Unctuous

Unctuous (pronounced uhngk-choo-uhs)

(1) Characterized by excessive piousness or moralistic fervor, especially in an affected manner; excessively smooth, suave, or smug; one who affects an oily charm; profusely polite, especially unpleasantly so and insincerely earnest.

(2) Of the nature of or characteristic of an unguent or ointment; oily; greasy.

(3) In mining, a mineral having an oily or soapy feel.

(4) Of a liquid or substance, oily or greasy.

(5) Of food and beverage (applied typically to wine, coffee, sauce, gravy etc), rich, lush, intense, with layers of concentrated, soft, velvety flavor (a use with a positive association).

1350-1400: From the Middle English, from the Old French unctuous (oily, having a greasy or soapy feeling when touched), from the Medieval Latin ūnctuōsus (oily; greasy) from unctus (act of anointing), from the past participle stem of unguere (to anoint).  The most familiar form appears to have been unctum (ointment). The literal meanings endured for centuries and are still used today in specialist medical and geological texts but the figurative sense of "blandly ingratiating" dates from 1742, perhaps in part with a literal sense, but more in the sarcastic sense drawn from unction in the sense of "deep spiritual feeling" (a meaning in use since the 1690s, the idea of having been anointed in the rite of unction).  Unctuous has also been favored by food critics, comprising the sense of something pleasingly juicy with the more abstract notion of a food which seems “anxious to please”.  The spelling (as an adjective) unctious was used between circa 1600 and the 1720s.  Unctuous is an adjective, unctuousness & unctuosity are nouns, unctuously is an adverb; the  noun plural is unctuosities.  The form "ununctuous" (not unctuous) seems to be used (1) of food or substances and (2) of people usually unctuous not being so (those of the "kiss-up, kick-down" type said to switch between their "unctuous" & "ununctuous" modes depending on the dynamic of the power-relationship).  

Uriah Heep, very ’umble

Literature’s archetype of the unctuous is Charles Dickens' (1812–1870) Uriah Heep from the novel David Copperfield (1849-1850)  Heap is famous for his cloying humility, obsequiousness, insincerity and frequent references to his own "'umbleness"; his name has become synonymous with being a sycophant.  With plenty of time to contemplate the past while serving the twenty year sentence he was lucky to receive for war crimes and crimes against humanity, Albert Speer (1905–1981; Nazi court architect 1934-1942; Nazi minister of armaments and war production 1942-1945, recalling a former subordinate,  noted the type in his prison diaries Spandauer Tagebücher (Spandau: The Secret Diaries (1975)), musing it was the combination of fawning obedience and dynamism in its functionaries on which totalitarian states depended for their success.

Depiction of Uriah Heep by Frederick Barnard (1846–1896) and former speaker Peter Slipper.

The characteristics of grasping manipulation and insincerity render Uriah Heep a popular label for critics to use against politicians, somthing sometimes fair, sometimes not.  Robert Caro (b 1935) applied it to Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; US president 1963-1969), Philip Roth (1933–2018) to Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974), Tony Judt (1948-2010) to Philippe Pétain (1856-1951), Paddy McGuinness (1938-2008) to Paul Keating (b 1944; Prime Minister of Australia 1991-1996) and Conrad Russell (1937-2004) to Tony Blair (b 1953; UK prime-minister 1997-2007).

Some years ago, in Australia, many were taken by the resemblance of former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Peter Slipper (b 1950), to depictions of the Dickens character.  Since leaving parliament, Mr Slipper has been ordained Bishop of Australia by the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church (Igreja Católica Apostólica Brasileira (ICAB)), the latest appointment in his ecclesiastical career.  Mr Slipper qualified as a lawyer and as far as is known he has never received any formal theological training but in 2008 he was ordained as a priest of the Anglican Catholic Church in Australia, a part of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) one of a number of schismatic forks of the Anglican communion which emerged after the 1968 Lambeth Conference when issues to do with sex first began to dominate the church.  Later, he would become chancellor (and subsequently vicar-general) of the Church of Torres Strait (CTS) another member of the TAC.  The final step in his denomination journey seems to date from 2016 when, in Brazil, he was ordained as a deacon and priest of the ICAB.  In 2018, Bishop Slipper was accredited by the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade (DFAT) as Brazil’s honorary consul in the state of Tasmania.

