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: 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.

Churches of the West: On the morality of the Coronavirus Vaccines.

In what should put this matter to rest, the Vatican indicated that the vaccines are not morally objectionable.

Churches of the West: On the morality of the Coronavirus Vaccines.: This is something that you have to be pretty attuned, I think, to the Catholic world to pick up on, and to appreciate.  There's been som...

For most rank and file orthodox Catholics this will in fact be the end of this debate, but my prediction is that for some it will not for some Rad Trads who have headed off in the Dr. Taylor Marshall/Patrick Coffin direction.  

 

Churches of the East: Justices lift New York’s COVID-related attendance ...

Churches of the East: Justices lift New York’s COVID-related attendance ...:   Justices lift New York’s COVID-related attendance limits on worship services

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.

Blog Mirror. Catholic Stuff You Should Know: The Sacrifice of the Mass.

An interesting podcast episode of the always interesting Catholic Stuff You Should Know, related to the Coronavirus Pandemic:

THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS

Lex Anteinternet: Pandemic. Governor Gordon proclaims April 10 Day of Prayer

Lex Anteinternet: Pandemic: Governor Gordon proclaims April 10 Day of Prayer  

CHEYENNE, Wyo. – Governor Mark Gordon will sign a proclamation tomorrow declaring Friday, April 10, 2020 a Day of Prayer in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic. The day of prayer is cross-denominational with the intent to unify people of many faiths during the crisis. 

“Across all faiths and beliefs, we can all come together at this time of year to find a sense of peace and purpose,” Governor Gordon said. “I invite our leaders and citizens to pray that the present pandemic may be controlled, caregivers protected, our soldiers and their families watched over, the economy strengthened and life normalized.” 

April 10 is Good Friday and is observed by many denominations as a day of prayer and fasting. Joining the Governor in this effort is the National Association of Evangelicals and the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. People of all faiths are welcome to participate. 

The Diocese of Cheyenne suspends public Masses due to the Coronavirus

Yesterday we reported on some regional actions by Catholic churches to address the Coronavirus.  Since we made that post, the Diocese of Cheyenne has suspended public Masses due to the virus, effective as of the Masses today.

It's now known when they'll resume.  Confessions remain unaltered for the time being and the directive does not extend to other Catholic observances.

Lex Anteinternet: Sunday Morning Scene: The Church and the Pandemic...

Lex Anteinternet: Sunday Morning Scene: The Church and the Pandemic...:

Sunday Morning Scene: The Church and the Pandemic

Diocese of Cheyenne:

From: Bishop Steven Biegler

Date: March 13, 2020 Re: Obligation to attend Sunday MassAs the Coronavirus continues to spread throughout the United States, the Diocese of Cheyenne is committed to taking all reasonable precautions to prevent transmission of the virus. In addition to the directives issued on March 3, 2020 (summarized below), from March 13 to April 8, 2020, a dispensation from the obligation to attend Holy Mass (canon 1245) is granted to:

• those of any age who are ill, and • those with an underlying health condition, such as chronic lung disease, COPD, asthma, etc. • Moreover, any person over 60 years old may choose to use this dispensation.Stay home if you are sick or in a high-risk category, since this virus is primarily transmitted through contact with respiratory droplets when an infected person coughs or sneezes. Sunday Mass is broadcast on K2 (ABC) at 9 AM.CORONAVIRUS PRECAUTIONS • Mandatory hand-washing for all ministers and thorough washing of all liturgical vessels. • Permission to suspend Holy Communion from the Chalice accompanied by encouragement to receive Holy Communion in the hand and not on the tongue. • Permission to suspend physical contact during the Sign of Peace. • Permission to empty Holy Water fonts.

Please note: these precautions are of limited effectiveness. They are no substitute for staying home when you are ill. We will continue to monitor the progression of this disease and make appropriate recommendations. Clergy and lay leaders are to make prudent decisions so that non-essential gatherings are avoided. In addition to the effect on physical health, I am concerned about the social and economic impacts of this outbreak. Isolation and loneliness are already experienced by so many people. I encourage clergy to discuss with Finance and Pastoral Councils how the parish might offer outreach to those who are affected by social isolation or how they could collaborate with the local community to provide support to those needing financial aid because of health care costs or lack of employment. Please offer the following or a similar intention at Masses: For all people affected by COVID-19 or any serious illness, the elderly and homebound, as well as all medical personnel and caregivers for the sick.

