12 October 2024
An Open Letter to the Bishops of Canada
In connection with this "Open Letter", I suggest you read this article: Judge Slams Trudeau, Media for False Claims About Deaths, ‘Secret Burials’ at Residential Schools.
From Crisis
By Kennedy Hall
I beg our Canadian bishops to follow in the tradition of saints like Jean de Brébeuf and defend the Church from spurious attacks by the State.
Author’s note: Although this letter concerns an issue pertaining to the state of Catholicism in Canada, I believe it will resonate with Catholics everywhere.Dear Bishops of Canada,
Recently, a radical left-wing politician in Canada put forth a Private Members’ Bill seeking to criminalize “Residential School denialism.” According to the politician, the government of Canada system of boarding schools for Native children that was largely facilitated by the Catholic Church in Canada committed “genocide.” As a result, this person believes that any Canadian who “denies” the “genocide” should be criminally charged. Leaving aside the fact that Private Members’ Bills rarely ever make it past the first reading, this is still a cause for alarm and reflection, and I believe the bishops of Canada must take this as a “wake up call.”
Before I continue, please know that it is not my intention to offend or disrespect the offices that you all hold, which are apostolic. That being said, there are some harsh truths that should be considered, and I cannot mince words when the truth is at stake.
We all lived through that awful summer of 2021, when dozens of Catholic parishes were either burned to the ground or damaged severely by malcontents and activists who hate the Church. Of course, these acts of bigotry and violence were spurred on by the bogus claims that Catholic schools had murdered thousands of unnamed Native children and thrown them into “mass graves.” At this point, anyone with even half of their wits about them knows that the whole mass grave hoax was just that, a hoax. Nevertheless, the public was more than willing to accept the narrative without even giving it a second thought because they have been indoctrinated with the myriad lies that plague the Church in our once great nation and abroad.
Virtually all Catholics and non-Catholics in Canada have accepted a “black legend” of sorts about our beloved Church and seem to believe that the Catholic Church is an archaic organization with a very dark past. This is, of course, a lie.
You are all in charge of Catholic education in Canada. As a former Catholic school teacher, I can tell you that Catholic schools are not immune from this lie, and I would argue that Catholic educators are often the worst offenders in this regard.
In any event, what makes this whole saga so tragic goes beyond denial of the fact that there were no mass graves and that there was no genocide. Many Canadians are willing to accept the fact that what was reported was false, as is evidenced by the growing awareness of this fact in much of the mainstream press. However, the public must know that not only were there no veritable concentration camps run by nuns and priests, but the schools run by the Church were exceptional.
The nuns and priests who braved the harshest climates of Canada during the early years of development were not maniacal murderers who sought to abuse children. On the contrary, they were the spiritual sons and daughters of the great missionaries who watered the soil of our country with their blood.
They followed the lead of the great martyrs Brébeuf, Jogues, and their companions. When these great men arrived on our shores, they found a civilization—if we can call it that—groping around in the dark of a diabolical paganism. Reading their journals, one is shocked with horror at what they report: mass starvation was rampant, children were so malnourished that they routinely suffered from physical and mental disabilities; there was nothing resembling true marriage and women were often treated no better than whores and objects; in some cases, if sled dogs were injured or died, women would pull the sleds and be whipped by their masters if they did so poorly; cannibalism was not uncommon; and they enjoyed no written language.
Our great martyrs did not flee from this challenge. On the contrary, they embraced their own deaths—the most gruesome deaths imaginable—if only they could save one soul. In fact, Brébeuf loved the people of our country so much that when he was summoned home the first time, he is recorded as saying that he was not worthy to stay in Canada because of his sins. Can you fathom such a deep love of souls such as his? If we were all to do an examination of conscience and compare it to Brébeuf’s, doubtless we would seem like Satan incarnate when compared to him. Nonetheless, he saw his first exit from this land filled with iniquity and savagery as a punishment.
Could any of us even dare to stand in the same room with a man such as him and do anything but weep at our frailty and unworthiness to breathe the same air?
Your Excellencies, you are all the heirs of his great sacrifice.
It is said that we are all standing on the shoulders of giants. Well, in the case of Brébeuf, it is said that he was such an imposing man that he would carry two canoes while portaging long distances across Huronia. To say that you stand on the shoulders of giants is a literal truth. And, this mountain of a man stood on the Holy Shoulders of Christ, the same Sacred Shoulders that bore the Cross that is the instrument of our salvation.
Respectfully, what have you done to honour this great man? Have you stood boldly in the public square and told the truth without compromise or concern for political correctness? Have you led the Catholic school systems that you rightfully oversee into the truth?
I believe you all know the answer to these questions.
Sadly, it seems that the truth of our great history, especially that of the greatness of the Church’s schools, has been deemed unessential—just like the sacraments, when most, if not all of you, did obeisance to the secular power during that moronic extended flu season of 2020-2022. Our forefathers thought nothing of scurvy, or having their brains splattered on the frozen ground by tomahawks, if it meant they could deliver the sacraments to souls headed to perdition.
Yet, the Successors to the Apostles in present-day Canada seem more afraid of bad news headlines and public perception than Brébeuf was of having his literal heart ripped from his chest while he was still conscious. Some of you even sidelined unvaccinated priests if they did not comply with your diocesan mandates, which is made all the more ironic considering we have been led to believe since Vatican II that the conscience is sacrosanct.
I say all this, and, again, I apologize if I have offended you, because I want to see you in Heaven. Of course, I need your prayers because I am a sinner and I could squander my eternal inheritance as easily as anyone. However, I am a layman who will not be judged as harshly as you will. When you die, and you will all die, there will be no opportunity to explain to the Judge why you stood back and did little more than nothing to defend His Church in our country. Your bodies will decay in caskets six feet under the ground, the same ground watered by Brébeuf’s sacrificial blood, and I pray that your souls do not decay in an even deeper pit.
Please, I beg you, find even just an ounce of courage and defend our history, our saints, and Our Blessed Lord. So much damage has been done under your watch, but it is not too late. All you need to do is tell the truth and tell it boldly. I can guarantee you that as uncomfortable or as unpopular as this may feel, it will feel nothing like the hot irons that cooked the living flesh of our martyrs or the boiling water that was poured over their heads while they still breathed. I can also guarantee many will convert and save their souls if you act rightly, as they did after our martyrs were sacrificed.
All you have to do is say a few words, and you can do it from the comfort of your temperature-controlled cathedrals; you will not be frostbitten or develop a disease from malnutrition.
Please, Your Excellencies, if you will not do it for the sake of our martyrs or the souls of your sheep, please do it for the sake of your own souls. Time waits for no man, and you will all run out sooner rather than later.
In Christ,
Kennedy Hall
Our Lady on Saturday
St Wilfrid, Bishop of York, Confessor
From his life written by Eddi Stephani, precentor of the church of Canterbury, In the same age, prior to Bede, ap. Mabill. Act. Ben. t. 3, p. 170, t. 5, p. 670. Bede, Hist.1. 3, c. 25,& c. Also Fredegodus, by order of St. Odo of Canterbury, and Eadmer, secretary to St. Anselm, wrote his life. Among the moderns, Mr. Peck has complied his life at large In his history of Stamford,1. 2. See also Johnson’s Collection of English Canons, and Mr. Smith’s App. In Bedam, n. 18, 19. His life In the English-Sexon language, MSS. Bibl. Cotton. Julius, A. X.
