Dear Friends,
God Save The Queen!
One reason why the Dominion of Canada wouldn't push ahead with this matter on its own is because the Statutes governing this are British statutes that are "ultra vires" and outside the jurisdiction of all but the British law.
In fact, when King Edward VIII resigned his post in 1938, Canada had not formally accepted his stepping down before acknowledging his successor. So, for a brief time, Canada's King was Edward, while Britain's King was George VI!
16 countries of the Commonwealth share the SAME Head of State, namely Queen Elizabeth the Second (although Scotland refers to her as the "First" since Scotland was never under Queen Elizabeth the First of England).
Over fifty nations accept the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth, as we know.
To get back to the issue, the Sovereign is also the temporal Guardian (not Head, only Henry VIII considered himself that) of the Church of England AND of the Church of Scotland.
This means that there comes a religious aspect with Kingship/Queenship in Britain and the incumbent is required to be Protestant. The Queen is an Anglican, but is accepted as temporal Guardian of the Kirk of Scotland anyway.
The antipathy of Britain toward Rome is, as we know, an historical matter.
And, as a Catholic, I can't say I blame Britain for it.
The Papacy, at the height of its triumphalism, felt it could involved itself not only directly in the lives of Churches, but of the inner workings of states.
We tend to attack Henry VIII as a whatever. In fact, he was a man faced with a real dilemma and we all know what that was.
He was very pious as a Christian, and was really a "schismatic Roman Catholic" rather than a Protestant. He prayed his Psalter daily, and said his Rosary daily - it is now on display at a museum. To this day, an English Catholic hospital in London say the Rosary for King Henry VIII daily as this was the condition he set for the monies he released to have it constructed.
English Catholics asked Pope Pius V not to excommunicate Queen Elizabeth I. She wasn't Catholic that he needed to excommunicate her. To excommunicate her was to basically say "Your Catholic subjects no longer need to obey you."
When the excommunication happened, Parliament passed anti-Catholic laws, basically retaliating and making being a Catholic (and a Jesuit) against the law. Rome had not regard for the plight and predicament of the English Catholics - that is a fact.
The Stuart sovereigns, Mary, Queen of Scots and King Charles I, were always suspected of being on the side of Rome. Charles had no love for the Puritans.
His son, Charles II, became a secret Catholic, but received the sacraments in the Anglican Church.
His brother, James II, became a staunch RC and determined to bring England back to Rome. Parliament then stepped in and invited his sister, Mary and William of Orange to take over the reigns of power - which they did and we know the rest of the story.
James died a holy monk in France and his relics have been found to be incorrupt - but I digress.
The former Royal Oath the Sovereign was obliged to take, beginning with the coming of the Protestant Hanovers (George I), was quite anti-Catholic and the Sovereign not only had to acclaim himself or herself as Protestant but also had to promise to oppose Catholic doctrine etc.
It was King George V who personally took a stand against this and refused to take this oath until Parliament dropped the anti-Catholic references. He said it offended his many Catholic subjects etc.
Parliament at first refused and the King said, "Then I don't have to be crowned."
(Let's see some similar courage and moral gumption on the part of republican presidents - like one of your U.S. presidents?)
Parliament acquiesced and a new oath was framed.
The question of how a Catholic can owe allegiance to a non-CAtholic head of state is one I've come across and one I don't quite understand.
American Presidents are, by and large, all Protestant and do American Catholics not owe allegiance to them as their Head of State?
American religious culture is, by and large, Protestant and historically anti-Catholic where Catholics were not only persecuted (along with Lutherans who "looked like Catholics") but also seen as treacherous - does not the Oath of U.S. citizenship make you renounce all allegiance to "foreign potentates" and is not the Pope also a secular Head of State? Chew on that one, friends!
The Crown of Britain excluded Catholics from public life etc. But in the Dominion of Canada, that was never the case.
In the Dominion of Canada, Catholics and Protestants ALWAYS received equal treatment and there was NO discrimination. This is why, to this day, we have two publicly-funded school systems, one public (formerly Protestant) and the other Catholic (separate).
Does the U.S. have such a system?
AGain, the religious situation in England was one that was dictated by the political expendiency of the conflict between Rome and London and was rooted not in religious concerns so much as in the temporal powers of the Pope to make and break heads of states. Powers that the Pope should NEVER have had to play around with.
To be a Catholic in England was tantamount to being a traitor. After all, if your Pope excommunicated the Sovereign, you had a religious obligation to shun him or her - you were, in fact, a traitor.
So the Dominion of Canada was spared all this, as were other realms and territories under the Crown.
In fact, the United States, when it was under the Crown, was basically a group of colonies largely set up because England WASN'T PROTESTANT ENOUGH FOR THE PURITANS who left in disgust at the Rome-inclined King Charles Stuart who had a Catholic Queen - Henrietta and considered himself a "Catholic in communion with Canterbury."
Canada's "Protestant" history began with the High Church Anglicans, not with the later low-church Protestants.
Among the Loyalists who escaped the American Revolution were the Highland Scottish Catholics and other American Catholics who knew the new state philosophy of the U.S. would not look favourably on them. The Crown in Canada protected the religious rights of all, Catholic, Protestant and Jewish.
In addition, Europe always had a tradition where the Monarch was of one religion and favoured that religion, although he or she tended to protect the religious rights of all. And this notwithstanding the "cuius regio, eius religio" philosophy and the unfortunate tradition of religious persecution on both Catholic and Protestant sides.
Catholics favoured King Charles I and assisted him in fighting the Parliamentarian forces. King Charles I refused to punish the Irish since he knew "their religion" taught respect and obedience to the King.
St Peter himself teaches Christians in his Epistle to "honour the Emperor" who was a pagan, out to really get Christians.
How much more did Catholics owe allegiance to a Christian King, even though a Protestant Parliament was anti-Catholic.
And we know that Prince Philip, as I understand, has returned to Orthodoxy and that Prince Charles has become an Orthodox catechumen - Fr. Andrew Phillip writes about this on his English Orthodox site at Felixstowe.
Yes, they wouldn't mind disestablishing the Church of England and removing that anachronistic law.
The Labour Party, who counts many Catholics among its supporters, thinks it can get the Catholic Left more involved in high government as a result of its latest moves.
But the Royal Family is not really interested in Catholicism, some conversions notwithstanding.
Prince Michael of Kent et al. are Orthodox and it is toward Orthodox they are now going.
And I'll be happy to pledge allegiance to a possible future Orthodox King of Britain, Canada and all his realms and territories - by the Grace of God.
No conflict there either.
Alex
) commemorate Her
