Canon

Canon (pronounced kan-uhn)

(1) An ecclesiastical rule or law enacted by a council or other competent authority and, in the Roman Catholic Church, approved by the pope; the body of ecclesiastical law.

(2) One of a body of dignitaries or prebendaries attached to a cathedral or a collegiate church; a member of the chapter of a cathedral or a collegiate church.

(3) In the Roman Catholic Church. one of the members (canons regular) of certain religious orders.  Historically, a member of either the Augustinian or Premonstratensian, living communally as monks but performing clerical duties

(4) The body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study or art.

(5) A fundamental principle or general rule.

(6) A standard; criterion.

(7) The books of the Bible recognized by any Christian church as genuine and inspired.

(8) Any officially recognized set of sacred books.

(9) A piece of music in which an extended melody in one part is imitated successively in one or more other parts (fugal).

(10) A size of printer's type equal to 48 point (archaic).

(11) In hymnography, a kind of hymn in Eastern Orthodox Christianity

(12) In bellfounding, one or more hanging loops cast integrally with the crown

1150-1200: In ecclesiastical use, from the Middle English canonicus (shared with French), a back formation from the Old English canōnic (one under rule), from the Medieval Latin canōnicus (of or under rule).  The word in Ancient Greek was kanōnikós from kanon (any straight rod or bar; rule; standard of excellence), possibly from kanna (reed).  As applied to the clergy, the title dates from circa 1200, from the Anglo-French canun, from the Old North French canonie (which is Modern French is chanoine), from the Church Latin canonicus (clergyman living under a rule), the noun use of the Latin adjective canonicus (according to rule).  The meaning “standard, accepted list” is from the Old English, again from the Latin, from the Greek kanōn (rule, rod for measuring, standard), related to kanna (a reed or cane) and in English, dates from circa 1400 but only in the context of the lists assembled for ecclesiastical purposes.

The Latin word was taken in ecclesiastical use for "decree of the Church" and eventually this expanded into the codified "Canon Law" of the Church.  The general sense of "a rule or principle" dates from the late fourteenth century while the idea of a "standard of judging" is from circa 1600.  From circa 1400 as "The Scriptures", the word was applied to those books of the Bible accepted by the Christian church" and this later extended to secular books of admitted excellence or supremacy (an most importantly meeting the approval of the Church) and in some archives there are a number of such lists but according to Harold Bloom (1930-2019) who noted the history in The Western Canon (1994), the "...secular canon, with the word meaning a catalog of approved authors, does not actually come into use until the mid-eighteenth century."

Thou shalt not.

The canon as a "catalogue of acknowledged saints" is from 1727, reflecting the implications of the late fourteenth century verb canonize and the companion noun canonization.  To canonize was to "place officially in the canon or calendar of saints" and was from the Old French canonisier and directly from the Medieval Latin canonizare, from the Late Latin canon (church rule, catalogue of saints).  The noun canonization (act of enrolling a beatified person among the saints) was from the Medieval Latin canonizationem (nominative canonizatio), the noun of action from the past-participle stem of canonizare.  Use has varied greatly between pontificates, something explained by the power to canonize lying exclusively in the gift the pope since 1179.  The related forms are canonized, canonizing and the marvelous canonicity.  The use in music to describe "a kind of fugal composition" is from the 1590s.

In the traditional sense of the Western canon of literature, although never a fixed-set, it’s become increasingly contested, even to the point of being criticized, inter alia, by post-modernists, critical theorists, Marxists and feminists as a form of cultural imperialism.  Canonical is the adjectival form.

Lindsay Lohan's canon of film

1998 The Parent Trap

2003 Freaky Friday

2004 Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen

2004 Mean Girls

2005 Herbie: Fully Loaded

2005 My Scene Goes Hollywood: The Movie

2006 A Prairie Home Companion

2006 Just My Luck

2006 Bobby

2006 Friendly Fire

2006 The Holiday

2007 Chapter 27

2007 Georgia Rule

2007 I Know Who Killed Me

2009 Labor Pains

2010 Machete

2011 Lindsay Lohan

2012 First Point

2013 Inappropriate Comedy

2013 Scary Movie 5

2013 The Canyons

2015 Till Human Voices Wake Us

2019 Among the Shadows (The Shadow Within in some markets)

2022 Falling for Christmas

2023 Irish Wish

A romantic nihilist's canon of film

1939 Wuthering Heights

1958 Touch of Evil

1958 Vertigo

1964 Dr Strangelove

1970 Zabriskie Point

1971 A Clockwork Orange

1971 Dirty Harry

1973 The Exorcist

1979 Nosferatu the Vampyre

1986 The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2

1987 Nightmare on Elm Street III

1987 Withnail and I

1990 Truly, Madly, Deeply

1991 Europa (Zentropa in the US)

1991 Delicatessen

Deuterogamy & Putative

Deuterogamy (pronounced doo-tuh-rog-uh-mee or dyoo- tuh-rog-uh-mee)

A second marriage, (as distinct from bigamy, as defined in law and canon law), historically after the death of the first husband or wife but now applied also in other circumstances.

