HVK Archives: Charles and the church should get a divorce
Charles and the church should get a divorce - The Times of India
Simon Hughes
()
15 August 1997
Title: Charles and the church should get a divorce
Author: Simon Hughes
Publication: The Times of India
Date: August 15, 1997
To remarry or not to remarry: is that the question? Actually, there are
three questions. Can the Prince of Wales remarry and still remain the head
of the Church of England? Are we willing for the monarch (or the monarch's
spouse) not to be an Anglican -and perhaps not even to belong to the
Christian faith? And are we willing to have the Church of England
disestablished from the state, as the Anglican church already has been in
Ireland, Scotland and Wales?
A change in the relationship between the monarch and the church is long
overdue. It ought to happen when we next have a change of monarch. Charles
should make it clear now that he wishes the law to be changed when he
succeeds to the throne.
The warning by George Carey, the Archbishop of Canterbury that there would
be a "crisis" in the Church of England should Charles marry Camilla Parker
Bowles merely reinforces the point that it would be good to divorce the
positions of head of state and head of the church.
An end to the monarch's role as head of the church would allow Charles to
act according to his own inclinations, instead of placing him in a position
where his personal and matrimonial circumstances are in conflict with his
job. His private beliefs and matrimonial status should have no bearing on
his ability to preside as head of state. The head of the church, even if
the job is merely titular, is expected to set a moral example. It is a big
enough job being king without having any extra requirements thrown in.
The head of state should indeed set high standards - but no higher than
those of other leaders of civic society. If foreign secretaries'
extramarital affairs do not affect their ability to govern, neither should
extramarital affairs diminish the heir to the throne's capacity to be an
exceptionally good king.
Separating church from state would also benefit the institution of
monarchy. There would be no risk of a future monarch pretending to believe
in a particular faith simply to gain the crown. Heredity may be just about
defensible as a principle of monarchy; it is clearly nonsense as a
guarantee of theology and personal belief.
If the monarch were to stop being head of the church, he or she could
better represent all people, all Christian denominations and all other
faiths as well. We should incidentally get rid of the idea floated by
Charles that he could be defender of all faiths. That is absolutely the
worst kind of wishy-washy compromise. You can defend the right of people to
have faith but defending all faiths is inconsistent. When I defend
Christianity, I sometimes have to do so in opposition to Judaism despite
the common heritage that Jews, Christians and other people of monotheistic
faiths share.
Are we serious about still requiring the monarch and spouse to be
Christians, let alone specifically Anglican? What may have been fitting at
the beginning of the Queen's reign, before the serve of mass Commonwealth
immigration is no longer appropriate. We have a multi-faith society in
which Christian practice is a minority activity -however much Christians
may regret this. If the heir to the throne decides he or she wants to be a
Baptist or a Roman Catholic -or an atheist or agnostic- then honesty about
this is just as important as integrity in other aspects of public life. If
it is constitutionally acceptable for the prime minister to convert to
Roman Catholicism or for previous prime ministers to be Jews, atheists or
from the free churches, the same freedom should apply to the head of state.
We would never insist that an elected president had to belong to a
particular religious sect. Predetermining the faith of one's life partner
is even more ridiculous. The worst sort of believers are those who feel
obliged to believe because they have been told to do so. Disestablishing
the Church of England may not be a constitutional priority for the
government but it is none the less important. We disestablished three out
of the four Anglican churches of the United Kingdom decades ago; surely me
can at last address the anomalous situation in England.
Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish devolution, fair voting systems, a
modern House of Lords and many other reforms may come first but modernising
the church-state relationship is still important. Labour must be as brave
about this as it has already been in taking on other constitutional
battles. Disestablishment should be part of the government's programme, if
not during this Parliament certainly in the next. Provided we can find a
may of organising the legislation the measure could be hugely popular.
Labour should not back off just because there are private lives involved.
On the contrary the personal relationships of the royal family illustrate
even more clearly the urgency of reform if me are not to make the job of
head of state a nightmare for Charles, let alone his successors.
In a modern society, all Christian denominations - indeed, all faiths
-deserve equal status. The church should not be seen as part of the
Establishment. It is noticeable that, while the established church is
declining some of the disestablished churches are growing. Disestablishment
has not hampered the growth of the Christian faith in other countries and
nor would it here. But, even more important, matters of faith are not
matters of civic duty but of personal choice. People who choose to be
Christians should be free to argue and persuade and not be tied to any
particular requirement to defend the pillars of the state.
Here is a cause that could unite all but a small minority of Christians and
non-Christians. It would make it possible for people to be on the sides of
both the Archbishop of Canterbury and Charles.
We wouldn't delete or renounce our history but liberating the Church of
England mould be a good way to mark the end of the second millennium after
the birth of Christ.
Back
Top
|
