Brown’s Scottish Catholic problem?

Sorry, another Telegraph link. But Damian Thompson’s line on Gordon Brown’s reasons for proposing an end to the Act of Succession: he’s fearful of losing a solid base of Catholic Labour voters in central Scotland… Over to you?

, ,

  • perci

    Well the Act of Succession should be scrapped.
    However, this smacks of more Brown desperation to keep the Union together.
    Brown needs the 80 or so Labour MP’s in Scotland for his majority. With the SNP pressing ahead and calling for referendum, its a panicky time for Labour.( broadsheet comment )

    Personally I don’t know what this uncle tom is doing in England; why doesn’t he bugger off back to Scotland and stand as an MP there, and back his country’s push for independence( tabloid comment)

  • “stand as an MP there”

    He is an MP there. Do you mean MSP?

  • Dewi

    “Meanwhile, the Scottish Nationalists are working hard to ditch their anti-Papist prejudices.”

    It’s always been bullshit and it still is – SNP never been sectarian. Don’t export your nonsense please.

  • Gregory

    The SNP just did a load of PQs for me.

    Being a bit sectarian is ok, a bit of local color, a frisson of faux difference.

    Where would it end, it wasn’t, would the Sox fans in Chicago have to like the Cubs?

    No, that’s like supporting Rangers.

    Except of course Rangers ain’t gay.

    Unlike the Cubs.

    G.

  • It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it

    Dewi,

    “It’s always been bullshit and it still is – SNP never been sectarian. Don’t export your nonsense please. ”

    Thats what I used to think – but that is the convinced view of many scottish catholics who will offer much evidence.

    It’s always a puzzle to me how it is that the Catholic population is more Unionist than the Protestant population because of my conditioning by the situation in Ireland.

    Also Dewi, anothe puzzler for me is strength of anti-welsh language/nationalism feeling amongst the Cardiff-Irish.

  • Prince Eoghan

    Can anyone make a case for retention of this seriously outdated Act?

    >>This is the first time for decades that Catholics in Scotland – traditionally the most loyal of Labour voters – have been faced with a Protestant Scottish PM who cannot hide his contempt for aspects of Catholic teaching. Meanwhile, the Scottish Nationalists are working hard to ditch their anti-Papist prejudices.< >Also Dewi, another puzzler for me is strength of anti-welsh language/nationalism feeling amongst the Cardiff-Irish.<

  • Prince Eoghan

    >>Thats what I used to think – but that is the convinced view of many scottish catholics who will offer much evidence.<

  • willowfield

    my local priest openly calling for a vote for anyone but labour

    Why?

  • Prince Eoghan

    Why? As in why are they meddling in politics?

    I believe that community leaders, religious or otherwise should try and guide and inform on a certain level. Many disagree, including the old labourites arguing on the chapel steps after mass.

    Why? As in what caused the fall out of love between the church in Scotland and labour?

    Where to begin?, abortion and genetics seem to be high on the list though Willow.

  • Gréagóir O’ Frainclín

    Regarding the ‘Act of Succession’ sure wouldn’t we all love to see a papist back on the throne of England, and sure why not!

    The Protestant guilt of beheading one British monarch and unloyaly siding with a foreigner over a British monarch in 1690 must be insurmountable on their conscious today. For deep in their psyche must be a cause of shame and guilt.
    No wonder we get the neverending and over exagerated outpourings of unflinching loyalty to the ‘British’ crown by Unionists today. For it really hides their act of betrayal.

  • It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it

    Prince Eoghan

    “I’d put aspects of this down to a colonial mindset and divide and rule”

    Not sure if I follow you here but sometimes, if reluctantly, we Irish have to take responsibility for your own behaviour – much as I like myself to blame the Englezes for everything.

    But I do largely agree with you about Scottish catholics lookng at Non Iron and seeing a Scotish parliament potentially behaving similarly. The problem for the boy Gordon is that this viewpoint is being replaced by the Braveheart generation who may switch sides.

    However, I am led to believe that there was considerable job discrimation in Scotland in ceratins areas and sectors which was a contributory reason for Catholics remaining loyal to labour and Ireland and being quite anti-scottish in some regards.

