Monday, 10 March 2008

I'll pray for Her Majesty...

...I'll serve my country in whatever way I can; I love England in the most Chestertonian of ways;
but swearing allegiance to her ? Sorry dudes - I won't be doing that...
Her government has conspired in Latae Sententiae excommunicable acts [think abortion, the murder of the newly born [e.g. refusing to treat a Downs syndrome child with a twisted bowel until it dies of dehydration and starvation] . illegal wars, the murder of those in PVS via starvation and dehydration etc etc etc] besides which she is the head of an apostatic cult...
What price my soul if I colluded with all this ?

but now we get this from The Times:
SCHOOLCHILDREN are to be encouraged to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen and promise to obey the law in ceremonies similar to those for new immigrants.

A review of citizenship by Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney-general, will say this procedure could strengthen children’s understanding of what it means to be British.

One idea is for immigrants’ citizenship ceremonies to be held in schools where children could also take part. Alternatively the event could be included in citizenship studies, which are part of the national curriculum.

Sources close to the review, which was commissioned by Gordon Brown, say the plan is designed to help immigrants and citizens develop a “shared sense of belonging”.

It mirrors the pledge by American schoolchildren to the flag, which is made while standing at attention with the right hand over the heart. The pledge is not compulsory but it is common practice in American schools.

Goldsmith’s report also proposes that citizenship ceremonies for immigrants ought to be held in other public places, such as art galleries, as well as schools.

It recommends immigrants should have “mentors” to teach them British customs and traditions and offer help. The review says they ought to be able to obtain free English lessons.

Critics questioned the value of British-born children swearing allegiance. Lynne Featherstone, the Liberal Democrat youth and equality spokeswoman, said: “I don’t think pledging allegiance to the Queen is the answer to young people’s problems


Psiomniac said...

I'm a republican. Although I accept the possibility of a least worst option defense for the monarchy, given the rather fiddly nature of constitutional affairs.
How are you anyway? Dunno why I ask, you don't call, you don't write....

Tribunus said...

Dear Paul,

Blaming the Queen for the state of a government she has no power to control or alter is simply unjust - and Christians should not be unjust.

To put it technically, it is ultra vires for the Queen to refuse legislation duly passed by Parliament, save in the rare circumstances of either an impassable deadlock preventing any governance or where there is some attempt by her ministers to seize power illegally or similar constitutional emergency.

The exact extent of her powers has not been made fully clear by the courts but it certainly does not include refusing legislation simply because she has a moral objection to it.

How do we know this is the law? Because her judges tell us that it is and they are empowered to say what the law is.

You may not like this and think it is not "real" monarchy but it is, whether you like it or not, the law of the land.

Many people, even now, fail to appreciate this important point.

Thus, if the Queen were to refuse legislation because she had a moral objection, then she would be seizing power from Parliament illegally instigating a royal coup d'etat which would, in Catholic teaching, be a sin.

No-one may do evil that good may come of it, as St Paul teaches, even if the good desired is a very great good (e.g. the stopping of a bad law).

Take care not to blame the Queen unjustly.

If you are unwilling to swear allegiance to her as Head of State then what political authority are you prepared to give your allegiance to?

Presumably not the government since, as you rightly say, they have passed many grossly immoral laws.

Who then?

Some "idea" of government?

Or are you like those Protestant extremists who claim to recognise no earthly power (other than their own, of course!) and say that they will only have Christ as their King, completely disobeying the Scripture they claim to believe in which requires them to give allegiance to legitimate earthly power and government?

Or do you look to some putative republic like your friend who calls himself a "republican"?

Let's be frank, modern republicanism is far, far worse than anything the Queen represents. Modern republics are virtually all secular (there are some Islamic republics that are not) and modern Western republicanism is the fruit of Genevan Calvinism turned into radical secularism - hardly a great recommendation.

Can citizens and subjects really pick and choose which parts of the Constitution they wish to accept and which they will refuse allegiance to?


PS. By the way, you were going to tell me what it was you had against the Catholic Habsburgs and Stuarts. Might now be a good time to do that?

On the side of the angels said...

