Contumacious

Contumacious (pronounced kon-too-mey-shuhs or kon-tyoo-mey-shuhs)

(1) Stubbornly perverse or rebellious; contemptuous of or resistant to authority; wilfully and obstinately disobedient; rebellious.

(2) In law, wilfully disobedient to the summons or orders of a court.

1590–1600: From the early Modern English contumacious (insolent, resisting legitimate authority).  The construct was the Latin contumāci(a), (stem of contumāx (stubborn; obstinate, stiff-necked)) + (i) + -ous.  The –ous suffix was from the Middle English -ous, from the Old French –ous & -eux, from the Latin -ōsus (full, full of); a doublet of -ose in an unstressed position.  It was used to form adjectives from nouns, to denote possession or presence of a quality in any degree, commonly in abundance.  In chemistry, it has a specific technical application, used in the nomenclature to name chemical compounds in which a specified chemical element has a lower oxidation number than in the equivalent compound whose name ends in the suffix -ic.  For example sulphuric acid (H₂SO₄) has more oxygen atoms per molecule than sulphurous acid (H₂SO₃).  The noun contumacy (wilful and persistent resistance to legitimate authority) dates from the early thirteenth century, from the Old French contumace and directly from Latin contumācia in the sense of “perseverance in one's purpose or opinions; generally in a bad sense; arrogance, inflexibility, haughtiness, insolence (and use especially to describe “obstinate disobedience to a judicial order”.  Contumacious is an adjective, contumaciousness & contumacity are nouns and contumaciously is an adverb; the noun plural is contumacities.

Because there’s such an array of synonyms for contumacious including (depending on context) headstrong, obstinate, contrary, disaffected, factious, inflexible, insubordinate, intractable, intransigent, irreconcilable, mutinous, obdurate, perverse, pig-headed, rebellious, recalcitrant, refractory, stubborn & unyielding, the word is a rare sight but more scare still are the negative forms (noncontumacious, noncontumaciousness, noncontumaciously, uncontumacious, uncontumaciousness & uncontumaciously, the more familiar obedient, tractable & willing much preferred.

The word did though find a niche where it remains.  In legal proceedings, the act of contumacy refers to an individual’s refusal to appear in court when served with a summons or their refusal to comply with the terms of a court order.  The most frequently used sanction available to a judge is to find the individual in contempt of the court.  Historically, in most jurisdictions the offence of contempt was not codified there were no statutory schedules of penalties but over two hundred years ago, in United States v Hudson (11 U.S. 7 Cranch 32 32 (1812)), the US Supreme Court (USSC) held that courts have implied powers, including punishing individuals for contumacy, either by time in jail or the imposition of fines; the USSC did not address the matter of quantum and although left unsaid, the consensus has always been the test would be of “reasonableness”.  The notion of contumacy as an offence was not an invention of the US courts.  In England (where in recent years there has been some codification), it was an early creature of the common law courts and, because the Church of England was an established church, where an act of contumacy was alleged to have been committed against an ecclesiastical court, after 1814 this came to attract the issue of a writ from the Court of Chancery, pursuant to a certificate of request from a judge of an ecclesiastical court.  Prior to 1814, such matters were handled under the Writ de Excommunicato Capiendo Act (5 Eliz. 1. c. 23 (1562)), the literal translation of which was “taking one who is excommunicated”, a authority commanding a arrest whomever was excommunicated, holding them until they repented and agreed to become reconciled to the Church.  Thus incarcerated, the prisoner would be held until a bishop was sufficiently convinced of the sincerity of the sinner’s contrition to send to the court a certificate of request, at which point a judge of chancery would issue to the sheriff a writ de Excommunicato Deliberando (order for the delivery of an excommunicated person).

Farce

Farce (pronounced fahrs)

(1) To stuff; to cram (obsolete).

(2) To make fat; to swell out (obsolete).

(3) To render pompous (obsolete).

(4) In the Roman Catholic Church, an alternative form of farse (to insert vernacular paraphrases into a Latin liturgy).

(5) A light, humorous production (plays, television film etc) play in which the plot depends upon the exploitation of improbable (or even impossible) situations rather than upon the development of character.

(6) The genre of comedy represented by works of this kind

(7) Humor of the type displayed in such works.

(8) Something foolish; a mockery; a ridiculous sham, a ludicrous situation or action.

(9) In cooking, forcemeat (a mixture of finely chopped and seasoned foods, usually containing egg white, meat or fish, etc., used as a stuffing or served alone).

(10) To add witty material to a speech or composition.

1300–1350: From the Middle English noun fars (stuffing), from the Middle French farce, from the Vulgar Latin farsa, noun use of feminine of Latin farsus, from the earlier fartus (stuffed), past participle of the verb farcīre (to stuff) which Middle English picked up as farsen, from the Old French farsir & farcir, from Latin farciō (to cram, stuff).  It was a doublet of farse.  The origin of the Latin farcire (to stuff, cram) is of uncertain origin but some etymologists suggest it may be connected with the primitive Indo-European bhrekw- (to cram together).  Farce in the fourteenth century first meant the chopped-meat stuffing used in cooking and farced into dishes.  The idea of a scene or plotline of “ludicrous satire or low comedy” being interpolated into a play was first described as “a farcing and thus soon ‘a farce’”) in the 1520s, while the dramatic sense of a “ludicrous satire; low comedy” was from the French use of farce (comic interlude in a mystery play) was a sixteenth century development while in English, the generalized sense of “a ridiculous sham” came into use in the 1690s.  In literary use, the companion term is tragicofarcical (having elements of both tragedy and farce).  Farce is a noun & verb, farced & farcing are verbs and and farcical is an adjective; the noun plural is plural farces.  The adjective unfarced (also as un-farced) is used in cooking to distinguished a dish not farced from one farced; it is not used of plays or literature.

The now rare noun infarction first appeared in the medical literature in the 1680s as a noun of action from the Latin infarcire (to stuff into), the construct being in- )in the sense of “into” (from the primitive Indo-European root en- (in) + farcīre (to stuff).  In pathology it was widely used of various morbid local conditions but as technology and techniques improved and more specific descriptions evolved used declined and the early twentieth century it tended to be restricted to certain conditions caused by localized faults in the circulatory system.  The construct of the noun forcemeat (also as force-meat) was force (“to stuff (as a variant of farce)) + meat.  The term first appeared in cookbooks in the late 1670s (although the technique (as “farcing”) dated back centuries; it described “mincemeat, meat chopped fine & seasoned, then used as a stuffing”.

Karl Marx (left) who turned G.W.F. Hegel (right) "upside down on his head".

Nowhere did Karl Marx (1818-1883) ever write “history repeats itself” but the phrase “history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce” is often attributed to him and has long been an undergraduate favourite.  The origin of that was in the first chapter of his essay Der 18te Brumaire des Louis Napoleon (18th Brumaire of Louis Bonapatre (1852)) in which, writing of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) he wrote: “Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice.  He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.”  The “second time as farce” notion seems to have been something picked up from his benefactor & collaborator German philosopher Friedrich Engels (1820–1895) who a few months earlier, in one of his letters to Marx, had observed: “it really seems as though old Hegel, in the guise of the World Spirit, were directing history from the grave and, with the greatest conscientiousness, causing everything to be re-enacted twice over, once as grand tragedy and the second time as rotten farce, Caussidière for Danton, L. Blanc for Robespierre, Barthélemy for Saint-Just, Flocon for Carnot, and the moon-calf together with the first available dozen debt-encumbered lieutenants for the little corporal and his band of marshals. Thus the 18th Brumaire would already be upon us.”

In Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie (Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right (1843), Marx had made a similar point:  “A coup d’état is sanctioned as it were in the opinion of the people if it is repeated.  Thus, Napoleon was defeated twice and twice the Bourbons were driven out.  Through repetition, what at the beginning seemed to be merely accidental and possible, becomes real and established.”  Marx did take a few interpretative liberties with Hegel.  When in Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Weltgeschichte (Lectures on the Philosophy of History (a compilation of lectures delivered at University of Berlin in 1822, 1828 & 1830)), Hegel compared nature where “there is nothing new under the Sun,” with history where there is always development he was describing historical progression in terms of the Hegelian philosophy which holds that history follows the dictates of reason and that the natural progress of history is due to the outworking of absolute spirit.  Still, Marx did boast that to make use of Hegel's dialectic he had to “turn him upside down on his head” so perhaps he felt entitled to kick the dead man’s ideas around a bit.

The farce on stage and in literature

In literary use, the farce is a form of comedy where the purpose is to “provoke mirth of the simplest and most basic kind: roars of laughter rather than smiles; humour rather than wit.  It is associated with, but must be distinguished from, burlesque; it is with clowning, buffoonery and knockabout slapstick, a form of ‘low’ comedy in which the basic elements are: exaggerated physical action (often repeated), exaggeration of character and situation in which absurd, improbable (even impossible ones and therefore fantastical) events and surprises in the form of unexpected appearances and disclosures”.  In farce, character and dialogue are nearly always subservient to plot and situation with plots often complex, events succeeding with a sometimes bewildering rapidity.

Quite when the first farces were performed is not known but historians seem to agree it would certainly have predated anything in the literary tradition.  Elements recognizably “farces” exist in some surviving plays from Antiquity in which “low comedy” in the shape of ridiculous situations and ludicrous results, ribaldry and junketings are interpolated into works of satire and studies of the farce have identified the device in Greek satyr play and the Roman fabak.  Technically though, the first plays actually described as “farces” were French works from the late Middle Ages where there were “stuffings” described as “between scenes”: comic interludes between the “serious” parts in religious or liturgical drama.  Usually, such “stuffings” were written in octosyllabic (containing eight syllables) couplets with an average length of some 500 lines.  These interpolations poked fun at the foibles and vices of everyday life (particularly at commercial knavery and conjugal infidelity, two subjects with enduring audience appeal).

The Taming of the Shrew, Barbican Theatre, June 2019.  For the RSC (Royal Shakespeare Company), Justin Audibert (b 1981) re-imagined the England of the 1590s as a matriarchy in which Baptista Minola is seeking to sell off her son Katherine to the highest bidder.

Later, in French theatre, these farcical interludes developed into a form of their own: the “one-act farce”, pieces which were in their time something like to short-form clips which TikTok made a business model.  The contemporary English Mystery Plays also often included one or more comic interludes and interestingly, demonic & grotesque figures behaving in a buffoonish manner (letting off fireworks something of a theme) appeared with much greater frequency than in France.  In the time of the Morality Plays, apart from aberrations like William Shakespeare’s (1564–1616) The Taming of the Shrew (1592) & The Comedy of Errors (circa 1593), there was little written for the English stage which could truly be described as farce but by the time the genre of “Restoration comedy” (known sometimes as “Comedy of manners”) had become established in the late seventeenth century, farce was back to celebrate the re-opening of public stage performances, banned for the previous 18 years by the Puritan regime.  For better or worse, farce has been with us ever since.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

It can be difficult to decided whether “farce”, “fiasco” or “debacle” best applies in particular circumstances.  Indeed, it seems difficult to formulate anything close to a “rule” and every situation will need to be judged on its merits.  However, as a general principle, the pattern of use seems to indicate: (1) Farce is used in a way which hints at the theatrical tradition: real-life situations that are ridiculously chaotic and ludicrous, almost comical in their dysfunction. (2) A fiasco is a total utter failure, usually in a public and humiliating way when things have gone very wrong, typically due to poor planning or execution. (3) A debacle is an ignominious failure and one which often implies a broader, more significant collapse, sometimes with serious consequences.

The farce of excommunication

Presumably the Spanish nuns of The Poor Clares of Belorado chose their words with care when in June 2024 they condemned the Holy See’s action against them as “the farce of excommunication” although whether they were still within the holy communion of the Church to be excommunicated may be a moot point because the sisters insisted they had already severed all connections with the Vatican and their departure from the “Conciliar Church” was “unanimous and irreversible”.  The exchange of views between Rome and Castile-Leon came after the sisters declined to attend the ecclesial tribunal of Burgos to which they had been summoned, their notice of no-attendance transmitted to the Archbishop of Burgos with a hint of rejection of modernity: they used the fax machine.  Informing the archbishop they had left the Conciliar Church “freely, voluntarily, unanimously and in a spirit of joy”, their fax message asserted the ecclesiastical tribunal had “no jurisdiction” over them since their separation the previous month which their said was prompted by the “larceny” of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II; 1962-1965), adding that no pope after Pius XII (1876-1958; pope 1939-1958) was “legitimate”.

Being careful with words, it must be assumed the sisters were thus declaring Pope Francis (b 1936; pope since 2013) an “illegitimate pope” rather than an “anti-pope”, a distinction of some significance to canon lawyers.  “Illegitimate pope” is a general term for any pope whose election or claim to the papacy is deemed invalid or improper according to the canonical laws and practices of the Church; such a state can arise from procedural failures or the appointee lacking the requisite qualifications.  An “anti-pope” is one who makes a claim to the papacy in opposition to the pope recognized by the majority of the Catholic Church, a status which is of any consequence only if such a person has a significant following among Catholics.  Typically, anti-popes have existed during periods of schism.

Belorado Convento de Santa María de Bretonera.

Founded in 1358, in 1458 the monastery was damaged during one of the feudal battles which for more than two centuries would from time-to-time briefly flare, the structure repaired two years later.  Built in the Gothic style, there are Baroque style altar-pieces from the seventeenth century and a pipe organ dating from 1799.  The Monastery of Santa Clara is presided over by nuns of the order of the Poor Clares.

So, being critical mass theorists like any good Catholics, the sisters would understand that at the moment, Francis “has the numbers” but they certainly seem to be attempting something schismatic, their 70-page manifesto explaining that henceforth the nuns would follow the spiritual leadership of Pablo de Rojas Sánchez-Franco (b 1982), a self-styled “bishop” and professed admirer of the fascist dictator Generalissimo Francisco Franco (1892-1975; Caudillo of Spain 1939-1975); De Rojas-Franco was excommunicated in 2019.  Like the sisters, Mr De Rojas-Franco is a sedisvacantist (one who regards all popes after Pius XII to be illegitimate heads of the Church; in this view, the Holy See in Rome is actually sede vacante (vacant throne) and Francis a heretic and usurper to be spoken of only as “Mr Bergoglio”.  One implication of this is that many post 1958 ordinations are also invalid so any penalty or canonical sanction “imposed by those who are not valid or legitimate bishops, and who have no power over souls” are thus null and void”.  In other words, “Mr Bergoglio, you can’t excommunicate us”, hence the description of Rome’s edict as a farce.

Chocolates and biscuits made by nuns of The Poor Clares of Belorado.  Presumably, chocolates made by heretics are more sinful than those made by the faithful.

