THE CORONATION OATH.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXIX, Issue 11, 14 March 1901, Page 4

THE CORONATION OATH.

NEWSPAPER PROTESTS.

The Weekly Argut (Greymouth), of March 8, in the oourse of a leading article on the subject of the Coronation Oath, asks : ' What need can there be for putting into the mouth of Royalty expressions that cannot but jar on the feelings of all Catholic subjeots.' 'It is really inexplicable (adds our West Coast coutemporary) that the Crown, under which Catholics hold the most exalted offioes in the public service, should be subjected to an unnecessary slur because of a particular form of religious faith and especially in an age in which religion counts for so very little in the conduct of public affairs.' Having quoted the words of the Coronation Oath, the Argut says : Any impartial person not desirous of flouting or iuhultmg fellow - Christians Berving the country as well as their neighbors will admit that uo section of Christianity should be subjected to a humiliation that is altogether needless, and agree that it is time the coronation oath should be recast and the useless, unnecessary, and offensive expressions altogether eliminated. The British Government have always been particularly careful to avoid offending the caste customs and prejudices of their Indian soldiers. Surely they are entitled to do as much for their Catholic subjects. The tree Lance (Wellington), of March 2, having quoted in a leader the clauses of the Oath which denounce the Mass and the veneration of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints as being ' superstitious and idolatrous,' goes on to say : ' It is a deep and gratuitous outrage upon the most sacred and cherished beliefs of a large and loyal and eminently law-abiding section of His Majesty's subjeots. It is a flagrant violation of that spirit of toleration, and freedom of opinion, of which it is our perpetual boast that we, as a people, are the peculiar champions. It is repugnant to our ideas of liberty of conscience, and absolutely out of keeping with the age in which we live. Just as well might the King be required to take an oath denouncing as an impostor and a charlatan the founder of Mohammedanism, whom sixty-five millions of British subject* revere and hold in highest veneration as the Prophet of God. If the King must publicly brand certain cardinal doctrines of the Romish Churoh as ' superstitious and idolatrous,' why should the King stop there t Why not also call upon him to declare that the rite of baptism by immersion, as practised by the Baptists, is heretical ; that the Wesleyan system of itineracy is opposed to the safety of the Btate ; and that the Presbyterians' substitution of a Confession of Faith for the 39 Articles, and their preference for the Geneva gown and bands as a badge for their clergy, rather than the surplioe, i* at

variance with good morals and the respect which is due to persons in constituted authority 7 The man who would seriously promulgate raoh a form of oath would be laughed to scorn as a crank. But the difference between it and the coronation oath, by which the King is now obliged by law to offer insult to the deepest feelings of his Roman Catholic subjects, is only one of degree. In essence and principle they are the same. This coronation oath is a relic from bigoted times. It is a startling anachronism which, but for the abnormally long reign of the Queen, would have been ended long ere this. It places an unwarranted stigma upon 11 millions of our Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. Why, of all the multitudinous religious beliefs which are eulertaincd and pr^ncb*^ by subjects of the 'British Empire, should theirs be the only one singled out for this public reproach and studied dishonor ' They have given to our common country generals, admirals, judges, statesmen, governors of oolonies. Their blood has been lavishly poured out in defenoe of and for the advancement of the State. They form the bulk of the population of Ireland, and in every walk of life, and in every f unotion of oitizenhood, they discharge their duties with the same ceal, loyalty, and patriotism as their fellows who profess other religious creeds. There is no reasonable excuse for the longer retention of that antique coronation oath. It is foreign to the spirit of the age, and must go.' In an interview with a representative of the Catholic Prett, Cardinal Moran, after having referred to the words of the Coronation Oath, said : ' Since these words were adopted Mohammedans have become an integral part of the Empire in England and elsewhere, and yet in the coronation oath there is no insulting references to the Mohammedan creed or to the Hindoos or other pagan subjects. Catholics are singled out, and their religion foolishly insulted on such a solemn occasion as the coronation of the Sovereign, and they cannot tolerate it.' A writer in the Auckland Herald says in the course of a vigorous letter upon the subject : 'To put the matter briefly, we are told that Protestants are justified in forcing the King's consoience and compelling him to be a Protestant whether he likes it or not, simply because the Protestants are in the majority, and they have put themselves to a great deal of trouble and expense in obtaining power to enslave the King's soul, and to make him barter his liberty of conscience for the luxury of wearing a crown. As to the argument founded upon the Protestant majority, it vanishes into thin air when we remember that they are in reality only a very trifling minority of the new King's subjects, being only 70,000,000 —as against 330,000,009 of non- Protestants. If the King's religion must be that of the majority I fear that King Edward VII. can be neither Protestant nor Catholic, nor indeed a Christian of any color, but just a Mohammedan, a Buddhist, or an idolater or pagan of some sort, since these kinds of people constitute the vast majority of his subjects. Again, if the Protestants of former times went to a great deal of expense and trouble in doing a manifest wrong by forcing the King's conscience and degrading their monarch to the condition of a gorgeously upholstered puppet, instead of a King who could oall his soul his own, are the enlightened Protestant Christians of the present day justified in perpetuating the enslavement and degradation of his person — merely because their leas enlightened and more bigoted forefathers Bet them this evil example ? '