Anti-Catholic Violence in the United States

Last Wednesday, I heard about the school shooting that killed two children and wounded 19 others at Annunciation Church in Minneapolis. It was an unusual shooting for a few reasons. First, as someone who grew up in Minneapolis, that is an unexpected place for a shooting to occur in Minneapolis. Second, this wasn't like other school shootings where a big kid at school has a gun and starts shooting. Third, it's almost unheard of for this kind of shooting to happen at a Catholic school.

The FBI determined from the shooter's manifesto and other evidence that anti-Catholic hatred played a part. This should be alarming to anyone. Despite the Constitution endorsing freedom of religion, we have here the action of an individual out to shoot people for (in part) their faith. Of course, Catholics aren't the only victims of hate based on religion. Jews have been attacked before in this country (remember the 2018 shooting in Pittsburgh?) and so have African-American Christians (1963 in Birmingham, 2015 in Charleston). There are likely other groups I'm forgetting. All three groups I just mentioned have historically been targeted by the Ku Klux Klan, but now it's just hateful people in general committing these acts of violence. Since I'm focusing on anti-Catholic violence for this post, though, I'd like to mention a few examples of violence against either Catholic property or Catholics themselves. 

In August 1834, a mob burned down an Ursuline convent in Somerville, Massachusetts. The mob had anti-Catholic feelings in general, but more specifically, there were rumors of corruption happening there. No bloodshed happened, but the dramatic act of burning the convent to the ground got history's attention. In August 1921, a priest, Fr. James Coyle, was murdered by a KKK member for performing a Catholic wedding involving a Catholic and a recent Catholic convert. More recently, in April this year, a priest was shot in Kansas. Apart from those examples, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has a huge list of anti-Catholic acts in the U.S. in just the past five years.

As for the recent shooting, the motive seems to be not just anti-Catholicism but a strange mixture of various forms of hatred and mental illness. One might say the shooter was a leftist for his transgenderism and hatred of Trump. On the other hand, one might say the shooter was far-right for his hatred of Jews. Whatever can be said about the shooter, what is clear is that he had some very evil thoughts which got the better of him. In conclusion, the shooting last week should remind everyone that even though the United States government does not endorse any persecution, nor does it put anyone to death (in most states), persecution and murder still happens at the hands of individuals. While I don't think it can be said that American Catholics generally suffer persecution, incidents like what happened last week should remind us that even in a free country, it is still possible to get hurt or die because of anti-Catholic hatred - or any other hatred, for that matter.

When was the Christianization of Europe Complete?

In a different post, I talked about different ideas of what defines Europe, and whether it is a region or a continent. One idea I mentioned was what was historically called "Christendom", the contiguous area where Christianity was the dominant religion. That brought up the fact that Christendom's boundaries have changed dramatically, which brings up this question: When, if ever, was the area I defined as "Europe" completely dominated by Christianity, or which pagan group was the last to be Christianized in Europe?

There are interesting YouTube videos that show the progress of Christianity in Europe, including one by Ollie Bye. Christianity in Europe started in Greece and Rome, a fact anyone familiar with St. Paul would know. Generally, Christianity spread through various communities in the Roman Empire until the same empire that persecuted Christianity so heavily was itself converted to Christianity by the end of the 4th century. From there, Christianity spread northward by way of missionaries interacting with or confronting the Germanic tribes, who invaded the western Roman Empire, and the Slavic tribes, who invaded the northern Byzantine Empire.

By the time of the East-West Schism in 1054, there was just one large pagan region left, consisting of the Baltic countries, Finland, Karelia, and "Sapmi", the arctic homelands of the Sami people. The Northern Crusades finished off paganism in the Baltic countries during the 13th century, and Sweden just about Christianized Finland for the most part at the same time. This left only the Sami people. Southern Spain and southern Ukraine were Muslim at the time; the re-Christianization of Spain would be completed by 1500.

The Sami and Karelian peoples were interesting holdouts of paganism, indeed. When Columbus sailed the ocean blue, they were still pagan. When Luther broke from the Catholic Church, they were still pagan. That means parts of the Americas were Christianized before the Arctic region of Europe! This also means that the Sami and Karelian homelands never had a Catholic period, unlike most of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Iceland, which were Catholic countries from roughly 1000 to 1530, and Finland from roughly 1300 to 1530.

