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

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

We should have told John F. Kennedy to stuff it. . . and we still can.

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 sage Bart Simpson would have it, au contraire, mon fraire.

Or more accuaratley, I suppose ma soeur, as the author is Karen Tumulty.

The article by Tumulty is completely unoriginal, I'd note, with no brilliant insights whatsoever.  Rather, it follows the standard line of thought on this noting John F. Kennedy's 1960 address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, who were all Southern Baptists.  Kennedy, as Tumulty and others have noted, famously stated:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

This speech has been hailed again and again as brilliant strategic move by Kennedy, which it truly was.  But the overall impact, on a really cosmic scale, has rarely been analyzed.  

It may have been good for Kennedy, but it was a disaster for Catholics, and continues to be.  What the US Bishops are doing in some ways is reacting to that disaster, but only at the pint at which they almost have no choice but to do so.

Let's start with Kennedy himself.  He was a Sunday and Holy Day Mass going Catholic and part of an extended Catholic family, but not too surprisingly his own family bore little resemblance to the the Irish Catholics of the Catholic Ghetto who identified with him due to his Irish surname.  The Kennedy's were, and are, extremely wealthy and while as Catholics they were on the periphery of American life, they were on it in the way that wealthy Catholics could be as any member of a minority who was wealthy could be.  I.e., they were part of the in crowed in significant ways.

And as a member of that elite group John F. Kennedy carved for himself liberties that the Catholic faith never sanctioned, and he did so promiscuously literally.  Kennedy had a string of affairs that went beyond that which a person might normally be tempted to somewhat trying to excuse away.  He wasn't Franklin Roosevelt with a long time paramour, something inexcusable but at least not libertine.  

Indeed, under modern definitions, at least one of his affairs in the White House started with what moderns would be tempted to regard as a sort of rape.  It's debatable whether this category is truly applicable or not, but it was shockingly disgusting.  His behavior here, however, didn't stop with that, in regard to this individual, who descended pretty quickly into shocking behavior more expansively.  

We'll forgo detailing this more as its not necessary to this entry.  The point is that knowing what we now know about Kennedy, his willingness to make such a statement really ought to be put in a different light.  If he was declaring that he'd never let his religion directly dictate his actions, well, he wasn't in regard to personal behavior in a significant way, already.

This isn't an attempt to judge the state of Kennedy's soul at the time of his death.  We don't know that.  But what we can say is that in regard to his overall character, Kennedy really wasn't whom he seemed to be.  

And frankly, the statement wasn't that bold.  Catholic leaders of numerous nations had been in power in various places (including, we might note, Rome) since before the time of Constantine the Great.  The Church had never laid claim to a right to tell leaders how to rule, which was the real fear that the Southern Baptists at the time had.  Much has changed in regard to how Protestants view Catholics since 1960s, but some evangelical Protestants at the time, and now, held highly erroneous views of how the Pope's relationship to average Catholics, including politicians, worked.  Indeed, the political cartoon with the Pope directly pulling the strings of American Catholic politicians was a common feature of political debate up until the mid 20th Century.

The irony was that in 2020 the average Catholic is a lot more in tune with the Pope's views, in knowing what they are, than in 1960s, even though the way the Church actually works seems to be no more clear now than as opposed to then.  The current example is a good one in this regard. The Pope seems concerned that the US Bishops are going this direction.  The US Bishops are going this direction anyhow.  The Pope hasn't stopped them.  This is pretty typical over the ages.  When the Pope actually acts in regard to local Bishops, something has usually gone wrong on an extreme level.

And so too with politicians, as for the papacy.  And this overall situation is highly instructive.

Since the Second World War there's been a lot of attacks on the Papacy of Pope Pius XII, even though the actual historical record shows him to have done a remarkably good job during the crisis and the attacks against him unmerited and, to some degree, to have originated in a post war Communist smear campaign.  The Pope did speak against the Nazis during, and before, the war, in the form of proclamations on moral matters with the most noted being Mit Brennender Sorge.  Often forgotten is that some of the most direct attacks on the Nazi regime, however, came from the German Catholic Bishops themselves, one such example resulting in the White Rose movement.