1650–1660: From the Ancient Greek deuterogamía (a second marriage), the construct being deuteron, from the Ancient Greek δεύτερος (deúteros) (second (of two)) +‎ -gamy (the suffix from the Ancient Greek γάμος (gámos) used to form nouns describing forms of marriage (and in biology to form nouns describing forms of fertilization).  The related forms are deuterocanonical, deuteromycete, deuteromycetes, deuteron, deuterogamist, deuteronomic and deuteronomis.

The permitted second marriage

Deuterogamy is a lesser-known companion word of bigamy and polygamy.  Bigamy is the act of marrying one person while in a stare of marriage with another; it can be committed unknowingly (in rare cases even by both parties) but it committed knowingly is a criminal offence in most jurisdictions.  Polygamy is the generic term for multiple marriages and encompasses bigamy, the word used mostly by anthropologists to describe both polygyny (having several wives) and polyandry (the predictably less common practice of enjoying several husbands).  There’s also the synonym digamy but it’s so easily confused with the almost homophonic bigamy it should be avoided and rendered obsolete (which it may already be).

Etymologically, deuterogamy describes merely the act of a second marriage but in canon law it was the definitional term for a permissible second marriage, one celebrated after the death of a first wife or husband.  Under canon law, marrying another when one’s original partner remained alive, even if a divorce had been granted by a civil court, was bigamy.  The only circumstances in which the church would countenance a deuteronomis marriage when the previous partner remained alive was if a bishop was prepared to issue a certificate of annulment which created not the legal fiction that the marriage never existed but that it was ab initio (void at its inception) because the essential sacramental component was always missing

As an example, noted Roman Catholic, father of six and amateur moral theologian Barnaby Joyce (b 1967; deputy prime-minister of Australia thrice variously since 2016):

(1) Is an adulterer because he enjoyed intimacy with a woman while married to another.  He’s guilty merely of single-adultery because the other woman with whom he cavorted was unmarried; had his mistress been married, double adultery would have been the offence.  Surely worse.

(2) Cannot, under canon law, undertake a deuteronomis marriage unless he can find grounds on which a bishop might be persuaded to annul his first marriage. 

All things considered, one might have thought this difficult but in 2015, Pope Francis (b 1936; pope since 2013) issued two possibly revolutionary motu proprio (literally “on his own impulse”; essentially the law-making mechanism available to absolute monarchs as the royal decree): Mitis iudex dominus Iesus (Reform to the Canons of the Code of Canon that pertain to the marriage nullity cases) and Mitis et misericors Iesus (Reform of the canons of the Code of Canons of Eastern Churches pertaining to cases regarding the nullity of marriage) which changed canon law, simplifying the annulment process.  It was a demonstration of what’s possible in an absolute theocracy and must have induced a little envy in people like prime-ministers dealing with bolshie cross-benchers or recalcitrant senators.

Better to help sinners consider their position, Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio (b 1938; then president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts), issued a clarification, noting the Church “…does not decree the annulment of a legally valid marriage, but rather declares the nullity of a legally invalid marriage”.  While a piece of sophistry a bit different from what usually crosses the National Party mind and not obviously a great deal of help, it might have been enough to give Mr Joyce hope.

"A second marriage is a triumph of hope over experience."  Samuel Johnson (1709–1784).

On Monday 17 January, it was announced Mr Joyce had proposed to his new partner and that she'd accepted.  In a nice touch, he presented his fiancée a parti sapphire engagement ring.  Parti sapphires are unique in the extraordinary way their several distinct colors simultaneously display in any light, unlike other polychromic stones which need light to fall in different ways for the range to show.  The other distinction of the parti is that their value lies not in perfection but in their flaws; it's the inclusions in the parti which create the dazzling iridescence.  Like Mr Joyce, the parti sapphire is loved and venerated for its flaws.

Redemption does seem much on Mr Joyce's mind.  After the National Party caucus, having decided to allow hope to triumph over experience and (for the third time) elect him leader (and thus deputy prime-minister), he was gracious in victory, saying  “I acknowledge my faults and I resigned as I should have and I did. I’ve spent three years on the backbench and, you know, I hope I come back a better person.”  The self-identification as the prodigal son seems to draw a long theological bow and is anyway not relevant to the matters a bishop is compelled to consider when reviewing an application to annul a marriage.  The reforms imposed by Francis are really about time and money, reducing how long it takes and how much it costs to secure an annulment; the legal basis on which one may be granted remains unchanged, Church teaching being not that the marriage in question failed, but that the sacramental component was always missing.  Still, a wind of change is blowing through the Vatican and Mitis iudex dominus Iesus, like other recent reforms, did make clear these were matters for the local bishop, the man closest to his flock.

Putative (pronounced pyoo-tuh-tiv)

Commonly believed or deemed to be the case; reputed; accepted by supposition rather than as a result of proof.

1432: From the late Middle English, from the Middle French putatif, from the Late Latin putātīvus (reputed) the construct being putāt(us), past participle of putāre (to think, consider, reckon (originally “to clean, prune”)) + -īvus (-ive).  The ultimate root was the primitive Indo-European pau- (to cut, strike, stamp), the most familiar Latin variants being putātus (thought) and putō (I think, I consider, I reckon).  The -īvus  suffix was from the primitive Indo-European -ihwós, an extended form of –wós; it was cognate with the Ancient Greek -εῖος (-eîos) (from which Latin picked up also -ēus) and was added to the perfect passive participial stem of verbs, forming a deverbal adjective meaning “doing” or “related to doing”.  Putative is an adjective, putatively an adverb.