A. D. 709.
ST. WILFRID, in English-Saxon Willferder, to whose zealous labors several churches both in our island and abroad were indebted for their conversion to Christ, was born in the kingdom of Northumberland, towards the year 634. At fourteen years of age he was sent to the monastery of Lindisfarne, that he might be trained up in the study of the sacred sciences, in which he discovered an application, penetration, and maturity of judgment beyond his years. A desire of greater improvement than he could attain to in that house, where he perceived the discipline that was practised to be imperfect, put him upon a project of travelling into France and Italy. He made some stay at Canterbury, where he studied the Roman discipline, and learned the psalter according to the Roman version, instead of that of St. Jerom, which he had used before. In 653, according to Mr. Smith, St. Bonnet Biscop, his countryman, passed through Kent on his first journey to Rome; and St. Wilfrid, who had set out with the same design,1 crossed the seas with him, but with an intention to visit the most famous monasteries in his way, the better to instruct himself in the rules of Christian perfection. At Lyons they were detained a whole year by St. Delphinus, surnamed Annemund, archbishop of that city, who conceived so great an affection for Wilfrid that he offered him his niece in marriage, and promised to procure him a considerable employment; but the saint continued steadfast in the resolution he had taken to devote himself to God, and proceeded on his journey the year following. At Rome he devoutly visited every day the tombs of the martyrs, and contracted a friendship with Boniface, the archdeacon, who was a very pious and a very learned man; he was secretary to the holy pope St. Martin, and took as much delight in instructing young Wilfrid as if he had been his own child. He carefully explained to him the four gospels, and the right calculation of Easter against the erroneous practice of the Britons and Irish; likewise the other rules of ecclesiastical discipline. At length he presented him to the pope, who gave him his blessing by the imposition of his hands, and prayer. After this, Wilfrid left Rome, from whence he brought relics, and returned to Lyons to the archbishop, whom he reverenced as his father. He stayed three years at Lyons, and received the ecclesiastical tonsure from St. Delphinius, who desired to make him his heir; but was put to death at Challons upon the Saone, by the order of Ebroin, in 658. He is honored at Lyons as a martyr on the 29th of September, being commonly called St. Chaumont. Wilfrid accompanied him to the place of execution, and would have been glad to have died for him or with him. After he had interred his spiritual father, he returned into England laden with relics.
Alcfrid, natural son of Oswi, who at that time reigned over the Deiri, (his father contenting himself with Bernicia,) being informed that Wilfrid had been instructed in the discipline of the Roman church, sent for him, and received him as an angel from heaven. After he had discoursed with him concerning several customs of that church, he conjured him to continue with him, to instruct him and his people in ecclesiastical discipline. This St. Wilfrid consented to, and the prince entered into an intimate friendship with him, and gave him land at Rippon to found a monastery upon, which our saint governed and richly endowed. Assisted by the munificence of the king, he distributed very considerable sums in alms, was exceedingly beloved and respected on account of his virtues, and was even looked upon as a prophet. Agilbert, bishop of the West-Saxons, coming to pay a visit to king Oswi and his son, Alcfrid entreated him to ordain Wilfrid priest, that he might remain always near his person. Agilbert said, that a person of such merit ought to be promoted to a bishopric; and ordained him priest in 663, in the monastery of Rippon. The Northumbrians had relapsed into idolatry after the death of king Edwin; but St. Oswald obtained St. Aidan, the holy Irish monk of Hij, for bishop, and planted the faith again in that kingdom. St. Aidan resided, not at York, as St. Paulinus had done, but at Lindisfarne. Finan and Colman, his countrymen, succeeded him, and had all the kingdom of Northumberland for their diocese. These Scots or Irish followed an erroneous calculation of Easter; and king Oswi, who had been instructed by them, and his queen Eanflede, daughter of Edwin, who came from Kent, sometimes kept Lent and Easter at different times in the same court. The Scots and Britons herein were not schismatics, as Rapin and some others pretend; for they did not coincide with the Quartodecimans, who had been condemned by the church, nor had this difference between the Scots and the universal church then proceeded to a breach of communion. To put an end to this dispute, in 664 conference was held in the great monastery of St. Hilda, at Streaneshalch, now Whitby, before the kings Oswi and Alcfrid. Colman brought thither his Scottish energy on the other side, Agilbert, bishop of West-Sex or Dorchester, had with him Agatho, a priest from Paris, Romanus, the abbot Wilfrid, and the deacon James. Colman alleged the example of his predecessors, and of St. Columba himself, and pretended that practice to have been established in Asia by St. John the Evangelist; which assertion it would have been a difficult task to prove.* Wilfrid replied, that the agreement of all the churches in Africa, Asia, Egypt, Greece, Gaul, Rome, Italy, and the rest of the world, ought to have more weight than that of the Picts and Britons in a part of the two remotest islands of the ocean; that St. John could not reject at once all the observances of the law, so long as the church judaized in some points; but that after the death of St. John the custom which St. Peter established at Rome was observed by his successors in Asia, and by the universal church, and was commanded by the Nicene council; that the Britons and Picts neither followed St. Peter nor St. John,—neither the law nor the gospel; that Columba and the rest of their ancestors were without fault, because they knew no better; but that they were inexcusable who refused to be instructed He added that Christ said to St. Peter: Thou art Peter,& c.1 Hereupon king Oswi said: “Do you all acknowledge, of both parties, that our Lord said this particularly to Peter, and that the Lord gave him the keys of the kingdom of heaven?” They replied: “We acknowledge it.” Then he concluded: “I declare, that I will not oppose this keeper of the gate of heaven, and that I will obey his orders to the utmost of my power, lest he shut that gate against me.” This resolution of the king was approved by the whole assembly. Rapin confesses that Oswi acknowledged a prerogative of St. Peter above the rest of the apostles, and that on this account he preferred the practice which he had established at Rome, to that which he thought derived from St. John.2 It is evident from the very silence of both parties, that the Scots or Irish and Britons never called in question the supremacy of the bishop of Rome. Another difference, which regarded the tonsure, was agitated in this conference. The Romans made it quite round the head, to resemble, they said, our Lord’s crown of thorns. This was called St. Peter’s tonsure: the other, called by dorision Simon Magus’s, was only a semicircle shaved from ear to ear above the forehead, not reaching to the hinder part, which was covered with hair.† Bede mentions no decision with regard to this point, which was left to the custom of each place. St. Cedd. bishop of Essex or London, who was present at this conference, and being a native of Deira, had followed the Scottish customs, declared upon the spot that he embraced the Roman discipline. But Colman said he would consult with his brethren, the monks of Jona, and retired to them with his Scottish priests. Tuda was consecrated bishop of Northumberland in his room, but soon after died of a pestilence which raged in England in 664. He had been educated and ordained by the Southern Irish, but conformed to the Roman discipline; he was much lamented on account of his virtue. King Alcfrid desired to have his own priest Wilfrid placed in the episcopal see, and sent him into France to receive consecration at the hands of his old friend Agilbert, who, seeing his diocese of West-Sex divided, and another bishop, named Wina, placed at Venta, called by the Saxons Wintacestir, now Winchester, returned to France, which was his native country, where the bishopric of Paris was given him. Wilfrid being absent a long time on this journey, Oswi caused St. Ceadda, or Chad, abbot of Lestingau, a disciple of St. Aidan, to be ordained bishop. The see of Canterbury being vacant by the death of Deusdedit, he was consecrated by Wina, bishop of Winchester, who was the only bishop at that time in Great Britain that had been canonically ordained. Agilbert joyfully received Wilfrid, and, with twelve other bishops performed the ceremony of his ordination with great solemnity at Compeigne. St. Wilfrid was then in the thirtieth year of his age, in 664; he was carried by the bishops in a golden chair, according to the custom of the Gauls.
