"A Snyodal Church In Mission", the VNA take.

 Interestingly, the Vatican News Agency has a much different summation on the first step of the Snyod than the Catholic News Agency does.  So we'll take a look at it.

VNA's comments, like CNA's are online.  You can look them up there, but there's much less to its report. Still, some things are interesting.

We note:

The face of a synodal Church

Synodality is a first step. It is a term that the participants in the Synod themselves admit is “a term unfamiliar to many members of the People of God, causing some people confusion and concern” (1 f), including fears of a departure from tradition, a debasement of the hierarchical nature of the Church (1 g), a loss of power or, on the contrary, immobility and a lack of courage for change. “Synodal” and “synodality” are instead terms that “speak of a mode of being Church that integrates communion, mission, and participation”. So they indicate a way of living the Church, valuing differences and developing the active involvement of all. This begins with deacons, priests, and bishops: “A synodal Church cannot do without their voices” (1 n), we read. “We need an understanding of the reasons for resistance to synodality by some of them”.

I guess this means getting everyone involved, which frankly, this process has not done.  Only 1% of Catholics have particpated.

Mission

The document continues explaining that synodality goes hand in hand with mission. Hence, it is necessary that “Christian communities are to enter into solidarity with those of other religions, convictions and cultures, thus avoiding, on the one hand, the risk of self-referentiality and self-preservation, and on the other hand the risk of loss of identity” (2 e). In this new “pastoral style”, it would seem important to many to make “liturgical language more accessible to the faithful and more embodied in the diversity of cultures” (3 l).

I'll let that comment stand for itself.

The poor at the centre

Ample space in the Report is devoted to the poor, who ask the Church for “love”, understood as “respect, acceptance, and recognition” (4 a). “For the Church, the option for the poor and those at the margins is a theological category before being a cultural, sociological, political or philosophical category” (4 b), the document reiterates, identifying the poor not only as those who are materially impoverished, but also migrants; indigenous peoples; victims of violence and abuse (especially women), or racism and trafficking; people with addictions; minorities; abandoned elderly people; and exploited workers (4 c). Among “the most vulnerable of the vulnerable, on whose behalf constant advocacy is needed, [are] the unborn and their mothers”, the document continues. “The Assembly hears the cry of the ‘new poor’, produced by wars and terrorism that plague many countries on several continents, and the assembly condemns the corrupt political and economic systems that cause such strife”.

I'll let that also stand for itself.

Commitment of believers in the field of politics and for the common good

In this sense, the Church is urged to be committed both to the “public denunciation of the injustices” perpetrated by individuals, governments, and companies; and to active engagement in politics, associations, trade unions, popular movements (4f and 4g). At the same time, the consolidated action of the Church in the fields of education, health, and social assistance, “without any discrimination or the exclusion of anyone”, must not be neglected (4 k).

This is an intersting comment, but I think it's always been the case.

Migrants

There is also a focus on migrants and refugees, “many of whom bear the wounds of uprooting, war and violence”. They “often become a source of renewal and enrichment for the communities that welcome them and an opportunity to establish direct links with geographically distant churches” (5 d). Faced with increasingly hostile attitudes towards them, the General Assembly says, “We are called to practice an open welcome, to accompany them in the construction of a new life and to build a true intercultural communion among peoples”. Fundamental in this sense is “respect for the liturgical traditions and religious practices of migrants” as well as respect for their own language. For example, a word like “mission”, in contexts where “the proclamation of the Gospel was associated with colonization, even genocide”, is laden with “painful historical memories” and “hinders communion today” (5 e). “Evangelising in these contexts requires acknowledging mistakes made, learning a new sensitivity to these issues”, the document states.

I'll let this stand for itself.

Combating racism and xenophobia

Equal commitment and care is required of the Church “to engage decisively in education, in the culture of dialogue and encounter, combating racism and xenophobia, especially through pastoral formation” (5 p). It is also urgent to identify “systems within the Church that create or maintain racial injustice” (5 q).

And this as well.

