Western angst and spinning history.

I don't know if it was the anniversary of the raid, or what, but my Twitter feed for some reason picked up a link to a story about a large raid by the Barbary Pirates on the coast of Ireland.  In 1631 the pirates raided Baltimore, Ireland, in the County of Cork.  The town was not large, but between 100 and 300 of its inhabitants were abducted.  Only two made it back to Ireland, in part because the English government had just enacted a law which forbid paying ransom, which was often the goal of such raids.

The article that was linked in was scholarly, and noted that what would have occured is that, for the most part, children would have been separated from their parents and everyone sold into slavery when it became obvious that they would not be ransomed.  The male slavery would have been of the grueling work variety.  Women would have largely been sold as sex slaves, which the articles like to call "concubines".  

The reason that I note this here is that the author, again it was a scholarly article, felt compelled to blame the raids on the Spanish expulsion of the Moors from the Iberian Peninsula.  That process has commenced in 1492, and it was completed, effectively, in 1614.  The entire period wasn't a peaceful one, and in the Mediterranean various nations raided each other.

The final stages of the story are more complicated, in Spain, than might at first be imagined, as by the 1600s the "Moriscos" weren't actually Muslim, but rather Spanish descendants of Berbers and Arabs who were Catholic, but who retained Berber/Arab ancestry. Some claim they were "crypto Islamic", but more likely they were Catholics who retained some folk connection to their ancestor's prior religion.  Indeed, it'd be worth noting that Islam itself has a murky origin connection with Christianity, and this may have been confusing at the street level.  Anyhow, the last stages of this seem to be an ethnic spat, but it did have the effect of expelling Moriscos to North Africa, where they were absorbed ultimately into the local population, or to distribute them across Spain where the same thing occured.

Anyhow, blaming the Baltimore, and other Barbary Pirate, raids on this event is stretching it.  I suppose you could argue that the general belligerency of the Mediterranean contributed to the raiding atmosphere, and both sides did that, but that traces back to the rise of Islam in the first place, which was spread by the sword.  That this process went on, in one fashion or another, for a thousand years, and in some cases to this very day, does not mean that much except that the long arch of history and the fact that events play out over decades or centuries is the rule, and only seems to be odd to us, as we're used to everything occurring rapidly.

Anyhow, the author claimed that the children were treated with "utmost kindness".  Really?  Separating them from their parents, sending their fathers off to early grueling slave induced deaths and selling their mothers as sex slaves?  And then they'd end up slaves themselves, with boys often ending up enslaved soldiers and girls. . . sex slaves.

What BS.

The same author claimed that the women were sold into "concubinage", which is sex slavery in this context, and lived lives of "relative luxury", as if this weird image of the Playboy ethos had the women looking forward to this life of chattel status while they still retained their desirability.  The reality of it is that they had value as they were exotic, and bought for their physical attributes alone.

Why this story has to be spun in this fashion is really remarkable. We're supposed to feel some guilt for the story of the kidnappers and slavers, and even look kindly upon some of the grossest examples of slavery that are around.

None of this is to excuse Western conduct, whatever might be sought to be excused. Slavery was common amongst all Mediterranean societies, Christian and Islamic, but what played out with the Barbary pirates was not.  They engaged in slave raids, and forced sex slave status of captured women was endorsed by the Koran, although frankly probably not really in the form that was practiced here (it likely applied to women captured as a result of warfare, not that this makes it a lot better).  Putting a gloss on any kind of slavery, moreover, is bizarre.  When people attempt to do that, as many once did and a few still try to do, in regard to American slavery, we're rightly appalled.  This isn't any better.

The West has had a hard time reconciling an imperial past with its democratic values, and one way it tries to cope with it is by making Westerners always be the baddies.  The story of empire is a complicated one, but the 100 to 300 inhabitants of Baltimore didn't have much to do with it, and neither, really, did the Barbary pirates. Slavery was always bad and this sort of slavery gross.  Kidnapping people is always bad.  There are always bad people.  The Barbary Pirates don't need to be portrayed as if they're Captain Morocco, or something, in a Marvel movie.

Wednesday, June 16, 1943. Noor Inayat Khan inserted in France.

Subhas Chandra Bose met with Hideki Tojo, who promised to help India secure independence from the United Kingdom.

On the same day, Noor Inayat Khan, born in Moscow to an Indian father and American mother., was deposited by light aircraft in France as an agent of the Special Operations Executive (SOE).  She'd serve as a radio operator under the code name Madeline.

The SOE, which was heavily penetrated by German intelligence, would ultimately capture her and execute her in September 1944.

Her father was a Sufi mystic, which heavily influenced her outlook.  Raised in London and Paris, she was a poet before the war.

The Japanese raided Guadalcanal by air.

"Japanese Air Raid on Guadalcanal, June 16, 1943. USS LST-340 burning after she was hit by an enemy bomb. She was run ashore off Lunga Point after the hit, and her fires were extinguished after considerably damaging her and her cargo. Note trucks burning on deck. This photograph was taken by TSGT. H.S. Bolser, fifteen minutes after she was hit."

Probably referring to the same event depicted above, Sarah Sundon notes:

Today in World War II History—June 16, 1943: Japanese suffer their biggest aerial defeat over the Solomon Islands, losing 96 of 120 aircraft to antiaircraft fire and to Allied fighter pilots .

Charlie Chaplin married Oona O'Neill, daughter of playwright Eugene O'Neill.  The father disowned the daughter as a result.  It was Chaplin's fourth and final marriage.

Oona O'Neill in 1943.

She was barely 18 years old at the time of the marriage, Chaplin having a track record for young women.

Wednesday, March 19, 2003. The Second Gulf War Commences

F15E over Iraq.

The United States and a coalition of Allies, including its principal western allies, on this day in 2003, commenced operations against Iraq.  The war commenced with air operations.  

The causa belli of the undeclared war was Iraq's lack of cooperation with weapons inspectors.

President Bush went on the air and stated:

At this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

Congress is just now considering a bill to deauthorize military force in Iraq, which at this point would be more symbolic than anything else.  

The initial invasion went well and swiftly, but the war yielded to a post-war, war, against Islamic insurgents that lasted until 2011.  Iraq has remained unstable, but not Baathist, and it has retained democracy, although frequently only barely.  Iran has gained influence in the country, which has a large Shiia population, which was not expected.

The war remains legally problematic in that it was a full scale invasion of a foreign power with no declaration of war, setting it apart from any post World War Two war, with perhaps the exception of the war in Afghanistan, that had that feature but lacked such a declaration.  At least arguably it was illegal for that reason.  Amongst other things, Art 1, Section 8, of the Constitution provides that Congress has the power to:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Presidents are the commanders in chief of the armed forces, and in Washington's day actually took to the field with it, so it would not be correct to assume that only Congress can deploy troops, even into harm's way.  But full scale wars. . . that seems pretty exclusively reserved to Congress.