Early use of the word was almost exclusively in Church Latin as putative marriage, one which, though legally invalid due to an impediment, was contracted in good faith by at least one party.  Putative is almost always used in front of a noun, the modified noun being that which is assumed or supposed to be. The putative cause of a disease is whatever is generally thought to be the cause, even if unproven.  As a point of usage, it’s not correct to say "the cause was putative."

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s marriage to Roman Catholic Carrie Symonds, mother of the two youngest of his seven children, was celebrated in London's Westminster Cathedral on 29 June 2021, the edifice briefly closed for the occasion.  Unannounced, as Mr Johnson’s third putative marriage, it attracted particular interest because it was a Roman Catholic ceremony.  Although probably most of the British public years ago lost any interest in theology, still widely known is the church’s doctrinal insistence that marriage is a permanent, lifelong union between a man and a woman, those who divorce unable to enter a second marriage recognized by the Church.

The prime-minister’s union is however within church rules.  A baptized Catholic, what he described as his school-boy conversion to Anglicanism was not something recognized by canon law, Mr Johnson joining the Church of England by a process the Vatican would view as not much more than him deciding one day he was Anglican.  Not good enough.  For any soul to depart the faith, what canon law requires is a “defection from the Catholic Church by a formal act”, a specifically defined legal process, undertaken in dialogue with the Church hierarchy and nothing like that was ever done.  Conversion cannot be effected simply by conduct or press-release and, although what was done might have made Mr Johnson an Anglican in the eyes of Lambeth, to the Holy See he was and remained one of them.

Marriage has a long history, the idea of a lifelong partnership between one man and one woman drawn from of natural law and something recognized and acknowledged by the Church by virtue of the conduct and acquiescence of the parties even before the medieval church regularized the practice in the Code of Canon Law.  The code contains also ecclesiastical laws governing how and when Catholics can enter marriage, among which is the requirements to conform with “canonical form” including the ceremony being performed in the parish church of the parties, the permission of their bishop to marry outside of the Church and the need to seek special dispensation, sometimes from Rome, to marry non-Christians.

The construction of the framework really began at the fourth Lateran Council (1215) which banned informal or secret marriages, beginning the codification of the forms and processes of formal marriage with rules ensuring marriages would be widely known within the community so (1) any impediment might be raised prior to or before the conclusion of the ceremony and (2), once done, neither party could deny the union.  This really was social engineering, addressing the not uncommon event of a man inducing consent from a woman or girl with assurance he regarded them as betrothed, only later, usually when he learned she was with child, to renounce the “marriage”.  All of this had a good scriptural basis, the notion of “what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” appearing both in Mark 10:9 and Matthew 19:6.  Further to strengthen the framework, after the Council of Trent (Concilium Tridentinum, 1545-1563, nineteenth ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, Trent (Trento), Italy), the marriage sacrament came under jurisdiction of the Church, ceremonies performed and records maintained by priests.  Unless a marriage conformed to canonical form, it couldn’t be a valid marriage and, in the eyes of canon lawyers, never happened.  That was the legal abstraction.  On the ground, parish priests and presumptive fathers-in-law, knowing what had happened, dealt with miscreant “husbands”.  

Thus the prime minister is a baptized Catholic subject to the demands of canonical form and one whose previous marriages lacked canonical form.  Any Church tribunal would be compelled to hold the two unions invalid; they didn’t exist so he could marry Ms Symonds in a Catholic ceremony in a Catholic Church as his first valid marriage.  Helpfully, nor are sins of the father visited upon the children, the law recognizing the children born of putative marriages later declared null or invalid to be as legitimate as those born of valid marriages.  The origin of this lies in the Medieval habit of kings seeking (and gaining, sometimes on grounds more tenuous than those applying to Mr Johnson) an annulment.  Then it was the delicate business of handling the sunder without messing with long-settled issues of succession.

There are other quirks in Canon law.  While the Church does hold only a marriage between two baptized Christians can be a sacrament, it also recognizes that any marriage which conforms to its essential properties is valid, regardless of whether it involves those of other faiths or indeed atheists.  The exception is Catholics, on whom is imposed the more onerous demands of canonical form.

Privilege

Privilege (pronounced priv-lij (U) or priv-uh-lij (non-U))

(1) A special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in authority or office to free them from certain obligations or liabilities; the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities; to exempt from certain obligations; a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most.

(2) Any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government.

(3) An expression of pleasure.

(4) In the equity markets, an option to buy or sell stock at a stipulated price for a limited period of time, including puts, calls, spreads, and straddles (a now rare nineteenth century innovation).

(5) In ecclesiastical law, an exemption, granted by popes, from certain laws; a use dating from the eighth century, now restricted mostly to historic references.

(6) In law, a common law doctrine that protects certain communications from being used as evidence in court, most familiar as attorney-client privilege (often misunderstood because the privilege is held by the client) and executive privilege which can protect presidential and cabinet discussions and documents from scrutiny.

