Humanities desk
< April 15	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 16

Non-Roman Catholics in the UK

Legally, are members of <Uniate/Eastern Rite/Eastern Catholic/choose-your-term> churches considered to be papists under Englishandwelsh law, and/or were they at some point in the past? At least some restrictions on Catholics don't apply to the Orthodox, as demonstrated by the marriage of the Heir to the Throne to an Orthodox guy back in the 1940s, but as the Eastern Catholic Churches are kind-of in the middle between their Orthodox ancestors and Latin-rite Catholics, I'm curious how they are and were considered for secular purposes. I'm aware that they weren't a major presence in Englandandwales during the centuries when the current and major former restrictions on Catholics were set up. Nyttend (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notably, though, the Orthodox guy converted to Anglicanism... --Jayron 32 16:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Prince Philip converted before the announcement of the official engagement.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

16:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather hilarious that Philip converted to Bishopism in order to become the First Man of its future high priestess. "A room at Buckingham is well worth a Mass". μηδείς (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood (and I understand the reference to Paris being worth a Mass), but had he been a parishioner of the Diocese of Westminster, wouldn't he still have made her ineligible for the throne? Nyttend (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We had this discussion about a year ago, there was some debate over (which I don't recall ever being satisfactorily resolved) as to whether the requirement was "ever being a Catholic in your life" or "Being a Catholic at the time of (engagement, marriage, etc.)" Which is to say, whether it was sufficient to convert to Protestantism in order to remove the prohibition against marrying a Catholic. --Jayron 32 18:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Act of Settlement, the throne is barred to any person or persons who "is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall profess the Popish Religion." (It goes on to say "or shall marry a Papist," but that was recently repealed.) According to our article, the Eastern Catholic Churches are in full communion with the Pope. That would suggest that Eastern Catholics are considered papists, at least for purposes of ascending to the throne. John M Baker (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my. Given such bigotry t'is a wonder the Brits never persecuted the Irish. μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, bigotry or homeland security, depending on your viewpoint. For those formulating the Bill of Rights 1689, Louis XIV of France's Revocation of the Edict of Nantes four years previously, resulting in the systematic demolition of Protestant churches and schools and a huge exodus of Huguenot refugees to England, stood as a horrid warning of the dangers of a Catholic king. James II had, after all, been a fervent admirer of Louis. Earlier reasons to be wary included the Bull issued against the English Crown, Regnans in Excelsis which had directly led to several plots to overthrow the government as well as the Spanish Armada; and even further, the persecutions of Queen Mary I, who had sought to dissuade people from being Protestants by burning them alive. But those days are past and we rub along better than we used to. Alansplodge (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Building on Alansplodge's comment, note that the Pope officially absolved all Catholics in the Three Kingdoms (Englandandwales, Scotland, and Ireland) of their allegiance to the Court of St James and gave open assistance to opponents (whether Spanish would-be invaders, or Jacobite pretenders) of the Crown. Nyttend (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When was that? 1828? I realize none of us alive now is responsible for any of the past unpleasantries, and apologize for making this a debate. My real objection is that the word papist is offensive, even now. μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; its not a word used in the UK except perhaps in the more extreme rhetoric of some Ulster Unionists, and I don't think its used in any of the legislation that has been mentioned. As to why it has taken so long to amend the legislation allowing heirs to marry Catholics, I really can't say, except that since the independence of Dominions in the 1920s, it has required all of us to legislate at the same time, and in the case of Australia, for all the constituent States in the Federation to legislate as well. Thus, sleeping dogs have been left to lie. On the other hand, the Monarch themselves will need to be an Anglican for the foreseeable future, since the job of Head of the Church of England comes with the throne. Perhaps in the future, the CofE will be disestablished (there is some talk within the church for that to happen); but that's another legislational nightmare. Alansplodge (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]