Churches of the West: 2021 Reflections: The Church Edition.

Churches of the West: 2021 Reflections: The Church Edition.: 

2021 Reflections: The Church Edition.

We've posted commentary here from time to time, but what we've never done is to post a commentary of the resolutions/reflections type.

Indeed, it's extremely presumptuous of us to do so.

We're going to take a stab at it anyhow.

First we might note that in this area there's always less going on that those with Überangst would like to believe, and those in the press seem to believe.  That's important to note, and frankly this is true not only of stories involving religion, but stories involving most things.

Having said that, we're going to do that in part as this has been an extraordinary year in almost every way. 

The Coronavirus Pandemic rages on although most of the mask mandates in the United States have stopped.  A debate exists in society on the vaccinations mostly based on some people having erroneous views on the science of the vaccines (they are effective, they are not going to kill you, and they're necessary if we're going to stop this pandemic).  Some people have interjected moral issues into it, however, taking positions valuing personal liberty over collective good, a classic item for philosophical debate, and some taking a position based on the DNA of long ago aborted fetuses in the vaccine, a moral issue.  The United States switched Presidents bringing in a Sunday and Holy Day observing Catholic whose John F. Kennedyesque moral outlook somehow allows him to be a proponent of abortion, and tossing out what would appear to be a nominal Presbyterian serial polygamist who, on the other hand, took policy positions that very much advanced the cause of life.  The country abandoned a two decade old war in Central Asia and left that land in the hands of absolute Islamic fanatics.

And that's just a start.

So we dive in.

We're going to start in an odd place, perhaps, that being. . . Latin.

Immaculate Conception Church, Rapid City South Dakota

This is Immaculate Conception Church (formerly chapel) in downtown Rapid City, South Dakota. This Catholic church is somewhat unique for the region in that it says its masses, one daily and one on Sunday morning, in Latin, using the Tridentine Mass.

The church obviously once had another name, as the corner stone reveals, which appears to have been St. Mary's, but I do not know the history of this particular church.

Latin, we often hear, is a dead language, but its sure not dead in some corners of the Internet.  Indeed, people who track such things inform us that in fact Latin is enjoying a bit of a revival in some ways as the Internet has brought people who like Latin together from far away corners of the universe.

That's one thing, but another is that starting with Pope St. John Paul the Great there was a revival of Latin in the Catholic Mass.

Most people don't track this, of course, but Pope Paul, during the Vatican II era, but not as part of Vatican II, as so often erroneously believed, decided that the Mass needed to be put back in the vernacular.

Did I just say "back"?

Yes, I did.

He did more than that, in fact regarding the Mass.  A new Mass came out, which is the Mass that most Latin Rite Catholics know. And frankly, it was an improvement over the the old Latin Rite Mass that existed at the time.

Indeed, in my view, a large improvement.

Now, starting off with the history of this, the very first Masses in history were said in Aramaic.  Some still are, for those in the Chaldean Rites of the Catholic and Orthodox churches.  Very soon thereafter, they were said in Greek, and some still are, rather obviously.  Indeed, early in the Church's history, the Mass or Devine Liturgy was pretty uniformly said in the local language, whatever that might be.  One of those languages was Latin, as the Church came early to the Rome.

The collapse of the Roman Empire was coincident with a huge expansion of the Latin Rite, which left the Church with a big problem.  There were all sorts of new languages and peoples to deal with, and so the Church kept Latin, a language that came to be spoken by most learned people (it was the language of education for centuries) and which crossed borders and ethnicities.  But by the 20th Century this was rather obviously no longer true.  And at the same time, the need to keep the Mass limited in terms of the parts of the Canon of the Bible it used were no longer there as well. 

So it was time for a New Mass, the Novus Ordo.

This seems simple enough, but something can't be done one way for a very long time and then have everyone accept the change right away, if at all.  And at the same time, the "Spirit of Vatican II", rather than what Vatican II actually decreed, came into the Church in a major way in some places and predictably enough there was a reaction in some quarters.  Indeed, depending upon what the reaction focused on, not all of it was invalid by any means.

This gave rise to a very strong, but quite small, dissention movement that started in France, the SSPX, which determined to continue to use the Tridentine Latin Mass.  Never large, but nonetheless large enough to be a concern, and also on the edge of other radically conservative groups, Pope St. John Paul the Great worked to avoid having them go into full schism.  Ultimately, a compromise developed, which Pope Benedict expanded on, allowing the use of the Latin Tridentine Mass, with a set of guidelines and requirements.

In the meantime, as the original flag bearers of the "Spirit of Vatican II" started to pass away, and as the Internet came in and made self Catechesis relatively easy, conservatism and traditionalism in the Church strongly revived.  Abuses in the Novus Ordo, or as we would now say the "Ordinary" form of the Mass were corrected. Some traditional elements were reinserted.  Translations were fixed where they had been hastily made.

All of which made Catholic "liberals", a now aging but still present group, unhappy.

Indeed, during this period a sharp divide between a minority "liberal" wing of the  Church and the more conservative bulk developed.  Beyond that, however, that began to focus with the development of not only strongly Traditional Catholics, but Radical Traditionalist, or Rad Trads, as they were termed.  Rad Trads came close to having the same views as the now permitted SSPX in various ways.  Over time, they started to reintroduce on a private basis things that had long disappeared, mantillas being an example.

This would be all more or less fine, but then came in Pope Francis.

Pope Francis has been termed a "liberal" or "progressive" Pope by those who don't like him, but its really not true.  He's a South American Pope, and that shows.  He's highly conservative in some ways, and not in others.  On economics and environmental matters, he's upset American traditionalist and even simply orthodox Catholics who sometimes tend to confuse economic conservatism and an opposition to environmentalism, which are largely political matters, with religious ones.  Added to that, American Catholics tend to be ignorant on Catholicisms traditional views in both of these areas, and would be surprised, for example, that the Popes have criticized capitalism on more than one occasion.  

They're not the only ones to get confused, however, as "progressive" Catholics, also confused, ahve figured that they're back in vogue and have run with it whatever they can.  As an example, even though Pope Francis has referred to homosexuality has been influenced by the Demonic, American Catholic liberals are constantly on the edge of their seats expecting the Pople to endorse homosexual coupling. That's not going to happen.

Anyhow, this long-winded introduction is for this reason.  In the last couple of years the disaffected Rad Trads have been edging closer and closer towards schism, while the grump European progressives, principally lead by the German bishops, have done the same.  The Pope, while it seems obvious to neither, is acting to reign them both in.

With Rad Trads, the Tridentine Mass  went from being a beautiful license, to sort of a flag of opposition.  At the same time, individuals who started off  being loyal orthodox Catholics, like Taylor Marshall and Patrick Coffin, have edge up on allegations that Pope Francis is not a valid Pope, with Coffin being so suggestive in that area that its impossible not to basically attribute that claim to him, whether or not he really believes it.  The Pope, having had enough, as determined to pretty much end the license for the Tridentine Mass in Latin.

He can't be blamed.