So the ecclesiastical battle lines have been drawn and the Holy See has clearly decided the chirothecœ (liturgical gloves) are off, the 10 nuns of the order reporting sales of the pastries and chocolate truffles they produce as their only source of income are down, the faithful of the nearby villages clearing having been told by their priests to buy their sweet treats from non-heretics.  According to Rome, the bolshie Poor Clare nuns of Belorado have committed the crime of schism (Canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law states defines schism as “the refusal of submission to the supreme pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him”, the penalty for which is excommunication).  Since burnings at the stake and such became unfashionable, excommunication is now the most serious penalty a baptized person can incur; it consists of being placed outside the communion of the faithful of the Catholic Church and denied access to the sacraments but it need not be final, the theological purpose of the act being “to bring the guilty to repentance and conversion” and, in a phrase with internal logic which makes complete sense in the corridors of the Vatican: “With the penalty of excommunication the Church is not trying in some way to restrict the extent of mercy but is simply making evident the seriousness of the crime.”

Of course heretics are flesh and blood and as they have declared themselves no longer members of the Catholic Church, by remaining in the monastery they are occupying property of the Church to which they do not belong and may be found to have no legal right to stay there.  Their archbishop has told them they are now trespassing but seems to be taking a patient approach, saying he hopes they will leave of their own volition, avoid the need to assemble a team of black-clad monsignors forcibly to evict them.  The social media savvy Francis would understand that might be “bad optics”.  Still, the archbishop insists the matter will be pursued and that Spanish civil law recognizes the Church’s Code of Canon Law as governing such things, adding “…they were told that they should not be in the monastery and in a steadfast and contumacious way they persist in being there”, concluding ominously “…so the legal authorities will act against them.”

This is not an isolated case and in the last year there have been a number of excommunications of bishops and archbishops, all of whom have denied the legitimacy of Francis, some actually calling him “a heretic”, something almost unknown for centuries.  With the death of Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022), so died too the last restraining influence on Francis’s reformist tendencies and the tensions which have mostly be suppressed since Vatican II are now bubbling over.  As an amusing spectacle for the neutrals, Church politics: (“You’re a heretic!”, “No, you’re a heretic!”) is something like modern Spanish political discourse: (“You’re a fascist!”, “No, you’re a fascist!”) but how this plays out in what may be the last days of this pontificate is likely much to influence the voting in the College of Cardinals when it comes time to choose the next pope.

As the Vatican takes heresy seriously, so the fashionistas guard haute couture.  The reaction to Lindsay Lohan brief fling as fashion designer for Ungaro, Paris Fashion Week, March 2010.

Vulgar

Vulgar (pronounced vuhl-ger)

(1) Characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding or taste.

(2) Indecent; obscene; lewd, ribald.

(3) Crude, coarse; unrefined, boorish, rude.

(4) As, the vulgar masses, of, relating to, or constituting the ordinary people in a society (mostly archaic).

(5) Current; popular; common; crude; coarse; unrefined.

(6) As the vulgar tongue, spoken by, or being in the language spoken by, the people generally; the vernacular; colloquial speech (mostly archaic).

(7) Lacking in distinction, aesthetic value, or charm; banal; ordinary.

(8) Denoting a form of a language (applied most often to Latin), current among common people, used especially at a period when the formal language is has become archaic and no longer general spoken use (often with initial capital; usually pre-nominal).

(9) In mathematics, a representation of a fractional number based on ordinary or everyday arithmetic as opposed to decimal fractions.  It refers to one in which two whole numbers (the numerator and denominator) are placed above and below a horizontal line (neither can be zero).  Vulgar fractions are also described as common or simple fractions.  Now rare, in US English, the term vulgar faction is obsolete.

1350-1400: From the early Modern English vulgare, from the vulgāris (belonging to the multitude), from volgus & vulgus (mob; common folk), from the Sanskrit vargah (division, group), from the primitive Indo-European wl̥k.  The construct of vulgāris was vulg(us) + -āris (the suffix a form of -ālis, used to form an adjective, usually from a noun, indicating a relationship or a pertaining to).  As an example of the forks of the root, related European words included the Welsh gwala (plenty, sufficiency), the Ancient Greek ἁλία (halía) (assembly), eilein (to press, throng) & εἰλέω (eiléō) (to compress) and the Old Church Slavonic великъ (velikŭ) (great).  The meaning coarse, low, ill-bred was first recorded in the 1640s, probably from earlier use meaning people belonging to the ordinary class dating from the 1530s.  The derived negative forms such as unvulgar and unvulgarly do exist but are rare to the point of being probably obsolete.  When used in disapprobation, the synonyms include boorish, naughty, tawdry, profane, tasteless, ribald, off-color, disgusting, obscene, impolite, suggestive, indecent, crude, scatological, nasty, filthy & coarse.  As applied to linguists, they include conversational, colloquial, vernacular & folk.  In mathematics, they are common (and most frequently), simple.

Vulgar Latin

Vulgar Latin or Sermo Vulgaris (common speech) is a generic term for the non-standard (as opposed to classical) sociolects of Latin from which the Romance languages developed.  It’s said the works written in Latin during classical times almost always used Classical rather than Vulgar Latin and while that is certainly true of what has survived, the literal volume of ephemeral material written in the vernacular is unknown.  Vulgar Latin was used by inhabitants of the Roman Empire and subsequently became a technical term from Latin and Romance-language philology referring to the unwritten varieties of a Latinised language spoken mainly by Italo-Celtic populations governed by the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire.  Traces appear in some inscriptions, such as graffiti or advertisements but almost certainly the educated population mainly responsible for Classical Latin would also have spoken Vulgar Latin in certain contexts irrespective of their socio-economic background.  In that, things were probably little different then than now, educated people using at least some of the phraseology of the less well-spoken, even if only ironically.

Campaign buttons used in the 1964 US presidential campaign: Republican Party  (left) and Democrat Party (right).  It wouldn't be for many decades that the red would be standardized as the color of the Republicans and blue for the Democrats (as the result of a somewhat random allocation of colors by the television networks when illustrating results with charts and other graphics.

It shouldn’t be confused with "barracks Latin" (originally a casual description of the "rough" language of soldiers and others compared with "polite, educated Latin" of the Roman elite) which is the rendering, with humorous intent, of common English phrases into something which sounds as though it might be Latin.  One of the Monty Python films used the barracks Latin names Sillius Soddus and Biggus Dickus and the best known is Illegitimi non carborundum, an aphorism translating as "don't let the bastards grind you down".  First recorded among soldiers during World War II (1939-1945), an association from which it gained the "barracks" label (although it's not clear in which branch of the military it originated nor even if the coiners were British or American).  It caught on and was famously popularized by Republican candidate Barry Goldwater (1909-1998) during his disastrous 1964 presidential campaign.  Despite the Kennedy assassination, those who voted (and there were many who were prevented from exercising that constitutional right) in the 1964 election represented the United States in the era during which prosperity and optimism were were more widely distributed than at any point in its history.  Vietnam, Watergate, malaise and trickle-down economics would follow.  In the 1964 election, Goldwater lost to President Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; US President 1963-1969) in one of the biggest landslides in US electoral history.  It was also one of the more polarized campaigns and the electorate responded better to Johnson's "building a great society" than Goldwater's "fear and loathing" although such were the atmospherics that it's now remembered more as "crooked old Lyndon vs crazy old Barry".  