The original gatefold sleeve for the Uriah Heep album ...Very 'Eavy ...Very 'Umble  (1970).

Formed in 1969, Uriah Heep was one of a number of English rock bands of the era which produced the templates which would come to define genres like “heavy metal” and “hard rock”.  Their contemporaries included Black Sabbath, Deep Purple and Led Zeppelin but unlike them, Uriah Heep gained little critical acceptance, many reviews often in the vein of Rod Stewart’s (b 1945) critique of Grand Funk Railroad (in many ways their US counterpart): “Loud white noise”.  Despite that, more than fifty years on, Uriah Heep remain active, releasing material and still performing live.  Few would describe their sound being any way unctuous.

Sandwich

Sandwich (pronounced sand-wich)

(1) Two or more slices of bread or the like with a layer of meat, fish, cheese, etc between each pair.

(2) To insert something between two other things.

(3) A type of engineering or construction where flat materials are joined in layers.

1762.  Named after John Montagu (1718-1792), Fourth Earl Sandwich, a bit of a gambler who, during marathon sessions at the tables, would eat slices of cold meat between bread rather than rise for a meal.  However, the earl’s biographer suggested his subject was a serious chap, committed to the navy, politics and the arts and the sandwiches were actually eaten at his desk at the Admiralty but the legend is much preferred.  It was in his honor Captain James Cook (1728-1779) named the Hawaiian Sandwich islands in 1778 when Montagu was First Lord of the Admiralty.  The family name is from the place in Kent which in the Old English was Sandwicæ (sandy harbor; trading center).  In structural linguistics, a "sandwich" word is one in which two or more syllables have been split (al la slices of bread) and filled with another word.  Use of the technique is common and exemplified by an opinion such as: "Fox News is just Murdoch propafuckinganda".  The term was coined by US lexicographer Dr Harold Wentworth (1904-1965).  

There is doubt whether the sandwich became so-named as early as 1762 because the first documented account of the Earl’s culinary innovation was written in 1770 but it certainly caught on.  The sandwich board, the two-sided mobile advertising carried on the shoulders, is from 1864.  The Wall Street Journal once described the sandwich as "Britain's biggest contribution to gastronomy" but, given the parlous reputation of the rest of their cuisine, the WSJ may have been damning with faint praise.  Regardless, while Sandwich may have lent his name, the historical record suggests sandwiches have been eaten since bread was first baked, pre-dating the earl by thousands of years.

Portrait of John Montagu, Fourth Earl of Sandwich (1783) by Thomas Gainsborough (c 1727-1788), National Maritime Museum, Greenwich.

John Montagu was one of the more interesting chaps to sit in the House of Lords.  Rich and well-connected, he was a libertine in the milieu of the aristocratic debauchery of the eighteenth century, his country house described by a contemporary as “the scene of our youthful debaucheries, the retreat of your hoary licentiousness.”  There’s never been any suggestion Sandwich was more depraved than many of his companions in self-indulgence but he certainly fitted-in.

In his lifetime, the earl’s fame came not from the eponymous snack but his long affair with Miss Martha Ray (1746-1779), a most becoming and talented young singer.  It’s never been known when first they made friends but she lived with him as his mistress from the age of seventeen (he was then forty-five), the relationship producing nine children.  The concubinage of Miss Ray he  enjoyed while his wife was suffering from mental illness and while it’s not recorded if her condition was in any way related to her husband’s conduct, given he conducted an affair also with his sister-in-law, there must be some suspicion.

Montagu's behavior attracted the interest of many, including John Wilkes, a prominent satirist who wrote a number of pieces critical of the earl’s politics and ridiculing his (not so) private life.  Montagu’s revenge was swift.  Wilkes didn’t write only publicly-published satire, he also had a small circle of socially elite subscribers to his other literary output.  That was pornography, and the earl was a subscriber.  To discredit Wilkes, Lord Sandwich rose in the House of Lords and read extracts from Wilkes’ The Essay on Women which he prefaced by telling their lordships “…it was so full of filthy langue (sic) as well as the most horrid blasphemies”.  The earl did not exaggerate and even today the words would shock and appall their lordships although it must be admitted, it's always been a place where members easily are appalled.

The vengeance backfired.  The House of Lords ruled his speech a breach of procedure which sounds a mild rebuke but in that place it was a damning censure.  It also provoked Wilkes who responded with tales of Sandwich’s “debauchery, miserliness and lack of good faith” and a biography published in the 1760s labelled him “an arsonist and thief”.  His reputation never recovered.