This next one is interesting:

Eastern Churches

Remaining on the subject of migration, the Report looks to Eastern Europe and the recent conflicts that have caused the flow of numerous faithful from the Catholic East into territories with a Latin majority. It is necessary, the Assembly says, “for the local Latin-rite Churches, in the name of synodality, to help the Eastern faithful who have emigrated to preserve their identity and cultivate their specific heritage, without undergoing processes of assimilation is the request of the Fathers” (6c).

This reflects a change that occured some years ago, but also its interesting to note, as we recently did here, that there are "Latin Refugees" entering the Eastern Rite now, due to discontent over things just like, ironically enough, the Snyod, or perhaps more particularly discontent with the liberal branch of the Latin Rite where its prominent or at least in the news.

On the road to Christian unity

With regard to ecumenism, the Report speaks of a “spiritual renewal” that requires “processes of repentance and healing of the memory” (7c). It goes on to quote Pope Francis’ expression about an “ecumenism of the blood”; that is “Christians of different affiliations who give their lives for faith in Jesus Christ” (7d), and it mentions the proposal for an ecumenical martyrology (7o). The Report also reiterates that “collaboration among all Christians” is a resource “for healing the culture of hatred, division and war that pits groups, peoples and nations against each other”. It does not forget the issue of so-called mixed marriages, which are realities in which “it is possible to evangelize each other” (7 f).

This has long been the desire of the Church.  In some ways, a move toward what seems to be a species of less than autocephalous status for local churches, but in the neighborhood, might encourage this.

Clericalism

Many women present at the Synod “expressed deep gratitude for the work of priests and bishops”, but “also spoke of a Church that wounds" (9 f). “Clericalism, a chauvinist mentality, and inappropriate expressions of authority continue to scar the face of the Church and damage its communion”. A “profound spiritual conversion is needed as the foundation for any effective structural change”; and the General Assembly noted that “we desire to promote a Church in which men and women dialogue together… without subordination, exclusion, and competition” (9h).

Clericalism is constantly mentioned in the Latin Rite right now, but nobody really seems to have a good explanation of what it is.  

Opening the diaconate to women?

Various opinions on opening the diaconate to women were acknowledged (9 j): for some, it is “unacceptable because they consider it a discontinuity with Tradition”; for others, it would restore a practice of the early Church; still others see it as “an appropriate and necessary response to the signs of the times … that would find an echo in the hearts of many who seek new energy and vitality in the Church”. Then there are those who are concerned that opening the diaconate to women would involve “a worrying anthropological confusion, which, if granted, would marry the Church to the spirit of the age”. Fathers and mothers of the Synod ask to continue “Theological and pastoral research on the access of women to the diaconate”, making use of the results of the commissions specially set up by the Pope, as well as the theological, historical and exegetical research already carried out: “If possible”, they say, “the results of this research should be presented at the next Session of the Assembly” (9 n).

This was addressed in my earlier comments, but with only 1% of the Church weighing in, conclusions here should be approached with caution.

Deacons and formation

The Assembly then expresses gratitude to ordained ministers, who are “called to live their service to the People of God in a disposition of proximity to people, welcoming and listening to all, while cultivating a deep personal spirituality and a life of prayer” (11b). The Report warns against clericalism, a “distortion of the priestly vocation” that “needs to be challenged from the earliest stages of formation” by ensuring “close contact” with the people and those in need (11 c). The request is also expressed, along these lines, that seminaries or other courses of formation of candidates for the ministry be linked to the daily life of communities (11 e), in order“to avoid the risks of formalism and ideology that lead to authoritarian attitudes, and impede genuine vocational growth”.

Clericalism again.

Celibacy

Mention was made of the theme of celibacy, which received different evaluations during the assembly.” Its value is appreciated by all as richly prophetic and a profound witness to Christ”; the Report says, while noting that some ask “whether its appropriateness, theologically, for priestly ministry should necessarily translate into a disciplinary obligation in the Latin Church, above all in ecclesial and cultural contexts that make it more difficult. This discussion is not new but requires further consideration”.