Another screenshot from Ollie Bye's video, showing how much of America was Christian before that last pagan holdout. Southern Ukraine, meanwhile, was still under Muslim control.

The Karelian and Sami peoples finally began to convert in the 17th and 18th centuries as Sweden and Russia closed in the gap between the two countries. It's still unclear to me when exactly the partition of Sami and Karelian lands was complete; perhaps the northern border between Sweden and Russia was undefined for a while. Either way, Sweden was zealously Lutheran by this time, and Russia was zealously Orthodox. Both countries were also expanding their borders and were rising great powers in the 17th century. It seems that by that century Karelians were more or less Orthodox, leaving the Sami people as the very last pagans of Europe. With Lutheranism as the official religion of Sweden, which also started to spread Lutheranism by the sword during the Thirty Years' War and afterward, Swedes began to get rid of any pagan objects they saw, such as the Sami shaman drums. The Swedish government seemed to prefer Christianization by force, though there were also Swedish missionaries who were more amiable. Finally, by the turn of the 1800s, Sami people were Lutheran and saw their pagan religion as a thing of the past.

Meanwhile, in southern Ukraine, the Crimean Khanate was in trouble. The 18th century saw Russia reach the summit of its power, having defeated Sweden in the 1710s and expanding all the way to Alaska in the east. Finally, after hundreds of years of Tartar control, southern Ukraine and Crimea was annexed in 1783. Russia imposed Orthodoxy by force in this case, kicking out the Muslim Tartars and colonizing the land with Ukrainians and Russians. Therefore, with the exception of the Muslim areas in the Balkans that remain to this day, the European region was fully Christianized sometime in the 18th century.

The Legacy of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project

The Apollo-Soyuz crew, a mix of not only two countries but a few "generations" of astronauts. Deke Slayton, on left, waited 14 years for this chance to go to space.

This year is the 50th anniversary of the mission that I believe marked the end of the Space Race. Some think the Space Race ended when the United States "won" by putting the first astronauts on the Moon, but that was more so the "Moon Race", one aspect of the larger Space Race where the Soviet Union and United States tried to outdo each other in space exploration accomplishments. However, in 1975, amid the detente of the 1970s, the two countries decided to set their competition aside and dock each country's most familiar spacecraft together. The United States sent an Apollo spacecraft as a kind of encore of the program that ended three years prior, and the Soviets sent their old reliable, the Soyuz. The reason why it was called the Apollo-Soyuz "Test Project", apparently, was to see whether the two spacecraft could dock by means of an adapter.

Thomas Stafford and Alexei Leonov shake hands. This was not a mere gesture; the two became good friends over the course of the mission and for the rest of their lives.

The adapter worked, and the world witnessed the Apollo astronauts open the hatch to greet the cosmonauts on the other side. While the TV coverage was often dark and grainy, there were some significant moments. I could list many, but I will just choose a few. The cosmonauts and astronauts ate together in space, sharing the cosmonauts' borscht, bread, and apple juice as well as the astronauts' canned turkey, cranberry sauce, and strawberries in a pouch. After a few meals over the course of the mission, the Soviet press asked Alexei Leonov how he liked the Apollo spacecraft and the American food. He replied in English: "The best part of a good dinner is not what you eat, but with whom you eat!" I often think of this quote when I have dinner with family or friends.

Another significant moment during Apollo-Soyuz was a call from President Gerald Ford, where he congratulated the crew and said something that would ultimately come true: "I'm confident that the day is not far off when space missions made possible by this first joint effort will be more or less commonplace." Those words came true particularly after the collapse of the Soviet Union. A cosmonaut traveled aboard the Space Shuttle in 1994, and an astronaut traveled aboard the Soyuz in 1995, marking the progress of the Shuttle-Mir program, where America's Space Shuttle could dock with Russia's Mir space station and each country could send each other's citizens to space on both the Space Shuttle and Soyuz. After the Space Shuttle was decommissioned but the International Space Station (ISS) was completed, American astronauts have ridden on Soyuz flights to the ISS every year. Likewise, since the start of SpaceX's Commercial Crew program in 2020, 6 of 10 flights so far have had a Russian cosmonaut or two, and that fraction is soon to be 7 of 11 when SpaceX Crew-11 launches, hopefully this week.

