Blatant discrimination

For some time now I have been concerned at regarding, myself and co-religionists as being virtually second class citizens as far as the British Constitution applies.
I am not an immigrant coloured or otherwise nor am I Jewish or of any other ethnic minority. I am, in fact, like many other loyal people, an English-born Catholic. Can anything be done to put us on the same constitutional basis as our fellow-citizens?
Please note that I am not a religious fanatic, nor by any stretch of the imagination could I be called devout. I do, however, often feel a sense of grievance or perhaps it is a feeling or inferiority.
Matters have again been pointedly brought to light in this connection. There has been comment in the Press and other media regarding speculation as to a future bride for Prince Charles.
There are now. of course, specific reports and comment concerning the engagement of Prince Michael. In any event, it has been made perfectly clear that a British prince is forbidden by law from marrying a Catholic (no matter how suitable the lady may be in other ways) unless there is some kind of renunciation.
This is an express prohibition against one specific Faith and follows from the outmoded Act of Settlement.
Surely the position is insulting to the millions of Catholics within the British Commonwealth? I have no doubt that they vastly outnumber Anglicans, so why should the monarchy be geared to the latter?! appreciate that this raises the question of Establishment, but can such a situation be described as logical, let alone fair?
There is also the point that we are now a member of the European Economic Community. In this connection. we are again dealing with millions of Catholics (ordinary citizens, high-ranking statemen and heads of state included) and the present position implies an inferior . status and is hence insulting to these people.
In any event, I cannot sec how the present circumstances assist in settling the Irish or Quebec questions. We should also not forget our American friends and other allies.
Incidentally contrary to what many people may think if an unbiased look is taken at nations of Catholic tradition it will be found that, in general, there is now complete legal and constitutional separation of Church and State; there being no legal prohibition in any way preventing anyone, of any Faith, from reaching the highest positions.
Can any person or persons of authority or influence take up the cause? What is asked is only removal of blatant discrimination. Personally, at the moment, 1 feel as if I am carrying the mark of Cain! ,Finally, I must make it clear that it is not suggested that there should be any interference in the private wishes of any family including the Royal Family in matrimonial or religious affairs.
This is, however, an entirely different point from an express legal and/or constitutional prohibition which is a heavy psychological burden to be carried by any loyal Catholic subject of Her Majesty. Henry Meehan Newhaven, East Sussex.
I have read in the national Press statements attributed to Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz concerning her intentions in her marriage to Prince Michael of Kent. Apparently she intends that any children of the marriage would be brought up as Protestants and not in the Catholic Faith.
Since this is an intended violation of Dis ine Law and not Ecclesiastical Law, on what grounds is she petitioning? Remember, Divine Law is absolute and the Church has no power to waive the laws of God.
The puzzling feature of the case is this: what ecclesiastical authority advised and submitted the petition on her behalf? To minimise the grave scandal already caused, a public statement from the hierarchy is needed.
(Fr) Gerard Butcher Hainault, Essex.
You must excuse us if we seem simple, but Thomas More was our example, poor man. There was this happening called the Reformation. Sir Thomas and many other famous, and thousands unknown, gave their lives in support of the Church's stand on the word of Christ that "What God has joined together. let NO MAN put asunder."
Throughout the country last Sunday, parish priests were explaining to congregations that there is in deed divorce the Catholic Church.
What! say we, divorce?
Alt! Well! Maybe not divorce, rather an annulment. If, because of force, or simplicity or a number of other unfortunate mistakes the happy couple were not really the happy couple they meant to be, then it is possible within the Catholic Church to have the marriage ruled null and void.
It is also hinted at that the religion of the children should be decided by the 'head of the house'. Referring again to Christ, He made it pretty clear that the 'head of the house' was the 'one' created by the two joining together in wedlock.' A joint decision, therefore. But, we lowly Catholics who enjoy thc luxury of a mixed marriage, undertake that the children of that union should be brought up as Catholics. Many parents make considerable sacrifices to ensure that this is so, and rightly, of course.
Now, we have the unfortunate experience of hearing our nonCatholic (to say nothing of nonChristian) brothers laughing behind their hands, looking back to the Reformation, and saying "Just like everyone else, if you can afford it or know the right people, even Catholics can do as they please."