At his return into England he would not dispute the election of St. Chad; but retired to Rippon, which monastery he made his residence for three years, though he was often called into Mercia by king Wulfere to ordain leacons and priests, and to perform other episcopal functions. Oswi having defeated and slain Penda in 655, conquered all that kingdom; but, three years after, made Peada, Penda’s son, to whom he had given his daughter in marriage, king of that part which lay south of the Trent; but Peada dying soon after, Oswi again united that country to his own dominions. Not long after the Mercians took up arms, and placed Wulfere, Penda’s second son, upon the throne in 659. This prince was for some time a pagan, or at least favored the pagans; but at length became a zealous propagator of the faith, and governed by the counsels of St. Wilfrid, who founded monasteries and churches in several parts of Mercia. Mr. Peck endeavors to prove,3 that the priory of St. Leonard, about a quarter of a mile out of Stamford, was built by St. Wilfrid, though rebuilt, in honor of St. Leonard, by William bishop of Durham, in the reign of the Conqueror, and only then dedicated in honor of St. Leonard.* St. Theodorus, archbishop of Canterbury, in his visitation, found the election of St. Chad to have been irregular, and removed him; but, charmed with his humility and virtue, placed him in the see of Litchfield. At the same time he put St. Wilfrid in possession of the see of York, in 669, before the death of Oswi, which happened in 670. Upon his demise, Alcfrid was obliged by the people to leave the throne to Egfrid, the eldest legitimate son of Oswi. St. Wilfrid consecrated the great church of St. Peter, which he had built at Rippon, in presence of the new king, in 670; and afterwards that of St. Andrew at Hexham, and several others Being a man of most persuasive oratory and strict virtue, he promoted everywhere religion and piety with incredible success. He invited out of Kent the precentor Eddi Stephani, who became from that time his constant companion, and afterwards wrote his life. With his assistance the saint established, in all the churches of the north, the use of plain-song, which St. Gregory the Great instituted in the church-music, and admirably well adapted it to every different part of the divine office, as Franchini observes;* in which it is easier and more becoming than that which is performed with a harmonious discord of voices and variation of melody.4 The monastic state was a principal object of St. Wilfrid’s care; and this he settled among the Midland and Northern English, as St. Austin had established it in Kent.5
King Egfrid had taken to wife St. Audry, who preferring a religious life, according to the liberty which the church has always understood, by constant tradition, to be allowed by the divine law before cohabitation, St. Wilfrid endeavored at first to engage her to change her resolution; but finding her inflexible in it, at length consented to give her the veil. This action exceedingly provoked the king; and his new queen Ermenberga employed every base and little means entirely to ruin him in the opinion of her husband. In order to undermine him, a project was set on foot for dividing his bishopric, after the holy prelate had spent ten years in settling Christianity in it. Theodorus, the archbishop of Canterbury, and metropolitan of all England, was gained by specious pretences, and parcelled his great diocese, consecrating Bosa to the see of York, for the Deiri; Eata to that of Lindisfarne, for Bernicia; and Eadhed to the church of Lindissi or great part of Lincolnshire, which Egfrid had won from Mercia.6 This passed in the year 678 Eadhed resided first at Sidnacester, near Gainsborough; but after king Wulfere had recovered Lindsey and all Lincolnshire, he retired to Rippon. Wilfrid, for opposing this partition, was rejected; but appealed to the pope. Dreading a disturbance or schism, he raised no clamor; but being too well versed in the canons not to see the irregularity and nullity of many steps that had been taken against him, embarked for Rome. Being driven by contrary winds at sea upon the coast of Friesland, he was moved to compassion upon seeing the spiritual blindness and idolatry of the inhabitants, and preached the faith to them. During that winter and the following spring he stayed among them, converted and baptized many thousands, with several lords of the country. Thus he opened that harvest which St. Willibrord and others, excited by his example, afterwards cultivated. Wilfrid is honored to this day as the apostle of that country.7 Ebroin, either through the solicitations of the saint’s enemies in England, or on the score of his enmity on account of St. Dolphinus of Lyons, sent letters to Adalgise, king of Fries land, promising to give him a bushel of gold, if he would send him bishop Wilfrid, or his head. The king read the letters publicly before Wilfrid, messengers, and his own officers, and tearing them to pieces with indigation, threw them into the fire, expressing the utmost execration of so detestable a treachery.
Next summer Wilfrid leaving his new converts with great reluctance under the direction of proper pastors, travelled through Austrasia, where king Dagobert II. entertained him most honorably, and entreated him to fill the bishopric of Strasburg, which happened then to be vacant. Upon his refusal, this prince made him very considerable presents, and sent Adeodatus, bishop of Toul, to accompany him to Rome, where he arrived late in the year 679. He found pope Agatho already apprized of what had passed in England, by a monk whom Theodorus had dispatched on his side with letters. The pope was preparing to hold a great council against the Monothelites. In the mean time, to discuss this cause, he assembled a synod in October, 679, in the Lateran basilic, or church of our Saviour, consisting of above fifty bishops and priests, chiefly of the Suburbicarian churches, (i.e. of part of Italy and those of Sicily,) though their names are strangely mangled in Sir Henry Spelman’s copy.8 The causes of the dissension in the British church having been weighed, it was decreed, by the authority of St. Peter, that there should be in it one archbishop honored with the pall, who should promote and canonically ordain the bishops to the other sees; but that none of the bishops should presume to meddle with the rights of any other prelate, but all should study to instruct and convert the people. After this, St. Wilfrid was admitted to the council, though Johnson thinks this a second council, held soon after the first, in the same place; and that St. Wilfrid was not arrived at Rome when the first was convened, but had only stated his case to the pope by letters. Having presented his petition in person to the pope and bishops assembled, the synod exceedingly commended his moderation, in that he had raised no disturbance or resistance by contumacy, but had been content calmly to enter his protestation and appeals, professing that he would submit to whatever was determined; and it was definitively decreed, that he should be restored to his bishopric. Mr. Johnson takes notice that St. Wilfrid never claimed any archiepiscopal jurisdiction, and that this synod9 expressly says, the sacerdotal primacy in Britain was settled by St. Gregory and St. Austin in the see of Canterbury; whence this author imagines St. Gregory altered his first decree or purpose by some posterior regulation. St. Wilfrid stayed above four months at Rome, and assisted at the great Lateran council of one hundred and twenty-five bishops, in which he, with the rest, condemned the Monothelite heresy. When he arrived in England, he repaired to the king, and showed him the sealed decrees of the pope. The prince, when he had first caused them to be read to the prelates of his own faction that were in the room with him, cried out, they had been obtained by bribery, and commanded a certain reeve (or steward of the church for secular affairs) to commit Wilfrid to prison, where he was detained nine months. They took from him every thing but the clothes which he then wore, and sent his attendants some one way, and some another. Queen Ermenberga took away his case of relics, which she hung up in her chamber, and carried about with her in her chariot, when she went out. The holy bishop’s guards heard him sing psalms in his dark dungeon, and beheld a light which terrified them, and the saint having cured the governor’s wife with holy water, he refused to guard him any longer, and the king ordered him to be removed to another prison. At length the queen was seized with a sudden fit of sickness in a monastery, the abbess whereof (who was Ebba, the king’s aunt) represented to her the injustice done to St. Wilfrid; whereupon he was set at liberty, his relics were restored, and his companions were sent back to him.