The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project might not have developed further cooperation between the Soviet Union and the United States, but its legacy really became strong with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the birth of the Russian Federation. Even during this new cold war with Russia since its 2022 invasion of Ukraine (or perhaps its 2014 annexation of Crimea), cooperation between Russian cosmonauts and American astronauts remains strong. Today, Russians, Americans, and space travelers of every nationality greet each other with big hugs when arriving at the ISS. They see the Earth not as 190-something countries but as one universal homeland, and the politics of their countries are left on the ground. It remains to be seen how much China will share its technology and taikonauts with the world. That being said, it would be cool to see an American Crew Dragon dock with a Chinese Shenzhou. If we could make room for international cooperation with our biggest rival last time, we can do it this time.

Caves and Christianity

Last Friday, July 11, was the feast of St. Benedict. He is a familiar saint to most Catholics, having founded one of the largest and oldest monastic orders. His monastic life started when he became a hermit at first. He needed a secluded, quiet place to pray and fast, and so he naturally chose a cave in the Italian countryside and lived there for three years, being fed occasionally by his friend, St. Roman, until St. Benedict finally composed his Rule and shared it with whoever would become his disciple and live as a monk. You can read about the cave he lived in here.

I start with St. Benedict because of his recent feast, but there is a lot more to caves relating to Christianity than hermits who like the seclusion. Caves are mentioned every now and then in the Old Testament, where prophets have lived and where David hid from Saul. The geography is fitting for this, since much of the central range of hills in the Holy Land is made of limestone, which is often where caves are found.

It seems that the limestone of Judea (and running north and south of it) was full of not just natural caves, but artificial ones as well. By the time of Christ, it seems that people dug into limestone quite a bit. This is where I begin my next point: when Jesus was born in Bethlehem, it seems that the manger He was laid in was, in fact, within a cave, natural or not. Justin Martyr and Origen, Church Fathers, both call the spot where Jesus was born a cave. Considering the widespread use of caves as shelter, it's entirely possible that the Holy Family was directed to a cave that was being used as a kind of barn. The Church of the Nativity, in Bethlehem, is in fact built above a cave, and it is that cave below the church where pilgrims venerate the exact spot where Jesus was born. Not far from the spot is another cave associated with Christianity, where St. Jerome lived as a hermit and was busy translating the Bible into Latin, which he finished in 405.

The Grotto of the Nativity, located within a cave where Jesus is said to have been born.

The same limestone of Judea contains a spot associated with the end of Jesus' life, namely His tomb. In Jerusalem, many ancient tombs exist that were carved in the limestone. One of them, of course, was one Joseph of Arimathea made and allowed to become the tomb for Jesus when He was crucified. When Jesus resurrected, that spot in the limestone became a very important site in Christianity too, if not the most important! Most Catholics and Orthodox agree that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre contains that tomb. A pilgrim might not see the natural limestone tomb today upon visiting the church, as a LOT has happened to the site in the past 2000 years, and, more to the point, a lot has been built, demolished, and rebuilt on top the original tomb. You can read Witnesses to Mystery: Investigations into Christ's Relics for more. Nonetheless, an archaeological investigation in 2016 was able to remove all the obstacles necessary to find the original, natural rock wall of the tomb. Again, you can refer to the book I just mentioned, or see this CBS news report on the investigation.

The Garden Tomb, an example of a "cave" of sorts that is similar to Christ's Tomb.

What an interesting thing that is: Christ's birth and resurrection both happened in a cave! Although I don't know if any theologian has noticed this or has written about the theological significance of this, I'd be surprised if no one who has ever written theological documents ever talked about it.

After the Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ, numerous Christians, including priests and monks, have used caves or have been associated with them. I already mentioned Sts. Jerome and Benedict, but even in the United States we can see this connection. A cave in Kansas is said to have been the home of an Italian priest in 1863, and so it is called Hermit's Cave. My alma mater, University of Mary, is a Benedictine college with a small cave at the bottom of the bluff it sits on, though I don't know if any of the nuns there used the cave (and, weirdly, there were rumors of Satanists using the cave instead, and the cave was destroyed in the '80s from what I've heard from locals.) At Jewel Cave, Fr. Paul Wightman helped with cave radio work to help locate the spot for digging the elevator shaft there in 1964. You can read more about him here. 