The war also came while the U.S. was already fighting, albeit at a low level, in Afghanistan, and the Iraq episode would prove to be a distraction from it, leading in no small part to that first war ended, twenty years later, inconclusively.

The war redrew the political map of the Middle East, which it was intended to do, so to that extent it was at least a partial success, although it took much longer than expected.  It's effect on the national deficit, discussed this past week by NPR, is staggering and the nation still is nowhere near paying for it, something that will have very long term consequences for the nation going forward, and providing a reason, amongst others, that undeclared wars should not really be engaged in.  Congress, for its part, simply chose not to debate the topic in that context, an abrogation of its duty, although it did authorize military action in another form.

The war contributed to the rise of ISIL, which was later put down.  It increased Syrian instability, which has yet to be fully addressed.  

It also contributed to a rising tide of military worship in the US, while ironically would be part of the right wing reaction to "forever wars" that gave rise to Donald Trump.  

One of only two wars, the other being the First Gulf War, initiated by a Republican President since World War Two, the war had huge initial support from the left and the right, something that many of the same people who supported it later conveniently forgot.

Tuesday, January 30, 1923. Forced Relocation of Greeks and Turks

The treaty between Greece and Turkey which resulted in the forcible relocation more than 1.6 million people based on ethnicity and religion, 1,221,489 Turkish-born Greek Orthodox Christians and 400,000 Greek residents of Istanbul and Muslim Turks on the Greek side of the divided area of Thrace, were exempt, although many people relocated anyway.

The treaty was the first of the massive ethnic and religion based movements of peoples that would become a feature of the mid 20th Century, and which were a perversion of one of Wilson's Fourteen Points.  By the end of, and following, World War Two this would be conducted on a massive scale, particularly in Eastern Europe.

All of the imperial powers that had gone into World War One were multiethnic, at least to some degree.  The Germans, for example, had a large Polish population that was not only in what we'd regard as Poland, but also in areas which had a mixed Polish/German, population, and populations of ethnic Germans were present in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, the USSR,and elsewhere.  In what became Poland after World War One, there remained populations of Ukrainians and other peoples, and Ukraine also included populations of Poles.  Ukrainians extended out into what was then and now regarded as Russia.  Finns remained in areas that Russia retained.  And what was left to Turkey of the Ottoman Empire included not only Turks, but Armenians, Greeks and Kurds.  The concept that all nations had to be nation states, a perversion of nations getting states as envisioned by Wilson, was a direct cause of World War Two. 

Exiled Kaiser Wilhelm II visited with monarchist Germans in Nijmegen about a possible return to the German throne, but decided the time was not ripe.  It never would be.

Department of Agriculture Poultry Club.

Sunday, November 19, 1922. The Last Ottoman Caliph

In a move that may be regarded as genuinely confusing, Abdulmejid II was elected to the office of Caliph of the Muslim people by the Turkish Grand National Assembly.

The former Crown Prince accordingly, at least if you agreed with the Grand  National Assembly's religious powers, became head of Islam in a fashion.  He'd last in that role for two years before the Grand National Assembly, apparently also confused as to why it, as a secular body, would do that, abolished the office.

The Ottoman claim to be able to appoint a Caliph was never uncontested, although as it was a large empire the position held weight, even after its expiration.  Islam was itself divided following Mohammed's death in 632 with the division arising over who would lead it.

Abdulmejid II went into exile in Europe following the abolishment of the office in 1924.

Wednesday, November 1, 1922. Endings

The Turkish Grand National Assembly declared the Ottoman Empire abolished.  It also ended Constantinople's status as the capital city.

Mehmed VI going into exile.

This ended Mehmed VI's status as Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, but did not his status as caliph, among other things the head of the imperial family.  He'd hold that position until November 19 when his cousin Abdulmejid Efendi was elected caliph, which he'd hold for two years, upon which time the Assembly would abolish the Caliphate.

Mehmed protested the removal of his position as caliph, effectively a claim to lead the Islamic world, which he declared he had not intended to resign.  The destruction of the Ottoman Empire during the war had effectively eliminated Turkey's claim to occupy that position as a political entity.

He'd spend his exile in Malta and then later in Italy.

Mexican General Francisco R. Murguia, age 49, was executed for attempting a rebellion against President Alvaro Obregon.  Mexican forces had captured him the day prior.

A village in Mexico is now named after him.

Friday, February 10, 1922. Idle guns?

On this day in 1922 a photographer toured the Navy Gun Shop, no doubt for a story on armaments now deemed to be somewhat unneeded.

ON this day, President Harding, hoping to keep them unneeded, appeared in the Senate to personally appeal for the ratification of the treaties.

Of course, many of these tubes were replacement tubes for barrels that became worn in use, and therefore some would go on to use anyhow.  And indeed, battleships, the heaviest of all surface warships, would continue to be built through the end of the Second World War.   And some of these guns would go on to serve in Army coastal batteries.

One thing that was also occurring, of course, is that technology was moving on.  The recent Great War had seen the full scale deployment of submarines, whose danger was appreciated, and the introduction of aircraft carriers, whose danger was not.

And radio was coming in.  Above we see the Secretary of the Navy on this day with a radio-telephone, a new thing.

Of course, aspects of the old world hung on.

Muslim woman in India (probably Pakistan), on this day in 1922.

The Irish Republican Army attacked an Ulster Special Constabulary patrol in County Tyrone.  The civil war, and the terrorist war, was arriving.

Friday, February 6, 1942. The USDA discusses sharing, the Graf Zeppelin is photographed by the RAF, the HMS Utmost in Holy Loch, and members of the 6 AGH.

 The USDA delivered a Friday message on sharing.

Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, arrived in Italy with Iraqi politician Rashid Ali al-Gaylani.  They had both been in Germany, and they obtained an audience with Benito Mussolini.

Both men, in this regard, were bad judges of history, although it would oddly not impact them as much as might be supposed.  They both lived out their natural lives, with Al-Hamdani even managing to avoid a death sentence via pardon, which was given to him due to a post World War Two attempts to affect a coup in Iraq.

The German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin was photographed from the air.

The German aircraft carrier was in the category of pointless resource wasting endeavors by this point, although that may not have been as obvious as it now appears.  Part of a German effort to build two carriers, which would have gone on to more, the German Navy had not anticipated the war starting in 1939. It was planning for war in 1943.  At this point, the thought probably still lingered, however, that such ships would be useful in a future anticipated offensive against the United Kingdom as the war with the Soviet Union, launched partially in the belief that the USSR could be quickly defeated and all hope would be lost to the British, still held out hopes for a German victory.  

By August, the vessel would be the target of British air raids.

