Ontario Court Upholds Act Barring Catholics From (British) Throne

The National Post ^ | July 2, 2003 | Adrian Humphreys

[Loyalist]

An Ontario court judge has dismissed an unusual lawsuit that sought to impose the Canadian Charter of Rights over a 300-year-old British act establishing the Rules of Succession to the Crown because it bars Catholics from ascending the throne.

Rejecting the case against the Queen brought by a former Toronto city councillor, Justice Paul S. Rouleau of the Ontario Superior Court suggested such a change could see a return to the bloody past when civil wars raged over who would inherit the throne.

"If the courts were free to review and declare inoperative certain parts of the rules of succession, Canada could break symmetry with Great Britain, and could conceivably recognize a different monarch than does Great Britain," he writes in his decision, released last week.

"In fact, Canada could arguably reanimate the debate regarding the heir to the throne, an argument that was resolved by the Act of Settlement. This would clearly be contrary to settled intention, as demonstrated by our written Constitution, and would see the courts changing rather than protecting our fundamental constitutional structure."

Tony O'Donohue, a Canadian Catholic of Irish descent, launched the lawsuit after his 22-year letter-writing campaign failed to convince politicians to quash sections of the Act of Settlement, 1701, a British statute that is part of Canada's constitution.

It limits succession to the British throne to the "Protestant line, for the happiness of the nation." It says: "All and every person ... [who] shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or should profess the popish religion, or marry a papist, should be excluded, and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the Crown and government of this realm."

It was enacted when the childless King William III was seriously ill and his sister-in-law, Anne, who was the prospective replacement, had lost her only surviving child.

The issue of succession was keenly watched not only by the royal family but also by supporters of James II, the exiled king.

By declaring that only the Protestant heirs of Princess Sophia, Electoress of Hanover, were eligible for the throne, the act was responsible for the accession of the House of Hanover to the throne in 1714.

Mr. O'Donohue said the act is offensive and counter to the equality provisions of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"I thought these medieval laws, based on discrimination of religion and race and property and creed, had all melted away," he said. "But, no, there it is."

He vows to continue his fight and to appeal the ruling. "A lot of changes have happened in the past 300 years. It's time we cleaned up our act. It should have been scrapped a long time ago. I know it is going to change sometime, but it is a question of who is going to have the ability to change it."

The ruling deals only with the mechanics of the claim, not the merits of its arguments.

ahumphreys@nationalpost.com

© Copyright 2003 National Post

[Loyalist]

PING

[Snuffington]

Interesting issue. One imagines that those nations still loyal to the British Crown would rather see it abolished entirely, before throwing open the door to Catholics.

[Maximilian]

As a Catholic, I support this law and do not support the lawsuit. If Canada (and England) are prevented from having Protestant monarchs, then Catholic countries would likewise be prevented from having Catholic monarchs.

England is a Protestant country. Therefore it is appropriate for them to have a Protestant monarch. England must become a Catholic country once again, then the constitution should be changed, not to open the throne to Muslims, Hindus, etc., but to make the Catholic religion mandatory for the monarch.

"Religious liberty" is a concept that has proven disastrous for the Catholic faith -- although it has been equally disastrous for Protestants in formerly Protestant countries. Every faith, and every nation, should recognize the evil of religious liberty. Ultimately we want every country to be a Catholic country.

[Conservative til I die]

It's kind of funny that the Canadians are British subjects.

[Conservative til I die]

England is a Protestant country. Therefore it is appropriate for them to have a Protestant monarch.

I'm not commenting on the lawsuit itself, but I don't agree with your statement. Are you implying that because the UK is primarily Protestant they should only be allowed to have a Protestant monarch? Now, since the monarchy is ascended to, and not elected, the odds that it will remain Protestant are pretty good, just through bloodlines. But what if Prince Charles decides to convert to Catholicism? Are you saying he should be barred from being King? I'm not asking from a legal standpoint, because the UK is free to make their own laws. I'm asking from an ethical standpoint.

Would you also say that because the US is a Protestant nation, that Catholics should not be allowed to be President?

[RobbyS]

Gays have fundamental rights but Catholics do not? But the silly thing is the talk about civil war over the sucession to the British crown.

[Loyalist]

Canadian are NOT British subjects.

