Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 May 28

= May 28 =

Roman Catholics entering the churches of other denominations.
Our article on St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin mentions the state funeral of Douglas Hyde, saying "At President Hyde's funeral, the whole of the Irish government and opposition contingent, but for Childers and Noel Browne, stayed in the foyer of the church. This was because, at the time of the funeral, the Holy See forbade Roman Catholics from entering the churches of other Christian traditions". The Hyde article says "contemporary rules of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland prohibited Roman Catholics from attending services in non-Catholic churches". So my questions are 1) was the prohibition on entering churches, or only on attending services in them, 2) was this for all Roman Catholics or was it only in Ireland, and 3) when did this prohibition end? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , (1) the prohibition was on attending or taking active part in worship; (2) it was universal Canon Law for all Catholics; (3) it ended with the 1983 abrogation of the 1917 Code. This is decidedly not a reliable source, but it explains what was going on then. Elizium23 (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you quote chapter and verse of the clause in the 1917 Code? --Lambiam 08:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We have an article on 1917 Code of Canon Law and 1983 Code of Canon Law. Here is a printing of the code from 1918.  It's in Latin, so if you can read Latin, you can probably find it.  -- Jayron 32 12:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's Canon 1258, beginning on page 360 of the Google Book linked by Jayron. Note that section 1 prohibits in any way actively assisting or taking part in non-Catholic services, whereas section 2 says a passive or merely physical presence at non-Catholic services such as funerals and marriages can be tolerated in some cases. So it seems that the Irish folk may have been being a bit overscrupulous. Deor (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, , and . As usual I cannot see the contents of the Google book. I found a translation which says "1. It is not licit for the faithful by any manner to assist actively or to have a part in the sacred [rites] of non-Catholics. § 2. Passive or merely material presence can be tolerated for the sake of honor or civil office, for grave reason approved by the Bishop in case of doubt, at the funerals, weddings, and similar solemnities of non-Catholics, provided danger of perversion and scandal is absent". Looks like they turned up for Childers in 1974. Presumably the danger of perversion and scandal had declined by then. DuncanHill (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that senior RC clerics attended the coronations at Westminster Abbey in 1911 and 1937 as Papal envoys (I found their names earlier, but didn't have time to post).  Alansplodge (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Popeye as theological allegory
Anthony Burgess once wrote "I knew a young author in San Francisco who produced a series of novels in which the characters of the Popeye cartoons were turned into figures of theological allegory. He could not sell these to a commercial publisher but he could turn out a thousand or so copies on an IBM machine. These he sold on the San Francisco streets and registered a profit, despite his many remainders. Eventually he died of an overdose of drugs, but that does not invalidate his procedure". Can anyone identify the young author? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Burgess's biographer Andrew Biswell couldn't. In a similar query at the International Anthony Burgess Foundation's facebook page, he writes: "The name is not recorded in the sands of time, alas." ... But who knows? Maybe someone here can find out or even owns a copy! ---Sluzzelin talk  10:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The quote is from "The Literature Industry", an article Burgess wrote for The Observer in August 1988, by the way, and can also be found in the collection The Ink Trade: Selected Journalism 1961-1993, edited by Will Carr (Deputy Director at the International Anthony Burgess Foundation), Carcanet Press, 2018, ISBN 978-1-784-10393-4 ---Sluzzelin talk  10:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This sounds like Jack Chick or someone who was inspired by or mimicking the work of Jack Chick. See Chick tract, which were religious comics.  There were also handmade comics popular in California at the time known ironically as Tijuana bibles, that weren't religious at all, but were pornographic comics featuring popular characters.  It wouldn't be too hard to imagine someone, inspired by Chick, creating Tijuana bible-style comics but with a religious bent.  -- Jayron 32 14:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds pretty similar to underground comix, but more book-like. --Khajidha (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Burgess comes back to the anecdote in You've Had Your Time. There he calls the author a young Californian, calls the works "an interesting but, in publisher's terms, uncommercial trilogy", and says he sold "around four hundred of each volume, but registered an eighty per cent profit". DuncanHill (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Why wasn't the Hagiwara family allowed to return to their home after the end of WWII?
Japanese Tea Garden (San Francisco): "Following Makoto Hagiwara's death in 1925 his daughter, Takano Hagiwara, and her children became the proprietors and maintainers of the garden. With the onset of World War II in America and rising anti Japanese sentiment, Takano Hagiwara and her family were evicted from the family's home and sent to an internment camp.[1] 120,000 Japanese and Americans of Japanese descent were sent to internment camps during the war. Despite John McLaren's agreement with Hagiwara, the displacement of his family disrupted their stay at a promised century long home and the family was not allowed back or reimbursed after the war ended.[2] In the period of their absence, the garden was renamed "The Oriental Tea Garden," and some structures expressing Japanese sentiment were demolished, including the Hagiwara home, and the original Shinto Shrine. Japanese tea servers were replaced with Chinese women in their traditional dress.[2]"
 * Your quote answers your question. The Hagiwara home was demolished. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So "was not allowed" should be changed to "were not able [to return]"? ZFT (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know, it sounds more complicated than that. The Hagiwara family were caretakers of the garden, not its owners. The city owned the garden and the house. The internment of Japanese-Americans basically terminated the employment of Takano Hagiwara and the end of internment did not result in her being rehired. There may have been lingering anti-Japanese sentiments involved. She may not have been taken back on by the city even if the house had still been standing. --Khajidha (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The San Francisco Senior Beat article "From Tea Garden to internment camp to Berkeley degree: Fitness instructor now 80 and still teaching" about Makoto Hagawira's great-granddaughter Tanako doesn't answer the question, but it's all I found regarding where the family lived after being released from internment: "They spent the next five years in Portland Ore. where her father worked as a food buyer for a hotel and she and her mother worked in the family business, a bean cake factory. Always wanting to return to San Francisco, Hagiwara’s grandmother was able to put a down payment on a house in the city’s Richmond district. It was paid for with the proceeds of the sale of artifacts from their Japanese Tea Garden house that a family friend had saved for them."
 * As for their incarceration, according to another article on Tanako's great-granddaughter ("Japanese American family at heart of beloved Golden Gate Park garden" in the San Francisco Examiner), "her family was relocated from their 17-room home in the garden, first to a camp at Tanforan in San Bruno, and later to Topaz Internment Camps."
 * Maybe some of this can help find more info. ---Sluzzelin talk  08:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)