Report of the Charles Stuart Commission
Prepared for the open Vestry Meeting of May 10, 2007
We have been charged with responding to the following question: Is King Charles I of England worthy of the title of patron saint and namesake of this Episcopal church? To arrive at an answer we have investigated the relevant period of English history, the practices regarding the elevation and commemoration of saints in the Anglican Communion, as well as the naming history of this particular parish. Charles was, indeed, a staunch defender of the Church of England as he understood it. While we do not feel we can pass judgment on the nature or sincerity of his personal piety, his public disposition on matters of religion was less than admirable. He was unapologetically authoritarian and his actions with regard to the church owe as much to his fear of popular unrest as they do to doctrinal conviction. In large part they are responsible for the English civil wars of the 1640s. His canonization was highly suspect; furthermore he is not identified in any way on the calendar of the Episcopal Church USA, only on the calendar of the Church of England. Finally, this parish, from the documentation we have available, seems to have had very little investment in or even knowledge of Charles I’s history and character when the name was chosen. For these reasons we do not believe that Charles I is a worthy patron and namesake. We hope the following information and arguments will be of use to members of the congregation as they consider this issue for themselves and discuss what actions, if any, should be taken.
While we cannot and do not need to become scholars of English history, a basic knowledge of Charles and his political situation is necessary. Charles Stuart, or Charles I, was king of England (as well as Ireland, Scotland and Wales) from 1625 until his execution in 1649. He inherited the throne from his father, James I, and ruled during a period of intense political and religious upheaval. Politically, Parliament and the king were involved in a protracted power struggle. Large factions in Parliament were intent upon protecting, extending, and institutionalizing that body’s powers to govern. The king, who (every biographer seems to agree) held a very traditional and authoritarian understanding of his role as monarch, was intent upon maintaining the upper hand. He aimed to keep Parliamentary power contained and any threat of popular challenge to monarchy at bay. Religiously, England (as well as the rest of Europe) was overwhelmed by Calvinism and its challenges to church organization and doctrine, particularly the place of bishops and the idea of predestination. Charles was a committed anti-Calvinist who, throughout his reign, pursued a church policy based upon “more emphasis on set forms and ceremonial at the expense of preaching, increasingly vigorous enforcement of conformity and a greater stress on the role of the bishops and royal supremacy”(Cust, 222). As large sections of Parliament were Calvinist, religion became one of the main flashpoints in the power struggle with the King. And then, of course, there was money.
From the very beginning of his reign, the relationship between Charles and Parliament was contentious and uneven. At the time, parliamentary sessions were called at the discretion of the king, who was supposed to be generous in his willingness to do so regularly, particularly respecting Parliament’s role as a place for bringing popular grievances, offering counsel, and levying taxes. At the beginning of his reign, in urgent need of money to fund his foreign policies (think various hostilities with Spain and France), Charles summoned Parliament only to dissolve it when it was not quick to comply with his monetary requests. He did this twice. In 1629 he dissolved parliament and failed to call another session for eleven years. During this period, known as “The Personal Rule”, he resorted to highly creative ways of financing his endeavors (largely through collecting customs) as well as other archaic institutions to administer his policies and legal judgments.
Near the end of this period he chose to take on the problem, as he saw it, of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland. Its strongly Calvinist structure offended his religious sensibilities but he also saw in its refusal of bishops the first step towards a general rejection of authority, namely his own. In his view, Calvinist principles and democratic church structure were
the product of ‘a popular reformation’ and therefore inherently threatening
to royal power. He reiterated his father’s maxim ‘No bishop, no king’, glossing
it as a statement of the fact that ‘Presbyterian doctrine’ was ‘incompatible with monarchy’. Removing episcopacy would ‘take away all the ecclesiastical power
of government from the crown and place it in the hands of parliament and the people. (Cust 425)
To treat this problem he imposed an English style prayer book upon the church in Scotland. The Scots rebelled and Charles took them to war. In need of money, he called another session of Parliament (the Short Parliament, Spring of 1640). It was, unsurprisingly, a failure; Parliament, locked out for the last eleven years, wanted their grievances on matters of religion and taxation addressed before providing funding and Charles wanted the money in hand before he would listen. Not getting anywhere, he dissolved Parliament after a few weeks and waged the war with the resources he had. This did not go well. The Scots defeated him and occupied sections of English soil. Unable to negotiate effectively with the Scots and in need of money, Charles called another Parliament called the Long Parliament which began in November 1640. This time they got him to concede to the Triennial Act which mandated that Parliament must meet at least every three years, could be called (if the King failed to do so) by the lord keeper and twelve of the peers, and could not be summarily dissolved without its consent.
