Could England have remained Catholic?

[HardRockGTR]

It’s not that England has more Atheists than any other country, its just that England is more prominent than most countries (so we stuck hearing their Atheists).

Truth is, last time I checked the statistics, 25% of English citizens were non-religious. If I’m not mistaken, the Scandinavian countries are the only ones with a higher concentration of non-religion.

It’s kind of hazy, as Taoism and Shintoism are very popular in Japan, but are considered by some to be religions, but by others to be traditions, or philosophies.

My personal verdict? Taoism = philosophy, Shintoism = religion.

The media wouldn’t bother broadcasting French atheists*, or Russian atheists, or Chinese atheists; we simply wouldn’t understand their message…

*Maybe up in Canada for you!

But Canada has a larger concentration of English speakers and, by extension, more Anglophone media, and we very seldom hear about strong opposition towards religion from them. Again, it’s not about the atheism itself (denial of a god or gods) I’m concerned about, rather, it’s about hatred or vehement opposition to religion (antitheism or New Atheism) that I observe in the English (as in England) society. Think of it as “evangelical non-religion”. Christopher Hitchens (who was English) himself said “I’m not so much an atheist as much as I’m an antitheist”.

(fun fact: Christopher’s brother, Peter, is a Christian minister and theologian)

The United States are also primarily Anglophone and yet we also seldom hear about people who vehemently oppose religion on their behalf. In fact, the United States are kind of a mirror image of England, where we tend to hear a lot of fundamentalist Protestants with controversial opinions. I can only name two American antitheists: Bill Maher (a moron) and Daniel Dennett (a respectable philosopher, at least when it doesn’t come to theology; his thoughts on consciousness are interesting). Virtually every other antitheist I know, either personally or through their works, is English, with the possible exceptions of David Hume and Karl Marx (but again, obviously, not all the English people I know, whether personally or through their works, is an antitheist).

 

[HabemusFrancis]

Its curious…

If England had remained Catholic… could that have had an effect on the English settlement of North America? Would the American revolution, and our constitution, seperation of church and state have existed?

 

[losh14]

If England had remained Catholic… could that have had an effect on the English settlement of North America? Would the American revolution, and our constitution, seperation of church and state have existed?

I wonder if the larger question is less one of Catholic vs. Protestant, more one of having a dominant religion versus a true plurality where church membership doesn’t determine one’s legal rights. In other words, I think it’s the fact of suppression of minority faiths - Puritan, Calvinist, as well as Catholic - and the imposition of a State church that helped form a conscientious desire to allow for religious diversity and intolerance of a centralized, State church.

 

[Valeite]

If Henry VIII didn’t ask for a divorce it could’ve been possible.

If the Pope had granted one - as happened commonly for the ruling classes of Europe who tired of their wives - I’m sure nothing would have happened. Henry VIII was a committed Catholic who had written (or had ghostwritten) In Defence Of The Seven Sacraments, a riposte to Martin Luther, in 1521.

It was only when Clement VII refused Henry’s petition for a divorce, apparently for fear of the reaction of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, nephew of Catherine of Aragon, that Henry used ideas of some of the Reformers - at the instigation of Thomas Cromwell - to effectively nationalise the Church in England. This was not without resistance from many in England and I’m sure they would have remained contentedly Catholic were it not for Henry’s intervention.

Whether there would have been some kind of Reformation in the years following is an open question though. Calvinism and other reformist ideas did gain a foothold, but no more than that, in Elizabethan England and eventually I’m sure the plurality of denominations we see in modern day England would eventually have resulted.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**liturgyluver

Your understanding is incorrect. The Church of England doesn’t receive any financial support from central government or taxation.**

abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread534897/pg1

Another form of central government support is that the appointment of Archbishop of Canterbury is approved by the reigning monarch.

churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2012/03/outline-of-procedures-for-appointment-of-an-archbishop-of-canterbury.aspx

I repeat: if the Church of England were completely separated from the British government and deprived of any government support (including taxes) it would fall fairly soon.