Goldwater hung in his office a sign reminding him of his dictum although his used an embellished barracks Latin: Noli permittere Illegitimatis carborundum (Never let the bastards grind you down).  He always denied being a Freemason and admitted membership only of a fraternal organization known as the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks.

Although an avowed conservative (with at least some of what that implies), he wasn't above using vulgar English if he thought there was a point to be made.  When told Johnson aide Walter Jenkins (1918–1985)  had been arrested in a YMCA (Young Men's Christian Association) toilet in the act of "performing an indecency upon another man", although he declined to use the event to attack the Democrats (some suggesting he had no wish to provoke the Republicans into probing for evidence of homosexuality among his staff), in "off the record" comments to journalists he would complain: "What a way to win an election, communists and cocksuckers".  As it would transpire, others in rge Republican machine didn't share Goldwater's reticence and tried to use the arrest as a smear against the administration but the general public reaction was more amused than outraged.  Jenkins paid a US$50 fine for "disorderly conduct".

In the election, Goldwater did however win five states in the South, the best result by a Republican in the region since the reconstruction-era after the US Civil War (1861-1865), a harbinger of the shift in political alignment which would transform the South from a Democratic stronghold (the so-called “Solid South”) into a bastion of Republican strength.  There were many reasons for this and it may be some of them were probably more significant than Goldwater's uncompromising positions on economics and his staunch anti-communism.  Nevertheless, his mystique among American conservatives remains based on the legend of him being the intellectual trailblazer for the “Regan Revolution” and the transformation of the Republican party from a centrist aggregation of the north-eastern establishment into a collective of regional and sectional pressure groups, the factionalism prone to unleashing the forces of extremism which now contest for control.  After Ronald Reagan’s (1911–2004; US President 1981-1989) victory in 1980, one Washington Post columnist noted the feeling of those who had voted for Goldwater in 1964 being one of vindication, regretting only it had taken “…sixteen years to count the votes".

The vulgar, indecent, obscene, lewd & ribald

Although the technical uses in mathematics and the categorization of Latin strains are long established, the best known and most common use of “vulgar” is to describe things considered indecent, obscene, lewd or ribald.  Given the habits and tastes of men, there’s little shortage of such material thus to be described but shifts in public perception and tolerance means vulgarity is a moving target and there is certainly no consensus, opinions varying not only between but within regions, class, generations and probably just about any segmentation of society yet devised.  The unifying factor though is usually anything involving sex or any conventionally sexualized body parts (such as the foot fetishists free to indulge most aspects of their hobby).  Although in recent decades there’s been something of a retreat, this remains a permissive age as regards what were once considered vulgarities.

Vulgarity remains in the eye of the beholder.

So, something vulgar can sometimes be judged an obscenity and is often lewd or ribald but not of necessity indecent.  The linguistic tussle is because the words “obscene” and “indecent” appear sometimes in legislation and something so defined can even attract criminal sanction whereas anything lewd is subject merely to social disapprobation while ribald carries the connotation of “humorously vulgar”.  Standards shift (and sometimes are nudged along by this force or that) and it is almost always a subjective judgement as Potter Stewart (1915–1985; associate justice of the US Supreme Court 1958-1981) explained in his famous concurring judgement in Jacobellis v Ohio (378 U.S. 184 (1964)): "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within [the shorthand description “hard-core pornography”], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it…

That may have been what prosecuting counsel Mervyn Griffith-Jones (1909-1979) had in mind when in R v Penguin Books Ltd ((1961) Crim LR 176) he asked the jury to consider whether DH Lawrence’s (1885–1930) novel Lady Chatterley's Lover (1928) was too obscene to be read by the British, alleging it “…induced lustful thoughts in the minds of those who read it” and begging them to ponder “Is it a book that you would even wish your wife or your servants to read?”.  There was a time when an English jury might have allowed themselves to be told by one of their “betters” what they should be permitted to read but those days were done and the jury (more likely to be servants than masters) had decided they would decide which vulgarities they would tolerate.

Frivol

Frivol (pronounced friv-uhl)

(1) An unserious person.

(2) An idle diversion or pastime; a frivolity.

(3) To behave frivolously; to trifle; to squander time; to waste on frivolous pursuits (historically followed by away).

(4) To spend money frivolously (historically followed by away).

1865–1870: A back formation from frivolous, from the French frivole, from the Latin frīvolus (trifling, worthless).  The word exists in Romanian where it’s used in the same sense as in English but in German there’s been a meaning shift and it’s now an adjective meaning saucy; sleazy; ribald (sexual in a frivolous way), the comparative being frivoler and the superlative am frivolsten (in the matter of frivolous sex, the Germans have grades).  The adjective frivolous emerged in the mid-fifteenth century, from the Latin frivolus (silly, empty, trifling, worthless), a diminutive of frivos (broken, crumbled), from friare (break, rub away, crumble).  In courts of law, frivolous was in use by the mid- 1730s to describe arguments (or entire cases) as “so clearly insufficient as to need no argument to show its weakness”.  The related forms were the adverb frivolously and the nouns frivolousness & frivolity.  Dating from the 1790s, frivolity was from the French frivolité, from the Old French frivole (frivolous), from the Latin frivolus.  Frivol is a noun & verb, frivoler (also frivoller) is a noun, frivoled (also frivolled) & frivoling (also frivolled) are verbs; the noun plural is frivols.  Frivol is all contexts is now rare (some sources suggest it is extinct) which is interesting because in English there’s usually a tendency for a short form to prevail over the long; for whatever reason frivolous & frivolity flourished and frivol floundered.

Of the frivolous and the vexatious

In legal proceedings, “frivolous” & “vexatious” are terms used to describe certain classes of argument or even an entire case.  An action or claim is labeled frivolous when it self-evidently lacks any merit or basis in law and has no reasonable prospect of success.  An action or a litigant is labeled as vexatious when they engage in persistent, repetitive, or burdensome litigation, often with the primary goal of annoying, harassing, or frustrating the opposing party.  Like the frivolous, a vexatious action is often one with little prospect of success but is characterized by a pattern of behavior rather than the lack of merit in a specific claim and the phrase “abuse of process” is often used in conjunction with “vexatious”.  If a litigant is found repeatedly to commence such actions, courts sometimes declare them a “vexatious litigant” and intervene to prevent them filing new suits without the permission of the court.  The terms “serial litigant” is also sometime used in this context but the courts will not move against a party simply on the basis of the frequency with which actions are brought; provided a actions are on sound legal grounds and have a reasonable prospect of success, as a general principle, there is no limit on their number.

Courts do act more harshly against the vexatious than the frivolous because the former (often involving the legal system in repetitive and burdensome litigation) are being used as a weapon, sometimes as devices to harass or annoy and sometimes as a way of attempting to cause the other party to have to spend so much in legal fees that they will discontinue the case.  Each matter is dealt with on its merits but courts can impose sanctions on both litigants and counsel; it’s not unusual for litigants declared vexatious to be self-represented because no lawyer will agree to run the action.  Although there can be nuances, a case is frivolous if it has no reasonable chance of succeeding, and is vexatious if the court finds it would be unreasonable to ask the other party to defend the matter.  Lindsay Lohan went through a “serial litigant” phase and the makers of GTA were not the only plaintiffs to suggest she was running frivolous cases, the accusation usually that the legal proceedings were being commenced only to seek publicity:

Lindsay Lohan v Take-Two Interactive Software Inc et al, New York Court of Appeals (No 24, pp1-11, 29 March 2018)

In a case which took an unremarkable four years from filing to reach New York’s highest appellate court, Lindsay Lohan’s suit against the makers of video game Grand Theft Auto V was dismissed.  In a unanimous ruling in March 2018, six judges of the New York Court of Appeals rejected her invasion of privacy claim which alleged one of the game’s characters was based on her.  The judges found the "actress/singer" in the game merely resembled a “generic young woman” rather than anyone specific.  Unfortunately the judges seemed unacquainted with the concept of the “basic white girl” which might have made the judgment more of a fun read.

