The pope, the king, the prince – and history

Who would have predicted, in 1534, when Henry VIII broke with Rome, that 491 years later, Henry’s successor, Charles III, would embrace, and pray with, the successor to Clement VII, Pope Leo XIV?

What a historic moment this meeting has been, and what reflections it prompts about the course of history.

Consider the long years, decades, centuries, of inter-religious conflict, of martyrdoms and burnings at the stake, of persecutions and annihilations that Henry’s split occasioned. Think of the Penal centuries inflicted on Ireland – and on English Catholics too: recall that “Faith of Our Fathers” is a hymn written for English Catholics, who sang it to affirm their faith was “living still… in spite of dungeon, fire and sword”.

Think of the monasteries confiscated, the cathedrals and churches transferred from Catholic to Anglican. And think of Guy Fawkes, the Catholic who tried to blow the King’s Parliament to smithereens.

Lifespan

Even in the lifespan of those of us now older, we remember times when Catholics didn’t set foot in a Protestant church, while fundamentalist Protestants would refer to the Vatican as “the whore of Babylon”. Quite a wide abyss of division!

And now, we have this historic reconciliation, albeit one surrounded by certain ironies.

Henry’s rebellion against Rome was prompted by his clamour for an annulment from his wife, Catherine of Aragon, which Pope Clement VII refused to allow. Subsequently, Pope Paul III, excommunicated Henry over his multiple marriages – he had by 1538 dispatched three wives.

Identify with the similarities, not the differences”

And this past week, Henry’s successor, Charles, approached the Holy See as a divorced man himself, and married to a divorcée, Queen Camilla. But the ambience was to be forgiving of history, and, to take an attitude always recommended by Alcoholics Anonymous: “Identify with the similarities, not the differences.”

Pope and King share their common concerns for nature and sustainability.

And yet an expected shadow formed over this historic meeting. Again, though in a different context, there’s trouble in the monarch’s family life. Charles III has been on the rack because of the scandalous behaviour of his younger brother, Andrew, proven to be an associate of a dead sex trafficker, and accused of debauching a victim of the sex traffic trade. It had been a dismaying week for the monarch, as his family, even the monarchy itself, is tainted by this almost Tudoresque drama.

Or maybe, some might say, a Borgia-like picture of decadence emerges. For the Pontiff can also look into history and see deplorable conduct.

Teachings

Perhaps Charles, as Supreme Governor of the Church of England,  could turn to the teachings of Christianity to instruct his erring sibling in how to address this situation? Firstly, tell Andrew to stop saying “I’ve done nothing wrong”, but rather to admit to his sins. Give him some instruction in the practice of humility and repentance.

Under the Sistine Chapel’s roof, Pope and Monarch shared a common Christianity. But now, as in the 16th century, events seldom fail to remind us of man’s fallen nature.

 

***

A shared language

 

It is also the first time in history that the Pope and the King of England conversed together in their common mother-tongue – both being native speakers of English. (The English Pope, Nicholas Breakspear, pontiff from 1154 to 1159, never met King Henry II, whose native language was, in any case, Norman French.)

Although the art of interpretation is very skilled these days, and people can learn each other’s lingos, nonetheless there is a nuance, a relaxed subtlety and an enhanced mutual understanding about speaking the same mother tongue.

Sharing a language isn’t everything – personal chemistry can often account for communication between two people – but it’s significant just the same.

 

***

Is it miss or misses?

 

Presidential candidates Catherine Connolly and Heather Humphries have both been given the title of ‘Ms’ in despatches; although former President Mary Robinson is often referred to as ‘Mrs Robinson’, while Mary McAleese gets ‘Ms’ in some reports, and ‘Mrs’ in others.

Women’s nominative honorifics are something of a moveable feast, and I’m firmly of the view that a woman may call herself anything she pleases. I have occasionally been tempted by the idea of purchasing a fake PhD off the Internet so I could call myself ‘Doctor’, although the fear of being found out is too mighty a deterrent.

So it’s ‘Ms’ or ‘Mrs’ according to taste.

The advantage of ‘Mrs’ is that it provides the useful information that this is a spouse’s name, not a patronymic. In Britain, the Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch is almost always called ‘Mrs Badenoch’ as she’s happy to be linked with her Scottish husband. There are also benefits in having two identities, so you may be both feisty Ms Smith and yet sensible Mrs Jones.

With Ms Connolly and Ms Humphreys, it’s interesting what a discreet – almost invisible – role the spouse has played in their campaigns: only present by the use of surname.