Back on the topic of the Feast of St. Benedict last Friday, I was coincidentally researching other caves in the Black Hills when I came across some interesting history. There is a cave in the northern Black Hills that used to be a show cave from the late 19th century until 2003. Its original name was Mammoth Crystal Cave, but its owner in 1952 deeded the cave and the local area to a Benedictine abbey (interesting connection) and the Benedictines renamed it Bethlehem Cave (interesting name!) Fittingly, Father Gilbert, O.S.B., set up a chapel called the Shrine of the Nativity within the cave entrance. They ran the cave for the next 50 years or so, but by 2003 the Benedictines no longer ran the cave. That being said, the Benedictines offered daily mass at the chapel, which is pretty cool. You can read more about Bethlehem Cave here and here.

In conclusion, it seems that caves have a lot of significance to Christianity, more than I realized before working at one. The geology of the Holy Land is suitable for caves, important events in salvation history happened in caves, and caves have provided peace and quiet for hermits and others seeking prayer and isolation from the world.

Europe: A Region or a Continent?

Europe is often a central focus of global conversation. Whether that is in history, other social studies, world politics, or otherwise, people often speak of a place called Europe, where a lot of the world's most influential countries have been. Usually, people speak of Europe as a continent, a loose category by itself. What is it that all European countries have in common? In most atlases, Europe's boundary includes a line going through a lot of land on the eastern margin through Russia, a line about as wide as the width of Europe itself. What is it, then, that distinguishes Europe from the rest of the Eurasian landmass, or the rest of the world for that matter?

For starters, we have religion. Before "Europe" was a common name, there was the idea of "Christendom": the contiguous area where Christianity was the most common or official religion. This idea held sway in the Middle Ages, right up to the overseas expansion of Portugal, Spain, and other countries called European. This is also kind of like the Ummah, the contiguous area stretching from Senegal to Pakistan and from Somalia to Kazakhstan where Islam predominates. The problem here is that the "boundaries" between these religious areas have shifted over time. For example, Spain and Portugal would have been in the Ummah in the 8th century, and the Balkans were essentially in the Ummah too from the 15th through the 18th centuries. Likewise, some nations in northeastern Europe were holdouts of paganism into the late Middle Ages. One nation, the Sami people, were a pagan remnant in Scandinavia even into the 1700s. I also doubt that any new colonies of Spain and Portugal in the 16th centuries were automatically considered a part of Christendom, so the focus now turns to natural boundaries.

I have seen a very common dividing line for Europe get drawn along the Ural Mountains, the Russia-Kazakhstan border or the Ural River, the Caspian Sea, the Caucasus Mountains, the Black Sea, the Turkish Straits, and somewhere in the Mediterranean Sea. This is one common way to split off Europe from the rest, but what about the islands? The British Isles are conventionally considered a part of Europe, and so are many Mediterranean islands. Iceland is sometimes a bit of a gray area, but it is usually considered a part of Europe as well due to its similarity to the Scandinavian countries. Does this mean the Azores, a Portuguese archipelago in the middle of the ocean, are included as well? The question becomes one of how far out islands have to be before they are included with Europe or any "continent". One could perhaps use the Atlantic Ridge as a dividing line, but the problem is that Iceland and the Azores themselves are along that ridge, meaning they would only partially be in Europe. Also, do we use the rift between the Eurasian and African plates? In that case, the Canary Islands and Madeira are a part of Africa and Italy itself would be split. Notice, though, that Europe does not have a distinct plate and is mainly on the same plate as China. That brings up, again, a possible cultural divide. It is often said that Europe and Asia are split because of differing cultures. We already looked at religious boundaries, but what about linguistic ones? Europe mainly has three language (sub-)families: Romantic (i.e. derived from Latin), Germanic, and Slavic. There are others, such as Baltic, Albanian, Greek, and Finno-Ugric, a family by itself, not to mention the language isolate Basque. However, that linguistic boundary cannot be applied without physical boundaries also. Similar to the problems with Christendom, these language families have become dominant in other places across the world, especially the Americas. However, just as a new Christian area is not automatically included in Christendom, a new Romantic or Germanic speaking area is not automatically included in Europe. Speaking of languages, though, the name "Europe" itself comes from ancient Greek and originally referred to parts of today's Balkan region. The Greeks later applied the name to all the land they knew of north of the high Mediterranean Sea, west and north of the Anatolian peninsula, and west again of what we would know today as the Crimean Strait, the Sea of Azov, and the Don River.

