Fatwa

Fatwa (pronounced faht-wah)

(1) In Islam, a religious decree issued by a high authority (such as a mufti) or the ʿulama (a body of Muslim scholars who are recognized as having specialist knowledge of Islamic sacred law and theology).

(2) In Islam, a non-binding judgment on a point of Islamic law given by a recognized religious authority.

1620s: From the Arabic fatwā or fetwā (a legal ruling given by a mufti) and related to fata (to instruct by a legal decision).  The Arabic فَتْوَى‎ (fatwā) was the verbal noun of أَفْتَى‎ (ʾaftā) (to deliver a formal opinion; he gave a legal decision), مُفْتٍ‎ (muftin) (mufti) the active participle of the same verb.  The noun mufti, one of a number of titles in the Islamic legal and institutional structures, dates from the 1580s muphtie (official head of the state religion in Turkey), from the Arabic mufti (judge), the active participle (with formative prefix mu-) of afta (to give) a conjugated form of fata.  The alternative forms are fatwah, fetwa, fetwah, futwa & (the archaic medieval) futwah although in some early sources it appeared as fotyā (plural fatāwā) & fatāwī; in English use, it’s written usually as fatwa.  Fatwa is a noun & verb and fatwaing & fatwaed are verbs; the noun plural is fatwas or fatawa.  The occasionally used adjectives fatwaesque & fatwaish are non-standard.

Portrait of the Imam as a young man: Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1900–1989; Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 1979-1989).

Apart from the work of historians and other scholars, the word was rare in English, popularized in the West only when, on Valentine’s day 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwā sentencing to death the author Salman Rushdie (b 1947) and others associated with publishing The Satanic Verses (1988), the charge being blasphemy.  The fatwā was revoked in 1998.  Interestingly, in purely juristic terms, The Satanic Verses fatwā is thought neither remarkable nor innovative, the call for extra-judicial killings, the summary execution of those condemned without judicial process, was well grounded in the historic provisions of Shiʿite (and Sunni) jurisprudence.  What lent this fatwā its impact was it had been issued by a head of state against the citizen of another country and seemed thus archaic in late twentieth century international relations.

A fatwā is the authoritative ruling of a religious scholar on questions (masāʾel) of Islamic jurisprudence either (1) dubious or obscure in nature (shobohāt) or (2) which are newly arisen and for which there is no known precedent (mostaḥdaṯāt) and it’s in connection with the latter category that the word fatwā has long been regarded as cognate with fatā (young man); the sense of something new.  However, the enquiry eliciting a fatwā may relate to an existing ordinance (ḥokm) of Islamic law (particularly one unknown to the questioner) or to its application to a specific case or occurrence which is sufficiently different to the way something has historically been applied.  In this case, the fatwā functions as an act to clarify the relevant ordinance (tabyīn-e ḥokm).  This can apply to something novel like new technology.  The International Space Station (ISS) operates at an altitude of 250 miles (400 km) and travels at 17,500 mph (28,000 km/h), thus orbiting Earth every ninety minutes so when a Muslim astronaut requested guidance about the correct protocols to ensure he was facing towards Mecca when in prayer, a Malaysian scholar issued a fatwā.

The process of requesting a fatwā is termed esteftāʾ; the one who requests it is the mostaftī; its delivery is the eftāʾ; and the one who delivers it is the moftī.  There is nothing in Islamic law which dictates a fatwā must be either requested or provided in writing although this has always been the common practice and certainly followed in matters of importance.  However, request and fatwā may be delivered orally and the practice is doubtlessly widespread, especially when merely confirming things generally known. The technical process of the fatwā wasn’t an invention of Islam.  In Roman civil law, the principle of jus respondendi (the right of responding) was an authority conferred on senior jurists when delivering legal opinions; thought essentially the right to embellish a ruling with an opinion, some historians maintain it was even a right to issue a dissent although there’s no agreement on this.  Perhaps even closer was the Jewish practice of Responsa (in Latin the plural of responsum (answer)) which in practice translated as “ask the Rabbi”.

As a general principle, fatwās exist to address specific and actual problems or uncertainties, although rulings are not infrequently sought on a set of interrelated questions or on hypothetical problems the occurrence of which is anticipated.  A legal scholar can thus provide what is, in effect, an advisory opinion; something generally unknown in the Western legal tradition.  Nor are fatwās of necessity concerned purely with legal matters, doctrinal considerations necessarily involved whenever a fatwā results in takfīr (the condemnation of individuals or groups as unbelievers).  This is a feature especially in Shiʿite collections of fatwās which are sometimes prefaced with a summary of essential doctrines, intended to create concise handbooks for the common believer of both theology and law.

A misunderstood aspect of the fatwā is the extent to which it can be held to be mandatory.  Because of the structures of Islam, a fatwā is not comparable to a papal bull which is an absolute ruling from the Holy See; a fatwā is intrinsically obligatory simply because there is in Islam not the one lineal hierarchy, it is an expression of learned opinion which relies for its authority upon the respect afforded to the author and the willingness of followers to comply.  That’s not to say that some strains of Islam don’t attempt to formalise a structure which would impose that obligation.  In Shiʿism, the authority to deliver a fatwā is generally restricted to the mojtahed (the jurist qualified to deduce the specific ordinances of the law (forūʿ) from its sources (oṣūl), and obedience to the mojtahed of their choice (the marjaʿ-e taqlīd) is incumbent on all who lack learned qualifications.  As a specific point of law, the ruling given in the fatwā of a mojtahed is obligatory for those who sought.