Portrait of Martha Ray by Nathaniel Dance-Holland  (1735–1811)

Miss Ray’s end was sadder still.  Sandwich gave her a generous allowance and obtained a flat in Westminster so she had somewhere to live during those times when, for whatever reason, she couldn’t stay in his house.  He also introduced her to a young soldier, James Hackman (circa 1752-1779) who became obsessed with her and soon turned into what would now be called a stalker.  In 1779, Hackman resigned his commission to join the church and it seems he and Ms Ray may have had a brief liaison but she declined his offers of marriage, apparently because she thought his social status and financial means inadequate.  Not handling rejection well, Hackman remained infatuated, become increasingly jealous and continued the pursuit.

One evening in April 1779, he followed her to the Royal Opera House at Covent Garden where he shot her dead, apparently under the impression she had taken another lover, which may or may not have been true.  Immediately after the murder, Hackman attempted suicide but succeeded only in wounding himself and was arrested.  Two days after she was buried, the Reverend Hackman was sentenced to be hanged and within the week he died on the Tyburn gallows at a public execution before “a large crowd”.

With Lindsay Lohan on location in Ireland for the shooting of the film Irish Wish, Westport Café The Creel created a sandwich to note the event.  The Lindsay LoHam includes 'nduja sausage, Monterey Jack cheese, mixed grated cheddar, caramelized onions and, naturally enough given the name, ham.  The film is scheduled for release in 2023; the sandwich is available for a limited season.

Sandwich is a town in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, its population 20,675 at the last census.  It is the oldest town on Cape Cod and in 2014, Sandwich turned 375 years old.  Sandwich has a police department.  They are the Sandwich Police.

One noted concoction is the muffuletta, a thick, round sandwich similar to a hero, typically containing ham, salami, and cheeses and topped with an olive salad, a specialty of New Orleans.  It seems first to have been served in the late 1960s, the name from the Sicilian dialect, from the Italian muffoletta (a round hollow-centered loaf of bread), from muffola (mitten), from the French moufle.  In New Orleans, among the muffuletta cognoscenti, there is a heated faction and a room-temperature faction.

Homily

Homily (pronounced hom-uh-lee)

(1) In Christianity, a kind of sermon, usually on a Biblical topic and often of a practical, non-doctrinal nature.

(2) An admonitory or moralizing discourse.

(3) A platitude or cliché intended to be inspirational.

1545-1555: From the Middle English omelī, omelīe & omelye, from the twelfth century Old French omelie (which persists in Modern French as homélie)and the Ecclesiastical Latin homilia & omilia (homily; a sermon), from the Ancient Greek ὁμιλία (homilía) (homily; instruction), from ὅμῑλος (hómīlos) (an assembled crowd; a throng), from the primitive Indo-European somalo- (a suffixed form of the root sem- (one; as one, together with) + -ῐ́ᾱ (-íā) (the suffix used to form abstract nouns).  The construct of the Greek ὅμῑλος was ὁμός (homós) (common; same) + ῑ̓́λη (ī́lē) (crowd), from εἴλω (eílō) (to aggregate).  The related common forms in Greek were homilia (conversation, discourse) & homilein (to converse with) and were cognate with the Sanskrit melah (assembly) and the Latin miles (in the senses of “an ordinary soldier”).  Under ecclesiastical influence, the Latinate form was restored in sixteenth century English.

The noun homilist, dating from the early seventeenth century described one who delivers a homily (although in some parishes in England the word was applied to a deacon or other junior cleric who wrote the text of a homily or sermon to be delivered by a bishop, dean etc).  The adjective homiletic was first recorded in the 1640s and was used to mean “of or pertaining to sermons” and was from the Late Latin homileticus, from the Ancient Greek homiletikos (of conversation, affable, a conversationalist), the related form the rare homiletical which rarely escaped the specialized field of study in divinity known as homiletics, a discipline which created also homilete & homiletical.  A bound or published collection of homilies or sermons is a homiliary (1844), a name used first in 1844 and they remain a feature of church publishing, especially those of leading figures (popes, archbishops et al).  The homiliary of Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger, b 1927; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus since) is an outstanding collection and an illustration why he remains the best pope since Pius XII (Eugenio Pacelli 1876-1958; pope 1939-1958).  Homily is a noun & adverb, the noun plural is homilies.

