Vile

Vile (pronounced vahyl)

(1) Wretchedly bad.

(2) Highly offensive, unpleasant, or objectionable.

(3) Repulsive or disgusting, as to the senses or feelings; repellent.

(4) Morally debased, depraved, or despicable; vulgar, obscene.

(5) Foul; filthy.

(6) Poor; wretched.

(7) Of mean or low condition; menial; lowly.

(8) Degraded; ignominious.

(9) Of little value or account; paltry

(10) Vicious, evil iniquitous.

(11) Unpleasant or bad weather.

1250–1300: From the Middle English vil, from the Anglo-French ville, from the Old French vil (shameful, dishonorable; low-born; cheap; ugly, hideous), from the Latin vīlis (cheap, worthless, base, common), possibly from the primitive Indo-European wes-li, a deverbal adjective with passive meaning (which can be bought), from the root of venus (sale).  It was cognate with the Latin vīlis, the Ancient Greek ὦνος (ônos) & ὠνέομαι (ōnéomai) (to buy), the Sanskrit वस्नयति (vasnayati) (to haggle) and वस्न (vasna) (price).  Related forms are the adjectives viler and vilest, the adverb vilely and the noun vileness (the thirteenth century vilety appears to be extinct).  Handy synonyms include repugnant, horrid, contemptible, depraved, noxious, vulgar, humiliating, vicious, disgusting, sleazy, ugly, despicable, repulsive, revolting, miserable, nasty, appalling, immoral, shocking and disgraceful.  The verb revile was from the late fourteenth century revilen (debase, degrade (a sense now obsolete)) and by the mid-fourteenth century meant "insult, taunt, vilify, assail with abusive language".  It was from the Old French reviler (consider vile, despise, scorn).  The mid-fifteenth century vilify (to lower in worth or value) was from the Late Latin vilificare (to make cheap or base; to esteem of little value) is from the Latin vilis (cheap, worthless, base, common).  The meaning "to slander, speak evil of" dates from the 1590s.  Vile, viler (the comparative) & vilest (the superlative) are adjectives and forms like vilish & vilishness are non-standard, usually used humorously.  

Lindsay Lohan pouring from modern civilization's most ubiquitous phial (or vial), PepsiCo Pilk promotion, December 2022.  

The aluminium can used to contribute much to litter, both as thoughtlessly they were discarded when empty and because the sealing tabs were detachable, beaches & parks in the 1970s notorious for being strewn with the things.  The problems substantially were solved by (1) making a fee payable when the cans were handed in to a recycling centre and (2) changing the tab's design so the whole mechanism remains attached.  Aluminium does consume large amounts of electricity during the production process but if "green energy" can be used it's one of the less environmentally destructive metals and, (1) being light it reduces the fuel load required during transportation & storage and (2) being non-ferrous it doesn't rust.  It is one of the best and most economical efficient metals to recycle.

Phial is a doublet of vial.  In technical use (in science), some institutions have drawn distinctions between the two: (1) phials being larger than vials and (2) vials are for liquids related to medicine and phials for other fluids but in general use they remain interchangeable (although consistency within documents is obviously recommended) although phial is now rare.  In the US, early in the twentieth century, phial became close to extinct after hundreds of years of being nearly as common as vial while elsewhere in the English-speaking world, vial emerged as the preferred form during the post-war years and, except in laboratories, phial seems now a romantic form restricted to fiction, historical and spiritual writing.

Crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013), probably deleting something.

But for the judgment of the Trump election campaign team, she might now be remembered as "vile Hillary Clinton".  Like phial, vial must never be confused with its homophone vile, another example of an aspect of English which must annoy those learning the finer nuances of the language,  So a vial (or phial) is a noun describing a vessel in which liquids are kept while vile is an adjective, applied most often to morally dubious or otherwise unpleasant and objectional characters.  Donald Trump's (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) use of monikers for political opponents (and others) had been a little noticed feature of his conversation before becoming one of the features of the 2016 presidential election ("low energy Jeb" (Bush), "lying Ted" (Cruz), "little Marco" (Rubio), "crazy Bernie" (Sanders) et al but by far the most effective was "crooked Hillary" (Clinton) which is being recycled as "crooked Joe Biden" for the 2024 contest.  Mr Trump's team apparently puts some effort into finding the best (ie most appropriately insulting) although it seems a beltway myth that focus groups were assembled for testing to determine some sort of metric of effectiveness.  Bridget Jones in Helen Fielding's (b 1958) Bridget Jones's Diary (1996) liked "vile" and "vile Richard" was so evocative for readers, the word for some reason genuinely a pleasure to say the word, the meaning emphasized by lengthening the sound.  "Vile Hillary" works well.

Rebarbative

Rebarbative (pronounced ree-bahr-buh-tiv)

(1) Causing annoyance, irritation, or aversion; repellent (usually of people but can be applied to concepts or objects such as unpleasing buildings.

(2) Fearsome; forbidding (obsolete).

(3) An object (typically a fabric or other surface) having a coarse or roughly finish (rare and usually a literally device). 

1885: From the French rébarbative, the feminine form of the fourteenth century rébarbatif (disagreeable; repellent; unattractive), from the Middle French rébarber (to oppose; to stand up to;to be unattractive) from the Old French rebarber (to repel (an enemy), to withstand (him) face to face).  The construct was ré- + barbe (beard) + -atif (-ative).  The re- prefix was from the Middle English re-, from the circa 1200 Old French re-, from the Latin re- & red- (back; anew; again; against), from the primitive Indo-European wre & wret- (again), a metathetic alteration of wert- (to turn).  It displaced the native English ed- & eft-.  A hyphen is not normally included in words formed using this prefix, except when the absence of a hyphen would (1) make the meaning unclear, (2) when the word with which the prefix is combined begins with a capital letter, (3) when the word with which the is combined with begins with another “re”, (4) when the word with which the prefix is combined with begins with “e”, (5) when the word formed is identical in form to another word in which re- does not have any of the senses listed above.  As late as the early twentieth century, the dieresis was sometimes used instead of a hyphen (eg reemerge) but this is now rare except when demanded for historic authenticity or if there’s an attempt deliberately to affect the archaic.  Re- may (and has) been applied to almost any verb and previously irregular constructions appear regularly in informal use; the exception is all forms of “be” and the modal verbs (can, should etc).  Although it seems certain the origin of the Latin re- is the primitive Indo-European wre & wret- (which has a parallel in Umbrian re-), beyond that it’s uncertain and while it seems always to have conveyed the general sense of "back" or "backwards", there were instances where the precise was unclear and the prolific productivity in Classical Latin tended make things obscure.

Barbe was from the Latin barba (beard), literally “to stand beard to beard against”.  The French suffix -atif was used in to indicate “of, related to, or associated with the thing specified”.  The English equivalent was -ative, the construct of which was -at(e) + -ive.  The suffix -ate was a word-forming element used in forming nouns from Latin words ending in -ātus, -āta, & -ātum (such as estate, primate & senate).  Those that came to English via French often began with -at, but an -e was added in the fifteenth century or later to indicate the long vowel.  It can also mark adjectives formed from Latin perfect passive participle suffixes of first conjugation verbs -ātus, -āta, & -ātum (such as desolate, moderate & separate).  Again, often they were adopted in Middle English with an –at suffix, the -e appended after circa 1400; a doublet of –ee.  The –ive suffix was from the Anglo-Norman -if (feminine -ive), from the Latin -ivus.  Until the fourteenth century, all Middle English loanwords from the Anglo-Norman ended in -if (actif, natif, sensitif, pensif etc) and, under the influence of literary Neolatin, both languages introduced the form -ive.  Those forms that have not been replaced were subsequently changed to end in -y (hasty, from hastif, jolly, from jolif etc).  Like the Latin suffix -io (genitive -ionis), the Latin suffix -ivus is appended to the perfect passive participle to form an adjective of action.  Rebarbative is an adjective, rebarbativeness is a noun and rebarbatively is an adverb.

Although now applied almost always to tiresome people, rebarbative has been applied to buildings (modern architecture offering much scope for use), music (many the compositions of the twentieth century and beyond well deserving the critique) and poetry (again, modernism the culprit).  The French rébarbatif (repellent or disagreeable) was from the Middle French rebarber (to oppose), the construct being re- (in the sense of “again”) + barbe (beard) from the Latin barba (the distant relative of the English “beard” & “barber”) and etymologists say the literal meaning was “to stand beard to beard against”, leading etymologists to conclude the origin of the modern sense lay in the “itchy, irritating quality of a beard”, extended to anything or anyone “irritating or annoying”.  As recently as the 1930s it was also used in the literal sense of the tactile sensation engendered a surface “coarse or roughly finished”, applied to the fabric called “drugget”, from the French droguet, from drogue (cheap), of uncertain origin.  Dating from the sixteenth century, drugget was an inexpensive and coarse woolen cloth, used mainly for clothing.

Mutually rebarbative: Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021, left) & crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013, right), second presidential debate, 9 October 2016, Washington University, St Louis, Missouri.  Given recent events, crooked Hillary can now start calling him “crooked Donald”.

