A Catholic prime minister in No 10 is a watershed moment {First UK British Catholic Prime minister since Henry VIII}

The Guardian ^ | 12 June 2021 | Catherine Pepinster

[Cronos]

...Johnson’s religious life has been as chequered as his political career. Baptised as a baby into the Roman Catholic faith of his mother, Charlotte Johnson Wahl, he veered off at Eton into Anglicanism and was confirmed into the Church of England. Little is known of Johnson’s faith in the years that followed, apart from that Chilterns gag: he was busy editing the Spectator, becoming an MP, performing tripwire stunts as mayor of London, and developing a reputation for a rackety private life. But now the radio signal seems to be coming through loud and clear, although it’s been retuned to the old ways – a sort of religious equivalent of rediscovering the Home Service. He’s back in the Catholic fold.

...Once, given that the Church of England is the established religion of the country and that it was created following the break with Rome under Henry VIII, a Catholic prime minister would have been unthinkable. Even as recently as 2007, Tony Blair delayed his conversion to Rome until he had left office due to concerns that it would play badly in Northern Ireland.

Then there is the issue of the prime minister’s role in the Church of England. Under the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, “no person professing the Catholic religion” is allowed to advise the monarch on the appointment of Anglican bishops. Doing so would render Johnson guilty of a “high misdemeanour” and he would be banished from office. The likely solution is that the Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland, will deal with the matter.

[Cronos]

As the number of Church of England members in the UK declines below the number of muslims (Catholicism has been the largest religion in the UK for some time now), this symbolic move is quite poignant

[Cronos]

The Church of England’s own statistics, published late last month, show attendance falling relentlessly by 1% a year, and funerals declining even faster - down 30% since 2005. Today only about 1% of the population (750,000) are in one of its churches on Sunday, and fewer than one in three have an Anglican funeral.

[dfwgator]

Didn’t Tony Blair become a Catholic after he left 10 Downing Street?

[irishjuggler]

Did Henry VIII technically have a “prime minister”? I thought the office was more recent. 18th century? I’m too lazy to look it up.

[Impy]

Do people honestly have their panties in a bunch about Johnson (maybe, probably) being Catholic? LOL.

[Ann Archy]

I KNEW something was different with Johnson when I saw that he wasn’t combing his hair with a Balloon anymore!

[Rockingham]

It's complicated in the way of British political history and their unwritten constitution. The function of prime minister developed before the title and office were generally recognized, with Woolsey and Thomas Cromwell under Henry and Cecil under Elizabeth regarded as early prime ministers in a functional sense. Yet it was not until the British Parliament achieved political superiority over the monarch that the title and office of prime minister were recognized and accepted.

The Whig parliamentarian Robert Walpole in the 1720s is sometimes seen as the first prime minister, with William Pitt the Younger's long era in office during the Napoleonic Wars and the Regency marking the true emergence of the first modern prime minister. After that, whether Britain's monarchs were revered or ignored, Britain's parliamentarians ran the country, with their prime minister as the chief executive. Thus Pitt the Younger is often regarded as Britain's first true prime minister in the modern sense.

[Stingray51]

Boris identifies as a Catholic but is there anything about are his actions, public statements and political positions consistent with that? Can a believing Catholic who acts like one get elected? (It’s a question made a little more difficult by Pope Francis muddying the waters.)

[Cronos]

Absolutely nothing in his actions, public statements and political positions are consistent with him being a Catholic

[kearnyirish2]

The purpose of this is to make it acceptable for “catholics” to hold openly anti-Catholic views without question, and normalize THAT brand of Catholicism as “Catholic”.

[I want the USA back]

I’m sure the guardian, marxist trash publication, probed into Johnson’s life, present and past to find something to get him on. If there had been anything, you can bet the guardian would be yelling it from the rooftops.

[irishjuggler]

Thanks for that explanation.

[Rockingham]

Yet there were warnings that my degree in history would be of no use!

[sinsofsolarempirefan]

All things considered, he is still probably a better Catholic than Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi.

[sinsofsolarempirefan]

The term ‘Prime Minister’ originated as a derogatory term for Robert Walpole, who was the First Lord of the Treasury, which was the official title of the Prime Minister until 1905 when the term ‘Prime minister’ became an official term rather than shorthand for the First Lord of the Treasury, which is still the official constitutional term for the British Prime Minister.

[Rockingham]

In the 1870s, reflecting general understanding, Benjamin Disraeli was signing treaties and other official documents describing himself as Britain's Prime Minister. First Lord of the Treasury was not so much the 'official title' of the Prime Minister but an office and portfolio held as a consequence of being Prime Minister. Eventually, in 1905, the term Prime Minister was formally adopted in British law, thereby aligning it with what had become long-established practice.

