Lush

Lush (pronounced luhsh)

(1) Of vegetation, plants, grasses etc, luxuriant; succulent; tender and juicy; characterized by luxuriant vegetation.

(2) Of fruit (especially tropical varieties), succulent and fleshy; of food in general, savory, delicious (now rare).

(3) Characterized by luxuriousness, opulence etc.

(4) A habitual drinker of alcohol who is frequently intoxicated, applied usually as disparaging and offensive term and applied disproportionately to women.

(5) Alcoholic drink (archaic).

(6) In musical criticism (of sopranos in Opera), a notably rich, expressive voice; in music generally an antonym for austere or sparse, a use also extended to literature.

(7) In internet slang (of the young of any gender), beautiful, sexy; used also as a synonym generally for amazing, cool, fantastic, wicked (should be used only by the youthful).

(8) Of ground or the soil, in dialectal use, mellow; soft; easily turned; fertile.

1400–1450: From the late Middle English lusch (slack, relaxed, limp, loose), from the Proto-Germanic laskwaz (weak, false, feeble), from the primitive Indo-European lēy- (to let; leave behind).  It was akin to the Old English lysu (bad) & lǣc (lax), the Middle Low German las & lasch (slack), the Middle High German erleswen (to become weak), the Middle Low German lasch (slack, languid, idle),the Low German lusch (loose), the Old Norse lǫskr (weak, feeble) and the Gothic lasiws (weak, feeble).  A doublet of lusk.  Source was probably the Old French lasche (lax, lazy) from the Latin laxus (loose), from the Late Latin laxicare (become shaky) from the primitive European root sleg- (be slack, be languid).

Among the tropical lushness: Lindsay Lohan in pink orchid veavage swimsuit next to potted pink orchid, Phuket, Thailand, December, 2017.  It was during this holiday the wire services reported “Lindsay Lohan bitten by snake on holiday in Thailand”; almost instantly, the grammar Nazis tweeted on X (then known as Twitter) demanding proof the snake really was on holiday; standards have fallen sine the demise of sub-editors.  Ms Lohan made a full-recovery; there was no word on the fate of the (presumably not venomous) serpent.

It began to be applied to dense vegetation circa 1600 when used that way by Shakespeare who was alluding to the languid appearance of foliage and the modern sense “luxuriant in growth" developed organically from there.  The Shakespearian origin is generally accepted but some etymologists have noted a link to a word in Gypsy (Romany) or Shelta (tinkers' jargon).  The use relating to alcoholic drink dates from circa 1790, the origin unknown but presumed to be a facetious link to the idea of juicy vegetation, saturated with liquid.  The early slang referred to the drink itself; in 1790 a “lush ken” was an alehouse but by 1890 had come to mean "drunkard" and as early as 1811 was used as a verb meaning “to drink heavily”, the adjective being lushey.    In 1823, Lushington was recorded as a humorous generic name for a heavy drinker which was perhaps unfortunate for some, it being a real surname.  It was in the twentieth century, perhaps in reaction to the greater social acceptability of women taking drink, that lush came to be an almost exclusively female descriptor; the linguistic shift part of the long (and continuing) tradition of men finding new ways to disparage women.  Lush is a noun & adjective, Lusher & lushest are adjectives, lushness is a noun and lushly an adverb.

Martha Mitchell, who got a bit of fun from life

John and Martha Mitchell, Washington DC, 1971.

Martha Mitchell (1918-1976) was the wife of John Mitchell (1913–1988; US attorney-general 1969–1972) who served under Richard Nixon (1913-1994; POTUS 1969-1974) as attorney general.  She gained a not undeserved reputation as a lush, Nixon’s chief of staff (HR Halderman 1926-1993; chief of staff to the president 1969 1973) noting in his diary early in 1970 that “Martha’s behavior was sometimes outlandish, due to both emotional and drinking problems”.  More than once in the White House there was discussion about her being an embarrassment to her husband and the administration and a term emerged: "the Martha problem”.