The Catholic Church is the Universal Church. The old form of the Mass, while beautiful, was poorly understood in modern times by most, and the Ordinary Form is actually more inclusive of the full faith.  And hence our first set of reflections and resolutions

1.  The Mass, more traditional, but not Latin.

It's time to really abandon the Tridentine Mass, but it's not time to bring back 1970s style Guitar Masses either.  The direction we were headed, which reflected the perfection of the Ordinary Form, is one we need to get back to.

That means Rad Trads need to come back in. They have a place, but they can't be pushy about their views either.  You can't make women, for example, who are there in their jeans feel that they're doing something immoral because they aren't wearing a full length skirt and a mantilla.  And the Mass can, and frankly normally should, be in the vernacular, which people actually speak and know.

At the same time, the aging boomer crowed that saw alter rails come out in the 70s and the like needs o stop trying to change fundamentals, and even dogma.  Converting the Catholic Church into a liberal branch of the Episcopal Church won't work for anything.  It sure hasn't worked for the Episcopal Church, which is dying.  Orthodoxy is the future of the Catholic Church because it is the Catholic Church.  Traditional elements should be brought back in where they can sensibly be (where are those alter rails?), and beyond that, a real fundamental needs to be reinforced and accepted, which is:

Just because you have a deep attachment to sin, doesn't make it okay.

That's a hard lesson to learn, but its true.

I can no more put up wall to wall pinups and excuse it by saying that I have a deep attraction to women than those who have a deep attraction to the same gender, in the same way, can claim that "well, I'm born that way". 

We've been warned by St. Paul, and we were always told that we were going to have to carry a Cross.  We were also told that, in most places, in most times, most people aren't going to like us.

That's the way that is, and everyone, from Rad Trads to German Bishops, need to come to that realization.

2.  Stop trying to change dogma and an appreciation of existential nature.

See above, I covered it there.

Still, once again, nobody said being a Christian was going to win you lots of popularity contests.  Not so.

The oddity is, however, that the most observant people are the happiest.  They simply are, and that's for a simple reason. As ultimately, we look towards a home that we don't have, as we lost in the Fall, we're happiest the closer we get to our true natures. 

This is true, I'd note, of everyone in everything.  Vegans ranting on street corners are miserable people as they're living artificial lives.  Men and women living the Sex in the City lifestyle go home miserable and can't find solace in their lives as, at the end of the day, materialism and hedonism isn't our nature.  The freest people are those who have conceded Devine laws and live close to them, no matter what their station in life may be.

3.  Your economics shouldn't be your religion

This is something I've noted before, and while the upper two comments are mostly Catholic ones, this one is universal for all Christians.

I'm constantly amazed by how people confuse their faith with their economic well-being. They aren't the same.  Not even close.

This obviously takes on the "health and wealth" Gospel, but frankly, it isn't Christian.  Christ never promised anyone wealth, or health.  

In modern terms, insisting, as some do, that capitalism is equivalent with Christianity is self delusional and harmful.  Even more harmful is the economic version of the "made that way" line of thinking.  Just as I'm employed as a Widget Maker doesn't mean that Widget Making must therefore be benign because I'm a Christian.

4.  Sound science and Sound Christianity are not incompatible.

This should be obvious, and it's a traditional Catholic view, but if something seems very well established in science the chances of it contradicting Christianity are nill. If there seems to be a conflict, something needs to be looked into.

The best example of this is evolution, of course.  Some Christians are absolutely insistent that evolution can't be true because of Genesis.  Anyone looking into the original Hebrew version of it, however, will come away with the conclusion that it certainly can be.  

Taking extreme positions such as this and making them hills to die are counterproductive.

At the same time, just because we can do it, scientifically, doesn't license it.  There are lots of examples of his, and this too is a very of the "made that way" argument.  I usually here this in the form of "well God gave me common sense and therefore  (fill in personal sin here).  

5. Holding co-religious accountable.

One of the warnings of the New Testament is that people can and do find their own personal gain so predominant that they'll choose it over their faith when difficult decisions come.  Did the rich man go away and give his possessions to the poor?  We don't know.

A current example of this is the example of political power.  It's very clear that Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, among other Catholics, are advocating something the Church regards as a gave evil. We don't know the state of their hearts on abortion, but their willingness to ignore the Church for political position is pretty abundant.

The Church has for too long been willing to turn a blind eye to this.  It's time to stop.

Indeed, here we can take a lesson from the Protestant Churches which have very much turned a blind eye to numerous sins in order to seem to keep themselves relevant.  It hasn't worked for them either.  Here, they need to recover the ground they've lost by going back and reviewing what they did.

As part of this, however, a wider net needs to be cast, in my view.  In one local Parish, there's a politician who has been deep in the lies about the past election being stolen.  Perhaps he really believes it, but there's no reason that the sinfulness of telling lies can't be pointed out.

Here too, I suppose, is a place where lay Catholics have a role.  The Catholic on Sunday, or Christian on Sunday, and "my own views the rest of the week" type of attitude have no place in the life of Christians.  There's no reason to be in people's faces, but when encountered with something like this, there's no reason to simply ignore it by saying nothing either.

6.  Smelling like the sheep

Pope Francis has repeatedly said that the pastor should smell like the sheep.  He's right.

I don't have the same thing in mind that he does by noting this, however.

I'll note that while I fully understand why things everywhere were shut down early in 2020, I wasn't in favor of that in regard to churches.  I've changed my mind and I think that step right.  But closing the door of the Church doesn't mean closing the Church.

Different pastors handled this differently, but there's no reason whatsoever that every single parishioner or congregant in a church, mosque or synagogue, no matter what the faith was, shouldn't have received at least occasional calls of the "how are you doing variety".

Maybe some places they did.  But, at least in so far as I know, that didn't happen here.

I think the reason that it didn't happen here is that the American Catholic Church is used to a strong parishioner base, and the parishioners have, in substantive ways, supported the Church in every fashion. This remains the case.  It doesn't diminish the point, however.  Priests (and pastors, and ministers) should have reached out.  I'm sure some did, but many do not seem to have.  They should have, with "how are you doing (spiritually and physically), do you need anything (spiritually and physically)".

For a long time, I've had that feeling about the clergy in general.  I know that they live a vocation, which most of us do not, and that the demands on their time are monumental, but I fear that they fall prey to the same thing old lawyers do.  We know all lawyers, and a few clients, we talk to lawyers, and that's our lives. That's part of the reason the law becomes disconnected from reality.  

With Priests, in my view (and pastors and ministers), they ought to at least all do something that puts them out in the public, no matter how uncomfortable that may be, and not with the handful of people who go out of the way to be in contact with them.  Go fishing. Go hunting.  Go hiking.  Go to a neighborhood bar.  Take a class on English literature or European history at the community college.  You get the point.

As part of this, and something I thought about making a separate item, any Church has to be both true to its faith and in the world of the parishioners as they really are.  Throughout the pandemic it's been easier to find information on the Bishops' website here on Bishop Hart, who was bishop long ago, and the accusations against him, than what's going on with the Church and COVID 19.  The Church should have been reaching out, as noted above, to its members, rather than putting up news items on a Bishop who served so long ago that most Catholics in the state today have no connection with him whatsoever.