  • willowfield

    Prince

    Why? As in why are they meddling in politics?

    No. Why? As in why did he call for a vote for anyone but Labour?

    Why? As in what caused the fall out of love between the church in Scotland and labour? Where to begin?, abortion and genetics seem to be high on the list though Willow.

    And how do the policies of the Tories, Lib Dems, SNP, SSP, Greens, etc., differ from those of Labour in respect of abortion and genetics?

  • Democratic

    “I believe that community leaders, religious or otherwise should try and guide and inform on a certain level. Many disagree, including the old labourites arguing on the chapel steps after mass.”

    It would probably be better Prince if Priests (or Ministers for that matter) kept out of politics in Scotland and stick to what they are qualified to teach – especially if ending up like Northern Ireland is something you fear…

  • Gregory

    “Thankfully we as a nation have emerged from this kind of backward medieval type thinking. ”

    So we can look forward to anti-Catholic discrimination after the Canadian model instead?

    I really don’t think it is that simple, a half-way house is quite attractive.

    Catholics need to be careful, being the roadmap.

    G.

  • Scotsman

    The SNP only started garnering votes in the 1960’s, by which time the West of Scotland sectarianism was on the wane (in terms of employment discrimination) along with Glasgow’s heavy industry. The only reason I can think that the SNP might be seen by some as sectarian would be that some of its members are against “faith” schools- just like members of other parties.

    Brown can call on 40 Scottish MP’s (out of 59) at Westminster, and he’ll have just about as many next time unless there’s a Labour meltdown of 1983 proportions. Non-heartland seats like Dumfries and Ochil look vulnerable, but most in the West of Scotland laager are as safe as they come.

    The Cardinal’s influence is somewhat over-rated by the media and by Labour politicians.

  • Phil

    Prince Eoghan,

    I read this article the other day that may be of interest:

    http://britologywatch.wordpress.com/

  • AntiChrist

    The Cardiff Irish.

    Once an almost completely self-contained community, now almost completely integrated, save for a few bar-room braggards around Roath.

    Well, like the Scots, they were Catholic with a big C and they noticed the Nationalists liked their bibles a bit too much, and the Irish, with an innate understanding of clannishness, looked with suspicion on the lack of diversity in the Welsh surname department. Felt happier with the English running the show, and again, like the Tammalloys, saw what happened in Stormont and thought, well, no thanks.

    Today though, they increasingly vote as this ex-resident of Crwys Road did – PC.

  • It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it

    AntiChrist,

    whenever I hear any Kaydiff anti-Welsh sentiment expressed I always do a quick lineage check and often very disappointingly find some Irishery.

    It may also be a factor that the Kaydiff Irish may have been on the receiving end of some nonconformist anti-papist feelings.

    But as you say things are a movin’ in the right direction.

    p.s. What is this ‘Tammalloys’ malarkey of which you speak?

  • AntiChrist

    You’re right Sam. But Kairdiff isn’t Wales like Dublin isn’t Ireland. The Tammalloys or Tim Molloys are Celtic supporters who sing:

    Forever and ever
    We’ll follow the voice
    Of Glasgow Celtic
    The Tammalloys
    And we’ll no’ be mastered
    By no orange bastard
    We’ll keep the green flag
    Flying here

    And are nowadays chucked out by the stewards, presumably because of the use of a double negative which implies that they will, in fact, be mastered by an orange bastard.

  • Act of Settlement, surely?

  • Brown needs the 80 or so Labour MP’s in Scotland for his majority.

    There are 80 MPs in Scotland? News to me.

  • John K Lund

    The Prime Minister is now trying to woo his Roman Catholic MPs by suggesting changes to the Act of Settlement. Pursuit of this ill thought out strategy could well finish up with the United Kingdom having Roman Catholic monarchs in perpetuity as the Pope’s rule of “Ne Temere” would apply.
    The consequent results of this ill thought out attempt, no doubt to help ease his embryo bill through against The Roman Catholic Church’s will, is to give its MPs an inducement by rewriting the Act of Settlement and throws up a veritable myriad of potential obstacles. For instance where would we crown a new monarch if he was a Roman Catholic? How could we swear allegiance to a monarch who would be obeisant to the head of a foreign state, who is elected by cardinals from foreign countries? Which denomination is the principle church of the military? The monarch is Head of the Church of England and it is not for a Presbyterian lead cabinet to dictate to our church how it goes about its affairs. We have a General Synod for that purpose. The list of problems is endless.
    So much so, that if the Prime Minister continues to dig this hole he will never recover us from the mess we are already in, which appears to be totally insoluble already. He seems to be intent on giving away our much cherished sovereignty away to not only Brussels but also The Vatican.
    John K Lund. Moira Co. Armagh. Northern Ireland.
    .