What the Church didn't do is to issue a list of instructions to Catholics in power on "do this".  It did provide stout moral guidance, however.  It is of note here that in both the White Rose instance, and the July 20 plot, the prime movers were Catholics and Catholics were heavily represented.

How's this relate to what we're now seeing?

Well, pretty heavily.

In 1960s, when Kennedy gave his speech, the social issues that exist today and which are so much in the forefront, didn't.  No fault divorce didn't exist until 1970.  Abortion was just coming in as a state issue and didn't become the forced law of the land until 1973's Roe v. Wade.  The millennia old definition of marriage was completely unchallenged anywhere.

Things were moving, to be sure, and that should have been a warning.  The Kinsey report started being popularized right after World War Two and was given serious treatment even though the statistical methodology was grossly inaccurate and the conduct used to generate the badly skewed data heavily skewed. This played right into the hands of a new breed of pornographer lead by Hugh Hefner.  Starting in the 1950s an assault on conventional sexual morality commenced that would explode in the 1960s, but this wasn't obvious to most Catholics. The warnings were there, but they were not fully nor naturally appreciated.

Given this, in the enthusiasm that there might be a Catholic President, most Catholics joined the bandwagon and the Church didn't pull Kennedy in and say "be careful". After all, he wasn't really saying anything that generally shocked Catholics in any fashion in the context of the times.  Charles DeGaulle was a sincere and devout Catholic, for example, and nobody had any thought that the Bishops in France or the Pope was running France.

This would have been harmless enough, and still would be, but for the fact that very rapidly Catholics adopted, due to Kennedy and his speech, something that many evangelical Protestants never did, which was the concept of a completely personal separation of Church and State.  Where as everyone agrees that there should be no state church, many in the evangelical Protestant community do believe that a person's faith should fully inform their political conduct.  Many Catholics do as well, with most sincere ones believing that, but Kennedy's massive popularity, combined with the concept of his being an Irish Catholic, caused average American Catholics to believe that a full separation was a okay.  I.e, as long as I don't personally engage in . . . . it doesn't matter what others do.

The Church has never believed that in any form.  The declarations during World War Two show that.  It was never the case that the Church took the view that individual Germans could participate in the atrocities of the Third Reich and have a clean moral conscience as long as they had purity of heart.  Knowing that is what caused some to attempt tyrannicide.  But in the United States, which had no such overarching moral issue at the time, and where Catholics were on the side of liberal civil rights efforts, it was easy for things to became blurred pretty quickly.

By the 1970s there were liberal Catholic religious in political office.  And liberal Catholics began to side with things that seemed to square with at least some aspects of Catholic thought.  Where as some Catholic clerics had urged Catholics to participate in the fighting in Vietnam in the U.S. military early on, as it was a struggle against Communism, some Catholic clerics were openly opposing it by the late 1960s. And you can see how either view can be squared with the Faith.

But what never could be were developments in social issues that attacked marriage and the nature of sexual conduct, and which were contrary to Catholic views on the sanctity of life.  None the less, acclimated by the 1970s to a personal separation of Church and State, and being Catholic only on Sunday, lots of Catholic politicians went right along with these developments.  Pretty soon, in the tumult of the times, and with other developments inside the Church itself in the 1960s, average Catholics also did.

Unexercised muscles atrophy.  But failing to exercise for somebody who has, doesn't come overnight.  Any single man who used to have an exercise routine is probably aware of that.  The pressures of life and busy schedules, and just the thought that you'll stay home and watch TV lead to a situation sooner or later in which the former athlete has put on fifty pounds and is pretty tired just getting through the day.

Moral authority works the same way.  Things that should have been said decades ago weren't, and after awhile an entire body of Catholics convinces themselves that they're really good and observant Catholics even while omitting anything the Faith that's personally difficult.  Any Catholic with Catholic associates knows this.

At some point, however, there's a point at which you reach that you have no choice.  A person has a heart attack and is sent home with doctor's instructions.  People who smoke are told to knock it off.  You get the point.