Since the 1890s rebarbative has applied now to anyone really annoying, repellent or generally disagreeable, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) listing the earliest known instance of the adjective rebarbatively as dating from 1934.  The state of disagreeability being obviously as spectrum, the comparative is “more rebarbative” and the superlative “most rebarbative”.  It’s not as if English lacks words with which to describe someone as “annoying or objectionable” but the charm of rebarbative is its rarity.  The meaning will however be obscure to many so if an immediate impact is important, the more commonly used synonyms include irritating, annoying, frustrating, disturbing, abrasive, exasperating, irksome, maddening, painful, bothersome, pesky, galling, peeving, carking, riling, rankling, chafing, troublesome, infuriating, disquieting, mischievous, burdensome, displeasing, discomforting, biting, troubling, offensive, importunate, distressing, stressful, upsetting, thorny, enraging, angering, worrisome, trying, jarring, grating & jangling; less heard forms include pestilential, pestiferous, vexatious, vexing, nettlesome, nettling, pestilent, plaguey, plaguy, pesty, distractive, brattish, bratty, spiny & importune.  Bridget Jones in Helen Fielding's (b 1958) Bridget Jones's Diary (1996) liked "vile" which is a wonderful word and one which for some reason is a genuine pleasure to say, the meaning emphasized by lengthening the sound.  Vile was from the Middle English vile, vyle & vyl, from the Anglo-Norman ville, from the Old French vil & vile, from Latin vīlis (cheap, inexpensive; base, vile, mean, worthless, cheap, paltry), from the Proto-Italic weslis, from the primitive Indo-European weslis, a deverbal adjective with passive meaning (which can be bought), from the root of venus (sale).  In Latin the comparative was vīlior and the superlative vīlissimus.

Ever the trendsetter, during one of her appearances in court (Los Angeles, July 2010), Lindsay Lohan illustrated a novel means by which rebarbativeness could be expressed: fingernail art.  However, after paparazzi photographs were published, Ms Lohan tweeted the message was not directed at the judge but was done “as a joke”, adding “It had nothing to do w/court… it’s an airbrush design from a stencil.”  Now we know, but it’s still a good technique.

For those who wish to convey a sense of resigned weariness the best choice is probably "tiresome" but a synonym of rebarbative which does sometimes annoy (though not aggravate) the pedants is "aggravate" which in Modern English has three senses: (1) To make worse or more severe; intensify (as anything evil, disorderly, or troublesome), (2) To annoy; to irritate; to exasperate and (3) In law (as aggravated), a class of criminal offence made more serious by certain circumstances which prevailed during its commission (violence, use of a weapon, committed during hours of darkness etc).  Dating from the 1420s, aggravate was from the late Middle English aggravate (make heavy, burden down), from the Latin aggravātus, past participle of aggravāre (to render more troublesome (literally to make heavy or heavier, add to the weight of)), the construct being ad- (to) + gravare (add to; to make heavy), from gravis (heavy), from the primitive Indo-European root gwere- (heavy).  The earlier English verb was the late fourteenth century aggrege (make heavier or more burdensome; make more oppressive; increase, intensify, from the Old French agreger.  Aggravate is a verb, aggravated & aggravative are adjectives, aggravator is a noun and aggravating a verb.

The literal sense in English (make heavier) has been long obsolete, the modern meanings (1) "to make a bad thing worse" dates from the 1590s while (2) the colloquial sense (to exasperate or annoy) is from 1611.  So, although it has for centuries disturbed the usage mavens, the meaning "to annoy or exasperate” has been in continuous use since the sixteenth century.  There are sources which note the later meaning emerged within twenty years of the first but it’s a highly technical point of definition and the original meaning, “to make worse” did have roots in Classical Latin.  Henry Fowler (1858-1933) in his authoritative A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926) was emphatic in saying aggravate has properly only one meaning: “to make (an evil) worse or more serious” and that to “use it in the sense of annoy or exasperate is a vulgarism that should be left to the uneducated.”  Henry Fowler was always a model of clarity.  He was also a realist and acknowledged “usage has beaten the grammarians” and that condemnation of the vulgarism had “become a fetish.  The meaning “to annoy” is now so ubiquitous that it should be thought correct; that’s how the democratic, unregulated English language works.  However, for the fastidious, it may be treated in the same way as the split infinitive, something tolerated in casual but not formal discourse and certainly never in writing.

Mean

Mean (pronounced meen)

(1) To have or convey a particular idea; connote, denote, import, intend, signify.

(2) To have in mind as a goal or purpose; aim, contemplate, design, intend, plan, project, propose, purpose, target.

(3) Characterized by intense ill will or spite; black, despiteful, evil, hateful, malevolent, malicious, malign, malignant, nasty, poisonous, spiteful, venomous, vicious, wicked, bitchy.

(4) Having or proceeding from low moral standards; base, ignoble, low, low-down, sordid, squalid, vile.

(5) Ungenerously or pettily reluctant to spend money; cheap, close, close-fisted, costive, hard-fisted, miserly, niggard, niggardly, parsimonious, penny-pinching, penurious, petty, pinching, stingy, tight, tight-fisted.

(6) Of low or lower quality; common, inferior, low-grade, low-quality, mediocre, second-class, second-rate, shabby, substandard.

(7) Of little distinction; humble, lowly, simple.

(8) Lacking high station or birth, baseborn, common, declassed, humble, ignoble, lowly, plebeian, unwashed, vulgar; base.

(9) Affected or tending to be affected with minor health problems; ailing indisposed, low, off-color, rocky, sickly; under the weather (now rare).

(10) So objectionable as to deserve condemnation; abhorrent, abominable, antipathetic, contemptible, despicable, detestable, disgusting, filthy, foul, infamous, loathsome, lousy, low, nasty, nefarious, obnoxious, odious, repugnant, rotten, shabby, vile, wretched.

(11) Having or showing a bad temper, cantankerous, crabbed, cranky, cross, disagreeable, fretful, grouchy, grumpy, ill-tempered, irascible, irritable, nasty, peevish, petulant, querulous, snappish, snappy, surly, testy, ugly, waspish.

(12) In mathematics, something, as a type, number, quantity, or degree that represents a midpoint between extremes on a scale of valuation; average, median, medium, norm, par.

(13) In the plural (as means), that by which something is accomplished or some end achieved.

(14) In the plural (as means) all things, such as money, property or goods having economic value.

(15) In statistics, the expected value (the mathematical expectation).

(16) In music, the middle part of three-part polyphonic music; now specifically, the alto part in polyphonic music (or an alto instrument); now only of historic or academic interest.

As a verb:

Pre 900: From the Middle English mēnen (to intend; remember; lament; comfort), from the Old English mǣnan (to mean, signify; lament; intend to do something) from the Proto-West Germanic menjojanan & mainijan, from the Proto-Germanic mainijaną (to mean, think; lament), from the primitive Indo-European meyn- (to think), or alternatively perhaps from the primitive Indo-European meino- (opinion, intent) & meyno-, an extended form of the primitive Indo-European mey- (source also of Old Church Slavonic meniti (to think, have an opinion), the Old Irish mian (wish, desire) & the Welsh mwyn (enjoyment)).  It was related to the Old Saxon mēnian (to intend) and cognate with the West Frisian miene (to deem, think) the Old Frisian mēna (to signify), the Dutch menen (to believe, think, mean), the Middle Dutch menen (to think, intend), the German meinen (to think, mean, believe) and the Old Saxon mēnian.  The Indo-European cognates included the Old Irish mían (wish, desire) and the Polish mienić (to signify, believe).  It was related to the modern moan.  The present participle was meaning and the simple past and past participle was meant although the now obsolete meaned was once a standard spelling.

The transitive (to convey (a given sense); to signify, or indicate (an object or idea) or, of a word, symbol etc (to have reference to, to signify), was documented as early as the eighth century.  The transitive, usually in passive (to intend (something) for a given purpose or fate; to predestine was from the sixteenth century. The transitive (to have conviction in (something said or expressed) or to be sincere in (what one says) is from the eighteenth century.  The transitive (to cause or produce (a given result) or to bring about (a given result) is from the nineteenth century.  The synonyms included convey, signify & indicate.  The annoying (and frequently redundant) conversational question “You know what I mean?” is not recent, attested since 1834.

As an adjective:

Pre 900: From the Middle English mēne (shared by all, common, general), a variant of imene & imeane (held or shared in common), from the Old English mǣne & gemǣne (common, public, general, universal, mutual), from the Proto-West Germanic gamainī, from the Proto-Germanic gamainiz (common; possessed jointly) and related to the Proto-West Germanic & the Old High German gimeini (common, mean, nasty) and the Latin commūnis (common (originally with no pejorative sense (as in shared, general))) from the Old Latin comoinem and cognate with the Danish gemen, the West Frisian mien (general, universal), the Gothic gamains, (common, unclean), the Dutch gemeen (common, mean), the German gemein (common), the Gothic gamains (in common) and the primitive Indo-European mey- (to change, exchange, share).  The comparative was meaner and the superlative, meanest

The sense of “common or general” is long obsolete.  What endured was “common or low origin, grade, or quality; low in quality or degree; inferior; poor; shabby; without dignity of mind; destitute of honor; low-minded; spiritless; base; of little value or worth; worthy of little or no regard; contemptible; despicable.  The sense of parsimonious, ungenerous or stingy is known throughout the English-speaking world but tends to be less prevalent in the US because of the dominance of the other meaning.  The meaning “cruel or malicious has survived but is now less common.  The colloquial form meaning “accomplished with great skill; deft; well-executed is used also in the negative with the same effect: (1) She rolls a mean joint and (2) she’s no mean roller of a joint.  However, to say (3) she’s mean with the weed in her joints has the opposite meaning so in that context anyway, the meaning of mean needs carefully to be deconstructed.  This inverted sense of mean as "remarkably good" appears not to have existed prior to circa 1900.  The derived forms from the adjectival sense include (and some are less common than others) bemean, meandom, meanie, meanness, mean streak & meany.