Unable to dissolve Parliament, Charles now had to deal with them. This did not go well either. The relationship gradually devolved until the Parliamentary leadership (which had strong Calvinist leanings and was in alliance with the Scots) raised its own army causing Charles to raise his own standard and civil war to break out in 1642. In the first phase of the war (through 1646), Charles was defeated, though he dragged the process out hoping to regain the advantage. He finally decided that his best hope lay in making religious and political concessions to the Scots in order to gain their allegiance. He surrendered to them in May of 1646. Negotiations finally produced an alliance, and a second phase of civil war (with the Scottish army invading England) broke out from May through August of 1648. This also did not go well for Charles and he began negotiating terms to end the war with Parliament in the fall of 1648. By this point the army and factions of Parliament were determined to put him on trial for his role in the civil war. Throughout the negotiations the one point on which Charles refused to concede was the role of the bishops in the Church, though as he had already made many concessions to the Scots concerning the establishment of Presbyterianism in England his intentions are not completely clear. At any rate, negotiations failed to resolve the crisis; the trial went forward with Parliament having to invent and assert the legitimacy of a new court in order to do so. The king was charged with “high treason and other high crimes”, the lengthy charge including a description of him as a “tyrant, traitor, murderer” (Robertson, 154, 155). G. Robertson, in The Tyrannicide Brief, lays out a persuasive case that, by the standards of the day, every attempt was made to provide a fair trial. The King appeared at the trial but actively challenged the authority of the court and refused to enter a plea. Eventually the court felt compelled to consider his refusals as pro forma admissions of guilt, though they did present witnesses and evidence before declaring a sentence. He was convicted, sentenced and then executed on 30 January 1649.
If this was the end of Charles I, it was also the beginning of St. Charles, King and Martyr. After
his death Cromwell and Parliament chose to govern without a king. This state of affairs lasted eleven
difficult years. The monarchy was reestablished in 1660, with Charles’ son becoming Charles II. At this
point Charles II had Parliament pass legislation that required every church in England to mark the day of
execution (30 January) as a feast day with fasting as well as to celebrate 29 May, the day of the
Restoration. By Queen Victoria’s day the memory of this particular king and of the civil struggles he had
presided over fell out of favor and, in 1859, Parliament demoted Charles, eliminating the mandated
observances
. He is currently on the calendar of the Church of England as a Lesser Feast but the
observance of the day (like all Lesser Feasts) is optional. Thus it is in the Church of England. The
Episcopal Church is another matter. Charles I is simply not on the calendar of the Episcopal Church
USA. The Book of Common Prayer has no entry for 30 January, nor does Charles’ name appear for any
other date. A word or two about sainthood in the Anglican communion is warranted.
As far as we have been able to discern, the Anglican communion does not have a clear, official, unified process for the identification of saints. At the reformation which brought about the Church of England, many (not all) of the saints from the Catholic calendar were simply retained. Charles is a singular case; in the literature it is often remarked that he is the only person ‘officially’ canonized by the Anglican church since the Reformation. In a sense this is true, as his elevation by act of Parliament and the mandatory observance of his feast day had an aura of authority (indeed political coercion) which none of the other more recent additions do. Many individuals have certainly been added to the calendar since then, however they are not given the title of “Saint” (in fact no one is identified by the title ‘Saint’ on the Church of England calendar) and they are given Lesser Feasts or Commemorations, the observance of which is optional. The Anglican communion also allows for wide variance in substance and style among the calendars of the churches within it. The Church of England celebrates Aelred of Hexham on 12 January while we do not. On March 27 we commemorate Charles Henry Brent, Bishop of the Philippines and of Western New York, while they do not. The discrepancies are numerous and, were we to look at the calendars of other churches in the Anglican communion, we would find even more. What the Anglican communion can agree upon about saints is found, most recently, in four resolutions passed by the 1958 Lambeth Conference. They provide the most definite statement we can find concerning the purpose and identification of saints. They are worth including in full here as we have taken them as one of our primary guides in assessing Charles’ worthiness as patron saint and namesake.