And with moral authority, you reach some point where you have to exercise it as you have no other moral choice. That's where we are, and that's what I noted the other day in this entry:

Lex Anteinternet: 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...

The Pope is saying be careful.  He isn't saying don't.  That's up to the Catholic Bishops in the United States. And looking at where we are now, they really have no choice but to act.

Individual Catholics, of course, also have individual free will.  The history of the world shows that people make difficult choices only when somebody is backing them up, and only when others are obviously doing the same.  There are exceptions, but those exceptions are heroic for that very reason, they're exceptions against the tide.  Observant orthodox Catholics have nearly been that exception for some time now, but things seem to swinging around to them.

Standing in their way, really, is the generation that came up in the 1960s, or just behind them. A lot of them have had nice lives riding the high point of American economic exceptualism, an era that's now really over, and are really not in tune with the world as it is. They're comfortable with the American Civil Religion, which is basically Christian as long as it isn't too hard, and which still, in spite of the Trump assault on democracy, holds that God basically listens to our vote on thing where we find it too hard.  As Catholics, they've acclimated themselves to the erroneous belief that they can omit big chunks of the Faith, as they have for so long.

That isn't Catholic, however.

The Church never acts very quickly.  So what the US Bishops will do, they won't do until fall.  That gives Joe Biden, who attends Mass every Sunday and on Holy Days, and who is openly Catholic, lots of time to comport his conduct to the tenants of the Faith.  But like men who go home from the hospital with instructions not to smoke, not to drink and exercise, that won't be easy.  Physicians state that most people don't actually clean up their personal health issues, but simply carry on.  And that doesn't involve the issue of pride that comes with decades of going down a certain political path that now needs to be corrected.

A path that John F. Kennedy started us out on.

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.

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.

Lex Anteinternet: Cliff notes of the Zeitgeist Part I. Observations on current events, political, economic, religious, and otherwise.

Starting the year off with some grousing, I suppose, in the form of a blog mirror post from one of our companion blogs:

Lex Anteinternet: Cliff notes of the Zeitgeist Part I. Some Observa...: 1.  Populism and racism aren't the same thing, even if some populist are racist. Theodore Roosevelt.  He was a populist, and a progressi...

The entry it self is fairly long.  I'm only linking in the ones that are relevant here. 

Cliff notes of the Zeitgeist Part I. Some Observations on current events, political, economic, religious, and otherwise.

5.  Apparently "innocent until proven guilty" is something that nobody really believes. . . or at least it doesn't apply to Catholic clerics.

I haven't commented on this before and perhaps I shouldn't here, but I'm going to anyhow.

The Tribune has been following, understandably, the legal woes of retired Wyoming Bishop Joseph Hart now for years.  Bishop Hart was accused of sexual ickyness with male minors.

During the same period of time during which Hart has been dealing with this, three local Protestant ministers have faced the same accusations, and they all proved true. Mention of it in the Press was very brief.  No following story occurred.  Hart's story has, however, proven different.

The initial investigation lead the Laramie County authorities to pass on doing anything. They didn't see enough evidence.  The current Bishop, however, Bishop Biegler, chose to revive the matter within the church itself and that lead to it being looked at by the authorities a second time.  On that second occasion, the prosecutor in Natrona County again determined not to charge Bishop Hart with anything.  That lead to criticism, he reopened the file and, after some time had passed, he once again determined not to file charges.

The internal church matter, however, went on to some sort of tribunal at the Vatican. And now it also has determined that there's not enough there to do anything.  

With this being the case, Bishop Hart, over a period of decades, has endured and prevailed over four separate prosecutorial episodes, three at the state level, and one at hte Vatican level.

The American myth is that you are innocent until proven guilty.  Hart hasn't been proven guilty of anything. The Tribune, however, continues to treat his as if he is guilty adn getting away with it.  Indeed, Bishop Biegler isn't helping much either as, having gotten this rolling, he's still basically sending out signals that he believes that Hart is guilty and will be crediting his accusers in spite of yaers and years of such efforts having failed.  This gets to something regarding Bishop Biegler we'll deal with in a moment, but we'll note this here.