The pejorative sense of "without dignity of mind, destitute of honor, low-minded" dates from the 1660s; the specific sense of "stingy, niggardly" noted since 1755 whereas the weaker sense of "disobliging, pettily offensive" didn’t emerge until 1839, originally as American English slang.  This evolution in meaning was influenced by the coincidence in form with mean in the sense of "middle, middling," which also was used in disparaging senses.

As a noun:

1300–1350: From the Middle English meene, mene & meine, from the Middle French meen & mean, a variant of meien, from the Old French moien & meien (from which French gained moyen), from the Latin mediānus (middle, in the middle; median (in context)) from the Latin medius (middle).It was cognate with mid, and in the musical sense, the cognate was the Italian mezzano.  A doublet of median and mizzen.

A specific meaning of mean (in the sense of middle) was “middling; intermediate; moderately good, tolerable” which is long obsolete.  The sense of “a method or course of action used to achieve some result”, now used almost exclusively in the plural, is from the fourteenth century.  The sense of something which is intermediate or in the middle; an intermediate value or range of values (a medium) is from the fourteenth century although the use of mean (in the singular) meaning “an intermediate step or intermediate steps” is obsolete.  Originally from the fifteenth century, the use in music is now of historical or academic interest.  It referred to the middle part of three-part polyphonic music; now specifically, the alto part in polyphonic music (or an alto instrument).  In statistics, since the fifteenth century, mean is simply understood as the average of a set of values, calculated by summing them together and dividing by the number of terms (the arithmetic mean).  In mathematics a mean can be (1) any function of multiple variables that satisfies certain properties and yields a number representative of its arguments, (2) the number so yielded (a measure of central tendency) or (3) either of the two numbers in the middle of a conventionally presented proportion.

In mathematics and statistics, the mean is what is informally called “the average”, the sum of a set of values divided by the number (count) of those values.  The median is the middle number in a set of values when those values are arranged from smallest to largest, while the mode of a set of values is the most frequently repeated value in the set.

Mean is one of those words which pepper English; one word, one spelling, one pronunciation, yet a dozen or more meanings.  Mean however doesn’t come close to the top ten words in English with the most meanings, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) list is below but the editors caution by the time the next edition of the OED is released in 2037, for some there could be more meanings still; the influencing of computing has apparently already added several dozen to “run”.

Run: 645 definitions

Set: 430 definitions

Go: 368 definitions

Take: 343 definitions

Stand: 334 definitions

Get: 289 definitions

Turn: 288 definitions

Put: 268 definitions

Fall: 264 definitions

Strike: 250 definitions

Kimberley Kitching (1970–2022) was an Australian Labor Party (ALP) Senator for Victoria (2016-2022) who died from a heart attack in March 2022 at the age of 52.  Her death gained instant attention because in the days prior, two prominent sportsmen had also suffered heart attacks at the same age (one of them fatal) and there was the inevitable speculation about the possible involvement of the mysterious long-COVID or vaccinations.  No connection with either has yet been established.  One connection quickly made was with a triumvirate of female politicians, the ALP’s senate leadership group who were quickly dubbed “the mean girls”, a reference to 2004 Lindsay Lohan movie in which the eponymous girls were the “plastics” three self-obsessed school students whose lives were consumed by material superficialities and plotting & scheming against others.  

The mean girls (2022), left to right: Penny Wong (b 1968; cabinet minister in the Rudd / Gillard /Rudd governments 2007-2013, senator for South Australia since 2002), Katy Gallagher (b 1970; chief minister of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) 2011-2014, senator for the ACT 2015-2018 & since 2019) & Kristina Keneally (b 1968; premier of New South Wales 2009-2011, senator for New South Wales since February 2018).

The mean girls (2004), left to right: Karen Smith (Amanda Seyfried (b 1985)), Regina George (Rachel McAdams (b 1978) & Gretchen Wieners (Lacey Chabert (b 1982)).

Allegations the mean girls had bullied the late senator emerged just hours after her death and on social media there was little reluctance to link the events.  In a carefully-worded statement, Senators Gallagher, Keneally & Wong responded to what they described as “hurtful statements” denying they had bullied Senator Kitching and that other assertions were “similarly inaccurate” although they did concede “robust contests and interactions” were frequent in politics.  Senator Wong did admit to having made one unfortunate comment to Senator Kitching two years earlier and that, after it came to public attention, she had apologized.  Her office later expanded on this, issuing a statement saying “Senator Wong understood that apology was accepted.  The comments that have been reported do not reflect Senator Wong's views, as those who know her would understand, and she deeply regrets pain these reports have caused.”  Rather than discuss the suggestions of bullying, most (ie the usual suspects) focused on the use of a “gender-tainted lexicon”, sexist language clearly thought the greater sin.  Interestingly, the trio had previously been known as “the angels”, a reference to the 1970s television show Charlie's Angels which featured three admirably decorative young ladies being sent by their male controller to solve crimes; the implication of course being the “mean girls” tolerated as long as they did the bidding of the leader of the opposition.  “Misogyny, sexism, every day in every way...” as Julia Gillard (b 1961; Australian prime minister 2010-2013) might have again remarked but at least the pop-culture reference was updated for later generations and it could have been worse: they might have been labelled "the good, the bad and the ugly".

In the thoughtful eulogy delivered at her funeral, Senator Kitching’s husband, Andrew Landeryou (b 1969; colorful ALP identity), referred on several occasions to the “unpleasantness” she had faced in the Senate, praising the moral courage his wife had displayed during her six years in the senate and her genuinely substantive contribution to public life, contrasting her with the “useful idiots, obedient nudniks and bland time-servers” so often seen sitting for decades on parliamentary benches.  “The simple truth of it is that Kimberley’s political and moral judgment was vastly superior to the small number who opposed her internally” he said, adding that “… of course, there’s a lot I could say about the unpleasantness of a cantankerous cabal - not all of them in parliament - that was aimed at Kimba, and the intensity of it did baffle and hurt her.”  Perhaps generously, he added he “…did not blame any one person or any one meeting for her death”, thought to be a reference to a recent meeting of the ALP’s Right faction at which her pre-selection for an electable Senate spot at the next election was reportedly threatened. 

Senators Gallagher, Keneally & Wong all attended the funeral as did the leader of the ALP and opposition leader Anthony Albanese (b 1963; leader of the opposition since 2019 and variously a minister or deputy prime-minister in the Rudd / Gillard / Rudd governments 2007-2013).  Mr Albanese rejected calls for an inquiry into claims of bullying, saying he had received “no complaints at any time” from Senator Kitching regarding bullies within the party and sought to shut down any further questions on the matter, saying they were disrespectful to Senator Kitching.  In saying that he certainly caught the spirit of the moment, none of the mainstream media making anything but the most oblique of references to the late senator’s colorful and sometimes controversial history as an ALP factional player and trade union operative but quite how long lasts the convention of not speaking ill of the dead will soon be revealed.

Mr Albanese wanting to kill the story is understandable and if he’s sure he has plausible deniability of prior knowledge it’s a reasonable tactic but it’s at least possible the best thing to do might have been to admit (1) all political parties have factions, (2) inter-faction bullying is the way business is done, (3) intra-faction bullying is endemic, (4) women and men are both victims and perpetrators but women tend to suffer more, (5) ‘twas ever thus and (6) it shall forever be thus.

Mr Albanese had used the “I know nothing” defense before and that too attracted a popular-culture comparison.  In 2013, ALP politician Craig Thomson (b 1964; former trade union official, member of parliament for the division of Dobell (NSW) 2007-2013, for the Australian Labor Party (ALP) until 2012, as an independent thereafter) was facing accusations of fraud, committed while a trade union official including the use of a union-issued credit card to pay for the services of prostitutes.  His legal problems have since worsened including further charges of fraud and domestic violence.

In 2013, in the midst of the scandal, Mr Albanese, then deputy prime-minister, and Mr Thomson were photographed having a couple of beers at Sydney’s Bavarian Bier Café.  It attracted some attention, even from within the party, one ALP luminary thinking it strange an ALP deputy prime minister should meet for a drink with someone accused of fraud and who the party had expelled from membership, labeling the meeting as “completely indefensible."  It was of interest too to the Liberal Party opposition which floated the idea that what was discussed over a few beers was a deal in case the ALP needed Mr Thomson's vote in another hung parliament, one spokesman framing things as "Fake Kevin Rudd (Kevin Rudd. b 1957; prime minister of Australia 2007-2010 & 2013) says, on the one hand, we're cleaning things up and, on the other hand, he is doing secret deals to try and run a minority government now and into the future."

Like Mr Albanese, Mr Rudd claimed to know nothing about his deputy’s meeting with Mr Thomson or its purpose.  Asked to comment, Mr Rudd said it was not his business who his deputy decided to drink with, saying he did “many things in life but supervising the drinking activities of my ministerial colleagues is not one of them."  "And who they choose to sit down with" he added.  Later, detailed questions were sent to Mr Rudd’s office which declined to comment about whether Mr Rudd knew beforehand of the meeting or if he had asked what had been discussed.  A spokesman said Mr Rudd had “nothing further to add.”  Mr Thomson insisted it was an innocent drink after the two former party colleagues ran into each other and there was no discussion of any political deals or of Mr Thomson returning to the ALP. "I'm not wooable" Mr Thomson was quoted as saying adding, “It was a completely innocent beer.  There is no conspiracy theory here.”