Resolution 77: The Conference holds that the purpose of a Kalendar is to
increase our thankfulness to God and to strengthen our faith by recalling regularly
the great truths of the Gospel, the principal events in the life of our Lord, and the
lives and examples of men and women who have borne pre-eminent witness to
the power of the Holy Spirit, and are with us in the communion of saints.
Resolution 78: The Conference considers that the power to revise or amend
Kalendars should be exercised by the same authority as is required for the
revision of the Book of Common Prayer within each several Church or province,
which authority my allow supplementary commemorations for local use in
addition to the Calendar at the request of the diocese.
Resolution 79: The Conference is of the opinion that the following principles
should guide the selection of saints and heroes for commemoration:
1. In the case of scriptural saints, care should be taken to commemorate
men or women in terms which are in strict accord with the facts made
known in Holy Scripture.
2. In the case of other names, the Kalendar should be limited to those whose
historical character and devotion are beyond doubt.
3. In the choice of new names economy should be observed and controversial
names should not be inserted until they can be seen in the perspective of
history.
d) The addition of a new name should normally result from a wide-spread
desire expressed in the region concerned over a reasonable period of time.
Resolution 80: The Conference recommends that the Church should continue
to commemorate saints in three ways: by Red Letter days, Black letter days,
or a memorial collect alone.
We do not presume to sit in judgment on Charles’ personal piety. However, Charles was indeed an highly controversial, politicized figure, in his day and in ours. He was elevated a mere eleven years after his death, not out of a long-standing groundswell of devotion, but at the behest of his son who also took pains to have those who tried his father executed. His defense of the episcopacy, without which our church would be radically different, was strong but the motives behind it were palpably mixed: No bishop, no king. Moreover, his history of bloody conflict with parliament and his authoritarian methods of controlling the direction of the Church raise doubt as to whether or not he can legitimately be called a pre-eminent witness of the Holy Spirit. Finally, as members not of the Church of England but the Episcopal Church, we must acknowledge the fact that our governing body has not seen fit to list Charles on its calendar. Obviously this does not prohibit us from naming a parish after him, but it should give us pause.
How we got our name
Still, his is the name we currently have, and have had since 1952. The name was chosen for the
dedication of the parish in that year. As a mission church (organized in 1948) we were known up to the
dedication as The Church of the Holy Rood. While there is more than adequate documentation for how
that earlier name was selected, there are simply gaps both in the written record and in people’s memories
concerning the name change. The mission church was given a list of names from which they could select
their original name. Minutes of early meetings indicate that the bishop was not a personal fan of using
saints’ names – too commonly used and also too difficult to harmonize with the name of the town. They
chose Holy Rood because the day they organized was close to Sept 14, Holy Cross Day (a rood being a
wooden cross). Alas, this did not go well for the parish. There is general agreement among sources that
the name quickly became disliked: too odd, too easy to ridicule. Unfortunately, no one seems to have
recorded or to remember how the second name was suggested and finally chosen. The name “St.
Charles’” was requested by the parish and the bishop agreed.
It is fairly clear that the parish was aware
that they were naming themselves after Charles I the individual, not St. Charles the town. However, this
is only an inference drawn from later accounts of the church’s history (see, for example, Fr. Ludtke’s
message from the 1973 directory, or the 1986 letter of the Senior Warden to the Assessor’s office).