This wasn't mentioned in the CNA report, but is here.  Seems like nothing was done other than to suggest it be studied.  

FWIW, I frankly don't see the absolute need to retain Priestly Celibacy, which puts me in an orthodox Catholic minority.

Bishops

There is ample reflection on the figure and role of the bishop, who is called to be “an example of synodality” (12 c) by exercising “co-responsibility”, understood as the involvement of other actors within the diocese and the clergy, so as to lighten the burden of “administrative and legal commitments” which can hinder his mission (12 e). Coupled with this, the bishop does not always find the human and spiritual support he needs, while “a certain sense of loneliness is not uncommon” (12 e).

This was addressed in the earlier comments as well but seems to suggest for devolvement of the bishop's duties.

Again, it might be noted that this was in fact once the case, which is why Italy has so many diocese. Bishops were once very local, and could be again. If this was done, it would require the church to act much more regionally.

There are good reason to do this, and good reasons not to, fwiw.

Formation (Part III)

A “synodal approach” is then requested for formation, with the recommendation that work be undertaken “on relationship and sexual education, to accompany young people as they mature in their personal and sexual identities and to support the maturation of those called to celibacy and consecrated chastity” (14 g). The Report emphasizes the importance of deepening “the dialogue between the human sciences” (14 h) so as to enable “careful consideration of matters that are controversial within the Church” (15 b) – that is, among other issues, matters “such as those relating to matters of identity and sexuality, the end of life, complicated marital situations, and ethical issues related to artificial intelligence”. Issues such as these are controversial precisely “because they pose new questions” in society and in the Church (15 g). “It is important to take the time required for this reflection and to invest our best energies in it, without giving in to simplistic judgments that hurt individuals and the Body of the Church”, the Report says, while recalling that “Church teaching already provides a sense of direction on many of these matters, but this teaching evidently still requires translation into pastoral practice”.

I'd suggest there are no "new questions", really, under the sun.  We only perceive questions that haven't come up for awhile to be new.

Indeed, a lot of the "new questions" were specifically dealt with by St. Paul in his letters.

Listening

With the same concern, the Report renews the invitation to hear and accompany “people who feel marginalized or excluded from the Church because of their marriage status, identity or sexuality”. “There was a deep sense of love, mercy and compassion felt in the Assembly for those who are or feel hurt or neglected by the Church, who want a place to call ‘home’ where they can feel safe, be heard and respected, without fear of feeling judged”, the document says, while insisting that “Christians must always show respect for the dignity of every person” (16 h).

The alarm bell here is "without being judged". The pathway of the Protestant churches has been to suspend judgment on everything, which suggest everything is okay.

Judgmentalism is dangerous, but suspending judgment also is.

Polygamy

In light of the experiences reported in the Synod hall by some members of the Synod from Africa, SECAM (Symposium of Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar) is encouraged to promote “a theological and pastoral discernment” on the topic of polygamy and the accompaniment of people in polygamous unions who are coming to faith” (16 q)

Now, this is interesting. What does it mean?

The Church has long held that polygamy is disallowed. What "theological and pastoral discernment” could be necessary?

This is the type of language that unintentionally (I think) suggest that the Church is going to open the doors to polygamy.  It probably means that a need exists to evangelize in Africa in polygamous cultures, which is no doubt a problem for those evangelizing.

Suffice it to say, it'll be worth listening in the wind to see if some in North America leap on this right away with the concept that "oh boy, multiple marriage is coming".  It won't be, but some will start suggesting it will.

Of course, if it came to the African church, and it won't, it would have to come to the church worldwide.  That would be truly radical, but it won't occur.

Digital culture

Finally, the Synthesis Report speaks of the digital environment: “It is up to us to reach today's culture in all spaces where people seek meaning and love, including the spaces they enter through their cell phones and tablets” (17 c), bearing in mind that the internet “can also cause harm and injury, such as through intimidation, disinformation, sexual exploitation, and addiction”. The Report adds, “There is an urgent need to consider how the Christian community can support families in ensuring that the online space is not only safe but also spiritually life-giving” (17 f).