Mr Albanese said Mr Thomson was not a close friend of his but added that he often ran into colleagues at bars and that it was just “…a personal chat, that's all. No big deal."  That didn’t impress the Liberal Party’s then leader in the Senate, Senator Eric Abetz (b 1958; senator for Tasmania since 1994, minister in various Coalition governments 2001-2015) who questioned how the pair could drink together given Mr Thomson's legal team was suing the LP, claiming the NSW ALP state secretary Sam Dastyari (b 1983; senator for NSW 2013-2018 before resigning in the midst of a Chinese-related donations scandal) had pledged to pay his legal costs.  "What is the deputy prime minister doing consorting in a Sydney bar with disgraced MP Craig Thomson at the Mr Thomson's lawyer is suing the NSW ALP?” Senator Abetz asked, presumably rhetorically.

Sydney Daily Telegraph, front page, Thursday 8 August 2013.

The Sydney tabloid The Daily Telegraph took the “I know nothing” excuses of Albanese and Rudd to their front page, the trope being the Hogan’s Heroes TV show produced by US network CBS between 1965-1971, one of the signature lines from which was “I know nothing” by Kommandant Colonel Clink’s slow-witted but affable Sergeant of the Guard, Hans Schultz.  Technically it worked but tropes and memes do rely on the material used registering in the public consciousness and that can be difficult when using a forty year old TV show no longer in widespread syndication.  For the Telegraph’s readers, mostly of an older demographic, it probably did register but some research might have been necessary for younger people, many of whom receive news only through social media feeds. 

For the same reason Donald Trump was disappointed his jibe about Pete Buttigieg (b 1982; contender for Democratic Party nomination for 2020 US presidential election, US secretary of transportation since 2021) and the absurdity of imagining Americans would vote for “Alfred E Neuman”, didn’t resonate.  It was just too long ago and too few knew about Mad magazine.  While there was quite a resemblance, and decades before it would have been a good line, in 2020 Buttigieg could dismiss it a “...must be a generational thing”.  By contrast, the mean girls line worked as well as it did because the film it references is both much more recent and, having hardly dated, retains an ongoing appeal.

Phial

Phial (pronounced fahy-uh)

A small container or bottle, used to store liquids.

1350–1400: From the Middle English viole (vessel used for holding liquids), (a variant of fiole which existed also as phiole & fiole), from the Old French fiole, via the Old Provençal fiola, from the Medieval Latin phiola, from the Latin phiala (a broad, flat, shallow cup or bowl), from the Ancient Greek φιάλη (phiálē) (flat vessel, dish, flat bowl for drinking or sacrificing) of unknown origin.  The evolution was influenced also by the twelfth century Old French fiole (flask, phial) which at least in parts accounts for the of proliferation of spelling in Middle English (fiole,phiole,phial,fial,viole,vial,viele and the modern vial).  Phial is a noun & verb; the noun plural is phials.

Lindsay Lohan pouring from modern civilization's most ubiquitous phial (or vial), PepsiCo Pilk promotion, December 2022.  

The aluminium can used to contribute much to litter, both as thoughtlessly they were discarded when empty and because the sealing tabs were detachable, beaches & parks in the 1970s notorious for being strewn with the things.  The problems substantially were solved by (1) making a fee payable when the cans were handed in to a recycling centre and (2) changing the tab's design so the whole mechanism remains attached.  Aluminium does consume large amounts of electricity during the production process but if "green energy" can be used it's one of the less environmentally destructive metals and, (1) being light it reduces the fuel load required during transportation & storage and (2) being non-ferrous it doesn't rust.  It is one of the best and most economical efficient metals to recycle.

Phial is a doublet of vial.  In technical use (in science), some institutions have drawn distinctions between the two (1) phials being larger than vials and (2) vials are for liquids related to medicine and phials for other fluids but in general use they remain interchangeable (although consistency within documents is obviously recommended).  In the US, early in the twentieth century, phial became close to extinct after hundreds of years of being nearly as common as vial while elsewhere in the English-speaking world, vial emerged as the preferred form during the post-war years and phial seems now a romantic form restricted to fiction, historical and spiritual writing.  Vial must never be confused with its homophone vile.  A vial is a noun describing a vessel in which liquids are kept; vile is an adjective, applied most often to morally dubious characters like crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013).  "Vial Hillary" works about as well as "crooked Hillary". 

The Seven Phials

The seven phials (translated also as cups or bowls) are a set of plagues in the New Testament (Revelation 16), apocalyptic events seen in the vision of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, by John of Patmos.  Seven angels are given seven phials, each a judgement of the wrath of God, to be poured upon the wicked and the followers of the Antichrist after the sounding of seven trumpets.  In the twenty-first century, end-of-times theorists, religious fundamentalists and the habitually superstitious have taken an increased interest in the seven phials because the text in Revelation can be variously interpreted including as a foretelling of AIDS, chronic pollution, species extinction, climate change, wild fires, floods and the rule of various autocrats.

Michelangelo (1475–1564), Last Judgment (circa 1540), Sistine Chapel, Vatican.

When the first phial is emptied, foul and painful sores are inflicted upon those bearing the mark of the beast and those who worship the image of the beast.   

When the second phial is emptied, the seas and the oceans become bitter and all life in the sea dies.

When the third phial is emptied, the rivers turn to blood; angels begin praising God's holy judgments.

When the fourth phial is emptied, the sun causes a major heatwave to scorch the planet with fire; the incorrigible and wicked refuse to repent while they blaspheme the name of God.

When the fifth phial is emptied, a thick darkness overwhelms the kingdom of the beast. The wicked continue to stubbornly defame the name of God while refusing to repent and glorify God.

When the sixth phial is emptied, the great river Euphrates dries up so that the kings of the east might cross to begin battle.  Three unclean spirits with the appearance of frogs come from the mouths of the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet.  These demonic spirits work satanic miracles to gather the nations of the world to battle against the forces of good during the Battle of Armageddon. Jesus says his coming will be like that of a thief in the night, urging his followers to stay alert.

When the seventh phial is emptied, a global earthquake causes the cities of the world to crumble collapse.  All mountains and islands are shaken from their foundations.  Giant hailstones rain down upon the planet and plagues are so severe the incorrigible’s hatred intensifies as they continue to curse God.

Contempt

Contempt (pronounced kuhn-tempt)

(1) The feeling with which a person regards anything (or anyone) considered mean, vile, or worthless; disdain; scorn.

(2) The state of being despised; dishonor; disgrace.

(3) An act showing such disrespect.

(4) In most legal systems, willful disobedience to or open disrespect for the rules or orders of a court contempt of court or legislative body; punishable by being cited for “contempt of court”.

(5) In chess engines (the software used in chess games), as an ellipsis of “contempt factor”, a setting that modifies how much an engine values a draw versus a win or loss, making it play more aggressively or defensively based on perceived opponent strength.  The idea is to encourage interesting games by making engines avoid draws against weaker foes or seek them against stronger ones.

1350–1400: From the Middle English contempnen, from the Anglo-French contemner, from the Old French contempt & contemps, from the Latin contemptus (despising, scorn), a noun derivative of contemnere, from contemnō (I scorn, despise).  It displaced the native Old English forsewennes.  The late fourteenth century meaning was “an open disregard or disobedience (of authority, the law etc)” while the general sense of “act of despising; scorn for what is mean, vile, or worthless” was in use by at least circa 1400.  In Latin, there was also the feminine contemptrix (she who despises).  In the technical sense, the codified offence of “contempt of court” (open disregard or disrespect for the rules, orders, or process of judicial authority) dates only from the early eighteenth century but the variants of the concept have been in use almost as long as there have been courts.

Unusually (in terms of construction), the phrase “beneath contempt” really means “extremely contemptible”.  In idiomatic use, “familiarity breeds contempt” suggests “a prolonged closeness or exposure or a profound knowledge of someone or something often leads to diminished respect or appreciation” and a particular form of that is associated with Frederick the Great (Frederick II, 1712–1786, King of Prussia 1740-1786) who observed: “The more I learn of the character of men, the more I appreciate the company of dogs”.  The term “contempt trap” comes from the burgeoning discipline of “relationship studies” (romantic, social or political) and describes situations in which individuals view others as worthless, leading to toxic communication, disconnection, and resentment.  It's a psychological trap where partners or groups focus on flaws, creating a downward spiral in which the “issues fuel themselves”; the best strategy is said to be “empathetic niceness” but, in the circumstances, this can be easier said than done.

The familiar “contempt of court” (plural contempts of court) is conceptually similar to the offences “Contempt of Parliament” & “Contempt of Congress” (ie the act of obstructing the work of a legislative body or one of its committees) and, at law, the noun contemnor describes a party who commits or is held in contempt of a court or legislative body.  The offence is one in which there’s held to have been open disrespect for or willful disobedience of the authority of a court of law or legislative body, typically punishable by such sanctions as a fine or incarceration.  The nature of these punishments varies widely and especially minor transgressions are involved, the penalty can vary from judge to judge; one might ignore the slight while another might send the offender to a cell for a few hours.  The noun & adjective contemptive is rare and used in linguistics to mean “of or pertaining to, or creating a word form denoting the negative attitude of the speaker”.  The negative adjectival form is uncontemptible and incontemptible does not exist although there may be a use for both among those who cherish fine nuances, the former used to mean “not able to be held in contempt”, the latter “incapable of being held in contempt”.  The alternative spellings cōtempt & cõtempt are obsolete.  Contempt, contemnor, contemptibleness, contemptuosity, contemptuousness & contemptibility are nouns, contemptive is a noun & adjective, contemptible & contemptuous are adjectives and contemptibly & contemptuously are adverbs; the noun plural is contempts.