Bishop Hart gets this sort of attention as he's Catholic.  The Catholic Church has gone through a horrific episode recently, now mostly addressed, with clerics who are now all older having committed terrible sexual transgressions.  Most of these, however, seem to have arisen due to a vareity of factors that let in priests who were not there for the right reasons, although their views are ones that the press also genuinely celebrates.  Indeed, this takes us back to the culture wars item above, as Catholic clerics that are loyal to the Church's traditional beliefs and dogma are ones that the press really doesn't like.

And for that reason, it doesn't like the church itself, which is why this gets so much press but real proven accusations by protestant minister is the same readership field, do not.

6.  Bishop Biegler and the rearward gaze.

We're now a full year into a present massive crisis that has caused a crisis in the Church but to look at the Diocese of Cheyenne, you'd not know it.

The Bishop has suspended the obligation to attend Mass on what is now running up on a year.  I had real doubts about this early on, but as the pandemic deepened, I have to admit that at some point, that's valid.  As soon as the churches were opened back up, I started going back to Mass, but in the recent deepened episode, I suspended going, taking advantage of the dispensation as I had a childhood asthma condition and I really don't want to get virus, particularly with vaccinations come on so soon.

Anyhow, if you check in on the Diocese website the first thing you are going to find is a statement by Bishop Biegler about retried Bishop Hart.

Bishop Hart was the bishop here from 1978 until 2001.  I.e., he hasn't been the bishop for 20 years.  He's been retired for 20 years.  We're on our third bishop since that time.

Wyoming, as we've noted above, is a highly transient state.  There's a core of us diehards who were born here, and who will die here, and who are watching people come and go in the meantime.  And quite a few of us, although its a minority in the state's population, are Catholic.  Quite a few of the transients are too. 

Most of the people in the pews have very low interest, in this point, in the Joseph Hart saga.  It doesn't impact our daily lives whatsoever.  When Hart was last Bishop, I was 37 years old and my youngest child was a baby.  

The pandemic does impact my daily life.

During the entire pandemic, I haven't had a representative of the parish reach out even once.  I've reached in several times, but at the time the pandemic struck I'd only recently gone off of a parish council.

Indeed, the pandemic struck at a particularly bad time, in this context, for me, as I'd gone off of the council and I stepped down as a lector as the Mass time didn't work well for my spouse and both kids were headed off to Laramie.  I'd been a lector at that point for years and years, and I do miss it. But as that occurred it was also the case that the downtown parish was clearly being changed into the Hispanic parish. That's fine, but Mass times were also altered for reasons that aren't clear to me, and therefore I went across town to another parish. The entire process left me feeling a bit unmoored as the parish that I'd served at quickly became pretty unrecognizable, the new Priest had no idea who I was, the focus was on a demographic that needs to be focused on but which I'm not part of, and then the pandemic hit.

The parish I was going to did a good job at first at dealing with the crisis but then the Bishop ordered the doors closed.  I'm sure I'm just lost to where I was at, and now I'm barely known where I am.  I get that.

What I don't get, quite frankly, is why there wasn't a full scale effort to require the parishes to reach out to parishioners.  There wasn't.  Or at least there wasn't one that I could see.  And to check in on the Diocese website to learn the latest in regard to the church and the pandemic is a disappointment, as the information is hard to find.  News on Bishop Biegler and Bishop Hart is easy to find, however.

And here's the point.  In a pandemic in which our connections with our parish is now strained and souls stand to be lost, dealing with a problem that's now 20 years in our review mirror should not be front and center.

On the ongoing dispensation for Mass attendance

The Bishop of Cheyenne has continued his disposition to attend Mass due to the Coronavirus Pandemic.  His decree on the same is here:

First of all, I'm going to be blunt.  The Diocese of Cheyenne has done a remarkably bad job during the Coronavirus Pandemic in getting the news out on anything.  

Bad.

The Diocese seems to be of the view that Catholics in this state all check the web all the time, will log into parish websites, or maybe are in some sort of day to day communication with the parish.