  • AntiChrist

    Earth to headbanger Lund, Árd Mhacha.

    It’s principal in this instance, not principle.

  • Dewi

    Sammy – zzz -forget the thread – what on earth were Ulster on ?

  • Gregory

    “For instance where would we crown a new monarch if he was a Roman Catholic? How could we swear allegiance to a monarch who would be obeisant to the head of a foreign state, who is elected by cardinals from foreign countries? ”

    I don’t see the problem. On the the other hand, Franensteinism is a step too far.

    Few of the hierarchy in England pay a blind bit of notice to the Pope, which is one of the reasons we have bishops in Portsmouth angling for legal brothels.

    In any case, our problem is Big Brother Number 1 in West Belfast, as opposed to any prospective King Paddy of England.

  • Gregory

    “What is this ‘Tammalloys’ malarkey of which you speak? ”

    Catholic street gang in Glasgow.

  • It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it

    Dewi,

    Ulster done good – at least for a while. Ospreys didn’t look too sharp for long periods – but I watched the Munster game and they looked pretty poor – worrying for game against Gloucester.

  • Dewi

    Ospreys gonnna beat the world me thinks. Ulster useless.

  • I see that Mr. Lund has posted some nonsense about the Catholic Church so I did some research on the Web about [i]Ne Temere[/i] and the rules and regulations of the Catholic Church with respect to mixed marriages.

    Before I really begin, however, the proper term is the [b]Catholic Church[/b], not the “Roman Catholic Church”. Roman defines the rite that is followed by a specific Catholic Church or diocese. There are, IIRC, some 23 “Churches” is the Catholic Church, which differ by the rites and language used in the celebration of the Eucharistic Liturgy (the Mass) and some disciplianry rules, e.g. a married clergy. Doctrine, however, is the same in all and the Pope is the head of all the “Churches”. Over 90% of the world’s one billion Catholics follow the Latin or Roman rite. So, when you are talking about the way Mass is celebrated or the marital status of the clergy, the term Roman Catholic is appropriate and correct. Otherwise, all billion are, properly, just “Catholics”.

    Now [i]Ne Temere[/i] is an interesting piece of historical literature but was replaced at least 25 years ago by a restated Code of Canon Law. Sections 1124 through 1129 cover the issues of Mixed Marriages. The key Canons for our purposes are 1124 and 1125:

    [i]CHAPTER VI: MIXED MARRIAGES

    Canon 1124 Without the express permission of the competent authority, marriage is prohibited between two baptised persons, one of whom was baptised in the catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act, the other of whom belongs to a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the catholic Church.

    Canon 1125 The local Ordinary can grant this permission if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions are fulfilled:

    Canon 1125.1 the catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith, and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power in order that all the children be baptised and brought up in the catholic Church;

    Canon 1125.2 the other party is to be informed in good time of these promises to be made by the catholic party, so that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and of the obligation of the catholic party.

    Canon 1125.3 both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage, which are not to be excluded by either contractant.[/i]

    Seems to me that Mr. Lund has vastly overstated the dangers of Catholic Canon Law with respect to mixed marriages.

    BTW, for those interested, the full text of the decree [i]Ne Temere[/i] can be found at http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=5167

    Seems to me that Mr. Lund really doesn’t know what he is talking about.