St. Wilfrid, who was inflamed with an ardent zeal for the conversion of infidels, and the salvation of souls, repaired to the kingdom of the South Saxons, which had not yet received the light of faith. Edilwalch, the king, who had been lately baptized in Mercia, where king Wulphere was his godfather, received him with open arms; and the saint, by his preaching, converted the whole nation, with all the priests of the idols. That country was oppressed with a dreadful famine, no rain having fallen there for three years. But on the day on which St. Wilfrid first administered baptism with great solemnity to an incredible number of the nobility and people, abundant rains fell. The saint also taught the people to fish, which was a great relief to them. In the first essay they caught three hundred fishes, of which the saint induced them to give one hundred to the poor, and as many to those of whom they had borrowed their nets, keeping the like number for their own use. The king gave him land of eighty-seven families, on which he built two monasteries, Bosenham and Selsey, that is, Isle of the Sea-Calf. This latter place became an episcopal see, which was afterwards removed to Chichester. The saint sent a priest into the Isle of Wight, whither the faith had not penetrated, and he had the satisfaction to see all the inhabitant regenerated in the waters of life. Cadwalla, king of the West Saxons, to whom that island was then subject, sent for St. Wilfrid, and took his advice. The saint chiefly resided in the peninsula of Selsey, and cultivated this vineyard five years, till, upon the death of king Egfrid, he was called back into Northumberland. That prince was slain in battle by the Picts, whose country he had invaded in 685. As he left no issue, Alefrid, his natural brother, was sent for out of Ireland, whither he had retired, and a second time mounted the throne. St. Theodorus being above fourscore years of age, and seized with frequent fits of sickness, sent to St. Wilfrid, requesting that he would meet him at London, with Erchambald, bishop of that city. He confessed to them all the actions of his life; then said to St. Wilfrid: “The greatest remorse that I feel is, that I consented with the king to deprive you of your possessions, without any fault committed on your part. I confess this my crime to God and St. Peter; and I take them both to witness, that I will do all that lies in my power to make amends for my fault, and to reconcile you to all the kings and lords who are my friends. God hath revealed to me that I shall not live to the end of this year. I conjure you to consent that I may establish you in my lifetime archbishop of my see.” St. Wilfrid replied: “May God and St. Peter pardon you all our differences: I will always pray for you as your friend. Send letters to your friends, that they may restore to me part of my possessions, according to the decree of the holy see. The choice of a successor in your see will be afterwards considered in a proper assembly.” Pursuant to this engagement, St. Theodorus wrote to king Alcfrid, to Ethelred, king of the Mercians, to Elfleda, who had succeeded St. Hilda in the abbey of Streaneshalch, and others. Alcfrid having received these letters, recalled the holy bishop in the second year of his reign, towards the end of the year 686, and restored to him, first his monastery of Hexham, and soon after that of Rippon, and the episcopal see of York; Bosa of York, and St. John of Beverley, at Hexham, relinquishing their sees to him. Theodorus had first parcelled it into three, afterwards into five bishoprics, consecrating Tunbert to Hexham, and Trumwin to the diocess of the Southern Picts, subject to the kings of Northumberland, whose see was fixed at Wither . . . These bishops were holy men, well qualified for their ministry, and, in simplicity, took upon themselves a charge which their immediate superiors imposed upon them.
St. Wilfrid, after his restoration, reduced Hexham and Rippon to their original condition of mere monasteries; and St. Cuthbert, who had from the beginning sustained the episcopal charge only in obedience and by compulsion, retired to Farne upon St. Wilfrid’s return, and died there the following year, 687; so that St. Wilfrid was obliged to take upon him the care also of the diocese of Lindisfarne, till a new bishop could be chosen. The irreproachable conduct, the vigilancy, and the indefatigable zeal of our holy prelate ought to have stopped the mouths of his enemies; but these very virtues, which enraged the devil, raised new storms against him. King Alcfrid would have a new bishopric elected at Rippon: St. Wilfrid opposed the project, and was obliged once more to fly, in 691, five years after he had been restored. He retired to Ethelred, king of the Mercians, who received him most graciously, and entreated him to take upon himself the care of the see of Litchfield, which was then vacant. The good bishop’s discourses on the vanity of the world, and the infinite importance of salvation, made such an impression on the king, that, in hopes more easily to secure a happy eternity, he soon after relinquished his crown, and put on the monastic habit. Our saint founded many monasteries and churches in Mercia, and usefully employed there his labors; till, finding his enemies in Northumberland had gained Brithwald, archbishop of Canterbury, and were soliciting a sentence of deposition against him, he appealed a second time to Rome, and took another journey thither in 703. His accusers appeared there against him, but to their own confusion. Pope John VI. honorably acquitted the saint, who had in every thing proceeded according to the canons. His very enemies had always acknowledged his life to be irreproachable; and a bishop cannot be deposed unless a canonical fault be proved against him in a synod If it was necessary to divide his bishopric, this was not to be done without his concurrence, and withal reserving to him his own see; the authority at least not of some small consistory, but of a full provincial council, in the West also of the pope, and in the East of the patriarch of that part, ought to intervene, as many instances in France and other places long before that time, clearly show. Moreover, this persecution was raised by court envy, jealousy, and resentment. These were the instruments which conjured up the storm, and the secret springs which put in motion the engines that were employed against this servant of God through the simplicity or ignorance of many, the malice of some, and the complaisance and condescension of others. The holy prelate being the best skilled in sacred learning and in the canons of the church in all Britain, as St. Theodorus on his death-bed acknowledged him to be, was too great a disciplinarian for some at court. How pure his views were, and how remote from avarice and ambition, appeared from his charity towards his persecutors, the meekness with which he maintained the rights of his see, and the discipline of the church, and the humility and disinterestedness with which he refused the bishopric of the Mercians, and excused himself from acquiescing in the earnest request of St. Theodorus, when he desired to make him his coadjutor in the metropolitical see of Canterbury.* If he was rich, he knew no other use of what he possessed than to employ it in the foundation of churches, and in the relief of the poor. He rejoiced to see others share the fruits of his harvest; and though traversed in every advance that he made, he never threw away the laboring oar, or grew remiss in his ministry, or in quickening others to the utmost exertion of their zeal in the cause of God. Such a character appeared in the most shining light to all impartial judges, and St. Wilfrid met at Rome with that protection and applause which were due to his heroic virtue. Pope John VI., in 704, sent letters10 by an express messenger to the kings of Mercia and Northumberland in favor of the persecuted bishop, charging archbishop Brithwald to call a synod which should do him justice in default of which he ordered the parties to make their personal appearance at Rome.