 

[liturgyluver]

**liturgyluver

Your understanding is incorrect. The Church of England doesn’t receive any financial support from central government or taxation.**

abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread534897/pg1

How creative - to lift a link from the National Secular Society - hardly a balanced and unbiased source!! Nowhere in the link is there any evidence of state funding for the any of the UK’s Cathedrals as you originally claimed but there have been requests from both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops for the state to support the great Cathedrals which are thousands of years old in the same way that they are supported by the state in many other European countries, and that other secular buildings are supported through the DCMS. The sums referred to that are paid through the lottery are not from general taxation and If you dig deeper you will find similar diatribes from the National Secular Society claiming how immoral it is that Catholic and Anglican Church Schools (which are both state funded and charge no fees) receive money from the government.

 

[liturgyluver]

Another form of central government support is that the appointment of Archbishop of Canterbury is approved by the reigning monarch.

churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2012/03/outline-of-procedures-for-appointment-of-an-archbishop-of-canterbury.aspx

I repeat: if the Church of England were completely separated from the British government and deprived of any government support (including taxes) it would fall fairly soon.

That is because it is an established church. You really don’t know what you are talking about - Individual Anglican Churches do not receive any state financial support - and are are funded on the same basis as other UK churches - by their congregations and lettings of Church Halls and premises. The number of Anglican churchgoers in the UK is just slightly below Catholics and church giving to Anglican churches from its members has increased by 60% in the last 20 years: christiantoday.com/article/strong.church.growth.in.london/28728.htm

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liturgyluver

churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2012/05/government-agrees-%C2%A330-million-extra-to-resolve-vat-concerns.aspx

I wish you were as much a lover of facts as you are a lover of liturgy!

 

[liturgyluver]

liturgyluver

churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2012/05/government-agrees-%C2%A330-million-extra-to-resolve-vat-concerns.aspx

I wish you were as much a lover of facts as you are a lover of liturgy!

Charlemagne - this is what happens when Amercans who don’t understand how British finances work put two and two together and make five! Previously, listed places of worship - regardless of denomination - did not have to pay Value Added Tax on repairs to their buildings. That policy has now been withdrawn and all churches will now have to pay this tax, and this grant provides all affected churches - Anglican, Catholic, Methodist - with some transitional relief in the short term. As the article says:

*Despite not persuading the Government that maintaining zero rated VAT for alterations is the best way forward, **church leaders today *said that the £30 million a year extra money that the Chancellor has committed to the LPWGS will enable the equivalent to the VAT bill to be paid out on all alterations and repairs to listed church buildings. The Scheme pays out to those denominations and faiths with listed buildings.

So this is not a subsidy to the Church of England, since as the article also says :Across the English dioceses an estimated £100million is spent on alterations to listed church buildings each year. 45% per cent of England’s Grade I listed buildings are Church of England churches.

This article from the Scottish Catholic Observer explains the context: sconews.co.uk/news/18976/chancellor-offers-30m-to-offset-vat-on-church-alterations%E2%80%8E/

 

[Charlemagne_II]

But this is tax support of Church of England houses of worship.

Moreover, the Church of England is supported by the monarch who must be a member who endorses that denomination, and therefore lends moral support to the denomination, without which the denomination might well fall into disrepute since the British are such incorrigible lovers of their monarchy and loyal to their monarch. Take all that away, and you would see further reason for the Church of England to collapse. Catholics would still have their pope, but the Anglicans would have lost theirs.

royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandChurch/QueenandtheChurchofEngland.aspx

 

[liturgyluver]

But this is tax support of Church of England houses of worship.

Moreover, the Church of England is supported by the monarch who must be a member who endorses that denomination, and therefore lends moral support to the denomination, without which the denomination might well fall into disrepute since the British are such incorrigible lovers of their monarchy and loyal to their monarch. Take all that away, and you would see further reason for the Church of England to collapse. Catholics would still have their pope, but the Anglicans would have lost theirs.

royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandChurch/QueenandtheChurchofEngland.aspx

You are missing the point again - the grant is not supporting any churches but plugging the additional tax that churches now have to pay. In doing so it supports listed buildings across all denominations.

You misunderstand the constitutional position : The Queen is the Supreme Governor and not the Head of the Church of England, there is no way you can compare her to the Pope as she has no influence over its day to day affairs, liturgy, policy etc which are agreed by Synod. The head of the CofE is the Archbishop of Canterbury. The UK constitution is very complicated: The Queen is not the Head of the Anglican Church in Wales nor the Church in Ireland. She is however, a member of the Church of Scotland which is Presbyterian, again a symbolic role.

