#women's ecclesiastical rights

[borgialucrezia]

"Juan and Lucrezia stepped forward to kiss the pope’s foot. They were followed by the ladies who once again passed in single file before the papal throne. A few of the more prominent women remained kneeling by the pope while the others moved to stand by his right. Among the prelates and other male guests at the pope’s left stood Cesare, an insignificant figure in ecclesiastical black who must have resented the stellar role of his younger brother. Juan again took his sister’s arm and led her and the other wedding guests into the Sala Reale, where the pope seated himself on his throne and the rest of the company found places on the cushions scattered on the floor."

— Lucrezia Borgia (by Emma Lucas)

[goodqueenaly]

One aspect of Baelor’s reign that I find fascinating, especially when considering Baelor’s view on his own kingship, is the king’ decision (twice over) to name a new High Septon himself. As Yandel relates, “[w]hen the High Septon died, Baelor informed the Most Devout that the gods had revealed the identity of the future High Septon to him” - that is, “a common man named Pate … a gifted worker in stone, but without letters, simple-minded, and unable to recall even a simple prayer”. When Pate-turned-High-Septon died of fever after a year, Baelor then “bec[a]me convinced that the gods had given an eight-year-old boy—a street urchin, some later claimed, but more likely a draper’s son—the power to perform miracles”; Baelor declared the boy “the next High Septon” on the grounds that he, Baelor, had seen “the boy speaking with doves that answered him in the voice of men and women”, which Baelor interpreted as the “voices of the Seven”. 

Of course, Targaryen intervention in High Septon elections was not an entirely new phenomenon by Baelor’s reign. When the High Septon died in 54 AC, Jaehaerys and Alysanne flew to Oldtown quietly determined to oversee, and indeed influence, the election of his successor. Archmaester Goodwyn ruefully noted later that when Jaehaerys proclaimed his and his queen’s intent to stay through the High Septon’s election “so we might ask for his blessing”, the septons of Oldtown “looked at one another and thought on dragons” - an unsubtle reminder that the mere presence of dragons in the city threatened violence should the Targaryens not get their way. Nor was Jaehaerys content to sit on the sidelines during this contest: in long secret conversations with Lord Donnel Hightower, the Targaryen and Hightower patriarchs agreed that the pro-Exceptionalism Septon Alfyn would be elected immediately, with a Hightower candidate to follow him eventually. 

Yet this anecdote differs importantly in character from Baelor’s actions during his reign. Jaehaerys’ interest in Alfyn rested not on the latter’s personal identity but rather on his adherence to Exceptionalism: before Jaehaerys and Lord Hightower settled on Alfyn as the preferred choice, Gyldayn noted that “King Jaehaerys did not care which house His High Holiness derived from, or whether he was of low or noble birth”, only that “the new High Septon be an Exceptionalist”. Too, the election of Alfyn as High Septon demonstrated at least the semblance of democratic process, whatever else actually occurred during such process. Gyldayn relates that the Most Devout conducted four ballots, initially favoring Mattheus but eventually settling on Alfyn; if Barth “rued the corruption that made the Most Devout so easy to manipulate” (thanks to the royal and Hightower agents among them), the choice was still, at least on face, in the hands of the Most Devout themselves. 

By contrast, what Baelor did with respect to these two High Septons was to replace, almost entirely, even the appearance of an independent election for the sake of a revelation he himself had allegedly uniquely received. In taking real elective power away from the Most Devout and replacing it with a mere right to ratify, Baelor arrogated to himself an unprecedented ecclesiastical role - indeed, one which partially usurped the role of the High Septon himself. In the view of the Faith of the Seven, the High Septon is “the Voice of the Seven on Earth”, the very avatar of the gods; so seriously is this aspect of High Septon’s office taken that Cersei can be charged with deicide for having had the last High Septon assassinated. In blithely informing the Most Devout that the gods had revealed the identity of two successive High Septons, however, Baelor had implicitly identified himself as the Voice of the Seven. He, Baelor, was the speaker for the gods, the sole receiver of their messages and the sole representative to transmit them. If this was not quite a Westerosi version of the divine right of kings, this was Baelor perhaps approaching a similar concept - portraying himself as even more literally divinely appointed than he might have seemed previously, above the rest of the Faithful thanks to his singularly blessed relationship with the gods. 

Moreover, the individuals chosen by Baelor were not simply unexpected; Pate and the unnamed boy were radically, indeed perhaps disturbingly unorthodox choices for the role of High Septon.  Far from these two people being members of the Most Devout - a tradition, if not a requirement, for the office of the High Septon - Pate and the draper’s son were not septons at all, nor even seemingly affiliated with the Faith in any formal way; if the two of them were members of the Faithful, it was likely only thanks to the religious omnipresence of the Faith in continental, non-northern Westeros. Baelor was raising to the highest office within the Faith commoners he had, quite bluntly, plucked off the street, with no more credentials than the divine appointment for each Baelor insisted had come from above. Whatever the wide-ranging, complex responsibilities of the High Septon within the Faith (and GRRM has been frustratingly vague on that score, admittedly), those were now in the hands of an illiterate, simple mason and a barely adolescent boy - and, of course, whatever each one decided would need to be obeyed by those same Most Devout now commanded to ratify the allegedly celestial decisions conveyed by Baelor. Instead of having one of their own lead the Faith, in other words, the Most Devout would be at the mercy of individuals with virtually no experience of the Faith at all, much less its highest circles of governance - an intriguing possibility for discomfort, even division, between the Most Devout and a king who might have seemed their strongest champion. 

What I think is so important to take away from this portion of Baelor’s reign is how these decisions speak to what I see as Baelor’s supreme confidence in his own regal authority. This was not a king content with merely handing over authority to the Faith and spending his days in prayer; pious and zealous as he undoubtedly was, Baelor was nevertheless a man with a clear idea of the mission he had been ordained, so I think he believed, to accomplish. Everyone - whether the humblest of his subjects or the proudest of his lords, not spearing even the Most Devout - had to obey his will, no matter how much that will might defy tradition. Whether or not any individual reader views Baelor in an overall positive or negative light, I don’t think Baelor can be called a weak king in the vein of, say, an Aenys or an Aerys I; sure in his own executive power, Baelor was seemingly not afraid to challenge even the expectations of the highest-ranking clergy for the religion he so zealously believed in and wanted to advance throughout his realm. He, I think Baelor believed, was king by the will of the gods, and responsible only to the gods; he could, and would, order the realm the gods had given him in accordance with what he believed the Seven desired.

[givemearmstopraywith]

how do i reconcile being religious (catholic specifically) while also being pro-choice? I’m sorry if this sounds like a bait question, it’s not i promise! But recently i’ve been grappling with my faith again and trying to immerse myself with god again and i feel a bit….dissonant i guess? over having strong opinions on abortion and then on the other hand being religious. i don’t feel grief about being pro-choice, it’s something i believe proudly and w integrity. but it seems like i am in between two opposing great forces which demand of me to choose one over the other? do you have any kind words on how i could possibly reconcile with these? thank you x

i just finished writing research close to this topic, specifically on the problem of mary's consent. which of course comes back to issue of bodily autonomy which is central to questions of abortion. and mary is a problem: theology can neither acknowledge the problem of rape nor accept a consenting woman. to not consent is to be raped, to have control over your body, to say "yes," to consent, is to show a yearning for sexual pleasure, for oneness, and to innate acknowledge that a woman has control over her body before Go does. women must be both and neither: that is why we have the virgin mary. according to contemporary understandings of consent, mary simply could not consent: effectively God has autonomy over her body before she does.

the historical mary is a woman: she is jewish, poor, young, unmarried, and pregnant, and is the ultimate embodiment of liberation theology’s “preferential option for the poor.” but she is absolutely absent of any sexuality. when marcella althaus-reid states that poverty is a bodily and sexual matter, mary cannot be included in this statement. mary is never indecent: her existence is pinioned on the concept of her decency. she is the “right” version of all women, the perfect mate for the god-man: she is submissive, and receives him without becoming distracted by the matter of her self-determination. mary is never overcome by a profane hunger. theology requires this ultimate model of femininity to measure against all other women.

elisabeth schussler fiorenza calls attention to the danger to ecclesiastical and political authorities if mary is rendered as a self-determining single mother: a single woman who is “god-empowered, god-protected” and “filled with the holy spirit who exalts the violated and makes the fruit of illegitimacy holy.” if mary was rendered as excitedly or joyfully consenting to the act of impregnation by god, she would not suit the dominant narrative of women’s sexuality in theology: her joy can only be vocalised after she has already submitted to the masculine-penetrative god-man.

a woman who leans into the oneness and pleasure of union with god because it is pleasurable, out of the locus of her body and her sense of self-determination rather than a sense of duty or submission, has no defined place in christian theology. she can only be appropriated and co-opted by dominant patriarchal narratives, talked over, and silenced. a mary who found pleasure and joy in her impregnation, who readily and excitedly agreed to the divine directive in full knowledge of its implications, implies a femininity which cannot be controlled.

i mention mary because mary is the nexus of most catholic arguments about abortion, whether she is specifically named or not. she is the excuse used to block anyone regarded as "receptive" to patriarchy from having control of their body. i personally read the lucan narrative as mary consenting: let what you have said be done to me. this is consent, though we may debate whether or not it was informed or coerced. but i cannot imagine that christ would have come into the world through an unwilling mother. nor does God force belief on those who do not consent to believe: only people, only dogma, forces itself on the unconsenting. so in this way i can say that God cannot exist to us without consent. violation is a human creation: it is humans who violate God at the crucifixion. as such God cannot exist to us without bodily autonymy, without allowing us choice- it is the human creation of fascism which denies choice, and i hold that dimension of denial absolutely separate from God, because it is not part of God. God may be used to excuse it, but God cannot deny the natural choice and autonomy of his creation without also violating his own existence.

as for catholicism, it is old and it loves augustine. the idea that abortion is wrong is a fairly new invention in the cahtolic church and really only comes from fears that all babies are destined to hell. medieval catholicism saw life as beginning at the "quickening," which could mean anything but was seen as the first movement of the child in the womb. quickening was seen as the moment of ensoulment, and church views of abortion dictated that after ensoulment, a baby would be condemned if not baptized. it is this bizarre and exceptionally antiquated view that is the foundation of contemporary abortion debates: but even contemporary ideas of "human at conception" are ludicrous in comparison to how medieval catholicism understood when a person became a person separate from the person of the one bearing it. christianity dispelled with the judaic idea that the mother's life was more important than the fetus: it is typical of christianity to dispel of its own humanity.

effectively what i'm saying is that things change. the church changes: we find ourselves in unfortunate epochs, but the catholic church is prone to evolution and i appreciate that. but i don't feel, in any way, that being pro-choice and being catholic are at odds with each other. your morality is simply beyond where the magisterium can currently gather itself, and that's okay. the church has always been like that and probably always will be. it is the body of believers, those in the grassroots, those out in the world, who matter the most: over and above canon law, since all law (unlike God) is subject to editing and change. maybe that's a bit controversial: i don't believe it is. jesus didn't live in the temple, he lived on the street. he loved his religion, but he also knew that certain aspects did more harm then good. and maybe he felt conflicted over his love for his faith and his conviction about humanity. you walk where he treads: be proud of that.