Sorry tribunus - technically her Majesty can revoke ANY crown privilege in light of personal moral objection in regards to the life of her subjects - it's part of her coronation oath. Technically the monarch can stop or declare a war, in exactly the same way the monarch can dissolve any parliament which they feel is acting contrary to the benefice of their subjects.
Queen victoria refused to pass the law making lesbianism illegal, king Baudoin of Belgium even resigned his office for a day when the belgian parliament passed the abortion laws.

It should not be a royal coup d'etat - all parliament's rights are derived from crown privilege - yes I know it's actually impossible - but it isn't on the statute to the nature of its sinfulness? Her majesty has baptismal duties irrespective of her role as monarch. Where the state compelled her to conspire in latae sententiae excommunicable acts [even though she is a schismatic ; she is still obliged to obey those canon laws of the one, holy catholic and apostolic church into which she is baptised] she should have automatically either enacted any preventative measures available to her [however obscure, archaic and only nominally statutory ]or renounced her crown.

There is no middle way - she assented - affirmed via the royal prerogative the legislation which conspired with the culture of death. She stood as the only possible force to prevent it - and she succumbed to the will of enemies of her subjects.

I'm not exactly sure which aspect of fundamental moral theology to which you are referring, but I'm afraid your response actually distorts Saint Paul somewhat by undistributing the middle. This is not a 'performing evil to actuate a good' situation:

you're none-too-subtly obfuscating either the principle of double-effect or moral dilemma:
double-effect is where a secondary indirect unwilled morally disordered aspect intrinsically linked to the means is enacted towards a greater good.
e.g. stealing a mad axeman's axe.

moral dillemma is where an intrinsically moral disordered act is used to prevent a great objective evil.
e.g. killing the mad axeman before he acts upon the immediate threat and kills yourself and others

...and before you retort, remember I used technical fundamental moral theological terminology - I was referring to [intrinsically] morally disordered acts which are not objectively evil without conspiracy of will and motive.
only morally disordered acts are permissible within the remit of the double-effect to promote a greater good ; only intrinsically morally disordered acts are permitted to directly prevent immediate objectively evil acts occurring.

if you wish to look at it technically :
a] the law stating an unborn child is not one of her majesty's subjects until either birth or they are assaulted is invalidated by the crown oath - it's technically treason.
b] the abortion act is technically a declaration of civil war amidst her majesty's subjects ; ditto the legislation after the bland case - yet again it's invalidated by the crown oath.
c] giving royal assent to the abortion act was in itself an act , even by someone who is 'beyond the law' like the monarch ; contrary to her coronation oath; let alone her status as head of the church of England

No matter how you look at it - her majesty was in a position of moral dillemma - in order to save the lives of her subjects she had every right [if not duty and reponsibility] to use any means necessary to prevent it ; which may include resorting to enact any direct intrinsically morally disordered act [please note - not objectively evil act] to prevent this objective evil occurring - even if it included actuating a royal coup d'etat as you put it.

Will get round to responding regarding the habsburgs and the stuarts - but it is long and technical and as today's my daughter's birthday she would throttle me if I spent any further time arguing this...

Tribunus said...

Dear Paul,

Taking your points individually:

I’m not sure what you mean here by “crown privilege”. You plainly do not mean Crown immunity from suit. It is not a term that appears in the Queen’s Coronation Oath. Do you, in fact, mean the Royal Prerogative?

The Queen has no power to “revoke” the Royal Prerogative on her own, although she can decline to exercise it. Neither does the Monarch have a general power to “dissolve any parliament which [she] feel[s] is acting contrary to the benefice of [her] subjects” (presuming you mean “benefit”).

Whilst the Monarch has the Prerogative power to declare war she may only do so on the advice of her ministers or with the consent of Parliament, and not otherwise. The decision is effectively that of the Cabinet, which is accountable to Parliament.

Indeed, the 2002 Parliamentary Report on the powers of the Royal Prerogative does not even consider Prerogative powers exercisable by the Queen alone but assumes that virtually all such powers are exercisable by her ministers on her behalf. See here:

The story about Queen Victoria refusing a Bill outlawing Lesbianism is pure myth – see: Inventing the Victorians by Matthew Sweet (Faber, 2001);; notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-19315,00.html.

The last time that a Monarch refused assent to a Bill was in 1708 when Queen Anne refused the Scottish Militia Act. This reserve power has since been considerably curtailed and is now exercisable only in rare emergencies such as a parliamentary deadlock or an attempt by another branch of government (e.g. the legislature or judiciary) to seize power illegally and unconstitutionally. This is the view that most constitutional lawyers take of the courts' various judgments on such issues. You can read more about the Royal Prerogative and the reserve powers on Wikipedia.