All true, but also not new.

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: 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: November 18, 1966. The Latin Rite of the Catholic ...

Churches of the West: November 18, 1966. The Latin Rite of the Catholic ...: Smelt being eaten by members of Congress and their guests. On this day the Latin Rite Catholic Bishops of the United States relaxed the rule...

Lex Anteinternet: Turkey was once cited as an exception in the Islam...

Lex Anteinternet: Turkey was once cited as an exception in the Islam...:

Turkey was once cited as an exception in the Islamic world in that. . .

it seemed to have a stable, and highly secular, government.

Mosaic in the Hagia Sophia of the Virgin Mary and Jesus.

In spite of the way headlines might cause people to believe otherwise, there are other Islamic nations that can make that claim now. At the same time, however, Islam has posed a challenge to political liberalization in areas in which it is strong.  Not all Middle Eastern nations with a Muslim majority, which is most of them, have Islamic or Islamic influenced governments by any means, indeed, not even a majority of them do, but contending with a faith that has seen no distinction between its religious laws and secular laws is a challenge for all of them.  This has brought about revolution in some, such as Iran, and civil war in others, such as Syria and Iraq.  The problem is never far below the surface.



Turkey was an exception as Ataturk aggressively secularized the nation, which he ran as a dictator, with the support of the Turkish Army.  That army, in turn, served to guard the political culture he created for decades after his death, stepping in to run the government whenever it regarded things as getting too far away from that legacy.  But with the election of Turkish Islamist leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan the country has been moving more and more in the other direction.



And now the Turkish supreme court, in this new era of Islamization, has ruled that Ataturk's 1935 conversion of the Hagia Sophia from a mosque into a museum was illegal.

Codex depicting the Sophia Hagia under construction.

What was overarchingly illegal, of course, was the occupation of the Hagia Sophia by Islam.  It's a Christian church.



The Hagia Sophia was completed as a Catholic cathedral in 537, having first seen construction in 360.  That is what it was until the Great Schism left it in the Eastern part of Christendom and it served as an Orthodox cathedral from 1054 to 1204, when it reverted to being a Catholic cathedral.  It served as an Orthodox cathedral.  In 1439 a murky end to the Schism was negotiated but which failed to really solve it. That a story for elsewhere, but in its final years the cathedral was once again an Eastern Catholic cathedral but one which also saw Latin Rite masses said in it. The last mass at the Cathedral was in 1453 literally during the fall of Constantinople, when the Ottoman Turkish forces broke into the cathedral and killed the Priests celebrating Mass.



The Ottoman Turks admires much of Byzantium and pressed the cathedral into service as a mosque, but keeping its numerous Christian and Byzantine symbols.  It was used as a mosque from 1453 to 1935, which Ataturk converted its use, as noted, into a museum.



This would mean that the church served as a Christian church for 916 years.  It was used as an Islamic mosque for 482 years.  If we take into account its service as a focus of Christian efforts, it was a Christian site for 1093 years.

Ataturk and his wife in 1924.

Like a lot of the things we discuss here, this story is complicated by World War One.  Going into the Great War Turkey was the Ottoman Empire and claimed to be the caliphate.  Mustafa Kemal Atatürk had been an Ottoman officer who came to see the Ottoman government he served in as effete, ineffective and anti modern.  He became the leader in what amounted to a rebellion against the Ottoman government over the issue of peace as that peace proposed to carve away large sections of Anatolia in favor its its ethnic minorities. This soon lead to the Turkish War of Independence which pitted the Turkish forces first against the Allies but, as time went on, principally against the Greeks.



