BREXIT AND THE REFORMATION

Having listened to Mrs. Emily Thornbury MP being questioned by Evan Davis on Newsnight recently I began to understand the Labour Party’s position on Brexit.  Unlike the Tory Party (which seems to have wholeheartedly embraced a ‘hard’ Brexit) or the Liberal Democrat Party (which clearly opposes it) the Labour Party, containing as it does large numbers of both Leavers and Remainers, recognises it needs to be a Broad Church.  Whilst the country voted by a margin of less than 10% to leave the EU, it needs to accommodate members of both camps.  And, in that, I see clear parallels with the Church of England.

Whilst I am not a Church historian I recognise (as I am sure others do) the similarities between Brexit and the age of Reformation.  Until the 16^th cent. the Church in England had owed allegiance to the Roman Church and many of the laws of this country were dependent on decisions in Rome.  Both the separation of the Church in England from the Church of Rome and Brexit were preceded by many years of agitation.  Popularist preachers, like John Wycliffe and the Lollards, stirred up anti-Catholic feelings and prepared the way for the Acts of Supremacy which gradually made English law supreme and led to the declaration that ‘the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England’ (Article 37). 

In spite of this formal separation there was a substantial minority who objected and wished to remain part of the Roman Catholic Church.  It is a fact that Henry VIII (1509 – 1547), inspite of initiating the separation of England from Rome did not intend to adopt Protestantism in its entirety and religious doctrine didn’t change ⁽¹⁾.  Whilst Henry persecuted extreme Protestants there were many views as to what separation meant.  As has sometimes happened in the aftermath of Brexit those who wanted to remain part of the Roman Church were abused and persecuted and some were killed.

It was under the Regency Council which governed during the minority of his successor, Edward VI (1547 – 1553), that Protestant teaching began to change the faith of the English Church and eroded much of the Catholic heritage which Henry VIII had desired to retain.  This resulted in unrest and a number of protest marches including the Western Rebellion (1549).

Mary I (1553 – 1558) was declared Queen by popular demand (clearly not a Referendum but something similar) after people re-acted against the perceived excesses of Edward.  Many realised she would reverse most of the previous legislation that had separated England from Rome and those who had financially benefited from the break were determined that would not happen. ⁽²⁾  This only caused greater division, persecution and disorder in the country which lasted until her death.

The genius of Elizabeth I (1558 – 1603) was to unite a divided country.  This she did by enabling the Church of England to be broad enough in its doctrine to hold various views whilst maintaining the separation that had occurred.  The ‘Elizabethan Religious Settlement’ was a response to the religious divisions in England.  A series of Acts and revisions to the Prayer Book intended to avoid adopting any one theology to the exclusion of another with the intention of enabling people with many different theological perceptions to belong to the one Church.  The Church of England was not part of the Roman Catholic Church (thus fulfilling the desires of the Leavers) but nor was it wholly Protestant and its teaching was still rooted in much Catholic theology.  Thus, hopefully, appealing to remainers. 

It seems to me that the present difficulties faced by the Labour Party are not dissimilar to the situation in England in the late 16^th cent.  Both leavers (Protestants) and remainers (Catholics) were struggling to dominate society and Catholics were hated for wanting to remain united with Rome.   Is it overly simple to say that whilst ‘Leavers’ have a clear home with the Tories and ‘Remainers’ with the Liberal Democrats the Labour Party is, like the Church of England, seeking to offer a place for all.  And, like the Church of England, is accused of not knowing where it stands?  Or not having any clear teaching?  It seemed to me that Mrs. Thornbury was saying that the Labour Party was trying to find a way for people with different views to live together realising that if we don't we may be eternally divided or dominated by one view.  It is not an easy choice – to try and be broad enough for all – it won’t satisfy those seeking a clear choice and it might anger those who can’t cope with difference.  It is not easy to create a home where those with different views can live together.  But, like the Elizabethan Settlement, it may offer an umbrella under which many can shelter and the Labour Party might take heart from looking into this period in the history of England which occurred almost exactly 400 years ago.

