White Supremacy in U.S.—Protestant Supremacy in Northern Ireland

Posted By: May 29, 2023

White Supremacy in U.S.—Protestant Supremacy in Northern Ireland

But U.S. Constitution does not back the Whites, whereas Protestant Supremacy has the support of the powerful British constitution and King Charles’ explicit anti-Catholic oath.

By Fr. Sean McManus

President Irish National Caucus

May 29, 2023

Just as the American White insurrectionists saw White Supremacy slip away, Protestants in Northern Ireland see Protestant Supremacy slip away …

But with this ironic difference: the White Supremacists occupied The Capitol, and the Protestant Supremacists vacated their “Capitol,” Stormont.

And the supremacists in the Protestant community claim their supremacy is eroding despite the anti-Catholic oath solemnly sworn by King Charles, and witnessed by the entire world … An anti-Catholic oath not only sworn in a Church service, but administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Most Reverend Justin Welby, also the ceremonial head of 85 million members of the world-wide Anglican Church (which incudes the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A.) … An anti-Catholic oath administered and sworn in the context of a “High Church Liturgy” (like a Catholic Mass) Eucharistic ceremony.

Let’s be clear about this infamous, shocking, and bigoted oath. So that you will know that I am not being unfair, let me quote the actual “Website of the British Royal Family”:

“The Act [of Settlement 1701] laid down that only Protestant descendants of Princess Sophia … are eligible to succeed.

Subsequent Acts have confirmed this.

Parliament, under the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, also laid down various conditions which the Sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne.

The Sovereign must, in addition, be in communion with the Church of England and must swear to preserve the established Church of England and the established Church of Scotland. The Sovereign must also promise to uphold the Protestant succession.”—



Morally and constitutionally, this would be like having a clause in the American Constitution that prohibits a Black being President. Imagine how that would have condoned, promoted, and incited deadly White supremacy… Well, that’s what England’s rule and laws have done in Northern Ireland.

The usual excuse for this outrageous anti-Catholic hatred is that the Monarch is the Governor of the Church of England, and therefore cannot be Catholic. That is no excuse—just further proof of the wisdom of the writers of the American Constitution who refused to have an established Church because they knew from their knowledge of England that an established Church would de facto discriminate against many.


Now, I am sure that the Archbishop of Canterbury is personally a good person, as is King Charles. But the issue here is not personal

virtue, but institutionalized, State-sponsored bigotry and injustice—what Saint Pope John Paul II famously called “structures of sin.”

So, then the issue becomes: should persons be complicit in or with such “structures of sin”? Can one swear an oath, which is intrinsically evil, and as Tony Blair courageously said, is “plainly discriminatory” —or, indeed, administer such an oath? … An oath that means one thing: No Catholic Allowed. No freedom of religion allowed. And, if King Charles were to convert to Catholicism, he forfeits the Throne, and his subjects are absolved from their allegiance!

Would the leader of the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A. administer an oath to the American President that “specifically excluded” a Black being President?

How, then, can King Charles claim that he wants to be “the defender of all faiths” when he swears, before the entire world, a specifically, blatantly, and absolutely anti-Catholic oath?

And, how could the Archbishop of Canterbury say the Church of England “will seek to foster an environment in which people of all faiths may live freely” and then administer the Coronation Oath, which by definition and by the highest law of England ensures that a member of the oldest and largest Christian Church in the world is “specifically excluded’? … So, not only is this anti-Catholic law the foundation stone of the Royal Family, but it is also the foundation stone of  England’s partition of Ireland—enacted unilaterally by the London Parliament, on December 23, 1920, with the assent of King George V, the great-grandfather of King Charles III.

And, if England’s damn Border across the face of Ireland is not a “structure of sin,” I don’t know what is.


For the record: I am totally ecumenical. For most of my life, I’ve studied the theology of Martin Luther, founder of the European Reformation (as distinct from that of Henry VIII). I admire many things about Luther (except his terrible anti-Semitism). And, I rejoice in the growing reconciliation and unity between all the Churches. But I abhor it when Churches use religion and God to oppress, to colonialize, to steal land, and keep people in virtual slavery—denying their right to national self-determination and national freedom. I say to Hell With That. And I do not apologize for saying that. We must not be blackmailed into silence on this, as if it’s rude to raise it—that if we speak out against anti-Catholic bigotry and hatred we might be accused of bigotry and hatred! … A strategy that worked very well against Blacks in America for a long time—but no more, God bless them. I am not sure if all the Irish in Ireland have fully recovered from that effective

type of blackmail.

I have been saying most of my life that sectarianism and racism are the twin evils of the world. And England has used both evils in Ireland with horrific effects. And I am sure King Charles knows this. And I hope he will be the King to rid the British constitution of this intrinsic evil. The English people deserve this great shame to be removed from them. And the significant section of the Protestant community will be relieved from feeling they have to be anti-Catholic because, after all, that is what the Monarch of England and the unwritten, uncodified British constitution stand for.

Belfast Telegraph Censorship

Finally, let me say this: Over the past 50 years in America, I have issued many hundreds of statements about England’s malfeasance

in Ireland and how England violently constructed and violently maintained the undemocratic, racist(anti-Irish), and sectarian (anti-Catholic) mini-state of Northern Ireland … And yet the Belfast Telegraph never censored me until I quoted the Website of the British Royal Family on the blunt truth of the full meaning of “Protestant succession to The Throne.”

The Belfast Telegraph used the modern form of press censorship—it clicked the “unsubscribe button.” … Go figure! Perhaps it was the Royal Family it was trying to censor?