Canada is a constitutional monarchy, whose monarch is Queen of Canada, though she is also Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

When the Governor-General gives Royal Assent to an Act of Parliament or the Lieutenant-Governor of a province does so to an act of a provincial legislature, they do so NOT as the vice-regal representative of a foreign Crown but as the vice-regal representative of the Canadian Crown.

Moreover, the Crown can only act upon the advice of the ministers of the government of the day.

Canada can abolish its monarchy through the process of constitutional amendment by unanimous agreement of the provinces.

In sum: The Canadian Crown is held not by a foreign monarch, but by a Canadian monarch who just happens to be foreign.

[sitetest]

Dear Maximilian,

Many Anglicans would disagree with you that they are Protestant. Many Anglicans believe themselves to be Catholic, and believe their Church to be the the Catholic Church of England. These argue that though they are not in formal communion with Rome, they are, nonetheless, Catholic in faith.

These folks don't believe that communion with the pope is absolutely necessary to be Catholic, and often point to the Old Catholics (at least in Europe, where the Catholic Church [the real one] still recognizes the validity of their orders and sacraments) and the Orthodox as an example.

King Henry did not believe he was a Protestant, and Queen Elizabeth I viewed herself as Catholic, or at least a catholic, though not a papist.

Further, I don't think that the Act of Settlement proscribes members of other faiths, just those who are in communion with the pope.

Finally, it's my understanding that you will find more Catholics (real ones - in communion with Pope John Paul II) in church on Sunday than you will find Anglicans.

So is England Catholic or Protestant?


sitetest

[Chancellor Palpatine]

"Religious liberty" is a concept that has proven disastrous for the Catholic faith...

I'm plesased that at least one of you noticed that.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Thanks for being up front about it, Max.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Every faith, and every nation, should recognize the evil of religious liberty. Ultimately we want every country to be a Catholic country.

Thanks for being up front about it, Max.

[royalcello]

One imagines that those nations still loyal to the British Crown would rather see it abolished entirely, before throwing open the door to Catholics.

I don't think so. Most monarchists, such as myself, who oppose eliminating the Act of Settlement do so because we fear the wider debate on the monarchy's very existence which would inevitably accompany the removal of one of the main pieces of legislation underpinning the institution.

Maximilian already explained how and why a Catholic can support the Act of Settlement.

Also, if one believes in monarchy (as I do), the very idea that "discrimination" is wrong is absurd. Monarchy is inherently discriminatory, so religious restrictions are not a contradiction as they might be in a democratic republic. Much as I hate to admit it, it would be more logical for Canadians to advocate the abolition of the monarchy than to demand that the institution be forced to conform to modern notions of inclusiveness, pluralism, and non-discrimination.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Wow. See? Jack Chick was right.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

LOL

[Maximilian]

Are you implying that because the UK is primarily Protestant they should only be allowed to have a Protestant monarch?

Yes, in fact I believe I came right out and said that.

But what if Prince Charles decides to convert to Catholicism? Are you saying he should be barred from being King?

Yes I am. What if the king of a Catholic country (e.g. Spain) decided to become a Muslim? Would we accept a Muslim king of a Catholic country? I should hope not.

Would you also say that because the US is a Protestant nation, that Catholics should not be allowed to be President?

The US has never been a Protestant country the way that England is. The Church of England is the official established religion of the country. That is not the case in the US, although we do have a Protestant heritage. In contrast to England, the US has been an experiment in religious liberty, the first country to be officially indifferentist. The results of the experiment have been mixed.

Recall, however, that several of the 13 colonies had official established religions of their state, some still in force until the 1820's. I would support those states because by allowing Connecticut to have Congregationalism as its official state religion, I would be making it possible for another state to have Catholicism as its official state religion. Then I would have the option, which is not available to me today, of living in a Catholic state.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

My 96 yr old aunt says we are related to the Queen. Does this mean I lose my place in the line of succession to the throne?

[Maximilian]

Are you implying that because the UK is primarily Protestant they should only be allowed to have a Protestant monarch?

I may have misunderstood your question in my first response. In England it's not a question of taking a poll of religious preference, and changing the law accordingly. Rather, England is an officially Protestant country. The Queen is the head of the church as well as being head of state. She appoints the bishops.

[Maximilian]

Thanks for being up front about it, Max.

You are welcome.

[Loyalist]

Does this mean I lose my place in the line of succession to the throne?

If you were born Catholic, you were never in the line of succession to begin with, as per the 1701 Act of Settlement.