St. Mary's Cathedral, Cheyenne.

They aren't.

Some are, and I can vouch for that as I was once on a Parish Council. There's a group of dedicated parishioners who are in constant contact with the Priest and their parishes, but there are a lot who very much are not.

Indeed, one of the real ironies in all of this is that Bishop Steven Biegler, who has only been in that position for a couple of years, has a fairly apparent interests in trying to reach Hispanic Catholics, who very much need to be reached.  But to understand why we have so many Hispanic Catholics here, you also have to understand that we have a high transient population, much of which is based in the oilfield.  I defended the depositions of two Mexican oilfield workers just a couple of weeks ago, and this is common.  My guess is that the Hispanic population itself here has dramatically reduced in numbers over the past year, due to the oilfield depression, but be that as it may, I am extremely doubtful that Hispanic parishioners are going to be reached by their logging into the website of the Diocese or their Parish.

To add to that, neither are a lot of average parishioners.  I haven't been contacted even once during the pandemic and I was a Parish Council member up until just before it hit, which also was just before the last Priest rotation.  My guess is that I'm probably not on the active Parish roles anymore even though its my home Parish, as I started attending an across town Parish (I'm equidistant from all the Parishes in town) when the Mass schedule was changed as part of an evident effort to make it more convenient for Hispanic parishioners.  I'm not complaining about that change, as its clear to me that they need to be reached, but when I switched where I normally go, I also started making my donations there, as I was there.   As other family members also attend there, and as its a parish that I've attended at various points in the past (as I noted its just as close as my home parish, in terms of time of travel), they recognized me pretty quickly.

I suppose my overall point is is that I have had for a long time a vague feeling that Bishops don't always understand their Diocese very well.  Our current Bishop is from South Dakota, a neighboring state, and that cuts against my argument.  The prior one was from Wisconsin and a farmer by background, and a hunter, so he did have a grasp of the nature of where he was and seemed to appreciate that (he's now in Alaska).  But cutting against that, it seems to me, are the seeming assumptions that everyone knows what is going on and everyone is checking in.  Those sorts of parishes sound more like the ones the Priests on Catholic Stuff You Should Know discuss in Denver, rather than here, but maybe that's just me.

Even if it is just me, somebody should be reaching out.  That isn't happening locally.

And as evidence of that, I only learned about the continued dispensation as the old one was running out, I think, on December 15, and I logged on a couple of weeks ago to see if my recollection was correct.  To my surprise, it had been continued.

You'd have thought that there would have been an effort to reach out to people about this.  

If there was, it didn't reach me.

So hence my complaint.

I'll further note that I was not happy with the churches closing in the first place.  I'll admit now that my view was wrong.  I was also very much unhappy with the suspension of all sacraments, which has been lifted.  I don't think completely suspending Confession the way that itw as done was the right thing to do and I don't think it should have been done.  I was nearly as glad to see the ban on Confessions lifted as I was to see Masses restored, as odd as that may seem.

When Masses were restored I started going again, but as the pandemic heated back up, I dropped back out the last few weeks. Hence the reason for my checking.

During this crisis I've learned that I miss Mass for sure and as a lifelong Catholic I've come to admire, as odd as that may seem, dedicated Protestants and Orthodox who go every Sunday not because of a church law but because they choose too. And when things opened back up, and I could go, I chose to.  My suspension the last couple of weeks is because I'm one of those folks who have "conditions".

I'm in good health, but I had asthma pretty severely as a kid and it resumed after I went to law school for a period of time. When I was a kid I had to take shots weekly, or maybe it was biweekly, for what seemed like years, although the way such recollections work probably means it was not as great of period of time as I recall.  The shots made things less worse, but not better.  Fall was always a period of agony for me until I went to university the first time, and then they oddly left for the most par.  I was aware that allergies could come and go, but I didn't expect it to occur to me.*  I was very glad they had.

And then they returned when I was in law school.  Pretty severely, in fact, and to some plant pollens I'd never been allergic to before.  That caused me to have to resort to shots once again.