St. Wilfrid, in his return, was taken dangerously ill at Meaux in France; under which distemper Bede relates11 that he was assured by a heavenly vision that Christ, through the intercession of his mother, the holy Virgin Mary, and at the prayers of his friends, had prolonged his life four years. When he landed in England, archbishop Brithwald promised him heartily to concur to his restoration to his former see. Ethelred, the late king of Mercia, then abbot of Bardney, received him with great joy, and warmly recommended him to his nephew Coënred, to whom he had resigned his crown when he forsook the world. Coënred was so inflamed with the love of heavenly things by the converse he had with the holy man, that he conceived a great desire also to renounce the world; which project he afterwards executed in the year 709, of his reign the fourth, when he travelled to Rome with Offa, king of the East-Saxons, and both put on the monastic habit, and, persevering with great fervor to their last hours, died happily in that city. Alcfrid, king of Northumberland, yet made difficulties; but died in 705, and, in his last sickness, repented of the injustice he had done to St. Wilfrid, as his sister Elfleda, abbess of Streaneshalch, gave testimony His restitution, therefore, was easily agreed to by the whole kingdom, under Osred, who being only eight years old, succeeded his father, Brithric being regent during his minority. St. Wilfrid took possession of the diocese of Hexham, but chiefly resided in his monastery of Rippon, leaving York to St. John of Beverley. He governed the monasteries in Mercia, of which he had been the founder, and which were afterwards destroyed by the Danes. He died at one of these at Undalum, now called Oundle, in Northamptonshire, on the 24th of April, 709, having divided his treasures between his monasteries, churches, and the former companions of his exile His body was buried in his church of St. Peter at Rippon.12 That monastery having been destroyed by the wars, the greatest part of his remains was translated to Canterbury in the time of St. Odo, and deposited under the high altar, in 959. They were enshrined by Lanfrane, and deposited on the north side of the altar by St. Anselm, on the 12th of October; the day of which translation became his principal festival. These relics are said now to repose near the monument of that truly great man cardinal Pole.
True virtue is always of a piece with itself, is always governed by the same principle, and always steers the same course. In prosperity it is humble, modest, and timorous; in adversity, magnanimous, and equally active and brave. To suffer from good men is often the severest of trials; but from whatever quarter persecution comes, it is our duty not to sink under it, but, sincerely humbling ourselves before both God and man, we must not be daunted, considering that on one side it is the part of cowards only to be pusillanimous, or to despair; and, on the other, it is arrogance and pride to fall into impatience, or to repay injuries with revenge, insults, or ill-will. St. Wilfrid saw the clouds gather, and ready to burst over his head; yet was undaunted. He never reviled his persecutors—never complained of the envy and malice of those who stirred up whole kingdoms against him. Envy died with him; and immediately the whole world gave due praise to the purity of his intentions, the ardor of his zeal for virtue and discipline, and the sanctity of his life. The historians of our nation unanimously conspire in paying a grateful tribute to his memory, which is consecrated in the Roman and other Martyrologies.
Our Lady of the Pillar
As summarized in the Angelus Press 1962 Daily Missal: "The Basilica of Our Lady of the Pillar in Saragossa is one of the most celebrated places of pilgrimage in Spain. Whilst praying there at the feet of the miraculous statue, the good Father Chaminade was apprised by divine revelation that he was destined to found the Society of Mary."
The following is taken from SalveMariaRegina.info:
Among the Twelve Apostles, three were chosen as the familiar companions of Our Blessed Lord, and of these St. James the Greater was one. He alone, together with St. Peter and his brother St. John, was admitted to the house of Jairus when the dead girl was raised to life. They alone were taken up to the high mountain apart, and saw the face of Jesus shining as the sun, and His garments white as snow; and these three alone witnessed His fearful agony in Gethsemane. What was it that won St. James a place among these three? Faith—burning, impetuous and outspoken, but which needed purifying before the "Son of Thunder" could proclaim the Gospel of Peace. It was St. James who demanded fire from Heaven to consume the inhospitable Samaritans, and who sought the place of honor next to Christ in His Kingdom. Yet Our Lord, in rebuking his presumption, prophesied his faithfulness to death. Indeed when St. James was brought before King Herod Agrippa, his fearless confession of Jesus Crucified so moved the public prosecutor that he declared himself a Christian on the spot. Accused and accuser were hurried off together to execution, and on the road the latter begged pardon of the Saint. The Apostle had long since forgiven him, but hesitated for a moment whether to publicly accept as a brother one still unbaptized. God quickly recalled to him the Church's Faith, that the blood of martyrdom supplies for every Sacrament, and embraced his companion with the words, "Peace be with thee." Together then they knelt for the sword, and together received the crown.
But before all this, in the years after the Ascension of Our Lord, all the solicitude of our great Mother and Lady was centered upon the increase and spread of the Holy Catholic Church, the consolation of the Apostles, disciples and the other faithful, and in defending them from the persecution and assaults prepared by the infernal dragon and his hosts. Before Our Blessed Lady departed from Jerusalem to take up her abode in Ephesus, She ordered and arranged many things, both by herself and her holy Angels, to provide for the needs of the Church in Her absence. The most effectual service She could render was Her continual prayer. She offered special prayers for St. James the Greater, as She knew this Apostle would be the first to shed his blood for Christ.
On the fourth day before leaving for Ephesus, Our Blessed Lady asked Our Lord: "Lord, what dost Thou command me to do? What dost Thou desire of me?" Repeating these words, She saw her Divine Son descending in Person, with all His court to visit Her. The humble and devout Virgin worshiped Him in deepest reverence from the inmost of Her purest soul. Our Lord replied to Her petition: "My most beloved Mother... I am attentive to Thy petitions and holy desires and they are pleasing to Me. I shall defend My Apostles and My Church, and I shall be their Father and Protector, so that It shall not be overcome, nor the gates of Hell prevail against It (Matt. 18:18). It is necessary for My glory that the Apostles labor and follow Me to the Cross and to the death I have suffered for the whole human race. The first one to imitate Me is My faithful servant, James, and I desire that he suffer martyrdom in this city of Jerusalem. I desire that thou go to Zaragoza, where he is now, and command him to return to Jerusalem. But before he leaves that city, he is to build a church in Thy name." After expressing her sincerest gratitude to her Divine Son, She asked that She be permitted to promise the special protection of Her Divine Son and that this sacred place shall be part of Her inheritance for the use of all who call with devotion upon Her Son's Holy Name, asking Her to intercede for them. Our Divine Lord promised His holy Mother that all She asked would be fulfilled according to Her will and power at this sacred Shrine.
Apparition of Our Lady of El Pilar
At the command of Our Lord, a great number of Angels placed Her on a throne formed by a resplendent cloud, and proclaimed Her Queen and Mistress of all creation. The purest Mother, borne by Seraphim and Angels, departed body and soul for Zaragoza in Spain. St. James was lost in exalted prayer when the Angels placed the throne of their Queen and Lady within sight of the Apostle and his disciples. The Angels bore with them a small column hewn of marble or jasper, and a small image of their Queen. Seated on Her throne on the cloud, She manifested herself to St. James. The Apostle prostrated himself and in deepest reverence venerated the Mother of his Creator and Redeemer. At the same time he was shown the image and the pillar in the hands of some of the Angels. The loving Queen gave him Her blessing and said, "My son James, this place, the Most High and Omnipotent God of Heaven has destined to be consecrated by thee upon earth for the erection of a church and house of prayer, where, under My patronage and name, He wishes to be glorified and magnified, where the treasures of His right hand shall be opened up for all the faithful through My intercession, if they ask for them in true faith and sincere piety. This column, with My image placed upon it, shall be a pledge of this truth and of My promise. In the church which thou shall build for Me, it shall remain and be preserved until the end of the world. Thou shalt immediately begin to build this church, and after thou hast completed it, thou shalt depart for Jerusalem."