Holy Quran commissioned by the last Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (1919-1980).

One curious aspect of the fatwās is that while the process is only partially based on anything from the Holy Quran, by definition the content of a  fatwā can be based on nothing else.  The theological point is that while there are Quranic verses in which the Prophet was asked for rulings (yasʾalūnaka (they ask you) & yastaftūnaka (they ask you for a ruling)), the Prophet himself is not the source of the rulings for in these versus he is instructed to say, “God provides you with a ruling” (Allāho yoftīkom); a fatwā, ultimately relying for its authority not on the scholarship of the writer but upon it being Quranic: the word of God.  This relationship is made explicit in the injunction in 16:43 (“Ask the People of Remembrance (ie those learned in the Holy Quran) if you do not know”).  This accounts also for the brevity of most fatwās compared with Western traditions, it being superfluous for the moftī to cite textual or other evidence simply because all that can be issued is what can easily be referenced in the in Holy Quran.  It can be no other way because, under Islamic doctrine, Muhammad was the last prophet and thus, after his death in 632, God ceased to communicate with mankind through revelation and prophets; from that point onward, for all time, there are only the words of the Holy Quran.

Lindsay Lohan in hijab.

The vexed matter of the wearing of the hijab (or any of the other variations in Women’s “modest” clothing associated with Islam (as it is with some other faiths)) is an example of the fatwa in operation.  The Holy Quran contains passages discussing the concept of modesty in attire (for both men and women) but the interpretation and application of these has varied greatly within Islam’s many strands.  The Quranic verse most commonly cited is in Surah An-Nur (24:31) where it instructs believing women to “draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, or their brothers' sons or their sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves whom their right hands possess, or male attendants who lack vigor, or children who are not yet aware of the nakedness of women.”  So there’s no explicit mention of “heads or hair” but many Islamic scholars have constructed this as a directive for women to cover their hair when in the presence of those not immediate family members or close relatives.

Lindsay Lohan in hijab.

It’s not only in Islam that interpretations of religious texts can vary widely but in the early twenty-first century (and the trend has been accelerating since the triumpt of the 1979 revolution in Iran) it’s upon Islam where much of the liberal West’s attention has been focused, this interest not the garments but the allegations of coercion imposed on women.  Some in the West have even gone as far as to deny Islamic women the possibility that in choosing to hijab they are exercising free will, suggesting they are victims of what the Marxists call “false consciousness”.  In Islamic communities, cultural, regional and historic customs also play a significant role in how hijab is understood and practiced which is why there have been fatwas which interpret the Quranic verses as severely as dictating a burqa, as a head-scarf or merely a mode of dress and conduct which could be described as “modest” or “non-provocative”.

Lindsay Lohan in hijab.

So when there are competing fatwas, a choice must be made.   Were one to take a purely theoretical position, one might hold that choice would be made on the basis of an individual's personal beliefs, level of religious observance and understanding of Islamic teachings and, because within Islam there is such a diversity of opinion, a follower might be encouraged to consult with knowledgeable scholars and from that make an informed decision.  However, it’s absurd to suggest that process might be followed in a state like Afghanistan which maintains a “hijab police” and enforces a dress code as specific as a military parade ground.  A fatwa thus exists in its cultural, social and legal context and even in for those living in the liberal West, forces may within families or communities operate to mean the matter of choice is a rare luxury.

Convocation

Convocation (pronounced kon-vuh-key-shuhn)

(1) The act of convoking.

(2) The state of being convoked.

(3) A group of people gathered in answer to a summons; an assembly.

(4) In the Church of England, either of the synods of the provinces of Canterbury or York.

(5) In the Protestant Episcopal Church, an assembly of the clergy and part of the laity of a diocese.

(6) The area represented at such an assembly.

(7) A formal assembly at a college or university, especially for a graduation ceremony.

(8) In universities, a term used generally to describe the group (of the institution’s graduates and others) entitled to elect governing bodies such as their senate.

(9) In Indian institutions of learning, a degree-awarding ceremony.

(10) The collective noun for eagles.

(11) In historic Freemasonry, a meeting of companions of a Holy Royal Arch chapter of the Supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch.

1350–1400: From the Middle English convocacio(u)n (assembly of persons) from the Middle French convocation from the Latin convocātiōn (stem of convocātiō).  Old French picked up convocation directly from the Latin convocationem (nominative convocatio), noun of action from past participle stem of convocare (to call together), the construct being com (together) + vocare (to call).  Vocare was derived from vox (voice).  The form exists in many modern European languages; as well as the English and French convocation, there’s convocació in Catalan, convocazione in Italian, convocação in Portuguese and convocación in Spanish.  Convocation and convoker are nouns and convoked & convoking are verbs; the common noun plural is convocations.

The Holy Royal Arch

A Masonic faction, within Freemasonry the Holy Royal Arch is described as a degree.  The origins of Royal Arch Masonry and the Holy Royal Arch are murky and it’s known only that it dates back to the mid eighteenth century although fragments of Royal Arch rituals exist in Masonic literature from the 1720s.  The first historically verified appearance of was in 1743 when a “Royal Arch” was carried in a Dublin by “two excellent Masons”.  The appearance of the arch provoked controversy and attracted the disapprobation of Dr Dassigny in his critique “A serious and impartial enquiry into the cause of the present decay of Free-masonry in the Kingdom of Ireland” (1744).

