Page 6, 4th June 1937

4th June 1937
Page 6
Page 6, 4th June 1937 — THE LOYAL ADDRESS

Report an error

Noticed an error on this page?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it.


Locations: Canterbury


Related articles

The Royal Wedding

Page 1 from 24th October 1947

Olic Address To Sovereign

Page 1 from 21st May 1937

Is Our Hierarchy Still Illegal?

Page 1 from 31st October 1947

No More 'no Popery'?

Page 5 from 24th September 1982

.in A Few Words

Page 4 from 17th February 1961


SIR,—A propos of the Hierarchy's Loyal Address, it does seem to me that there might be two ways of looking at it, and one cannot help asking: was the Home Secretary so very unreasonable?

In the course of the past few weeks the King must have become aware of the warm loyalty of all classes of his subjects, with the conspicuous exception of Ireland, and natural as it is to want to express our good feelings—in fact who would not want to do so individually if he could?—surely this has been adequately done on behalf of Catholics by Mgr. Piz zardo, who by his presence at the Coronation represented the whole of the Catholic Church? After all, it is surely as subjects and not specifically as Catholics that we offer our loyalty to the King, and is there any reason to suppose that the Catholic brand is better or worse than any other? It is true, I believe. that the Convocation of Canterbury sent a special address, but have the Anglo-Catholics, the Quakers, the Salvation Army, the Jews? Would it have seemed appropriate if they had? Is there not something unmannerly in putting ourselves forward at a moment when the nation is united as never before in a cornmon rejoicing? and such an action is open to the interpretation either that Catholics as a body may be expected to have some reason for not being loyal in the absence of a special declaration to the contrary. or that they wish to draw some invidious distinction between themselves and other classes of subjects. It seemed rather as if we had said: " Your Majesty, we are not as other men."

There must have been a very good reason for a proposal which appears to have had the assent of the Hierarchy, and I am only putting what may have been the other man's point of view. It seems at least possible that the Home Secretary saw it that way, and if so his action would seem to have been perhaps more tactful than our own.


Sprinfield, Rydens Road, Walton-onThames.

!Whether our correspondent's views are well founded or not, the Home Seeretary's refusal to submit the address was not and could not have been based on the reasons suggested.--Editor.]

blog comments powered by Disqus