Beware of imitations: The real Lindsay Lohan and the GTA 5 ersatz, a mere "generic young woman".

Agreeing with the 2016 ruling of the New York County Supreme Court which, on appeal, also found for the game’s makers, the judges, as a point of law, accepted the claim a computer game’s character "could be construed a portrait", which "could constitute an invasion of an individual’s privacy" but, on the facts of the case, the likeness was "not sufficiently strong".  The “… artistic renderings are an indistinct, satirical representation of the style, look and persona of a modern, beach-going young woman... that is not recognizable as the plaintiff" Judge Eugene Fahey wrote in his ruling.  Lindsay Lohan’s lawyers did not seek leave to appeal.

Lindsay Lohan v E-Trade Securities LLC, New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County, No. 004579/2010

In 2010, one of Lindsay Lohan’s more unusual forays into litigation was settled prior to reaching trial.  In the Supreme Court of New York, Ms Lohan had filed suit for US$100 million against online investment site E-Trade, in connection with their Super Bowl ad featuring a "milkaholic" baby girl named Lindsay.  The claim was based on the allegation the commercial was mocking her on the basis of some drug and alcohol related matters which had involved the police, saying the work additionally improperly invoked her “likeness, name, characterization, and personality” without permission, violating her right of privacy.  In the statement of claim, the actress sought US$50 million in compensatory damages and US$50 million in exemplary damages as well as demanding E-Trade cease and desist running the commercial and turn over all copies to her.  One interesting technical legal point raised was that Ms Lohan enjoyed the same “single-name” recognition as celebrities such as talk-show host Oprah (Winfrey) or the singer Madonna (Ciccone).

The E-Trade commercial had been broadcast during the Super Bowl on 7 February 2010 as part of a series built around the theme “babies who play the markets”, and attracted an audience of around 106 ½ million viewers in the US market, then a record number.  E-Trade filed a statement of defense in which it said the claims were “without merit”, and that Lindsay Lohan wasn’t the world's only Lindsay, noting Lindsay was in 2008 the 380th most popular name for new-born American girls, down somewhat from 241th in 2004 when Mean Girls was released.  Grey Group, the advertising agency which produced the commercial later added the “milkaholic Lindsay” was named after a member of its account team although this apparently wasn’t added to the statement of defense.  The plaintiffs did raise the matter of dismissal as frivolous but the judge said the matters raised were "potentially legally substantive" and allowed the case to proceed.  After some months, a settlement was reached between the parties, both sides bound by a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).

Pitbull (Armando Christian Pérez, b 1981).

Another of Lindsay Lohan's forays into litigation did however give a judge the opportunity to discuss the parameters a court works with when deciding whether an argument can be ruled "frivolous".  In 2011 she sued hip hop artist Pitbull over the lyrics in his song Give Me Everything, which included the line: So, I’m toptoein’, to keep flowin’, I got it locked up, like Lindsay Lohan.  Ms Lohan cited the lyric as a violation of her publicity and publicity rights which caused her emotional distress, claiming the lyrics “includes an unwarranted, unauthorized, and unfavorable mention of [her] name and personality, and allusions to her physical and mental character.”  The judge dismissed on technical grounds the claim made under New York Civil Rights law, adding that the First Amendment anyway affords full protection.  What was more interesting was the discussion of the argument the song was commercial rather than expressive in nature, the judge ruling that even if the work was created for the purpose of “making a profit”, that does not mean her name was “used for advertising or purposes of trade within the meaning of the New York law“ and that, on the facts of this case, even if that were proved, the “isolated nature of the use of her name” (just one line in the song) would “prove fatal” to the claims.  Putbull’s counsel indicated they wished to have the court sanction Ms Lohan for filing a frivolous lawsuit (an abuse of process) but the judge, noting the paucity of case law in this field, said the lack of precedent meant there was no clear indication the case would be doomed and the claim was therefore not so frivolous as to warrant the imposition of a sanction.  Lindsay Lohan thus remained free to litigate, which she did.

Syllabus

Syllabus (pronounce sil-a-bis)

(1) In the Roman Catholic Church, a formally issued list.

(2) In education, a summary of topics which will be covered during an academic course, or a text or lecture.

(3) In law reports, the headnote of a reported case containing a summary of the the points of law determined, prefixed to a reported case.

1650s: From the Medieval Latin syllabus (list) which actually arose as a misprint, its accusative plural syllabos appearing in place of sittybas (or perhaps sittubas) in an edition of Cicero's Ad Atticum (Letters to Atticus), printed during the 1470s.  The corrupt form was influenced by the stem of the Ancient Greek συλλαμβάνω (sullambánō) (put together), source of σῠλλᾰβή (sullabḗ) (syllable); the true etymon is σιττύβα (sittúba) (parchment label; table of contents”) of unknown origin.  As was not unknown with medieval errors of transcription, the name stuck and it too came to mean "a label for a papyrus roll" before morphing into its current usual meaning (an outline or other brief statement of the main points of a discourse, the subjects of a course of lectures, the contents of a curriculum), a shift established by the mid seventeenth century.  Had it been a real word, the proper plural would be syllabi.  Syllabus is a noun; the noun plural is syllabi or syllabuses.

Mean Girls (2004): Now on the syllabus.

Since the 1980s, there has been criticism of some of the more novel courses which have appeared on University syllabuses.  While there has always been something of a hierarchy in the perception of the intellectual robustness demanded by various courses (physics, engineering and such higher on most pecking orders than social work, media studies, gender studies et al) such has been the emergence of what’s regarded as academic promiscuity (some say prefer prostitution) that the term “Mickey Mouse courses” was coined to describe some of the newest entries.  The use of “Mickey Mouse” as a pejorative is an example of dysphemism (an expression with connotations derogatory either about the subject matter or to the audience) and was from the French dysphémisme, modelled on euphémisme (euphemism), modified by the substitution of the prefix dys-, from the Ancient Greek δυσ- (dus-) (expressing the idea of difficulty, or bad status).  Interestingly, in Australia, “Mickey Mouse” was also used as a slang form meaning “very good”, apparently as a form of rhyming slang (“Jack Lang in the local parlance”) based on “full house”, a most desirable hand in poker.  The use operated as late as the 1960s in parallel with “Mickey Mouse” meaning “poor quality” attributed to the cheap, unreliable (and fake) Mickey Mouse watches which were sold in great quantity during World War II (1939-1945).

In some cases, the criticism is probably unfair because university economics departments coining the term “Swiftonomics” to describe the micro-economic effect on regional economies of Taylor Swift’s (b 1989) tour seems something most suitable for students to study.  It would be the ideal template as a case study; not only does her tour have a beginning, a middle and an end but it would offer something onto which could be mapped most of the tools of social and economic analysis including the dreaded econometrics which most of us regard as having “a marginal propensity to confuse”.  Boston’s Northeastern University is taking Swiftonomics most seriously.  At least the reaction to the announcement of Swiftonomics wasn’t as cruel as a course in the sociological importance of football being dismissed as “David Beckham studies” and something designed to attract enrolments from paying students rather than a “real” course of study.