7. Younger, more and more orthodox

I don't have the solution to vocations, but in the modern world what strikes me is that we need to find a way to have younger clergy, more clergy and more orthodox clergy.

If it was me, I'd retire all the Bishops, pretty much, who are older than 50.  Time, technology, and events have moved on.  And I'd look at a way of localizing, once again, religious instruction.  I grasp that this helped give rise to the Reformation, but that was before the Internet, when everything local was much more local.

And while I am very traditional, frankly I think the prohibition on married clergy needs to be reassessed.  We had them early on, and it lingered in many European localities, until the Middle Ages.

It should be obvious to all that sex is part of human nature, and it's a problem.  Sure, it can be denied, just as a varied human diet can be denied.  Everyone can deny it to the extent necessary to live an ordinary and moral life.

But not all Catholics eat a diet that comports with the original Rule of St. Benedict, and they never have.  Periods of fasting are not anywhere near as numerous as they once were, but they were never every day.  The average Parish Priest isn't subject to the Rule of St. Benedict in this fashion either, and if it were imposed clergy wide, I suspect some who have become Priests would have reconsidered as that sort of discipline isn't meant for everyone.

The original purpose of the prohibition on married clergy was to prevent the rise of a Priestly class.  I.e, the Church worried about the sons of Priests becoming Priests, and so on.  This does occur in the Rites that allow for married clergy, but it  hasn't become a problem as the Priests in those Rites aren't closely associated with a ruling class.  In the Anglican Church in England, however, it did become a problem as the clergy was one of the few categories of occupations that noble men could occupy, with the military being another.  This lead to an anemic military officer class and a clergy that wasn't respected.

In the modern West, these problems aren't going to arise.

What did arise, in the mid 20th Century, was the Latin Rite becoming a refuge for homosexual men at a time that homosexuality was despised.  It provided cover for not being married.  Such individuals were always a minority of the clergy, but it lead to problems for a variety of reasons, not the least of them being that not all of those individuals probably truly heard a call.  

In the movie Dr. Zhivago (I don't recall it being in the book) the character Laura is instructed by a Priest that flesh is strong and only marriage can contain it.  Whether Sir David Lean inserted that into the story or not, it's true.  There's a place for vows of abstinence and there always will be, but perhaps the time has come to end it as to diocesan priests.

8. Reunion

I've noted this before, but it's time to end the separation between East and West.

That will take overcoming a lot of pride and a sense that independence needs to be preserved.  But that time has arrived and that should occur.

The Latin Rite of the Church is having a big synod right now.  Personally, I think that the synod is designed to bring in the full voice of the Church in Latin American and Africa, and the result will be a strengthening of the orthodox and diminishment of European and American liberalism.  

One thing I do wish, however, is that this process could somehow include the voice of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox.  I think it's up to the West to keep inviting them in until they come in.  And at some point, they will.  It's time, in my view, to treat them somewhat like cousins who live across town and who are estranged due to a long over family argument.  If you keep calling and say "well, that was a while back, we're having a gathering on Sunday . . . "

I'd also note that this is the case for some Protestant groups at this point who are really holding out based on tradition.  It'll take a lot for them to get over this, but conservative Anglicans and Lutherans should come back in. There's really no longer any reason for them not to.

9.  Proceeding in ignorance of history.

I concluded that last item by noting an item of Protestant history, but generally, some Protestants, and Protestant culture in general no longer have an excuse for a lot of the bogus historical items they cite and need to knock it off.

Everyone who stays to a Catholic "well what about Galileo" needs to go right back to grade school without passing go as they don't know what they're talking about.  The same for any Protestant stating "well what about the Inquisition".  These are Protestant position that were developed during the Reformation by people who had to justify the positions they were taking and demonize the Catholic Church.  In an era when most people barely read, you could get away with this stuff.  You can't now.

Likewise, ignorance on the origin of the Faith.  Protestants can argue about the nature of their denominations if they wish, but nobody can cite a false history to excuse them.  The works of the Church Fathers are easily accessible at this point.  It's clear that there was one, and only one, Church at least up to the Great Schism.  One, that's it.  After that, that Church was in schism, but it was still one church. There were not multiple Christian denominations until the Reformation. A person can claim, if they can justify it, that their branch of Christianity is the correct one, or a correct one, but they can't claim it to be the original one if they aren't Catholic or Orthodox.

That's obviously a theological problem for Protestants, but it's the case.  Various Protestant denominations which are close to the Apostolic churches have their own answers for it, but when people say this isn't true, they're wrong.  In the modern age, we can't afford to be wrong.

This also stems, I'd note, back to the topic of inserting personal beliefs into your religion.  No matter what a person may wish to believe, Christ drank wine, not grape juice, and the wine served at the Last Supper was just that.  He would have eaten meat too.  When Peter heard "kill and eat", he heard "kill and eat'.  Besides that, he was a fisherman and fishermen kill fish.

10 The Americanized Exotic Faiths.

Taking a radical turn, but also along the same lines of knowing what is what, Americans adopting exotic, usually Asian, religions should know what they really hold.

This may be most evident in the case of Buddhism  American Buddhism isn't very Buddhist.  For example, American Buddhist tend to be self comforted by the thought that Buddhism doesn't have a Hell. . . except that real Buddhism does.

Things like this are one step above the "spiritual but not religious" line that some people put out, which means something completely different.  All humans everywhere have a concept of God, even though there are people who claim they do not  I've heard, for example, a person who claims to be an atheist discuss his encounter with a ghost.  You can't get to ghosts if you don't have life after death, and if you have life after death. . . 

Anyhow, what this really boils down to is that all religions have a structure. There is no unorganized religion, as the concept of the Devine implies order by its very nature.  What people who claim they're spiritual but not religious, or people who claim to dislike organized religion are stating, is they don't like the "rules".  This should suggest to them that the real inquiry is whether the rules, which are in the order, are of Devine or man made law, something that Christ himself discussed in regard to the Pharisees.  An inquiry like that doesn't take you into Buddhism, however, which is tends to be a way for Americans to adopt something with some structure over a structure which actually expects something out of you.

Be that as it may, Americans tend to do these religions disfavors by implying that they basically boil down to "it's nice to be nice to the nice".  Not so, there's a lot more to them than that.

11.  Go to Church, the Synagogue, the Mosque.

Here's a final comment, or resolution.

Whatever faith you are, Protestant Christian, Apostolic Christian, Jew, Muslim, attend.  

Modern life has made people sedentary, and it's working against us in every fashion.  It's also made us isolated in ways that are bad.  People sit alone at home, and then go to work with people who are just like them.  Indeed, the more educated a person is, the more likely that they just work with people who are just like themselves, largely with the same ideas they have.  

No church or faith is that way, to be sure.

Everything about our natures expects more out of us than we're inclined to deliver, if we can avoid it.  Get up, go out, and go.

Lex Anteinternet: Thursday August 11, 1921. Prejudice.

Lex Anteinternet: Thursday August 11, 1921. Prejudice.:   

Thursday August 11, 1921. Prejudice.

 

Father Coyle.