(7) In computing, access to or the ability to execute certain actions which may selectively be granted or denied to users.

(8) As “white privilege”, an expression which encapsulates the idea of the (institutional) advantage white people enjoy as cluster of preferential treatment and opportunities in society beyond (the structural) defined in law; one of the core components of critical race theory (CRT).

(9) To bring or put into a condition of privilege or exemption from evil or danger; to exempt; to deliver (archaic).

1125-1175: From the Middle English privilegen (and the earlier privilegie) from the Anglo-Norman privilege, from the Old French privilege, from the Latin prīvilēgium (ordinance or law against or in favor of an individual).  The Middle English privilegen was from the Middle French privilegier which, like the Medieval Latin prīvilēgiāre was from the Latin prīvilēgium, the construct in Latin being from prīvus (private) + lēx or lēg- (law).  Middle English also had the late fourteenth century pravilege (an evil law or privilege), from the Medieval Latin pravilegium, a play on privilegium by substitution of pravus (wrong, bad).  The alternative spellings priviledg & priviledge are long obsolete.  Synonyms include freelage, immunity, prerogative, right, advantage, foredeal & franchise, (a UK dialectal form); the plural is privileges.

The verb privilege is from the late fourteenth century privilegen (endow (someone) with a special right, grace, power, etc.; to invest with a privilege), from the noun and the thirteenth century Old French privilegier, from the Medieval Latin privilegare, from the Classical Latin privilegium.  The verb disprivilege (deprive (someone) of privilege) was a technical legal term first used in the 1610s; it’s rare but still exists.  The adjective privileged emerged in the late fourteenth century and applied to things; by the mid-1400s it described “persons enjoying certain privileges or immunities"; the past-participle adjective from verb privilege.

The mid-twelfth century meaning of "grant, commission" (which existed earlier in Old English but was referenced with a Latin word), came from the early twelfth century Old French privilege (right, priority, privilege) and directly from the Latin privilegium (law applying to one person, bill of law in favor of or against an individual) which in the post-Augustine era came to be restricted to mean "an ordinance in favor of an individual".  Typically this meant the exemption of one individual from the operation of a law.  In the eleventh century, although it had existed in ecclesiastical law since the eighth, this was a notable aspect of the way the Church exercised power, the privilege a "power or prerogative associated with a certain social or religious position".  The meaning "advantage granted, special right or favor granted to a person or group, a right, immunity, benefit, or advantage enjoyed by a person or body of persons beyond the common advantages of other individuals" is emerged in English during the mid-fourteenth century and had by the late 1300s begun to be used in the legal language of the courts as a general expression of "legal immunity or exemption".

Thus a concept which began in secular Roman civil law was refined in Church law to the point where it was formalized as an exemption or license granted by the Pope, or special immunity or advantage (as freedom of speech) granted to persons in authority or in office before being adopted in modern secular law as an expression of concepts as diverse as (1) general equality of all under the law, (2) basic rights common to all (habeas corpus, suffrage, protest, voting etc) & (3) defined exemptions for certain groups or individuals in certain circumstances from the otherwise prevailing rules.

Golf without clubs.  Donald Trump in discussion on the links, Virginia, September 2022.

On the internet (a most reliable source), it's being suggested Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) had taken to meeting his lawyers on the golf course because he thinks he's there less likely to be overheard or bugged.  He clearly doesn't frequent birdwatching circles or he'd know about the parabolic microphones which can capture birdsong from a distance of 50 m (165 feet) and beyond.  Sympathetic publications suggested the meetings on his Virginia course were either (1) to discuss the planning permission required for proposed upgrades or (2) in connection with arrangements being made to host an event for the Saudi Arabia-backed LIV tournament.

In the US, there are two types of legal professional privilege (1) the attorney-client privilege and (2) the work product doctrine.  The attorney-client privilege has ancient origins in English common law and in familiar throughout the English-speaking world.  Essentially, it exists to protect the right of an individual to communicate with their lawyer without concern the state (or others) might compel either to disclose the discussions.  The legal rationale for attorney-client privilege is that, as a matter of public policy, justice depends on a lawyer being fully informed by their client and the privilege is generally absolute, applying broadly in both litigation and non-litigation contexts; it may be asserted in all proceedings in which testimony may be compelled, including civil, criminal, administrative, regulatory and disciplinary proceeding.  The work product doctrine is another basis by which US courts may provide protection from disclosure for certain materials created in the context of attorney-client relations. The doctrine is relatively new, having originated in a Supreme Court ruling (Hickman v Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510–11 (1947)) which held an adverse party generally may not discover or compel disclosure of written or oral materials prepared by or for an attorney in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial; the presumption of non-disclosure is a rebuttable one.

Canon Law and the Pauline Privilege

Depiction of St Paul in stained glass window, St Edmund's Church, Bungay, Suffolk, England.

In Roman Catholic Canon Law, the Pauline Privilege constitutes an exception to the church's general rules governing marriage, rules grounded in sacramental theology.  It is one of the few examples in the legal code where a specific law is taken directly from sacred scripture, ie from the words of Saint Paul himself.  Canon Law starts with the general principle that a marriage, once ratum et consummatum (ratified and consummated), cannot be dissolved by any human power, or by any cause other than death.  The notion, impressive rates of divorce notwithstanding, survives to this day in the marriage rituals of many denominations in the words “…what God has joined together let no man tear asunder.”   