That helped clear things up for years, and indeed the allergies mostly seemed to go away.  Here a couple of years ago we got a dog for the first time in our long marriage, and it was a breed advertised as hypoallergenic.  It really seems to be.  Before that, we obtained a cat as well, which we had for years.  He simply moved in.

Having the cat caused me to believe that my animal allergies, which were widespread, had likely vanished.  Cats are one of the things that I knew for certain that I was allergic to.  Prior to getting the dog I went in to be tested and, nope, all the things I'd ever been allergic to, I still am.

Why aren't I reacting to them?

I have no idea.

I do know that in the fall in a bad year I'll get sick.  I generally recognize what it is, but frankly it's very difficult to determine at the onset if its a cold, severe cold, allergies, or severe allergies.  Long experience lets me generally guess right.  Usually I only have to worry about this in the fall, as noted, and some falls, like this past one, not at all.  Usually during the winter I'll experience some mild allergy symptoms all year long, which I think is due to working in a building that's over 100 years old. There's something in it, and when its really locked up and airtight, that gets to me.  I can tell that's not a cold.

One of the things about having had a fairly pronounced asthma condition is that if you've had it, and probably early on before you knew you had it, you may very well have experienced nearly dying.  Some asthmatics experience that repeatedly.  I have.  The experience is something nearly unique to asthmatics and its something that psychologist state that they rarely will describe to anyone.  There's good reason for that, one being that its nearly indescribable.  

The best actual description I've ever seen is set out in the book Mornings On Horseback, which is about Theodore Roosevelt's youth.  TR was a severe asthmatic as a kid.  The description is right on.  What is hard to relate about it is that when a severe attack sets in you reach a point where you know that you are in real trouble and you are headed for death.  It's pretty obvious.  When you pull back out and recover you are exhausted, but also, oddly, euphoric, as you've cheated death.  Those who have been asthmatics for a period of time, if they're conditions is serious, have experienced that again and again.

You also really learn to avoid what is trying to kill you like nothing else.

Which brings me back around to this.  

Nobody ever recovers from an injury or affliction, really.  If you've had some sort of severe condition, its' done its damage.  Asthmatics that were well treated as kids usually have overcome it in part because they've been forced to develop their bodies.  It's an oddity for sure, but at 57 years old I'm in a lot better shape than most 57 years old, a byproduct in part of the way our family has always lived but also in part due to my parents making sure I was active when I was young, mostly in swimming which is a good sport for asthmatics.  But nonetheless, if you get a severe cold or flu, you remember the condition of your youth.  When the wheezes stats to set in you recall what it was like and that death was always right around the corner.  "Feeling poorly?" comes the question.  "Having a hard time breathing" comes the answer.  But in reality, you're laying on the sofa and death is in the chair across the room, you know it.

Most asthmatics also tend to become fairly fatalistic. There are those who claim that people can't imagine their own deaths and don't ever really accept that it will occur.  I think that's baloney, and in reality what that might mean is pampered modern Americans can't imagine it and always imagine that in their 80s they'll really be in their 30s, but people who have had asthma can.  Death has come and saddled you up on his horse plenty of times, and then simply dropped you back off.  You know that one day he's coming again and won't let ago.

Generally we don't hope that's earlier than it needs to be, and hence why I've sat out the past few weeks.**

I frankly feel horrible about it and I don't think I personally do well without going to Mass and experiencing Christ in the Mass.  I don't do well with alternatives. I'm hoping this is all over very soon.

I guess I understand the continuation of the dispensation, although at this point it frankly isn't worded very clearly.  It seems we have a dispensation, and I think that my concerns qualify me for it, but it almost seems to be a qualified dispensation.

But at this point, somebody really needs to reach out.  

*Indeed one of the features of having severe allergies is not only this mystery, but the common misunderstandings about it.  I retain allergies, but I've endured a lecture from a person at one time who insisted that all childhood allergies vanish, something you can't tell somebody for whom they have not vanished.

**Which brings me to hypocrisy.  I've gone in to work the entire time, which seems hypocritical, but I've also tried to avoid contact as much as possible with as many people as possible.