  • Prince Eoghan

    Sammy

    >>I am led to believe that there was considerable job discrimation in Scotland<<'Was' being the operative word here, thankfully long gone. The Church of Scotland has apologised for their shameful behaviour and the OO have been terminally sidelined. All in all we have the makings of a progressive society.Willow.Doesn't matter, it is labour that the Catholic church is in with the bricks. Suits Labour more than the church, especially right now. Withdraw that support and we now have exibit A, an SNP govt. Remember wee Alex threatened to call an election two months ago if his budget wasn't passed. A minority government would have been a majority according to the polls.ScotsmanThey reckon that Labour only need appeal to something like 10% of middle English swinging voters(someone correct me if I am wrong) Well Catholics make up around 20% of voters in Scotland, without even half of them who vote Labour are in permanent opposition. Thus the importance of the cardinal is not over stated to those MSP's who wish to retain their seats, and the media recognise this. The SNP almost won Airdrie/Coatbridge a Catholic majority seat, practically unthinkable ever.The Tim Malloy's cum Timaloise are an endearing term for Celtic, thus if you are a Tim, or a jungle(after a famous area of Celtic park) Jim. Then you are a Celtic fan, or is sometimes used by non-Catholics to denote Catholics.

  • sammaguire

    “Look out for hirelings, King Paddy of England
    Search every kingdom where breathes a slave
    For Father Murphy of County Wexford
    Sweeps o’er the land like a mighty wave

    We took Camolin and Enniscorthy
    And Wexford storming drove out our foes
    ‘Twas at Slieve Coilte our pikes were reeking
    With the crimson blood of the beaten Yeos”

    Doesn’t sound quite right somehow!! The truth of the matter is most Irish Catholics/nationalists/republicans don’t give a monkey’s about the Act of Settlement. None of us particularly wants to become part of the British royal family and it exposes supporters (of the Act) as being sectarian. I can understand British Catholics not being too pleased about it though.

  • Prince Eoghan

    sammaguire

    We are Catholics who live in either Britain or the six counties. It is a symbol of the state’s continuing lack of desire to value all of her people equally.

    Sammy

    Forgot to explain the colonial mentality thing. Here in the central belt of Scotland there was/is a serious lack of respect for tcheuchters(Highlanders/Gaels and their supposed backward ways. Thus anyone not au fait with civilised speech and manners/customs is derided. Hence the Welsh treatemnt of their selves, eg the Cardiff/Swansea divide, and the Irish looking down on the Welsh speakers probably because they were a level above them on the road to Anglicisation.

  • Ulsters my homeland

    [i]Canon 1125.1 the catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith, and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power in order that all the children be baptised and brought up in the catholic Church; [/i]

    Interesting Canons Bob. It would be nice to know what “prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith” means.

    It would also be interesting to know what Rome would deem as undertaking ‘all in his or her power’ Would Rome favour this law over and above that of cival law?

    [i]Canon 1125.2 the other party is to be informed in good time of these promises to be made by the catholic party, so that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and of the obligation of the catholic party.[/i]

    Who would want to marry into this type of bondage? It would seem better to live in freedom by not being in a mixed marriage rather than favouring a life of spiritual bondage. God had the best plan, when he said “Be ye not unequally yoked together”

    [i]Canon 1125.3 both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage, which are not to be excluded by either contractant.[/i]

    and no doubt if either party was to forget these obligations they would receive spiritual damnation

  • [i]”Interesting Canons Bob. It would be nice to know what “prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith” means.”[/i]

    I think the statement is clear enough, but what do you think it means? It seems to me that it only means walking away from all the practices that are “Catholic”, e.g. going to Mass, receiving the Sacraments, teaching the children to do the same, etc. If the spouse refuses to allow all such practices, it would seem to me that there is a more than adequate cause for a civil divorce and may well be grounds for a dissolution of the Sacramental marriage. Especially if force or violence is used to prevent such practices.

    [i]”Who would want to marry into this type of bondage? It would seem better to live in freedom by not being in a mixed marriage rather than favouring a life of spiritual bondage. God had the best plan, when he said “Be ye not unequally yoked together””[/i]

    What “spiritual bondage”? All this says is that the non-Catholic partner must be aware of the religious obligations of the Catholic partner. Seems to me that this is perfectly proper and, indeed, necessary if there is to be a true marriage, Sacramental or not.

    [i]”and no doubt if either party was to forget these obligations they would receive spiritual damnation”[/i]

    That’s a matter for the Lord God, not me, not you and not even the Pope — Protestant of Catholic.

