Defenders and Offenders of the Faith

King Charles is quite clearly embarrassed to be associated with Christianity and certainly doesn’t want to be considered a defender of Christian belief. A few months ago, he recorded a special Ramadan greeting to British Muslims—something his mother had never done—but failed to record an Easter greeting to Britain’s Christians. Even after a considerable backlash, he still refused to record any sort of Easter message except for a belated and very terse “Happy Easter” message on the Royal Family’s social media account. Now, in the latest attempt to distance himself from Christianity, he seems to have abandoned the title “Defender of the Faith,” which British monarchs have claimed for themselves for the past 500 years, in favor of a vague pledge to support all religions in Britain’s “multi-faith nation.”

The king’s rebranding of his role in line with his own relativism appeared in the annual Sovereign Grant report, published on June 26, which stated that “His Majesty is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and protects the space for Faith within the multi-faith nation.” This new wording differs significantly from the monarch’s centuries-old official title of “Head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith.” Although the official title still appears on the royal family’s website, it seems only a matter of time before the rebranding is made official.

The change reflects Charles’ longstanding desire to distance himself from Christianity. In 1994, as Prince of Wales, he stated that he would rather be described as “defender of faith” than “defender of the Faith.” This is a farcical example of the facile face of philosophical relativism, which invites facetiousness. Does King Charles want to defend faith in everything, or anything, or in nothing in particular? Does he believe that all religious faiths are equally true, which would mean that their specific and particular truth claims are ipso facto untrue?

If Christians claim that Christ is the Son of God and Muslims deny it violently, can we have faith in both positions simultaneously? Such “defense of faith” violates logical, as well as theological, truth. As a defense, it is an offence to truth; it is offensive not merely to faith but to reason. It is the ignorance that gives rise to the arrogance of relativism.  

King Charles’ faithless “faith” might be farcical, but is it something that should concern Catholics? Is it likely to be destructive in terms of the future of the Faith in England or might it be a significant step in the right direction with respect to the Faith’s restoration in England’s green and pleasant land? These questions can only be answered with a recourse to history.

Every English monarch has carried the title Fidei Defensor (Defender of the Faith) since 1521, when Pope Leo X bestowed the title on Henry VIII after the king had defended the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church against the heretical teachings of Martin Luther. Then, in one of the greatest ironies of history, the king would break with Rome and establish a state religion with himself as its supreme head. The so-called English “Reformation” had nothing to do with theological differences with Rome and everything to do with the king’s determination to have his wicked will obeyed by his unfortunate subjects.

Demanding the servile obedience of all the English bishops to the new state religion, all but one kowtowed in recreant submission. The one courageous bishop who refused, the elderly bishop of Rochester, St. John Fisher, was imprisoned and subsequently executed. Demanding the same servile submission of his political ministers, Henry VIII imprisoned and executed the one minister, St. Thomas More, who had the courage to defy his will.

If the Catholic hierarchy in England had shown itself pathetically weak in the face of Henry’s threats, the monks and nuns showed more resistance. Henry responded by forcibly closing all of England’s numerous monasteries, abbeys, and convents, handing over the land and property of the Church to those members of the aristocracy who put avarice ahead of their immortal souls. Henry was as merciless as ever to all those who had the courage of their convictions.

To take but one example, Blessed Richard Whiting, the last abbot of Glastonbury Abbey, was 78 years old when he and two other monks were dragged on a hurdle to a hill overlooking the abbey, where they were hanged, disemboweled, beheaded, and quartered. The abbot’s head was stuck on a pike above the entrance to the abbey for all to see. His quarters were boiled in pitch and then displayed in the nearby towns. A similar fate would await hundreds of other English martyrs over the next 150 years.

The people of England rose in anger at the dissolution of the monasteries in an uprising known as the Pilgrimage of Grace. Throughout the 16th century, they rose repeatedly in defense of the Faith which was being ripped away from them by Henry VIII and by his successors Edward VI and Elizabeth I. There were uprisings across the length and breadth of the country when Edward VI banned the Mass, and there was a major uprising, known as the Northern Rebellion, during the reign of Elizabeth.

Clearly, whatever “faith” the English monarchs have been defending is not the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. On the contrary, they have been defending their own interests as supreme heads of a state religion that they have inherited from a tyrant, a religion that has always been subject to the will of the monarch and therefore always at the behest of the spirit of the age.

Let’s conclude by comparing King Charles’ lukewarm and lackluster defense of nothing in particular with that true defender of the Faith in England G.K. Chesterton. Following Chesterton’s death, Cardinal Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII, sent a telegram on behalf of Pope Pius XI to Cardinal Hinsley, the Archbishop of Westminster, which was read at the requiem Mass for Chesterton at Westminster Cathedral: “Holy Father deeply grieved death Mr Gilbert Keith Chesterton devoted son Holy Church gifted Defender of the Catholic Faith. His Holiness offers paternal sympathy people of England assures prayers dear departed, bestows Apostolic Benediction.” 

There was an ironic twist to the pope’s telegram because the English press refused to publish it on the grounds that “the Pope had bestowed on a British subject a title held by the King.” That the title of Fidei Defensor was originally bestowed upon the king by the pope was, of course, overlooked, Henry VIII having been awarded the title by Leo X. The irony was delightful, especially in light of the canonization in the previous year of Thomas More and John Fisher on the four hundredth anniversary of their martyrdom. One can venture to conjecture that Chesterton, a true defender of the Faith, was welcomed into Paradise by the two newly canonized saints.

Perhaps he is now praying with the English Martyrs for the conversion of England. And perhaps their prayers are being answered. There are more practicing Catholics in England today than practicing Anglicans. There is an upsurge of conversions to the Faith, especially among young people.

Let King Charles the Faithless continue to defend his faith in nothing in particular. His publicly proclaimed agnostic relativism can only hasten the demise of the state religion of which he is the supreme head.

Although we may pray that God will save the king, we can pray with much more confidence that God will save England from the king. May God be praised, and may His holy Mother, Our Lady of Walsingham, pray for us and for the conversion of England.