[contemplatingoutlander]

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." --James Madison,  Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1785)

This is an excellent article by Timothy J. Sabo. It is a long article, but well worth reading. Sabo refutes all the claims by "Christian" nationalists that the Constitution was "inspired by God," and that the Founders wrote the Constitution based on a Christian understanding of God's will.

The BIGGER Lie is the misconception that the U.S. Constitution was “inspired by God.” Let me paint the picture for you. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness — that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” You know these words, right? They are NOT in the U.S. Constitution. They are from the Declaration of Independence. [...] The Founders had their own faith-based beliefs which varied greatly, but they did not incorporate those beliefs into the U.S. Constitution. While the Declaration of Independence strives to connect us with a Creator who guarantees “unalienable rights,” the Constitution never mentions either. [...] The Founders wrote a lot about liberty, and equality, but those were words meant for them — the white men who would rule the nation. These were concepts that were never supposed to come to fruition for those “undeserving” souls: the indigenous tribes, African slaves, and women.

Sabo goes on to show just how much the Founders believed "liberty, and equality" didn't apply to indigenous people, Blacks, and women--and how the "Christians" back then used the Bible to justify slavery, second class citizenship for women, and the right to conquer the "savages" who inhabited the land.

Sabo also refutes the idea that "unalienable rights" come from the Biblical God:

"When we compare the Word of God to the Laws of Man, the most interesting fact we find is that the God of the Bible never mentions any “unalienable rights.” Instead of granting Man rights, God laid out commandments for Man to follow; quite a big difference from what God demands and what the American government granted."

As further proof that the Founders did not consider the U.S. to be founded as a Christian nation, Sabo points to the 1796 U.S. Senate ratified Treaty of Tripoli, which states in Article 11:

If the Constitution — the foundational legal document of the nation — was inspired by God, why then are the Founders, just five years after ratification, stating that the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion?

Read the article for more debunks regarding the right-wing "Christian" nationalist belief that the U.S. Constitution was inspired by God and that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation. But here's one last thought from Sabo:

The Founders were not “inspired by God” when writing the new Constitution. The truth is they were “inspired to keep God out of it.” What if America, the great nation “created by God for Christians” was created by men who decided to keep God out of the foundation of the nation? What if those Founders were not “inspired by God,” but instead were inspired to keep God out of the business of the government entirely?

_______________ *NOTE: The 100 million excess indigenous deaths in the Americas is an estimate. According to D. M. Smith (2017), some modern estimates can be as low as 70 million, although Smith estimated 175 million excess indigenous deaths in the Western Hemisphere from 1492 – 1900. Smith also estimated 13 million excess indigenous deaths from 1492 – present in the lands that now constitute the U.S. & Puerto Rico. All images (before edits) via source Thanks to @wtfnameisavailable for a comment on this post that led me to the above article by Timothy J. Sabo.

[pradame]

Hi pradame,

I’m a 25 year old single mom struggling with my self esteem. I’m not happy with where I am in my life and what I’ve accomplished because there isn’t much to be proud of. I’m constantly comparing myself to other women my age and find myself wishing I was living their lives. Any advice? Thank you 🙏🏽 🤍

1 Corinthians 7 : And don’t be wishing you were someplace else or with someone else. Where you are right now is Gods place for you. Live and obey and love and believe right there. God, not your marital status, defines your life. Don’t think I’m being harder on you than on others. I give the same counsel in all churches.

Ecclesiastes 6 : Enjoy what you have rather than desiring what you don’t have. Just dreaming about having nice things is meaningless — like chasing the wind.

The present time is what matters, don’t think back on the past and what you have or haven’t achieved. Focus on the what you can do in the present time that will shape and show in your future <3

[wonder-worker]

"...Aelfthryth appears as a witness in a significant number of her husband [King Edgar's] charters. Moreover, Aelfthryth is the first royal woman in England to regularly subscribe charters as regina. And, of course, Aelfthryth is the first recorded native-born English woman to be crowned as a queen consort to a king of the West Saxon dynasty. Arguably, however, all these legitimating activities placed her in better stead to exercise power as queen mother than as queen consort. For all the unprecedented recognition she receives as queen during her tenure as royal consort, it is in the early years of Aethelred reign, as the mother [and effective regent] of a minor ruler, that Aelfthryth truly reached the apex of her agency as queen."

-Matthew Firth, Early English Queens, 850-1000: Potestas Reginae

"While the transmission and adaption of Aelfthryth's reputation over time is a fascinating subject in its own right, it is unfortunate that the biography of the first-known crowned queen consort of England has been overshadowed by a single moment of scandal. The woman who comes into focus from contemporary sources was a remarkably adept player of the politics of the kingdom. While her agency remained delimited by her relationship to the king, she can also take great credit for testing the boundaries of what it meant to be a queen in late Anglo-Saxon England. Like the men who surrounded her, she understood the importance of making and maintaining political alliances. She recognised the importance of patronising the Church and forging relationships with ecclesiastical lords. She realised the opportunity that acting as an advocate at court for women and for clerics would afford her. Most of all, when Aelfthryth saw an opportunity for personal political advancement, she took it. As such, whether intended or not, Aelfthryth set new precedents and prerogatives for her successors and so materially moved the role of the queen towards one of political office."

[unlimitedhappinessforever]

Also I won't get into this too deeply but using a phrase like "Patriarchal religions such as Catholicism and Islam", while I guess strictly true, is so utterly misleading in magnitude and sentiment that I refuse to believe it's being made in good faith. Islam denies women basic rights, does not even allow them to worship with men, advocates polygamy on earth, and says the afterlife consists of an eternity of sexual pleasure with ethereal transparent teenaged girls (not even exaggerating). Catholicism restricts certain ecclesiastical roles to men and others to women, and refuses to deny basic truths about the nature of men and women, but without compelling women to adhere to a strict lifestyle (homemaking) to avoid risking their soul. It's not comparable.

[wishesofeternity]

A queen's position privileged her relationship with the church hierarchy. This allowed  visible material expression of her personal devotion, and Elizabeth Woodville, though hardly  renowned today for her piety, was a case in point. Some of her requests were for very  private purposes, for example (in 1474) to have a portable altar. Others applied outside  the court. In 1477 she gained, at her own petition, an indult to enter Carthusian houses of  royal foundation, with eight to ten women servants, to hear masses and other divine offices; two years later she and the king were granted a licence to hear services within the Carthusian house at Sheen. Crawford (1985) uses this evidence to credit Elizabeth with a piety "beyond the purely conventional", but does not show how these actions prove it, given that  the queen, any queen, had a far greater range of resources and opportunities to express piety than most women. Crawford also shies away from reconciling this comment with her earlier assertion that "many of Elizabeth's actions show her to have been grasping and totally lacking in scruple"  

Elizabeth Woodville's devotion to the Feast of the Visitation (also adduced by  Crawford) had complex implications. The main objective of her 1480 petition to the pope regarding this feast was that the people of England, including herself, not be deprived of the papal indulgences associated with its celebration; this was an issue because the date of the newly instituted feast conflicted with some traditional English ones. The pope declared an arrangement whereby neither observance would be lost. Elizabeth displayed even more of a sense of mission in requesting extra indulgences for practitioners of the Salutation of the Virgin, apparently wishing "the devotion of the faithful of the realm for the said Salutation to be increased more and more". But however important this was for contemporary English piety, and however useful for a broader understanding of Elizabeth Woodville, it does not  seem to take us far "beyond the purely conventional". More thought-provoking, perhaps, is the queen's surrender of her parts of two Worcestershire manors in 1479, which she granted to the monastery of St. Peter's, Westminster, with specific, detailed instructions for the observances she desired on behalf of the royal family. The same year she granted the  monastery of Jesus of Bethlehem 48 acres of land out of her manor of Sheen. One  wonders why Elizabeth undertook almost all her religious projects within a brief period, 1477-80. Had the necessary resources finally come her way, or was there a more personal reason -- for example, the death of her first royal son, George, at the age of two, early in 1479?

It is safe to assume that for any powerful woman of the fifteenth century, piety and patronage were unavoidably related. One of Elizabeth Woodville's first acts of intercession, in 1466, was to gain a royal licence for the founding of a London priestly fraternity. Despite Crawford's contrary assertion, at least one of Elizabeth Woodville's household clerics  became a bishop: her confessor Edward Storey, later bishop of Carlisle. The queen  maintained this ecclesiastical connection, later appealing to the pope on Storey's behalf. As for Elizabeth of York, her "singular devotion" for the Cistercian monastery of St Mary,  Woborn, led her, toward the end of her life, to send the pope a "most instant request" for the  union of that house to the parish church of Salisbury, but her wish was accompanied by those  of the bishop, the dean, the archdeacon of Buckingham and the chapter of the church, all by  the "will" of the king. This may indicate that the queen's word by itself would not have guaranteed the success of the petition.  