The overplaying of the Allied hand in Turkey caused one of the great tragedies of the immediate post World War One world.  The Allied powers were, by that time, too fatigued to bother with a long protracted war and occupation of Anatolia, which is what defeating the Turks would really have meant. Their presence as victors, however, gave real hope to ethnic minorities inside of Turkey, with those minorities uniformly being Christian.  Moreover, they gave hope to the Greek government of amazingly recovering a portion of Anatolia that Greeks had not governed since 1453.  Not only did the Greeks seek to do so, but they sought to expand their proposed territory in Anatolia far beyond those few areas that had sizable Greek populations and into areas where those populations were quite limited. Giving hope to those aspirations, moreover, caused the struggle for that goal to rapidly become genocidal on both sides.



The European Allies lost interest pretty quickly in shedding blood for Greek territorial aspirations and in October 1922 the war came to an end in a treaty which saw 1,000,000 ethnic Greeks depart Anatolia as refugees, bringing nearly to an end a presence there that stretched back into antiquity, and which at one time had defined Greek culture more than Greece itself.  Some Greeks remained, but it was a tiny minority.  It was a tiny minority, however that continued to be identified by its Christianity, with both Orthodox and Catholic Greeks remaining.

Ataturk and one of his twelve adopted children.

Ataturk's victory of the Allies did not prove to be a victory for Islam.  Taking an approach to governance that might be best compared to that of Napoleon Bonaparte, he was a modernizing and liberalizing force who sought to accomplish those goals effectively by force.  As part of that, he saw the influence of Islam as a retrograde force that needed to be dealt with.



Indeed, Ataturk's relationship with Islam has remained a source of debate and mystery, like much of his personal life in general.  He was born into an Islamic family and had received religious instruction, but its clear that he held a highly nuanced view of the faith.  He was not personally observant in at least some respects and was a life long heavy drinker, a fact which lead to his early death.  He spoke favorably of the role of religion in society but it was clear that role was not to extend to influencing government.  Comments he made about Islam suggest that he thought a reformed Islam needed to come about or even that he personally did not believe in its tenants.  He was quoted to a foreign correspondent to the effect that Turkish muslims didn't grasp what Islam really was because the Koran was in Arabic, and once they really were able to read it in Turkish, they'd reject it.



As part of all of this his approach to governance, therefore, was Napoleonic, being a liberalizer and modernizer by force.  Like Napoleon, his day ended short, although his rule was far more successful than Napoleon's and his Turkey became modern Turkey up until Turkey's current leadership, which seems intent to go backwards in time.



One of the things that Ataturk managed to do was to reach a treaty with Greece in 1930 in which Greece renounced its claims on  Turkish territory.  As Ataturk continued to advance modernization in the 1930s, the Hagia Sophia's occupation as a mosque came to an end in 1935.  It became a museum dedicated to the history of Anatolia and a spectacular example of Anatolia's history and culture.



Now that's coming to an end, along with what seems to be Turkey's long period of regional exceptionalism.



Hagia Sophia translates as Holy Wisdom. This move by the Turkish government is neither holy, nor wise.

Churches of the West: St. Josephs Old Cathedral, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Churches of the West: St. Josephs Old Cathedral, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma...:  

 

This is St. Joseph's Old Cathedral in Oklahoma City, a Catholic parish church at the present time, having gone to parish status in 1931 after a new cathedral was built.  The church was built in 1905.  Like the First Church, a block away, it was heavily damaged in the Murrah Federal Office bombing.

Churches of the West: Catholic Co-Cathedral of the Sacred Heart, Houston Texas.

Churches of the West: Old Catholic Co-Cathedral of the Sacred Heart, Houston Texas

This is  the new Co Cathedral of the Sacred Heart, which replaced the old one in 2005.  The new cathedral is a very large church located just one block from the old cathedral.

Old Catholic Co-Cathedral of the Sacred Heart, Houston Texas

This is the old Co Cathedral of the Sacred Heart in Houston Texas.  The new Co Cathedral is located one block over and this cathedral, originally a 1912 church that was elevated to the status of Co Cathedral in 1959.  The other cathedral for the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston is located in Galveston, with that church being the Mother Cathedral for Texas.

Iphone photograph from the highway, with the new Co Cathedral also partially visible.