Royal Arch Masonry was the subject of a long factional battle within Freemasonry and by 1751 the factions had coalesced into two, the older body paradoxically known as the Moderns, the newer the Antients (an even then archaic spelling of ancient).  Their disputes became increasingly circular and by 1813, Antients and Moderns agreed on an act of union and formed the United Grand Lodge of England.  The compromise became possible by the creation of a protocol under which the union would recognise the Royal Arch (to placate the Antients) but create it as a separate order (to appease the Moderns).

The recognition can be seen as a pyrrhic victory for the Antients.  By 1817, the faction had faded away and, although never formerly dissolved, the membership was soon absorbed into what had previously been the grand chapter of the Moderns with all forming as a group when members attend a grand chapter convocation.  The Secret Society of the Les Clefs d’Or has never denied being a faction of the Freemasons.

Nuncio

Nuncio (pronounced nuhn-shee-oh, nuhn-see-oh or noo-see-oh)

(1) In the Roman Catholic Church, the ecclesiastic title of a permanent diplomatic representative of the Holy See to a foreign court, capital or international organization, ranking above an internuncio and accorded a rank equivalent to an accredited ambassador.

(2) By extension, one who bears a message; a messenger.

(3) Any member of any Sejm of the Kingdom of Poland, Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, Galicia (of the Austrian Partition), Duchy of Warsaw, Congress Poland, or Grand Duchy of Posen (historic reference only).

1520–1530: From the older Italian nuncio (now nunzio) from the Classical Latin nūncius & nūntius (messenger) of uncertain origin.  It may be from the primitive Indo-European root neu- (to shout) or new (to nod), same source as the Latin nuō, the Ancient Greek νεύω (neúō) (to beckon, nod) and the Old Irish noid (make known).  The alternative view is it was contracted from noventius, from an obsolete noveō, from novus.  Nuncio, nunciature & nuncioship are nouns and nunciotist is an adjective; the noun plural is nuncios but according to the text trawlers, the more frequently used plural is nunciature ((1)the status or rank of a nuncio, (2) the building & staff of a nuncio and (3) the term of service of a nuncio) which seems strange and may reflect the selection of documents scanned. Nunciatory & nunciate are unrelated (directly) and are form of the Latin Latin nuncius & nuntius (messenger, message).

In diplomatic service

An apostolic nuncio (also known as a papal nuncio or nuncio) is an ecclesiastical diplomat, serving as envoy or permanent diplomatic representative of the Holy See to a state or international organization and is head of the Apostolic Nunciature, the equivalent of an embassy or high-commission.  The Holy See is legally distinct from the Vatican City, an important theological distinction for the Vatican although one without practical significance for the states to which they’re accredited.  Most nuncios have been bishops or Archbishops and, by convention, in historically Catholic countries, the nuncio usually enjoys seniority in precedence, appointed ex officio as dean of the diplomatic corps.  Between 1965 and 1991, the term pro-nuncio was applied to a representative of full ambassadorial rank accredited to a country that did not accord precedence and de jure deanship of the diplomatic corps and in countries with which Holy See does not have diplomatic ties, an apostolic delegate may be sent to act as liaison with the local church.  Apostolic delegates have the same ecclesiastical rank as nuncios, but no diplomatic status except those which the country may choose to extend.

Der Apostolische Nuntius (Apostolic Nuncios) to Germany leaving the presidential palace  of Generalfeldmarshall Paul von Hindenburg (1847-1934), Reichspräsident (1925-1934) of the Weimar Republic 1918-1933): Archbishop Eugenio Pacelli (1876–1958, later Pope Pius XII 1939-1958), October 1927 (left) and Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo (1873–1946), May 1930 (right).

The above photograph of Archbishop Pacelli was central to what proved a fleeting literary scandal.  In 1999, journalist John Cornwell (b 1940) published Hitler's Pope, a study of the actions of Pacelli from the decades before the coming to power of the Nazis in 1933 until the end of the Third Reich in 1945.  As a coda, the final years of the pontificate of Pius XII (1939-1958) were also examined.  Cornwell’s thesis was that in his pursuit of establishing a centralized power structure with which the rule of the Holy See could be enforced over the entire church around the world, Pacelli so enfeebled the Roman Catholic Church in Germany that the last significant opposition to absolute Nazi rule was destroyed, leaving Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) able to pursue his goals which include military conquest and ultimately, what proved to be the attempted genocide of the Jews of Europe.  For a historian that would be an indictment damning enough but Cornwell went further, citing documentary sources which he claimed established Pacelli’s anti-Semitism.  More controversially still, the author was critical of Pius' conduct during the war, arguing that he did little to protect the Jews and did not even loudly protest against the Holocaust.  