Father James Coyle, an Irish born Catholic priest serving in Alabama, was shot in the head in front of his rectory on this day in Birmingham.  His killer, E.R. Stephenson, was the father of the bride, a convert to Catholicism, who had married a Puerto Rican man earlier that day.  Stephenson was a member of the Ku Klux Klan and a Methodist minister.

The KKK was not only a terroristic opponent of blacks in the South, it should be remembered, but also of Catholics and Jews, and generally of anyone not of a British Isles or Northern European background.  At the time, it was extremely powerful and not held in disrepute in the South.

Catholicism, for its part, was a distinctly minority religion throughout the South and still is.  Today, only 7% of Alabamans are Catholic, and even fewer must have been at the time.  Even as late as 1941 Time Magazine was able to report that an area as big as Ireland in the South had just ended the distinction of being completely without a Catholic Church.  Oddly, however, the South has produced some notable Catholic literary figures, including Flannery O'Connor.

Future Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, himself at that point a future member of the KKK, would defend Stephenson in court, who got off of the charge of murder based upon a plea of temporary insanity.

In Ireland, Eamon de Valera sent his reply to British peace proposals, rejecting them. The British had offered dominion status, which de Valera was not willing to accept for Ireland, wanting complete independence with no ties of that type to the UK, and a plebiscite for Northern Ireland to determine its fate.

In the Canadian dominion, Lord Byng took office as the Governor General.

South of the border, Franklin Roosevelt showed the first signs of paralysis from polio.  A doctor misdiagnosed the condition, where he was vacationing in Maine, as a bad cold.

Churches of the West: The Extraordinary Form of the Mass a Week Later, and the Novus Ordo

Churches of the West: The Extraordinary Form of the Mass a Week Later, a...: 

The Extraordinary Form of the Mass a Week Later, and the Novus Ordo.

I'm including this video of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass so that people like me, who have never seen the old Tridentine Mass, know what it is like.

It's been a week and a day since Pope Francis put new restrictions on the use of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, after his predecessors Popes Benedict and Pope St. John Paul the Great having allowed for the expanded use. It's also been, therefore, a week of really extensive discussion among Catholics, or at least among those Catholics who pay attention to such things, which is quite a few.  Generally, the reaction has been shock, to shock and understanding, to shock and angst.

The Pope's orders allow the Extraordinary Form to go on, but with much more in the way of restrictions at the Diocesan level.  Bishops can choose to omit it entirely if they wish to.  Most aren't, and in the US a lot of them gave immediate approval for those now offering it to continue to do so. 

Beyond that, however, the likely result of the order will be the eventual elimination of the Trindentine form completely, as newly ordained Priests will require Papal approval to offer it and they are very unlikely to receive it, at least from Pope Francis.  Why is that?

Well, while his actions were sudden, immediate, and came without warning, he made his opinions clear that in his letter.  His action was taken as it was his concern that the Extraordinary From was a center of ongoing and perhaps even building resistance to Vatican II, and he was done with that.

And in fact, while I'd like to dispute his action, I feel he was basically right.  I note that Catholic Answers host Cy Kellet, in his typical much more gentle way, essentially came to the same point of view, while also lamenting the action to some extent.

Kellet also noted, which would not have occurred to me, that when prior Popes authorized the Extraordinary Form they did not envision it going on forever.  This is occurring in the Latin Rite of the Church, and there was now intent to have two rites within the Latin Rite.  Just one. 

I'm sure that's correct as well.

The old rite was allowed to continue as an accommodation to those who were attached to the old form, and frankly to try to avoid an outright schism with the SSPX.  Pope Francis seems done with that as well and referred to those problems as a "schism", even though in later years it hasn't been regarded as one and Pope St. John Paul II was, if I recall correctly, very careful about formally declaring one in the hopes of avoiding one.   What happens now with these groups remains to be seen.  No healing of the rift is likely.

One thing that this has done for people like me, who have never seen a Tridentine Mass, is to expand our knowledge on the topic.  And in doing so, at least in my case, and in the views of some others I've heard discuss it, it has expanded our appreciation of the current Ordinary Form.

The Ordinary Form, or Novus Ordo as it's often referred to, has features the Tridentine Mass does not.  Those attached to the old form point out that there are prayers in the Tridentine Mass that are omitted in the Novus Ordo. That's true, but it's also the case that the readings in the Trindentine Mass never changed, but were the same year after year.  In the Novus Ordo they do change and something on the order of 85% of the readings in the Bible, Old and New Testament, are covered over a four-year period.  I was shocked, frankly, that wasn't the case in the Tridentine Mass.

Given all of this, frankly, Pope Francis was right.

Not that this means that the story we're dealing with here is really over.  Pope Francis is old, and obviously not in the best of health.  His papacy has been controversial with conservative Catholics, and he's gathered a lot of opposition in the pews and also with certain Bishops. To my surprise, Bishop Burke issued a statement questioning his ability to act on the Latin Mass as he did, which shows how deep some opposition is (I think there's very little question he can do what he did).  Given his age and trends, long term, there's more than a little bit of a chance this action may see modification by his successors.

Whatever that may mean, it's also worth noting that some of the current turmoil that we're seeing came about not due to Vatican II, but the abuse of it's "spirit".  The Novus Ordo, as we've already pointed out, wasn't really a product of Vatican II but came about in its era.  That's often completely missed.  Abuses occurred with the Novus Ordo that were never envisioned by the Papacy.  And, as Kellet pointed out, the "alter rails didn't have to come out".  In recent years there's been an effort to fix this and things have in fact dramatically improved in many locations.  Sort of a symbolic, if not actual, restoration of the alter rails.

That trend is likely to continue.

Churches of the West: Pope Francis restricts the use of the Extraordinar...

Churches of the West: Pope Francis restricts the use of the Extraordinar...: Immaculate Conception Church in Rapid City, South Dakota.  This church has been doing a daily and a Sunday Latin Mass for years.  It's a...

Lex Anteinternet: We should have told John F. Kennedy to stuff it. ....

Lex Anteinternet: We should have told John F. Kennedy to stuff it. ....: In trying to pressure Biden, the Catholic bishops forget the lessons of JFK So runs an opinion headline in the Washington Post. Well, as the...

Lex Anteinternet: A Corrective Warning.

Lex Anteinternet: A Corrective Warning.: 

A Corrective Warning.

We started off to comment on a couple of newsworthy items from the Catholic news sphere the other day but like a lot of things here, we only got to one, the recent Prime Minister of the United Kingdom's wedding.  We posted on that, we'd note, on a companion blog, which is where we intended and still more or less intend to comment on another thing, which was a recent change in Canon Law regarding punishments under the law for certain things.

The latter item created quite an odd stir on the Internet for reasons that are really unclear.  That was what the second post was going to more or less deal with.

Since that time, however, something we've dealt with here before has come up as a major news story, that being the almost certain move of Catholic Bishops to deny politicians the reception of the Eucharist if they publicly support abortion. This is in the news as it will impact the President, Joe Biden.

For sincere Catholics this news is both way overdue and the reaction to it incredibly surprising.  It's also had the impact of smoking out liberal cafeteria Catholics whose attachment to their faith is tempered by their politics and world view.  

