Catholic boy, 8, told he can't be a Cub Scout - because he refuses to pledge allegiance to the Queen

But when the youngster learned that to become an official Cub Scout he would have to pledge allegiance to the Queen when reciting the Cub Scout Promise, he refused to do it on religious grounds.

His mother, Tracy Anne, 29, said yesterday that her son’s refusal to say the part of the oath that declares a promise ‘to do my duty to the Queen,’ was a matter of principle for their Roman Catholic family.

She said she was particularly irked that her son could not leave out the reference to Her Majesty when she learned that people of other nationalities resident in the UK are able to change the wording of the Promise to suit their requirements.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1025932/Catholic-boy-8-told-Cub-Scout-refuses-pledge-allegiance-Queen.html


Anger: Matthew’s mother, Tracy Anne, claims the decision is a ‘disgrace’ which goes against modern, multi-cultural values

Personally, I don’t understand the objection. Scouting is a patriotic organization and the Queen is the Head of State in England. If they don’t want to be patriotic, they probably shouldn’t be in Scouting. In the US a Scout promises to do his duty to his country. I am pretty sure if he refuses to promise (or affirm for those whose religion won’t allow promises) to do his duty to his country, he can’t join. It is a joining requirement here, as in the UK.

So, what, is the Queen anti-catholic or something? I don’t get it.

At any rate, let’s pray for the child and mother, and for the Scouting movement. Prayer is always a good thing. :slight_smile:

Actually, an oath to her could be considered anti-Catholic since she is the “head” of the Church of England.

Well, these are the rules of the Boy Scouts. We uphold the rules when it involves gay, and they sure as hell better uphold the rules for everything else. And that Pledge, is not anti Catholic. The mom is nuts.

The Queen of England may not herself be anti-Catholic, but the Monarchy certainly is. The newspaper article says that only a Protestant can inherit the throne. In fact this is not true - as far as I’m aware it is specifically Catholics that are ruled out. I don’t think there is any rule which prohibits Muslims or those of other Christian denominations from becoming the monarch. An heir to the throne gives up his/her right to it should they marry a Catholic or convert themselves. Of course, given that the reigning monarch is the head of the Anglican Church it would be morally impossible for a Catholic to rule England because that would mean ruling over in theory at least) and encouraging a denomination which is not in communion with the Catholic Church. You may also know that members of the ‘Sinn Fein’ political party in Northern Ireland (they are a Republican party which seeks the reunification of Ireland) who are elected by their constituants to the House of Commons in London are not permitted to sit in Parliament because they refuse to pledge allegiance to Mrs Windsor (as they call her!). Of course this is done largely for political reasons, but also on principle and, for most Sinn Fein members, religious reasons… Also, on the subject of politics - it seems that the U.K. is nowhere near ready for a non-Protestant Prime-Minister. Remember that former Prime-Minister Tony Blair had been considering converting to Catholicism for quite some time during his time in office, yet it was only after he resigned that he was received into the Church.

This story of Matthew McVeigh is absolutely disgraceful, though it’s not surprising. Just because he will not pledge allegiance to the Queen does not mean that he cannot be proud to be English or that he would be unwilling to serve his country when he can. The family are refusing to sign purely on religious grounds, and the Scouts are guilty of blatant religious discrimination which would not be accepted by other religious denominations. Unfortunately, although England may describe itself as a multi-cultural society, both the monarchy and political system of the 21st century can still get away with promoting and perpetuating religious inequality.

There are other movements besides the boy scouts that do not require this pledge. The last poster comments on Sinn Fein, I happen to be a Sinn Fein supporter and there are organisations in NI for example that don’t require the pledge of allegiance due to situation that prevails there and which are based on scouting principles. Outside of that particulat area though which has two sets of people that both maintain the area belongs to two different countries rightfully this seems a bit of a storm in a teacup situation with someone looking to have a row for the sake of a row.