The ship came into the possession of the Soviets after the war, who considered finishing it off, but who ultimately sank as a target.  Its fate was not, however, known for decades outside of the USSR.

The British submarine HMS Utmost made a port call to Holy Loch.  The happy crew's luck would run out in November when she'd be sunk off of Sicily, probably by hitting a mine, and all of these young men would perish.

Troops of the 6th Australian General Hospital were photographed.

Churches of the West: 2021 Reflections: The Church Edition.

Churches of the West: 2021 Reflections: The Church Edition.: 

2021 Reflections: The Church Edition.

We've posted commentary here from time to time, but what we've never done is to post a commentary of the resolutions/reflections type.

Indeed, it's extremely presumptuous of us to do so.

We're going to take a stab at it anyhow.

First we might note that in this area there's always less going on that those with Überangst would like to believe, and those in the press seem to believe.  That's important to note, and frankly this is true not only of stories involving religion, but stories involving most things.

Having said that, we're going to do that in part as this has been an extraordinary year in almost every way. 

The Coronavirus Pandemic rages on although most of the mask mandates in the United States have stopped.  A debate exists in society on the vaccinations mostly based on some people having erroneous views on the science of the vaccines (they are effective, they are not going to kill you, and they're necessary if we're going to stop this pandemic).  Some people have interjected moral issues into it, however, taking positions valuing personal liberty over collective good, a classic item for philosophical debate, and some taking a position based on the DNA of long ago aborted fetuses in the vaccine, a moral issue.  The United States switched Presidents bringing in a Sunday and Holy Day observing Catholic whose John F. Kennedyesque moral outlook somehow allows him to be a proponent of abortion, and tossing out what would appear to be a nominal Presbyterian serial polygamist who, on the other hand, took policy positions that very much advanced the cause of life.  The country abandoned a two decade old war in Central Asia and left that land in the hands of absolute Islamic fanatics.

And that's just a start.

So we dive in.

We're going to start in an odd place, perhaps, that being. . . Latin.

Immaculate Conception Church, Rapid City South Dakota

This is Immaculate Conception Church (formerly chapel) in downtown Rapid City, South Dakota. This Catholic church is somewhat unique for the region in that it says its masses, one daily and one on Sunday morning, in Latin, using the Tridentine Mass.

The church obviously once had another name, as the corner stone reveals, which appears to have been St. Mary's, but I do not know the history of this particular church.

Latin, we often hear, is a dead language, but its sure not dead in some corners of the Internet.  Indeed, people who track such things inform us that in fact Latin is enjoying a bit of a revival in some ways as the Internet has brought people who like Latin together from far away corners of the universe.

That's one thing, but another is that starting with Pope St. John Paul the Great there was a revival of Latin in the Catholic Mass.

Most people don't track this, of course, but Pope Paul, during the Vatican II era, but not as part of Vatican II, as so often erroneously believed, decided that the Mass needed to be put back in the vernacular.

Did I just say "back"?

Yes, I did.

He did more than that, in fact regarding the Mass.  A new Mass came out, which is the Mass that most Latin Rite Catholics know. And frankly, it was an improvement over the the old Latin Rite Mass that existed at the time.

Indeed, in my view, a large improvement.

Now, starting off with the history of this, the very first Masses in history were said in Aramaic.  Some still are, for those in the Chaldean Rites of the Catholic and Orthodox churches.  Very soon thereafter, they were said in Greek, and some still are, rather obviously.  Indeed, early in the Church's history, the Mass or Devine Liturgy was pretty uniformly said in the local language, whatever that might be.  One of those languages was Latin, as the Church came early to the Rome.

The collapse of the Roman Empire was coincident with a huge expansion of the Latin Rite, which left the Church with a big problem.  There were all sorts of new languages and peoples to deal with, and so the Church kept Latin, a language that came to be spoken by most learned people (it was the language of education for centuries) and which crossed borders and ethnicities.  But by the 20th Century this was rather obviously no longer true.  And at the same time, the need to keep the Mass limited in terms of the parts of the Canon of the Bible it used were no longer there as well. 

So it was time for a New Mass, the Novus Ordo.

This seems simple enough, but something can't be done one way for a very long time and then have everyone accept the change right away, if at all.  And at the same time, the "Spirit of Vatican II", rather than what Vatican II actually decreed, came into the Church in a major way in some places and predictably enough there was a reaction in some quarters.  Indeed, depending upon what the reaction focused on, not all of it was invalid by any means.

This gave rise to a very strong, but quite small, dissention movement that started in France, the SSPX, which determined to continue to use the Tridentine Latin Mass.  Never large, but nonetheless large enough to be a concern, and also on the edge of other radically conservative groups, Pope St. John Paul the Great worked to avoid having them go into full schism.  Ultimately, a compromise developed, which Pope Benedict expanded on, allowing the use of the Latin Tridentine Mass, with a set of guidelines and requirements.

In the meantime, as the original flag bearers of the "Spirit of Vatican II" started to pass away, and as the Internet came in and made self Catechesis relatively easy, conservatism and traditionalism in the Church strongly revived.  Abuses in the Novus Ordo, or as we would now say the "Ordinary" form of the Mass were corrected. Some traditional elements were reinserted.  Translations were fixed where they had been hastily made.

All of which made Catholic "liberals", a now aging but still present group, unhappy.

Indeed, during this period a sharp divide between a minority "liberal" wing of the  Church and the more conservative bulk developed.  Beyond that, however, that began to focus with the development of not only strongly Traditional Catholics, but Radical Traditionalist, or Rad Trads, as they were termed.  Rad Trads came close to having the same views as the now permitted SSPX in various ways.  Over time, they started to reintroduce on a private basis things that had long disappeared, mantillas being an example.

This would be all more or less fine, but then came in Pope Francis.

Pope Francis has been termed a "liberal" or "progressive" Pope by those who don't like him, but its really not true.  He's a South American Pope, and that shows.  He's highly conservative in some ways, and not in others.  On economics and environmental matters, he's upset American traditionalist and even simply orthodox Catholics who sometimes tend to confuse economic conservatism and an opposition to environmentalism, which are largely political matters, with religious ones.  Added to that, American Catholics tend to be ignorant on Catholicisms traditional views in both of these areas, and would be surprised, for example, that the Popes have criticized capitalism on more than one occasion.  

They're not the only ones to get confused, however, as "progressive" Catholics, also confused, ahve figured that they're back in vogue and have run with it whatever they can.  As an example, even though Pope Francis has referred to homosexuality has been influenced by the Demonic, American Catholic liberals are constantly on the edge of their seats expecting the Pople to endorse homosexual coupling. That's not going to happen.

Anyhow, this long-winded introduction is for this reason.  In the last couple of years the disaffected Rad Trads have been edging closer and closer towards schism, while the grump European progressives, principally lead by the German bishops, have done the same.  The Pope, while it seems obvious to neither, is acting to reign them both in.