Mean Girls has appeared on a number of syllabuses and objectively, there’s no reason why the same tools of deconstruction and analysis used of any of the texts more traditionally part of university course shouldn’t be used and Mean Girls content has been noted in fields such as media studies, cultural studies, gender studies and film studies.  In 2015, Colorado College attracted attention for offered a Mean Girls themed class in which 13 students could gain credits for exploring the "motives behind why women seek authority and the actions they are willing to take in order to hold onto it."  Once can see why the department choose Mean Girls to dissect that sort of realpolitik and the course included structural comparisons with tales from Greek mythology.  Those who are snobby about the so-called “Mickey Mouse” courses on syllabuses and blame it on a decline in standards should recall astrology and alchemy once appeared on the degree rolls of many respectable institutions.

Pius IX, modernity and the Syllabus of Errors

Thou shalt not: Pope Pius IX

Most famous syllabus to emerge from the Vatican was that issued by Pope Pius IX (Giovanni Maria Mastai Ferretti, 1792–1878; pope 1846-1878) in 1864 as Syllabus Errorum (Syllabus of Errors), a usefully comprehensive list of the faults of modernity in which His Holiness listed eighty propositions he condemned erroneous.  Though controversial, even today, it is by the standards of the Holy See a pleasingly brief document and defines a coherent world-view in a few pages; some subsequent pronouncements from Rome have been more verbose and said less.  The pontificate of Pius IX remains the longest in history.  Since the election of Pope Francis (b 1936; pope since 2013), Pius IX has attracted a new audience of admirers, in the curia and beyond.  This is at least in part because of the certainty of his positions and the unambiguity in his words.  His most memorable quotes are succinct:

Liberal Catholics are the worst enemies of the Church.  If a future Pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.

However, there can be consequences for those who decide not to follow a pope thought to be teaching things “contrary to the Catholic faith”.  In November 2023, it was announced Pope Francis had sacked (“removed from the pastoral care of the diocese” as the Holy See puts such things) US Bishop Joseph Strickland (b 1958; Bishop of the Diocese of Tyler, Texas 2012-2023) and appointed an interim apostolic administrator.  Whether related or not, the announcement was made only a couple of days after the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (the DDF, the latest name for the Inquisition) issued a statement confirming an adult who identifies as transgender can receive the sacrament of Baptism under the same conditions as any adult, as long as “there is no risk of causing scandal or confusion to other Catholics”.  To clarify the matter, the DDF added that children or adolescents experiencing transgender identity issues may also receive Baptism “if well prepared and willing”.  This remarkable statement was one of several answers to sacrament-based questions relating to those who identify as transgender or are in same-sex relationships which were generated in response to questions to the DDF posed in July 2023 by Bishop José Negri (b 1959; Bishop of Santo Amaro, Sao Paulo, Brazil since 2015).  All such statements from the Vatican (especially those which in any way touch on LGBTQQIAAOP issues) must be assessed as part of the pope’s response to the recent sessions of the Synod on Synodality and of great interest was the response about whether transgender-identifying people or those in homosexual relationships (1) can be godparents or (2) witness a marriage and (3) whether children adopted or born through assisted reproduction to same-sex couples can be baptised.  To that last matter the DDF quoted the relevant section of the Code of Canon law, saying “For the child to be baptised there must be a well-founded hope that he or she will be educated in the Catholic religion”.  Lambeth Palace would have been proud of a fudge like that but it anyway means transgender-identifying people can be baptized and witness marriages.

Bishop Strickland (appointed to his position in 2012 by Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022)) is said to be one of the WWJD (what would Jesus do?) school and on 12 May 2023 had tweeted (ie to the whole world) “I believe Pope Francis is the pope, but it is time for me to say that I reject his program of undermining the Deposit of Faith.  Follow Jesus."  It would have been a nice touch had he’d added “Follow Pius IX” but he resisted that temptation.  The tweet was enough for the Vatican to launch an investigation, in response to which on more than one occasion Bishop Strickland asserted he would not voluntarily resign.  The investigation was remarkably quick by the standards of the Holy See and early in November a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston revealed the tribunal had advised His Holiness “the continuation in office of Bishop Strickland was not feasible.”  The pope requested the bishop resign but he declined, thus the rare sacking.

In many ways, it’s not the sacking (though rare) which is remarkable but that it took so long to happen.  Strickland had long argued the Roman Catholic Church has become “weak” under Francis and openly challenged the pope to dismiss him, something which observers of the Vatican suspect might have happened some time ago had not Benedict lived as long as he did.  Just to make sure however, shortly after Benedict was entombed, Strickland re-tweeted a video which condemned Francis as a “diabolically disoriented clown” but despite that, he was quoted as blaming the dismissal on his refusal to implement one of Francis’ progressive reforms restricting the old Latin Mass.  An issue which quietly has been simmering since Second Vatican Council (Vatican II; 1962-1965 (which Strickland probably regards as heretical)) Strickland insisted the Latin rituals must remain “because I can’t starve out part of my flock", adding, “I feel very much at peace in the Lord and the truth that he died for.”

Nor is Strickland without support because early in his pontificate, some theologians and cardinals went dangerously close to accusing Francis of being a heretic and after the sacking, perhaps sniffing blood, the editor of The Remnant (a most traditional Catholic newspaper) took to X (formerly known as Twitter) called the firing “total war”, adding “Francis is a clear and present danger not only to Catholics the world over but also to the whole world itself."   No doubt he agreed with Strickland who tweeted: “Rejoice always that…no matter what the day brings Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life, yesterday, today and forever. May the saints and the Blessed Virgin Mary always inspire us to return to Christ no matter how we may wander into darkness. Jesus is Light from Light."  That is a WWJD motif: “Where there is darkness, Jesus will make the light”.

Francis has certainly become more assertive since the death of Benedict, condemning the “backwardness” of some conservative Catholic leaders (notably in Germany and the US), saying what they believed in was “not faith but political ideology” and that Church doctrine on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage can change.  Changing something with two thousand-odd years of inertia and institutional memory won’t be easy but Francis has the priceless advantage enjoyed by probably no other head of government or state currently in office: he sits atop a theocracy as an absolute sovereign, whatever he says, goes; he has the last word.  Interestingly, whenever some matter is clearly contentious, he does increasingly mention the word “doctrine”, conscious no doubt that he and everybody else knows that if he chooses to speak ex cathedra, that invokes papal infallibility and means not only is his ruling final but that objections may no longer be even discussed.  Defined dogmatically under Pius IX at the First Vatican Council (Vatican I; 1869–1870 (although it was then claimed it had actually existed and been acknowledged for over a thousand years), no pope has spoken ex cathedra since Pius XII (1876-1958; pope 1939-1958) in 1950 but for Francis it remains his thermo-nuclear option.

The Syllaus of Errors, Pope Pius IX, 1864

I. PANTHEISM, NATURALISM AND ABSOLUTE RATIONALISM

1. There exists no Supreme, all-wise, all-provident Divine Being, distinct from the universe, and God is identical with the nature of things, and is, therefore, subject to changes. In effect, God is produced in man and in the world, and all things are God and have the very substance of God, and God is one and the same thing with the world, and, therefore, spirit with matter, necessity with liberty, good with evil, justice with injustice. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

2. All action of God upon man and the world is to be denied. -- Ibid.

3. Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations. -- Ibid.

4. All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind. -- Ibid. and Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846, etc.