Now. you must excuse us if we are simple, but it might seem they have something on their side. It certainly seems convenient that at a time when the Church of England is suffering the embarrassment of a royal divorce, the Catholic Church should find itself in an exactly similar situation.
We simple ones believe that Christ and the teaching of the Church are right. We pray that the problems of the various people concerned, can be resolved with Christian love.
But, I believe that it is time we heard a definitive word from our Church. We, the ordinary Church members are entitled to know the reasons in detail, for that annulment, and an explicit declaration that the children of a Catholic parent should be Catholic, as we have been instructed.
Without such a statement, all we can say is "St Thomas, you should be living at this hour. You could be given a chance to lose your head, or at least become the Vicar of Bray, Sir."
Rowland Adams Christchurch, Dorset.
According to The Daily Telegraph of June 1, Baroness Marie Christine Von Reibnitz is
reported to I.ave said regarding the religious upbringing of any children of her proposed marriage that it was "a question of who is the head of the family and in this case the head happens to be an Anglican."
The Times of the same date reports her as having stated "with this new ecumenical spirit I think it is Christians versus the rest, and it does not matter what club you belong to."
If this is true, although the Baroness is described as a devout Catholic, she would seem to entertain a profound ignorance of some of the basic doctrines of her Faith. The true Church not merely exists, but it subsists, in the Catholic Church.
Both Pope Paul VI in his Document "Mystery of the Church" and the Second Vatican Council re-state the traditional teaching of the Church by affirming that the Church founded by Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.
Behind the carefully chosen word "subsists" stands the affirmation that the totality of divine revelation, the totality of Our Lord's Sacraments, and the totality of his authority resides solely and exclusively in the Catholic Church.
Although we may strive for the re-establishment of unity among all Christians and acknowledge true Christian qualities among those outside of the Catholic Church yet the truth remains. There is only one true Church and Catholics are bound to profess that through the gift of God's mercy they belong to that Church. It certainly matters what club you belong to.
In the Revised Directory by the Episcopal Conference of England and Wales, which is a practical interpretation of the Mori Proprio, Matrimonia Mina of Pope Paul Vi, it is clearly stated: "The Catholic partner in a mixed marriage is obliged not only to remain steadfast in the Faith, but also, as far as possible, to see to it that the children be baptised and brought up in that same Faith and receive all those aids to eternal salvation wl-kich the Catholic Church provides for her sons and daughters."
This obligation, we are reminded, is of Divine Law and it is absolute.
The Directory continues: "It is beyond the Church's power ever to dispense a Catholic from the obligation to sec that as far as possible the children will be baptised and brought up in the Catholic Faith."
In Norm 4 it is stated: "To obtain from the local Ordinary a dispensation from an impediment, the Catholic party shall declare that he is ready to remove dangers of falling away from the Faith.
Re is also gravely bound to make a sincere promise to do all in his power to have all the children baptised and brought up in the Catholic Church."
It goes on to say: "If the attitude of the non-Catholic remains so closed to the Catholic baptism and education of the children that it makes a non-sense of the Catholic's undertaking to do all in his power, then the matter must be referred to the local Ordinary because the need to refuse the dispensation may well have arisen."
Since it is clearly defined that the guarantees for a mixed marriage are of Divine Law it would appear that there is no possibility of the Baroness obtaining a dispensation to marry in the Catholic Church. as it is her reported conviction that the right to decide the religious upbringing of any children resides in the head of the family. "And in this case the head happens to be an Anglican." There appears no prospect of the children being brought up in the Catholic Faith.
D. Chidgey Llandaff, Cardiff.
Re the marriaite of Prince Michael of Kent to Baroness MarieChristine von Reibnitz and the religious affiliation of any children of the marriage.
Is it possible that the arrangement which prevailed here in England prior to 1908, when the We Temere decree became effective, could be brought back into use?
I recollect quite well Catholic friends of mine whose mother was a Catholic and their father an Anglican. They had several brothers who were Anglicans while the sisters (two of them nuns) had all been baptised in infancy in the Catholic Church.
What was once tolerated might in this case be tolerated again. Dorothy Sapirstern-Newhook Ventnor, Isle of Wight.