The fact that King Baudouin of Belgium resigned his office for a day has no bearing on the interpretation of the British Constitution.

I do not know what you mean when you claim that “all Parliament’s rights are derived from the Crown” but it is certainly not the case that the Monarch has the untramelled right to seize power or encroach upon the powers of the other branches of government, for this or any other reason.

By definition the Royal Prerogative, and even more the reserve powers retained by the Queen alone, are not creatures of statute, although statute can limit them and the courts may define their limits. The courts have claimed the right to determine the limits of the Royal Prerogative since at least as far back as The Case of Proclamations of 1611 in the time of King James I and VI. Moreover, the discretionary exercise of the Prerogative powers is as amenable to judicial review as is the exercise of other ministerial discretionary powers (see the dicta of Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v the Minister of State for the Civil Service, 1985).

Your view of the baptismal obligations of the Queen is, I must say, an eccentric one. Be that as it may, any such obligations on her part have no force in law and cannot give her powers that she does not have.

Even the Roman Catholic Church does not teach that she, as an Anglican, is obliged to obey the Canon Law of the Catholic Church.

I know, moreover, of no authority for your claim to that effect. The Church teaches that all must obey the Natural Law and certain other laws but the Church claims no power to excommunicate her for breaching Catholic Canon Law. Even if it did, the Church, by Canon 1398, only expressly obliges itself to excommunicate those who actually carry out abortions.

Moreover, the Queen has no power to enact “preventative measures available to her [however obscure, archaic and only nominally statutory]” to avoid signing into law a Bill duly and regularly passed by both Houses of Parliament.

Thus it is not right to say that she stands “as the only possible force to prevent” the passage of any such Bill into law. As a matter of law, she does not have the power you ascribe to her.

Indeed, as I said earlier, if she were to seize such powers as you ascribe to her, she would be acting illegally and unconstitutionally.

To seize power unconstitutionally or illegally is, by definition, a coup d’etat. To do this is objectively immoral and so, although the end is good, i.e. to prevent the passage of a Bill permitting abortion, she would have had to do evil in order to achieve that good. This is expressly forbidden by St Paul at Romans 3:8, by many popes including Pope John Paul II in “Veritatis Splendor” and by many orthodox Catholic theologians, including St Thomas Aquinas.

Moreover, contrary to what you seem to assert, the principle of double effect states that, although one may never do evil that good may come of it, one may carry out a good action, under certain conditions, despite the fact that one foresees a serious evil possibly resulting from it. There are, however, conditions:

- The act done must be good in itself.
- The agent must have a right intention, that is he or she must desire the good effect and not the evil one.
- The first effect must be good or at least equal first with the evil effect. This impedes the good effect resulting from an evil one.
- There must be proportionately grave reason to justify the act.

One may also choose between the lesser of two evils but only where there is no choice but to do so.

I do not accept your definition of a moral dilemma. The crucial features of a moral dilemma are these: the agent is required to do each of two (or more) actions; the agent can do each of the actions; but the agent cannot do both (or all) of the actions. Here there is no dilemma: the Queen simply cannot institute a coup d’etat and do evil that good may come of it.

Your later “technical” claims are not an accurate statement of the law.

a) There is no “Crown Oath” of the sort you describe. You may be referring to the Coronation Oath but that does not compass the invalidation of the Abortion Act. It is not at all clear how you arrive at the conclusion that the abortion laws are treason in English law. Certainly the Treason Act makes no reference to such.

b) Neither is the Abortion Act “technically” a declaration of civil war, in English law, however much it may be characterised as such by the moral law.

c) See a) above. The Queen’s position as Supreme Governor of the Church of England does not oblige her to refuse assent to Bills duly and regularly passed by both Houses of Parliament, especially as the power to make laws for the Church of England comes from Parliament.

I do not agree with your analysis of the Queen’s moral and legal position. The fact that Parliament passes immoral laws does not give the Queen a legal right to overthrow the will of Parliament and to seize power that she does not have to refuse assent to Bills.

Moreover, your claim that she has the duty to use “any means necessary to prevent” the passing into law of such Bills is opposed to the precept of St Paul which expressly forbids evil means to a good end.

