Posted By: September 13, 2023

By Fr. Sean McManus. Echo Opinion. September 13, 2023.


Why the subservient silence about King Charles’ anti-Catholic Coronation Oath as required by British constitution?

The King Charles website — https://www.royal.uk/— declares that his recent Coronation was “set once again within the context of the Eucharist, which is the defining act of worship for the Church universal.” Thereby, stressing the sacredness and holiness the King wanted his Coronation to be seen in.

Furthermore, it was the Archbishop of Canterbury, Church of England, who administered the Coronation Oath to King Charles.

The “Church universal” sees the Holy Eucharist as “a Sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity,” and I am on record for many years of welcoming the growing agreement between the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church on the theology of the Eucharist.

So, then, let us examine the Coronation Oath, administered by the archbishop, “within the context of the Eucharist.” The King Charles website spells it out most clearly: “Parliament, under the Bill of Rights [1689] and the Act of Settlement [1701], also, laid down various conditions which the Sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne.” (Let’s ignore for now the brazenness of the title “Bill of Rights” that “specifically excludes Catholics.”)

Text of anti-Catholic Coronation Oath

The Royal website helpfully gives the text of the anti-Catholic oath sworn by King Charles:

“I Charles do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne, uphold, and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.” So, you see, “Protestant succession to the Throne” means one thing: no Catholics need apply.

The Guardian, London, in a 2001 Editorial described all this as “the basis for the modern-day monarchy—an act of parliament which explicitly discriminates against Catholics.” … And which Tony Blair, God bless him, called, when no longer Prime Minister, “plainly discriminatory.”

Let no one use the dreary old canard that the reason for such State-sponsored anti-Catholic bigotry and discrimination being enshrined in the unwritten and uncodified British constitution and Coronation Oath is because the King/Queen is the Governor of the Anglican Church. That is no excuse but rather proof that Church and State should be separate—no Established Church—as in the First Amendment.

Throughout the Coronation ceremony, King Charles vowed to be the defender of all faiths while in almost the same breath vowing to exclude Catholics—amounting to the same bigotry historically scrawled on the walls of Belfast: “No Pope here;” “Fenians out,” etc., etc. But at least that Orange graffiti is honest, whereas the Coronation Oath is breathtaking in its brazen hypocrisy and dishonesty.

And in fairness to the Protestants of Northern Ireland, who can blame those of them who refuse to accept Catholics as equals, when the British constitution, the British Parliament (because, the Royal website states, “the succession to the throne can be regulated by Parliament”), and the compulsory Coronation Oath, all refuse to accept Catholic as equals.

Why the subservient silence?

Yet, there is a deafening silence from so many in both America and Ireland about this appalling anti-Catholic pathology and bigotry … And silence by Catholics, too! Do such Catholics think that ignoring brazen exclusion means they are more mature and enlightened? Would they be silent if the British constitution and American Constitution excluded Blacks and Jews? They certainly would not be silent.

So, why this subservient silence? Theorists of colonialism explain that it can take about 300 years for oppressed people to shake off the indoctrination and brainwashing of their oppressor. The oppressed “internalize” the abusive words and the reign of contempt of the oppressor; leading the oppressed to accept that they are unworthy and have not the same rights as others—and they are brain-washed into accepting double standards.

This certainly happened in the past to American Blacks, but now, thank God, they are definitely over that phase. Nobody today dare tell strong, informed, confident Blacks that they must be “reconciled” to White Supremacy. Nor tell Jewish-Americans to be reconciled to anti-Semitism in America.

Yet, there are many, it seems, who think the Irish in Ireland should be reconciled to State-sponsored anti-Catholicism of the British constitution and the Coronation Oath. And some in Ireland seem to think it’s mature and enlightened not to oppose such bigotry. Yet, those same people know full well if the Irish Constitution excluded a Protestant from being President of Ireland the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc., etc. would constantly condemn it. Again, that awful double standard. (But then it is only 240 years since George Washington kicked King George III, the 4th Great grandfather of Charles III, out of America— so, perhaps in another 60 years the American media will stop applying a double standard to Ireland).

And, there is another element at play in this subservient silence. Some Catholics who do not agree with all the teaching of the Catholic Church seem to think that they, therefore, should not condemn the anti-Catholic bigotry and discrimination of the British constitution and the Coronation Oath. Well, I do not agree with all the 39 Articles of the Protestant faith, but I certainly would not be silent if the Irish Constitution “specifically excluded” a Protestant from being President of Ireland. And I am neither Black nor Jewish, but I would certainly not be silent if the American Constitution excluded Blacks or Jewish-Americans from being President.

Constitutions and national self-determination

In any civilized country, nothing matters more than its constitution. So, for as long as this horrible and shameful anti-Catholic hatred is enshrined, condoned, and even celebrated in the British constitution, and sworn to be defended by the Royal Family, there is no hope that the significant section of Protestants/Unionists who are anti-Catholic will have a change of heart—nor, apparently, any real desire by “the King in Parliament” to facilitate that change of heart …Otherwise, why would King Charles have sworn to uphold a hate-filled oath against the oldest and largest Christian faith on earth? And, how can the British Parliament and the Church of England be deeply complicit in it?

All this makes it abundantly clear, there can never be true justice and equality for as long as the King and England’s Parliament control any part of Ireland—and we have 854 years of proof of that.