With Rad Trads, the Tridentine Mass  went from being a beautiful license, to sort of a flag of opposition.  At the same time, individuals who started off  being loyal orthodox Catholics, like Taylor Marshall and Patrick Coffin, have edge up on allegations that Pope Francis is not a valid Pope, with Coffin being so suggestive in that area that its impossible not to basically attribute that claim to him, whether or not he really believes it.  The Pope, having had enough, as determined to pretty much end the license for the Tridentine Mass in Latin.

He can't be blamed.

The Catholic Church is the Universal Church. The old form of the Mass, while beautiful, was poorly understood in modern times by most, and the Ordinary Form is actually more inclusive of the full faith.  And hence our first set of reflections and resolutions

1.  The Mass, more traditional, but not Latin.

It's time to really abandon the Tridentine Mass, but it's not time to bring back 1970s style Guitar Masses either.  The direction we were headed, which reflected the perfection of the Ordinary Form, is one we need to get back to.

That means Rad Trads need to come back in. They have a place, but they can't be pushy about their views either.  You can't make women, for example, who are there in their jeans feel that they're doing something immoral because they aren't wearing a full length skirt and a mantilla.  And the Mass can, and frankly normally should, be in the vernacular, which people actually speak and know.

At the same time, the aging boomer crowed that saw alter rails come out in the 70s and the like needs o stop trying to change fundamentals, and even dogma.  Converting the Catholic Church into a liberal branch of the Episcopal Church won't work for anything.  It sure hasn't worked for the Episcopal Church, which is dying.  Orthodoxy is the future of the Catholic Church because it is the Catholic Church.  Traditional elements should be brought back in where they can sensibly be (where are those alter rails?), and beyond that, a real fundamental needs to be reinforced and accepted, which is:

Just because you have a deep attachment to sin, doesn't make it okay.

That's a hard lesson to learn, but its true.

I can no more put up wall to wall pinups and excuse it by saying that I have a deep attraction to women than those who have a deep attraction to the same gender, in the same way, can claim that "well, I'm born that way". 

We've been warned by St. Paul, and we were always told that we were going to have to carry a Cross.  We were also told that, in most places, in most times, most people aren't going to like us.

That's the way that is, and everyone, from Rad Trads to German Bishops, need to come to that realization.

2.  Stop trying to change dogma and an appreciation of existential nature.

See above, I covered it there.

Still, once again, nobody said being a Christian was going to win you lots of popularity contests.  Not so.

The oddity is, however, that the most observant people are the happiest.  They simply are, and that's for a simple reason. As ultimately, we look towards a home that we don't have, as we lost in the Fall, we're happiest the closer we get to our true natures. 

This is true, I'd note, of everyone in everything.  Vegans ranting on street corners are miserable people as they're living artificial lives.  Men and women living the Sex in the City lifestyle go home miserable and can't find solace in their lives as, at the end of the day, materialism and hedonism isn't our nature.  The freest people are those who have conceded Devine laws and live close to them, no matter what their station in life may be.

3.  Your economics shouldn't be your religion

This is something I've noted before, and while the upper two comments are mostly Catholic ones, this one is universal for all Christians.

I'm constantly amazed by how people confuse their faith with their economic well-being. They aren't the same.  Not even close.

This obviously takes on the "health and wealth" Gospel, but frankly, it isn't Christian.  Christ never promised anyone wealth, or health.  

In modern terms, insisting, as some do, that capitalism is equivalent with Christianity is self delusional and harmful.  Even more harmful is the economic version of the "made that way" line of thinking.  Just as I'm employed as a Widget Maker doesn't mean that Widget Making must therefore be benign because I'm a Christian.

4.  Sound science and Sound Christianity are not incompatible.

This should be obvious, and it's a traditional Catholic view, but if something seems very well established in science the chances of it contradicting Christianity are nill. If there seems to be a conflict, something needs to be looked into.

The best example of this is evolution, of course.  Some Christians are absolutely insistent that evolution can't be true because of Genesis.  Anyone looking into the original Hebrew version of it, however, will come away with the conclusion that it certainly can be.  

Taking extreme positions such as this and making them hills to die are counterproductive.

At the same time, just because we can do it, scientifically, doesn't license it.  There are lots of examples of his, and this too is a very of the "made that way" argument.  I usually here this in the form of "well God gave me common sense and therefore  (fill in personal sin here).  

5. Holding co-religious accountable.

One of the warnings of the New Testament is that people can and do find their own personal gain so predominant that they'll choose it over their faith when difficult decisions come.  Did the rich man go away and give his possessions to the poor?  We don't know.

A current example of this is the example of political power.  It's very clear that Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, among other Catholics, are advocating something the Church regards as a gave evil. We don't know the state of their hearts on abortion, but their willingness to ignore the Church for political position is pretty abundant.

The Church has for too long been willing to turn a blind eye to this.  It's time to stop.

Indeed, here we can take a lesson from the Protestant Churches which have very much turned a blind eye to numerous sins in order to seem to keep themselves relevant.  It hasn't worked for them either.  Here, they need to recover the ground they've lost by going back and reviewing what they did.

As part of this, however, a wider net needs to be cast, in my view.  In one local Parish, there's a politician who has been deep in the lies about the past election being stolen.  Perhaps he really believes it, but there's no reason that the sinfulness of telling lies can't be pointed out.

Here too, I suppose, is a place where lay Catholics have a role.  The Catholic on Sunday, or Christian on Sunday, and "my own views the rest of the week" type of attitude have no place in the life of Christians.  There's no reason to be in people's faces, but when encountered with something like this, there's no reason to simply ignore it by saying nothing either.

6.  Smelling like the sheep

Pope Francis has repeatedly said that the pastor should smell like the sheep.  He's right.

I don't have the same thing in mind that he does by noting this, however.

I'll note that while I fully understand why things everywhere were shut down early in 2020, I wasn't in favor of that in regard to churches.  I've changed my mind and I think that step right.  But closing the door of the Church doesn't mean closing the Church.

Different pastors handled this differently, but there's no reason whatsoever that every single parishioner or congregant in a church, mosque or synagogue, no matter what the faith was, shouldn't have received at least occasional calls of the "how are you doing variety".

Maybe some places they did.  But, at least in so far as I know, that didn't happen here.

I think the reason that it didn't happen here is that the American Catholic Church is used to a strong parishioner base, and the parishioners have, in substantive ways, supported the Church in every fashion. This remains the case.  It doesn't diminish the point, however.  Priests (and pastors, and ministers) should have reached out.  I'm sure some did, but many do not seem to have.  They should have, with "how are you doing (spiritually and physically), do you need anything (spiritually and physically)".