In a better world, of course, we would be carrying on this discussion as Oxford dons enjoying lunch at the high table. Please pass the sherry this way, old chap!

[BillyBoy]

There a number of problems with this article, starting with the inconvenient truth that ANY kind of "Prime Minister" holding power under Henry VIII would have been unthinkable, Catholic or not, because the position simply didn't exist yet.

The office wasn't established until the 18th century, well over 200 years AFTER Henry VIII's anti-Catholic crusade. They've retroactively dated the first "Prime Minister" to Sir Robert Walpole, but he wasn't even called "Prime Minister" at the time, he just held the office that basically evolved into what is the "Prime Minister", or head cabinet officer, in today's modern UK government. Furthermore, those early "Prime Ministers" certainly didn't have the power that a modern Prime Minister has as the final say and the head of the UK government... so "Lord North", for example, the PM at the time of the American revolution, wasn't really "in charge" of things. The ultimate authority rested with George III, the "Prime Minister" was just the guy the King delegated authority to carry out his orders. I don't think Prime Ministers actually "governed" the country and ran government in the modern sense until the days of Benjamin Disraeli, and that was because the monarchy had essentially been reduced to a figurehead role by the time of Victoria.

Anyone in Parliament who attempted to serve the modern function of a "Prime Minister" in Henry VIII's day would have been accused of usurping Henry's authority (the reaction would have been along the lines of "who the hell does he think he is, Oliver Cromwell?!"), and promptly beheaded, along with all his ex-wives and Catholic clergy who didn't worship His Majesty as Supreme Head of the Church.

If an American publication wrote this, I have no doubt some snooty British would be nitpicking how it demonstrates how ignorant Americans are to assume there's always been a "Prime Minister" in charge of England like an American President, but of course, this is a British publication citing a historical anachronism to make its case. ;-)

[BillyBoy]

Ironic, just after posting the comment above, I realized I wrote my OWN historical anachronism by saying people in Henry VIII’s day would compare a wannabe Prime Minister in Parliment to Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell, of course, wouldn’t be born for another century. :-)

[Impy]

Actually, Parliament has been firmly “in charge” since the so called “Glorious Revolution” that they instigated, this was even before the development of the post of Prime Minister.

But George III (and his predecessors) certainly had a lot more influence than modern monarchs. The power of the King took a step back under George IV. By Victoria it was gone but I think she was the last one they showed much deference to, Lord Rosebery (the last decent Liberal PM) was chosen as PM cause she disliked most the other leading Liberals.

[BillyBoy]

In any case, getting back to the topic of Boris Johnson himself, he is a "practicing Catholic" the same way Joe Biden and Sonia Sotomayor are (possibly Biden is even moreso a "practicing Catholic", because Biden at least went thru the motions of trying to attend Mass regularly in the past)

Posts #8, #9, #10 nail it, there's nothing in Johnson's record or life history to suggest he remotely believes in any sort of Catholic worldview or theology. Johnson himself admits he is not into religion. He is nominally "Catholic" on paper in the sense of being baptized Catholic as a baby and raised in a "Catholic" environment, but that just makes him culturally Catholic rather than a religious follower of Catholicism (ironically, the same is true of Melania Trump, but the difference is she wasn't running government, her husband was)

Since Johnson is not actually "Catholic" aside from cultural background, there's no reason for anti-Catholic bigots to oppose him, in much the same way nobody cared about Barry Goldwater being "Jewish" on paper in 1964, despite the fact America wouldn't have been ready for an actual JEWISH President at the time.

Another issue is demographics, its not that the UK has gotten over its past anti-Catholic culture (as the Guardian wants to suggest here and pat the British on the back for), but that the demographics of the country have now shifted to the point where Catholics clearly outnumber the membership of the "official" state church, making it an inevitablity that a "Catholic" would end up as head of government, sooner or later (kinda like how AOC ended up winning in her district over a white RAT). Due to the UK still having ridiculous antiquated laws making it a "high misdemeanor" for a "Catholic" to advice which Church of England bishops should be appointed to the House of Lords and so on, this means Johnson had to recluse himself and they have to jump thru hoops to continue their dog-and-pony show about the Church of England being the "official" church of the UK government. Silly stuff.

As I said at the time of Johnson's appointment, the only ACTUAL conservative choice would have been Jacob Rees-Mogg, who IS an actual practicing Catholic, and UNLIKE Johnson, DOES hold public views in line with the catechism of the Catholic church on issues like abortion and gay marriage. It would be interesting to see how Catholic bashers on both the right and left would react to such a person in power. (most likely, the Catholic haters on the right would take a page from what they did when Jair got elected in Brazil, and simply pretend the devout Catholic is the "Evangelical candidate" and a victory for their religious faith despite the candidate holding the exact opposite theology of theirs)