Critical response to Hitler’s Pope was, as one might imagine, varied and understandably did focus on the most incendiary of the claims: the lifetime of anti-Semitism and the almost lineal path the book tracked from Pacelli’s diplomacy (which few deny did smooth Hitler’s path to power) to Auschwitz.  The consensus of professional historians was that case really wasn’t made and by 1933 Pacelli’s view of Hitler as (1) a staunch anti-communist and (2) likely to provide German with the sort of rule Benito Mussolini (1883-1945; Duce (leader) & prime-minister of Italy 1922-1943) had delivered in Italy, then the only model of a fascist regime and one with which the Holy See had successfully negotiated a concordat (a convention or treaty) which resolved issues which between the papacy and the Italian state had festered since 1870.  Pacelli was hardly the only notable figure to misjudge Hitler and few in 1933 anticipated anything like the events which would unfold in Europe over the next dozen years.  The critics however were legion and in the years after publication Cornwell did concede that in the particular circumstances of wartime Italy the “scope” for a pope to act was limited and he needed carefully to consider what might be the repercussions for others were his words to be careless; he was at the time playing for high stakes.  Cornwell though did not retreat from his criticism of the pope’s post-war reticence to discuss the era and appeared still to regard the documents he’d quoted and the events he described as evidence of anti-Semitism.

An example of how the book enraged Pius XII’s Praetorian Guard was the brief controversy about the cover, the allegation being there had been a “constructive manipulation” of the image used on the hardback copies of the US edition, the argument being the juxtaposition of the title “Hitler’s Pope” with the photograph of him leaving the presidential palace in Berlin implied the image dated from March 1939, the month Pacelli was elected Pope.  To add to the deception, it was noted the photograph (actually from 1927) had been cropped to remove (1) one soldier of the guard obviously not in a Nazi-era uniform and (2) the details identifying an automobile as obviously from the 1920s.  Whether any reader deduced from the cropped image that the pope and Führer (the two never met) had just been scheming and plotting together isn’t known but the correct details of the photograph were printed on back flap of the jacket, as in common in publishing.

Pius XII giving a blessing, the Vatican, 1952.  The outstretched arms became his signature gesture after his visit to South America in 1934.  Pius XI (1857–1939; pope 1922-1939), even them grooming his successor, appointed him papal legate to the International Eucharistic Congress in Buenos Aires and his itinerary included Rio de Janeiro where he saw the Redēmptōre statue (Christ the Redeemer) which had been dedicated three years earlier.    

That storm in a tea cup quickly subsided and people were left to draw their own conclusions on substantive matters but it was unfortunate the sensational stuff drew attention from was a genuinely interesting aspect explored in the book: Pacelli’s critical role in the (re-)creation of the papacy and the Roman Curia as a centralized institution with absolute authority over the whole Church.  This was something which had been evolving since Pius IX (1792–1878; pope 1846-1878) convened the First Vatican Council (Vatican I; 1869-1870) and under subsequent pontificates the process had continued but it was the publication of Pacelli’s codification of canon law in 1917 which made this administratively (and legally) possible.  Of course, any pope could at any time have ordered a codification but it was only in the late nineteenth century that modern communications made it possible for instructions issued from the Vatican to arrive within days, hours or even minutes, just about anywhere on the planet.  Previously, when a letter could take months to be delivered, a central authority simply would not function effectively.  It was the 1917 codification of canon law which realised the implications of the hierarchical theocracy which the Roman church had often appeared to be but never quite was because until the twentieth century such things were not possible and (as amended), it remains the document to which the curia cling in their battles.  Although, conscious of the mystique of their two-thousand year history, the Holy See likes people to imagine things about which they care have been unchanged for centuries, it has for example been only sine the codification that the appointment of bishops is vested exclusively in the pope, that battle with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) still in an uneasy state of truce.

Canossa

Canossa (pronounced kuh-nos-uh or kah-naws-sah (Italian))

(1) A province in Northern Italy (and a name used in other places and not to be confused with the proper noun Canosa).

(2) As Canossa Castle (now a ruin), near Reggio nell'Emili, the scene in 1077 of the penance of Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV of before Pope Gregory VII (the “Walk to Canossa”).

(3) In idiomatic use, for a person to humble themselves.

Circa 940: The castle was built around 940 by a princely family of Lombardy at the summit of a hill overlooking the region.  As well as the family’s seat, the castle incorporated a convent, a Benedictine monastery and the church of Sant'Apollonio.  Reflecting the practice of military architecture in the Middle Ages, the central structure was protested by there, progressively more fortified stone walls and, prior to the development of modern artillery, was close to impregnable under conventional assault, vulnerable only to a protracted siege.

Going to Canossa

The coronation of Christmas Day, 800 when Charlemagne (747-814, Emperor of the Carolingian Empire (and retrospectively regarded first Holy Roman Emperor)), was crowned Emperor was an event which turned out to be one of the most significant of the Middle Ages, the consequences unfolding in Europe over a thousand years, some of which are visible still today.  One aspect of the coronation at the Basilica of Saint Peter in Rome which Charlemagne almost immediately realized as a mistake was that the crown was placed on his head by Leo III (circa 750-816; pope 795-816, described by one historian as “one of the shiftiest” popes and one accused of perjury & adultery) with the words “To Charles, the most pious Augustus, crowned by God, the great and peace-giving Emperor, life and victory.”  The squabble for primacy between the “vicar of Christ on earth” and the earthly rulers wasn’t new but this didn’t help their cause.  In 1804, at Notre Dame de Paris, snatching the crown from the hands of Pope Pius VII (1742–1823; pope 1800-1823), Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821, Emperor of the French 1804-1814 & 1815) did not repeat the error.