Queenly patronage might still be much more direct than this. Elizabeth Woodville was granted the right of presentation to the hospital or free chapel of St. Anthony, London, in 1468. In 1499 Elizabeth of York wrote to the prior of Christ Church, Canterbury, asking  for a literal carte blanche of presentation to the highly desirable, centrally located living of All Hallows, Gracechurch Street, London, for which Elizabeth Woodville and her husband had also wanted preferment. The prior was to leave a blank on the certificate which the   queen would fill in with the name of her candidate (Richard Southayke received the benefice). Both queens were granted rights of presentation to canonries and prebends in the royal chapel of St. Stephen, Westminster, but these were often shared, e.g. Elizabeth of York's grants of 1486 with the bishop of Ely, or of 1487 with four others. They might also be carefully qualified, applying only to the next vacancy, or to "become void after the king, or some one by his grant, has presented to one canonry and prebend in the same chapel". And even a queen could have competition; in 1500 the university of Oxford received letters  from Elizabeth of York, the prince of Wales, and the king's mother recommending three  different candidates to the same position.  

The queen was not restricted to court or high-profile appointments, and she might exercise her influence even over livings to which she had no legal claim. In 1469 John  Pas ton II informed his son that the "free chapell in Caster", a Paston property, was to be  given to a chaplain of Elizabeth Woodville, "Master John Yotton", "at the speciall request of  the Qwen and othere especiall good lordes of myn". This seems to have been contrary to  Paston's original intentions for the living; moreover, the queen expected a higher stipend for her candidate than Paston was willing to provide. 120 Whatever salary was agreed on was evidently not enough to keep Yotton at his post, since before long "a prest to syng in Caster"   was again needed; John Paston III advised his father that "now thys parlement tyme ... I thynk  [Yotton] shalbe awaytyng on the Qwen. " Elizabeth of York claimed to be the exclusive patron, as queen, of the hospital of St Katherine-by-the-Tower, and attempted at least twice to obtain a plenary indulgence for it [...].

Naturally, a queen's ecclesiastical patronage could have less spiritual motives, whether personal or political. In 1479 Elizabeth Woodville's brother Lionel was granted a papal dispensation to hold four simultaneous benefices, though this was at the petition of both king  and queen.  The papal "relaxation" she obtained for those visiting St. Augustine's Church, Huntingdon, is also open to cynical interpretation, since one of the conditions is that the visitors "give alms for the maintenance of its buildings and ornaments". It is less obvious why, in 1488, a papal inhibition of "disturbances in the matter of the right of succession, etc." among Irish ecclesiastics, was said to originate in the concern of both Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, though we should note that the queen's chancellor was an Irish peer. Elizabeth Woodville's record of "protectyng and defendyng the libertes and  ffrauncheses" of Westminster Abbey, and her "bounteous" donations for its repairs, stood her in good stead when she wished to lease a house there.  

Pious patronage might extend to literary patronage, and the prime example of this for our purposes is William Caxton. The dedication to Caxton's printing of the Fifteen Oes of St.  Bridget of Sweden states that the book was printed at the joint commandment of Elizabeth of York and the king’s mother. The reason for this patronage is unclear, since there is nothing especially queenly or even feminine about the content of these prayers. Of course, Lady Margaret's active piety is well known, and it has been suggested that the queen was her protegee in the patronage of devotional literature. In 1477 Caxton had dedicated his Boke of the histories of Jason to the prince of Wales "by [the king's] licence and congye [and] by the supportacion of... the Quene", Elizabeth Woodville; his reference to the new translation also formally acknowledges both king and queen. Contrary to what one might suppose, the reference to the queen is probably more meaningful than that to the king; Woodville patronage had been important in Caxton's early career on his return to England, and his connection to Elizabeth was probably the critical one.

It is reasonable to suppose that in an age when learning was still so strongly connected to the church, a queen's educational benefactions might fall under the rubric of pious good works. We lack any other substantiated motive for Elizabeth Woodville's patronage of Queens' College, Cambridge, which is first explicitly mentioned in 1465, even before her coronation. Elizabeth's main accomplishment, in 1473, was to give the college its  statutes (never provided by the original foundress, Margaret of Anjou), in which she  described herself as vera fundatrix and stated in part "the duties of our royal prerogative  require, piety suggests, natural reason demands, that we should be especially solicitous  concerning those matters whereby the safety of souls and the public good are concerned, and  poor scholars ... are assisted". The queen shared in the power to alter or rescind any of the provisions of these statutes. Unfortunately no records remain of any further direct benefaction to the college from Elizabeth Woodville; her daughter's involvement is even more obscure except for a fragmentary "mandate for selecting ... Billington to a fellowship or scholarship" Elizabeth Woodville apparently also gave "large sums" to Eton College, probably after 1477 (when Henry Bost, the provost who allegedly influenced her, was elected).  

Queens could, of course, be involved in more overtly worldly patronage, often in an intercessory role. A well-documented example is the involvement of the Mercers' Company of London with Elizabeth Woodville in the late 1470s. The queen first interceded for the  merchants in 1478, regarding a "fraye" between the king's servants and some London  citizens. By December 1479 the company had a much more serious problem; it owed the king an onerous sum for non-payment of its subsidy, and for its alleviation it looked to both Elizabeth and the king's chamberlain (William, Lord Hastings). From the beginning the queen's abilities were recognized as exceptional, not only by the company but by Hastings, who encouraged the merchants to cultivate her rather than himself. In January 1480, after the  merchants had given "grete lawde & thanke" to their court connections, including Thomas Grey and "the lord Ryvers", they reported that Hastings had cautioned them "to be more  secrete of theyre frendes and that non avaunt be made who that is frendly and laboureth for us  Except the quenes good grace oonly, whiche that is, & always hath ben, oure verrey good &  gracious lady in the said mater & c." Evidently dealing with the queen alone would get  the company into less political trouble than open lobbying of her relatives -- an indication,  perhaps, that Elizabeth was not considered one and the same with "the Woodvilles".  

By 8 January 1480, the queen had managed to convince Edward to forgive 500 marks (£333 6s. lOd.) of the fine, and the company decided that she was their most promising option; four days later the fine was further reduced by the same amount. Although this left the company still owing 3000 marks (£2000), which the king made clear was his final offer, the difference was significant enough to earn Elizabeth the merchants' gratitude. This episode helps to explain Elizabeth Woodville's membership in two London fraternities connected to the Skinners' Company. She was the fifth queen consort to belong to the Fraternity of Corpus Christi, and the book of the Fraternity of Our Lady's Assumption contains a painting of her in her coronation robes. Presumably this company had learned in the past that queenly connections were worth maintaining, and reasoned that to honour Elizabeth twice would be even more effective in keeping it in her good graces.  

The queen's intervention was not limited to the business sector. In June 1467, Elizabeth Woodville wrote a sharply worded letter to the earl of Oxford when he failed to restore Simon Blyant to a disputed manor. Her involvement did not end with this gesture, for we know that the archbishop of York was to speak with her about it in August even though she had taken her chamber. Another landowner, Catesby of Hopsford, eventually appealed to the queen in a matter involving a number of lands, though we do not know the outcome. Where families were concerned, the queen's influence might help to undo a marriage as well as to arrange one. From October 1471 until at least April 1473 Elizabeth Woodville and her council were involved, at John Paston H's request, in trying to cancel his engagement to Anne Hawte. Difficulties might arise when an individual had no such convenient connection to the queen; the prior of Bromholm asked John Paston for help because he did not know how properly to make his appeal to Elizabeth Woodville for "certeyn  tymber".

The queen's contact with cities was not defined solely by ceremonies of entry. In December 1467 the city of Coventry voted Elizabeth Woodville a gift of 100 marks (£66 13s.  4d.). Even if this was merely a New Year's gift, and not in response to any special situation, it may represent the city's recognition that it could be in their interest to pay tribute to the queen. For her part, Elizabeth made a gift of twelve bucks to Coventry in September 1474, not long after her visit there with the prince of Wales. The queen's dealings with Coventry were not a matter of mere courtesies. Three months later she wrote to the corporation to express her regret for the disturbance caused by one of the king's servants there. Elizabeth promised that the offender would be dealt with appropriately, and thanked the city for its recent kindness to her and the royal children. The point to take from this is that the relationship a queen might develop with a city could be quite independent of her husband, though useful to him. It was more effective for Elizabeth to communicate with Coventry even though the situation she addressed had nothing to do with her. Here we see queenly intercession operating, as it were, in reverse.

- Derek Neal, “The Queen’s Grace: English Queenship, 1464-1503″

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

Jeremiah Taken to Egypt

When Jeremiah had finished telling all the people all the words of the LORD their God—everything that the LORD had sent him to say— Azariah son of Hoshaiah, Johanan son of Kareah, and all the arrogant men said to Jeremiah, “You are lying! The LORD our God has not sent you to say, ‘You must not go to Egypt to reside there.’ Rather, Baruch son of Neriah is inciting you against us to deliver us into the hands of the Chaldeans, so that they may put us to death or exile us to Babylon!”

So Johanan son of Kareah and all the commanders of the forces disobeyed the command of the LORD to stay in the land of Judah. Instead, Johanan son of Kareah and all the commanders of the forces took the whole remnant of Judah, those who had returned to the land of Judah from all the nations to which they had been scattered, the men, the women, the children, the king’s daughters, and everyone whom Nebuzaradan captain of the guard had allowed to remain with Gedaliah son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan, as well as Jeremiah the prophet and Baruch son of Neriah.

So they entered the land of Egypt because they did not obey the voice of the LORD, and they went as far as Tahpanhes.

Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah at Tahpanhes: “In the sight of the Jews, pick up some large stones and bury them in the clay of the brick pavement at the entrance to Pharaoh’s palace at Tahpanhes.

Then tell them that this is what the LORD of Hosts, the God of Israel, says: ‘I will send for My servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and I will set his throne over these stones that I have embedded, and he will spread his royal pavilion over them. He will come and strike down the land of Egypt, bringing death to those destined for death, captivity to those destined for captivity, and the sword to those destined for the sword.