To start off with, the Catholic faithful have long wondered why Catholic Bishops allow politicians to take the wishy washy "I'm personally opposed to abortion but. . ." cop out.  

The entire matter, as Canon Lawyer Edward Peters noted on, of course, Twitter seems pretty canonically clear.  Hence the surprise on the Captain Renault like "shocked shocked" reaction some liberal Catholics have been all atwitter with.

Here's the basics of it.

Catholics believe that every human being, no matter their condition or state in life, have a right to lift and that killing a human is homicide. This is the case whether or not a person is young or old, health or ill, intelligent or unintelligent, physically fit or dramatically impaired.

And it applies whether a person is born, or not. Catholics believe that a person's right to life is absolute, tempered only by the right of self defense.

Indeed, the last time the Church made news on this was when the Church modified the Catechism to provide that penal institutions and measurements had improved so much over the years that the death penalty was no longer morally justified.  This caused Catholic trads to be all atwitter in some instances.

That, however, was a mere development in a direction that Pope St. John Paul II had started decades ago.

The current controversy isn't even a new development in anything.  Catholics have held that abortion is infanticide since ancient times.  The sin has been regarded as so serious in more modern times that technically Canon Law precludes a confessor from forgiving it, requiring a Bishop to do that.  However, in many places, including the United States, the Church also has recognized that the sin is so common that this was unworkable and Bishops have extended permission to all confessors to forgive it.  A few years ago the Pope did that for the entire church worldwide, although I'm not up to speed on the current status that.

The Church has also always had a doctrine regarding "cooperation with evil".  Generally, "remote cooperation with evil" is regarded as inevitable. But direct open cooperation with evil can be a mortal sin.  For example, the driver of a getaway car in a robbery can't take the position that he's only a driver.  He's assisting in a great sin.  

Perhaps more illustratively, selling a handgun over the counter to somebody who intends to commit murder with it isn't a sin at all, if you have no knowledge of what he intends to do with it. But if a person specifically asks for somebody to provide a gun for a murder, a person can't morally do it.

This gets us to our current topic. The Church's concepts in this area, many of which tend not to be fully fleshed out, have long held that where politicians directly cooperate in an evil, just like where anyone else does, they bear moral responsibility for it and can be denied Communion.

For example, during the 1960s when desegregation was taking place, the Bishop of the Archdiocese of New Orleans, Bishop Joseph Rummel, took the position that segregation was a great evil and, in 1962, excommunicated three Catholics in the diocese for organizing protests against desegregation in the diocese.  More correctly the excommunications were for defying Church authority. Two of the three recanted and were then reinstated to communion with the Church.

All of that is instructive as actions of this type are designed to be corrective, not punitive.  The thought is that a person is committing a great sin and the action is necessary to instruct them in that fact in a way that can't be ignored.

That's the thought here.

It's openly and obviously the case that Catholic politicians who have openly allowed for advanced positions that the Church has regarded as gravely evil should have correction long ago.  Conservative Catholics have long argued for this, but many rank and file Catholics have been baffled by it as well.  Now its going to happen.

Liberal Catholics, in many instances, are having a fit, but they ought to stop and pause for a moment.  It's always been accepted by the Catholic Church that to be a Catholic wasn't going to win you any friends.  On the contrary, Christ warned and the Church still holds that it would instead draw to you abuse.  It's expected that to be a Catholic, and holding the tenants of the Faith seriously, means you'll lose friends, family and even up to your life in some circumstances.  No "health and wealth" gospel here.  Not by a long shot.

The Church, in may people's views, should have taken this step long ago.  However, the thought seems to have been that there was a fear that taking it would drive people in this category further away.  The risk, on the other hand, was what the title of one of the linked in items below notes, that being scandal.

Now it seems that the Church has finally reached the point where its decided to do what many faithful Catholics in the pews have urged be done for many years, that being to deny Communion, which is not the same we'd note as Excommunication, to public figures who are openly and obviously assisting an evil.  

Some Catholics who take a liberal view of theology are now busy making what amount to real misstatements about the Church's theology.  I saw, for example, somebody who represented themselves as a CCD teacher noting that to be a Catholic doesn't mean accepting Humane Vitae.  Oh, yes, it does.  What being a Catholic means is that your life will be more difficult than others, including other Christians.

The Church, in taking this step, is taking it, at a point in which in some parts of the globe, as is often noted, the Church has been in decline. It's rarely noted that its expanding at an exponential rate elsewhere.  Where its in decline are in those areas where it has sought to accommodate the world the most. The parts of the Church internally that have grown the most in recent years are those parts everywhere which are the most observant.  That's a lesson for every organization everywhere, but the irony of this act now, which really won't occur until at least the end of the year, is that the times actually give liberty for the Church to take the action.  If it doesn't win the Church secular friends, it doesn't have any, anyway.  And if it causes those who have light attachments to the Church's teachings to be upset, perhaps they should deeply consider the nature of a Pearl of Great Price, and if they expected to win Heaven easily.

And if it seems that the Church is now out of sink with the World, well, it's never been in sink with it ever. When its been most in sink with it, things have not gone well for the Church. . . or the world.

Will Biden recant?  Or Pelosi?  That's hard to say.  Decades of supporting grave evil will have built up a great pride that will be hard for them to overcome.  But that they need to overcome it is at least a warning they need to receive.  We can pray that they do.  We can pray that everyone does.

Related threads:

2020 Election Post Mortem VII. Joe Biden and the "Catholic vote".

Archbishop Chaput says what should have been said long ago. Scandal.

Lex Anteinternet: And new penal provisions of the Canon Law. What does it mean?

Lex Anteinternet: And new penal provisions of the Canon Law. What d...: The Church announced in early June that it was going to issue a revision to the section of Canon Law that deals with punishments for certain...

Churches of the West: BoJo Marries and the Comments Fly.

Churches of the West: BoJo Marries and the Comments Fly.: 

BoJo Marries and the Comments Fly.

A Medieval wedding.

Boris Johnson and his longtime girlfriend, Carrie Symonds (now Johnson) married.

So what, you may ask.  Indeed, dulled by the long 2019-2021 parade of bad news of one kind or another, that was my initial reaction, even though there's an obvious Christian point to this story from the onset, as by marrying, they're no longer shacking up, if you will, even though they certainly haven't been shacking up in quarters that could be compared to a shack.  

Frankly, as an Apostolic Christian, I'd normally have probably made a comment at some point about their living arrangements as its clearly contradictory to the tenants of the Christian faith, and even in Europe this would have been poorly regarded in almost any society up until, well right now.  Now, it pretty much produces a yawn, as do the majority of other serious religious tenants shared by all of the Abrahamic religions on a variety of matters related to sex.  I.e., this conduct is regarded as seriously sinful by all the Christian religions, Judaism and Islam.  In the modern world, it seems, Christians, including some serious ones but also a lot of nominal ones, have decided that most of what the Apostles wrote down was elective in nature and that people pretty much get a vote on what is and what isn't sinful.

More on that here later.