Contempt of Congress

Early in January, 2026, counsel for Bill Clinton (b 1946; US president 1993-2001) and his wife crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) announced they were refusing to comply with a subpoena demanding congressional testimony in matters relating their relationships with disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein (1953–2019 who died in custody while awaiting trial on additional offences; it was determined to be suicide).  The former president and first lady were served the subpoena by the Republican-led House oversight committee which is reviewing the government’s handling of “the Epstein matter”.  As part of their combative statement, the couple also launched an attack on the Republican Party and Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025). 

Bill & crooked Hillary Clinton.

In response, committee chairman James Comer (b 1972, Republican-Kentucky) said he would move to hold the pair “in contempt of Congress”.  That was prompted by counsel’s letter which described the subpoenas as “invalid and legally unenforceable, untethered to a valid legislative purpose, unwarranted because they do not seek pertinent information, and an unprecedented infringement on the separation of powers”.  According to the Clintons (both trained lawyers), the committee’s demand they testify (under oath, thereby being compelled to tell the truth) “runs afoul of the clearly defined limitations on Congress’ investigative power propounded by the Supreme Court of the United States”, to which they added “it is clear the subpoenas themselves – and any subsequent attempt to enforce them – are nothing more than a ploy to attempt to embarrass political rivals, as President Trump has directed”.  As well as threatening the pair with being held in contempt of Congress, Mr Comey informed the press: “I think it’s important to note that this subpoena was voted on in a bipartisan manner by this committee.  This wasn’t something that I just issued as chairman of the committee.  No one’s accusing Bill Clinton of anything, any wrongdoing.  We just have questions, and that’s why the Democrats voted along with Republicans to subpoena Bill Clinton.”  Even some Democrats supported the subpoena, one on the oversight committee saying: “Cooperating with Congress is important and the committee should continue working with President Clinton’s team to obtain any information that might be relevant to our investigation.”

The Clintons didn’t much dwell on fine legal or constitutional points, preferring to attack the congressional Republicans for their obsequious acquiescence to the president (not so much the MAGA (Make America Great Again) agenda as to Mr Trump personally) including their support of hardline immigration enforcement, the recent killing of a US citizen in Minnesota by an ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agent and the president’s pardoning of January 6 “insurrectionists”.  “Bringing the Republicans’ cruel agenda to a standstill while you work harder to pass a contempt charge against us than you have done on your investigation this past year would be our contribution to fighting the madness”, the Clintons wrote.  So, the Clintons are running a political campaign in an attempt to solve their latest legal problem and this time they’re putting things in quasi-Churchillian phrases, asserting: “Every person has to decide when they have seen or had enough and are ready to fight for this country, its principles and its people, no matter the consequences.  For us, now is that time.”  Clearly crooked Hillary feels her finest hour is upon her but students of her past will variously be amused or appalled at the suggestion she’d do something as a matter of principle rather than base self-interest but she persists in claiming the consequences of refusing to comply with a valid congressional subpoena are “a politically driven process” designed “literally to result in our imprisonment.”

HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton by Jonathan Allen (b 1975) & Amie Parnes (b 1978).  As an acronym HRC can, inter alia, mean “Hillary Rodham Clinton”, “Hazard Risk Category” (science, medicine, engineering etc) or “High-Risk-of-Capture” (US DoD (Department of Defense, known also as Department of War)).  Pleasingly, CHRC can mean “Crooked Hillary Rodham Clinton” or “Criminal History Records Check”.

The “politically driven” argument has before been used by those seeing to avoid answering questions under oath, but despite that former Trump advisor Peter Navarro (b 1949) was in 2023 convicted of contempt of Congress for failing to provide documents and testify about the 2020 election and the Capitol riot.  He also (unsuccessfully) cited executive privilege but that too was rejected; he was jailed for four months.  So the claim a prosecution is a “political weaponization” of the justice system can’t stop a valid legal action like a citation of contempt and Steve Bannon (b 1953 and also a Trump-related figure) served four months in jail for defying a subpoena from the House January 6 committee.  The courts also seem to view such matters as black letter law; on appeal, Mr Navarro’s attempt to stay out of jail while he appealed his conviction was declined while a federal judge rejected a stay on Mr Bannon’s imprisonment and revoked bail.  According to a ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, witnesses who “willfully refuse” to comply with valid congressional subpoenas can be punished, regardless of the excuse.  As a general principle, it seems to be thought an offence of absolute liability.

In mid January, a Republican-led House panel recommended Bill & crooked Hillary Clinton be found in contempt of Congress; although the pair had offered “to co-operate” with the House Oversight Committee, that did not extend to answering questions under oath (ie, by implication, “telling the truth”).  The committee conducted separate votes on what technically were two cases, voting 34-8 to cite Bill Clinton for contempt while the vote on crooked Hillary Clinton was 28-15; As predicted, all 25 Republicans backed the recommendations to cite for contempt and the degree of support from the Democratic members is an indication of the public & press pressure now being applied as a result of suspicions there are rich and well-connected individuals whose involvement with Jeffrey Epstein is being “covered up”.  In the US, the lessons from the Watergate scandal have never been forgotten: it's the cover-up which matters most.

House Oversight Committee chairman James Comer's Facebook profile picture.

Should Congress elect to pursue the matter (as was done with Mr Navarro and Mr Bannon), the brief will then be passed to the DoJ (Department of Justice) for prosecution and the potential consequences include fines of up to US$100,000 and as long as a year in jail.  Obviously, neither is a compelling prospect but the problem for crooked Hillary is that should she comply and testify, she’ll be under oath and thus compelled to tell the truth.  That novel possibility would attract a big audience but her problem is she has no way of knowing in advance what questions will be asked and, being under oath, she’d have to either be truthful or “take the fifth” to avoid self-incrimination.  Paying a US$100,000 fine would seem a very cheap “get out of jail free” card and even some time behind bars may be a better long-term option.  While in the past crooked Hillary probably has used the phrase “no one is above the law” she’d never have imagined it applied to her but some in Congress suspect the Clintons will use "every trick in the book" (and they known them all) to avoid being questioned under oath, one Californian Democrat predicting: "If we launch criminal contempt proceedings, we will not hear from the Clintons.  That is a fact.  It'll be tied up in court".

Presumably, the strategy will be to "string things along" until the mid-term elections in November when the Republicans may lose control of the Congress.  Of course, as a last resort, there remains the “Pinochet option”.  After avoiding trial for crimes against humanity because of his allegedly frail mental and physical state, General Augusto Pinochet (1915-2006; dictator of Chile 1973-1990) boarded his aircraft in England from a wheelchair, looking something like a warmed-up corpse, only to make a miraculous in-flight recovery; the moment he set foot on the tarmac at Santiago, in rude good health, he strode off.  All crooked Hillary would need is a “medical episode”, one not serious enough to kill her but just enough to permit physicians to fill out the forms saying she’s not well enough to be questioned.  Depending on this and that, her condition would need to linger only until the threat of prosecution has been evaded.  One intriguing potential coda to legal action could be that Donald Trump might well grant the pair a pardon.  What's often unappreciated about Mr Trump is he doesn't waste time or effort running grudges against those who were merely opponents as opposed to those who actually tried to damage him or present an on-going threat.  Although he'd spent the 2016 campaign threatening crooked Hillary with jail and encouraging the MAGA faithful to chant "Lock her up!", interviewed after the election, when asked if he'd be taking legal action against the Clintons, he brushed off the the question with a dismissive: "No, they're good people" and moved on.  Should that happen, darkly, some might mutter about him having reasons why he'd not want the pair questioned about Jeffrey Epstein but, like disgraced former congressman George Santos (b 1988), crooked Hillary will not be one to look a gift horse in the mouth.    

The Brutum Fulmen

The practical significance of a court or other institution holding an individual “in contempt” relies on the body having a means of enforcing its order.  While that order can extend (variously) to a fine, a term of imprisonment or a burning at the stake, if no such means exist (or are, in the circumstances, not able to be used), then, at law, the order is a brutum fulmen (plural bruta fulmina) which historically, appeared also as fulmen brutum.  The term entered the language as a construct of the Latin brutum (stupid) + fulmen (lightning), picked up from the title of a pamphlet (the word then used of documents distributed publicly and discussing political and related matters) published in 1680 by Thomas Barlow (circa 1608-1691; Lord Bishop of Lincoln 1675-1969) who derived the phrase from the passage hinc bruta fulmina et vana (these senseless and ineffectual thunder-claps) in Naturalis Historia (Natural History) by the Roman author (and much else) Pliny the Elder (Gaius Plinius Secundus, 24-79).  Pliny literally was describing the natural phenomenon of lightning (which, having never been struck by one, he dismissed as “harmless thunderbolts”) but the term entered legal jargon meaning “a judgement without effect” and was for a while learned slang for “an empty threat” before fading from use in the late eighteenth century.

Bishop Barlow's original publication, 1680.