I will kindle a fire in the temples of the gods of Egypt, and Nebuchadnezzar will burn those temples and take their gods as captives. So he will wrap himself with the land of Egypt as a shepherd wraps himself in his garment, and he will depart from there unscathed. He will demolish the sacred pillars of the temple of the sun in the land of Egypt, and he will burn down the temples of the gods of Egypt.’ ” — Jeremiah 43 | The Reader's Bible (BRB) The Reader’s Bible © 2020 by Bible Hub and Berean Bible. All rights Reserved. Cross References: Genesis 19:14; Genesis 41:45; Exodus 12:12; 2 Samuel 12:31; 2 Kings 25:26; 2 Chronicles 25:16; 2 Chronicles 36:12; Psalm 18:11; Psalm 27:5; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 7:9; Isaiah 19:1; Isaiah 30:2; Isaiah 46:2; Jeremiah 2:16; Jeremiah 5:12; Ecclesiastes 9:1-2; Jeremiah 32:12; Jeremiah 36:4; Jeremiah 38:22; Jeremiah 40:11-12; Jeremiah 44:1; Jeremiah 44:30; Jeremiah 46:14; Revelation 13:10

[frmartinshomiliesandreflections]

17th November >> Fr. Martin's Gospel Reflections / Homilies on Luke 17:26-37 for Friday, Thirty Second Week in Ordinary Time: 'So will it also be in the days of the Son of Man'.

Friday, Thirty Second Week in Ordinary Time

Gospel (Except USA) Luke 17:26-37 When the day comes for the Son of Man to be revealed.

Jesus said to the disciples: ‘As it was in Noah’s day, so will it also be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating and drinking, marrying wives and husbands, right up to the day Noah went into the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. It will be the same as it was in Lot’s day: people were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but the day Lot left Sodom, God rained fire and brimstone from heaven and it destroyed them all. It will be the same when the day comes for the Son of Man to be revealed.

‘When that day comes, anyone on the housetop, with his possessions in the house, must not come down to collect them, nor must anyone in the fields turn back either. Remember Lot’s wife. Anyone who tries to preserve his life will lose it; and anyone who loses it will keep it safe. I tell you, on that night two will be in one bed: one will be taken, the other left; two women will be grinding corn together: one will be taken, the other left.’ The disciples interrupted. ‘Where, Lord?’ they asked. He said, ‘Where the body is, there too will the vultures gather.’

Gospel (USA) Luke 17:26-37 So it will be on the day the Son of Man is revealed.

Jesus said to his disciples: “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be in the days of the Son of Man; they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage up to the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Similarly, as it was in the days of Lot: they were eating, drinking, buying, selling, planting, building; on the day when Lot left Sodom, fire and brimstone rained from the sky to destroy them all. So it will be on the day the Son of Man is revealed. On that day, someone who is on the housetop and whose belongings are in the house must not go down to get them, and likewise one in the field must not return to what was left behind. Remember the wife of Lot. Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses it will save it. I tell you, on that night there will be two people in one bed; one will be taken, the other left. And there will be two women grinding meal together; one will be taken, the other left.” They said to him in reply, “Where, Lord?” He said to them, “Where the body is, there also the vultures will gather.”

Reflections (6)

(i) Friday, Thirty Second Week in Ordinary Time 

According to the Book of Ecclesiastes, there is a ‘time for every matter under heaven’. In today’s gospel reading, Jesus mentions some of the human activities that the term ‘every matter’ covers, namely, eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, marrying wives and husbands. This is the stuff of ordinary day-to-day life. These activities and many others will always be with us, in every time and place. Yet, Jesus warns against the danger of becoming so absorbed by these essential activities for life that we are completely unaware of another reality that is even more important, what he refers to as ‘the days of the Son of Man’. The ‘days’ or ‘day’ in question is that moment at the end of time when the Son of Man is revealed in all his glory. We have no way of knowing when that day will come. Yet, what we do know is that the glorious Son of Man who is to be revealed at the end of time is the same risen Lord who is with us always until the end of time. In that sense, the ‘days of the Son of Man’ are the days of our lives. The Lord reveals his presence to us each day, today. The value of our daily activities can so absorb us that we fail to see beyond them. The first reading invites us to contemplate the Author, the Creator, through the grandeur and beauty of his creatures. The term ‘contemplate’ might suggest going off on our own to a lonely place to pray. However, we can contemplate the Lord in the midst of all our activities, surrounded by God’s creatures. Contemplation is a way of seeing that brings us beyond the surface of things to the Lord who reveals himself to us from the heart of life. What is said of Woman Wisdom in the Jewish Scriptures can be said of the Lord, ‘She graciously shows herself to them as they go, in every thought of theirs coming to meet them’. 

And/Or

(ii) Friday, Thirty Second Week in Ordinary Time

Each of us in our own way is involved in the daily business of life. The ordinary day to day matters engage us. Most of our time is taken up with just living in that very ordinary sense of the word. Jesus refers to this rhythm of daily living in this morning’s gospel reading. He speaks of eating and drinking, marrying wives and husbands, buying and selling, planting and building. This is the stuff of life. Without it life could not go on. It is no surprise that it takes up so much of our time and energy. Yet, in the gospel reading, Jesus warns against becoming so absorbed by the ordinary routine of life that we never look beyond it or look at a deeper level. In that context of ordinary human activity Jesus speaks of the day of the coming of the Son of Man. That will be a day that puts everything we do, the ordinary business of life, into a totally different perspective, an eternal perspective in a sense. We need something of that eternal perspective before the arrival of that day of the Son of Man. The glorious Son of Man, the risen Lord, is already among us. There is a sense in which he is arriving in the course of our day. The gospel reading warns against becoming so immersed in our day to day affairs that we fail to take notice of him or pay attention to him. We need to be fully immersed in our world with its various comings and goings while at the same time not being so absorbed by that world that we forget about that someone greater who stands among us calling out to us, inviting us into a personal relationship with him. It is out of that relationship that we then engage with the nitty-gritty of life.

And/Or

(iii) Friday, Thirty Second Sunday in Ordinary Time

Today’s gospel reading speaks about the activities of eating and drinking, taking wives and husbands, buying and selling, planting and building. These will always be some of the main activities of any human life. We could add to that list. Jesus reminds his listeners that in the time of Noah people were all engaged in these activities when, suddenly, disaster struck, the flood came and all these vitally important human activities seemed less important. On this basis Jesus warns his contemporaries not to become so absorbed by these very human and necessary activities that when he, the Son of Man, comes at the end of time, they will be unprepared for his coming and caught off guard. Jesus is reminding us that we need to keep a proper sense of perspective. The activities of life can be so absorbing and so wonderful in many ways that they can become an end in themselves. There is a deeper dimension to these activities which we can miss. The Lord who comes at the end of time is present to us in and through all of our daily activities. The Lord is present in all things. We need that contemplative approach to life which allows us to recognize the Lord present to us in all our activities. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. We encounter the Lord in and through the flesh of life. If we are open to his presence at the heart of life, then his coming to us at the end of time or at the end of our own earthly time will not take us by surprise.

And/Or

(iv) Friday, Thirty Second Week in Ordinary Time

The gospel reading this morning warns against being so absorbed in the ordinary things of life that we neglect what is of ultimate importance. The reading speaks of eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, marrying wives and husbands. These activities and many others are the stuff of life. They are very important. Life could not go on without them. They are so important that we may to see them as of ultimate importance; this is all there is. Yet, above and beyond all of that necessary activity there is a deeper reality, what the reading refers to as the day for the Son of Man to be revealed. The Son of Man is revealed at the end of time and at the end of our own personal lives. The Son of Man is also revealed in the here and now; the Lord calls out to us in and through the ordinary activities in which we are always engaged. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. All of life is an invitation to contemplate the Lord who is at the heart of life. He calls out to us, as we go about our daily lives, to seek him with all our being just as he seeks us with all his being.

And/Or

(v) Friday, Thirty Second Week in Ordinary Time

The gospel describes a situation in which the normal business of life is suddenly cut short by some unexpected event. The eating, drinking, buying, selling, planting, building, marrying wives and husbands, that went on in the days of Noah and the days of Lot were suddenly brought to a stop by catastrophic events, the great flood and the destruction of a city. In our own lives we can have a similar experience. We are caught up in the ordinary day to day business of living, and suddenly something happens that renders all of that of secondary importance. What is it that keeps us going when those familiar routines no longer sustain us? For us as Christians, it can only be our faith in the Lord. We know that when all else changes, when everything else collapses around us, the Lord endures. In the words of yesterday’s gospel reading, ‘the kingdom of God is among you’. God’s reign, God’s power, is among us, in and through his Son. When all else fails, we can rely on that. Like Saint Paul, we can discover that God’s power is made perfect in weakness. In our times of greatest weakness we can experience the Lord’s power most fully.

And/Or

(vi) Friday, Thirty Second Week in Ordinary Time

The first reading this morning speaks of those who take things for gods. They give to God’s creatures an allegiance that is due to God alone. This is the most obvious case of giving more importance to something than it merits. We can all be prone to that in different ways. We can get things out of proportion. One of the tasks of life is to keep things in proportion. For us as Christians keeping things in proportion will always mean keeping the Lord to the fore and not allowing other things to come between us and him. The ‘eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building’ that the gospel talks about are all important, but they are not of ultimate importance. Only God and his Son are of ultimate importance and we are called to live in a way that acknowledges their sovereignty. As Jesus says at the end of the Sermon on the Mount, ‘Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness and all these things will be given to you as well’.

Fr. Martin Hogan.

[persefoneshalott]

LES MIS SPANISH CENSORSHIP ADVENTURES

I own two spanish translations of les mis. The first one is the most famous and the one that's in most people's houses but it has censorship in it because it's from 1862 and people changed the lenguage a bit through time but never thought to check it with the original french. The new one is the first one without that censorship. I have found another version in the archives that seems to not censor some of it too but I didn't check the whole book out so I can't confirm. All in all there were other translations but because this first one went into public domain pretty quick, it was the one that got reprinted the most and the most easy to find in my country to this day.