Martha Mitchell, Time magazine cover, 30 November 1970.

The attorney-general’s wife being a lush not good but was tolerated, her husband actually attracting some sympathy, but, as the Nixon administration proceeded along its historic course, Martha’s drunken ramblings, including to journalists, raised real concerns.  Pillow-talk being a thing, she raised concerns about the dirty tricks and actual illegalities in which the administration was involved, especially the conduct of the 1972 election campaign which included the famous Watergate building break-in.  Figures in the administration then arranged to kidnap her so she could be kept incommunicado, the idea being the cover-up that was the Watergate affair would be better conducted without her around, part of the kidnapping having her forcefully sedated and locked up.  However, her accusations soon emerged and in little more than a year, Nixon would be forced to resign.  Martha had raised many of matters in an attempt to defend her husband who she believed was being set-up as the administration's “fall-guy” but, early in the scandal he resigned, later to be convicted of perjury, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy and jailed for some two years.  Soon after his resignation, the couple separated; they would never meet again.  To his dying day Nixon blamed Martha for the Watergate scandal, insisting she was such a distraction for the attorney-general that he neglected the oversight of the 1972 campaign, allowing others in the team to do bad things.  As a reading of the Old Testament's Book of Genesis would suggest, there's a long tradition of men finding a woman to blame for things going wrong.

The Martha Mitchell Effect

The "Martha Mitchell Effect" is from the literature of psychiatry and refers to instances where a clinician labels a patient's accurate description of actual events as delusional, resulting in a misdiagnosis.  The significance of the Martha Mitchell Effect is that, strictly speaking, its application should be limited to those instances of misdiagnosis which arise because the clinician either relied upon or was unduly influenced by factors particular to the patient but not directly relevant to case being discussed.  Thus, because Martha was a notorious lush given to rambling, drunken accusations and claims of conspiracies, she was erroneously assumed to be displaying symptoms of mental illness.

New York Daily News, 26 June 1972.

In the profession, the Martha Mitchell Effect is something which can affect many (cognitive bias, misdiagnosis, diagnostic overshadowing, iatrogenic & over-diagnosis) of the circumstances which can produce false positives, a particular problem in psychiatry, where there are few objective clinical tests for most disorders, diagnosis relying so often on the subjectivity of both the patient report and interpretation of these symptoms by clinicians.  In real-world conditions, there’s no obvious way to create protocols to ensure the Martha Mitchell Effect doesn’t infect a diagnosis.  However, the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5, 2013) did change some of the criteria for delusional disorders, notably no longer requiring that delusions must be non-bizarre, a change which while obviously not removing subjectivity from the process, did offer some equality between patient and clinician.  The specifier for bizarre type delusions carried over from DSM-IV (1994), the demarcation of delusional disorder from psychotic variants of obsessive-compulsive disorder and body dysmorphic disorder augmented with a new exclusion criterion, which required the symptoms must not be better explained by conditions such as obsessive-compulsive or body dysmorphic disorder with absent insight/delusional beliefs.  In DSM-5, a delusional disorder is no longer separated from a shared delusional disorder.  In theory, the changes in DSM-5 might have gained Martha a more sympathetic diagnosis, one she'd doubtless have celebrated with a drink.

Antinatal

Antinatal (pronounced ant-t- neytl)

A philosophical position that asserts a negative value judgment towards birth.

1968:  The construct was anti- + natal.  Anti was from the Ancient Greek ἀντι- (anti).  Natal was from the Latin nātālis (natal), from nātus, the perfect active participle of nāscor (I am born),from the earlier gnāscor, from the Proto-Italic gnāskōr, from the primitive Indo-European ǵenh.  It was cognate with the Ancient Greek γεννάω (gennáō) (to beget).  The first use of antinatal appears to be by the Belgium author Théophile de Giraud (b 1968) in L'art de guillotiner les procréateurs: Manifeste anti-nataliste ((The Art of Guillotining Procreators: An Anti-natalist Manifesto, 2006) although forms of anti-natalist thought appear in ancient Greek philosophy, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Manichaeism. It was also espoused by heretical gnostic Christian sects, such as the Bogomils, Cathars, Encratites, and Marcionites.  As an etymological point regarding the play on words, the reference is antenatal (before birth); ante a borrowing from the Latin.  As prefixes, anti- (against) should not be confused with ante- (before) but, anti- does exist as a variant spelling of ante- in some borrowed words, such as anticipate and antipasto, but cannot be used to coin English words.  Antinatal is an adjective and antinatalism & antinatalist are nouns; the noun plural is antinatalists.