So, at law, brutum fulmen is used to refer to a judgment, decree, edict, order etc that while (on paper) is valid and nominally enforceable, is in practice ineffective either because it cannot be enforced or is directed at someone or something beyond the court’s effective power.  There’s a long history of such paperwork, Dr Joseph Goebbels (1897-1975; Nazi propaganda minister 1933-1945) with typical acerbity noting in his diary on 3 April 1945 the pointless bureaucratic output still flowing from the desk of Martin Bormann (1900–1945; secretary to the Führer 1943-1945; head of the Nazi Party Chancellery 1941-1945), even as the Reich was being diminished to an enclave: “Once more a mass of new decrees and instructions issue from Bormann.  Bormann has turned the Party Chancellery into a paper factory.  Every day he sends out a mountain of letters and files which the Gauleiters [the party’s district leaders], now involved in battle, no longer even have time to read.  In some cases too it is totally useless stuff of no practical value in our struggle.  Even in the Party we have no clear leadership in contact with the people.”  Goebbels may have been evil but his mind was well-trained and he was a realist, understanding the “great danger” in the “diminution of authority” likely to be suffered by the party.  Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) called the devoted Bormann “Dear Martin” but interestingly, one author has written works claiming that by late April even Bormann had become a realist and was complicit in having the Führer murdered by his valet (Heinz Linge (1913–1980)), thereby removing the one obstacle preventing the pair’s escape from the Führerbunker.  The author is a well-credentialed medical doctor and although his earlier theory about the Rudolf Hess (1894–1987; Nazi Deputy Führer 1933-1941, who spent 46-odd years in Allied custody) being a “doppelganger” has recently been disproved by DNA analysis, his recounting of how Hitler may have been murdered is well written and, in a sense, the ultimate “the butler did it” tale; it’s not necessary to be convinced to enjoy what may be a tall tale.

From the Vatican, there would have been many popes who would have understood Goebbels’ frustrations because there’s quite a list of Papal Bulls and decrees that proved to be “casting rhetoric to the winds of history”.  Pius V (1504–1572; pope 1566-1572) in 1570 issued Regnans in Excelsis (Reigning on High) which, as an order of excommunication against Elizabeth I (1533–1603; Queen of England & Ireland 1558-1603) was intended to depose the queen by releasing her subjects from obedience but, “having no divisions” in England, the Holy See could not there exercise temporal authority and Elizabeth merely “changed teams” becoming Supreme Governor of the Church of England.  Of course, she remained excommunicated from the Church of Rome but that’s hardly as serious as being burned at the stake.  Less dramatically, papal interdicts issued against secular rulers on matters less consequential routinely were ignored, kings, princes and dukes aware their thrones (and sometimes their necks) might be better preserved by pleasing their many subjects than the bachelor Bishop of Rome.

Papal Bull issued by Urban VIII (1568–1644; pope 1623-1644).  By the mid-fifteenth century, papal bulls had ceased to be used for general public communications and were restricted to the more formal or solemn matters.  The papal lead seals (the spellings bulla & bolla both used) were attached to the vellum document by cords made of hemp or silk, looped through slits.

As well as being appalled by the thought of heretical Anglicans, Pius V disapproved of bull-fighting, calling the tradition “alien from Christian piety and charity, “better suited to demons rather than men” and “public slaughter and butchery” fit for paganism but not Christendom and word nerds will be delighted to note Pius’s ban on bullfighting was technically a “papal bull”.  De Salute Gregis Dominici (On the Salvation of the Lord’s Flock) was issued on 1 November 1, 1567 as a formal proclamation with a bulla (the papal lead seal) attached (hence such edicts being known as the “Papal bulls”), the seal authenticating the document and, as an official decree, it was binding upon the Church and Christian princes.  Disgusted by the cruelty inflicted on one of God’s noble beasts, Pius called bullfighting “a sin” and condemned the events as “spectacles of the devil”, prohibiting Christians from attending or participating under pain of excommunication.  However, like many papal though bubbles down the ages which never quite make it to the status of doctrine, his ban was soon ignored and, after his death the, edict quietly was allowed to lapse.  Predictably, in Spain and Portugal, where bullfighting had deep cultural & political roots, the bulla was either ignored or resisted and Philip II (1527–1598; King of Spain 1556-1598), while as devout a Catholic as any man, was known as Felipe el Prudente (Philip the Prudent) for a reason and quietly he turned the royal blind eye, allowing bullfighting to continue.  Within the Holy See, the king's disobedience of an edict from the Vicar of Christ on Earth would have been disappointing but unsurprising and it was the world-weary Benedict XIV (1675–1758; pope 1740-1758) who best summed-up the church's chain of command: “The pope commands, his cardinals do not obey, and the people do what they wish.”  What is still not always recognized is that Rome’s authority on matters both spiritual and temporal did often depend on consent; in Medieval Europe there were a number of interdicts (such as that against the Republic of Venice in 1606) which indisputably were binding in canon law but had no force because the target solved the legal quandaries by ignoring them.

Secular courts too sometimes have issued orders that look authoritative but are void for want of jurisdiction.  The British Empire is a rich source of such bruta fulmina because, especially in the nineteenth century when expansion (as expressed by land being colored pink on maps) often exceeded control “on the ground”.  A practical exercise in (1) the establishment of trading & coaling stations and (2) theft of the resources of others, what the British Empire did to a greater extent than other European colonial powers was secure what were essentially coastal beachheads and tracks of communication (rivers, roads, railway lines) while leaving vast swathes of territories in the hands of native authorities, some of which were cooperative, some not.  While the Colonial Office understood this was how thing were done (the British Empire in particular something of a well-executed confidence trick because there were never the resources effectively to control all that was claimed on the map), colonial courts, for many reasons, felt compelled to issue orders to what were, in effect, sovereign foreign territories; even at the height of the British Raj, the means did not exist always to enforce judgements or rulings purporting to bind tribal authorities or princes in their palaces.  A post-colonial example is the operation of the “Supremacy Clause” in US jurisprudence.  As a simple constitutional fact, under the Supremacy Clause, a state court has no power to enjoin a federal officer acting in federal capacity; even if correct in every aspect of construction, any such injunction will be held to be a brutum fulmen because it cannot be enforced, the classic example being Tarble's Case, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 397 (1872), in which the USSC (Supreme Court) held state courts could not issue writs of habeas corpus to federal military officers; such writs legally void.  What the case settled was that the US Constitution was the supreme law of the land, “anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”  That an order may be perfectly valid under state law was irrelevant and this doctrine has of late been again discussed because of certain actions being taken by the federal government during the second Trump administration.

There is also the matter of orders those who enjoy legal immunity.  Historically, when the concept of “sovereign immunity” was effectively absolute (before “restrictive immunity” emerged in the wake of the modern “commercial exception”, courts would enter judgments against sovereign states; the judges were carrying out a type of “black letter law” but the value of such rulings was purely political or symbolic.  A subset of such things was the matter of declarations unsupported with any mechanism of enforcement and that was one of the several structural flaws which doomed the League of Nations (1920-1946), an institution something of a case study in characterised as a brutum fulmen, whatever it’s noble goals.  However, the judicial model established by the League of Nations (essentially one of “moral authority”) carried over into post-war institutions, the ICJ (International Court of Justice) having often issued advisory opinions states routinely have ignored.

A special case of brutum fulmen concerns domestic statutes struck down by courts but never repealed.  Known as “dead letter” laws, these, ghost-like, remain on the books even after invalidation.  This happens apparently for two reasons: (1) in the technical sense it matters not whether the words are removed from the books or (2) governments retain them because they retain a certain symbolic force as an expression of disapprobation for one thing or another, an example being Section 3 of the US DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) after the decision handed down by the USSC in US v Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013)).  New technology has also created a whole new field of potential bruta fulmina.  Although instances of material banned from publication in one place appearing in another have for centuries been documented, the advent of the internet and its inherently global availability has meant the injunctive and contempt orders which once were such a potent means of preventing or punishing proscribed publication now are of less use because so many potential subjects lie beyond a court’s reach.

Not exactly contemptible, just less desirable: The Alfa Romeo 2600

Brigitte Bardot (1934-2025) in Contempt (1963), perched on an Alfa Romeo 2600 (Tipo 106) Spider.  Note her fetching toe cleavage.

While Ms Bardot was a vision of haunting loveliness, the 2600 is less fondly remembered than its smaller stable-mates.  Whereas in its era Mercedes-Benz and most US-built cars tended to improve as the cylinder count and engine displacement increased, in the post-war years, the most admired and successful Alfa Romeos were the smaller, four-cylinder models renowned for their balance and agility (certainly in the company’s illustrious, pre-FWD (front wheel drive) era).  Tellingly, although imagined as a flagship, the 2600 was in production only between 1962-1968 and despite being offered with a range of coachwork (Berlina (sedan), Sprint (coupé) & Spider (roadster) as well as a typically quirky fastback coupé (the 2600 SZ (Sprint Zagato)) by Zagato), it was not a success; sales were never close to expectations, the high price and nose-heavy, “un-Alfalike” driving characteristics usually cited as reasons for the muted demand.  In its six-odd years of availability, unusually, it was not the sedan which was most successful but, with almost 7,000 sold, the Sprint and even the 2,255 Spiders out-sold the 2,092 Berlinas; the 105 Sprint Zagatos an expensive footnote.