In other words, a marriage is truly indissoluble if (1) it has been celebrated with a valid marriage rite and (2) the spouses have subsequently engaged in a "conjugal act, apt for the generation of offspring".  If condition (1) is missing or defective in some substantive way, the marriage may be annulled, since it was never proper to begin with.  If condition (2) is missing the marriage is ratum sed non consummatum (ratified but not consummated) or ratum et non consummatum (ratified and not consummated) and the Pope has the power to dissolve it.  Otherwise, a marriage ends only with the death of one of the spouses.

This is an ancient position of the church, originally based on teachings in the Old Testament and was not revised by the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II; 1962-1965).  However, a loophole exists because of a couple of passages in the New Testament which conflict with canon law.  In Saint Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, John mentions:

To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.  If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.  For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband...

But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.   (1 Corinthians 7:12-15)

So, Saint Paul asserts, in a particular set of circumstances, a ratified but not consummated marriage can be dissolved and he acknowledges that this isn't coming from God but rather, from Paul himself.  According to Paul, the overall indissolubility of marriage has a loophole: if two unbaptized people are married, and one of them is subsequently baptized, the marriage can be ended  if the other spouse both (1) remains unbaptized and (2) "desires to separate" from his or her spouse.  As codified, the loophole found its way into Church law as canon 1143.  It states that a marriage of two unbaptized persons is dissolved when one of the spouses is baptized and enters a new marriage, if the unbaptized spouse departs. There are a number of criteria, all of which must be present, for this privilege to apply but its exercise hinges on the word departs.  Firstly, the Pauline Privilege is relevant only if one of the spouses becomes a Christian and the other does not.  In other words, if both spouses are baptized after their marriage, and they then want to separate and remarry, they cannot do so under canon 1143.

Secondly, the privilege can be applied if the unbaptized spouse is either unwilling to continue living with the newly baptized spouse, or if the unbaptized spouse is not willing to do so without "offense to the Creator." In other words, if the unbaptized spouse is so antagonistic toward the Christian faith of the newly baptized husband or wife that they cannot live together in peace, this constitutes "departing" for the purposes of canon 1143.  The canon lawyers therefore widened the loophole somewhat, deciding a departure need not be a physical decampment but remained otherwise rigid: the Pauline Privilege cannot be invoked if it’s the baptized spouse who "departs." So long as the unbaptized spouse is willing to remain in the marriage, and is not hostile to the Christian faith of the other spouse, the marriage cannot be dissolved other than by death.  Thirdly, the newly baptized spouse must want to enter into a new marriage. Unless and until this happens, he or she remains married to the unbaptized.

Canon Law §§ 1143-1147 codifies the process and instances can be handled on the diocesan level with the Holy See apparently now content to retain only a (seldom exercised) power of veto.  The Pauline Privilege does not apply when either of the partners was a Christian at the time of marriage and differs from annulment because it dissolves a valid natural (but not sacramental) marriage whereas an annulment declares that a marriage was invalid from the beginning.  Regarding the often desired annulments, on paper, little changed in the modern age until 2015 when Pope Francis issued two motu proprio (literally “on his own impulse”; essentially the law-making mechanism available to absolute monarchs as the royal decree): Mitis iudex dominus Iesus (Reform to the Canons of the Code of Canon that pertain to the marriage nullity cases) and Mitis et misericors Iesus (Reform of the canons of the Code of Canons of Eastern Churches pertaining to cases regarding the nullity of marriage) which changed canon law, simplifying the annulment process.  Those who thought this a harbinger of something radical were however disappointed; it appears the pope’s intervention did little more than reflect the position taken in recent decades by so many bishops more anxious to retain bums on pews and coins in the plate than preserve unhappy marriages.  Shortly after the decrees were issued, better to help sinners consider their position, Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, issued a clarification, noting the Church “…does not decree the annulment of a legally valid marriage, but rather declares the nullity of a legally invalid marriage”.

Interstice

Interstice (pronounced in-tur-stis)

(1) An intervening space.

(2) An interval of time.

(3) A small or narrow space or interval between things or parts, especially when one of a series of alternating uniform spaces and parts.

(4) In Roman Catholic canon law, the interval of time that must elapse before promotion to a higher degree of orders.

(5) In physics, the space between adjacent atoms in a crystal lattice.

(6) In medicine or pathology, a small area, space, or hole in the substance of an organ or tissue.

(7) In geology, an opening or space, especially a small or narrow one between mineral grains in a rock or within sediments or soil.

1595-1605:  From the Old French interstice (interval), from the Latin interstitium (interval (literally "space between")) from intersistere, the construct being inter (between) + sistere (to stand, place), the stem of stare (to stand) from the primitive Indo-European root sta- (to stand, make or be firm).  The adjective was interstitial (pertaining to or situated in an interstice), noted since the 1640s; the noun plural was interstices.

St Augustine, Benedict and canon law

In Roman Catholic canon law, an interstice is a defined waiting period; the interval of time required between the attainment of different degrees of an order, the best-known and most widely applied being the three months between an appointment to a diaconate and ordination to the priesthood.  While ninety-odd days is the minimum, interstices tend to be longer though a bishop may shorten the length, should some extraordinary circumstance arise.