So! There's a lot of changes between the two translations I have and I like to look at what was cut and changed and try to guess at why. Maybe I'll do it at the same time I do the les mis letters review. Maybe probably I won't have time once I get back to my job. Either way! I am doing it for these first chapters. I mostly look at the 1810 Spain freedom of press law for the reasoning on the changes. It specifically mentions the writings will be censored if they're offensive to the Monarchy and its laws, to public decency and good morals; and that all writings on matters of religion will be reviewed by the ecclesiastic ordinaries. It also mentions that three of the members of the Supreme Board of Censorship are ecclesiastics, two of the members of the provices are as well, and the rest are secular clergy.

Right, having given the info and context for this, let's go

M. Myriel Becomes M. Bienvenu

The part where a bunch of names are listed as having been in the episcopal palace cuts out the fact that Jean Soanen was a predicator to the king in the old translation. They don't cut any name, just that specific thing about their relationship to the king I am guessing because of implied offense to the monarchy ??

"Things will not go well, M. le Comte, until the Emperor has freed us from these black-capped rascals" The new translation uses a much more offensive word in the place of rascals compared to the old version, 'meapilas' ( literally, stoup-pisser, coming from the origin quote 'this guy pisses holy water') vs 'cassocks' in the old translation but it's not that much of a change to the overall text.

A Hard Bishopric for a Good Bishop

First cut of a line! This is a line that doesn't seem to be in the version we're reading the letters in, but it is in other translations and I thought it being cut here was very in line with other cuts that are made later on with the bishop character.

From Christine Donougher's translation:

"On his visits he was kind and indulgent, and did not so much preach as chat. He placed no virtue beyond reach. He never went looking very far for his arguments and his exemplars. To the inhabitants of one village he would cite the example of the neighbouring one." The old spanish translation cuts the virtue line and the new one recovers it, roughly translating it as "He never placed any virtue in an inaccessible plateau".

THEN when talking to the second group of village people, the old translation has them as 'slothful/lazy' rather than 'greedy' which changes the feeling of it A LOT, even though the rest of the text is pretty similar. It feels like he's shaming them for not working enough vs the original text being of him trying to get them to not only look out for their own selves but form a community where they all can rely on each other and help each other in solidarity. you can see what I mean below: "In villages whose inhabitants were slothful, he said: “Look at the people of Embrun! If, at the harvest season, the father of a family has his son away on service in the army, and his daughters at service in the town, and if he is ill or incapacitated, the curé recommends him to the prayers of the congregation; and on Sunday, after the mass, all the inhabitants of the village—men, women, and children—go to the poor man’s field and do his harvesting for him, and carry the straw and grain to his barns and granaries.” (old spanish translation)

VS In greedy villages for profit and harvest, he said: “Look at the people of Embrun! If, at the harvest season, the father of a family has his son away on service in the army, and his daughters at service in the town, and if he is ill and incapacitated, the parish priest makes his case known in the sermon; and on Sunday, after the mass, all the inhabitants of the village—men, women, and children—go to the poor man’s field and do the harvesting, and carry the straw and grain to his granary.” (new spanish translation)

[catenaaurea]

The Roman Catechism

Part Two: The Sacraments

THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM (cont.)

The Ministers of Baptism

In the next place, it appears not only expedient, but necessary to say who are ministers of this Sacrament; both in order that those to whom this office is specially confided may study to perform its functions religiously and holily; and that no one, outstepping, as it were, his proper limits, may unseasonably take possession of, or arrogantly assume, what belongs to another; for, as the Apostle teaches, order is to be observed in all things.

Bishops And Priests The Ordinary Ministers

The faithful, therefore, are to be informed that of those (who administer Baptism) there are three gradations. Bishops and priests hold the first place. To them belongs the administration of this Sacrament, not by any extraordinary concession of power, but by right of office; for to them, in the persons of the Apostles, was addressed the command of our Lord: Go, baptize. Bishops, it is true, in order not to neglect the more weighty charge of instructing the faithful, have generally left its administration to priests. But the authority of the Fathers and the usage of the Church prove that priests exercise this function by their own right, so much so that they may baptize even in the presence of the Bishop. Ordained to consecrate the Holy Eucharist, the Sacrament of peace and unity, it was fitting that they be invested with power to administer all those things which are required to enable others to participate in that peace and unity. If, therefore, the Fathers have at any time said that without the leave of the Bishop the priest has not the right to baptize, they are to be understood to speak of that Baptism only which was administered on certain days of the year with solemn ceremonies.

Deacons Extraordinary Ministers Of Baptism

Next among the ministers are deacons, for whom, as numerous decrees of the holy Fathers attest it is not lawful without the permission of the Bishop or priest to administer this Sacrament.

Ministers In Case Of Necessity

Those who may administer Baptism in case of necessity, but without its solemn ceremonies, hold the last place; and in this class are included all, even the laity, men and women, to whatever sect they may belong. This office extends in case of necessity, even to Jews, infidels and heretics, provided, however, they intend to do what the Catholic Church does in that act of her ministry. These things were established by many decrees of the ancient Fathers and Councils; and the holy Council of Trent denounces anathema against those who dare to say, that Baptism, even when administered by heretics, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true Baptism.

And here indeed let us admire the supreme goodness and wisdom of our Lord. Seeing the necessity of this Sacrament for all, He not only instituted water, than which nothing can be more common, as its matter, but also placed its administration within the power of all. In its administration, however, as we have already observed, all are not allowed to use the solemn ceremonies; not that rites and ceremonies are of higher dignity, but because they are less necessary than the Sacrament.

Let not the faithful, however, imagine that this office is given promiscuously to all, so as to do away with the propriety of observing a certain precedence among those who are its ministers. When a man is present a woman should not baptise; an ecclesiastic takes precedence over a layman, and a priest over a simple ecclesiastic. Midwives, however, when accustomed to its administration, are not to be found fault with if sometimes, when a man is present who is unacquainted with the manner of its administration, they perform what may otherwise appear to belong more properly to men.

The Sponsors at Baptism

Besides the ministers who, as just explained, confer Baptism, another class of persons, according to the most ancient practice of the Church, is admitted to assist at the baptismal font. In former times these were commonly called by sacred writers receivers, sponsors or sureties, and are now called godfathers and godmothers. As this is an office pertaining almost to all the laity, pastors should explain it with care, so that the faithful may understand what is chiefly necessary for its proper performance.

Why Sponsors Are Required At Baptism

In the first instance it should be explained why at Baptism, besides those who administer the Sacrament, godparents and sponsors are also required. The propriety of the practice will at once appear to all if they recollect that Baptism is a spiritual regeneration by which we are born children of God; for of it St. Peter says: As newborn infants, desire the rational milk without guile. As, therefore, every one, after his birth, requires a nurse and instructor by whose assistance and attention he is brought up and formed to learning and useful knowledge, so those, who, by the waters of Baptism, begin to live a spiritual life should be entrusted to the fidelity and prudence of some one from whom they may imbibe the precepts of the Christian religion and may be brought up in all holiness, and thus grow gradually in Christ, until, with the Lord's help, they at length arrive at perfect manhood.

This necessity must appear still more imperative, if we recollect that pastors, who are charged with the public care of parishes have not sufficient time to undertake the private instruction of children in the rudiments of faith.

Antiquity Of This Law

Concerning this very ancient practice we have this noteworthy testimony of St. Denis: It occurred to our divine leaders (so he called the Apostles), and they in their wisdom ordained that infants should be introduced (into the Church) in this holy manner that their natural parents should deliver them to the care of some one well skilled in divine things, as to a master under whom, as a spiritual father and guardian of his salvation in holiness, the child should lead the remainder of his life. The same doctrine is confirmed by the authority of Hyginus.

Affinity Contracted By Sponsors

The Church, therefore, in her wisdom has ordained that not only the person who baptizes contracts a spiritual affinity with the person baptized, but also the sponsor with the godchild and its natural parents, so that between all these marriage cannot be lawfully contracted, and if contracted, it is null and void.

Duties Of Sponsors

The faithful are also to be taught the duty of sponsors; for such is the negligence with which this office is treated in the Church that only the bare name of the function remains, while none seem to have the least idea of its sanctity. Let all sponsors, then, at all times recollect that they are strictly bound by this law to exercise a constant vigilance over their spiritual children, and carefully to instruct them in the maxims of a Christian life; so that these may show themselves throughout life to be what their sponsors promised in the solemn ceremony.

On this subject let us hear the words of St. Denis. Speaking in the person of the sponsor he says: I promise, by my constant exhortations to induce this child, when he comes to a knowledge of religion, to renounce every thing opposed (to his Christian calling) and to profess and perform the sacred promises which he now makes.

St. Augustine also says: I most especially admonish you, men and women, who have acquired godchildren through Baptism, to consider that you stood as sureties before God, for those whom you received at the sacred font. Indeed it preeminently becomes every man, who undertakes any office, to be indefatigable in the discharge of its duties; and he who promised to be the teacher and guardian of another should never allow to be deserted him whom he once received under his care and protection as long as he knows the latter to stand in need of either.

Speaking of this same duty of sponsors, St. Augustine sums up in a few words the lessons of instruction which they are bound to impart to their spiritual children. They ought, he says, to admonish them to observe chastity, love justice, cling to charity; and above all they should teach them the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the rudiments of the Christian religion.

Who May Not Be Sponsors

It is easy, therefore, to decide who are inadmissible to this holy guardianship, that is, those who are unwilling to discharge its duties with fidelity, or who cannot do so with care and accuracy.

Wherefore, besides the natural parents, who, to mark the great difference that exists between this spiritual and the carnal bringing up of youth, are not permitted to undertake this charge, heretics, Jews and infidels are on no account to be admitted to this office, since their thoughts and efforts are continually employed in darkening by falsehood the true faith and in subverting all Christian piety.