That said I see they are from Glascow where unfortunately you have some sectarian tensions at times - but this is just silliness. Scouting movements in all countries ask you to pledge your loyalty to the country you are in - it’s a standard requirement of the scouts. The Irish branch of the movement asks you to swear allegiance to the Irish state for example.

She’s the Head of the Anglican Church. :wink:

The thing is that, for the McVeigh family, this is not about pledging allegiance to one’s country. It is about a Catholic (or indeed any non Anglican) being required to pledge allegiance to the head of a Church which is not communion with the Catholic Church - such a person’s allegiance (from a religious point of view) should be to the successors of Peter. When a person in Ireland, the U.S. & most other countries is asked to pledge allegiance to their country, they are not being asked to support the religion of their head of state or to recognise them as being head of a church. At very least, this is done by implication when one is required to pledge allegiance to the Queen of England. Why is Matthew McVeigh not permitted to have reference to Her Majesty omitted from his Promise as those of other nationalities are able to do? He should be able to pledge allegiance to Britain without being forced to support a religious denomination which conflicts with his family’s religious beliefs.

Has anyone then an example of an ammended oath - as the British Queen is head of state of the UK it comes to much the same thing if you swear allegiance to her or the country - by not doing so she gives weight to old nonsensical doctrines about Catholics having two loyalties. Would I personally swear allegiance to the Queen, NO - but then if you join the British scouts you are fully aware I should think you are liable to end up in a stuck position if you don’t wish to show allegiance to Britain or the Queen.

Btw I know a number of Sinn Fein politicians and none I know would not take a seat in the House of Commons on religous grounds. The objection usually raised is the Queen Lizzie is titled as been the ruler of NI among her official titles and as Irish republicans see the British presence as an illegal occupation they won’t swear allegiance because by doing so they are condoning it. The Catholic Church and SF don’t always mix that well btw - the realitonship between the two is ambivalent to say the least.

Benjamin Disraeli, Prime Minister twice under Queen Victoria, was a Jewish Anglican. There have been, I am sure, atheist or agnostic prime ministers in the past. Alistair Darling, a member of Blair’s team famously said “We don’t do God”, and indeed religion plays far less a role in Westminster than it does in Washington.

Frankly this is ridiculous. The Queen is our head of State. The monarchy is the foundation upon which our political system (a royal parliament) and our national identity (Britain was originally a personal union of royal houses) are built upon. There is religous freedom in modern Britain. In no way should Catholics have any qualms about loyalty to Her Majesty. She is far more Christian than the so called ‘catholic’ Blair ever was.

When looking at allegiance from a religious point of view as the McVeigh’s are it is not the same thing to swear allegiance to the Queen as it is to swear allegiance to the country. By swearing allegiance to a head of state who is head of the Anglican Church they are at very least symbolically giving Allegiance to the Anglican Church. The McVeigh’s may not even be opposed to the idea of monarchy in a political or patriotic sense, but the Queen’s dual role - on the one hand head of state and on the other, head of the Anglican Church - is in itself a conflict of interests. In modern society where equality is demanded, how can she possibly regard Anglican and non-Anglican subjects equally when one of her roles is to support and defend the Anglican Church.

My apologies for using Sinn Fein’s refusal to take the Oath of Allegiance in the Commons in my first post. I know the reasoning behind it and it is not religious! It was interesting to read, however, that when a non-Anglican or non-Christian M.P. has taken the Oath to “bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II” - Defender of the (Anglican) Faith, as she is still referred to on coins- they hold a copy of the sacred book from their own particular faith! I’m afraid I just do not see how her two roles are reconcilable in multi-cultural Britain. Not that she would ever do it, but if she were to give supreme power over the Anglican Communion to the Archbishop of Canterbury maybe more people would find it easier to support the monarchy.

[SIGN]
Scout Oath (or Promise)

On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.[/SIGN]

I believe by excluding the the phrase “and my country” or in this case Queen, the boy has made the decision not to be a scout.

