by Melanie McDonagh, Spectator
Hmm. Any minute now, the Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill will remove the last religion-related constraints on Andy Burnham and any future prime ministers who are Catholic or Jewish, so they will in future be eligible to advise the King on the appointment of Anglican bishops.
Burnham, who is Britain’s first Catholic prime minister, said last week that it was ‘unacceptable’ that the last remnants of the law of 1829 prevented him from ‘performing all the functions’ of his role.
Andy Burnham is, in his lapsed way, still a Christian, still a Catholic, even if he can’t be bothered to regularly attend mass and professes the Catholic faith in office, only, he says, because his mother wouldn’t forgive him if he didn’t. But is he, as a notional adviser on Anglican episcopal appointments, any worse than Sir Keir Starmer, a baptised Anglican and atheist? Probably most Anglicans would say not. And how about a Jewish PM? For the legislation applies to Jews as to Catholics. Michael Howard, the last Jewish Tory leader, who would have been an excellent prime minister, would, I feel sure, have consulted widely given the task. What about Rishi Sunak? Even though the current rules don’t apply to a Hindu PM (in 1829, the possibility of a Hindu or Muslim PM didn’t cross anyone’s mind) probably he’d have been fine given he was head boy at Winchester.
The CofE is paying a price for being the Established Church. I can’t say, qua Catholic, that I would care to have some sort of Erastian arrangement whereby the state appoints bishops (though unfortunately that’s pretty much the case in China right now). It feels wrong for those outside the church to have a part in the most important appointments within it, though may I say, if I were in Andy Burnham’s position I’d do it brilliantly (even though I don’t buy Anglican orders), starting off by refusing to recommend any women whatsoever.