Archdiocese of Denver:

The bishops of the three dioceses of Colorado have announced that all public Masses have been canceled, effective immediately. This includes daily Masses. Parishes offices will remain open for now. More information will be posted shortly….NOTE: When Mass is unavailable, the Catholic faithful are dispensed from their Sunday obligation.

This decision was made was made in the interest of the common good after the governor of Colorado ordered the cancellation of all public gatherings of 250 or more people. We are acting out of prudence and in charity to our communities to do our part to mitigate the spread of this virus. We have the examples of countries from around the world, where those who took proactive steps quickly are seeing far better outcomes. 

Diocese of Salt Lake City:

Based on Bishop Oscar A. Solis’ consultation with senior diocesan staff and the announcement from Governor Gary R. Herbert regarding the precautions to be taken with regard to the coronavirus disease, Bishop Solis is suspending the public celebration of worship, including Sunday, weekday and other Holy Masses from March 14 to March 31, or until further notice.During this time, Catholic school facilities will close and instruction to students will be provided remotely. Each individual school will contact parents and inform them of how instruction will be delivered at home for each grade level.The Utah Catholic Schools do not have any confirmed cases of COVID-19, but some students and family members have been quarantined due to their possible exposure to the virus.All other parish or school meetings, public gatherings and other events also are canceled. Funerals and weddings are to be postponed when possible; otherwise, these are to be limited to immediate family members only.Private Confessions will depend on the availability of the priest.Churches may remain open for personal prayer as appropriate; holy water fonts must be emptied to help avoid transmission of virus.By reason of this emergency, a general dispensation is given from the Sunday and Holy Day obligation. Catholics are asked to pray at home, with the rosary, biblical prayer, personal devotions and/or to devoutly watch televised Masses. It is appropriate to pray for the healing of those suffering the current outbreak of illness, for health professionals, public officials and those serving the common good, and to ask that our merciful and loving Father will strengthen our faith and trust in His goodness and divine providence. “In view of the very serious development of the growing, unpredictable and uncontrolled spread of the coronavirus and with an abundance of caution, it is critical to have clearly defined measures to guide us in facing this pandemic and protecting everyone,” Bishop Solis said. “It is no longer about containment of the spread of the disease but preventing the loss of lives and the greater well-being of the faithful.”

Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew states a reunion between the East and West is inevitable.

More than that, he essentially said there are no barriers to it.

This is unlikely to be front page news in the United States, but it is in fact a major development.  Patriarch Bartholomew is the Archbishop of Constantinople and the Ecumenical Patriarch.  In that position, he's regarded as the first among equals in Eastern Orthodoxy, although its also noted that the Pope as the Bishop of Rome is generally regarded as the First Among Equals in the church as a whole.

All this may leave Americans in particular a bit lost, as the United States, even with Catholicism being the single largest Christian denomination, is a Protestant nation and even American Catholics frequently have a poor understanding of Eastern Orthodoxy (or even of their own faith).  But this is a huge event.

The Catholic and Orthodox churches were separated in the Great Schism, which occurred in the 1054, was briefly repaired in 1453, and which has existed since then.  Efforts to put an end to the schism have occurred since the onset and in recent decades its been noted that serious progress was made in ending the schism permanently.  Mutual excommunications were lifted some time ago and a meeting within the past decade made a significant amount of progress before breaking down, which seems to have been over objections from members of the largest Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church.

Part of the process of healing the rift has been the realization that what seemed to be significant theological differences between the two churches often didn't really exist.  Now the Patriarch has stated that they don't exist.

Patriarch Bartholomew made the comments while taking part in the evening service at a the Catholic Abbey of Our Lady of St. Rémy in Rochefort, Belgium this past week.  He attended Vespers with Abbot Alexis of Xenophontos Monstary and Hieromonk Theophilos of Pantocrator Monastery on Mt. Athos in Greece.  While in attendance, Partholome sat upon the Bishop's Throne at the monastery.

The Patriarch, while at the monastery, reportedly held an unofficial talk with a collection of Orthodox monastics in attendance and told him, in his opinion, there was no longer any theological differences between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church.  None of the Orthodox audience raised any objections to the statement but some took it emotionally and weeped upon hearing it.  He further indicated that the rift today reflects history, rather than theology.