One famous round in that squabble was Henry IV’s Walk to Canossa (also called the Road to Canossa or the Humiliation of Canossa.  It describes the ritualistic submission in 1077 of the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry IV (1050–1106; King of Germany 1054-1105, Holy Roman Emperor 1084-1105) to Pope Gregory VII (circa 1015–1085; pope 1073-1085) at Canossa Castle, the climax of what came to be called the investiture controversy.  Popes and emperors had for generations argued about the precedence of ecclesiastical or secular authority but Gregory had attempted further to assert the authority of Rome by claiming an exclusivity of right to "invest" bishops, abbots and other clergy, a dispute with modern echoes.  Despite attempts at mediation, the conflict grew, pope and emperor both appointing bishops, not recognized by each-other and eventually, the battle evolved into each side gathering bishops and organizing the numbers to excommunicate the other.  Given the communications of the age it was something of a slow-motion war of words but eventually (though not without the odd close scrape), Gregory prevailed and the excommunicated Henry lost the numbers, clerical and secular.  To seek his throne, he would have to capitulate, apologize and beg forgiveness.

Heinrich IV barefoot in Canossa (1862), woodcut by Hermann Freihold Pluddemann (1809-1868).

Accordingly, in what was said to be the coldest winter in almost forty years, Henry and his party made the trek to Canossa where the pope was staying, a journey made longer, more difficult and colder still by having to “go the long way round” because passage through the more convenient (and safer) alpine passes, controlled by forces aligned with the pope, was denied.  The journey took more than three months, the party reaching Canossa Castle on 25 January 1077.  There, the pope ordered he be refused entry, the suspicion of historians being that some message was passed to the visitors suggesting the gates might be opened were the emperor for three days to display “sufficient penance”.  According to legend, Henry (and perhaps some of his entourage including his wife) for the three days donned the simple robe of a monk, fasted and walked barefoot in the snow.

Fist bump: Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV before Pope Gregory VII (1875), woodcut after a drawing by Friedrich Hottenroth (1840-1917).

On 28 January, the pope ordered the castle gates opened and it’s said Henry supplicated himself on his knees before the pope and begged forgiveness.  Clearly impressed (or at least satisfied), Gregory granted absolution and revoked the act of excommunication, that evening offering the emperor communion in the chapel of Sant'Apollonio.  All’s well that ends well then, the pope lingering for a few months before returning to Rome with his authority confirmed and Henry headed home, soon to extract what vengeance he could.  Almost immediately the alpine pilgrimage was regarded as a humiliation for Henry but even some medieval scholars would soon create a revisionist history, arguing the emperor’s strategy was a masterstroke, gaining much which was important and sacrificing little.  Modern historians tend not to be convinced by the “stoops to conquer” school, regarding it a humiliation still and the phrase "going to Canossa" endures as a reference to an act of penance or submission.

Whether Canossa was much on the mind of President Joe Biden (b 1942; US president since 2021) as he flew to Saudi Arabia hasn’t been revealed but at least Air Force One is comfortable and he certainly didn’t need to go the “long way round”, his 747 granted a direct flight path from Tel Aviv to Jeddah, a presidential first and something long thought unimaginable.  Interestingly, according to the president, as recently as June 2022, also unimaginable was him meeting with Saudi Arabia’s de-facto leader Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud (b 1985 and referred to colloquially as MBS).  “I’m not going to meet with MBS” Mr Biden had last month assured the press.  “I’m going to an international meeting, and he’s going to be part of it.”  That might seem a fine distinction but in the language of diplomacy, a not unreasonable one.

President Biden meets King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (b 1935; King of Saudi Arabia since 2015) Jeddah, July 2022.

However, the world has changed since the 2020 presidential campaign in which Mr Biden vowed to make the Saudi government “pay the price and make them in fact the pariah that they are”, his stridency a reaction to the murder and dismemberment in Saudi’s Istanbul consulate of Washington Post journalist (and Saudi citizen) Jamal Khashoggi (1958-2018) by agents of the Saudi state.  On advice from the US intelligence community, Mr Biden in 2020 made clear he held MBS personally responsible for Khashoggi’s death although doubts have by some been expressed, their thinking that MBS may well have authorized “an extraction” but not “an execution” and the unfortunate consequences were a product either of misunderstandings as the message proceeded down the line or the allocation of a specialized task to specialists in another field.  MBS has always denied ordering the killing of Mr Khashoggi, answering with an emphatic “Absolutely not” when asked directly by the US press.  “This was a heinous crime” he said in an interview, adding that he took “…full responsibility as a leader in Saudi Arabia, especially since it was committed by individuals working for the Saudi government.”  The taking of responsibility for acts committed by others, including those of which one has no knowledge, is the essence of the Westminster system of ministerial responsibility although a more nuanced expression of the concept which extended to a “collective responsibility” was later developed by Albert Speer (1905-1980) during the first Nuremberg trial (1945-1946).  The Saudi government had initially denied any involvement in the matter although later it would admit the death was an accident which happened when an intelligence team was attempting to extradite (in Turkish law presumably a kidnapping) the journalist, against his will, to Saudi Arabia.

Fist bump: President Biden meets Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, Jeddah, July 2022.