Number Of Sponsors

The number of sponsors is limited by the Council of Trent to one godfather or one godmother, or at most, to a godfather and a godmother; because a number of teachers may confuse the order of discipline and instruction, and also because it was necessary to prevent the multiplication of affinities which would impede a wider diffusion of society by means of lawful marriage.

[mariacallous]

Poland’s far-right used to be loyal footsoldiers for the Catholic Church. But now, they are turning against the clerical establishment – by going to Latin mass.

The men are assembled along the left, the women line up along the right, and the very young children follow the proceedings from an anteroom, soundproofed behind a glass screen. The dress code is sombre – mostly black, occasionally grey. The women are obliged to cover their hair, though judging by the sprinkling of Louis Vuitton and Hermes headscarves, there is no injunction against luxury. Silent and perfectly still, the congregation surrenders to the language of the ancient church: “Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto”.

For the sermon, the priest switches from ecclesiastical Latin to everyday Polish. “You used to be so passionate about your faith and your national identity,” he says. “You paraded with your T-shirts of war heroes and sang hymns in praise of the Lord and the motherland. Now all that is gone. Why?” The reproach seems to be directed exclusively at the male members of the congregation. They lower their heads penitently.

Appeals to nation and faith are uttered in the same breath on Poland’s Independence Day, the annual holiday on November 11 that commemorates the restoration of the country’s sovereignty. However, the faith invoked at this Independence Day mass, in the leafy Warsaw suburb of Wawer, could not be further from the mainstream Catholicism that anchors Poland’s national identity.

The mass was held at a small chapel belonging to the Society of Saint Pius X, an organisation of Catholic priests that was established by Marcel Lefebvre, a controversial French archbishop who was excommunicated by no less a figure than Pope John Paul II, patron saint and supreme icon of modern Polish Catholicism. Performed in traditional Latin rather than Polish, the ceremony at Wawer contained deeply traditional elements that even the most conservative of Poland’s churchgoers might have found archaic. It was arranged at the behest of the Independence March Association, a Polish far-right organisation that convenes an annual march on Independence Day, rallying tens of thousands of ultra-nationalists to declare their hostility to “cultural Marxism” and LGBT rights while affirming – sometimes violently – their “patriotism” and “traditional” Polish values.

The head of the Independence March Association, Robert Bakiewicz, is the most recognisable figure within Poland’s extra-parliamentary far-right, and the closest thing to a leader for its disparate formations. At the mass in Wawer, he could pass for the doorman of an upmarket nightclub – burly physique, smart grey overcoat, military-grade haircut. Contemplating the altar, he is periodically interrupted by uniformed lieutenants equipped with wireless earpieces and armbands.

Bakiewicz – the name is pronounced “Bon-kyeh-vich” – is among the minority of Catholic traditionalists worldwide who prefer to attend mass in the original Latin rather than in their native languages, as is the norm. The traditionalists believe the mainstream Catholic way of worship has strayed from dogma and become too liberal, too ecumenical. As they see it, the Latin, or Tridentine, mass still preserves the splendour and sanctity of the pre-modern Church. In a later interview at his office, Bakiewicz criticised the liberalised version of the rite that he grew up with. “It became like a spectacle of sorts, like a Protestant church… something infantile, something I could not take seriously,” he said.

On social media, the Latin mass is associated with the “trad Caths” – Anglophone internet-speak for an increasingly visible new generation of online Catholics. The “trad Caths” of Instagram and TikTok share content celebrating the values and aesthetics of traditional Catholicism, in tones that veer between the playful and the unabashedly sincere. Bakiewicz has joined in the fun – his private Facebook profile has featured a meme-style portrait of himself with the slogan, “Latin Mass Matters” – but his “trad Cath” identity is also a political statement. It signifies a rejection of a historic ally, the Polish clerical establishment, and a recalibration of the far-right’s relationship with Church and state. It also underlines his own credentials. To lead the far-right, you must be more nationalist than the nationalists, and more Catholic than the Catholics. And there is no better way of demonstrating that, in today’s Poland, than by being seen at Latin mass.

Poland’s nationalists have traditionally been close allies of its Church leaders. Through Nazi occupation and Soviet dominance, they served as joint custodians of national identity, active in the resistance and in the preservation of Polish culture. Over the last decade however, the clergy has been hit by a series of scandals that have weakened its standing with the nationalists, as within Polish society at large, leaving it looking like the junior partner in its alliance with the right-wing government. Media reports have exposed the profligacy of Polish bishops who spent donations to the Church on expensive cars, real estate and lavish renovation schemes. More damagingly, senior clergy in Poland have been implicated in committing and covering up child abuse – allegations that echo those made against Catholic bodies across the world.

The scandals have prompted accusations that the clerical establishment has been behaving like an unaccountable elite, corrupted by power and privilege. Indeed, the far-right’s criticism of Church leaders has a distinctly populist tone, suggesting an archetypal contest between “everyday people” on the one hand and “elites” on the other. “I will send my men to protect churches,” Bakiewicz told me in October 2020, as an effective ban on abortions ignited anti-clerical protests across Poland. “But I will never send them to protect the palaces of bishops.”

Matters have not been helped by the current pope. Hailed as a reformist by liberals, Pope Francis has irked conservatives in Poland and beyond, prompting many to question his judgement. Traditionalists have been particularly troubled by the Pope’s decision to restrict access to the Latin mass, reversing efforts by his predecessor, Pope Benedict, to restore some legitimacy to the ancient rite. Where the era of Pope John Paul II marked the consolidation of the relationship between Poland’s nationalists and clergy, the era of Pope Francis coincides with its weakening. “It’s not like we disobey the Pope, the hierarchs,” Bakiewicz said. “But one cannot ever accept others preaching a false gospel, even if it is – to quote Saint Paul – an angel descended from heaven.”

Street-fighters with a political label

In the battle with liberal values, the far-right in Poland is broadly aligned with its government. Led by the national-conservative Law and Justice party, the government picks fights with Brussels, intimidates independent judges and journalists, demonises the campaign for LGBT rights, more or less prohibits abortions, and persecutes refugees and migrants unless they happen to be Ukrainian. Poland’s far-right movement supports these policies on the streets, and some of its biggest players – such as Bakiewicz – are in turn supported financially by the government. Investigative journalists in Poland have revealed that the government has paid more than one million euros in public subsidies to organisations linked to Bakiewicz. Much of the money is drawn from the budget for cultural projects, and is allocated towards staging the Independence March – an arrangement that casts Bakiewicz in the role of subcontractor, providing event management services for a state that prefers its sponsorship of the far-right to be kept under wraps.

According to Mikolaj Czesnik, a political scientist and professor at Warsaw’s SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, the government uses far-right figures such as Bakiewicz to fly a kite for its most hardline policies. “You do not need an army to do that – a few people on the streets of Warsaw is enough,” he said. In the conflict with Brussels for instance, Czesnik said, the far-right helps the government to measure, foster and claim popular support for an extreme position. “The nationalists openly hate Brussels, the people hear that, and this allows the PM to come out and say that he is taking a tough stance against the European Commission because he values the Polish people over some foreign, cosmopolitan greater good.”

Czesnik said he did not expect the Independence March Association to convert its influence into formal political clout by contesting elections as a party. “The threat of them achieving anything in a political sense is not significant,” he said, “and it is certainly much smaller than the threat of them committing harm to Polish public opinion.”

Bakiewicz began his political career as a footsoldier in the ONR, the largest and oldest formation within Poland’s far-right eco-system. The ONR – its initials stand for National Radical Camp – claims to be the ideological heir to an organisation of the same name whose cadres hounded Poland’s Jews and leftists in the run-up to World War Two. The nationalist organisation took part in the armed insurgency against the Nazis, only to be driven underground by the Soviets. It re-emerged in the 1990s as a fringe movement, amounting at first to little more than a group of streetfighters with a political label. Its present-day membership is known for its Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and hostility to LGBT rights, as well as its belief in an ethnically pure Poland. A recent ruling by Poland’s supreme court decreed that the ONR could reasonably be described as “fascist”, although the court stopped short of endorsing that description. The movement rejects the label – fascism is technically outlawed in Poland – even if some of its members have been pictured marching in brown shirts and performing Roman salutes.

Bakiewicz became known at the ONR for his rousing speeches and all-round tough guy image – qualities that, according to his supporters, have helped shake the far-right out of its anomie and restore its sense of purpose. He was born in 1976 in Pruszkow, a satellite town of Warsaw that acquired a reputation for gangland violence in the post-communist transition. As a young man, he ran a small construction company. The Polish investigative website, frontstory.pl, revealed that the firm struggled financially, and that Bakiewicz eventually filed for bankruptcy in 2011 – around the same time as he became active in the ONR. Media outlets also reported that he had been granted a divorce at around this time, with his financial problems cited as a contributory factor. Bakiewicz has refused to speak to the press about this period in his life.

He agreed to the interview on condition that we would only discuss matters of faith. Questions about his financial history were strictly off-limits, and nor was I able to ask him about a 2017 interview in which he used a slur for gay people, and referred to homosexuality as an illness threatening the traditional family.

Persecution and exile

The interview took place in Bakiewicz’s office, in a tower block in Warsaw’s genteel Zoliborz district. I waited in a hallway where religious icons hung on the wall. A stack of newspapers beside the chair contained a range of left and right-wing publications, many with handwritten comments scribbled on the front-page stories. Bakiewicz tends to avoid speaking to established media outlets, opting to get his message across via his YouTube channel.

I began the interview by asking him about his enthusiasm for Latin mass. He responded that the modern mass, replacing the Latin version, undermined the Church’s claim to universality – the claim, in other words, that its teachings applied equally to everyone. “The Church cannot suddenly start changing what it used to preach,” he said, because universality also meant that the institution “needs to be understood in the same way.”

Almost all churches in Poland conduct the mass in the Polish language – a legacy of the Second Vatican Council, held in Rome between 1962-5. The extraordinary summit resulted in sweeping reforms that were welcomed by liberals as a timely overhaul of obsolete doctrine and ritual. Importantly, priests were permitted to celebrate mass in the native language of the congregation rather than Latin. Deeply conservative factions within the Church, however, rejected the changes. Some of these factions were eventually cast out by the Vatican.