The words homily and sermon are sometimes used interchangeably and not always without justification because, if one respects the traditional distinctions, there are sermons which read like homilies and vice versa.  In the Christian churches (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran religions), a homily is commentary delivered by a priest or deacon after the reading of scripture, the purpose being to reduce the sometimes abstract theological issues raised to something practical and expressed in a conversation voice; it's essentially an explanation of the passage from the Bible.  Sermon was from the Middle English sermoun, from the Anglo-Norman sermun (and the Old French sermon), from the Latin sermō & sermōnem (speech or discourse).  A sermon is a speech or discourse on theology or morality and may be in direct reference to a scriptural text but may also be an abstraction from Christian teaching or indeed any matter of morality or which touches on some matter of religious significance.  Strictly speaking, sermons need not be restricted to what is delivered as part of a service and indeed can be book-length endeavors which hints perhaps at why “sermon” is also casually used to mean a tedious and usually long lecture delivered as an admonishment.  The Second Vatican Council (Vatican II; 1962-1965) muddied the waters and it’s tempting to think it was the negative association of the word “sermon” (until then the commonly used word) which convinced the bishops to rebrand the message delivery system as "homily".  This may also account for why some believe the two interchangeable.

The classic (if not now exactly typical) sermon in Christianity is the The Sermon on the Mount (anglicized from the Matthean Vulgate Latin in which it was called Sermo in monte), an assembly of words attributed to Jesus of Nazareth and found in the Gospel of Matthew (chapters 5-7) that encapsulates his moral teachings.  It is the first of five discourses in the Gospel and remains one of the most extensively quoted (and misquoted).  Winston Churchill, no moral theologian and self-described as “an external buttress rather than a pillar of the Church” thought “Christ’s story was unequalled and his death to save sinners unsurpassed” and “the Sermon on the Mount was the last word in ethics” but while he always admired the teachings, he didn’t always follow their strictures and probably imagined God would forgive his sins because he “had a few runs on the board”.

The idea of the homily or sermon isn’t restricted to Christianity.  The Prophet Muhammad delivered the last sermon (or Khutba) on Friday, ninth Dhul Hijjah (twelfth month of Islamic year), in mount Arafat’s Uranah Valley, the message delivered to humanity, telling all they are accountable to God for their deeds.

O People, lend me an attentive ear, for I know not whether after this year, I shall ever be amongst you again. Therefore listen to what I am saying to you very carefully and TAKE THESE WORDS TO THOSE WHO COULD NOT BE PRESENT HERE TODAY.

Beware of Satan, for the safety of your religion…All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety (taqwa) and good action.

Archbishop Porteous and the place of women & others

Homilies can be deployed as sword or shield and sometimes there’s a bit of overlap.  Late in October 2022, in faraway Tasmania, Archbishop Julian Porteous (b 1949; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Hobart since 2013) decided to use his Sunday homily to attack those who opposed him interpolating a so-called “submission reading” into the graduation mass he was to conduct at St Mary's College, an all-girls Roman Catholic school.  The reading the archbishop agreed to drop from the service was from Ephesians 5: 21-33 (KJV 1611):

Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.  Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.  So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.  For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:  For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.  This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.  Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Apparently the archbishop intended to use a newer translation, thinking, not unreasonably, the archaic phrasing of the King James Version (1611) might make elusive the meaning he was trying to convey but why he thought the modernized text might be better received by the girls isn’t clear:

Wives should regard their husbands as they regard the Lord, since as Christ is head of the Church and saves the whole body, so is a husband the head of his wife; and as the Church submits to Christ, so should wives submit to their husbands, in everything.

Archbishop Porteous summing up.

Tasmania however has moved on from the seventeenth century (and even from 1997 when it was the last Australian jurisdiction to remove the criminal sanction for homosexual acts between men) and the reaction among staff, students and parents was swift, the backlash accelerated by the inevitable social media pile-on.  Doubtless disappointed by his flock's response, the archbishop felt compelled to change his script although he seemed unconcerned about whether a passage demanding women submit to the demands of their husbands upon marriage was an appropriate choice to deliver to young women celebrating graduation, many of whom were soon to begin higher education as a prelude to professional careers.  Nor did he comment on the possible implications of the phrase “so should wives submit to their husbands, in everything” in a country where in some jurisdictions, because the inheritance of English common law, it wasn’t until the 1990s that it became possible to prosecute cases of rape within marriage.