But the world has changed and to mark that, Mr Biden and MBS met, a friendly fist bump a photo opportunity for the gathered press pack, the entrance to the Al Salman Palace a good backdrop.  According to Mr Biden, MBS “…basically said that he was not personally responsible” for the killing of Khashoggi and “I indicated that I thought he was.”  What’s done is done and can’t be undone so, the discussion of human rights complete, the president and crown prince then got down to the substantive matter of oil and how helpful it would be if the kingdom could pump more of it from their fields, the unchallenging idea being that if supply could be made to exceed demand (which is already the case so presumably what Mr Biden would prefer is a glut), then the price would fall, this eventually being reflected in the cost of a gallon of gas in the US, hopefully in good time for the US mid-term congressional elections in November.

Just like the old days.

Industry analysts have cast doubt on whether the Saudis have the additional extractive and distributional capacity greatly to affect the price of oil which has anyway recently declined in response to concerns about a global economic slowdown although jitters remain, the oil futures market reacting hourly to news of COVID lockdowns and hints about monetary policy from those central banks which matter.  It’s thought MBS is unlikely to have done more than agree to act in unison with whatever increase in supply the Organization of Oil Producing Countries (OPEC) may undertake to implement when it (actually the expanded OPEC+) meets in August.  Still, August is a couple of months before the mid-terms so there’s that but these are troubled times, few anxious to predict what the economy or geopolitics will look like by then, any more than there's a model precisely to measure the effects of what the US Treasury still insist will be the next round of sanctions on Russian oil & gas.  Like the OPEC+ meeting, these are due in August.  

Abnegate

Abnegate (pronounced ab-ni-geyt)

(1) To refuse or deny oneself (privileges, pleasure, rights, conveniences etc); reject; renounce.

(2) To relinquish; give up.

1650–1660: From the Latin abnegātus (denied), past participle of abnegāre (to deny), the construct being ab- + negate.  The Ab- prefix was from the Latin ab-, from the primitive Indo-European hepo (off, away) and a doublet of apo- and off-.  The alternative prefixes were (1) a- (with root words starting with m, p, or v) & (2) abs- (with root words starting with c or t).  Ab- was used to convey (1) “from” & (2) “away from” & “outside of”.  Negate was from then Latin negātus, past participle of negāre (to deny, refuse, decline), reduced from nec-aiare (or some similar form), the construct being nec (not, nor) + aiere (to say).  Abnegate is a verb, abnegated & abnegating are verbs & adjectives, abnegation & abnegator are nouns; the most common noun plural is abnegations.

Abnegate should not be confused with abdicate.  Dating (perhaps surprisingly) only from 1541, abdicate was from the Latin abdicātus (renounced), perfect passive participle of abdicō (renounce, reject, disclaim), the construct being ab + dicō (proclaim, dedicate, declare), akin to dīcō (say).  Abdicate now (except informally) is used almost exclusively to refer to a reigning monarch renouncing their throne in favour of a successor (chosen or imposed) but was once applied with greater latitude.  Between the mid-sixteenth & early nineteenth centuries, it was used to mean “to disclaim and expel from the family” (as a parent might of a child) and when this is done now, one is said to have disowned (as a statement of family & social relations) or disinherited (at law in the matter of inheritance).  Between the mid-sixteenth & late seventeenth centuries it could mean “formally to separate oneself from or to divest oneself of”.  Between the early seventeenth & late eighteenth centuries, it could mean “to depose” which meant (1) remove from office suddenly and forcefully (ie what might now be thought a forced (or “constructive”) abdication or (2) in law, to testify to or give evidence under oath (usually in writing).  Between the mid-sixteenth & late seventeenth centuries it could mean “to reject; to cast off; to discard (an object, an association, an obligation etc).

The modern meaning has existed since the mid-sixteenth century (though not commonly used for another two-hundred odd years) and means “to surrender, renounce or relinquish, as sovereign power; to withdraw definitely from filling or exercising, as a high office, station, dignity.  This can apply to anyone personally exercising sovereign authority (kings, queens, popes, tsars et al) and is the act of renouncing the throne (and thus sovereignty).  Procedurally, most monarchies have detailed administrative procedures (and abdication has of late assumed a new popularity) to ensure the transfer from old to new is legally identical in consequence to what happens in the case of a sovereign dying but the lawyers have previously resolved cases where formalities were lacking.  In the matter of James VII and II (1633–1701; King of England and King of Ireland (as James II) & King of Scotland (as James VII) 1685-1688 who left the throne in the circumstances of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the act of “abandonment” or “forfeiture”, even in the absence of any formal mechanism, was held to be an abdication, albeit one that might (analogously with use in other aspects of law) be styled a “constructive abdication”.

Pope Benedict XVI in Popemobile (Mercedes-Benz ML 430 (W163)), 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC, 2008.

Although the term abdication is sometimes used of papal resignations, the Vatican is emphatic the word is not used in any official documents of the Church.  This imprecise use of abdication is attributable to the Holy See being (as well as the universal government of the multi-national Roman Catholic Church) the authority ruling the Vatican City State, a sovereign, independent territory since the Lateran Concordat of 1929.  The Pope is thus the ruler of both Vatican City State and the Holy See; collectively an absolute theocracy.  It’s thus a fine point and were the Holy See to prefer “abdicate” to “resign”, it would seem not a substantive change and the fact the office is elected and not dynastic is not significant, Holy Roman emperors and the some early kings of England all elected. 

Pope Benedict XVI in Popemobile, Seravalle stadium, San Marino, 2011.