Ancient Greek map of the world, with the whole waterway from the "Phasis" (perhaps the Don) to the Strait of Gibraltar as the boundary of Europe.

The Greeks did not have a northern boundary for Europe, since many lands were still unknown to them, such as Scandinavia. Not even Rome knew much about Scandinavia. It was the missionary fervor of Christians in the Middle Ages, and the Viking raids at the same time, that really introduced Scandinavia to the rest of Europe and integrated Scandinavia within it.

If we take the ancient Greek boundaries of Europe on its south and east, what are its western and northern boundaries? Personally, I think that the margin of the continental shelf is a good one. By using this boundary, all the British Isles are included, but not the islands in the middle of the ocean such as Iceland, the Azores, etc. Those islands deserve their own isolated category (pun intended) since they are so far from the European mainland. As for continuing the boundary from the continental shelf to the Don River, I think the established system of waterways through Russia from the White Sea to the Don River makes a good boundary. Most of the waterway is along rivers, and other parts are canals built or remodeled in Soviet times. Considering how Norsemen knew how to navigate and portage across this waterway before the canals, I think there is good cause to establish the waterway as an eastern boundary of Europe, by which Norsemen and others knew how to get to non-European lands such as Persia or Anatolia.

The system of rivers and canals through Russia, going from the Sea of Azov to the White Sea, which I consider a good northeastern boundary of Europe.

Now that I have defined what I consider to be Europe, does it really qualify as a continent? I think not. For one thing, "continents" are almost completely surrounded by water, whereas the so-called continental boundary between "Europe" and "Asia" is hundreds of miles wide. On the other hand, there are other areas in the Eurasian landmass that have defining characteristics, such as the Arabian peninsula or "Middle East", the Indian subcontinent, Indochina, etc. Some of those regions are about as big as Europe itself but are not considered continents. That being said, we often speak of the "Indian subcontinent" consisting of Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and all the other countries south of the boundary made by the Himalayas and nearby mountain ranges. I would argue that Europe is a region or subcontinent of Eurasia, the real "continent" as far as being a landmass almost surrounded by water is concerned.

The Latin Mass Question

Last week, Bishop Martin, of the Diocese of Charlotte in North Carolina, announced that the diocese would no longer have mass in the style of the 1962 Missal, commonly called Latin Mass, in any parish churches, limiting it to one chapel. This was done in accordance with the pastoral letter Traditionis Custodes, which under Pope Francis restricted where the Latin Mass could be celebrated and by whom. The Latin Mass, in general, has been a talking point among Catholics ever since the new missal and Roman Calendar was introduced in the '60s, and especially since Traditionis Custodes.

The Latin Mass, also called the Tridentine Mass, has a variety of features that the "new" mass does not. One, obviously, is that all the prayers except the Kyrie are in Latin (the Kyrie is in Greek.) Another is the priest facing the altar rather than the people for most of the mass, usually praying in a quiet voice. A third is the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue at a special railing while kneeling. I could go on, but the point is that the Latin Mass is so different from how (most) masses are celebrated today that it could be its own rite within the Catholic Church. Let's hold that thought.

When the Second Vatican Council happened in the early '60s, the latest missal in the Tridentine style was hot off the press. While the Second Vatican Council had a lot of new and interesting developments of Church doctrine, it seemed to have less to say about changing the liturgy than what would end up happening by the end of the decade. For example, Latin was still held to be the language of the mass, though local languages could replace Latin in any prayer of the mass. Organs and Gregorian chant were still the instruments/musical styles of choice for sacred music, but some instruments were permissible for the mass besides. As for the changes that actually ended up happening to the mass, see A Perfect Storm: What happened to the Mass after Vatican II (I will admit the documentary is biased against the changes, but it is well researched).