The archbishop had other worries and in his Sunday homily noted it was "not unusual for the teaching of sacred scripture to be at variance with the attitudes and ethos of our age", adding that increasingly Christians were being “criticized and persecuted because we believe what the scriptures teach and we desire to live by its imperatives, even when they are at variance with the ethos of our times."  Of particular interest to the archbishop (and others) was the recent case of a Christian who was compelled to resign from an appointment as Chief Executive Office with an Australian Rules (AFL) club (the AFL itself something of a religion among many) after it was revealed the “City on a Hill” church (where he sits on the board) had published a series of articles critical of homosexuality and abortion.  Promptly, the club issued a statement saying the church’s views were contrary to the club's values and handed its CEO an ultimatum requiring he either disavow the position of his church or resign as CEO.  He chose his faith (in Christ, not the Essendon Football Club) and submitted to corporate crucifixion.

Drawing the comparison between one line of his reading from Ephesians and one fragment of a statement from the City on the Hill being taken out of context, he concluded "This tells us that our society is becoming increasingly hostile to Christian beliefs found in sacred scripture and actually to demand that people abandon their Christian faith if they wish to exercise public office.”  He went onto explain the theological basis of St Paul’s words in Ephesians and how they were such a radical approach to enhancing the status of women and the sanctity of marriage in what was still a pagan society, issuing a statement noting scripture needed to be read “within the total understanding of the faith” and that “…taking one sentence in isolation fails to do this”.  In that he’s correct but it’s unlikely the bolshie schoolgirls will be much impressed with his nuances.

Lindsay Lohan (b 1986), recently married to Credit Suisse trader Bader Shammas (b 1987) is thought unlikely to “submit to her husband in everything”.  It would be out of character.

Not helping the archbishop in his latest battle in the culture wars was that he has “a bit of previous” in the assault on modernity.  In 2015 he distributed to some 12,000 families with children in Tasmanian Catholic schools a pamphlet entitled "Don’t Mess With Marriage" in which it was argued that those from the LGBTQQIAAOP community "pretending that their relationships are ‘marriages’ is not fair or just to them."  It must have taken some intellectual gymnastics to reach that conclusion and even with a most careful reading the Old and New Testaments, while it’s not hard to work out that for men to lie with other men as others might with women is as much an abomination to the Lord as it would be for them to lie with beasts of the field, it’s hard to find a passage where there’s much concern for fairness towards them.  Still, the archbishop will be better acquainted with scripture than most so his insights may reveal a rare vision.  The pamphlet aroused the ire of the usual suspects and there were attempts to have the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner take the case but their interest was hard to arouse and after a desultory six months of meandering, the matter was withdrawn.

Faith & Doubt

Faith (pronounced feyth)

(1) Confidence or trust in a person, thing, or abstraction.

(2) A belief based not on proof.

(3) Belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion.

(4) Belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit etc.

(5) A system of religious belief.

(6) The obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.

(7) The observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance etc.

(8) A female given name.

(9) As (usually in) bad faith, insincerity or dishonesty, as (usually in) good faith, honesty or sincerity, as of intention in business.

10) Indeed; really (also in the phrases by my faith, in faith) (archaic).

1200-1250: From the Middle English faith, fayth, feith & feyth (also fay, fey, fei (faith) from the Old French fay, fey, fei, feit, & feid (faith), from the Latin fidēs (faith, belief, trust (from which English gained fidelity), from fīdō (trust, confide in), ultimately from the primitive Indo-European bheidth (from bheydth) (to command, persuade, trust (from which English gained bide).  The Middle English forms ending in -th are thought perhaps to represent an alteration of the earliest French form feid under influence of other abstract nouns in -th (truth, ruth, health et al) but may have been formed instead from the more usual Old French forms fay, fey, fei etc. with the English suffix added (also due to assimilation to other nouns in -th), thus making the word equivalent to fay +‎ -th.  The theological sense dates only from the late fourteenth century although religions had been referred to as faiths since circa 1300.  The adjective multifaith (written often now as multi-faith) is a most recent addition.

Before Broken English:  Marianne Faithful (b 1946), Faithless (1978 NEMS Cat: NEL 6012), repackaged re-release of Dreamin' My Dreams (1976).