That's not what sparked the news, as soon became apparent.  What did, is that Johnson and Symonds married in a Catholic cathedral in a Catholic ceremony.  For people who like to be shocked, amazed, or scandalized, this was shocking, amazing, and scandalous.  And the press all over the English speaking world reacted with a giant "WHAT? How could this be?"  For example, the New York Time ran this headline:

Why Could Boris Johnson Marry in a Catholic Church?

The Guardian, a British newspaper that has made inroads into this US, ran this bizarre historically dim headline:

Boris Johnson’s outdone Henry VIII in having his third marriage blessed by the Catholic church

Apparently the writers at this British paper are historical dimwits.

The Irish Times, less dim on the topic, ran this one, which was actually interesting and informative.

Boris Johnson baptised Catholic and cannot defect from Church, says canon law

And the Times headline gets to the crux of the matter.

That didn't keep, however, an Irish priest from stating that the wedding made a "mockery" of the Church's laws.

Which it does not.

I don't know much about Johnson personally,  Or indeed, hardly at all.  And among the things I didn't know is that his mother was Catholic and he was baptized by a Catholic priest.  His mother raised him as a Catholic as a child, but when he was in Eaton, he was confirmed (rather late, if we look at North American anyhow) by an Episcopal Bishop.

And that makes him an Episcopalian, right?

Well, that depends.

Carrying the story forward, in the 1980s he married Allegra Mostyn-Owen. The couple divorced in 1993 after six years of marriage.  She's currently married to a man 22 years her junior who is a Muslim, which has lead Johnson to put Mostyn-Owen on a Muslim relations task force.  Reportedly, she's given her husband permission to have more than one wife as she is unlikely to be able to bear children and of course polygamy is a feature of Islam, although that would not be legal anywhere in Europe, in so far as I know. ^[1]. 

His second wife was Mariana Wheeler, a childhood friend of Johnson's.  They married twelve days after his first divorce and she was pregnant at the time.  Their marriage lasted seven years.

So, eeh gads, surely this is contrary to Catholic teaching, right?  I.e., his current marriage to Symonds, age 33 (Johnson is 56), just can't happen, right?

To read the press, you'd think so.  I've read everything, however, from this can't happen as Catholics don't allow divorce to this could only happen as Catholics don't recognize the marriages of other faiths.  

That doesn't grasp the interesting religious angle, however, of this at all.

In reality, all of the Apostolic faiths, as well as some of the Christian faiths that are close to the Apostolic faiths and regard themselves as Apostolic, take Christs' injunction against divorce seriously, although they don't all approach it exactly the same way.  Interestingly, and completely missed in all of this, the Church of England doesn't recognize divorce.  The mother church of the Anglican Communion, that is, regards it as invalid, just as Catholicism does, which isn't surprising as High Church Anglicans regard themselves as a type of Catholic, even if the Catholic Church completely rejects that assertion as "completely null and utterly void".

We'll get to more of that in a minute, but perhaps the most peculiar of the approaches to divorce is the Orthodox one.  The Orthodox allow more than one marriage under a vague application of a mercy principal that tolerates, in some cases, up to three marriages.  It's tempting to compare this to the Catholic concept of annulment, and indeed it is somewhat comparable, but lacking in the formality.  The basic approach, however, is that the Orthodox only recognize one valid marriage, but accept that human nature is frail and people goof up, so it applies some leeway essentially as it generally feels that the problem of sex in human nature makes it difficult not to.  I'm not Orthodox, so I could be off on this by quite some margin.

The Catholic Church doesn't recognize divorce at all.  It does apply the principal of annulments where it judges that one of the original marrying parties lacked something to make that marriage valid.  I don't' know what percentage of people who go through the annulment process obtain one, but frankly it seems rather shockingly high, which as been a long criticism of it, and a valid one in my view.  Outside of that, however, Catholics hold that once you are married, its until death.  No exceptions, save for the one noted, which would hold that the first marriage wasn't valid, and therefore wasn't really a marriage.

So how on Earth could Johnson and Symonds marry in a Catholic cathedral?

Well that leads to messy press analysis.

The Irish Times, not surprisingly, had it best. 

Contrary to what some of the press elsewhere would have it, the Catholic church fully recognizes the marriages of non Catholics, and for that matter, non Christians.  If two Muslims marry, the Catholic Church regards them as married.  Married and can't divorce is how the Catholic Church would regard it, irrespective of how Muslims may view it.

And also contrary to what some of the press is claiming, the Church also recognizes the marriages of people who are two different faith, or no faith at all.  Go down to the Courthouse and have the judge marry you, in other words, and you are married.  

So what's the deal here?

That's where you get into Canon Law.

Originally the overwhelming majority of Christians, all of whom were Catholic, married outside of a Church ceremony.  Indeed, it was extremely informal.  People just decided they were to marry, and they were.  No wedding ceremony at all.  

That first began to change with monarchs, as their marriages were also effectively treaties between nations, and they wanted it to be really clear and official in every respect possible.   But also, during the Middle Ages, things began to change with regular people as the need for marriage witnesses arose. This was principally because one member of the couple would claim they were never married, usually the man, leaving he other, usually the woman, in a very bad position.

Indeed, even with very early Christian monarchs you can see this at work.  Some early Saxon and English kings, for example, had queens who were subject to this.  Hardecanute is a famous one who married with King of England, but who had a Scandinavian queen before and during that period. What was she?  Harold Godwinson, the last Saxon king of England, had a Saxon queen who was "married in the old style" and a Welsh queen to whom he was more formally married. When  he died at Hastings, it was apparently the Saxon queen, still around, that identified his body.

This presents a series of obvious problems and the Church therefore worked to clear it up, imposing the Canon law that Christians had to be married by a priest.  This served a number of purposes, one of which was that the wedding was therefore witnesses and couldn't be simply excused away.

It would be tempting to think that the current situation came about immediately upon the Reformation, but that would be in error.  Indeed, it's important to keep in mind that at the parish level, while the fact that the Church was in turmoil was obvious, the severance wasn't necessarily immediately apparent in the pews.  All of the original Lutheran priests, for example, had been ordained Catholic priests.  No Bishops followed Luther into rebellion in what is now Germany, so there was no way to ordain valid new priests in the eyes of the Catholic Church there, but in Scandinavia things muddled on in an unclear fashion for some time and the Scandinavian Bishops did follow their monarchs into a series of murky positions.

In England, the situation in the pews was also unclear. All of the original Anglican priests had been Catholic priests and most, but not all, of the Bishops followed Henry VIII into schism.  Eddward VI took the country as far from the Catholic folds as he could, but then Queen Mary brought the country back into the Church, although without completely success.  Then Elizabeth struck a middle ground, most likely for political reasons more than anything else.  As late as the Prayer Book Rebellion, 1549, Catholicism was still so strongly rooted in the minds of average Englishmen that they revolted over the introduction of the Book of Common Prayer which the conceived of as too Protestant.