The Society of Saint Pius X is among the leading formations that have been exiled to the margins of the mainstream faith. It was established in 1970 by Marcel Lefebvre, a French archbishop who had led opponents of the reforms at the Vatican Council. In 1988, Lefebvre was branded a schismatic and ex-communicated by the Vatican after he defied papal authority by personally consecrating three priests.

“I remember the Lefebvre movement as minnows, back in the 1990s,” said Stanislaw Obirek, a former priest who lectures in American Studies at the University of Warsaw. “They were insignificant.” That changed, he said, as the movement began to attract prominent recruits in Poland, including an influential Jesuit priest and a popular right-wing historian. “People like that gave them recognition and legitimacy, and their optics became more attractive.” 

Bakiewicz’s wing of the far-right embraced the Lefebvre movement after falling out with the clergy three years ago. The bond was fortified a year later, amid the largest protests seen in Poland since the dying days of the communist regime. The targets of the protesters’ fury were the leaders of the governing coalition and their allies in the church, deemed to bear joint responsibility for a new law effectively banning abortions. Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets for weeks on end, church services were interrupted by activists, and the word, “murderers”, was spray-painted on church facades across the country.

The air of insurrection seemed to galvanise Bakiewicz, spurring him to a defence of his values. “Out there on the streets right now, there are only two banners: the banner of Jesus and the banner of Satan,” he told me, when we spoke by phone on October 27, 2020. Later that day, he convened a press conference outside the St Cross Church on Warsaw’s iconic thoroughfare, Krakowskie Przedmiescie. He declared that he was creating a volunteer force of “true Poles” that would rise up against the danger of secularisation, and secure church premises against attack.

The clergy, though, was less enthusiastic about an association with the far-right. A year earlier, in the run-up to the 2019 Independence March, Bakiewicz had tried to book a central Warsaw church to host a celebratory mass for his supporters. However, church after church turned him down. A vicar at a prominent Warsaw church who eventually agreed to host the mass would also cancel at the last minute, reportedly because Bakiewicz had not disclosed his institutional affiliation when making the booking.

In a spat that was played out in the national press, Bakiewicz in turn accused the Archbishop of Warsaw, Kazimierz Nycz, of violating canonical law by denying his request for a Latin mass. A spokesman for the Warsaw Archdiocese, Przemyslaw Sliwinski, rejected the accusation, telling me at the time that the decision had been taken by individual churches, and they were moreover under no obligation to host a Latin mass. And so it came to pass that the far-right leader spurned in Warsaw would end up celebrating mass at a small chapel in the suburbs, operated by a movement on the fringes of Catholicism.

The themes of persecution and exile resonate through the history of Christianity, echoing the suffering of the earliest followers of the faith. The modern far-right often exploits these themes, insisting that it has been victimised by crusading leftists and over-reaching governments. Bakiewicz has portrayed his movement as heirs to the early Christians, combating the rotten elites in the name of the true believers – giving a populist spin to the old story.

As Bakiewicz’s far-right follows the rising star of the Lefebvre movement, the Law and Justice-led government has entered an ever-tightening embrace with the Church. Top clerics have applauded the overall direction of Law and Justice’s rule, while priests in smaller cities have nudged the faithful to vote for government candidates – all the while endorsing the party’s stance on abortion and LGBT rights. The party’s growing influence over the judiciary has, critics say, also enhanced its appeal as a strategic partner for an institution facing a barrage of lawsuits over sex abuse claims.

Where the far-right flies a kite for Law and Justice ideologues in exchange for state subsidies, the Church clings to the government in the face of scandals and waning influence. Law and Justice is the dominant partner in both these relationships, the apex of a lopsided triangle, bestowing benefits as it chooses.

‘Lifeboats lowered from a sinking ship’

In the interview at his office, Bakiewicz heaped scorn on the clergy that had barred his followers from its churches. He accused them of taking a passive stance during the protests against the abortion law, thereby neglecting a fundamental duty to stand up for the faith. “They suddenly went silent, they did not do what the Church expects them to do.” Instead, he said, “at moments like these, the Church, the bishops, the cardinals in particular, are bound to sacrifice and martyrdom.” After a brief pause, he clarified that he did not mean “martyrdom” in the literal sense.

He also criticised the clergy over its response to recent events – the arrival in Poland of more than three million Ukrainian refugees fleeing the conflict with Russia. Ukrainians now account for nearly eight per cent of Poland’s population, marking a dramatic shift for a country characterised since World War II by the absence of any sizeable linguistic, religious or ethnic minorities. The homogeneity of contemporary Polish identity is typically upheld by the far-right as a virtue, to be defended at all costs against migrants from Islamic countries.

Towards the Ukrainians however, allies in the confrontation with the historic Russian enemy, there is no overt hostility. “These people came to us from a war-torn country,” Bakiewicz said, striking a paternalistic note. “It’s not the time to think about trivial, materialistic things.” But the Polish clergy, in his view, was once again at fault – it had missed an opportunity to bring the Ukrainians, most of whom follow a branch of the Eastern Orthodox church, within the fold of the Catholic faith. “I am disappointed that the Polish Church is not fighting for these souls,” Bakiewicz said. Converting Ukrainian refugees to Catholicism could, he argued, serve a dual purpose: it would create a durable bond between the two countries and it would boost the strength of the Polish Church.

The proposed mass conversion of a displaced people may sound like anachronistic fantasy – something out of Europe’s mediaeval past – but it encapsulates a particular view of faith and nation on the far-right. Some refugees are welcome, in this view, if they can be assimilated into the faith, reinforcing rather than altering it.

According to the traditionalists, it is the willingness of the Church to be altered, to change with the times, that lies at the heart of its current malaise. Under Pope Francis, the Vatican has softened its rhetoric towards LGBT minorities, condemned Europe’s policy towards migrants, and sought to find common ground with the leaders of other faiths. “If the Pope suggests that all religions are equal,” Bakiewicz said, “it means that the Catholic martyrs, those who were put to death because they refused to convert, would have died in vain.”

Despite their many vocal objections to the current Pope, the traditionalists maintain that they have not crossed the line into outright defiance of papal authority – a move that would call their identity as Catholics into question. One of Bakiewicz’s ideological soulmates in Polish politics, Robert Winnicki, threads the needle between criticism and defiance of the Pope. “We are not going to fight the Pope or the bishops who follow that liberal, syncretic, multicultural path,” said the MP from the ultra-conservative Confederation Party. “We just shrug our shoulders and do what is ours to do.” At the same time, he paints a bleak picture of the Church in peril. “The ship is sinking and the lifeboats are being lowered,” he said. “The Latin mass movement is one of those lifeboats. It will not operate against the Vatican, but despite it.”

Mateusz Mazzini is a Warsaw-based reporter for Gazeta Wyborcza daily and Polityka weekly. This story was produced as part of the Fellowship for Journalistic Excellence, supported by the ERSTE Foundation, in cooperation with the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network. Editing by Neil Arun.

[mimormonfeminist]

I got bamboozled into going back to church.

Okay, bamboozled isn't totally accurate, but it went something like this:

Step One: Buy a house and move back into the ward I grew up in, where my dad is in the bishopric.

Step Two: Accept a calling as a seminary companion, mostly because my dad asked and the commitment was low (except for having to wake up waaaaaaay too early).

Step Three: A couple few months later accept a calling as a Youth Sunday School teacher. I've had this calling in a couple different wards and it is my favorite calling of all time.

Step Four: Get released from Sunday School (boo!) and accept a calling as the Relief Society Secretary.

Step Five: Reach my final form and accept the calling to be Young Women's president.

Here's the thing, the things I don't like about church haven't changed. I abhor the ecclesiastic segregation, the anti-queerness, the institutional infallibility and lack of transparency, and the inability of the institution to convincingly repent of its former and current sins.

BUT I still love the gospel. And I think I can do a lot of good for the youth in the ward. They're good kids who deserve open-minded and open-hearted support; love without exclusion or expectation.

So, yeah, I'm back at church. Still conflicted about it, but I always said I'd go back when God said the time was right, and I suppose that's what happened.

Guess we'll see how it goes.

[rcsplendent]

❝ TRUE that love in WITHDRAWAL was the weeping of ME . ❞

☼☾  (  saoirse  ronan  ,  30  ,  they/she  ,  non-binary  femme  ,  stuart  4  )  -  have  you  seen  ROWENA  STUART?    we’ve  heard  through  the  grapevine  that  they’re  DRUIDIC  but  also  NAIVE. when  you  think  of  them  ,  you  think  of  runes ��etched  into  leather  and  stone,  dandelion  and  nettle  tea,  a  candlelit  shrine  to  the  gods.

parallels  :  jo march  (  little women  )  ;  misty day  ( american  horror  story: coven )  ;  nell crain  (  the  haunting  of  hill  house  )  ; luna lovegood ( harry potter )

BASIC  INFO

FULL  NAME:  rowena niamh stuart

AGE:  thirty

GENDER:  nonbinary woman

PRONOUNS:  they/she

ORIENTATION:  pansexual panromantic

LANGUAGE(S)  SPOKEN:  primary  —  english, scots, gaelic;  conversational  —  french

ACCENT:  scottish

LABEL:  the  druid;  a prophetic soothsayer; someone who seems to have a spiritual connection with the gods.

APPEARANCE  &  PERSONALITY

FACE  CLAIM:  saoirse ronan

HEIGHT:  five feet, six inches

HAIR  COLOUR:  dark blonde, curly & thick, down to her waist

EYE  COLOUR:  pale blue, but somehow warm & inviting

USUAL  EXPRESSION:   pleasant and friendly, but lost in thought; looking off into nothingness as if daydreaming.