Doubt (pronounced dout)

(1) To be uncertain about; consider questionable or unlikely; hesitate to believe.

(2) To distrust.

(3) To fear; be apprehensive about (archaic).

(4) A feeling of uncertainty about the truth, reality, or nature of something.

(5) A state of affairs such as to occasion uncertainty.

(6) In philosophy, the methodical device, especially in the writings of Descartes, of identifying certain knowledge as the residue after rejecting any proposition which might, however improbably, be false.

(7) In theology (and, in earlier times, among poets), a technical device for addressing problems with faith.

1175-1225:  From Middle English douten drawn from Anglo-French and Old French douter or doter, derived from Latin dubitāre (to waver, hesitate, be uncertain (frequentative of Old Latin dubāre)).  Final Latin form was dubium (plural dubia) and the Old English was doute.  Douten entirely replaced the Middle English tweonien (to doubt) which was derived from the Old English twēonian.  The Old French doter from the Latin dubitāre reflected how the meaning had changed in Latin; related to dubius (from which English picked up dubious) meant originally "to have to choose between two things."  The sense of "fear" developed in Old French and was passed on to English. Meaning "to be uncertain" is attested in English from circa 1300.  Related forms are doubtable (adjective), doubtably (adverb), doubter (noun), doubtingly (adverb) and doubtingness (noun).  Most popular today is doubtlessly or doubtless.  English doubtlessly has tended to the permissive.  Where a clause follows doubt in a positive sentence, until well into the twentieth century, it was correct only to use whether but if and that are now acceptable.  In negative statements, doubt is followed by that.  The old practice of using but (as in “I do not doubt but that she speaks truth”) is wholly redundant.

Faith and doubt:  The four dubia cardinals, the pope and the hint of heresy

On 19 September 2016, a letter from Cardinals Carlo Caffarra (1938-2017), Walter Brandmüller (b 1929), Raymond Burke (b 1948) & Joachim Meisner (1933-2017) was delivered to the pope and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the old Holy Office or Inquisition).  Technically, the letter was a dubia, a respectful request for clarification regarding about certain established teachings which appeared to be challenged by recent events in or statements from the Holy See (especially Pope Francis' (b 1936; pope since 2013) 2016 post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia (The Joy of Love) concerned with the pastoral care of families).  Phrased as five questions, the cardinals asked (1) Whether those living in sin were now to be granted Holy Communion, (2) Whether the Church had overturned Saint John Paul II’s (1920–2005; pope 1978-2005) 1993 encyclical Veritatis splendor (The Splendor of the Truth) which laid down certain fundamentals of the Church's role in moral teaching, (3) Whether there were changes in what constituted certain sins, (4) Whether circumstances or intentions can now transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act subjectively good or defensible as a choice and (5), Whether the church no longer excludes any creative interpretation of the role of conscience and now accepts that conscience can be authorized to permit legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?  The issues raised were matters of vital interest inside the curia, to theologians and certain other clergy and, though seeming perhaps a little arcane to many, are actually fundamental to the very nature of the Church.

Faith and research: Lindsay Lohan with Qur'an, April 2016.

Of interest too was the structural question: the authority of the pope.  The cardinals' view was that a pope's duty is to defend and preserve the doctrines and teachings of the church, these being eternal and unchanging.  The alternative view is the pope is the bishop at the head of an absolute theocracy.  So, when speaking on matters of doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, the pope's authority is absolute and he is held to be infallible.  Use of this power is called speaking ex cathedra, (the Latin cathedra and sedes translate as "chair", a historic symbol from Antiquity for a teacher and one preserved in academia for the office of professor, and the "see" of a bishopric.  The significance of ex cathedra (from the chair) is that a pope occupies the "chair of Peter" (the "Holy See") by virtue of being the successor of Peter himself.  Saint Peter being held to be, ex-officio, the spokesman of Christ (and therefore, as the "Vicar of Christ on Earth" speaking the words of God) and every pope since has fulfilled this role), a matter long assumed even before it was declared at the First Vatican Council (Vatican I;1869-1870).  Although invoked formally only once since, papal infallibility remains as a pope's thermo-nuclear option in these matters.