At the Queen's command, the holy Angels set up the column, and upon it the sacred image, in the same place where they now stand. St. James, together with the holy Angels celebrated the first dedication of a Church instituted in this world under the name and title of the great Mistress of Heaven and earth. Our Apostle gave most humble thanks to his Blessed Mother Mary and asked for special protection of this Spanish kingdom, and particularly of this place consecrated to Her devotion and name. Our heavenly Mother granted him all his requests, gave him Her blessing, and was carried back to Jerusalem.
A multitude of miracles have been wrought at the Shrine of Our Lady of El Pilar, but the following stands pre-eminent both for splendor and authenticity. Let those who impugn the devotion to Our Blessed Lady know that it stands on record that by means of it a man recovered, at this Church in Zaragoza, one of his legs which had been amputated. His name was Miguel Juan Pellicer, aged at that time 19 years, and born at Calanda, a town of Aragon and the home of his parents. One day the young man, being in the service of his uncle, Diego (James) Blasco, at Castellon de la Plena, in Valencia, fell out of a wagon and broke his leg. He was taken to the hospital at Valencia, and after many remedies had been tried in vain, he was taken to the great hospital at Zaragoza, where he was placed under the care of Juan d'Estanga, a celebrated surgeon.
The young man had a great devotion to Our Lady of El Pilar, and when he was taken to Zaragoza, he first received the Sacraments at Her Church. When the surgeon was obliged to amputate his leg—a finger's breadth below the knee—Miguel invoked the Blessed Virgin with great fervor. When the wound had begun to heal, he dragged himself to Her image to offer up thanks and place his whole life in Her hands; and when, afterwards, he suffered intense pain in the sore limb, he used to go to the Church of El Pilar and anoint the stump with the oil from one of the lamps which burned before Her. He did this consistently, and for two years was known by everybody to frequent the Church of Our Blessed Lady, sometimes imploring Her aid, sometimes begging the charity of the passers-by.
Miracle of Calanda
In 1640 he returned to Calanda, and used to beg for his support. On March 29, 1641, after having exhausted himself cutting grass, he hung up his wooden leg, and went to bed. Later that night his mother entered his room, and was amazed to see two feet in her son's bed. At first she thought one of the soldiers quartered in the town had got into the house, and ran to tell her husband. But when Miguel's father arrived, he saw it was his son, and awoke him. The son cried out on awakening, "I dreamt that I was in the chapel of Our Lady of El Pilar, where I was anointing my stump with the oil of the lamp!" The father instantly answered, "Give thanks to God, my son. His Holy Mother has restored you your leg." Miguel did not know it till then.
News of the event immediately spread all over the town, and the same night all the inhabitants came to witness the miracle. The next day a large crowd accompanied him to the church to render thanks, and all beheld him with two legs, who, the day before, was known to have but one. The young man was conducted to Zaragoza, and judicially examined. An advocate was named, witnesses were examined, the question was debated, and at length, on April 27, 1641, the most illustrious Lord Pedro Apaolara, Archbishop of Zaragoza, pronounced that the fact was true, and that it surpassed all natural powers. The verdict was also signed by the Prior of St. Cristina, the Vicar-General, the Archdeacon, the senior professor of canon law, and several other professors and provincials of Religious Orders.
To these testimonies may be added that of Jerónimo Brizius (quoted by the Bollandists in Acta Sanctorum, vi, p. 118), who made the following declaration: "By order of Sr. Gabriel de Aldamas, Vicar-General of Madrid, I have read the publication regarding the astounding miracle wrought by Our Lady of El Pilar. I know that it is true. In the first place, I knew the young man at Zaragoza, where, deprived of one leg, he used to ask alms at the door of the Church of the Virgin; and I afterwards saw him at Madrid, whence His Majesty had sent for him, walking on his two feet. I saw the mark which the Blessed Virgin left to attest to the incision; and the other Fathers of this royal College of the Society of Jesus saw it, like myself. I knew the parents of the young man, who were assisted by the Canons of Our Lady of El Pilar. I also knew the surgeon who made the amputation. Dated, Madrid, at the College of the Society of Jesus, March 12, 1642."
Collect of St Wilfrid of York, Bishop & Confessor ~ Indulgenced on the Saint's Feast (See Note)
According to the Apostolic Penitentiary, a partial indulgence is granted to those who on the feast of any Saint recite in his honour the oration of the Missal or any other approved by legitimate Authority.
.jpeg)
Let us pray
Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty God, that the reverend solemnity of Blessed Wilfrid, Thy Confessor & Bishop, may both increase our devotion and set forward our salvation.
Collect of St Edwin, King & Martyr ~ Indulgenced on the Saint's Feast (See Note)
According to the Apostolic Penitentiary, a partial indulgence is granted to those who on the feast of any Saint recite in his honour the oration of the Missal or any other approved by legitimate Authority.
.jpg)
Let us pray.
Grant, we beseech Thee, almighty God: that the venerable feast of Blessed Edwin, Thy Martyr, may through his intercession be strengthened in love of Thy Name.
11 October 2024
Collect of Our Lady of the Pillar ~ Indulgenced on the Feast (See Note)
According to the Apostolic Penitentiary, a partial indulgence is granted to those who on the feast of any Saint recite in his honour the oration of the Missal or any other approved by legitimate Authority.
.jpg)
Let us pray
Almighty and eternal God, who in the most glorious Mother of Thy Son hast wondrously given us a heavenly protectress, mercifully grant us perpetual protection through her aid whom we devoutly honour under the special title of Our Lady of the Pillar.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, a Spiritual Note: One of the "Guardian Angels" of Archbishop Lefebvre
.jpeg)
Christopher Dawson: Wielding the Sword of the Spirit
'Christopher Dawson set himself the task of surveying the history of Western Civilization in the light of a master-idea: that religion is the dynamic force, the basic constituent and the inspiration of all higher human activity, and that therefore the culture of an era depends upon its religion.'
From The Imaginative Conservative
By Bradley J. Birzer, PhD
Christopher Dawson set himself the task of surveying the history of Western Civilization in the light of a master-idea: that religion is the dynamic force, the basic constituent and the inspiration of all higher human activity, and that therefore the culture of an era depends upon its religion.
Looking back over the vast ruins and wastelands of the twentieth century, one can find many exemplars of the human condition, many of them devout Roman Catholics who understood clearly that when man forgets God, the killing fields begin. One of the most important Roman Catholic converts of the past century, Christopher Dawson, may have been arguably the historian of the twentieth century. While the claim may at first seem extreme, there is every reason to at least make him a viable contender.