1964 Alfa Romeo 2600 Spider.

Whatever the 2600’s flaws, the engine was a gem.  An all-new, all aluminum 2.6 litre (158 cubic inch) DOHC (double overhead camshaft) straight six, it was very much in the company’s pre-war tradition but, in a way, the image of Alfa-Romeo had been captured by the wildly successful 1900 range (1950-1959) which featured relatively small-displacement, four-cylinder engines.  So seductive did Italians and others find the 1900 that it quickly came to be thought of as the definitive “Alfa Romeo”.  However, the platform which as the 1900 (and subsequent 2000) had been a model of well-balanced agility, didn’t adapt so well to the longer straight six and it was the subsequent 105/115 range (Gulia, 1962-1968) which was the 1900’s true successor, the incomparable 105 coupé among the company’s finest achievements.  The 2600 proved to be the last of Alfa Romeo’s classic DOHC straight-sixes.

The Kaiser and the Old Contemptibles

His Imperial Majesty, Kaiser Wilhelm II (1859–1941; Emperor of Germany & King of Prussia 1888-1918). in one of his many uniforms.  On one of Wilhelm's visits to England, his grandmother (Victoria (1819–1901; Queen of the UK 1837-1901) was much amused to learn his entourage included one servant whose sole duty was the “waxing and curling of the imperial moustache”.

Whether inside courtrooms or beyond, the word “contempt” and its derivatives is not rare but one of the most celebrated instances of use may have been based on a lie.  In August 1914, just after the outbreak of World War I (1914-1918), the British government began to circulate propaganda claiming Wilhelm II had issued an order to his army to “exterminate the treacherous English and walk over General French's contemptible little army”.  The people of the UK were well-acquainted with the character of the Kaiser and it certainly must had sounded “like something he would have said”, hence the success as piece of propaganda.  Later, the survivors of the British Army’s BEF (British Expeditionary Force), proud of their record in battle, happily dubbed themselves the “Old Contemptibles”.  Wilhelm denied ever having made the statement and it has long been suspected the British “put words in his imperial mouth” because Oliver Cromwell (1599–1658; Lord Protector of the Commonwealth 1653-1658) had in 1657 used a similar turn of phrase in a speech to the Long Parliament (1640-1660).

One of the British government's propaganda posters, 1914.

No document has ever been found confirming the Kaiser used the phase the British propagandists spread with such glee and it’s thus almost certainly apocryphal but historians have concluded that, in discussions, he probably did dismiss the British as a military threat on the European mainland on the grounds their army was “so contemptibly small”.  In that, he has a point in that compared to the land forces in the standing and reserve armies of France, Germany, Austria and Russia, the British Army genuinely was small; as a maritime empire with its military strength based on the Royal Navy being the world’s most powerful, the British Army was designed for remote colonial engagements rather than big, set-piece invasions of European countries.  So, from the Kaiser’s point of view it was a reasonable observation; since the time of Otto von Bismarck (1815-1989; chancellor of the German Empire (the "Second Reich" 1871-1890), the dark joke told in continental chancelleries was that while most countries “had an army”, Prussia was unusual in that its army “has a country”.  All he really got wrong was the British did have some contemptibly poor generals, one of who was the Field Marshal Sir John French (1852–1925) mentioned in his alleged statement.  Not for nothing are the “Old Contemptibles” remembered as “lions led by donkeys” but in the way the British ruling class does things, after being asked to resign, Sir John was elevated to the peerage and died laden with titles and imperial honours.

Lindsay Lohan, contempt, and the matter of intent

Lindsay Lohan's adorned fingernail in court, 2010.

Fingernails don’t often hit the headlines but in 2010 one did during one of the Lindsay Lohan's appearances in court during her “trouble starlet” phase: close-up photographs of the relevant (and very colourful) nail (on the middle finger) revealed the text “fuck U”.  In the US of the twenty-first century a fingernail so decorated would be usually unexceptional and uncontroversial but on the digit of a defendant sitting in court to receive a sentence, it was at least taking a risk and defence counsel, had they noticed the artwork, doubtlessly would have insisted on a strategically applied band-aid.  The risk posed by what may have been a misguided manicure was that were the judge to conclude the apparently unambiguous message was directed either at court or judge, Ms Lohan could have been cited for contempt of court on much the same the basis as had she mouthed the words.  Lawyers asked to comment on the matter confirmed that in such circumstances a defendant cannot rely on rights guaranteed by the First Amendment (a component of which is freedom of speech) to the Constitution but what was an intriguing legal question was the matter of intent.  All agreed the judge was sitting too far away to read the distant and tiny “fuck U” so it couldn’t be argued Ms Lohan intended it to be read thus but if the judge saw the paparazzi’s photos, would a “retrospective” citation of contempt be possible?  Given all that, it was at least a gray area but the matter was never pursued.  Ms Lohan clarified things with a tweet on X (then known as Twitter) denying the text was a message for the court or anyone else: “It had nothing to do w/court.  It’s an airbrush design from a stencil”.  According to Fox News (a famously reliable source), the nails were “part of a joke with friends”.

Before, during & after: Lindsay Lohan and her bandaged finger, 2016.

Not until 2016 would one of Lindsay Lohan’s fingers again attain such notoriety.  During an Aegean cruise in October that year, in dreadful nautical incident, the tip of one digit was severed by the boat's anchor chain but details of the circumstances are sketchy although there was speculation that upon hearing the captain give the command “weigh anchor”, she decided to help but, lacking any background in admiralty jargon, misunderstood the instruction.  Despite the grossness of the injury to what in the Western tradition is "the ring finger", she did later manage to find husband and stitched-up digit now sports a wedding ring so all's well that ends well.

Self contempt

The terms “self-hatred”, “self-loathing” and “self-contempt” are familiar in general discourse and pop psychology texts but none are formally distinguished as separate diagnostic constructs or appear in either the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Classification of Diseases (ICD).  However, the concepts encompassed do appear in theories and research papers as well as being part of clinical discourse and between the three terms are denoted different self-directed attitudes, largely along affective versus evaluative lines. 

Self-hatred is thought a core quality, an intense, hostile feeling directed at one’s self and the affective tone may be one of disgust, anger or revulsion.  Typically, this can appear as a form of self-hostility and may manifest as wishing to self-harm, a feeling of deserving of punishment and a general rage turned inwards.  Self-hatred is often discussed in connection with (1) major depressive disorders, (2) borderline personality pathology, (3) trauma and internalised abuse and (4) self-harm including suicidality.  Self-loathing can perhaps (if not wholly satisfactorily) be characterized as “self-hatred lite” in that it’s treated usually as a pervasive aversion to the self and associated with shame, disgust and revulsion.  There’s obviously some overlap (to the extent the terms probably can be used interchangeably without causing confusion for most) but as used by clinicians, self-loathing conveys the idea of something less aggressive and more avoidant, the emphasis on being repelled by one’s own traits, body, or identity rather than contemplating self harm; commonly it’s linked with shame-based self-schemas, eating disorders, body-image disturbance, depression and social anxiety.  The convenient distinction between the two is that while self-hatred summons the thought: “I should be punished”, self-loathing says “I am repulsive”.  The point about self-contempt is that often it can be transitory (sometimes styled as “transactional”) and related to a particular event or one’s reaction to that event.  In that sense, self-contempt can be seen as something is more cognitive and judgmental than emotional although, obviously, there too there can be overlap.

Within Judaism, a well-explored phenomenon.

There is a special case within internal Jewish discourse of a certain flavor where the term “self-hating Jew” overwhelmingly is more commonly used than the superficially similar “self-loathing Jew”.  “Self-hating Jew” became a standard phrase (and in doing so sacrificed some of its original meaning in favour of becoming a still-potent slur) in Jewish polemical writing and was once most associated with political debates (not always between intellectuals), especially if the matters involved anti-Zionism or internalised anti-Semitism.  The term gained popularity after Der jüdische Selbsthaß (Jewish Self-Hatred (1930)) by German Jewish philosopher Theodor Lessing (1872-1933) was translated into English and the choice of “self-hatred” rather than “self-loathing” “locked in” the English idiom.  What Lessing did was construct a subtle argument in which he attempted to explain the (apparently uniquely European) phenomenon of Jewish intellectuals who incited anti-Semitism against the Jewish people and who regarded Judaism as the source of evil in the world.  The translator’s preference was thought to be a considered choice which reflected a certain conceptual emphasis: Whereas “self-hatred” implies hostility, repudiation, and active rejection of Jewish identity or interests, “self-loathing” suggests inward disgust or shame, which is psychologically plausible but rhetorically weaker for polemical purposes.  In other words, the former is of the political, the latter the personal.  The term has become especially controversial because, within Judaism, it had become a convenient weapon to use against any Jew who criticizes some aspect of the conduct of the government of Israel.

The thoughts of Bill Buckley on the thoughts of John XXIII

By the time in 1961 conservative US writer (and leading lay Catholic) William F Buckley (1925–2008) responded to John XXIII’s (1881-1963; pope 1958-1963) encyclical Mater et magistra (Mother and Teacher), the days were gone when the Church could have heretics burned at the stake (perhaps a source or regret to at least one pope) so suggesting the document “…must strike many as a venture in triviality” didn’t trigger the sort of risk such a critique might in previous centuries have provoked.  Still, what was seen by theologians and the laity alike as a casual dismissal of a work of 25,000 words was thought quite a slight and even an expression of contempt; that Buckley’s objections were less theological than political was a distinction understood by the cardinals and archbishops but that didn’t make them less unhappy.  Buckley was writing during the High Cold War and in the immediate aftermath of comrade Fidel Castro’s (1926–2016; prime-minister or president of Cuba 1959-2008) communist guerrillas taking over Cuba and what most disturbed him was John XXIII’s focus on the inequities of modern capitalism and seeming disregard for the oppressive conduct of various communist regimes.  In that, Buckley was right because arguments in Mater et magistra were striking and the choice of words provocative, the pope noting the “immeasurably sorrowful spectacle of vast numbers of workers in many lands and entire continents who are paid wages which condemn them and their families to subhuman conditions.”  Rejected was the notion prices working people paid should be “left entirely to the laws of the market” rather than being “determined according to justice and equity.”  The encyclical recommended profit-sharing and other “radical” reforms pursued in the name of “socialization”.

