The Irish National Caucus campaign to force the
British Government and the Queen of England to repeal
the sectarian and anti-Catholic section of The Act
of Settlement, 1701, has evoked a considerable response.
(To remind our readers: that provision mandates
that the heir to the British Crown must be Protestant
and that if he/she becomes Catholic, or marries
a Catholic, then he/she must forfeit the Throne,
and -- I kid you not -- "the people are absolved
of their allegiance". So if the universally
esteemed Queen Elizabeth II felt conscience-bound
to convert to Catholicism, she would have to renounce
the Throne. And, yes, that's right, we are speaking
of today, 2005, not 1701).
The
reactions to our campaign can be broken into three
categories:
Irish-Americans
sympathetic to equality, justice and peace in Ireland
Some
Irish-Americans are amazed that such a law still
exists in modern British society (many, of course,
know of it as the Irish National Caucus first launched
its campaign about this way back in 1980). But the
reaction of some, at first, is to laugh at the silliness
of such a law, until they reflect that it would
be similar to the US Constitution having a provision
to outlaw an African-American becoming president
or marrying a Black person. And, if the president
were to marry a Black person, his/her election would
be declared null and void by the constitution.
And then they realize just how much such a racist
law would have fanned the fires of white racism
in the United States, providing justification and
affirmation to White racists, segregationists, the
White Citizens Councils and the Ku Klux Klan? (*See
note blow on the KKK). Now, never mind the non sequitur
that some have raised, namely, that in fact it would
have been -- granting the attitude and the demographics
-- impossible in the past for a Black person to
have become president, anyway. That is not the point.
The point is that it would have been absolutely
abhorrent to have such a racist provision in the
Constitution -- and only the whacko and racist American
would defend it.
Supporters
of the sectarian and anti-Catholic provision
(a)
Some have raised the issue of Ne Temere, the Papal
Decree of 1908. Here it should be pointed out that
there has been a change in Catholic teaching, which
I greatly welcome: "Although Catholics in a
mixed or interfaith marriage must still promise
to do all they can to raise the children Catholic,
non-Catholics are no longer required to make such
a promise" (Marriage. Encyclopedia of Catholicism,
Harper Collins, New York. 1995, page 828).
But
even if that section of Ne Temere were still in
force it is simply not comparable to the sectarian
and anti-Catholic provision in the Act of Settlement.
Church law in a secular society, to state the obvious,
is not the law of the land. So, for example, if
Catholic President John F. Kennedy had divorced
and remarried a Protestant, he would not have been
able to receive Holy Communion at Mass, but he would
not -- for goodness sake -- have been forced to
resign the Presidency. Church law is hugely different
from a country's Constitution.
(b)
Some have raised the issue that the Queen is not
only head of State, but also head of the Church
of England. Well, for starters, that is simply another
reason why Church and State should be separate,
as in America. That was one of the great ideas of
the Founding Fathers, who were aware from their
knowledge of the English system how discriminatory
and sectarian the concept and practice of an Established
Church is.
Those
who want to dismiss the whole issue as irrelevant
(a)
No part of a "constitution" can be considered
irrelevant. (I realize the British do not have a
written Constitution, which further means all rights
can be suspended). But if the anti-Catholic provision
of the Act of Settlement is irrelevant why not change
it? Why oppose change? And if it is not relevant,
why is the Guardian Newspaper leading a campaign
to repeal the sectarian and anti-Catholic provision
and why is it supported by the Attorney General
of England, 72 MPs and 35 peers, Cardinal Cormac
Murphy-O'Connor of England, Cardinal O'Brien of
Scotland?
The
sectarian anti-Catholic provision in the Act of
Settlement may not mean much to the average Englishman/woman
in the street, but it has always been of great importance
to the extreme Protestants/unionists/Orangemen of
Northern Ireland.
This
provision provides the "theological",
philosophical, political and cultural "justification"
for their belief that Catholics should not be treated
as equals. For you see, if the very top law in England,
the Queen's own law, says Catholics can be discriminated
against, then it's okay to discriminate against
them in Northern Ireland. That's the deadly logic.
Dr
Paisley, for instance, is on record of stressing
that his allegiance is not just to the British monarch
but also to "Protestant succession to the British
throne".
Furthermore,
back in 1980 -- before Prince Charles married Princess
Diana -- there was speculation that he might marry
a Catholic. So a Protestant/Unionist/Orange delegation
was promptly dispatched from Northern Ireland to
London to ward off this calamitous possibility.
The Washington Star explained it in the following
way:
The
tragedy of all this is that true Protestantism is
supposed to stand for freedom of religion, freedom
of conscience and freedom of thought. I believe
the Unionist/Orange extremists of Northern Ireland
need a good dose of true Protestantism -- as, indeed,
I believe every good Catholic needs a good dose
of true Protestantism. "Here I stand, I can
do no other," as Martin Luther put it. These
ecumenical sentiments are particularly apt as Reformation
Sunday (the Sunday nearest October 31) is Sunday,
October 30, 2005.
Cicero
once said: "Fundamentum iustitiae est fides"
(the foundation of justice is good faith). I call
on all good Protestants to show their good faith
and join the Irish National Caucus in calling for
the abolition of the sectarian and anti-Catholic
section of the Act of Settlement.
But
remember, the buck stops with the British Government
and the Queen of England -- it was not the Orangemen
who passed the Act of Settlement, 1701.
LBJ's words of Wisdom
On
August 6, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed
the Voting Rights Act (which, coupled with the Civil
Rights Act 1964, did for African-Americans, morally
speaking, what the Good Friday Agreement did for
Catholics in Northern Ireland). To his fellow southerners,
the president made a memorable plea, which to some
degree is applicable to the Protestants/Unionists/Orangemen
of Northern Ireland (although I know it has been
said that "every parallel limps," and
that "all comparisons are odious"):
Let
us all commit us to nonviolence, equality, justice
and peace. Let us work for justice and pray for
peace in Ireland. God bless America and God save
Ireland.
* Note on Ku Klux Klan (KKK). It
is important, here, to remember that the three targets
of the KKK are: Catholics, Jews and Blacks. "The
modern Klan was revived in Atlanta, on October 16,
1915, by William J. Simmons. By the beginning of
1921, anti-Catholicism had emerged as the most effective
rallying cry." (Anti-Catholicism in America:
the last acceptable prejudice", Mark S. Massa,
S.J., The Crossroad Publishing Company. New York.
2003). Noted historian Arthur Schlesinger has termed
anti-Catholicism as "the deepest bias in the
history of the American people".