For a long time, I've had that feeling about the clergy in general.  I know that they live a vocation, which most of us do not, and that the demands on their time are monumental, but I fear that they fall prey to the same thing old lawyers do.  We know all lawyers, and a few clients, we talk to lawyers, and that's our lives. That's part of the reason the law becomes disconnected from reality.  

With Priests, in my view (and pastors and ministers), they ought to at least all do something that puts them out in the public, no matter how uncomfortable that may be, and not with the handful of people who go out of the way to be in contact with them.  Go fishing. Go hunting.  Go hiking.  Go to a neighborhood bar.  Take a class on English literature or European history at the community college.  You get the point.

As part of this, and something I thought about making a separate item, any Church has to be both true to its faith and in the world of the parishioners as they really are.  Throughout the pandemic it's been easier to find information on the Bishops' website here on Bishop Hart, who was bishop long ago, and the accusations against him, than what's going on with the Church and COVID 19.  The Church should have been reaching out, as noted above, to its members, rather than putting up news items on a Bishop who served so long ago that most Catholics in the state today have no connection with him whatsoever.

7. Younger, more and more orthodox

I don't have the solution to vocations, but in the modern world what strikes me is that we need to find a way to have younger clergy, more clergy and more orthodox clergy.

If it was me, I'd retire all the Bishops, pretty much, who are older than 50.  Time, technology, and events have moved on.  And I'd look at a way of localizing, once again, religious instruction.  I grasp that this helped give rise to the Reformation, but that was before the Internet, when everything local was much more local.

And while I am very traditional, frankly I think the prohibition on married clergy needs to be reassessed.  We had them early on, and it lingered in many European localities, until the Middle Ages.

It should be obvious to all that sex is part of human nature, and it's a problem.  Sure, it can be denied, just as a varied human diet can be denied.  Everyone can deny it to the extent necessary to live an ordinary and moral life.

But not all Catholics eat a diet that comports with the original Rule of St. Benedict, and they never have.  Periods of fasting are not anywhere near as numerous as they once were, but they were never every day.  The average Parish Priest isn't subject to the Rule of St. Benedict in this fashion either, and if it were imposed clergy wide, I suspect some who have become Priests would have reconsidered as that sort of discipline isn't meant for everyone.

The original purpose of the prohibition on married clergy was to prevent the rise of a Priestly class.  I.e, the Church worried about the sons of Priests becoming Priests, and so on.  This does occur in the Rites that allow for married clergy, but it  hasn't become a problem as the Priests in those Rites aren't closely associated with a ruling class.  In the Anglican Church in England, however, it did become a problem as the clergy was one of the few categories of occupations that noble men could occupy, with the military being another.  This lead to an anemic military officer class and a clergy that wasn't respected.

In the modern West, these problems aren't going to arise.

What did arise, in the mid 20th Century, was the Latin Rite becoming a refuge for homosexual men at a time that homosexuality was despised.  It provided cover for not being married.  Such individuals were always a minority of the clergy, but it lead to problems for a variety of reasons, not the least of them being that not all of those individuals probably truly heard a call.  

In the movie Dr. Zhivago (I don't recall it being in the book) the character Laura is instructed by a Priest that flesh is strong and only marriage can contain it.  Whether Sir David Lean inserted that into the story or not, it's true.  There's a place for vows of abstinence and there always will be, but perhaps the time has come to end it as to diocesan priests.

8. Reunion

I've noted this before, but it's time to end the separation between East and West.

That will take overcoming a lot of pride and a sense that independence needs to be preserved.  But that time has arrived and that should occur.

The Latin Rite of the Church is having a big synod right now.  Personally, I think that the synod is designed to bring in the full voice of the Church in Latin American and Africa, and the result will be a strengthening of the orthodox and diminishment of European and American liberalism.  

One thing I do wish, however, is that this process could somehow include the voice of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox.  I think it's up to the West to keep inviting them in until they come in.  And at some point, they will.  It's time, in my view, to treat them somewhat like cousins who live across town and who are estranged due to a long over family argument.  If you keep calling and say "well, that was a while back, we're having a gathering on Sunday . . . "

I'd also note that this is the case for some Protestant groups at this point who are really holding out based on tradition.  It'll take a lot for them to get over this, but conservative Anglicans and Lutherans should come back in. There's really no longer any reason for them not to.

9.  Proceeding in ignorance of history.

I concluded that last item by noting an item of Protestant history, but generally, some Protestants, and Protestant culture in general no longer have an excuse for a lot of the bogus historical items they cite and need to knock it off.

Everyone who stays to a Catholic "well what about Galileo" needs to go right back to grade school without passing go as they don't know what they're talking about.  The same for any Protestant stating "well what about the Inquisition".  These are Protestant position that were developed during the Reformation by people who had to justify the positions they were taking and demonize the Catholic Church.  In an era when most people barely read, you could get away with this stuff.  You can't now.

Likewise, ignorance on the origin of the Faith.  Protestants can argue about the nature of their denominations if they wish, but nobody can cite a false history to excuse them.  The works of the Church Fathers are easily accessible at this point.  It's clear that there was one, and only one, Church at least up to the Great Schism.  One, that's it.  After that, that Church was in schism, but it was still one church. There were not multiple Christian denominations until the Reformation. A person can claim, if they can justify it, that their branch of Christianity is the correct one, or a correct one, but they can't claim it to be the original one if they aren't Catholic or Orthodox.

That's obviously a theological problem for Protestants, but it's the case.  Various Protestant denominations which are close to the Apostolic churches have their own answers for it, but when people say this isn't true, they're wrong.  In the modern age, we can't afford to be wrong.

This also stems, I'd note, back to the topic of inserting personal beliefs into your religion.  No matter what a person may wish to believe, Christ drank wine, not grape juice, and the wine served at the Last Supper was just that.  He would have eaten meat too.  When Peter heard "kill and eat", he heard "kill and eat'.  Besides that, he was a fisherman and fishermen kill fish.

10 The Americanized Exotic Faiths.

Taking a radical turn, but also along the same lines of knowing what is what, Americans adopting exotic, usually Asian, religions should know what they really hold.

This may be most evident in the case of Buddhism  American Buddhism isn't very Buddhist.  For example, American Buddhist tend to be self comforted by the thought that Buddhism doesn't have a Hell. . . except that real Buddhism does.

Things like this are one step above the "spiritual but not religious" line that some people put out, which means something completely different.  All humans everywhere have a concept of God, even though there are people who claim they do not  I've heard, for example, a person who claims to be an atheist discuss his encounter with a ghost.  You can't get to ghosts if you don't have life after death, and if you have life after death. . . 