Strains

Although nihilists are predictably drawn to antinatalism, it’s really not a fork of nihilism.  Instead, it’s the position that bringing someone into existence will always harm the person created, but failing to bring that person into existence will only deny them pleasures they’ll never know. Therefore, the only guaranteed way to avoid increasing the harm quotient of sentient life is for human procreation to be discontinued as a moral imperative. The inevitable consequence of this would be to hasten the extinction of the human species and within the internal logic of the counter-intuitive formulation that is antinatalism, it’s the only ethical outcome.  A legal basis has also been suggested (drawn from the traditions of natural law), which holds that giving birth to children is inherently wrong because the child can never consent to being born.

Structuralists call that a “consent-based deontological argument” but in common use it’s a variant of the “non-consensual harm argument”.  The structure is deontological (of or relating to ethics in the sense of “the study of principles relating to right and wrong conduct” rather than consequentialist because the focus primarily is not on outcomes (suffering, welfare, utility), but to a violation of a moral constraint (in this case the proscription on imposing a condition on another individual without their consent).  At the structural level, it may be compared with concepts such as non-consensual medical procedures (or those in which consent is deemed to be “not informed”), non-consensual risk imposition, or coercive contracts.  The general principle is that if an act in any way affects and individual in a morally significant way and the individual cannot consent, then the act should be held to be impermissible (there will in some circumstances be exceptions to this, many of them related to medical treatment).  However, as used by the antinatalists, the argument exists more as a way of drawing attention to their cause than a serious intellectual point, simply because it will always be defeated by the “impossibility-of-consent objection”, an individual prior to the point of conception being no more able to consent to being born than Oliver Cromwell’s (1599–1658; Lord Protector of the Commonwealth 1653-1658) horse.  In that sense it’s something well-beyond the legal issue of asymmetrical consent.  Given all that, it’s an interesting way to draw attention to the cause rather than a serious argument because both consent and refusal are impossible to gain and those who bother to work things to their logical conclusion tend to conclude one or both parents may be presumed to possess the power of consent by proxy.

Views do change.  In July 2023, Lindsay Lohan became a mother.

Motherhood definitely changed how Lindsay Lohan saw things but others didn’t allow the arrival of their offspring much to change their world view and sense of the place their children occupied in the hierarchy of their “possessions”.  In his diary, (edited by edited by Michael Davie (1924-2005) and published in 1976), the novelist Evelyn Waugh (1903-1966) on 13 November, 1943 noted:

“There is a great deal of talk at the moment about the rocket guns which the Germans are said to have set up in France, with a range to carry vast explosive charges to London.  The fear is seriously entertained in the highest quarters.  I have accordingly given orders for the books I have been keeping at the Hyde Park Hotel to be sent to Piers Court [Waugh’s country house Stinchcombe, Gloucestershire, a wedding present from his second wife’s grandmother].  At the same time I have advocated my son [Auberon Waugh (1939–2001)] coming to London.  It would seem from this that I prefer my books to my son.  I can argue that firemen rescue children and destroy books, but the truth is that a child is easily replaced while a book destroyed is utterly eternal; but most that I have a sense of absolute possession over my library and not over my nursery.”