Original accounts have not been uncovered. There is no record of the discussion that brought the request
for a name change about, no indication of who suggested the name, and no account of any debate over the
worthiness of Charles as a namesake. Interviews with members present at the time (namely Liz Carpenter
and Bernice Bunker-Ludtke) have indicated only that there was no recalled controversy. Given the
problems associated with the former name we are pressed to conclude that the name St. Charles’
Episcopal Church was simply chosen as the path of least resistance.
So we are left in the position where our name represents two things: a patron saint not particularly worthy of such special admiration but also a more than fifty year history of a church growing and doing its best to accomplish God’s work in this community. To change our name to __________ (fill in the blank with your favorite and prepare to argue about it for some time) would not automatically make us into a different people, but it would disrupt a sense of continuity with our past parish life and put an unnecessary stumbling block between us and the community at large. Even more importantly, a dramatic name change most likely would consume an inordinate amount of time and energy; it could quite possibly create hostilities – all of which interfere with much more important work.
At this point we must all admit that a potential name change is the underlying implication of this whole process – with some parishioners hoping and some fearing that that will be the end result. It is not the task or prerogative of this committee to make any decisions at all about changing the name of our parish. We do feel, having spent considerable time thinking through this subject, that we have a responsibility to offer an initial suggestion to begin the inevitable discussion about a potential name change. If we as a parish decide a name change is warranted, the committee recommends that we apply Occam’s razor in the following way. We consult the diocese, explaining the issue and asking to change our name officially to St. Charles Episcopal Church. Simply drop the apostrophe. If you have a hard time seeing or hearing the difference, you’ve gotten the point exactly. We hope no one else really notices either. Of course, along with this change we would need to drop references to Charles as a patron or special example from our liturgy. While this does not cut our ties to Charles I completely, it so dilutes the connection as to make it negligible. More importantly, it preserves our heritage and public persona. As a practical matter a name change is a name change – time and money would be involved. However, this particular name change would minimize the kinds of costs that are within our control.
We have sent an initial request for information to the diocese, to determine whether such a name change would be considered possible. Their initial response is attached. It directs us to particular sections of Canon Law that guide the process of parish name change and does not, on its face, contain any reason why dropping the apostrophe would be unacceptable. It is, of course, up to the parish as a whole to consider this issue and decide whether any action should be taken or not. We hope we have provided adequate information and analysis so that such a discussion can begin. To that end we have attached an annotated list of sources we consulted and will place a file containing copies of some of the less readily available papers we have found in the Church library.
10 May 2007
Kristen Balisi
Kathy Heikkinen
Gary Meade
Sources Consulted
Book of Common Prayer, According to the Use of the Episcopal Church. Seabury Press, 1977.
[See pages 15-33 for the Calendar.]
Cowie, Leonard, W. The Trial and Execution of Charles I. New York: Putnam. 1972.
Cust, Richard. Charles I, A Political Life. Harlow, England: Pearson Longman, 2005.
Hibbert, Christopher. Charles I. New York: Harper and Row, 1968.
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Third Edition. Eds. F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Robertson, Geoffrey. The Tyrannicide Brief. New York: Pantheon Books, 2005.
Stuart, Charles. To the Prince of Wales. Eikon Basilike. London: A. Moring, 1904.
Found at www.anglicanhistory.org/charles/eikon/27.html
[A chapter from a generally hagiographic work published in the king’s defense (and in his name, though how much of it he wrote is not clear) around the time of his trial and execution.]
Calendar of saints (Church of England) – wikipedia article
http:\\en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_of_saints_%28Church_of_England
Charles I of England – wikipedia article http:\\en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England
[Printed 4/1/2007]
Lambeth Conference resolutions 77-80. See www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1958
List of Saints – wikipedia article
http:\\en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_saints
[Printed 4/1/2007. Contains a chart comparing the saint rosters of Anglican, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches.]
Liturgical Calendar of the Church of England. See www.cofe.anglican.org/worship/liturgy/commontexts/calendar/holydays.html
Society of King Charles the Martyr – wikipedia article.
http:\\en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_King_Charles_the_Martyr
[Printed 4/1/2007]
Society of King Charles the Martyr – official website
[Upon which we are listed as one of the few churches worldwide that is named for Charles.]
