| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Catholic Emancipation Act | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Friday, 18. May 2007, 17:27 (291 Views) | |
| Rose of York | Friday, 18. May 2007, 17:27 Post #1 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Can a Catholic be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? Link to Press Article Opinion appears to be divided. According to the Daily Mail, the Catholic Emancipation Act states that no Catholic adviser to the monarch may hold civil or military office. I have yet to hear that Catholics are barred from being Field Marshals, Admirals of the Fleet, Marshall of the Royal Air Force, or heads of the Civil Service. Political parties have elected Catholics as their leaders. Don't take everything in the papers with a pinch of salt. The Daily Mail reports that if Mr Blair is to convert formally, he will have to undergo a course of instruction, which is likely to be conducted by Father Seed, also that to be received officially into the Church, he will be expected to take part in a service of baptism, followed by confirmation and Holy Communion. Rubbish! He is currently a member of the Church of England so presumably, he has been baptised. Convert formally? Is there another way? Received officially? Can a person be received into The Church unofficially? |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| newminster | Friday, 18. May 2007, 21:48 Post #2 |
|
Unregistered
|
[Roman Catholic Relief Act (10 George IV, c. 7), 1829] It has been a longstanding urban myth that Roman Catholics are not allowed to become Prime Minister. Whether until recent times it would have been politically acceptable is another matter. In practical terms the only two posts which a Roman Catholic may not hold are those of Monarch and Lord Chancellor. The post of Lord Keeper of the Great Seal has been combined with that of Lord Chancellor since 1068. It is interesting to note (for those who find it interesting to note such things) that the Duke of Norfolk, head of one of England's most prominent recusant families, the Howards or Fitzalan-Howards, holds the title of Hereditary Earl Marshal of England. Work that one out! |
|
|
| Quicunque vult | Friday, 18. May 2007, 23:09 Post #3 |
|
I don't think any Catholic should be prepared to serve as Prime Minister unless there was a realistic prospect of Parliament repealing the Abortion Act, the civil partnerships legislation, the Sexual Orientation Regulations and prohibiting research on embryos. QV |
![]() |
|
| newminster | Friday, 18. May 2007, 23:16 Post #4 |
|
Unregistered
|
Sorry, old pal, that's a cop out! How are you going to get all these things repealed without a Catholic influence at the top? And I seem to remember the injunction was to fight the good fight; nobody said we always had to win. One thing's for sure, though. You're not going to win if you're not on the pitch. |
|
|
| Quicunque vult | Saturday, 19. May 2007, 00:02 Post #5 |
|
newminster wrote:
Not saying we shouldn't be on the pitch, but shouldn't be captaining a team that is actively engaged in doing all these dreadful things. QV |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Saturday, 19. May 2007, 01:35 Post #6 |
![]()
Administrator
|
It is an insult to all Catholics, that any positions, including that of Sovereign, are not open to us. It would be interesting to know how many gallantry medals and crosses were awarded to Catholic chaplains in the Armed Forces. If we are ready to serve our country, in a military or civil capacity, we should not have to suffer this indignity. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| newminster | Saturday, 19. May 2007, 11:17 Post #7 |
|
Unregistered
|
"The honourable lady should not generate more indignation than she can contain." (I'm in Churchill mode this morning.) Take an even strain, Rose. If there was really a head of steam over this then something would have been done before now. Or maybe now is the time. This is a Protestant country and it has demanded since the Reformation that its Head of State be a Protestant. I can find more (and more important) things in this morning's paper to feed my Victor Meldrew tendency than the fact that I'm never going to be king. If and when Charles or William or some child as yet unborn either converts to Catholicism or wishes to marry a Catholic I'm sure we'll sort it out. Let's face it; even Paisley's a busted flush these days. Who's going to whip up the opposition? |
|
|
| Deleted User | Saturday, 19. May 2007, 20:34 Post #8 |
|
Deleted User
|
Yes a Catholic can be PM and I don't think there would be much opposition these days. I think too we need to get a reality check as to just what politicians can do. A Prime Minister, even one with a good majority, cannot assume office and start to dismantle all the legislation he doesn't like without gumming up the whole Parliamentary process and being quite unable to do anything else. A good recipe for being voted out next time. For instance, any attempt to repeal the Abortion Act would lead to such widespread opposition that the Government would be completely hamstrung. And of course, whatever political persuasion he was, his party would contain many pro-Abortion Act MPs so he would have a nice little civil war on the side. John |
|
|
| Rose of York | Wednesday, 23. May 2007, 15:17 Post #9 |
![]()
Administrator
|
|
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| newminster | Wednesday, 23. May 2007, 17:18 Post #10 |
|
Unregistered
|
Gesture politics. The average Catholic in the pew doesn't care two hoots and as I said further up if and when the situation arises I believe it will get itself sorted to everyone's satisfaction except, probably, the Wee Frees, the Wee Wee Frees, and Ian Paisley. One sure way to get people's backs up (on this as on many matters) is to start a campaign about something that's not currently a live issue. Unless and until an heir to the throne converts or wishes to marry a Catholic or until a Prime Minister wishes to appoint a Catholic as Lord Chancellor then the whole thing is totally irrelevant. |
|
|
| Rose of York | Wednesday, 23. May 2007, 17:33 Post #11 |
![]()
Administrator
|
One never knows whether it is currently a live issue. If the second in line to the throne had felt attracted to a Catholic before he met his last girl friend, which of us would have known. All discrimination campaigns annoy the people not affected. Some will get their backs up, whatever the timing - until it applies to THEM. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| newminster | Wednesday, 23. May 2007, 18:37 Post #12 |
|
Unregistered
|
If the second in line to the throne had been attracted to a Catholic we would have heard about it very, v-e-r-y loudly. Then we would have had a debate which, in my view, would probably have resulted in an Act of Parliament removing the bar. As it is, he didn't. I have other things in my life to get on with but when he does I shall be in there expressing a view. |
|
|
| Rose of York | Wednesday, 23. May 2007, 20:16 Post #13 |
![]()
Administrator
|
What if unknown to us the Prince had backed off from forming a close relationship with a woman because she was Catholic? We might never have known. The issue matters to some Catholics, including me. Catholics serve this country in many capacities, and some end up with military funerals. The heir can lawfully marry a Moonie or Scientologist, but not a Catholic. I wonder why Parliament is in no hurry to repeal the relevant Act? |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| ANGLO-CATH | Thursday, 24. May 2007, 13:29 Post #14 |
|
The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 states for "Office Holders" that you cannot discriminate or refuse a position based on their religious belief. That would cover the posts of P.M & Lord Chancellor I believe. A future Monarch becoming or marrying someone of ANY other religion, would probably cause some head-scratching within Whitehall and the Anglican Church, but I cannot believe that this contingency hasn't been discussed before within those institutions. Didn't Charles once go on record as saying he wanted to change the words to the coronation to " defender of faiths" ? Quite a neat solution I thought (although I am a simpleton in these matters, I admit! :D |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Thursday, 24. May 2007, 13:48 Post #15 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Prince Charles was interviewed on BBC Panorama. I think he said that when he is King he would wish to be 'defender of faiths", but I do not recall him saying he wished to have the Coronation Oath amended. If, when Charles accedes to the Throne, he tries to do, his Dad might get cross. I think Anglicans might expect him to defend the Faith of which he will be Supreme Governor. "Defender of faiths" - does that mean defender of the civil right to choose a faith? |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic » |





3:45 PM Jul 11