The point of this isn't to introduce a treatise on the history of religion in England, but rather to note that for average people this must have been distressing, but if they were going to get married, they still went to the same place, the Church, and the presiding cleric presided over it.  This is important to our story here as, at least in England, in spite of an outright war by the Crown against Catholicism, the Church did not prohibit Catholics from marrying in a ceremony presided over by an Anglican priest and no dispensation was required for a "disparity of cult".

Indeed, it's widely believed that as late as 1785 the man who would reign as King George IV married Maria Fitzherbert, a Catholic.  The marriage remains really murky in terms of details, as it was conducted in secret, and was arguably invalid because George IV had not obtained permission from George III, which was a legal requirement.  The marriage did not, however, require Fitzherbert to obtain permission from the Catholic Church and its believed it was conducted by an Anglian priest.  Interestingly, while George IV would later deny that the marriage was valid, and their relationship was rocky, it never completely ceased altogether and he asked to be buried with a locket containing her image.  George IV was officially married to his cousin Caroline of Brunswick in what was pretty clearly both an arranged and unhappy marriage that he did wish to terminate.  He died first.

So when, exactly, the current canon came in requiring permission for a marriage outside of a Catholic officiation, I frankly don't know.  It may not have occurred everywhere at the same time, for that matter.  Having said that, it seems to have been first mentioned as a Church law, and therefore a legal requirement binding Catholics, in 1563, so the example given above is problematic.

Note, however, that it binds Catholics.  Not other people, and the Church has never stated otherwise.  

Additionally, it binds Catholics as its a law of the Church.  In order for a Catholic to have a valid marriage, it must be presided over by a Catholic priest or there must be some dispensation.  If that doesn't occur it isn't valid, as to Catholics.

And that's what we have here.  It's not change in the law of the Church in any fashion. Boris Johnson was baptized as a Catholic and so he is a Catholic, the way that Catholics understand that.  Carrie Symonds is also a Catholic, and indeed, press comments about her routinely refer to her as a "practicing Catholic".  Her status in that regard is problematic as she and Johnson have been shacked up, which is contrary to Catholic moral law in a major way, but with their marriage, and presumably with a Confession that preceded it, that's no longer an issue of any kind.  And Symonds' views would otherwise be evident in that she had their son, born out of wedlock (see issue above again), baptized in the Catholic faith.

So, why al the fussing?

Well, for the most part at least knowledgeable Catholics aren't fussing.  Not everyone likes Johnson politically, but Catholics pretty much take a "welcome home" view towards this sort of thing.  So, the past is what its, and Boris is back. All is fine, religion wise.

Of course, some Catholics who don't know the doctrines of their own church, or who simply want to have a fit, are. But its' a pretty misplaced one.

Non Catholics can have a fit if they're predisposed to, as they don't understand the Church's law and they are often surprised to find that the Church retains its original position that as it is the original Church, which is indisputable, all others lack in some fashion. ^[2].  So this serves to remind people that the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church have a lot of similarities, but no matter what the Anglican Communion may maintain, the Catholic Church doesn't regard it as Catholic.  Of course, not all Anglicans wish to be regarded as Catholics, but some of them are offended as the fact that the Catholic Church isn't according them equivalency with the Catholicism is offensive to them.

More than that, however, a long held cultural anti Catholicism that came in with the reformation is still pretty strong in certain Protestant regions of Europe in spite of the decline of their Protestant established churches.   This is very evident in England, and is very strong in Scandinavia.  It's somewhat ironic in various ways, not the least of which is that these regions have become highly secularized and as that has occurred, the Church that has remained strong has been the minority Catholic Church, which has not only survived its long Reformation winter, but which has gained new adherents.

Does this mean that Johnson has fully returned to the Catholic fold and will be at Mass next Sunday?  Well, Catholics should hope so, and frankly so should Protestants as well. And there is some evidence that Johnson, who has lived a fairly libertine life, may in fact be taking his Christianity more seriously than he did in earlier days.  His recent address regarding the Pandemic specifically referenced Christ and his mercy, something that very few politicians would generally do, and European ones even less.

So, while people can have fits if they want to, all in all, they shouldn't.  Indeed, no matter what a person thinks of Johnson one way or another, there's reason to be happy about this development, and not just in being happy for the apparently happy couple if a person is inclined to be such.

Footnotes

1.  Having said that, I don't know if polygamy is legal in Turkey, which is obviously a Muslim majority nation, and which is in Europe, depending upon how you draw the continental lines.  Turkey has become increasingly Islamic under its current leadership but had years of aggressive secularism, so the status of Muslim polygamist marriages isn't a given, and I don't know the answer as to its status there.

2. The various Orthodox Churches also stretch back to Apostolic origins, which is why the Catholic and Orthodox Churches regard each others sacraments as valid, and also regard their separation as schismatic, depending upon which you are in, rather than an outright rebellion and departure as was the case with the Protestant Churches.

Churches of the West: A couple of interesting news items.

Churches of the West: A couple of interesting news items.: 

A couple of interesting news items.

It would be apparently to any long time reader of this blog, if there are any, that it hasn't been the same for over a year.  Indeed, it dramatically changed course, sort of, when COVID 19 hit.  That event pretty much changed everything, globally, and rather obviously, with one of those changes being that business travelers quit traveling.

I frankly don't think that business travel is coming back.  Video conferencing was coming in anyway and the pandemic spurred it along.  That's our new world now, even though we don't really have any idea, really, of what that new world is really going to be like.  We already know that, at this late stage of the pandemic, with COVID relief funds still operating in a lot of places, people in certain economic categories are refusing to come back to work.  This isn't just those making low wages, who are choosing to ride out the relief funds in hopes for hire wages.  It also includes a lot of professionals who have learned how to work from home and don't want to go back to their offices.  This is still paying out.

Anyhow, that means no new church photographs from afar.  And frankly, this blog was slowing down anyhow as a lot of the places I traveled to, I repeated.  There's more churches there, indeed there's more in town, but photographing targets of opportunity just don't exist like they did, although I should finish the ones in town.

Anyhow, as the number of church photographs have declined, those which are news items have seemed to increase, although that may not be fully accurate.  Some probably have seemed to increase as they're getting posted where as church photographs aren't.

Anyhow, as also noted here before, this isn't a Catholic Apologists blog. There are plenty of those and I'm not qualified to be one.  But I do comment on Christian news items from time to time and those are most often Catholic ones.

Catching my eye on Twitter yesterday was a comment by a priest to the effect that "everyone's an Apologist today".  I hadn't seen any big news items that would inspire a comment like that and I couldn't find one on Twitter.  Checking the news, I saw two, and these do turn out to be the inspiration for that comment.  One was that Boris Johnson, the British Prime Minister, married, and the other was that Pope Francis had issued a revision to the Church's Canon Law.  Reading the news reports I at first didn't see any reason that these were really even all that noteworthy.  But following up on it, they are, and they're interesting.  

So, following this, there will be a couple of comments on those.  Hope they're interesting.

Lex Anteinternet: Easter 2021. Next Year In Jerusalem.

Lex Anteinternet: Easter 2021. Next Year In Jerusalem.: 

Easter 2021. Next Year In Jerusalem.

This is Easter on the Latin Rite liturgical calendar for 2021, thereby being the date that almost everyone who observes it will observe it on.  Orthodox Easter this year is nearly a month away, on May 2.