Unpublished Church Papers and Pamphlets
“The Commemoration of the 346th Anniversary of the Beheading of Charles I, King and Martyr”. January 29, 1995.
[Service bulletin. Contains order of service, a brief history of Charles, brief list of sources and a cartoon of Charles’ beheading.]
Ffolliot, Charles. “The Early History of St. Charles’ Parish”. January 30, 1987.
[Speech given by Mr. Ffolliott, later reprinted in Church stewardship materials entitled “We are Family” (1996?)]
Ludtke, Rev. Frederick N., “Message from the Rector”. St. Charles’ Episcopal Church Directory. 1973.
[Explicit statement of Charles I as namesake.]
Minutes of the Organization Meeting of the Mission of St. Charles. September 14, 1948.
St. Charles’ Episcopal Church, St. Charles, Illinois., 1993.
[Informational booklet published during search for a new rector.]
“The Twenty-fifth Anniversary of St. Charles’ Episcopal Church”. September 23, 1973.
[Evensong service bulletin. Contains order of service and brief parish history.]
Personal letter. C. F. Ffolliott to Rt. Rev. Wallace E. Conkling. September 22, 1948.
[Discusses potential names for Mission Church.]
Personal letter. C.F. Ffolliott to Rt. Rev. Conkling. October 13, 1948.
Personal letter. James Glen to Supervisor of Assessments, Kane County. September 30, 1986.
[Restatement of Charles I as namesake.]
Personal Letter. Gowan C. Williams to C. F. Ffolliott. September 28, 1948.
[Input from St. Mark’s, Glen Ellyn rector on Mission’s name.]
Personal Letter (copy). Members of parish to Rt. Rev. [Conkling?]. No date.
[Request to form under the name St. Charles Episcopal Church. Prime example of the apostrophe issue.]
From: Todd M. Young [mailto:tyoung@hinshawlaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 9:30 AM
To: Sue Easterwood
Cc: Randall Warren; Scott Hayashi
Subject: Re: FW: Request for More Help
There are a few Diocesan canons to consider in changing a parish name. First, the full name of each parish in the Diocese is supposed to be: "The Rector, Wardens and Vestry of ********" - (see canon 18, Sec. 1b). So technically, what we're talking about here is, if I understand correctly, changing the name that goes in the last bit, where the asterisks are.
Second, Canon 22, Sec. 6 gives the procedure for a parish to change its name, and it refers you to Canon 20, Sec. 1. In that latter canon, to change a parish name, you need: 1 - vestry vote, 2 - consent by the Ecclesiastical Authority (the Bishop or, in his absence, the Standing Committee), and 3 - vote to approve the name change by 2/3 of the parishioners entitled to vote.
Third, once the parish changes its name, it needs to record that name change with the recorder of deeds in its home county. The Chancellors' office or one of our ELVN volunteers can assist with those forms when the time comes.
SO what does this all mean? Clearly name changes are serious business, probably for practical and pastoral reasons - the parish name is a huge part of its identity and a huge part of how people identify the parish, and our canons are consistent with that in treating this as a pretty big deal (on a par with selling the church). What are the rules for what names are acceptable and when a name change is OK? There aren't any, really. I suspect the bishop's approval will hinge on things like, is there a good reason for the name change, has the parish articulated its plan for how it will re-brand itself, is the new name confusingly similar to another nearby parish, etc. The dropping of an apostrophe doesn't sound like it will have too many confusion issues, but there may be larger pastoral issues in the congregation that are triggered by the small apostrophe. I'll defer to the pastoral team on that. I did not receive the research summary referenced below, and I really don't need it, but I suspect someone will want to review it to get a handle on the rationale for the name change and any counter-valing considerations. I don't know my history well enough to know if Charles I was a controversial character in any way, but that might be a factor as well.
HOpe this was helpful.
-T
Todd M. Young
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
222 N LaSalle Street, Suite 300, Chicago, IL 60601
Tel: 312.704.3777 (Direct) | Fax: 312.704.3001