Prince, Church and State
John Grigg
Enoch Powell's recent speech threatening dire consequences if the Prince of Wales were to marry a Roman Catholic caused SO much huffing and puffing that the one really important question arising from it went largely undiscussed. That question, surely, is whether or not Christianity Should remain the established religion in Britain, through the monarch's titular leadership of the (Anglican) Church of England and (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland. Is it still appropriate for the Monarchy to symbolise the Christian, though Protestant, character of the British State, or is it now time for the country to become as secular in form as it seems to be in fact?
Commenting on Mr Powell's speech a Vatican official said: 'Mischief-making remarks like this are hopelessly outdated now that the different Christian churches are trying to draw closer together'. But the Vatican loses no opportunity of showing that reunion has to be on its own terms. To quote the official further: 'She [the Prince of Wales's Roman Catholic bride] would have to give a verbal or written promise that she would do all in ,her power to preserve her own religious faith and to try to ensure that any children of the marriage would be brought 141) as Catholics'. Since no girl marrying the Prince would be allowed to give that Pledge, the Pope could not give the marriage his blessing. So unless the law were changed — as, in the official's view, it ought to be — the marriage could not take Place.
Lord Hailsham, a leading Anglican layman, supported the idea of changing the 1, and proposed that the issue and proposed that the issue should be settled by referendum. Public believed was crucial, he said, and he nelieved that 'it would surprise Mr Pow ell'. So indeed it might, but there is also a possibility that it might surprise Lord Hailsham, if his plebiscitary suggestion were acted on. (Now, as before the first world war, some Tories are showing themselves rather shaky in their allegiance to Parliamentary government). Forty-two years ago the organic link between Church and State obstructed the marriage of Prince Charles's great-uncle, not to a Roman Catholic but to a divorced woman. The issue then was immediate and practical, not hypothetical, because Edward was already King. But it is interesting to speculate what would have happened if he had raised the issue before his father's death, while he was still Prince of Wales and heir apparent.
Suppose he had given notice of his willingness, not to say eagerness, to serve as King of the United Kingdom and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, and as Emperor of India, should he survive his father — but not as Defender of the Faith. Suppose he had asked to be released in advance from the obligation to assume the nominal leadership of churches whose doctrines he could not, in conscience, accept, on the understanding that if Parliament would not release him he would disclaim his rights of succession. What would have been the reaction of Quintin Hogg (as he then was) to such a challenge? Would he have proposed a referendum?
And if there had been a referendum, how would the people have voted? Of course we can never know. The Prince was extremely popular, and even then may were disposed to question the Church's teaching on marriage. Undoubtedly there would have been at least a substantial faction demanding that he should be free to marry the woman of his choice, without being thereby compelled to forfeit his right to inherit the Crown. If there had been a sufficiently powerful upsurge of support for him, it might have seemed necessary for Parliament to legis late, then and there, for the separation of Church and State. And if that had happened Prince Charles (ironically) would now be free to marry a Roman Catholic.
The issue raised by Mr Powell is essentially the same as that which led to the abdication of Edward VIII. Granted the absolutist claims of the Papacy and the present requirements of the British Con stitution, the case against a Roman Catholic marriage by the heir to the throne is one of conscience as well as law. As things now are, it would be quite wrong for a Catholic to be placed in the false position of either betraying her own form of Christianity or subverting Britain's.
But is Britain really Christian at all? Is the 'spiritual' side of our Constitution anything but a mockery nowadays? On a strict definition of the term, Christianity would seem to have been abandoned by most British people. Unfortunately most of the churches insist upon defining the term narrowly, including the Church of England, which has been making desperate (and unrequited) efforts to achieve formal reunion with Rome. But is it right that our interpretation of Christianity should be restricted to a jumble of complex doctrines and observances? Might it not be said that, on a common-sense view, Britain is a Christian country, which has been abandoned by the churches rather than vice versa?.
For some time past Parliament has been allowing its ultimate responsibility in Church matters to be eroded in favour of a body of clerics and Church activists. (This process is analogous to the way moderate Labour leaders have succumbed to pressure from Socialists of the 'Clause Four' variety). As a result, we have the spectacle of female ordination — a long-overdue and eminently Christian reform — blocked by a majority of clergy men in the Church of England's General Synod, while Parliament sits idly by.
People have been brainwashed into believing that unless they accept suchand-such doctrines and go through suchand-such motions they have no right to call themselves Christians. But one of the tests of a great religion is its capacity to evolve, and to provide continuing inspiration in circumstances which its early members, even its founder, could never have imagined. The Catholic tradition within the Church, which calls for obedience to the institution rather than to the Bible or to any immutable authority, is precious because it enables change to occur. But is the institution to be an autocracy, an oligarchy or a democracy?
It may be too late to arrest the trend towards disestablishment, which would mean the formal de-Christianisation of Britain. It may be too late to reassert the lay control of our national church, of which the monarchy's association with it is a symbol. But so long as there is any chance of avoiding a separation, we Should beware of sloppy-minded arguments in favour of changing the law.
Christianity is too important to be left to clergymen.
Previous page