You seem to claim that the Monarch may “actuate a royal coup d’etat”, which is clearly an objective moral evil, and yet escape moral censure. That is a novel suggestion. Can you find any orthodox Catholic moral theologian, Council or pope who supports such a view?

I await your response regarding the Habsburgs and Stuarts.


On the side of the angels said...

Ah Tribunus bless you !
You should have been a lawyer ; because you most certainly write like one - most lawyers spend so much time with the law they neglect what it actually says , and invariably revert to that which is nominally presumed to be the case.

certainly what I said has no plan the Treason act of 1351, but look closer . By declaring that certain human beings [i.e. the unborn] are not her majesty's subjects [unless assaulted] - deprives her majesty of her 'style' as imperial sovereign of the United Kingdom - [i.e. monarch over all her subjects in all her dominions and territories] - this is from Part 3 of the 1848 treason felony act - the beginning part which the courts did not overturn in the Guardian appeal of 2003 [i.e. to promote republicanism in print etc]

I used the word benefice deliberately - it entails that which the monarch has bestowed upon her subjects - including the law SHE protects and sustains.

Of course you're right on all counts regarding the royal prerogative except on one point which you are reticent to admit - the reserve power of the royal assent - technically above all else - the queen can do what she bloody well wishes.

I'm no lawyer [although I must admit I was quite adept at canon law; coming first in my exams] but these things arise in the small print - while everyone thought the independence of the judiciary was being protected wholeheartedly in the 2005 legislation - actually the protection of the act of settlement was being withdrawn !!!

The constitutional reform act 2005 did not contain the protective provisions of the act of settlement 1700 [which the tories and lib dems wished to maintain].
Technically [and any human rights group like 'liberty' will tell you this] the act of 2005 allows the 'crown' in a state of emergency to remove the judiciary
on its own without the necessity of both houses [which previously required the judiciary to be 'extra bene geneserint' [excuse spelling it's been about 20 years since I did all this] i.e. outside considerations of good behaviour deemed by both houses of parliament.

Now I'm sure you'll jump on me like a ton of bricks if I'm wrong on this ; but from what I have been told and subsequently inferred .
after the 2005 law in a state of emergency the monarch can both dissolve parliament and via orders-in-council can dissolve the judiciary.

Ostensibly the 2005 act was
guaranteeing judiciary independence when it was actually doing anything but ; and if things got tough it allowed the introduction of an absolute dictatorship into the hands of minister regulating crown privileges - i.e. tony blair should a state of emergency arise - - and consequently these 'rights' are afforded the monarch. thus the restraints of the judicial reviews become null and void.
sure this is a fantasy hypothetical ; but we must be aware of what our situation is ; as subjects of her majesty.

Now when it comes to her majesty being an anglican - she isn't ! there's no such thing as anglicanism ; merely a collation of sacrilegious rituals, praxes, heterodoxies, immoralities and distortions of authentic christian doctrine ; any mock rite of ordination or consecration is invalid ; we are even prohibited from affording them the title christian - her majesty was baptised a catholic ; full stop ! she is outside every other communal rite and by default is obliged to concede to the canon law of the latin rite.

as for canon 1398 ; you forget the direct conspiracy clause [i.e. without whom the act would not be possible] of canon 1329#2 regarding latae sententiae excommunicable acts. Royal assent has to be considered as direct conspiracy for it allows all abortions to occur - and she had the prerogative to withdraw assent; in fact I'd argue that she had to as it removed the protection of the law by the crown over all subjects.

Now I'm sorry but I'm afraid your description of the double-effect had me rolling about the floor
because it is so flawed and erroneous on so may counts; but before we come to this you were disputing the monarch's duty to protect her subects [the unborn] by any means possible outside the commission of objective evil.

I argue in this hypothetical that she had every right to; if not a duty ; and technically she had a right to declare war on the issue and perform [how did you define it? a royal coup d'etat] in order to protect her subjects against the forces hostile to the crown]
for a start there's this from new advent :

secondly I'd like to remind you of a papal encyclical you inadvertently attributed to the wrong Pius [it's XI not IX] - quadragesima anno - which begins :
"Charity goes beyond all demands for justice"

thirdly you designate an act against the state as evil - I wholeheartedly refute that and should state that at its most extreme it can only be considered as an act of intrinsic moral disorder - as there are many hundreds of hypotheticals I could construct where it would be a moral imperative to act against the state to prevent objective evil occurring.
Therefore being an intrinsic moral disorder it is only sinful if performed in a normative way to its own end ; or for the promotion of right action.