Let’s also look at the fact he said he is doing it on ‘principle for their Roman Catholic family’. I believe being a respectful citizen and doing your duty to God and your Country is also a teaching of the Church.

You have mentioned the phrase "Defender Of The (Anglican)Faith.

Pope Leo X conferred the title Fidei Defensor, which is Latin for “Defender of the Faith,” on England’s King Henry VIII.
The term “Defender of the Faith” is still one of the official names used for the King or Queen of Britian. But it is not the defender of the Anglican Faith, but it stands for the Defender of the Catholic Faith. It is unbelievable that the Head of the Royal Family are still allowed to this day to use the title. Since King Henry VIII was one of the first founders of the Judeo-Satanic Cult, you would think a Pope in the last few hundred years would have rescinded the title.

As for the posts that mentions Sinn Fein, I would have to disagree with anyone who says that Sinn Fein are a Catholic Party. They are a Nationalist party. They are a militant Marxist group, and have always been, since it’s inception.

Surely when this family attends Mass on Sunday, they pray for the Queen?
He’s an unusual 8 year old to be so concerned about this. I think this story says more about the mother’s scrambled ideas about the monarchy than anything to do with her faith. Thousands of Catholics have fought and died in wars, fighting “for Queen and Country” - were they betraying their faith?
Just because the Queen’s in the wrong religion doesn’t mean we’re not her subjects. She’s still the boss whether we like it or not.
By the way, if they abolished the whole lot of them tomorrow I wouldn’t be sorry!

Sinn Fein are moderately socialist at the present time but to say they have always been a militant Marxist group since their inception shows a staggering lack of knowledge about that particular party and their history. It was actually a monarchist party advocating a dual monarchy in the early years of it’s exsistence. But you are right they are not a catholic party and never have claimed to be either.

ora_pro_nobis;379962

He’s an unusual 8 year old to be so concerned about this. I think this story says more about the mother’s scrambled ideas about the monarchy than anything to do with her faith.

Oh of course. This is not the kid doing this, this is the mother.

Sinn Fein ARE a Communist Party. You should not believe what you read in liberal newspapers or books. Just look at the history of it’s present leader, Comrade Gerry Adams. Whatever term they use at present to describe their beliefs does not change what they are. I know a lot of Shinners and I have never met a practicing Catholic amongst it’s ranks. They are generally anti-Catholic and anti-religion. And a lot of their members are low life drug dealers.

Republicanism has always embraced Marxism. That is why Republicans have a lot of reverence for Commies such as James Connolly and Jim Larkin (Two foreigners who tried to turn Ireland into a Communist State). Thank God these two minions of Satan never succeeded.

Since I am Irish, I can assure you that I know the history of my OWN country.

A few of the leaders of Irish Parties were Openly Communist, when it was in fashion. Since then, they now describe themselves as Socialists. Pat Rabbitte and Eamon Gilmore come to mind. They used to be members of Sinn Fein Workers Party, a party that received funding from Soviet Russia. They went on to join Democratic Left and are now leaders in the Labour Party.

Good for him, he deserves a medal, agh ! go on, give one to mum too. :thumbsup:

So am I Irish mate and calling James Connolly who fought the deplorable conditions the workers of Dublin and elsewhere endured a foreigner because he was born in Scotland is laughable. I presume the falling people were also foreigners by this definition then - Dev, Maud Gonne, Tom Clarke, Erksine Childers.

If you know the history of our country you are fully aware Sinn Fein was started by Griffiths in 1905 with the original intent been to have the King of England be the King of Ireland but with Ireland as a seperate kingdom. He based that idea on events then current in the Austro-Hungarian empire.

Republican always embraced Marxism.Now that’s a sweeping and ill-informed oponion - the majority of republicans have never been particularly socialist or communist in their thinking. Remind me again for example why the Provisional IRA split from the Official IRA, Republicanism and socialism have a love/hate relationship to put it midly.

That said and back onto the topic here the mother here does seem to be misusing the son to push her own political agenda which I find distasteful.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.