Codifications of these rules of progression of candidates for church office were published during the fourth & fifth centuries and reflected regional differences in the early church.  While there were those who never varied from the minimum stipulation, there were bishops who imposed a waiting period of four years as acolyte and five as a deacon.  Even during the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II, 1962-1965), there was no attempt to modify canon law organizationally by removing from it stuff which would better constitute a book of advisory guidelines.

Structurally interesting itself is canon law and its interpretation in an absolute theocracy.  The way it works is that canon law is not always interpreted by judges because, with the advice of the bishops, a pope is the Magisterium and his interpretations are binding.  Pope Benedict XVI (b 1927; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus since) discussed this in a 2012 address to the judges of the Roman Rota, the Holy See’s highest court of appeal.  He explained canonical law can be interpreted and understood “only” within the Church and "…the work of the interpreter must not be deprived of vital contact with ecclesial reality.”  Arguing for a more flexible position than had often been heard from Rome, Benedict said the need existed always to consider “…the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context", commending the “inner process of St Augustine in biblical [teaching] the transcending of the letter has rendered the letter itself credible".

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI with Bavarian Prime Minister Horst Seehofer (b 1949) and Archbishop Georg Ganswein (b 1956; Prefect of the Papal household & personal secretary to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI), having a couple of beers during the retired pontiff’s ninetieth birthday celebration at the Vatican.  Following Bavarian tradition, there was no interstice between rounds.

Flak

Flak (pronounced flak)

(1) Ground-based anti-aircraft fire using explosive shells.

(2) In casual use, criticism; hostile reaction; abuse.

1938: From the German Flak (anti-aircraft gun), condensed from Fliegerabwehrkanone (literally "air defense gun"), the acronym deconstructed from Fl(ieger) + a(bwehr) + k(anone).  The sense of "anti-aircraft fire" became generalized in English from 1940 and the flak jacket is attested from 1956.  The metaphoric sense of "criticism" is American English circa 1963.  The synonym (and military verbal shorthand) is ack-ack, which appears to have developed independently in the German and allied military, the former using (from 1939) acht-acht (eight-eight) as an informal reference to the 88mm canon, the later being World War I (1914-1918) signalers' phonetic spelling of "AA".  Jargon has its own life and even after the NATO Phonetic Alphabet was standardized in 1956, ack-ack was so distinctive and well-known there was no suggestion it should be replaced by alpha-alpha. 

Lindsay Lohan in flak jacket.

The homophone flack (public relations spokesman) was first noted in US use in 1945, initially as a noun but, almost immediately became also a verb and it’s always had the sense of handling adverse criticism; if necessary by lying ("taking the flak" as it were).  The origin is murky; there’s a suggestion it was coined at entertainment industry magazine Variety but the first attested use was in another publication.  Flack was said to have emerged because of a coincidence in existence between flak being used to describe criticism (analogous with anti-aircraft fire) and a certain Mr Flack, said to be a public relations spokesman in the movie business but, given the accepted etymology, most regards this as an industry myth.

The 88mm Flak Canon

Panzer VI (Tiger Tank 1) with 88mm canon, Sicily, 1943.

The German 88 mm anti-aircraft canon was developed during the 1930s and was one of the most versatile and widely used weapons of World War II (1939-1945), deployed as field artillery, in anti-aircraft batteries, in ground assault and anti-tank roles and, on the larger tanks, as canon.  The naval 88, although the same caliber, was an entirely different weapon, dating from 1905.

88mm Flak Gun, Russia, 1941.

However, its stellar reputation belied to some extent, latter-day battlefield reality.  Like much mass-produced German weaponry of World War II, the 88 lost some of its comparative advantage as the allies’ quantitative and (with a few notable exceptions, especially in jet and rocket propulsion) qualitative superiority in materiel became apparent.  As an anti-aircraft gun, the Flak 88 needed high muzzle velocity to reach the altitudes at which bombers flew (20,000+ feet (6000+m)) and to achieve that the projectile itself was relatively small.  The high velocity made the Flak 88 a formidable anti-tank weapon, but did limit its effectiveness as field artillery.  Right to the end however, it remained a potent force wherever the terrain was suitable.

Zoo Flak Tower, Berlin, 1945.

One place the Flak 88s weren’t used was on the three huge concrete structures in Berlin called the Flak Towers.  Because the newer British and US bombers flew at higher altitudes, the bigger 128 mm canon was required.

The best known of the structures was the Berlin Zoo Flak Tower (Flakturm Tiergarten), the construction of which was induced by the Royal Air Force’s (RAF) first bombing raids on the city in August 1940.  Even by the standards of the time, these attacks were small-scale and of no obvious military value but, like the raid on Tokyo staged by the US in 1942 and the seemingly quixotic cross-border incursions by forces of indeterminate origin probing Russia’s “special military operation”, they compelled a disproportionately large re-allocation of civilian and military resources.  Early in the war, Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945 and Reichsmarschall 1940-1945) in his capacity as head of the air force (Luftwaffe) had been asked if the industrial Ruhr was at risk of being bombed and he assured the nation: “No enemy bomber can reach the Ruhr… if one reaches the Ruhr, my name is not Göring. You can call me Meyer.”  The Reichsmarschall might have believed his own publicity but the RAF did not though few in 1940 thought the more distant Berlin was vulnerable and the first raids, pin-pricks though they were compared with what was to come, embarrassed the Nazi hierarchy and convinced Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) to fear that ominous mantra of the 1930s: “The bomber will always get through”.