⁽¹⁾ ‘The Religious Policy of King Henry VIII’; Jeff Hobbs

⁽²⁾ ‘The Church 1553 to 1558’; C. N. Trueman

FREEDOM OF SPEECH and the Pope's Visit to Britain

Recently the Daily Telegraph published a document leaked from the Foreign Office concerning the State Visit of Pope Benedict XVI in September this year.  The subsequent furore means many will be aware of the situation.  The document suggested Britain should mark the visit by asking the Pope to open an abortion clinic, bless a gay marriage and launch a range of condoms. Subsequently the Foreign Office issued an apology for the memo, describing the suggestions as "ill-judged, naive and disrespectful". The ideas were included in a brain-storming paper from a small group of three or four junior staff in a team who were working on the papal visit. The paper entitled "The ideal visit would see..." was distributed to officials in Whitehall and Downing Street preparing for the visit. Many of the proposals seemed to ridicule the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on issues such as abortion, contraception and homosexuality and the difficulties it is experiencing over cases of child abuse.

Whilst many cannot support that Church’s stance on such issues and are appalled by cases of child-abuse, nonetheless this document seemed to indicate how a great Office of State has sunk to a new low. The fact that one of the individuals responsible had simply been “transferred to other duties” rather than sacked shows the level of seriousness with which the incident was viewed and suggests that some in the Ministry owe their approach to diplomacy more to ‘Mock the Week’ than maturity.

Subsequently John Humphries on ‘Today’ (Radio 4) suggested this was a question of freedom of speech. Whilst such a freedom is essential it is, surely, not absolute.  Issues of national security, for example, may curtail free speech and laws of libel and slander prove that no one can say just anything without a consequence.  There are also important arguments against such a freedom when it concerns possible harm to third parties.  Most of us, too, still believe in showing respect to others even if we may disagree with them.  I may want to call someone a fool but is it wise to express my opinion?  The mocking tone of these young men says something about us all that we should ponder: those who serve in public office are not speaking simply for themselves when they make utterances.

Whilst I do not believe that religion should be exempt from the laws of freedom of speech and all have the right to condemn, criticize and satirize religion – all religions – nonetheless maturity surely demands that we take the measure of our words.  Being an Office of State, the Foreign Office is not just a collection of individuals who can freely exercise every human right at whim. We expect more from such people whose very name – Civil Servants – show they are firstly our servants.

Religious groups have often initiated censorship or colluded with it and must rightly face scrutiny for their actions. Whilst most of us would want to uphold the principle of free speech as the bedrock to a civilised society we would also want to help those who may be less mature to think before they speak. ‘Mock the Week’, like many popular shows, begs the question whether ridicule rather than respect has the upper hand. The fact that ridicule stalks the corridors of power should be a concern for us all.

Cost of Conscience

Recently I read the Archbishop of Canterbury's statement concerning the issue of conscience in relation to the law. It arose from the plea of the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster for the RC Church to have their adoption agencies excluded from The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations - SOR - which would 'outlaw discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexual orientation' on the grounds that the SORs would "oblige our agencies in law to consider adoption applications from homosexual couples as potential adoptive parents would require them to act against the principles of Catholic teaching."

Archbishop Rowna has stated that he "would like to see some more serious debate now about that particular question – what are the limits, if there are limits, to the State’s power to control and determine the actions of voluntary bodies within it, in pursuit of what are quite proper goals of non-discrimination."

Quite apart from the fact that it has been pointed out that the RC adoption agencies already place children in homes that hardly reflect 'the principles of Catholic teaching' I am intrigued that our own Archbishop (of Canterbury) has chosen to step in to support the Cardinal. Whilst not a devotee of The Thirtynine Arctiles (often quoted by traditionalists to attack others), I note that Article XXXVII Of the Civil Magistrates unambiguously states that 'The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.'

Now, whilst Archbishop Rowan has nailed his comments to the issue of 'conscience' ("The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well meaning." - initial letter to the Prime Minister), it has been pointed out that the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster is, ultimately, under the authority of Rome. His hands, in a sense, are tied. However, we had a Reformation to deal with just this matter and I find it intriguing that this smallpiece of our history, which has shaoped the development of England, seems to have been forgotten. As Article XXXVII states in its opening lines:

'The King's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction.'

Can conscience be above the Law unless those laws are unjust? I guess this is the argument - whether equality for all under the Law can be superceded by justice for those who wish to - or have to - uphold discrimination.