I think this is where you are confusing the issue and I agree with you - you speak of 'you cannot perform evil to do good' when in actual fact I think you are intending to say 'you cannot perform an intrinsically morally disordered act within the remit of the double effect to promote a greater good'

I agree - so too does the church and every orthodox moral theologian out there [and believe you me regrettably these days they are an increasingly rare breed ] but where you come unstuck is your confusion with intrinsic moral disorder and objective evil.

Now you are not alone in your confusion ; it's highly regrettable that well over half the moral theologians and moral commentators in the catholic church are confused regarding the nature of the fundamental moral principle of the double effect - even some renowned figures out there still fall into the trap of including situatons of moral dillemma as equivocations within the double effect when they are nothing of the sort.

Let's make things perfectly clear from the onset :

The double effect HAS NOTHING TO DO with 'good-in-itself' - by its very nature it arises due to the scarring upon the cosmos of original sin. what we call the 'greater good' is actually to do with the balance of virtue - the ontological good - the action itself is a redressing of the balance - it can only be deemed 'Right action' as included within the act is a form of moral disorder [albeit secondary, indirect, unintended and necessary]

The moral disorder involved is always sinful if performed towards its own ends ; and here's the rub; morally disordered actions are those which can be performed within the double-effect to actuate an 'objective essential greater good' [remember this has nothing to do with the act - merely the resultant affect upon the cosmos - it's a redressing]

now what of intrinsically morally disordered acts ?
the 'intrinsically' is of the utmost import here ; for these include actions which are absolutely precluded from ever being permissible within the remit of the double effect.

what on earth do I mean ?
this is the situation we colloquially refer to as performing 'the lesser of two evils' which is antinomial in itself - for we are always forbidden from ever committing ANY objective evil act, for whatever end, at any time full stop - no matter what ostensible 'good' or increase in utility may arise we are absolutely forbidden from it.
what we are really referring to are those select actions which are designated within fundamental moral theology as 'intrinsically morally disordered' these are acts which are solely permissible, mitigated and ameliorated in culpability and sinfulness ONLY when performed to prevent objective evil or an objectively evil act from occurring.

ask 90% of catholics an example of the double-effect and they would say 'killing in self-defence' and they would be absolutely, totally, utterly wrong - for that is NOT THE DOUBLE-EFFECT - IT'S MORAL DILLEMMA.
Killing is outside the remit of the double-effect ; if it were we could equivocate all the time that any act resulting in a death was for the greater good - we'd be like Caiaphas.
Taking human life is not performed 'for a greater good' it is only permissible 'to prevent objective evil' - it's an intrinsically moral disordered act and can only be resorted to in a position of moral dillemma.

Notice the subtle distinction but the grave danger ? - we are forever arguing against euthanasia and contraception and divorce and all manner of secular evils ; but behind the scenes we are neglecting the most powerful weapon we have in our armoury against it - fundamental moral theology - when it comes to all these evils we have their abrogation within the strict remit of the double effect; their categorical impossibility within moral dillemma!

ok so here's what you said regarding the double effect:

- The act done must be good in itself.

{NO !! Categorically NO ! It is impossible for the act to be anything more than mere 'right action' irrespective of the resultant objective good that arises. }
- The agent must have a right intention, that is he or she must desire the good effect and not the evil one.
[actually this is slightly deceptive , for it implies that it does not involve a collusion of the will with the moral disorder which in full conscience is being performed ; albeit for the greater good...

[take for example when we eat meat - we take the life of an animal which praises and glorifies God by its very existence - we are fully aware of the moral disorder involved ; and if we were killing the animal indiscriminately for reasons other than necessity [i.e. outside the remit of the double effect] we should be committing a sin ]

...the 'evil [effect]' is nothing of the sort - [remember we CANNOT ever justly perform evil - we are only ever allowed to perform a morally disordered act which would be normatively sinful if enacted towards its own ends outside the double effect]

- The first effect must be good or at least equal first with the evil effect. This impedes the good effect resulting from an evil one.