One thing that you and I would agree on I actually think that the Church of England should be dis-established (as do many people within the Church of England), but unlike you I don’t think it would make a significant difference to the Church at all. In fact I think it would strengthen it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**liturgyluver

One thing that you and I would agree on I actually think that the Church of England should be dis-established (as do many people within the Church of England), but unlike you I don’t think it would make a significant difference to the Church at all. In fact I think it would strengthen it. **

I’d have to disagree with you there. Henry VIII made possible the Church of England. A future monarch’s departure from the Church could bring about its decline and ultimate fall. I think it would make a huge difference, for example, if a future king became Catholic. What reason would remain for Anglicans to be loyal to their Church other than that they crave a radically liberal and increasingly anti-Pauline theology?

 

[liturgyluver]

I’d have to disagree with you there. Henry VIII made possible the Church of England. A future monarch’s departure from the Church could bring about its decline and ultimate fall. I think it would make a huge difference, for example, if a future king became Catholic. What reason would remain for Anglicans to be loyal to their Church other than that they crave a radically liberal and increasingly anti-Pauline theology?

What reasons? Perhaps because they were baptised into their church, they feel spiritually at home there, they enjoy their beautiful liturgies and wonderful music, they find it a middle way betweem protestantism and catholism, and support the untiring work that they do for the poor and marginalised in their communities. For the many Anglicans that I know the role of the monarch is not spiritually important at all, like the constitution they act as a figurehead. The Anglican Communion has 80 million adherents in 38 provinces throughout the world and in most countries and territories there in no monarchical link and the church still continues. It is important to remember too that The Church of England is far less radical than the Episcopal Church in America, and on the whole its members are liturgically conservative, and socially conservative. A recent poll in fact suggested that they were more conservative than Catholics in many areas:

churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2013/13-september/news/uk/christians-more-liberal,-survey-finds

*When first asked, in 1989, whether “people who want children ought to get married”, 71 per cent of all those surveyed agreed, and 17 per cent disagreed. By 2012, the proportion agreeing had dropped to 42 per cent, and the proportion of those disagreeing had risen to 34 per cent.

In 1989, more than three-quarters of Anglicans surveyed (78 per cent) thought that people should marry before having children. In 2012, just over half of Anglicans (54 per cent) thought this. Roman Catholics have become even more accepting of having children outside of wedlock: in 1989, 73 per cent thought people should marry before having children; in 2012, just 43 per cent thought this.

In 1983, 63 per cent of Anglicans and 67 per cent of Roman Catholics said that same-sex relationships were “always” or “mostly” wrong. In 2012, this had dropped to 40 per cent of Anglicans and 35 per cent of Roman Catholics.*

And on that note I bid you good night my friend.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liturgyluver

**And on that note I bid you good night my friend. **

Benedict XVI likes your Anglican liturgy so much he provided its continuation for parishes converting to Catholicism.

As to the statistics game, I don’t play it.

As Mark Twain said, “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

Sleep well.

 

[7_Sorrows]

the protestant movement was pretty powerful and with the printing press and more people having access to the Bible, I am not sure.

if Henry VIII had remained the Defender of the Faith as another poster suggested and his children been raised Catholic and future generations, perhaps.

however, once he delared himself the head of the Church of England, that pretty much broke off all ties with Rome and then there were the persecutions of the Catholics and the destruction and looting of Catholic churches, monasteries, etc.

I don’t know if any other European country experienced as much bloodshed between catholics and protestants as England did.

I am not sure now what the numbers are in England as opposed to practicing Catholics and practicing Anglicans. perhaps one day, there will be more Catholics in England.

 

[Petaro]

Whilst I agree that it is a bit of a stretch to call the UK a Catholic country (there are around 5 million Catholics which is one in 6 of the population) there are a few inaccuracies in your post. BBC2 does not beam out the Muslim call to prayer - it was actually Channel 4 who did this during Ramadan - and they were cristicised by muslims and non-muslims alike. The Archbishop of Canterbury did not say that Sharia law should be introduced - this is what he actually said:
rowanwilliams.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/1135/sharia-law-what-did-the-archbishop-actually-say.