Anyhow, what this really boils down to is that all religions have a structure. There is no unorganized religion, as the concept of the Devine implies order by its very nature.  What people who claim they're spiritual but not religious, or people who claim to dislike organized religion are stating, is they don't like the "rules".  This should suggest to them that the real inquiry is whether the rules, which are in the order, are of Devine or man made law, something that Christ himself discussed in regard to the Pharisees.  An inquiry like that doesn't take you into Buddhism, however, which is tends to be a way for Americans to adopt something with some structure over a structure which actually expects something out of you.

Be that as it may, Americans tend to do these religions disfavors by implying that they basically boil down to "it's nice to be nice to the nice".  Not so, there's a lot more to them than that.

11.  Go to Church, the Synagogue, the Mosque.

Here's a final comment, or resolution.

Whatever faith you are, Protestant Christian, Apostolic Christian, Jew, Muslim, attend.  

Modern life has made people sedentary, and it's working against us in every fashion.  It's also made us isolated in ways that are bad.  People sit alone at home, and then go to work with people who are just like them.  Indeed, the more educated a person is, the more likely that they just work with people who are just like themselves, largely with the same ideas they have.  

No church or faith is that way, to be sure.

Everything about our natures expects more out of us than we're inclined to deliver, if we can avoid it.  Get up, go out, and go.

Labor Day, September 1, 1941. Marking Targets for Death and Labor Day Addresses.

It was Labor Day in the United States, falling of course on the first Monday in September.

On this Monday, the German government announced that all Jews within the confines of the territory controlled by it, at home or conquered, were required to wear yellow Stars of David.

German poster declaring that "Whoever wears this badge is an enemy of our people."

The barbarity of this action can hardly be imagined today.  It marked the wearer as somebody to be subject to public scorn merely for his religion, or ethnicity, and ultimately it would mark them for death.

The yellow badge seems to date as far back as the Muslim Umayyad Caliphate in the early 8th Century and have been subsequently revived and kept in force for centuries as a means of marking Jews living within the caliphates control.  Both Christians and Jews were subject to repressive religious laws within Muslim territories, and indeed in some Muslim countries today being an open Christian is extremely risky, and conversion from Islam, although widely occurring, illegal.  Clothing requirements were in fact expanded beyond this to include other features.

Having said that, the practice of requiring Jews, and Muslims, to wear distinct clothing also expanded to Christian countries by the 13th Century, although with a different concern in mind.  As has been dealt with here elsewhere, originally marriage did not require a Priest to officiate and could be privately contracted in a fairly informal manner.  There were concerns in the 1200s that Christians and non Christians were falling into sexual relations that gave rise to invalid marriages in a hasty fashion, and therefore clothing requirements were imposed so that couples in the heat of the moment might be aware that they were going where they couldn't legally go and contracting what would have been regarded as invalid marriages.

The Germans, of course, were readopting the practice in order to make the Jews despised "others".  It was resisted in some occupied areas, such as Denmark, where non Jews took up wearing them as well, and in occupied areas of Catholic Czechoslovakia the authorities had to ban hat tipping to those wearing them, where the residents had taken it up as a sign of respect to the victims.

On the same day, Leningrad came within German artillery range.

The Canadians began to accept enlistments for the Canadian Army Women's Corps.  Of note, the day prior the British had deployed women in mixed gender anti-aircraft units in the UK, a rare example of women in a Western Allied military having a combat role in the war.  

The United States assumed responsibility for Atlantic convoys from Newfoundland to Iceland.  This was undoubtedly an example of direct participation in the war, even though the United States had not yet declared war.

The Soviet Union murdered retired Estonian military commander Karl Parts.

Parts had served in the Imperial Russian Army but had gone over to his native Estonia upon its separation from Russia.  He'd served against the German Freikorps and the Reds there, but had retired in 1925 and was a farmer thereafter.  The Soviets took him into custody in 1940 when they invaded the country and then murdered him on this day.  He was 55 years old.

President Roosevelt delivered a Labor Day address in which he stated that American labor bore the responsibility of winning World War Two.

KYW-TV, the first US television station outside of New York City, went on the air in Philadelphia.  It's still on the air there. 

Ted Williams appeared on the cover of Life Magazine.

Cornell, Wisconsin, suffered a serious flood.

Oyster harvesting seasons commenced.

Churches of the West: And let the rampaging Anti-Catholicism begin. . .

Churches of the West: And let the rampaging Anti-Catholicism begin. . .:

And let the rampaging Anti-Catholicism begin. . .

From, Klansman, Guardian of Liberty, by Alma Birdwell White.

It was only a matter of time.

Trump’s likely RBG replacement, Amy Coney Barrett, is a Catholic extremist with 7 children who does not believe employers should be required to provide healthcare coverage for birth control. She wants the rest of American women to be stuck with her extreme lifestyle.

Documentarian Arlen Parsa.* **

Anti Catholicism has been termed the last acceptable prejudice in the United States and there's a great deal of merit to that claim.  In certain quarters, anymore, there's a subtle to not so subtle anti Christian prejudice in general that people express more or less openly, however, so to at least some degree that statement isn't fully true.  And its certainly the case that people will openly express disdain to some religions in some regions.  The LDS faith, for example, is often a topic of some disdain on the margins of its territories.  Islam is definitely subject to widespread public disdain in the United States.***

The thing that's really different about anti Catholicism, however, is the degree to which its visceral and blisteringly open.****  Additionally, it's rooted in falsehoods of the Reformation even as its advanced by those who reject all strong tenants of Christianity in general, even if it's in their ancestral background.  Descendants of Puritans and near Puritans, whose ancestors hated Catholic based on lies that were told by the founders of their faiths in order to justify separation from the only body of Christianity that had existed continually since the First Century, still hate Catholics or disdain them in spite of the fact that they've often completely shed the religions that gave rise to their beliefs.

The United States is really a Protestant country in culture, although that culture has weakened massively in urban areas.  The retained belief, however, is that Catholics are a dangerous "other" to be feared, believing in strange dangerous beliefs.  That's about to come out in public in spades.

Observant Apostolic Christians continue to believe in a religion that's Christ centric in the way that Christianity was from its onset.  A significant aspect of that is a belief that God's laws are immutable and his Church hierarchical in aid of that.  All Apostolic Christians, including the Orthodox of every branch and all types of Catholics, if they are observant, hold that.  The essence of the Reformation rejected that, although even the first rebels against the Church in the Reformation actually didn't, or didn't at first.  Even today, five centuries after the Reformation, some Protestant churches worry about Apostolic succession, still viewing it as necessary to their authority.

Because Catholics, as Apostolic Christians, hold that, it has always been used against them in those European cultural regions where the churches of the Reformation were strong.  In English speaking countries, even though the Church of England and the Anglican Communion claim Apostolic succession, it's always been a way to vilify Catholics.  In part this was because of the English Established Church's strong animosity towards Catholicism and in part it was because dissenting Protestant English churches took an even more extreme position than the Church of England did. Those latter churches were also heavily invested in concepts of individuality and, moreover, they were very strong in early American history.  Some have claimed, although the claim suffers on analysis, that the individualism of those churches helped give rise to American democracy.