{you're arguing proportionality and yet again misusing the term 'evil' [it has to be 'morally disordered' ] - remember proportionality is ALWAYS a secondary consideration which is used to HALT the act, remove it from the remit - proportionality can never be used as a primary equivocation to invoke a delusionary 'imperative necessity' to the act - it must ALWAYS be the other way round - the necessity of an act can be limited by proportionality - proportionality can never promote necessity [otherwise we'd all end up like Caiaphas, or justifying killing the infant Hitler, or being pseudo-utilitarians]

- There must be proportionately grave reason to justify the act.

[YES - but please remember how qualified this is by so many other considerations - and remember what Grave means in fundamental moral theology - it does not mean JUST, it does not mean beneficial, it does not mean opportune , it means what it says - Grave !]

ok to sum up - there are certain acts [morally disordered] which are normatively sinful if performed to their own ends, yet which can be permissible for 'a greater good'. There are further actions [denoted as 'intrinsically morally disordered'] which would be impermissible to promote a greater good; but are nevertheless permissible when absolutely necessary to prevent objective evil occurring .

Now what you denoted as evil - a royal coup d'etat could be considered a situation of moral dillemma - an usurping of power to prevent a genocide - any 'absolute' moral disorder within the act would be mitigated even to the point of negation

Nevertheless if you look back upon the new advent article you will discover that technically when the state reneges upon its duties it loses the privilege and protection of those privileges. Using any human being as a means to an end rather than an end in itself automatically contravenes this primal categorical imperative - thus Charity can be invoked against any demands for justice.

I had to use this argument in defence of catholic principles regarding the intervention against a jehovah's witness who wished to deny their child a life-saving blood transfusion. We do have a moral imperative, we do have a theological justification,we are in fact commanded by Christ to intervene and infringe another's human rights to fight for their worth and dignity against their will - but it is within a highly strict remit with all manner of provisions and qualifications.

so to get back to what you were saying - do I treat her majesty unjustly ?
she did not need to conspire with this - she had means to oppose it ; if she had no desire to do so she still did not have to conspire with the genocide of her subjects - she could have renounced her title and abdicated.

As to your suggestion that the queen is only responsible for adhering solely to natural law this axiomatically condemns her anyway. She may not have been the motivational force behind the genocide - but she declared 'let it be so' and she did not have to be the one to say it....

anyway sorry for this being so long and so quickly composed [I only had a few minutes while the stew's cooking - and if I've mis-spelled or contradicted myself i apologise - but Ihope you get the jist of what I as saying]

Tribunus said...

Dear Paul,

I am a lawyer which is why I can correct your error in thinking that lawyers neglect what the law says. If they did they would hardly be lawyers. And since, as is clear from what you write, you are not a lawyer, you will not be able to gainsay this. Indeed, it is rather presumptuous for a non-lawyer to be telling lawyers how to do their job, is it not?

Again I take your points in sequence.

Their Lordships in the Guardian case of 2003 did not, as you seem to suggest, determine that the unborn are not her Majesty’s subjects nor that any such declaration deprives the Queen of her “style” as imperial sovereign. Where you get this idea from, you do not say. Indeed, it appears somewhat fanciful.

“Benefice” is a term used to mean a gift of land for services rendered, latterly to the Church for spiritual services. Your interpretation is a novel and eccentric one.

It is difficult to know what to make of your next paragraph since it is contradictory in that it affirms what I said of the royal prerogative i.e. that the Queen has no power to refuse the royal assent (save in the rare cases mentioned), and yet you then go on to say that the Queen may do whatever she wishes in respect of the royal assent.

Make up your mind.

Ss. 3 and 4 of the CRA 2005 expressly preserve the independence of the judiciary and the new judges of the Supreme Court are, like High Court judges, to hold tenure during their good behaviour and are only removed by an address of both Houses of Parliament. This is the same as the principle of “quamdiu se bene gesserint” contained in the Act of Settlement 1701. The only difference now is that by ss.133-5 of the CRA 2005, a tribunal must first investigate the alleged misconduct and a motion for an address to the Queen can only be made in the Commons by the PM and in the Lords by the Lord Chancellor (or a Minister in his absence). In reality, under the Party System, this could not have been done without the PM’s approval, anyway.