Mass attendance has fallen - as indeed it has in almost all the western world - but Catholic mass attendance in the UK at 22% is higher than average in Europe and only slightly lower than the USA (23%), and higher than Australia at 12.2%. We just did our October mass count and the figures are the highest since 1976! As for your description of Anglican church attendance - it is growing in London. Our local churches of different traditions are packed out. It is a different picture though in the country where there is one church per village. For every one Catholic church there are 6 Anglican ones.

To go back to the opening question, I agree with those posters who say that you cannot turn the clock back - you have to live in the present reality and pray that the decline in Christianity across the west will subside.

Thank you for your corrections, I have noted them in humility.I have been too tough on the Archbishop.

 

[Contarini]

But this is tax support of Church of England houses of worship.

Moreover, the Church of England is supported by the monarch who must be a member who endorses that denomination, and therefore lends moral support to the denomination, without which the denomination might well fall into disrepute since the British are such incorrigible lovers of their monarchy and loyal to their monarch.

You’re really revealing your lack of knowledge about Britain with every post. . . .

On the whole, I think most British people would rather have a monarchy than not (though there are many vocal critics of the monarchy), but they certainly don’t pay any attention to the monarch in religious matters. The monarchy is at most a nice reminder of Britain’s cultural heritage–except for a very small number of very conservative English (and maybe Northern Irish Protestant) people, who have a stronger attachment to the monarchy. These folks are pretty much non-existent in Scotland (and probably in Wales as well, though I know less about Wales), and certainly not the majority in England.

The monarchy is much, much less important to Anglicanism than you think. Please stop speaking to Anglicans and/or British people as if you knew more about them than they know about themselves. (I’m both British and Anglican, although I have not lived in Britain since I was a small child and was not Anglican then.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Hi all.

I just wonder sometimes, it seems England almost avoided the whole protestant reformation thing… I mean if Henry VIII decided to be faithful to his wife… he would never have founded his own “church.”

He could have been as unfaithful as he liked and still have remained in union with Rome. Plenty of Catholic monarchs were. This particular affair created a schism because

1. Anne Boleyn refused to have an affair without a reasonable prospect of marriage at the end of it; and
2. For political reasons, the Pope didn’t want to give an annulment; and
3. Henry and his court intellectuals already had the makings of a nationalistic ideology by which the monarch had principal authority over the Church in his realm.

I think that in the absence of 1 and 2, 3 probably wouldn’t have led to schism. It would probably have led to a situation more like the one in France, where the kings controlled the Church as much as they could and royal theologians developed a nationalistic, conciliarist version of Catholicism. Also, there quite likely would have been a civil war eventually, but as in France it would have been between Reformed dissidents and a Catholic monarchy, rather than (as happened in 17th-century England in “our timeline”) between hyper-Reformed dissidents and a “high church” Protestant monarchy with diplomatic ties to Catholicism.

There were, of course, quite a few points where things could have gone differently. If, for instance, Mary and Philip had had a child, or if Mary had lived longer, or if the Armada had won, or if the varying approaches of the Stuart monarchs to Catholicism (culminating in the accession of a Catholic monarch in the person of James II) had led to a successful Catholic monarchy–then England might have wound up with a Catholic establishment. In other words, I think that at any time before 1688, or maybe even up to 1745, a Catholic monarchy in Britain was a real possibility.

I have heard it said though, that England’s break with the Church was only a matter of time… people have told me that Catholicism just wasn’t in the English “DNA” the way it was in Italians, Irish, Poles, etc…)

I think that’s nonsense. I’m not even sure it isn’t heresy–can the Faith really be in people’s DNA? And can their DNA cause them to fall into heresy? I know that it’s metaphorical language, but I’m not sure that it’s metaphorical for anything real or orthodox.

There was actually a very strong Protestant movement in Poland for a while, and there was an “evangelical” movement in northern Italy, though not all the participants in that movement were Protestants in any schismatic or clearly heretical sense (my alias, Cardinal Contarini, is usually considered to be part of that movement, and Reginald Pole, an English exile who nearly became Pope, was both a leader in the “evangelical” movement and suspect for that reason and the leader of the persecution of Protestants in Marian England!).

Edwin