The reaction of the other Orthodox clerics is significant as for some time the real opposition to a reunion has seemingly been centered in the rank and file level of the Orthodox clergy and the conservative wing of the laity.  Without going into it in depth, it is clear that nearly all of the supposed differences between the Orthodox and the Catholic churches has in fact been addressed to the point where the differences are hardly there.  There do remain some stumbling blocks, however, the principal one being the role of the Pope.  The Catholic churches uniformly regard the Pope as the monarch of the faith and above all other clergy.  The Orthodox accord him the position of the first among equals, but do not agree that he has a superior authority in that role to the heads of the various Orthodox churches.  Somewhat ironically, Patriarch Bartholomew has been involved, in his role as the Ecumenical Patriarch, in a controversy over the Orthodox church in Ukraine with his having recognized the autocephalus status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church there, which the Russian Orthodox Church has declared to be in schism.

That isn't the only reaming difference, there are some significant ones.  But many of the ones that have been cited as differences over the years are now gone.  A very strong protective instinct in the Orthodox community combined with Orthodox churches having traditionally been strongly identified with ethnicity has operated as a bar to reunion in recent years and it's my guess that this will slow it now, although its also my guess that a reunion is closer than people might think and in fact inevitable, as Patriarch Bartholomew has stated.  The Eastern Orthodox themselves have been fairly rapidly moving away from being ethnic churches in recent years and have benefited in that in the west from the conversion of disaffected Protestants who have been discouraged by the direction of their own churches.  With this evolution going on, the likely question will be how long it will take in order for the Easter Orthodox to come back into full communion with the Catholic Church.

My additional guess, at least right now, is that if that's in the short term, say ten to twenty years, which is quite possible, it will see some further schisms as some small branches of the Eastern Orthodox balk at the move and, more significantly, the Russian Orthodox Church, the largest Orthodox Church, might.  Long term the Russian Orthodox will return as well, but it has been the most resistant to date.  Perhaps ironically a large portion of it had previously returned before reversing directions, although that occurred centuries ago.

All in all, however, Patriarch Bartholomew is no doubt largely correct in his comments and his statements are encouraging.  Orthodoxy is the second largest single branch of the Christian world, making up 300,000,000 of the world's 2.4 Billion Christians.  Catholicism makes up 1.15 Billion, with Protestant churches combined making up the remaining 900,000,000 Christians.  Contrary to what is commonly reported, globally all branches of Christianity is growing and Catholicism is rapidly expanding in the third world and in areas of northern Europe which had been lost to it during the Reformation.  The number of Orthodox has doubled over the last century but, unlike Catholicism or the various Protestant faiths it has not seen an expansion outside of its traditional territories and in some of those territories in the Middle East there are serious threats to Christians which are resulting in their emigration out of them.  Countering that, however, as noted the Orthodox have seen a rise in membership in North American as disaffected Protestants have entered Eastern Orthodoxy.

If the Orthodox and Catholic churches were to reunite it would give a massive, and many would argue necessary, boost to the Eastern Rite in the Church. The Church has always retained the Eastern Rite and in recent years the Eastern Rite has been growing in North America as well, for reasons which are related to what is noted above.  But if the Orthodox were to reunite with the Catholic Church it would mean that overnight 1/5th of all Catholic would be members of the Eastern Rite, a much higher number than to today, and for the first time since the 15th Century the Church would have a large number of Eastern Bishops, whose absence has been sorely felt.  Likewise, a infusion of Eastern Rite cardinals would occur.

Lex Anteinternet: The Year in Review | Catholic Answers (Mid Week At Work). And also the Orthodox Schism.

I linked this in our our Lex Anteinternet blog:

Lex Anteinternet: The Year in Review | Catholic Answers (Mid Week At...: The Year in Review | Catholic Answers Really fascinating economic discussion starting at 20:00. I've been posting some topics on Dis...

I did that due to the interesting discussion on Distributist economic prinicpals, but there's a discussion starting at about 10:00 on the schism that's developed in Eastern Orthodox world this past year that's quite interesting.

It's been hard to get news on that topic, and this approaches it in a fashion I had not heard before with information I had not previously heard.