The dispute remains afoot because Pope Francis neither acknowledged nor replied to the cardinals' respectful dubia.  Less deferential was another letter delivered some months later in which several dozen Catholic theologians, priests and academics went further than the cardinals and formally accused Pope Francis of spreading heresy, a document the like of which hadn't been sent to a pope since the 1300s.  Stunningly, it was one step short of actually accusing the pontiff of being a heretic.  The squabble may last at least as long as Francis' pontificate although, unfortunately, in these modern times, it can no longer be resolved by Inquisition having accusers burned at the stake.  Francis has proved a quick learner in the handling of social media and, perhaps borrowing from the Anglicans, appears to feel some problems are best solved by pretending they don't exist although it may be he simply didn't see the point, recalling the words of world-weary Benedict XIV (1675–1758; pope 1740-1758): "The pope commands, his cardinals do not obey, and the people do what they wish."  He ignored the theologians’ letter.

Interestingly though, early in 1919, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI (b 1927; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus since), although without mentioning the five dubia, did respond and his words would have pleased the two cardinals still alive.  His answers were an unambiguous (1) no, (2) no, (3) no, (4) no and (5) no.  With a Benedictine certainty reminiscent of Pius IX's (1792–1878; pope 1846-1878) Syllabus Of Errors (1864), he spoke of a “...crisis of morality…, the hypothesis that morality was to be exclusively determined by the purposes of human action..." to the point there could no longer be said to be any "...absolute good, any more than anything fundamentally evil; (there could be) only relative value judgements”  He warned of the risk of a world in which there was “…no longer was (there an absolute good), but only the relatively better, contingent on the moment and on circumstances..."  He’s discussed this theme before: that a church of true-believers is better than one that just accepts what happens to suit whoever wishes to join the club.  Benedict didn’t say it but he may think if that’s what people want, they may as well become Anglicans, his documented opinion that a smaller Church which remains pure is preferable to one larger but corrupted by the falsehoods post-modernist structures claim as moral and intellectual equivalents of traditional teachings.

Nor did he add the words of Pius IX which so many see when reading between the lines the pope emeritus has written during the pontificate of Francis: "If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic faith, do not follow him". 

Faith and Doubt in the Century's Poets, Edited by Richard A Armstrong (1843-1905), Bib ID 2635856, James Clarke & Co, London, 1898, pp136.

Percy Bysshe Shelley: The spirit of revolt.
William Wordsworth: Revelation through nature and man.
Arthur Hugh Clough: Between the old faith and the new.
Alfred Tennyson: The larger hope.
Matthew Arnold: The eternal note of sadness.
Robert Browning: Faith triumphant.

The nineteenth century can be thought a truly scientific age and the discoveries revealed provoked much writing about the defensibility of a faith based upon much shown to be impossible or at least improbable.  While poets agonized, theologians rationalized where they could, finding allegory and analogy useful devices to explain where they could the less plausible passages of scripture and for everything else offered a fudge: “you need not believe it but you must accept it.”

Align

Align (pronounced a-line)

(1) To arrange in a straight line; adjust according to a line.

(2) To bring into a line or alignment.

(3) To bring into cooperation or agreement with a particular group, party, cause etc; to identify with or match the behavior, thoughts etc of another person.

(4) In radio transceiving, to adjust two or more components of an electronic circuit to improve the response over a frequency band, as to align the tuned circuits of a radio receiver for proper tracking throughout its frequency range, or a television receiver for appropriate wide-band responses.

(5) To join with others in a cause.

(6) In computing, to store data in a way consistent with the memory architecture ie by beginning each item at an offset equal to some multiple of the word size.

(7) In bioinformatics, to organize a linear arrangement of DNA, RNA or protein sequences which have regions of similarity.

Circa 1690: From the Middle English alynen & alinen (copulate (of wolves & dogs)), from the Middle French aligner, from Old French alignier (set, lay in line (sources of the Modern French aligner)).  The construct à (to) + lignier (to line) was from the Latin lineare (reduce to a straight line) from linea (line).  The French spelling with the -g- is un-etymological, and aline, the early alternative spelling in English is long obsolete and was never revived as US English.