While that claim is strained at best, it has become the American Civil Religion that there's no inconsistency in holding your religion close to your heart but not acting upon it in public.  American Catholic politicians, always held back by prejudice against their faith at the ballot box (but interestingly not so much at the Supreme Court, where they'd been a presence since the middle of the 19th Century), adopted that view with John F. Kennedy's declaration that:

I am not the Catholic candidate for President [but a candidate] who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters — and the church does not speak for me.

In retrospect, Kennedy was a pretty bad Catholic in general, but his position was embraced by American Catholics in a way that brought about sweeping changes.Catholic politicians, rapidly followed in Kenney's wake and adopted his formula, rejecting prior Presidential nominee Al Smith's position that:

I do not want any Catholic to vote for me . . . because I am a Catholic. . . . But, on the other hand, I have the right to say that any citizen of this country . . . [who] votes against me because of my religion, he is not a real, pure, genuine American.

Smith didn't walk away from his faith the way that Kennedy did, but thousands of Catholic politicians did to be followed by thousands of rank and file Catholics.  In essence, Kennedy advanced the position that a person's religion only really mattered as to what he did on Sundays.  Smith didn't state that.

A similar view was incorporated into the American Civil Religion after a time which at first came to hold that there general Judeo Christian values that we all agreed on, and what a person did beyond that was their own business, with everything else being co-equal.  This position is of course absurd on its faith.  Religious convictions are an individual's deepest convictions and should inform everything they do.

It's that knowledge that, in some ways, forms the basis for the societal hatred of Catholicism and the spreading disdain for Christianity in general.  It isn't that Christians in general or Catholics in particular "want[] the rest of American women to be stuck with [an] extreme lifestyle".  Rather its that they acknowledge that there's something greater than the individual and that Christians have to pick up their cross and carry it.

Moreover, the real fear isn't that a single Catholic judge is going to somehow impose her values on American society.  Liberals of all stripes, including non observant liberal Catholics, know, or at least should know if they stop to think about it, that not a single conservative judge on the Supreme Court proposed to impose any religious belief on society.  What liberals really fear, and won't acknowledge, is that for jurisprudential reasons, not religious ones, those justices will hold that there's a lot of things the United States Constitution doesn't address and therefore its up to the states to address them.

Nearly all of the recent and old hot button issues in front of the Supreme Court fit into this category.  Indeed, as we've stated elsewhere, there really aren't any jurisprudentially conservative justices on the bench or proposed for it.  That really shows in their approach to these issues.  Abortion is one such issue that is cited all the time, although most typically with the term "a woman's right to choose", by which is meant a person's individual right to choose on a matter of life or death for another person.  A jurisprudentially conservative jurist would hold that life was a matter of natural law, and that no person had the right to decide on matters of life or death for a third person except for individual self defense, a natural law paramount.  That would truly make abortion illegal, irrespective of the Constitution. That's not what a conservative justice of the type who will be on the bench, or who already is, will hold.

That sort of conservative, of which Barrett is part, would instead hold that its just not in the text, and therefore its up to the states.  In terms of supposed deep philosophical statements, that's really weak tea.  Its just being politically and textually conservative. That's it.  Likewise, on the issue of same sex marriage, the conservative justices simply dissented that it wasn't in the text.  They didn't opine on the nature of marriage in an existential or metaphysical or even biological sense.

Given that, the real fear on the part of liberals like Parsa and the thousands like him is that his fellow Americans of all stripes might hold the same conservative views.  It isn't that the court is going to make something illegal, it's that the American people will.  That's democracy.  That doesn't fit into a secular world view, however, of radical self definition and a "progressive" world, which most of the world actually rejects, which is even more radical than the anarchist "No Gods, No Master" ideology, as it takes the view of "I'm my own god and own master and nothing else matters".

The knowledge that something else does matter, and we know it, is inside of all of us however.  And that makes most people feel that they have a right to voice an opinion on really important matters rather than have nine elderly men and women of high but limited legal education and liberal values decide those matters for us.^  It isn't really the Catholic hierarchy or dogma that's feared here. The language of the Reformation remains, but it's the spirit of radical individualism in the tone.  What Parsa really meant was he wants American men and women to be stuck with no ability to put their beliefs into practice, both in their own lives and at the ballot.  If Americans, or even American women, the latter of which is the majority of the population, share his views, this presents no threats to those views at all.

One thing we can be assured of, as this matter progresses, is that Senators who previously were openly hostile to Catholicism at the time that Barrett was nominated to assume her current role on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals will struggle not to come across so openly that way again.  Diane Feinstein's blisteringly hostile comment will not be repeated by her, and she's even stated that at least to her, Barrett's religion is off limits.  Kamala Harris, who likewise felt free to make anti Catholic comments during Barrett's prior hearing, will have to be careful lest she damage the campaign she's currently in.  Durbin's petty comments, perhaps inspired by the fact that his Bishop has denied him Communion rights due to his stated positions, may well come back. But the hostility is going to be there just under the surface.  Out in the public and through pundits, it'll be on the surface.

*Parsa is a documentary film maker, but I can't say that he's a well known one, at least to me.  I picked up his quote from an article by C. E. Cupp.

**An interesting aspect of Parsa's bigotry is that he associates large families with conservatism and by extension small or no families with progressivism, although I'll be that in the case of families born out of the United States but which have immigrated into the US, his view is the reverse. At any rate, the question of whether or not an employer can be mandated to pay for health care raises moral questions for Catholics, to be sure, but beyond that it raises other philosophical and fiscal considerations that are completely outside of religion.  Whether or not society at large, for example, through mandated health care, should be required to subsidize individual acts and when they should  is the larger issue.  When a society has strongly divergent beliefs regarding this, it raises further questions pertaining to participatory democracy and such choices.

***Islam presents a challenge to liberals in that the religion can demand strict adherence to its tenants and always demand public observation of them by the faithful.  Indeed it shares that characteristic with the Apostolic Churches and conservative Judaism, in that some of those tenants cannot be ignored by their members.  Muslims may not ignore the daily calls and periods to prayer nor the season of fasting, at a bare minimum, must as members of the Apostolic Churches may not ignore periods of fasting or the obligation to attend Sunday Mass.  Mormons, mentioned in this paragraph, likewise have a series of tenants that they can't ignore or shouldn't ignore.

****In fairness, this is also true of Islam.

Antipathy towards Islam to date has been strongly concentrated in conservative circles, but as the Muslim population increases this is almost certain to present very strong challenges to liberals. Already strongly observant Muslim women are relatively frequent callers into Catholic radio on the topic of abortion, where they'll routinely note that Muslims are opposed to abortion and they seem befuddled that people don't realize that.