Reared in an upper middle-class Protestant family, Mr. Dawson first learned to respect the Roman Catholic church from his father, an open-minded and intellectually-oriented British army officer. Other important influences on Mr. Dawson’s eventual conversion to Roman Catholicism were St. Augustine, from whom Mr. Dawson derived many of his most original thoughts; John Henry Newman; the lives of the saints and mystics; his wife (a cradle Catholic); and his closest friend, E.I. Watkin. Perhaps equally important, on Easter 1909, Mr. Dawson had a profound religious experience while visiting, of all places, Rome:
Looking back on that Easter day in 1909 Christopher remembered that he went to visit this church and sat on the steps of the Capitol in the same place where Gibbon had been inspired to write The Decline and Fall and it was there that he first conceived the idea of writing a history of culture. An entry in his journal later that year refers to ‘a vow made at Easter in the Ara Coeli’ and stated that he had since ‘had great light on the way it may be carried out. However unfit I may be (he wrote) I believe it is God’s will I should attempt it.’1
On the Feast of the Epiphany, 1914, Mr. Dawson entered the Church and became its greatest historian for the remainder of his life.2
Mr. Dawson was deemed too sickly to fight in the First World War, and he served in the civil service, aiding the war effort. For the next fourteen years, Mr. Dawson read as widely and as deeply as possible, preparing for a writing career as a historian. His reading paid off, as all of Mr. Dawson’s numerous writings carry with them a feeling of extreme depth, historical insight, and wisdom.3 He also wrote with verve and purpose. As the Second World War took shape, Christopher Dawson wrote:
It is here that Catholics have a special responsibility. They are not involved in the immediate issues of the conflict in the same way as are the political parties, for they belong to a supranational spiritual society, which is more organically united than any political body which possesses an autonomous body of principles and doctrines on which to base their judgements. Moreover, they have a historical mission to maintain and strengthen the unity of Western culture which had its roots in Christendom against the destructive forces which are attempting its total subversion. They are the heirs and successors of the makers of Europe—the men who saved civilization from perishing in the storm of barbarian invasion and who built the bridge between the ancient and modern worlds.4
And, Mr. Dawson argued, even if the forces for Christendom fail, they will still serve a vital purpose:
Any Catholic who is intellectually alive and is at the same time obviously convinced of the truth of his religion administers a shock to their preconceived ideas. He is not likely to convert them, but he shakes their confidence in the inevitability of the secularist outlook and in the stupidity of the religious view of life.5
Christopher Dawson did that and more.
Religion, The Basis of All Culture
One of Christopher Dawson’s greatest contributions to intellectual thought was his understanding of the rise and meaning of cultures. In one of his last books, Mr. Dawson wrote:
Culture, as its name denotes, is an artificial product. It is like a city that has been built up laboriously by the work of successive generations, not a jungle which has grown up spontaneously by the blind pressure of natural forces. It is the essence of culture that it is communicated and acquired, and although it is inherited by one generation from another, it is a social not a biological inheritance, a tradition of learning, an accumulated capital of knowledge and a community of ‘folkways’ into which the individual has to be initiated.(3)
Ultimately, then, culture came from the cultus, the group of people, usually based on kinship, who banded together to worship the same deity or deities. Once a common worship and understanding of theology had developed or been discovered, a culture developed. From the culture, then, derived economics, politics, and law. American man of letters, Russell Kirk, significantly influenced by Mr. Dawson, explained it well:
From what source did humankind’s many cultures arise? Why, from cults. A cult is a joining together for worship—that is, the attempt of people to commune with a transcendent power. It is from association in the cult, the body of worshipers, that community grows…. Once people are joined in a cult, cooperation in many other things becomes possible. Common defense, irrigation, systematic agriculture, architecture, the visual arts, music, the more intricate crafts, economic production and distribution, courts and government—all these aspects of a culture arise gradually from the cult, the religious tie.6
Consequently, a loss of religious faith results in the eventual destruction of the culture. Though, as T.S. Eliot argued, such decline may be slow in coming. “A culture may linger on,” Mr. Eliot wrote in his Notes Towards the Definition of Culture, “and indeed produce some of its most brilliant artistic and other successes after the religious faith has fallen into decay.”7
The implications of Mr. Dawson’s understanding of culture are nothing short of profound. For if one is to change society, he or she must do so by changing the culture. To attempt to change society through law, economics, or politics will ultimately prove futile, as these things are merely manifestations of a particular culture, itself, at least originally, based on the cultus. Equally impossible would be to change the fountainhead of the culture, God, for He is movable by His Will alone. Hence, all true reform comes from a reordering of the culture, not from man-made ideologies, which Mr. Dawson rightly recognized as secular religions. The new totalitarianism—found in 1939 Germany, Italy, and Russia—is “more like a Church than a State, since its membership is based on the profession of a creed or ideology and on faith in the gospel of the leader rather than on citizenship.”8
The Importance of Medieval Culture
When Christopher Dawson was a youth, the best historians had discounted the significance of the Middle Ages, the one era that better than any other proved the necessity of religion and deep traditions underlying culture. Two factors seem to have accounted for this. First, there were no nations during Christendom and scholars failed to understand this effectively. In the early twentieth century, a world without nations must have seemed utterly perplexing, alien, and chaotic. Nations, according to the prevailing thought of the early 1900s, were the means by which peoples manifested their will and secured their rights. To be without nations must mean oppression of the will and rights of the people, the thought ran. Second, most historians in the English-speaking world were Protestants or secularists and viewed pre-Renaissance Europe as simply dark or barbaric. Men who had written on the middle ages in a positive light, such as G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, Mr. Dawson believed, had gone too far in their praise. Scholars, consequently, had dismissed their arguments as overblown propaganda for the Roman Catholic Church.9
Through careful scholarship, Christopher Dawson proved that right or wrong, good or bad, medieval culture made Europe, and religion could not be separated from it. From its very beginning, Europe relied on the medieval synthesis of the classical, the Christian, and the barbaric. The Church inherited “all the riches of the Gentiles, Greek philosophy and Roman law, Oriental mysticism and Western humanism,” Christopher Dawson wrote, sanctifying them “in its own tradition while preserving its spiritual identity and the transcendent authority of its supernatural mission.”10
St. Augustine, for example, had written the handbook for life in the middle ages with the City of God. In it, he had sanctified the pagan work of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero, making it Christian, thus continuing the continuity of the ancient into the medieval. And, perhaps more than anyone medieval, St. Boniface, an Anglo-Saxon priest, took the classical and Christian synthesis to the German barbarians.
The work of St. Boniface did more than any other fact to lay the foundations of medieval Christendom. His mission to Germany was not an isolated spiritual adventure like the achievements of his Celtic predecessors; it was part of a far-sighted program of construction and reform planned with all the method and statesmanship of the Roman tradition. It involved a triple alliance between the Anglo-Saxon missionaries, the Papacy, and the family of Charles Martel, the de facto rulers of the Frankish kingdom, out of which the Carolingian Empire and the Carolingian culture ultimately emerged.11
The resilience of the middle ages also fascinated Mr. Dawson, as the barbarians continued to attack long after the necessary work of St. Boniface. The monasteries best embodied the virtue of fortitude for medieval culture.
Ninety-nine out of a hundred monasteries could be burnt and the monks killed or driven out, and yet the whole tradition could be reconstituted from the one survivor, and the desolate sites could be repeopled by fresh supplies of monks who would take up again the broken tradition, following the same rule, singing the same liturgy, reading the same books, and thinking the same thoughts as their predecessors.12
Far from being oppressive, the medieval period witnessed the protection of liberties, the promotion of virtue in society, and a delicate political balance between church and state, pope and council, king and parliament. Citing Erasmus, Mr. Dawson labeled Christendom the Christiana Res publica.