The “rocket guns” mentioned were the first of the Vergeltungswaffen (retaliatory weapons), the first see the earliest type of cruise missile (the V-1, later to be dubbed “buzz-bomb” or “doodlebug” by those at which they were aimed).  The early Allied speculation was novel weapons were likely to be more destructive than they proved but even so, when deployed they caused considerable damage and loss of life; they also forced the high command to alter their immediate strategic plans after the D-Day (6 June, 1944) landings in an attempt to counter the threat.  The V-1 was one of war’s most economical delivery systems, the post-war British analysis calculating that at a unit cost of Stg£125 it was able to deliver (with reasonable accuracy for its purpose), about the same bomb load as a medium bomber which (including crew) cost some Stg£10,000, men and machine both subject to damage or death.  Had more resources been devoted to developing the cruise missile to ensure it was ready for deployment by 1940, the early years of World War II (1939-1945) would likely have unfolded differently; as it was, although the V-1 and V-2 (the first ballistic missile) were the most obvious of the Nazi’s many Wunderwaffen (wonderweapons), for a variety of reasons they were not decisive although their influence in the post-war years was profound.

Wedding day: Leonard (1880-1969) & Virginia Woolf (1882-1941), St Pancras, London, 10 August 1912; the couple did not have children.

Philanthropic anti-natalism is the position that humans should not have children for the good of the (unborn) children because, in bringing children in the world, parents are subjecting them to pain, suffering, illness, and finally death.  Virginia Woolf, in Mrs Dalloway (1925) explored the idea through the character of Septimus Warren Smith who said “One cannot bring children into a world like this. One cannot perpetuate suffering, or increase the breed of these lustful animals, who have no lasting emotions, but only whims and vanities, eddying them now this way, now that.”  Of the two main strains of the philosophy, misanthropic anti-natalism is the position that humans have a presumptive duty to desist from bringing into existence new members of our species because they cause harm.  Ecological anti-natalism (sometimes called “environmental anti-natalism”) is a subset of this in that it holds procreation is wrong because of the environmental damage caused by human beings and the suffering we inflict on other sentient organisms.  Its quasi-political manifestation is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

Butyraceous

Butyraceous (pronounced byoo-tuh-rey-shuhs)

Of the nature of, resembling, or containing butter.

1660–1670: A compound word, the construct being the Latin būtȳr(um) + -aceous.  Butyro-, a combining form of Latin būtȳrum (butter) was borrowed from the Ancient Greek βούτῡρον (boútūron) and -aceous was from the New Latin, derived from the Classical Latin -aceus (of a certain kind) and related to –ac & -ax, the Latin adjectival suffixes.  The construct of the Ancient Greek βούτῡρον was βοῦς (boûs) (cow) +‎ τυρός (turós) (cheese).  Synonyms include buttery, waxy, slippery, creamy, oiled, lubricant, lustrous, polished, rich, sleek, smooth, soapy, soothing, swimming, unctuous, adipose, oleaginous, lardy, lubricative & lubricous.

Making fake Sizzler cheese toast

Ingredients

(1) Thick sliced bread.

(2) Butter (room temperature).

(3) Pecorino cheese (shredded or grated).

Instructions

(1) Combine equal amounts of butter with parmesan and mix to create a paste.

(2) Using suitable knife, spread the butter/cheese paste on one side of bread.

(3) Pan-fry the bread paste-side down in frying pan over a medium heat and place a lid or flat plate over bread so it can steam while cooking.  Cook until golden brown and serve.

Notes

Sizzler use Pecorino cheese but toast can be made with Parmesan, the original using shredded cheese but grated or shaved can also be used, the latter able to produce a slightly chunky effect some prefer.

Sizzler has always used only white bread but it works with wholemeal or wholegrain varieties.  The recipe is best in its simple form but garlic powder, dried herbs or small quantities of sliced or grated onion can be added to the mix.  Some recommend beating the butter before adding the cheese.  This doesn’t affect the taste but is said both to reduce the cooking time and produce a toast with a slightly different texture.  Margarine should not be used.

Lindsay Lohan, Butter Nightclub, New York City, 2006.

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.

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 etc).  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 etc) 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 (1979) changed it all: Marianne Faithfull (1946-2025), 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.”