Accordingly, needing to retain popular support and well aware of the capital’s lack of air-raid shelters (though the leading Nazis and their families were well provided for), the Führer ordered the construction of huge anti-aircraft gun towers, the designs submitted for his approval as early as the following March.  Construction began immediately and the first, the Berlin Zoo Flak Tower, was made operational within months and in its massiveness was entirely typical of the architectural practices of the Third Reich.  Reflecting Hitler’s preferences, it was rendered in a neo-Romantic style and any medieval soldier would have recognized it as a fortress, albeit one on a grand scale.  It gained its name by virtue of its proximity to the municipal zoo and the term “tower” was a rare instance of modesty of expression during the Nazi era.  The reinforced concrete structure was as tall as a 13-story building with a 70 x 70 m (230 x 230 feet) footprint and in addition to the flak guns on the roof, it housed an 85-bed hospital, extensive storage space for art works & cultural artifacts as well as the capacity to provide shelter for some 15,000 people (a number greatly exceeded later in the war when the raids became both frequent and severe.

The installed armament was a battery of four 128 mm (5 inch) twin Flak mounts, augmented by 20 mm (¾ inch) and 37-mm (1½ inch) guns on lower platforms, the sides of the tower 8 m (26 feet) thick, the roof 5 m (16 feet).  The versatility of the design was proven when in 1945 the city was under assault by the Red Army and the big guns were deployed at low angle, proving highly effective as tank destroyers and according to the estimates of both sides, delaying the entry of Soviet troops by almost two weeks.  Even then, after the city had been occupied and the surrender negotiated, the Germans remained in control of the tower, the thick walls having withstood all attacks.  After the war, it proved difficult to demolish and it was only in 1948, after several attempts and over 100 tons of explosives that finally it was razed, the land eventually returned to the Berlin Zoo.

Concordat

Concordat (pronounced kon-kawr-dat)

(1) An agreement or compact, especially an official one Agreement between things; mutual fitness; harmony.

(2) A formal agreement between two parties, especially between a church and a state.

(3) In Roman Catholic canon law, a pact, treaty or agreement between the Holy See and a secular government regarding the regulation of church matters.  In early use it was sometimes a personal agreement between pope and sovereign.

1610–1620: From the the sixteenth century French conciordat, replacing concordate from the Medieval Latin concordātum (something agreed), a noun use of the Latin concordatum, neuter of concordātus, past participle of concordāre (to be in agreement; to be of one mind), from concors (genitive concordis) (of one mind)  from concors (genitive concordis) (of one mind).  The original definition in Roman Catholic canon law was "an agreement between Church and state on a mutual matter".  Concordat is a noun, the noun plural is concordats and concordatory is an adjective.  Concord dates from 1250-1300, from the Middle English and Old French concorde from the Latin concordia, (harmonious), genitive concordis (of the same mind, literally “hearts together”).  Concordat is a noun and concordant an adjective; the noun plural is concordats.

The Duce, Benito Mussolini (1883–1945; Prime Minister of Italy 1922-1943) and Cardinal Pietro Gasparri (1852–1934; Cardinal Secretary of State 1914-1930) signing the Lateran Concordat in 1929.

The concordat, a formal agreement between the Holy See and a sovereign state, dates from a time when the relationship between the Church and sovereign entities was different than what now exists.  Indeed, the dynamics of the relationships have changed much over the centuries but, at any given moment, concordats have always been practical application of Church-state relations and, like all politics, were an expression of the art of the possible, a concordat not necessarily what a pope wanted, but certainly the best he could at the time manage, the best known tending to be the controversial, notably (1) the treaty of 1801 with Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821; leader of the French Republic 1799-1804 & Emperor of the French from 1804-1814 & 1815), (2) the Lateran Accord agreed in 1929 with Mussolini which created the modern city-state of the Vatican and which was the final step in Italian unification and (3) The Reich Concordat of 1933, the accommodation with Hitler’s Germany which was supposed to resolve the issue of relations which had been unsettled since Otto von Bismarck's (1815-1989; Chancellor of the German Empire 1871-1890) time but which Berlin repeatedly violated.

La Signature du Concordat aux Tuileries 15 juillet 1801 (The Signing of the Concordat at the Tuileries, 15 July 1801) (1803-1804) by François Pascal Simon Gérard (1770–1837) (titled as Baron Gérard in 1809); the original hangs in the Musée National des Châteaux de Versailles et de Trianon, Versailles.  