What none can deny is that the Holy See has a long (if of late infrequent) history of precedent, five popes between the tenth & fifteenth centuries resigning with a further four between the third & eleventh possibly having done so.  Mysteriously, there’s even another event which may or may not have been a resignation and indeed the subject may not even have been a pope but rather an anti-pope, somewhat analogous with the idea the MAGA Republicans have of Joe Biden (b 1942; US president since 2021) being an anti-president.  The revisions to canon law in 1917 and 1983 only clarified certain aspects of the resignation process and had no effect on anything definitional.  Thus, what Pope Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022) did when renouncing office in 2013 was an act of abnegation and not an abdication and that he chose subsequently to be styled pope emeritus remains of no legal or constitutional significance.

Primate

Primate (pronounced prahy-meyt or prahy-mit)

(1) In the ecclesiastical hierarchy, an archbishop or bishop ranking first among the bishops of a province or country (in this context usually pronounced prahy-mit). Primate is a title or rank bestowed on some archbishops in some Christian churches and can, depending on tradition, denote either jurisdictional authority or mere ceremonial precedence.

(2) In zoology, any of various omnivorous mammals of the order primates (including simians and prosimians), comprising the three suborders anthropoidea (humans, great apes, gibbons, Old World monkeys, and New World monkeys), prosimii (lemurs, loris, and their allies), and tarsioidea (tarsiers), especially distinguished by the use of hands, varied locomotion, and by complex flexible behavior involving a high level of social interaction and cultural adaptability: a large group of baboons is called a congress which, to some, makes perfect sense.

(3) A chief or leader (archaic).

1175-1225: In the sense of "high bishop, preeminent ecclesiastical official of a province" having a certain jurisdiction, as vicar of the pope, over other bishops in his province, primate is from the Middle English primate & primat, from the Old French primat and directly from the Medieval Latin primatem (church primate), a noun use of the Late Latin adjective primas (of the first rank, chief, principal) from primus (first).  The meaning "animal of the biological order including monkeys and humans" is attested from 1876, from the Modern Latin Primates, the order name (linnæus), the plural of the Latin primas; so called for being regarded as the "highest" order of mammals (the category originally included bats, representing the state of thought in biology at the time).

As an adjective, prime dates from the late fourteenth century in the sense of "first, original, first in order of time" from the Old French prime and directly from the Latin primus (first, the first, first part (figuratively "chief, principal; excellent, distinguished, noble") from the Proto-Italic prismos & priisemos, superlative of the primitive Indo-European preis- (before), from the root per (beyond; before; forward), hence the sense "in front of, before, first, chief".  It was the source also of the Italian and Spanish primo and thus a doublet of primo.  The meaning "of fine quality; of the first excellence" is from circa 1400.  The meaning "first in rank, degree, or importance" was first noted in English circa 1610 whereas in mathematics (as in prime number), it wasn’t in the literature until the 1560s.  The prime meridian (the meridian of the earth from which longitude is measured, that of Greenwich, England) was established in 1878.  Prime time which originally was used to describe "spring time" is attested from circa 1500.  The use in broadcasting in the sense of a "peak tuning-in period" dates from 1961.

Some endangered primates.

As a noun prime referred to the "earliest canonical hour of the day" (6 am), from the Old English prim and the Old French prime or directly from the Medieval Latin prima "the first service" from the Latin prima hora (the first hour (of the Roman day)), from the Latin primus ("first, the first, first part").  In classical Latin, the noun uses of the adjective meant "first part, beginning; leading place".  The noun sense "apostrophe-like symbol" exists because the symbol ′ was originally a superscript Roman numeral one.  By extension, "the first division of the day" (6-9 am) was an early-thirteenth century form whereas the sense of "beginning of a period or course of events" is from the late fourteenth.  From the notion of "the period or condition of greatest vigor in life" there came by the 1530s the specific sense "springtime of human life" (taken usually to mean the ages around 21-28 (the division of live in seven-year chunks a noted motif in English) is from the 1590s and at about the same time, prime came to mean "that which is best in quality, highest or most perfect state of anything".

The use as a verb dates from the 1510s, an invention by the military to describe the process (fill, charge, load) required before a musket or other flintlock weapon could be discharged, the assumption being this was derive from the adjective.  From this by circa 1600 evolved the general sense of "perform the first operation on, prepare something for its intended purpose” (applied especially to wood to make ready for painting)".  To prime a pump is noted from 1769 and meant to pour water down the tube to saturate the sucking mechanism which made it draw up water more readily.  This was later adopted in public finance and economics to describe what is now usually called fiscal stimulus (the idea being a little government money attracting more private investment.  The suffix -ate was a word-forming element used in forming nouns from Latin words ending in -ātus, -āta, & -ātum (such as estate, primate & senate).  Those that came to English via French often began with -at, but an -e was added in the fifteenth century or later to indicate the long vowel.  It can also mark adjectives formed from Latin perfect passive participle suffixes of first conjugation verbs -ātus, -āta, & -ātum (such as desolate, moderate & separate).  Again, often they were adopted in Middle English with an –at suffix, the -e appended after circa 1400; a doublet of –ee.

Lindsay Lohan and a large primate, King Kong premiere, Loews E-Walk and AMC Empire 25 Theaters, New York City, December 2005.