5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason. -- Ibid.

6. The faith of Christ is in opposition to human reason and divine revelation not only is not useful, but is even hurtful to the perfection of man. -- Ibid.

7. The prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are the fiction of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith the result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the Old and the New Testament there are contained mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ is Himself a myth.

II. MODERATE RATIONALISM

8. As human reason is placed on a level with religion itself, so theological must be treated in the same manner as philosophical sciences. -- Allocution "Singulari quadam," Dec. 9, 1854.

9. All the dogmas of the Christian religion are indiscriminately the object of natural science or philosophy, and human reason, enlightened solely in an historical way, is able, by its own natural strength and principles, to attain to the true science of even the most abstruse dogmas; provided only that such dogmas be proposed to reason itself as its object. -- Letters to the Archbishop of Munich, "Gravissimas inter," Dec. 11, 1862, and "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863.

10. As the philosopher is one thing, and philosophy another, so it is the right and duty of the philosopher to subject himself to the authority which he shall have proved to be true; but philosophy neither can nor ought to submit to any such authority. -- Ibid., Dec. 11, 1862.

11. The Church not only ought never to pass judgment on philosophy, but ought to tolerate the errors of philosophy, leaving it to correct itself. -- Ibid., Dec. 21, 1863.

12. The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman congregations impede the true progress of science. -- Ibid.

13. The method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of our times and to the progress of the sciences. -- Ibid.

14. Philosophy is to be treated without taking any account of supernatural revelation. -- Ibid.

III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846.

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. -- Encyclical "Noscitis," Dec. 8, 1849.

IV. SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, SECRET SOCIETIES, BIBLICAL SOCIETIES, CLERICO-LIBERAL SOCIETIES

Pests of this kind are frequently reprobated in the severest terms in the Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846, Allocution "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849, Encyclical "Noscitis et nobiscum," Dec. 8, 1849, Allocution "Singulari quadam," Dec. 9, 1854, Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863.

V. ERRORS CONCERNING THE CHURCH AND HER RIGHTS

19. The Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free- nor is she endowed with proper and perpetual rights of her own, conferred upon her by her Divine Founder; but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church, and the limits within which she may exercise those rights. -- Allocution "Singulari quadam,&quuot; Dec. 9, 1854, etc.

20. The ecclesiastical power ought not to exercise its authority without the permission and assent of the civil government. -- Allocution "Meminit unusquisque," Sept. 30, 1861.

21. The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion. -- Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. -- Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863.

23. Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals. -- Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

24. The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect. -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.

25. Besides the power inherent in the episcopate, other temporal power has been attributed to it by the civil authority granted either explicitly or tacitly, which on that account is revocable by the civil authority whenever it thinks fit. -- Ibid.

26. The Church has no innate and legitimate right of acquiring and possessing property. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856; Encyclical "Incredibili," Sept. 7, 1863.

27. The sacred ministers of the Church and the Roman pontiff are to be absolutely excluded from every charge and dominion over temporal affairs. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

28. It is not lawful for bishops to publish even letters Apostolic without the permission of Government. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

29. Favours granted by the Roman pontiff ought to be considered null, unless they have been sought for through the civil government. -- Ibid.

30. The immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons derived its origin from civil law. -- Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

31. The ecclesiastical forum or tribunal for the temporal causes, whether civil or criminal, of clerics, ought by all means to be abolished, even without consulting and against the protest of the Holy See. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856; Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

32. The personal immunity by which clerics are exonerated from military conscription and service in the army may be abolished without violation either of natural right or equity. Its abolition is called for by civil progress, especially in a society framed on the model of a liberal government. -- Letter to the Bishop of Monreale "Singularis nobisque," Sept. 29, 1864.

33. It does not appertain exclusively to the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction by right, proper and innate, to direct the teaching of theological questions. -- Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863.

34. The teaching of those who compare the Sovereign Pontiff to a prince, free and acting in the universal Church, is a doctrine which prevailed in the Middle Ages. -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.

35. There is nothing to prevent the decree of a general council, or the act of all peoples, from transferring the supreme pontificate from the bishop and city of Rome to another bishop and another city. -- Ibid.

36. The definition of a national council does not admit of any subsequent discussion, and the civil authority car assume this principle as the basis of its acts. -- Ibid.

37. National churches, withdrawn from the authority of the Roman pontiff and altogether separated, can be established. -- Allocution "Multis gravibusque," Dec. 17, 1860.

38. The Roman pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed to the division of the Church into Eastern and Western. -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.

VI. ERRORS ABOUT CIVIL SOCIETY, CONSIDERED BOTH IN ITSELF AND IN ITS RELATION TO THE CHURCH

39. The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

40. The teaching of the Catholic Church is hostile to the well- being and interests of society. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846; Allocution "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.

41. The civil government, even when in the hands of an infidel sovereign, has a right to an indirect negative power over religious affairs. It therefore possesses not only the right called that of "exsequatur," but also that of appeal, called "appellatio ab abusu." -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851

42. In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers, the civil law prevails. -- Ibid.

43. The secular Dower has authority to rescind, declare and render null, solemn conventions, commonly called concordats, entered into with the Apostolic See, regarding the use of rights appertaining to ecclesiastical immunity, without the consent of the Apostolic See, and even in spite of its protest. -- Allocution "Multis gravibusque," Dec. 17, 1860; Allocution "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850.

44. The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government: hence, it can pass judgment on the instructions issued for the guidance of consciences, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the Church. Further, it has the right to make enactments regarding the administration of the divine sacraments, and the dispositions necessary for receiving them. -- Allocutions "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850, and "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

45. The entire government of public schools in which the youth- of a Christian state is educated, except (to a certain extent) in the case of episcopal seminaries, may and ought to appertain to the civil power, and belong to it so far that no other authority whatsoever shall be recognized as having any right to interfere in the discipline of the schools, the arrangement of the studies, the conferring of degrees, in the choice or approval of the teachers. -- Allocutions "Quibus luctuosissimmis," Sept. 5, 1851, and "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850.

46. Moreover, even in ecclesiastical seminaries, the method of studies to be adopted is subject to the civil authority. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

47. The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every class of the people, and, generally, all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophical sciences and for carrying on the education of youth, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers, and according to the standard of the prevalent opinions of the age. -- Epistle to the Archbishop of Freiburg, "Cum non sine," July 14, 1864.

48. Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life. -- Ibid.

49. The civil power may prevent the prelates of the Church and the faithful from communicating freely and mutually with the Roman pontiff. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

50. Lay authority possesses of itself the right of presenting bishops, and may require of them to undertake the administration of the diocese before they receive canonical institution, and the Letters Apostolic from the Holy See. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

51. And, further, the lay government has the right of deposing bishops from their pastoral functions, and is not bound to obey the Roman pontiff in those things which relate to the institution of bishoprics and the appointment of bishops. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852, Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

52. Government can, by its own right, alter the age prescribed by the Church for the religious profession of women and men; and may require of all religious orders to admit no person to take solemn vows without its permission. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

53. The laws enacted for the protection of religious orders and regarding their rights and duties ought to be abolished; nay, more, civil Government may lend its assistance to all who desire to renounce the obligation which they have undertaken of a religious life, and to break their vows. Government may also suppress the said religious orders, as likewise collegiate churches and simple benefices, even those of advowson and subject their property and revenues to the administration and pleasure of the civil power. -- Allocutions "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852; "Probe memineritis," Jan. 22, 1855; "Cum saepe," July 26, 1855.

54. Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in deciding questions of jurisdiction. -- Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

VII. ERRORS CONCERNING NATURAL AND CHRISTIAN ETHICS

56. Moral laws do not stand in need of the divine sanction, and it is not at all necessary that human laws should be made conformable to the laws of nature and receive their power of binding from God. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

57. The science of philosophical things and morals and also civil laws may and ought to keep aloof from divine and ecclesiastical authority. -- Ibid.

58. No other forces are to be recognized except those which reside in matter, and all the rectitude and excellence of morality ought to be placed in the accumulation and increase of riches by every possible means, and the gratification of pleasure. -- Ibid.; Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863.

59. Right consists in the material fact. All human duties are an empty word, and all human facts have the force of right. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

60. Authority is nothing else but numbers and the sum total of material forces. -- Ibid.

61. The injustice of an act when successful inflicts no injury on the sanctity of right. -- Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.

62. The principle of non-intervention, as it is called, ought to be proclaimed and observed. -- Allocution "Novos et ante," Sept. 28, 1860.

63. It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel against them. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1864; Allocution "Quibusque vestrum," Oct. 4, 1847; "Noscitis et Nobiscum," Dec. 8, 1849; Apostolic Letter "Cum Catholica."

64. The violation of any solemn oath, as well as any wicked and flagitious action repugnant to the eternal law, is not only not blamable but is altogether lawful and worthy of the highest praise when done through love of country. -- Allocution "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.

VIII. ERRORS CONCERNING CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE

65. The doctrine that Christ has raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament cannot be at all tolerated. -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.

66. The Sacrament of Marriage is only a something accessory to the contract and separate from it, and the sacrament itself consists in the nuptial benediction alone. -- Ibid.

67. By the law of nature, the marriage tie is not indissoluble, and in many cases divorce properly so called may be decreed by the civil authority. -- Ibid.; Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

68. The Church has not the power of establishing diriment impediments of marriage, but such a power belongs to the civil authority by which existing impediments are to be removed. -- Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

69. In the dark ages the Church began to establish diriment impediments, not by her own right, but by using a power borrowed from the State. -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.

70. The canons of the Council of Trent, which anathematize those who dare to deny to the Church the right of establishing diriment impediments, either are not dogmatic or must be understood as referring to such borrowed power. -- Ibid.

71. The form of solemnizing marriage prescribed by the Council of Trent, under pain of nullity, does not bind in cases where the civil law lays down another form, and declares that when this new form is used the marriage shall be valid.

72. Boniface VIII was the first who declared that the vow of chastity taken at ordination renders marriage void. -- Ibid.

73. In force of a merely civil contract there may exist between Christians a real marriage, and it is false to say either that the marriage contract between Christians is always a sacrament, or that there is no contract if the sacrament be excluded. -- Ibid.; Letter to the King of Sardinia, Sept. 9, 1852; Allocutions "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852, "Multis gravibusque," Dec. 17, 1860.

74. Matrimonial causes and espousals belong by their nature to civil tribunals. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9 1846; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851, "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851; Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

IX. ERRORS REGARDING THE CIVIL POWER OF THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF

75. The children of the Christian and Catholic Church are divided amongst themselves about the compatibility of the temporal with the spiritual power. -- "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.

76. The abolition of the temporal power of which the Apostolic See is possessed would contribute in the greatest degree to the liberty and prosperity of the Church. -- Allocutions "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849, "Si semper antea," May 20, 1850.

X. ERRORS HAVING REFERENCE TO MODERN LIBERALISM

77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.

The faith teaches us and human reason demonstrates that a double order of things exists, and that we must therefore distinguish between the two earthly powers, the one of natural origin which provides for secular affairs and the tranquillity of human society, the other of supernatural origin, which presides over the City of God, that is to say the Church of Christ, which has been divinely instituted for the sake of souls and of eternal salvation.... The duties of this twofold power are most wisely ordered in such a way that to God is given what is God's (Matt. 22:21), and because of God to Caesar what is Caesar's, who is great because he is smaller than heaven. Certainly the Church has never disobeyed this divine command, the Church which always and everywhere instructs the faithful to show the respect which they should inviolably have for the supreme authority and its secular rights....

. . . Venerable Brethren, you see clearly enough how sad and full of perils is the condition of Catholics in the regions of Europe which We have mentioned. Nor are things any better or circumstances calmer in America, where some regions are so hostile to Catholics that their governments seem to deny by their actions the Catholic faith they claim to profess. In fact, there, for the last few years, a ferocious war on the Church, its institutions and the rights of the Apostolic See has been raging.... Venerable Brothers, it is surprising that in our time such a great war is being waged against the Catholic Church. But anyone who knows the nature, desires and intentions of the sects, whether they be called masonic or bear another name, and compares them with the nature the systems and the vastness of the obstacles by which the Church has been assailed almost everywhere, cannot doubt that the present misfortune must mainly be imputed to the frauds and machinations of these sects. It is from them that the synagogue of Satan, which gathers its troops against the Church of Christ, takes its strength. In the past Our predecessors, vigilant even from the beginning in Israel, had already denounced them to the kings and the nations, and had condemned them time and time again, and even We have not failed in this duty. If those who would have been able to avert such a deadly scourge had only had more faith in the supreme Pastors of the Church! But this scourge, winding through sinuous caverns, . . . deceiving many with astute frauds, finally has arrived at the point where it comes forth impetuously from its hiding places and triumphs as a powerful master. Since the throng of its propagandists has grown enormously, these wicked groups think that they have already become masters of the world and that they have almost reached their pre-established goal. Having sometimes obtained what they desired, and that is power, in several countries, they boldly turn the help of powers and authorities which they have secured to trying to submit the Church of God to the most cruel servitude, to undermine the foundations on which it rests, to contaminate its splendid qualities; and, moreover, to strike it with frequent blows, to shake it, to overthrow it, and, if possible, to make it disappear completely from the earth. Things being thus, Venerable Brothers, make every effort to defend the faithful which are entrusted to you against the insidious contagion of these sects and to save from perdition those who unfortunately have inscribed themselves in such sects. Make known and attack those who, whether suffering from, or planning, deception, are not afraid to affirm that these shady congregations aim only at the profit of society, at progress and mutual benefit. Explain to them often and impress deeply on their souls the Papal constitutions on this subject and teach, them that the masonic associations are anathematized by them not only in Europe but also in America and wherever they may be in the whole world.

To the Archbishops and Bishops of Prussia concerning the situation of the Catholic Church faced with persecution by that Government....

But although they (the bishops resisting persecution) should be praised rather than pitied, the scorn of episcopal dignity, the violation of the liberty and the rights of the Church, the ill treatment which does not only oppress those dioceses, but also the others of the Kingdom of Prussia, demand that We, owing to the Apostolic office with which God has entrusted us in spite of Our insufficient merit, protest against laws which have produced such great evils and make one fear even greater ones; and as far as we are able to do so with the sacred authority of divine law, We vindicate for the Church the freedom which has been trodden underfoot with sacrilegious violence. That is why by this letter we intend to do Our duty by announcing openly to all those whom this matter concerns and to the whole Catholic world, that these laws are null and void because they are absolutely contrary to the divine constitution of the Church. In fact, with respect to matters which concern the holy ministry, Our Lord did not put the mighty of this century in charge, but Saint Peter, whom he entrusted not only with feeding his sheep, but also the goats; therefore no power in the world, however great it may be, can deprive of the pastoral office those whom the Holy Ghost has made Bishops in order to feed the Church of God.