Ever since the changes to the mass happened in the '60s, there have been some holdouts of people who aren't interested in celebrating the new style, often called Novus Ordo or the New Mass, and prefer to continue celebrating Latin Mass and live Catholic life essentially as it was in the 20th century before 1962. Some outright rejected the new mass, creating schismatic-ish organizations such as the Society of St. Pius X while still considering themselves Catholics (and to be fair, their liturgies are the same as the Roman Catholic Church's were for roughly 400 years.) Various smaller schismatic groups came about as well. On the other hand, religious groups such as the Institute of Christ the King were created that recognized the legitimacy of the new mass while also celebrating the Latin Mass exclusively. The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (or "FSSP") broke off from the Society of St. Pius X in the '80s as a Latin Mass group that, like the Institute of Christ the King, recognized the legitimacy of the new mass but exclusively celebrates the Latin Mass.

There have always been a variety of opinions about the Latin Mass and its devotees. On one hand, those who enjoy the Latin Mass often say they have much to gain, spiritually speaking, from attending such masses and have numerous arguments for why the Latin Mass is better for individuals and the Church as a whole. On the other hand, opponents of the Latin Mass consider it to be backward since the Church has adopted the 1969 Missal as the ordinary form of the mass. Furthermore, they see the Latin Mass as deficient because most people will not understand what is being prayed and will feel more like spectators than participants, especially with the priest looking away from the people for most of the mass. I myself have gone between these two extremes of opinions. In 2017 and most of 2018 I was basically an opponent of the Latin Mass, but in 2020 through 2022 my preference for the Latin Mass was somewhat strong. Now I'm somewhere in between, where I would just like the liturgy to be relevant and appropriate enough to produce great benefit for the participants (though I do very much prefer organs and chant to guitars and "praise and worship" music).

Different popes have had different takes on the Latin Mass since the new mass came about. Pope St. Paul VI instituted the new mass in the first place, but did not mandate all parts of the mass to be in either Latin or the local language. He also acknowledged that there were some bad consequences, "the smoke of Satan", in the Church after the new mass was instituted. Pope St. John Paul II accepted the foundation of the FSSP and had no problem with Latin Mass being celebrated through them. Pope Benedict XVI made it easy for any priest to celebrate the Latin Mass, within or without the religious orders that specialize in it. It was only Pope Francis who made the great turn-around in Traditionis Custodes, thereby restricting the availability of the Latin Mass. Pope Francis also shared that he did this to try to get the Latin Mass-goers to go to Novus Ordo masses instead.

The problem that soon arose from Traditionis Custodes was that, as I mentioned before, Latin Mass-goers see the Latin Mass as better than the Novus Ordo, some to the point of attending SSPX (Society of Pius X) churches. Pope Francis intended to unite the Latin Mass-goers in with the Novus Ordo mass-goers, but if anything, he made them resentful. Many wondered how much longer people could attend Latin Mass. Some major advocates for the Latin Mass, such as Bishop Strickland (of Tyler, Texas) and Cardinal Burke (of both La Crosse, Wisconsin and St. Louis, Missouri in the past) were punished under Pope Francis, with Bishop Strickland being forced to resign and Cardinal Burke losing his apartment in Rome and his salary. Now, we have seen Pope Francis pass away and Pope Leo XIV take the seat. Many are wondering what Pope Leo XIV will do as pope regarding the Latin Mass, especially in reaction to Bishop Martin's announcements.

There are a few options, some good and some bad, for what will happen to the Latin Mass. The most extreme option, on one hand, would be to suppress all orders that specialize in the Latin Mass and not even allow chapels to be used for the Latin Mass, which would cause a schism and a likely expansion of the Society of St. Pius X or schismatic groups that do not recognize the legitimacy of the current pope (these are called "sedevacantists".) The other extreme would be to convene a council or synod that replaces the Novus Ordo mass with some form of the mass prior to 1969 (which I highly doubt would happen given the opinions of most bishops today, but it might cause a schism of another sort.) As for some options in between, Pope Leo XIV could publish a pastoral letter that undoes Traditionis Custodes in some way, whether that be by restoring the way it was before or loosening the restrictions. His Holiness could also advocate for a middle ground, keeping Traditionis Custodes in place but also mandating some Latin, communion rails, veils, altar crucifixes, organs, Gregorian chant, or any other thing that some parishes currently have in their Novus Ordo masses (for example, I have seen Novus Ordo masses where organs and Gregorian chant are used, some prayers are in Latin, communion rails are used, and even some masses where the priest faces away from the people.) Finally, there is an option which I find the most interesting: creating a new rite or church sui juris for the Latin Mass.