    Seems to me that some folk are determined to be offended — even when they have no cause.

  • Ulsters my homeland

    [i]”Interesting Canons Bob. It would be nice to know what “prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith” means.”

    I think the statement is clear enough, but what do you think it means? It seems to me that it only means walking away from all the practices that are “Catholic”, e.g. going to Mass, receiving the Sacraments, teaching the children to do the same, etc. If the spouse refuses to allow all such practices, it would seem to me that there is a more than adequate cause for a civil divorce and may well be grounds for a dissolution of the Sacramental marriage. Especially if force or violence is used to prevent such practices.[/i]

    but that doesn’t exlain the part, “[b]prepared to remove dangers[/b] of defecting from the faith”. I would understand that to mean, that the spouse must not be allowed to question or challenge the Sacrements mentioned above, not just refusing to allow these practices. If this is the case, in which I think it is, then the spouse would be in spiritual bondage.

    [i]What “spiritual bondage”? All this says is that the non-Catholic partner must be aware of the religious obligations of the Catholic partner. Seems to me that this is perfectly proper and, indeed, necessary if there is to be a true marriage, Sacramental or not.[/i]

    but it also says the Catholic party must be prepared to ‘remove dangers of defecting from the faith’, which must include the other partners right to voice his/her opinion to the Catholic partner or to his own children, especially if that opinion was in opposition against Roman belief.

    [i]“and no doubt if either party was to forget these obligations they would receive spiritual damnation”

    That’s a matter for the Lord God, not me, not you and not even the Pope —Protestant of Catholic.[/i]

    Bob, try telling that to the the Vatican. They can still excommunicate.

    [i]Seems to me that some folk are determined to be offended —even when they have no cause.[/i]

    considering the Canons directly affect those who aren’t Roman Catholic, I think it correct that people should ask for more exact explanations, don’t you? I for one would want to know more, especially if my right to spread the Gospel could be prohibited.

  • Here we go again! It seems that some folk are determined to go to absurdities to find something to make them feel oppressed. Sheesh!!!!

    And, it seems that these same “critics” don’t even have the courtesty to use proper terminology with their continued misuse of the term “Roman Catholic”.

    [i]”I would understand that to mean, that the spouse must not be allowed to question or challenge the Sacrements mentioned above, not just refusing to allow these practices.”[/i] Depends on how it’S done. Discussing the questions with mutual respect is certainly reasonable and proper. Continuously harping and complaining about the differences in belief and refusing to accept that such differences are what they signed up for is quite another. It seems that the Catholic partner must respect the beliefs of the non-Catholic but that also means the non-Catholic must respect the beliefs of the Catholic partner.

    Bottom line: no issue as long as the parties respect each other’s beliefs. Serious lack of respect could well be legitimate grounds for civil divorce.

    [i]”Bob, try telling that to the the Vatican. They can still excommunicate.”[/i]

    Obviously, you don’t know what excommunication means. But, for your information, it is Catholic beleif and practice that only God can proounce spiritual damnation at the time of judgement.

    Asd I said, it’s pretty clear that UMH really doesn’t know whereof he speaks and is determined to find offense where there is none.

  • Gregory

    Before I really begin, however, the proper term is the Catholic Church, not the “Roman Catholic Church”. Roman defines the rite that is followed by a specific Catholic Church or diocese. There are, IIRC, some 23 “Churches” is the Catholic Church, which differ by the rites and language used in the celebration of the Eucharistic “Liturgy (the Mass) and some disciplianry rules, e.g. a married clergy. Doctrine, however, is the same in all and the Pope is the head of all the “Churches”. Over 90% of the world’s one billion Catholics follow the Latin or Roman rite. So, when you are talking about the way Mass is celebrated or the marital status of the clergy, the term Roman Catholic is appropriate and correct. Otherwise, all billion are, properly, just “Catholics”. ”

    The ‘Roman’ aspect is political, some of the other aspects have yet to be resolved,

    The Copts (for example) may have been unfairly stigmatized, and of course, Constantinople (which is also a fully Roman Patriarchate) etc.

    Non-residence ended up being characteristic of Latin Patriarchates.

    Most or all were abolished (1964?) There is only one Catholic Church.

    G.