John XXIII waving to the faithful, Loreto Ancona, Italy, October, 1962.

The car is a 1961 Mercedes-Benz 300d Landaulet, built by the department responsible for the Spezial coachwork and made on a separate assembly line.  The one delivered to the Vatican including not only the folding soft-top atop the rear passenger compartment but also an elevated roof which extended the “greenhouse” by 100 mm (4 inches).  The 300s of the era (W186: 300, 300b & 300c; 1951-1957 & W189: 300d 1957-1962) came to be referred to as "the Adenauer" because several were used as state cars by Konrad Adenauer (1876–1967; chancellor of the FRG (Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany; the old West Germany, 1949-1990) 1949-1963).  In the days of John XXIII, the Vatican's parade vehicles were not dubbed “Popemobiles” and did not feature armor-plating or bullet-proof glass.  For good reason, all that would come later.

It can now be difficult to understand how controversial once was the participation of Roman Catholics in the upper reaches of US political life; in the nineteenth century the warnings against voting for them was they would visit upon the country: “Rum, Romanism and Ruin!”  When the Catholic Al Smith (1873-1944; Governor of New York 1919-1920 & 1923-1928) in 1928 ran on the Democratic ticket in the presidential election, campaigns against him included the suggestion the pope was already packing his bags in preparation for a move to the White House.  After Smith (in a landslide) lost the election to the Republican’s Herbert Hoover (1874–1964; POTUS 1929-1933), the joke circulated that his first act was not the usual concession speech but wiring a telegram to Pius XI (1857–1939; pope 1922-1939) saying: “Unpack!”

Amusingly, the slur wouldn’t have survived the scrutiny of modern fact-checkers because between the unification of Italy in 1870 and the signing in 1929 of a concordat (the Lateran Treaty) with Benito Mussolini’s (1883-1945; Duce (leader) & prime-minister of Italy 1922-1943) fascist state, in protest at the the loss of the Papal States (756-1870), no pope set foot outside the Vatican.  The status of the popes in these years as prigionieri del Vaticano (prisoners of the Vatican) was unusual in that it was a kind of “self-imposed exile” in reverse, but at the time the Church insisted it was not a matter of choice (ie “self-restraint”) because it was held to be a “coercive curtailment” of freedom of movement, consequent upon the Italian state’s annexation of the Papal States and Rome itself.  At the time, the argument was that were a pope to set foot on the soil of the annexed territories, that might be held to imply recognition of the Italian state’s sovereignty.  The legal basis of that is at least dubious and the consensus is the self-imposed “imprisonment” was a piece of diplomatic and political symbolism.  Since then, no political figure has exactly replicated what the popes did and even old Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (1887-1975; leader of the Republic of China (mainland) 1928-1949 & the renegade province of Taiwan 1949-1975), while to his dying day denying he’d lost the sovereignty of the mainland to the CCP (Chinese Communist Party), did on occasion travel beyond his renegade province. 

Buckley: The Life and the Revolution That Changed America by Sam Tanenhaus (b 1955).  A highly recommended book.

It was an issue still in 1960 when the presidential contest was between Democrat John Kennedy (JFK, 1917–1963; US POTUS 1961-1963) and Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US VPOTUS 1953-1961 & POTUS 1969-1974).  In the campaign, two prominent evangelical Protestant preachers who would now be regarded as something like “celebrity TikTok churchmen” (Billy Graham (1918–2018) and Norman Vincent Peale (1898-1993) both cast aspersions about JFK and the nature of his allegiance to Rome to which the candidate responded by saying: “I believe in an America, where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president, should he be Catholic, how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote.”  The idea of “Rome pulling the president’s strings” may have brought a wry smile to the pope who well knew it was often difficult to get his own bishops to follow his instructions, let alone the president of the US.  Buckley took an well-sharpened intellectual axe to Peale but seemed to regard Graham as little more than a vulgarian with a peasant’s view of God.

As it transpired, KFK did, “by an electoral eyelash” win the presidency and his wife (Jacqueline Kennedy (1929-1994; US First Lady 1961-1963) admitted to being baffled by the objections, saying "I don't understand why people are opposed to Jack being elected as a Catholic because he's so poor a Catholic".  Buckley certainly agreed JFK "wasn't Catholic enough" (something like the later complaint from activist African Americans that Barack Obama (b 1961; US president 2009-2017) "wasn't black enough"), unlike his more devout brother, the intense, driven, Robert F Kennedy (RFK, 1925–1968; US attorney general 1961-1964) who Theodore Roosevelt’s (TR, 1858–1919; US president 1901-1909) daughter Alice Lee Roosevelt Longworth (1884–1980) compared to “a seventeenth century Jesuit priest”.  Buckley understood why his family and the Kennedys often were compared (essentially because both were “rich, Catholic and political”) but liked to stress the difference pointing out the “lace curtain, Irish cultural upbringing” of the Kennedys while his father had not set foot in Ireland until he was sixty and that was “to attend the Dublin Horse show”.  One of his friends observed the very American Buckley should really be understood as “a Spanish Catholic aristocrat”.

Crooked Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, New York City, October, 2016.

Fully to understand Buckley’s reaction to Mater et magistra, it needs to be remembered (1) it was issued only some three years after the death of Pius XII (1876-1958; pope 1939-1958) and there was at the time, outside of the Church, not a great appreciation of just what an “encyclical” was.  Indeed, in 1927, when asked to comment on Leo XIII’s (1810–1903; pope 1878-1903) 1885 encyclical Immortale Dei, De Civitatum Constitutione Christiana (God Immortal, On the Christian Constitution of States) which reaffirmed the Church’s view on ecclesiastical rights in the apparatus of the modern state, Al Smith had replied: “Will somebody please tell me, what in hell an encyclical is?”  Although he chose only once to vest his words with the authority of “papal infallibility” (indeed, was the last pope to do so), Pius XII (like his predecessor Pius XI) had run “an imperial pontificate” with encyclicals viewed not merely as authoritative but doctrinal; one priest, when asked if they were “binding” stated the orthodox position which held: “the possibility of error in these documents is so utterly remote that it is practically non-existent.”  It was in that milieu Buckley commissioned to a scholar of theology to undertake a historic study of the papal encyclical and the conclusion was they were really “pastoral letters, giving counsel,” not official statements of the magisterium, the Church’s infallible teaching.  That does of course make sense because the whole point in the nineteenth century in codifying papal infallibility was to make a clear distinction between undisputable, undebatable statements of dogma and all other thoughts and expressions.

Whether that at the time softened Buckley’s attitude towards Mater et magistra seems improbable because any document suggesting the state’s social and economic policies should be “pursued in the name of socialization” would have received his condemnation and that the translators chose to interpret the Italian socializzazione (understood as something like European social and industrial democracy rather than the Marxist sense of the collective ownership of the means of production & distribution) as “socialization” (deftly avoiding the politically and historically loaded socialism (socialismo)) is unlikely to have been much assuagement; Buckley would have thought the distinction just “too clever by half”.  So it was his critique of John’s 25,000 words came to be remembered for that one memorable fragment: “venture in triviality”.  In fairness, the passage was more expansive and said: “large sprawling document” would “be studied and argued over for years to come” and that it may one day come to be “considered central to the social teachings of the Catholic Church; or, like Pius IX’s [1792–1878; pope 1846-1878)] Syllabus of Errors [1864], it may become the source of embarrassed explanations. Whatever its final effect, it must strike many as a venture in triviality, coming at this particular time in history.”  Popes have been accused of worse but in 1961, to have an encyclical damned as  “venture in triviality” was about as bad as it got.

A depiction of crooked Hillary Clinton being burned at the stake (digitally altered image).

Although heretics, malcontents and other trouble-makers are no longer burned at the stake, in canon law, the Church does have a close equivalent of citing someone for contempt but it chose not to use it against Buckley although many Catholics did make their opposition to his views known; some cancelled their subscriptions to the magazine he edited (the conservative National Review), prompting him to point out the periodical was no more a Catholic publication than the Kennedy administration was a Catholic government “because the President is Catholic”.  One prominent Jesuit priest damned Buckley’s statement as “slanderous” and while in the internal logic of the Jesuits (perfect chastity, perfect poverty and perfect obedience to the pope) that would have been obvious, it must have baffled those more used to legal dictionaries and thesauruses.  In a way the Church establishment might have had the last laugh because, writing decades later, in his distinctly religious memoir Nearer, My God (1997), stridently Buckley defended papal decrees as statements revealing truth immune from challenge, words of “revelation and providentially guided reason” from the “one Voice for whose decisions the people wait with trust” (ie the pope).  Buckley made no mention of Mater et magistra or the controversy he had triggered and whether this constitutes an apologia readers can judge but whenever he is discussed, it’s rare for his words of 1961 not to be reprinted while those of 35 years later rarely are mentioned.  If he had his time again, while he’d still have been critical, he’d likely have phrased things differently.