The Roman Catholic Church

In the Roman Catholic Church, a Primate is almost always an Archbishop though the title is occasionally bestowed on the (Metropolitan) bishop of an Episcopal see who has precedence over the bishoprics of one or more ecclesiastical provinces of a particular historical, political or cultural area.  Also sometimes created are primates where the title is entirely honorific, granting only precedence in on ceremonial occasions and, in the case of the Polish Primates, the privilege of wearing cardinal's crimson robes (though not the skullcap and biretta).  The Vatican likes the old ways and many primates are vested not in the capitals of countries but in those places which were the centres of the country when first Christianized.  For that reason there still exists the Primate of the Visigothic Kingdom, and the Primate of the Gauls.

Some of the leadership functions once exercised by Primates have now either devolved to presidents of conferences of bishops or to Rome itself.  Modern communications as much as reform of canon law have influenced these developments and most changes were effected between the publication of the Code of Canon Law in 1917 and the late twentieth-century implementation of Vatican II’s more arcane administrative arrangements.  Rome has never seemed quite sure how to deal with England.  Unlike in the secular US, where the Holy See’s grant of precedence to the Archbishop of Baltimore dates from 1848, the Archbishop of Westminster has not been granted the title of Primate of England and Wales but is instead described as that of Chief Metropolitan.  Rome has never exactly defined the implications of that though it has been suggested the position is “…similar to that of the Archbishop of Canterbury.”  Most helpful.

If the position in England remains vague, that of some of the orders is opaque.  The loose structures of the Benedictine Confederation made Pope Leo XIII (1810–1903; pope 1878-1903) exclaim that the Benedictines were ordo sine ordine (an order without order), something about which he subsequently did little.  The Benedictine Abbot Primate resides at Sant'Anselmo in Rome and takes precedence of all other abbots and is granted authority over all matters of discipline, to settle difficulties arising between monasteries, to hold a canonical visitation, exercise a general supervision for the regular observance of monastic discipline.  However, his Primatial powers permit him to act only by virtue of the proper law of the autonomous Benedictine congregations, most of which does not exist.  Charmingly, the Benedictine Order appears still to operate as it’s done for the last few centuries, untroubled by tiresome letters from Rome although other orders have embraced modern ways.  The Confederation of Canons Regular of St Augustine democratically elects an Abbot Primate, though his role, save for prerogative reserve powers, is ceremonial.

The Church of England

Some endangered Primates at the Lambeth Conference, London, 1930.  The once almost exclusively white, male and middle class world of Anglican bishops has in recent decades become increasingly black, evangelical and even female.  It seems likely it may also become increasingly gay.  Although rarely spoken of, it's an open secret the Anglican church in England depends for its operation on its many gay clergy and it may be it will require only the natural processes of generational change for gay bishops to become an accepted thing.  Before that, a state of tolerance or peaceful co-existence may be next step.

Anglican usage styles the bishop who heads an independent church as its primate, though they always hold some other title (archbishop, bishop, or moderator).  In Anglicanism, a primate’s authority is not universally defined; some are executives while others can do little more than preside over conferences or councils and represent the church ceremonially.  However, the when the Anglicans convene a Primates' Meeting, the chief bishop of each of the thirty-eight churches that compose the Anglican Communion acts as its primate, though they may not be that within their own church.  For example, the various United Churches of the sub-continent are represented at the meetings by their moderators though they become primates for the purposes of Anglican conferences.  Primates are thus created for photo-opportunities.

Winds of change: Primates at the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), Jerusalem, 2018.

In both the Churches of England and Ireland, two bishops have the title of primate: the archbishops of Canterbury and York in England and of Armagh and Dublin in Ireland.  The Archbishop of Canterbury, considered primus inter pares (first among equals) of all the participants, convenes meetings and issues invitations.  The title of primate in the Church of England has no direct relationship with the ex-officio right of twenty-six bishops to sit in the House of Lords; were the church to do away with the title, it would not at all affect the constitutional position.

The Orthodox Church

In the Orthodox Church, a primate is the presiding bishop of an ecclesiastical jurisdiction or region.  Usually, the expression primate refers to the first hierarch of an autocephalous or autonomous Orthodox Church although, less often, it’s used to refer to the ruling bishop of an archdiocese or diocese.  In the first hierarch, the primate is the first among equals of all his brother bishops of the jurisdiction or diocese of which he is first, or primary, hierarch, and he is usually elected by the Holy Synod in which he will serve.  All bishops are equal sacramentally, but the most important administrative tasks are undertaken by the bishop of the most honored diocese.  The primate of an autocephalous church supervises the internal and external welfare of that church and represents it in its relations with other autocephalous Orthodox churches, religious organizations, and secular authorities.  During liturgical services, his name will be mentioned by the other bishops of the autocephalous church and the primate mentions the names of the other heads of autocephalous Orthodox churches at Divine services.

The liturgical duties vary between jurisdictions but, normally, the hierarch is responsible for such tasks as the consecration and distribution of the Holy Chrism and providing the diocesan bishops with the holy relics necessary for the consecration of church altars and holy antimins.  To this may extend other administrative duties including convening and presiding over the meetings of the Holy Synods and other councils, receiving petitions for admission of clergy from other Orthodox churches, initiating the action to fill vacancies in the office of diocesan bishops, and issuing pastoral letters addressed to the bishops, clergy, and laity of the Church.  He will also advise his brother bishops, and when required, submits their cases to the Holy Synod. He has the honor of pastoral initiative and guidance, and, when necessary, the right of pastoral intervention, in all matters concerning the life of the Church within the structure of the holy canons.