The transitive or reflexive sense of "to fall into line" is attested from 1853 with the use in international relations first noted in 1923 in the sense of (return to previously aligned positions) in reference to European international relations and use spiked after 1933 in the League of Nations in discussions about the disputes which would from then only worsen.  The noun alignment (arrangement in a line) dates from 1790 and misaligned (faulty or incorrect arrangement in line) was originally used in engineering, documented from 1903 although, curiously, realign (align again or anew), a back-formation of realignment was in common use in railway construction by the mid 1800s.  References to the Non-Aligned Movement (formalized in 1961), appeared in documents in 1960 although the concept of geopolitical non-alignment was much discussed after 1934 in debates in the noble but doomed League of Nations (1920-1946 (although a moribund relic after 1940)).

The Non-Aligned Movement

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is a group of states with some one-hundred and twenty members.  It began during the cold war as a loose organization of countries, not formally aligned either with Washington or Moscow, the centres of the two major power blocs.  The NAM was formed in Belgrade in 1961, the project of Jawaharlal Nehru (1889–1964; Prime-minister of India 1947-1964), Sukarno (1901–1970; president of Indonesia 1945-1967), Gamal Abdel Nasser (1918–1970; president of Egypt 1954-1970) and comrade Josip Broz Tito (1892–1980; prime-minister or president of Yugoslavia 1944-1980).  The cross-cutting cleavages of the cold war meant the NAM was never wholly synonymous with the third world but those nations provided the bulk of the organization’s membership.  Nor was the NAM politically monolithic, the organization doing little to reduce tensions between members Iran & Iraq or India & Pakistan (NATO notably more successful in suppressing things between squabbling members), its most noted fracture over the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1979; while some Soviet allies supported the invasion, others (particularly Islamic states) condemned it.

The NAM: members in dark blue, those enjoying observer status in light blue.

Quite what role the NAM has fulfilled since the end of the Cold War is not clear.  Its ongoing survival may be nothing more than bureaucratic inertia or the tendency for political structures to live on beyond the existence of the purpose for which they were created, a phenomenon noted in academic literature in both political science and organisational studies.  So, sixty years on, it still exists, even conducting virtual summits during the COVID-19 pandemic although it’s been many years since anything said in its forums attracted much attention.  Of late however, as the building blocks of the New Cold War have taken shape, there’s been much speculation about the future composition of the NAM as a bi-polar arrangement consisting of (1) the West and (2) the BRICS seems to be coalescing.  The origin of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China (South Africa added later)) was in an economist’s paper (2001) discussing the high-growth economies which showed the greatest potential and the organisation has recently added Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.  The claims by the BRICS secretariat that what is envisaged is a “multi-polar world” are interesting in as much as they’re being made rather than for their credibility but there are many not unhappy at prospect of a bi-polar planet being formalized and the form in which this emerges will be dependent on how certain nations in the NAM decide to re-align.  While there’s still a degree of medium-term predictability about Russia, China and other usual suspects, players like India and Brazil (which can be open to temptation and civilizing influences) and may emerge as a political dynamic, either as horse-traders or fence-sitters.

The overlay: the first, second & third worlds

First World Blue: Essentially the anti-communist bloc of the cold war.  Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the definition has shifted to include any country with stable (ie non-violent) political systems, some degree of democracy, a legal system which at least pretends to adhere to the rule of law, a market-based economy and a high standard of living.  Best thought of as the rich world, these are the countries in which it’s (usually) safe to drink the tap water.

Second World Red: The Second World referred to the nominally communist or socialist states mostly under the influence of the Soviet Union.  Soviet control varied from actual satellite states to those merely in degrees of sympathy with Moscow.  Relationships were often fractious, the most celebrated tiff being the Sino-Soviet split.

Third World Green: Originally, the term was a political construct to define countries that remained non-aligned with either NATO or the Communist Bloc but, even among scholars of political economy, there never emerged a consensus about just which countries constituted the third world.  The most used, but least defined of the three worlds, it’s essentially now a less politically correct way of referring to what economists now call the developing world.

The multi-polar school in Mean Girls (2004) lacked a NAM

The discipline of behavioralism is not as fashionable as once it was but its tools and methods remain in use in fields as diverse (or similar according to some) as political science, marketing, crowd control and zoology, much of the work exploring group dynamics, both internally and the interactions between factions.  Although it wasn’t intended to be taken too seriously, one structuralist did make the point that the sheer number of cliques (20-odd) in the Mean Girls high school meant it was unlikely a “non-aligned” grouping would emerge because the extent of the multi-polarity was such that the concept made no sense; even in the dynamic system of ever-shifting alliances between small numbers of cliques, in a sense all simultaneously were non-aligned with the majority of others.