At least those violations weren’t wholly unexpected.  Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (1876–1958; Pope Pius XII 1939-1958) had been Apostolic Nuncio (ambassador; 1926-1929) to Berlin and was Cardinal Secretary of State (foreign minister; 1930–1939) when the Reich Concordat was signed and he was under no illusion.  When it was said to him that the Nazis were unlikely to honor the terms, he replied with a smile that was true but that they would probably not violate all its articles “at the same time”.  The sardonic realism would serve the cardinal well in the years ahead when often he would required to choose the lesser of many competing evils.  Some though, for a while, retained hope if not faith.  As late as 1937, Archbishop Conrad Gröber (1872–1948; Archbishop of Freiburg 1932-1948) thought the Reich Concordat proof that “…two powers, totalitarian in their character, can find agreement, if their domains are separate”.  Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945), another cynic though then still a realist, viewed the concordat much as Hermann Göring (1893-1946) would in his trial at Nuremberg describe all the treaties executed by the Nazis: “so much toilet paper”.  Actually an admirer of the Roman Catholic Church which had survived two-thousand years of European rough and tumble, he was resigned to a co-existence but one on his terms, noting the day would come when there would be a reckoning with “those black crows”.

Two of the twentieth century's great survivors, German vice chancellor Franz von Papen (1879-1969) (second from left) and the Holy See's secretary of state Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII) (head of the table) meet in the Vatican on 20 July 1933 to sign the Reischskonkordat which some six weeks later was ratified by the Nazi-dominated Reichstag (the German parliament).  The cardinal calculated the Church would gain from the arrangement but had few illusions about the Nazis.  Upon being told the Nazis would probably violate the agreement, he agreed but observed they probably wouldn't violate all of the clauses "at the same time".  Later when being driven through Rome where he saw two men fighting in the street, he remarked to his companion "I imagine they've probably just signed a concordat".

That’s not to say there haven’t always been theorists who wandered a bit beyond the possible.  After the Reformation, there were those in the Church who held that the Church sits above the state in all things (the “regalist” position), while others (maintaining the “curialist” position) held that although the Church is superior to the state, the Church may grant certain privileges to the state through agreements such as concordats.  In the modern age, the accepted understanding of concordats is that the Church and the various sovereign states are both legal entities able to enter into bilateral agreements.  Concordats are thus no different than other treaties & agreements in that being executed under international law, they are enforceable according to legal principles.  Church and state may in some ways not be co-equal but canon law does recognise the two exist in distinct spheres and is explicit in respecting the bilateral agreements that the Holy See has entered into with other nation-states.  The Code of Canon Law states unambiguously that concordats override any contrary norms in canon law: “The canons of the Code neither abrogate nor derogate from the agreements entered into by the Apostolic See with nations or other political societies. These agreements therefore continue in force exactly as at present, notwithstanding contrary prescripts of this Code.”  This is an unexceptional statement familiar in many constitutional arrangements where two legal systems interact, the need being to define, where conflict may exist, which has precedence and is no more than an application of a legal maxim known to both canon and secular law: pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be honored).  Concordats can both protect and clarify the rights of the Church by precisely defining relationship between the Church and a state, expressed by the Second Vatican Council’s (Vatican II 1962-1965) pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world, Gaudium et spes (Joay and Hope) in the statement:

“The Church herself makes use of temporal things insofar as her own mission requires it.  She, for her part, does not place her trust in the privileges offered by civil authority.  She will even give up the exercise of certain rights which have been legitimately acquired, if it becomes clear that their use will cast doubt on the sincerity of her witness or that new ways of life demand new methods.”

In other words, “if you can’t beat them, join them”, or, at least, enter into peaceful co-existence with them, a position in the modern age possible, if not uncontroversial with sovereign and sub-national entities notionally with Catholic majority populations (eg Bavaria 1966, Austria 1969, Italy 1985) but also with countries where Christians exist only as tiny minorities (eg Tunisia 1964, Morocco 1985, Israel 1993).  Nor does a concordat need to be a complete codification, the agreement between the Holy See and Tel Aviv noting that in certain matters, agreement had not been reached and discussions need to continue.  Such “framework” or “stepping-stone” agreements have been in the diplomatic toolkit for centuries but they’re a statement of professed intent and in the decades since there’s been little apparent progress in many of the unresolved matters important to the Holy See regarding physical property in the Holy Land and the “working document” was never ratified by the Israeli parliament (the Knesset).  At least partially filling this diplomatic lacuna was something which has thus far proved a coda to the Holy See’s official recognition in 2012 of the State of Palestine.  In 2015, The Vatican concluded a concordat with “the State of Palestine” (sic), supporting a two-state solution to the conflict between Palestine and Israel “on the basis of the 1967 borders”.  According to Rome, the provisions in the agreement concern technical (ie financial & legal) aspects of the legal status of Catholic facilities and personnel on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.  That may be as boringly procedural as it sounds but what’s aroused interest is that the Vatican has refused to publish the text or comment on the details, thus arousing suspicion that the treaty between with the Palestinians might, at least in part, contradict the earlier concordat with Israel.  From Washington to Tel Aviv, many are interested in the small print.

Rome 1929: The Duce reads the Lateran Concordat's small print.

Interestingly, Vatican II struck the term concordat from canon law, apparently in a nod to the Council's declaration on religious liberty, Dignitatis humanae (Of the Dignity of the Human Person) which mused on the evolution of a “…different model of relations between the Vatican and various states [which] is still evolving.”  Whatever might have been intended to be the implications of that, it reappeared with the Polish Concordat of 1993 and seems to be here to stay.