It's a second sad Easter in a row.

For the second time we're facing an Easter in which the gloom of the Coronavirus Pandemic lingers overhead.  Perhaps, in that way, we're looking at an Easter that actually fits historical times, i.e., most of human history, more than our own times, and therefore should give us more to look forward to with the oncoming advance of Spring.

Still, it probably doesn't, and in no small part due to the really odd and unsettled times we're generally in.  

For those in the Diocese of  Cheyenne, such as myself, we still have a dispensation in place if we feel we should use it.  I've noted myself earlier in this blog that I wasn't really happy about Mass's being suspended in the first place, although I'd perhaps now reluctantly concede that it was necessary. As also earlier noted, when they opened back up I resumed going, but when infections started to climb and the vaccine was on the horizon, I dropped back out and made use of the dispensation.

Throughout this entire pandemic, my wife has really been the one who managed our approach to it, being diligent and careful and making me the same.  I take the pandemic very seriously and frankly I'm at the point where those who casually deny its anything anger me.  It truly is.  I've known, as we all do by now, a host of people who have had it and a couple of them are dead.  People who give the flippant "it's no worth than the flu" don't seem to realize that the flu isn't a cold either and that its a real killer.  The reason we tolerate the flu like we do is that we have no choice.  Here we do, but we're rapidly losing out on that choice in part because people who want to believe that it amounts to nothing or wild theories about its original or the vaccine are being slow to get vaccinated.  And in our modern society, in which we've elevated the individual and his rights and beliefs to a near religion we aren't willing to use any form of compulsion in order to make sure the appropriate number of vaccinations are accomplished.

That day may never have been possible in any event. We may have lost out on that opportunity from the very first instance, in which case SARS-CoV-2 will be an endemic disease and go on killing.  

At least one person I know who takes the disease very seriously, but who is younger and therefore able to bear more risks, has just become numb to it.  That is, it's real, they got vaccinated, but they're otherwise too fatigued to observe much in the way of any other precaution.  As noted, some people never took any as they refused to believe it was real.  Others, and I find this approach the oddest, accepted it was real and took some precautions, unless they were personally inconvenient.  

The level of precautions a person took and wear tends to reflect a person's beliefs. The Catholic Church in Wyoming obviously took it very seriously in shutting things down, but I frankly think the Church really dropped the ball in regard to outreach to parishioners.  Even on my end, as a former lector and a former council member, I received very little contact during the pandemic from my diocese.  If I've received this litter, and have been a faithful and loyal Catholic my entire life, I have to think that marginal Catholics are in no better position than I am.  One thing the Church is really going to have to answer for, and I mean in this realm and the next, is the complete and utter failure, it seems to me, to try to reach out during the pandemic.  A parish priest is actually responsible for all of the souls in his diocese.  If the Catholic souls aren't getting any contact. . . well. . . there's going to be questions that will have to be answered.

Anyhow, at Mass I noticed that almost everyone was very observant about wearing masks, which were required, although there's always the few who will pull them down below their nose at which point they're pointless.  Sometimes that's ignorance and in others its a form of protest.  Be that as it may, they were there.

I'm told, but don't know, that in some Protestant churches following the COVID guidelines were simply suspended completely.

In a civil context, in some places I've been too that's very much the case.  One local sporting goods store had signs about wearing masks but few on the staff did. A few men who work in the store do and have, but the huge army of 20 something girls that loiters near the cash registers grossly overmanning them never did.  Sporting goods stores here are almost a center of civil protest/COVID denial.

Circling back around, during the pandemic my wife has lead the charge and we've both been very good about doing what we should. We haven't been to a restaurant in a year, with one noon meal that was a work invitation, and two for out of town depositions, being the exception.  I've been invited to "go get a beer" after work, but I declined, something made easy by the fact I decline that invitation usually anyway.  

Anyhow, I've now had both of my COVID 19 vaccinations.  My wife has had her first.  My kids have both had theirs.  Only my son and my wife are in the window of non protection, as they're either waiting for their second shot or have just had theirs.

I was going to resume Mass attendance last week, but my daughter pointed out that my wife had been so good about her observation of the rules and just had her shot, so we should probably abstain.  She didn't come home for Easter due to school and work and will make Mass where she is.  Here we debated it last night and ultimately decided, for the same reason, to wait one more week.

Locally it turns out that of the three parishes two were requiring reservations, but once again due to the phenomenally bad outreach the Church's have, that wasn't apparent at the one we were going to go to until this morning when I happened to find that was on their video feed.  For goodness sakes, is there any excuse for not getting this out in some other fashion?  So we likely would have been turned away.  That would have lead us to the parish across town which is not requiring reservations, but which was anticipating putting overflow in the poorly ventilated basement so that those there could watch it on television.

Next year, for those of us still in the temporal realm, Mass in the normal fashion will have resumed as life in the normal fashion will have had to.  The country can't keep being shut down forever and the entire population, save for those who really have the resources to do nothing at all, has to get moving again and patience has worn thing.  My guess is that we will not reach the "herd immunity" threshold as there will be those who steadfastly refuse to believe that the disease is serious or who will continue to believe myths about vaccines which are allowed to circulate in the post Cold War scientific age.  Those who are vaccinated will get yearly boosters which will be more or less effective. Some will get sick and some of them will die and for some people that will come as a surprise.  But life will return to normal, with normal in this instance begin an unfortunate blend of the 1970s inflationary era, brought on by profligate government spending, and 2010/20s moral sinkage.

On that latter item, there were those who hoped that the pandemic might refocus society and cause some reflection on where we were going and what we were doing.  Perhaps some of that did occur, but there does not seem to be much evidence of it now. And to the extent it did, a lot of that was swept away by political forces that refused to acknowledge defeat and countervailing ones that accordingly came into power seeking to bring in every "progressive" item on that laundry list that's been thought of since the late 1890s.  Things are really not looking that good, and in a lot of ways.

But next year, at least there will be Mass.

Jews traditionally end the Passover Sedar with "Next Year in Jerusalem", signaling an obvious deep religious hope.

Next year in Jerusalem. ^[1].

__________________________________________________________________________________

Footnotes:

1.  I don't think this is incapable of being misunderstood, but just in case, and because I'm occasionally asked, this is meant symbolically here.  I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in visiting Jerusalem.  I.e., none.  This isn't mean to be rude, but I know it baffles people, and as I have a friend whose been once and who is planning to return again, I know I'll be asked that along these lines; "I'm going on the church trip to Jerusalem. .  . wouldn't you like to go?" followed by all the things that a person could see in Jerusalem.

That's great for people who want to see it, but I don't.  I don't have any interest in going anywhere in the Holy Land, which may be odd for a Christian, but I don't.  None.  Indeed, if I were to go to anywhere in the Middle East the locations would be limited to certain big desert areas as I like big deserts.  I'm not keen on cities in general, and particularly not large crowded ones.

FWIW, I often give the same reaction to other venues that feature lots of people.  "Wouldn't you like to go to China?".  No, I would not.  "London?".  M'eh.