In Europe distinct Muslim dietary practices that are shared with Judaism have made Muslims and conservative Jews unlikely allies against laws pertaining to slaughter in some countries.  Moreover, while so far Americans are mostly familiar with Muslim women who have taken the opposite view, conservative Muslims have a strict dichotomy of roles and behavior as to men and women. This has also presented itself in Europe where various nations have attempted to ban Muslim female veiling and headdress.  The challenge in the United States will be to see if American society can accommodate to itself to conservative Islamic practices which fall outside the American norm.

^One of the refreshing things about a Barrett confirmation would be that she's not a graduate of Harvard or Yale, which have had a lock on the Supreme Court for some time.

Turkey was once cited as an exception in the Islamic world in that. . .

it seemed to have a stable, and highly secular, government.

Mosaic in the Hagia Sophia of the Virgin Mary and Jesus.

In spite of the way headlines might cause people to believe otherwise, there are other Islamic nations that can make that claim now. At the same time, however, Islam has posed a challenge to political liberalization in areas in which it is strong.  Not all Middle Eastern nations with a Muslim majority, which is most of them, have Islamic or Islamic influenced governments by any means, indeed, not even a majority of them do, but contending with a faith that has seen no distinction between its religious laws and secular laws is a challenge for all of them.  This has brought about revolution in some, such as Iran, and civil war in others, such as Syria and Iraq.  The problem is never far below the surface.

Turkey was an exception as Ataturk aggressively secularized the nation, which he ran as a dictator, with the support of the Turkish Army.  That army, in turn, served to guard the political culture he created for decades after his death, stepping in to run the government whenever it regarded things as getting too far away from that legacy.  But with the election of Turkish Islamist leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan the country has been moving more and more in the other direction.

And now the Turkish supreme court, in this new era of Islamization, has ruled that Ataturk's 1935 conversion of the Hagia Sophia from a mosque into a museum was illegal.

Codex depicting the Sophia Hagia under construction.

What was overarchingly illegal, of course, was the occupation of the Hagia Sophia by Islam.  It's a Christian church.

The Hagia Sophia was completed as a Catholic cathedral in 537, having first seen construction in 360.  That is what it was until the Great Schism left it in the Eastern part of Christendom and it served as an Orthodox cathedral from 1054 to 1204, when it reverted to being a Catholic cathedral.  It served as an Orthodox cathedral.  In 1439 a murky end to the Schism was negotiated but which failed to really solve it. That a story for elsewhere, but in its final years the cathedral was once again an Eastern Catholic cathedral but one which also saw Latin Rite masses said in it. The last mass at the Cathedral was in 1453 literally during the fall of Constantinople, when the Ottoman Turkish forces broke into the cathedral and killed the Priests celebrating Mass.

The Ottoman Turks admired much of Byzantium and pressed the cathedral into service as a mosque, but keeping its numerous Christian and Byzantine symbols.  It was used as a mosque from 1453 to 1935, which Ataturk converted its use, as noted, into a museum.

This would mean that the church served as a Christian church for 916 years.  It was used as an Islamic mosque for 482 years.  If we take into account its service as a focus of Christian efforts, it was a Christian site for 1093 years.

Ataturk and his wife in 1924.

Like a lot of the things we discuss here, this story is complicated by World War One.  Going into the Great War Turkey was the Ottoman Empire and claimed to be the caliphate.  Mustafa Kemal Atatürk had been an Ottoman officer who came to see the Ottoman government he served in as effete, ineffective and anti modern.  He became the leader in what amounted to a rebellion against the Ottoman government over the issue of peace as that peace proposed to carve away large sections of Anatolia in favor its its ethnic minorities. This soon lead to the Turkish War of Independence which pitted the Turkish forces first against the Allies but, as time went on, principally against the Greeks.

The overplaying of the Allied hand in Turkey caused one of the great tragedies of the immediate post World War One world.  The Allied powers were, by that time, too fatigued to bother with a long protracted war and occupation of Anatolia, which is what defeating the Turks would really have meant. Their presence as victors, however, gave real hope to ethnic minorities inside of Turkey, with those minorities uniformly being Christian.  Moreover, they gave hope to the Greek government of amazingly recovering a portion of Anatolia that Greeks had not governed since 1453.  Not only did the Greeks seek to do so, but they sought to expand their proposed territory in Anatolia far beyond those few areas that had sizable Greek populations and into areas where those populations were quite limited. Giving hope to those aspirations, moreover, caused the struggle for that goal to rapidly become genocidal on both sides.

The European Allies lost interest pretty quickly in shedding blood for Greek territorial aspirations and in October 1922 the war came to an end in a treaty which saw 1,000,000 ethnic Greeks depart Anatolia as refugees, bringing nearly to an end a presence there that stretched back into antiquity, and which at one time had defined Greek culture more than Greece itself.  Some Greeks remained, but it was a tiny minority.  It was a tiny minority, however that continued to be identified by its Christianity, with both Orthodox and Catholic Greeks remaining.

Ataturk and one of his twelve adopted children.

Ataturk's victory of the Allies did not prove to be a victory for Islam.  Taking an approach to governance that might be best compared to that of Napoleon Bonaparte, he was a modernizing and liberalizing force who sought to accomplish those goals effectively by force.  As part of that, he saw the influence of Islam as a retrograde force that needed to be dealt with.

Indeed, Ataturk's relationship with Islam has remained a source of debate and mystery, like much of his personal life in general.  He was born into an Islamic family and had received religious instruction, but its clear that he held a highly nuanced view of the faith.  He was not personally observant in at least some respects and was a life long heavy drinker, a fact which lead to his early death.  He spoke favorably of the role of religion in society but it was clear that role was not to extend to influencing government.  Comments he made about Islam suggest that he thought a reformed Islam needed to come about or even that he personally did not believe in its tenants.  He was quoted to a foreign correspondent to the effect that Turkish muslims didn't grasp what Islam really was because the Koran was in Arabic, and once they really were able to read it in Turkish, they'd reject it.

As part of all of this his approach to governance, therefore, was Napoleonic, being a liberalizer and modernizer by force.  Like Napoleon, his day ended short, although his rule was far more successful than Napoleon's and his Turkey became modern Turkey up until Turkey's current leadership, which seems intent to go backwards in time.

One of the things that Ataturk managed to do was to reach a treaty with Greece in 1930 in which Greece renounced its claims on  Turkish territory.  As Ataturk continued to advance modernization in the 1930s, the Hagia Sophia's occupation as a mosque came to an end in 1935.  It became a museum dedicated to the history of Anatolia and a spectacular example of Anatolia's history and culture.

Now that's coming to an end, along with what seems to be Turkey's long period of regional exceptionalism.

Hagia Sophia translates as Holy Wisdom. This move by the Turkish government is neither holy, nor wise.