POSITIVE  TRAITS:  gentle-hearted,  selfless,  kind,  friendly,  exuberant,  protective,  observant,  playful, spiritual, romantic

NEGATIVE  TRAITS:  naive,  anxious,  fearful,  scatterbrained,  capricious,  skittish, ditzy, ecclesiastic

FAMILY

MOTHER:  unnamed queen of scotland

FATHER:  graeme stuart, king of scotland

SIBLINGS:  violet stuart, princess of scotland; gwendolyn stuart, princess of scotland

THINGS  TO  KNOW

you  were  born  on  the  first  day  of  spring,  silent  as  you  arrived,  your  eyes  opening  to  reveal  a  look  of  wonder. the  midwives  said  you  looked  as  if  you  had  seen  it  all  before;  like  your  soul  had  already  been  reborn  a  thousand  times  over. 

it  started  when  you  were  a  baby,  really;  the  nonsensical  wailing,  the  inconsolable  fits. your  parents  thought  you  might  have  colic,  and  then  maybe  that  you  might  not  be  developing  quite  right,  but  you  grew  just  fine,  learned  to  walk  and  talk  at  the  same  age  as  everyone  else. but  the  fits  remained. sometimes,  you'd  suddenly  stop  what  you  were  doing,  take  one,  two,  three  heaving  breaths  and  then  BURST  into  tears  like  something  terrible  had  just  happened  to  you.

but,  see,  that's  the  thing  —  that's  what  it  felt  like. randomly,  in  the  middle  of  a  meal  with  your  family  all  around  you,  or  while  you  were  out  in  the  fields  chaining  daisies  together  to  make  a  crown  with  your  sisters,  safe  as  can  be,  you  would  suddenly  feel  like  the  world  was  ending,  or  like  someone  very  close  to  you  had  died. it  was  uncontrollable  and  all-encompassing  —  the  worst  sadness  and  fear  you'd  ever  felt,  hitting  like  a  tidal  wave  for  no  apparent  reason.

at  first,  your  family  believed  it  was  just  a  quirk,  something  you  might  grow  out  of. but  then  things  started  to  line  up  in  ways  that  felt  too  convenient  to  be  a  coincidence. when  you  were  five,  you  threw  a  fit,  screaming  about  how  "something  terrible  was  going  to  happen,"  and  the  next  day,  a  sentry  would  come  running  to  alert  the  royal  family  that  a  terrible  storm  was  coming  and  would  hit  in  less  than  an  hour. the  flash  floods  that  ensued  wiped  out  entire  groves  of  centuries-old  trees. when  you  were  seven,  you  halted  a  make-believe  session  with  your  sisters  and  bursted  into  tears,  wailing  the  words,  "they're  all  going  to  die."  that  evening,  a  soldier  reported  that  entire  herds  of  cows  in  the  upper  highland  ranches  were  dropping  dead  from  an  unknown  illness.

you  became  something  of  a  beacon. it  wasn't  always  true  —  sometimes  you'd  have  one  of  your  episodes  and  nothing  would  come  of  it. but  your  family  never  faltered  in  their  precautions,  because  more  often  than  pure  chance,  you  were  right. eventually,  your  family's  spiritual  advisors  heralded  you  as  a  DRUID  —  a  blessed  individual,  somebody  who  has  a  special  connection  to  the  gods.

people  from  other  cultures  insist  that  it's  not  real,  that  there's  no  way  you're  clairvoyant,  that  you  can  see  the  future. and  honestly,  you're  not  so  sure  of  it  yourself. but  you  can't  deny  what  happens  when  an  episode  strikes  —  that  feeling  of  being  overcome  with  doom,  the  all-encompassing  tidal  wave  of  dread. you  became  convinced  from  a  young  age  that  the  gods  had  given  you  this  ability  as  a  way  to  help  people.

so,  you  spend  your  adolescence  and  young  adulthood  becoming  more  and  more  devout  to  the  gods  who  had  given  you  this  gift. you  pray  to  them  every  dawn  and  dusk. you  have  a  shrine  to  dagda  in  your  chambers,  where  you  always  keep  a  candle  lit  —  you've  never  let  it  go  out,  not  in  the  twenty  years  since  you  built  it. you  have  countless  books  filled  with  runes  and  rituals,  and  you  know  recipes  for  healing  elixirs  like  the  back  of  your  hand.

but  even  stronger  than  your  devotion  to  your  gods  is  your  loyalty  to  your  family. you  are  a  STUART,  and  you  know  deep  in  your  heart  that  it's  your  purpose  to  love  and  serve  your  family. your  sisters  are  your  best  friends  and  you  tell  them  anything  and  everything,  despite  how  they  might  think  your  ecclesiastic  tangents  to  be  a  bit  boring. there's  no  one  else  you'd  rather  spend  your  days  with.

HEADCANONS

obviously,  rowena  is  not  actually  clairvoyant  !  she  is  mostly  just  a  very  anxious  and  deeply  intuitive  person  and  sometimes,  an  unexplainable  terrible  feeling  just  washes  over  her. sometimes it's nonsensical, but sometimes it's because she's observed signs of disaster that other people haven't, and sometimes without even realizing she's noticed them herself. in  scot/gaelic  culture  &  mythology,  there  are  individuals  called  druids  who  are  heralded  as  having  a  connection  to  the  gods,  and  are  believed  to  have  sensitivities  like  clairvoyance. so,  in  her  family's  culture,  it  makes  sense  that  she  would  be  treated  as  one.

she  is  a  deeply  romantic  person  and  is  always  finding  ways  to  notice  and  cultivate  love  in  her  life,  platonic  and  romantic. she  is  the  kind  of  friend  who  will  spend  hours  making  you  a  handmade  gift,  just  because  she  wants  to.

she  is  very  " religious "  in  the  sense  that  she  is  deeply  devoted  to  the  gaelic/celtic  gods. she  prays  every  dawn  and  dusk.

she  is  a  pacifist  by  nature,  but  has  a  fiery  heart  (  and  a  lot  of  fire  in  her  zodiac  chart,  although  she  would  have  no  idea  what  that  means!  ). she  is  fiercely  loyal  to  her  family  and  loved  ones  and  would  fight  anyone  who  tries  to  hurt  them.

she's  friendly  to  a  fault,  and  is  always  actively  seeking  out  the  good  in  people,  even  those  who  don't  see  it  in  themselves. she  wants  to  believe  that  everyone  is  a  good  person,  which  can  get  her  into  trouble  sometimes.

WANTED CONNECTIONS

friends:  she  definitely  has  lots  and  lots  of  friends!  anyone  who  is  kind  to  her  is  a  friend  in  her  book.

unlikely  friend:  she  is  desperate  to  see  the  good  in  people,  so  i  think  it  would  be  super  cute  if  there  was  someone  who  is  a  total  grump,  and  she's  managed  to  weasel  her  way  under  their  skin  !

a  fated  love:  listen ...... this  could  be  so  soft. someone  she  thinks  was  sent  by  the  gods. an  angel  in  human  skin. or  maybe  someone  who  makes  her  question  her  faith. LISTEN ....

[wonder-worker]

"...The rise of royal bureaucracy and organized jurisprudence from the eleventh century was transforming formal government operations into a male preserve. At the same time, the Policraticus by […] John of Salisbury gave the body politic its classic medieval formulation as patterned on the human body. Morphological analogy exemplified an ideal cooperation among that body's members, but no function John detailed administrative, military, conciliar, or ecclesiastical-nor any bodily member to which these functions corresponded, implied a female body. A king's male frame, especially, embodied his realm and betokened its strength and vigor; its impermeability figured the security of the realm's boundaries from intrusion or invasion. To a body politic so imagined, women in general, queens in particular, were outsiders, their pervious bodies perilous openings that could threaten the realm. Subjected by royal ritual to the king's body as the site of supreme authority, the queen's body could not serve as the seat of power.

These developments did not bar kings' wives from all access to power, but they did critically affect representations of a queen's position and the methods open to her. The rise of bureaucracy meant that, as reflected in the disappearance of queens' names from witness lists to twelfth-century English and French royal charters, the advisory role of a king's wife was no longer officially publicized. [...] Of course, charters and other records that witness such changes were written from a male perspective, and do not prove that queens' power was contracting. But the way they were seen to perform their roles changed significantly. It was no longer visibly, in the council chamber, that a queen fulfilled the duties the coronation ordo urged upon her as a counsellor, mediator, or intercessor with the king. Given her primary function as the mother of his children, the focus of her activities was now the bedchamber, in which at least one thirteenth-century queen chose to receive petitioners as a means to advertise her intimate relationship to the king as the real base of her power. ['But if queens no longer shared openly in formal consultation, medieval royal government was always personal and [...] directed from the royal household, whose domestic model gave that household's women effective if informal means to persuade royal business.'] As this intimate, wifely access to the king was not rightly subject to (male) official restraint, any formal limits on her voice implied by her advertised presence in the council chamber fell away. Whatever other parts of the regal anatomy she did or did not command, she was always assumed to have the king's ear. But any wife, queen or subject, who was seen to abuse an ecclesiastically sanctioned access to her husband menaced the right order of society. Thus a queen's persuasive influence, inextricably tied to her sexual and domestic role as bedfellow, could seem to threaten the order idealized and represented by evolving male officialdom in ways not understood to exist when her place was affirmed in written acts that announced the king's decisions. The queen was left uneasily poised between the official and the domestic, a position that heightened fears about her ability to sway the king and her potential role in court intrigue. Chroniclers witnessed these anxieties about queenly influence by focusing on the approved performance, or the perceived corruption, of a queen's domestic roles as wife or mother. If later medieval portrayals thus make it seem that queens' power had declined, they none the less witness, by criticizing behavior as inappropriate or by praising compliant and selfless deeds, consorts' continued eminence as exemplary figures to society, as potential participants in court intrigues, or as fomenters of confllict, especially in the familial contexts that remained central to dynastic politics. Significantly, Peggy McCracken sets within this same changing political terrain her study of the increasingly prominent image of the adulterous queen in Old French romance."

-John Carmi Parsons, "Damned If She Didn't and Damned When She Did: Bodies, Babies, and Bastards in the Lives of Two Queens of France", Eleanor of Aquitaine: Lord and Lady (Edited by Bonnie Wheeler and John Carmi Parsons)