It is a very unusual view to say that, under the Act, the Queen can dissolve Parliament and the Judiciary, whether in a “state of emergency” or otherwise, whether by Order-in-Council or not. What is your source for such an extraordinary interpretation?

It is an equally eccentric view to suggest that there is no such thing as Anglicanism and it is certainly no part of the teaching of the Catholic Church that the Queen – or any Anglican – is subject to the Canon Law of the Latin rite of the Catholic Church.

What is your authority for that view?

I have not, as you claim, forgotten Canon 1392(2). On the contrary, you misapply it. Canon 1398 expressly excommunicates those who perform abortions. The Queen does not perform abortions, neither does she give direct assistance to the commission of such a crime. The interpretation that you give to 1329(2) is by no means accurate.

Once again you assert, without citing any authority, that the Queen “has the prerogative to withdraw assent” meaning, I presume, the prerogative power.

You are simply wrong about that. And mere repetition of your mistake will not rectify it.

My description of Double Effect come from Aquinas (ST II-II, Q.64, A.7) and the Catholic Encyclopaedia, among others. You mock them in so mocking me. Does a good Catholic mock one of the greatest Doctors of the Church, namely St Thomas?

Your next quote from the Catholic Encyclopaedia adds nothing to the debate. It sets out the terms of a just war which are not in dispute. The rest of your paragraph is very muddled. For instance, one cannot in law characterise both Houses of Parliament as “forces hostile to the Crown” if they have lawfully passed a Bill.

Next, you claim that I have “inadvertently attributed” the encyclical “Quadragesimo Anno” to Pius IX. I have not done so. I have not even mentioned it.

Next, you misinterpret it. Charity does indeed “go beyond the demands of justice” but it never opposes, negates or contradicts justice, as you wrongly imply.

Next you misquote me. I did not say, as you wrongly suggest, that it is always evil to “act against the state”. There may indeed be moral contingencies where such is right or even necessary but it is not right to seize power from a legitimately constituted government, as the Queen would be doing if she were to give herself prerogative powers that she does not have.

St Paul says (Rom 3.8) “For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie, unto his glory, why am I also yet judged as a sinner? 8 And not rather (as we are slandered and as some affirm that we say) let us do evil that there may come good? Whose damnation is just.” If you do not like his formulation of the principle then you seem to be at odds with Scripture itself. I do not think that St Paul is confusing either intrinsic moral disorder or objective evil, and neither am I.

You then purport to make your case “perfectly clear from the onset” (I presume you mean “outset”). With great respect to you, I do not think your explanation is “perfectly clear” but, more to the point, it adds little to the discussion.

I do not agree, by the way, with your view that it is immoral to kill an animal for reasons other than necessity, and neither does the Church.

The Queen’s position is not that of moral dilemma as you characterise it. Neither is it at all clear on what basis you can claim that the moral disorder – “absolute” or otherwise – of illegally and unconstitutionally seizing power can be mitigated “to the point of negation” by its seeking to prevent another evil. You are, in fact, still urging that evil be done so that good may come of it but you seek to conceal this fact by pretending that the evil is no longer evil because you intend to do good by it. That is exactly what St Paul condemns.

What exactly you mean by a state losing “the privilege and protection of those privileges” is not clear and the rest of that paragraph is also opaque.

You then, again, return to your perennial cry, once more wrongly re-asserting that the Queen has the legal right to override Parliament when she does not. It is not a question of her desire but of her legal right and power.

She simply does not have the powers that you ascribe to her.

Next you once again misquote me. I did not say that the Queen is “only responsible for adhering solely to the Natural Law”.

Then – yet again – you repeat your claim further suggesting that the Queen “declared ‘let it be so’” when she did not refuse royal assent to a Bill lawfully passed by both Houses of Parliament.

I cannot repeat sufficiently: she simply does not have the powers you ascribe to her.

Neither will she gain those powers by you repeating, parrot-like, that she does have them.

She simply does not have them.

That, with respect, is the crucial point that you seem repeatedly to overlook


On the side of the angels said...

tribunus I spent over an hour writing a long response with loads of detail regarding how you misunderstood much of what I was saying; but regrettably it was all consigned to cyberspace's oblivion when the PC crashed: will get back to this when I have more time.

Psiomniac said...

"will get back to this when I have more time."
I have heard that one before. Would it not be better to just concede defeat on this one?