You may remember an e-mail I sent three weeks ago to Alan Johnson, the Education Minister who led Cabinet opposition to freedom of conscience for Catholic Adoption Agencies. I wrote:
Dear Mr Johnson
You are quoted in today’s “Independent” as saying: “We reject discrimination in all its forms.” Do you or your party intend to bring in legislation to repeal the Act of Settlement, which declares that no one can be Monarch who “professes the popish religion, or marries a papist” and, if so, when do you intend to do this?
Today, Ash Wednesday, I received this reply from Mister Johnson’s Office:
Dear Rev’d Spencer,
Thank you for your email dated 31st January to Alan Johnson about discrimination. I am responding as I am responsible for discrimination legislation in relation to education this Department.
I am not aware of any plans to repeal the Act of Settlement.
Yours sincerely,
John Luckett
Legislation Team : Equality and Diversity Unit
Mr Luckett is not aware of any plans because the Government of the United Kingdom, a government which claims to be against discrimination in all its forms, has no plans to deal with the blatant anti-Catholicism of the Act. Kevin McNamara, when he was Member of Parliament for Hull North, campaigned unsuccessfully to have the anti-Catholic provisions of the Act repealed. He wrote in 2001:
This legislation singles out Catholics by denying the right of the monarch or the monarch’s spouse to be a Catholic and excluding Catholics from the line of succession. It goes further – any member of the royal family who marries a Catholic has to renounce their right to the throne. But those in the line of succession are free to marry a person of any other faith, without exception.
It is not enough to say that this legislation is discriminatory and stop at that. It is not sufficient to say that it is a legacy of history. It is not even fair to say that it doesn’t matter to the bulk of Catholics who live in this country – it does.
This legislation implies that a Catholic could not be trusted as the spouse of a future monarch. I couldn’t care who is in succession to the throne, but I do care passionately when a piece of our national legislation singles out people of a particular religion and somehow casts doubt upon their loyalty to their country. I also believe that this legislation contravenes article 9 of the European convention on human rights, which upholds the right to freedom of religion and belief. The question on this is simple: is it discriminatory? If so, change it and change it now; if not, the UK should be comfortable with the label sectarian, and a sectarian head of state.
Why did Kevin McNamara not succeed? Because the Government (in fact the Prime Minister) refused to support him. Two years earlier, in 1999, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton had made a speech against the anti-Catholic provisions of the Act during a debate in the Scottish Parliament, in the course of which he said:
The important issue is whether there should be legislation that blatantly discriminates against a Christian religion. The subject is particularly relevant as we live in a multifaith community. The heir to the throne can accede if he marries a Muslim, a Buddhist, a scientologist, a Moonie, an atheist or a sun-worshipper, but not if he marries a Roman Catholic. Leaving such a stigma in place when no other religion or faith is singled out is grossly unfair.
I wrote to the prime minister, whose response offered no defence or justification for the present legislation. He had “no plans” to do anything about the situation and said that reforming the law would be complex. That is absolutely right. Similarly, it was complex to reform the House of Lords, but that did not prove an insurmountable problem. The complexity can be exaggerated.
Before the 2001 General Election, Tony Blair had acknowledged that the Act of Settlement was “plainly discriminatory” and had promised to look at it again if Labour won a second term. In an interview with Glasgow’s Herald newspaper, he had said: Obviously, in principle, it can’t be right that Catholics are unable to succeed, so we will examine it again. Six years later, the Government has no plans – or is it no time? – or maybe just no inclination. Anti-Catholicism remains the last acceptable prejudice, even for a Government which claims to “reject discrimination in all its forms”.
Laus Crucis 
While this situation that you write about is unique to the United Kingdom, there is a resonance in how the Catholic Church is treated in other jurisidictions. I write as someone living in Ireland – if tomorrow it was announced that a Catholic could not be President, I’m sure that there would be those who “reject discrimination in all its forms” but would make not a whimper! In the United Kingdom, the reasons why this was ‘acceptable’ in the past – a clear and unambiguous bias against Catholicism – are not, in my humble opinion, the same reasons why it is ‘acceptable’ today. It seems to me that it is okay now to be anti-Catholic; that there is no objection when Catholics and Catholic thinking are criticised and belittled in the press, and the church is portrayed all too often as being a repressive, conservative organisation. I believe that one of the reasons this attitude is allowed to take root is that Catholics are not prepared to speak up for their church and their faith. Political correctness would never allow blatant discriminatory practices if directed towards muslims, jews or any other faith and I’m certain that many Catholics would be among the first to shout stop. But when it comes to our own faith, to what is (meant) to be important to us and the guidelines by which we try to live, there is less interest in standing up to be counted. Why have things come to this point?