In a previous schism, the East-West Schism, Christians of Western and Eastern Europe found themselves at odds. This was when Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism split from each other over centuries of liturgical and slight theological differences. However, some of the schism was not forever. Almost all of the other particular churches besides the Roman Catholic Church, as they are called, were created when Oriental or Eastern Orthodox groups decided to re-enter the communion of the greater Catholic Church. These all have their own rites and dioceses, but are still in communion with the pope, who is recognized as the visible head of the Catholic Church. One major mistake happened in the Diocese of St. Paul, however, when Bishop John Ireland did not recognize the Eastern Catholic masses/divine liturgies in his diocese. As a result, many Eastern Catholic clergy in the United States founded the Orthodox Church in America. Therefore, given the historical precedent, getting rid of the Latin Mass in any diocese would be a bad idea. Anyway, what if we had a particular church for the Latin Mass? I think that, ironically, that hypothetical church should keep the name of Roman Catholic Church, since the use of the Latin language makes it very clearly Roman. As for the rest of what is the Roman Catholic Church today, it could be called the "General Catholic Church" given the worldwide use of local languages or the "Ordinary Catholic Church" given the title of Ordinary Form for the Novus Ordo mass. The unity of the Catholic Church would be preserved, and the uniqueness of the Latin Mass would also be preserved.

I pray that Pope Leo XIV will choose wisely what happens to the Latin Mass both in certain dioceses and across the world-wide Church. Optimally, the unity of the Church is preserved, reverence returns to the mass everywhere, and communication between both sides will result in much spiritual and numerical growth within the Church.

British Colonies Still Exist

Last week, the news came out that the United Kingdom and Mauritius agreed to turn over the Chagos Archipelago (in the middle of the ocean south of the Maldives) to Mauritius. This came after decades of pressure from both Mauritius and the United Nations. To me, this is just one more colony that the British Empire has given up. I refer to any part of the world where the Monarch of the United Kingdom is the head of state (and where the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is their Prime Minister) as a part of the British Empire. That means the British Empire looks like this:

Most people seem to think the British Empire is gone, and some place its end at the transfer of Hong Kong to China in 1997. I think that is quite mistaken. Although the United Kingdom does not directly govern areas of land larger than Britain anymore, it still has plenty of colonies. The words "colony" and "empire" are unwanted to 21st century ears, and no government officials of any country seem to speak of themselves as empires having colonies. However, it only takes a beginner map-reader to notice that there are pieces of land distant from their "mother countries" where their capitals are. Often, these "mother countries" are in Europe. Well then, where were the empires of two or three hundred years ago? Most were in Europe. Which countries had overseas colonies? Most were in Europe. Therefore, you can see that today's so-called "overseas territories", "crown dependencies", etc. are really just leftover European colonies.

What is an "empire" or a "colony", anyway? People will have different opinions, but here is mine. An empire is any country that has expanded its boundaries since its foundation. Therefore, a colony is any piece of land that is now within a country that did not have that land when that country was founded. (Yes, that means the United States is an empire too. Yes, that also means all the states west of the Mississippi are colonies, and that's okay.)

Although the United Kingdom does not rule any part of mainland America or Africa anymore, it still rules pieces of land close by. Notice how many lands the United Kingdom has in the West Indies, and Gibraltar just north of Morocco. The Cayman Islands, one of the British colonies in the Caribbean, were taken by the British even before some of the 13 Colonies that became the United States. Likewise, Gibraltar was taken from the Spanish mainland (ironic - one empire colonizing another) about 70 years before the 13 Colonies fought for their independence.

The British Empire will soon lose the Chagos Archipelago, but what about the other colonies? The United Kingdom has 13 other "British Overseas Territories", a cute way of calling their current colonies. Most are in the middle of the ocean, but some are near enough to other countries that there is some contention with them (e.g. Spain wanting Gibraltar and Argentina wanting the Falkland Islands). Usually, decolonization happens when an empire gives a colony back to the country it was taken from (e.g. China getting back Hong Kong), or when a colony is given independence (too many examples to list). The ironic thing is that for the three colonies that have had referendums on decolonization in the past few decades - Bermuda, the Falkland Islands, and Gibraltar - the citizens decided (sometimes in overwhelming numbers) to stay British. Therefore, unless some dramatic change happens, the British Empire will still be around for a long time.