be impolite in defying the King and his cohorts. That bishop was John Fisher. He received his earthly reward in the form of his public execution for “treason”. He also received his heavenly reward, as was confirmed by his subsequent canonization.
One wonders where the souls of his contemporary bishops currently reside.
I am aware that the foregoing will be considered very impolite in my native land. I’m not expecting an invitation to have afternoon tea with Archbishop Nichols any time soon. Tea with this particular archbishop is not a reward that I particularly seek. I’m happy for the Archbishop to have tea with Tony Blair, who celebrated his reception into the Catholic Church by lecturing the Pope on how the Holy Father did not understand Catholic teaching.
One final thought …
Today is the Feast Day of St. Cuthbert Mayne, one of the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales, whose collective Feast was celebrated last Tuesday. Like St. John Fisher, Mayne was executed for his “treasonable” impoliteness, being hanged, drawn and quartered in 1577. Please God, and in spite of my Bellocian bellicosity and its purgatorial consequences, I hope to share St Cuthbert Mayne’s heavenly reward when I die. Supping ambrosial wine with the saints seems infinitely preferable to tea with the Archbishop.
Those interested in reading more about the amendment of the act of settlement, should follow this link: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/british-monarch-can-now-marry-a-catholic-but-cannot-be-one/
My friend (of Irish and Indian descent–so he follows these things!) had this imaginary conversation run through his head on reading the announcement:
Suppose the king marries a Catholic…
“So, dad, I’ve been thinking, and I want to be Catholic.”
“‘Fraid not, darling; it’s against the law for you to be Catholic.”
“But MOM’S Catholic!”
“Yes, well, your mother’s a special case. You see, you’re royalty, and royalty has duties–”
“–Duties to what? To make Anglican babies and violate their conscience? To secretly be Catholic while professing Anglicanism?!”
“Be silent!”
“Or what, you’ll throw me in the tower? Have me beheaded? Maybe I’ll run away from home, wouldn’t THAT be a story? ‘Princess of England, discovered in Rome, hiding under the asylum of the Vatican government’?!”
‘Nuff said.
That an English monarch can now marry a Catholic but not BE one is only a new expression of English anti-Catholicism. I guess they felt they needed to hate anew–it’s been a long time now.
Nichols is nauseating.
But, you know–it’s like this: It doesn’t matter. Because (a) religion doesn’t matter to the English any more, anyway, and (b) neither does the monarchy.
I have so many thoughts on this subject, I do not know where to start! I guess the most prominent one, is of a man who could have been England’s king, but walked away, to marry a divorcee. Can God grant the grace to a Royal to love and to chose the fullness of Truth, and the daily graces to follow Jesus as he asked us to follow? The answer is, yes, of course. And, we need a more outspoken, just and inspired teacher in the Archbishop, (or any priest) — in truth, we know what to do. Love them, pray for them, and ask for blessings upon them — offering reparations, and your hopes to God — pray to England’s Saints to intercede for the people who no longer care about religion, or even who is ruler over them. and those thoughts — lead to ones of sorrow, and to hope in Divine Mercy, for the floodgates must surely be near to bursting. How many more prayers and pleadings will it take to open them?
Dear Cheryl,
The archbishop’s comments are “politically correct”; in substance, they do no harm to Catholics, but in consequence, they harm Catholics everywhere, not just in England. For that reason, they are profoundly offensive to me as an American Catholic.
The Act of Settlement, which prohibited any English monarch–or anyone in the line of succession–from being a Catholic, also offends Catholics everywhere for the same reason. In consequence, however, it has harmed only England and its monarchical system by denying the laws of succession, which, after all, is what makes a monarchy a monarchy–constitutional or otherwise.
Their monarchy thereby became not only false but meaningless. The family that now occupies the throne is “royal” only by Parliament’s game of “let’s pretend”. I’m not English, but if I were, it would be obvious to me that both the “royal” family and the parliamentary act that created “let’s pretend” would have to go.
If I were English, I’d have two options: I’d either be seriously angry or I’d have to dismiss the whole idea of taking the monarchy seriously. Most of the English have chosen the latter option. The monarchy only serves now to role-play in their “let’s pretend” game when they choose to play it, as they do with “royal” weddings and such, and to feed their incredibly voracious appetite for celebrity scandal, as in the “royal” divorces.
But people everywhere who identify themselves as “monarchists” have to revile the English state of affairs.
As for the Windsor family, whether their conduct is good or bad, they can only be objects of sympathy, stuck as they are in fulfilling the use they must serve as objects of England’s projection of its shallow self-love. When their conduct is good, England feels justified in loving itself; when their conduct is bad, England is angry because “royal” misbehavior is not facilitating that self-love.
As an American, I’m not supposed to care about all this one way or the other, but, as I said, all Catholics everywhere have to care about the shameful anti-Catholicism built into England’s laws.
Also, as an American, I’m not supposed to be a monarchist, but the history of the real royal family makes me one. In the centuries since their enforced exile, the fidelity of the royal family to the Church has not wavered. King Francis is a model of that which is most noble in human nature. That’s what a king should be–not an object of nationalistic self-love. He inspires humility and charity–not self-love. Ergo, I’m a monarchist BECAUSE I’m a Jacobite, not the other way around. King Francis would have my allegiance if he wanted it. He gives meaning to the phrase “God’s anointed.”
Dear Cheryl,
I didn’t miss your point about hope–I’m afraid it’s worse than that: I overlooked it. And indeed, yours is the only valid response to the tragedy.
Dear Dena,
Thank you for writing — I did say that I had so many thoughts that I did not know where to start; and after I signed off, I wondered if there was anyone of the royal lineage to James II — so it is great to hear an answer to that, and that he is living up to being “God’s Anointed”. But, as an American Catholic who does see the Church as Universal, and even with being raised Lutheran, to have an understanding of the worth of valid baptisms, — you seem to have missed my point regarding Hope, and the actions we can do in regard to it. You said that you thought English Catholics have two options, anger and ignoring — which cannot be true, because both are negative. If the legitimate heir truely inspires humility and charity — then why not take them to action — in the manner and form I suggested? Again thank you for letting me know there was an alternative to England’s throne, I love History, I’m just not neccessarily up on current events — I hope you don’t mind a friendly exhortation for prayer, and penance , and saintly intercession.