The Rise of Nationalism
The latent nationalism of the barbarian tribes who had settled Europe always served as an internal threat to the foundations of Christendom. The church, common academic language, and common culture did much to attenuate the latent nationalism. Inklings of nationalism arose, however, in France as early as 1302 and especially in post-Reconquest Spain in the late fifteenth century. But, nationalism did not emerge full-blown until Martin Luther’s revolt against the Church in the early sixteenth century, as the barbarian “spirit of the old gods was imperfectly exorcised by the sword and…has continued to haunt the background of the German mind.”13 Following the examples of the proto-nationalists of the previous centuries—restless souls such as John Wycliffe and Jan Hus—Luther more than any other figure of his age “embodies the revolt of the awakening German national spirit.”14 Like all nationalists, Luther rejected the profound depth and intricacies of Christendom–its culture and polycentric political system–and de-intellectualized “the Catholic tradition,” Mr. Dawson explained. “He took St. Paul without his Hellenism, and St. Augustine without his Platonism.”15
The French Revolution and its introduction of the infection of ideologies into the world, a disease that has yet to end, first successfully mixed nationalism and ideology. Indeed, more than any other event, the French Revolution demonstrated the need for an ideology—a pseudo-religion, created by the mind of man, rather than historically uncovered through and across the generations—to unify linguistically, culturally, and biologically diverse peoples around a central nation-state. The results, though, have been devastating, as the mix of nationalisms and ideologies has unleashed “the powers of the abyss—the dark forces that have been chained by a thousand years of Christian civilization and which have now been set free to conquer the world,” Mr. Dawson believed. “For the will to power is also the will to destruction, and in the last event it becomes the will to self-destruction.”16 Or, as Mr. Dawson bravely stated at a peace conference in Italy, just prior to World War II, with Hermann Goering attending as the German representative, “The relatively benign nationalism of the early Romantics paved the way for the fanaticism of the modern pan-racial theorists who subordinate civilization to skull measurements and who infuse an element of racial hatred into the political and economic rivalries of European peoples.”17 Certainly, the vast killing fields of the twentieth-century ideological terror regimes has proven Mr. Dawson’s analysis correct.
The Holy Spirit: The True Conclusion
Ultimately, the Church—as the only historical entity that transcends nationalisms and ideologies—must use its intellectual strength to combat, attenuate, or destroy that which was loosed from the abyss. “It is, therefore, the duty of those elements in Western Society that still possess a principle of spiritual unity to rally the divided forces of our civilization,” Christopher Dawson argued.18 Because of this, Mr. Dawson had great hopes for the future of the West and the world. The whole history of Christianity has been one of constant reform and renewal, he knew. Just as the human person is born anew in Christ through baptism and sanctification, so too can culture be reclaimed and remade for Christ. Often, though, the impetus for renewal will come from specific persons:
I should say that no people has ever been converted to Christianity by a learned apologetic or by mysticism, important as these things are. The great examples of Christian evangelization are St. Paul’s apostolate in Asia Minor and Greece, St. Francis Xavier and his successors in Japan, and perhaps St. Patrick in Ireland. In all these cases it is a very simple type of evangelism, joined with miracles and works of mercy…. It is of course simply a question of spiritual dynamism: Where there is direct spiritual communication through a saint or an evangelist, you always find results, but where it is a matter of routine organizations and activities, you do not.19
Mr. Dawson’s other examples, as mentioned earlier, were St. Augustine and St. Boniface. Always, though, the initial prompting and guidance for renewal comes from the Holy Spirit, through the Church. The evils of ideologies and nationalisms “are powerless against the Spirit who is the Lord and Giver of Life,” Mr. Dawson wrote.20 But, he cautioned, “whenever Catholics cease to be active, when they rest in a passive acquiescence in what they have received, Catholicism tends to lose contact with contemporary culture and the world drifts away from the Church.”21
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, any one with a religious inkling cannot read the English historian’s vast corpus of works without recognizing that the Spirit animated him as well. Indeed, only the Spirit can gift someone to extent that Mr. Dawson enjoyed and used his gifts for the Christiana Res Publica. “A Christian has only to be in order to change the world, for in that very act of being there is contained all the mystery of divine life.”22 God willing, future historians, philosophers, and theologians will also recognize Mr. Dawson as one of the most vital voices in the Catholic Renaissance of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, using his words to understand culture, Christendom, and the man-centered follies of nationalism and ideology.
This essay first appeared here in July, 2014. We highly recommend Dr. Birzer’s Sanctifying the World: The Augustinian Life and Mind of Christopher Dawson.
Notes:
1 Christina Scott, A Historian and His World: A Life of Christopher Dawson (1984; New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, 1992), 49
2 Scott, A Historian and His World, 62-65; and Gleaves Whitney, “Can Western Civilization Survive the 21st Century?: Some Dawsonian Considerations,” paper delivered April 24, 1999, Philadelphia Society Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, Penn. See also Joseph Pearce, Literary Converts (San Francisco, Calif.: Ignatius Press, 1999).
3 Perhaps this says more about the present author than Mr. Dawson, but while reading through his personal correspondence, the sheer depth and breadth of his understanding of humanity and history overwhelmed me, and I had to leave the archives for some fresh air.
4 Dawson, “Editorial Note,” The Dublin Review (July 1940), 1.
5 Dawson, The Crisis of Western Education (1961; Steubenville: Franciscan University of Ohio Press, 1989), 176.
6 Russell Kirk, Redeeming the Time, ed. Jeffrey O. Nelson (Wilmington, Del.: ISI Books, 1996), 7.
7 T.S. Eliot, Christianity and Culture (New York: Harvest, 1976), 102.
8 Dawson, “The New Community,” The Tablet, 7 January 1939, 6.
9 Scott, A Historian and His World, 95-7.
10 Dawson, “The Real Issue,” Colosseum 1 (1934): 28.
11 Dawson, Religion and the Rise of Western Culture, 62. For more on St. Boniface from Dawson, see Christopher Dawson, The Making of Europe: An Introduction to the History of European Unity (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1934), 210-11. See also, Letters of St. Boniface (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000); and Thomas F.X. Noble, ed., Soldiers of Christ: Saints and Saints’ Lives from Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995).
12 Dawson, Religion and the Rise of Western Culture, 66.
13 Dawson, The Judgment of the Nations (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1942), 30.
14 Dawson, Progress and Religion: An Historical Inquiry (1929; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University Press, 2001), 142.
15 Dawson, Progress and Religion, 142. See also Dawson, Progress and Religion, 142; and Dawson, The Dividing of Christendom (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1965).
16 Dawson, Judgment of the Nations, 8.
17 Quoted in Scott, A Historian and His World, 106.
18 Dawson, “Editorial Note,” 2.
19 Dawson to Mulloy, 30-31 December 1956, Folder 9; Dawson Letters 1957, University of Notre Dame Archives, Notre Dame, Indiana.
20 Dawson, Judgment of the Nations, 222.
21 Dawson, “The Real Issue,” 28.
22 Dawson, Christianity and the New Age (1931; Manchester, N.H.: Sophia Institute Press, 1988), 103.
The featured image is courtesy of Pixabay.