Dante Died 696 Years Ago Today

Dante's Tomb, Ravenna

"L'altissimo poeta" (the most exalted poet) died on the evening of September 13th, 1321 - 696 years ago this evening. On such an occasion, it is interesting to reflect on Dante's thoughts about earthly fame.

The most striking conversation Dante has on this subject is with his old teacher, Brunetto Latini.

Dante, upon seeing Latini cries out,

Still in my heart stays, memory's dear inmate,
The fatherly kind image, paining now,
Of you, when in the world, early and late,
You taught me how man may eternal grow. (Inferno 15. 82-85*)

The pupil has learned well from his master. Latini implores Dante to remember his greatest literary work,

Let my Treasure, in which I still live on,
be in your mind, I ask for nothing more. (Inferno 15.119-120**)

The irony, of course, is all in the location.

This conversation takes place in the seventh ring of Hell. Latini speaks as he, naked, runs across burning sands with fire raining down upon him.

Later, in Purgatorio, Dante's idea of earthly fame via art is corrected by the great manuscript illustrator, Oderisi da Gubbio.

O idle glory of all human dower!
How a short a time, save a dull age succeed,
Its flourishing flesh greenness doth devour!

(the "dull age" following the collapse of the Roman Empire being the reason the poets of antiquity are still remembered.) 

In painting Cimabue thought indeed
To hold the field; now Giotto has the cry,
So that the fame of the other few now heed.
So our tongue's glory from one Guido by
The other is taken; and from their nest of fame
Perchance is born one who shall make both fly.
Naught but a wind's breath is the world's acclaim (11.91-100*)

Or, in Hollander's more sober translation,

Worldly fame is nothing but a gust of wind 

Dante, of course, is the "one who shall make" the " Guido's" (Guinizelli & Calvacanti - both poets) "fly".

Oderisi is correcting Latini's error. He teaches Dante, and Dante teaches us, how futile Latini's hopes are (and who among you have ever read, or even heard of, Latini's Treasure?). Fame, and particularly artistic fame is something that rarely lasts and isn't worth pursuing.

Ironically, here we are, remembering one artist nearly seven centuries after his death. Has the last seven hundred years been another "dull age" or is Dante the exception to his own rule?

I'll let you decide.

------------------------
* Laurence Binyon translation
** Robert & Jean Hollander translation

Does Galileo Prove the Church Hates Science?

Galileo. The mere sounding of those four syllables are supposed to immediately and forever end any idea that religion, especially Roman Catholicism, is anything but an eternal enemy of reason and science. The Church viciously tortured, imprisoned, and would have killed Galileo just for saying that the Earth moves around the sun (which is so obviously true!) Ha. Stupid, bigoted Catholics. Or so the story is supposed to go. Of course, the reality is far more interesting, complex, and doesn't cast the Church in the role of the persecutor of science, but to anti-Catholic secularists (and Protestants) those facts are not known. Let's take a closer look at the "Galileo Controversy" today with my latest on Catholic365.com,

One absurd, yet frequently recited, attack on the Catholic Church is its supposed hostility toward science. Science, so say promoters of this view, is opposed to religion which is nothing more than a pre-scientific way of viewing the world. When asked to produce evidence of the incompatibility of science and the Holy Catholic Faith one name and one name alone is ever produced as evidence, Galileo Galilei.... 

Read the whole thing THERE

Are You Ready? Join Me For the Second Annual Charlemagne Holy Week Lenten Challenge!

Long time readers of the blog will remember the Charlemagne Holy Week Lenten Challenge I issued last year, and re-issued on Friday. As a rebellion against the laxness many of us modern Catholics have when it comes to "mortifying the flesh" and inspired by the heroic sacrifices of our Catholic forefathers from the Middle Ages, we'll be sacrificing more than just chocolate or coffee for one week. The actual challenge is exceedingly simple (if difficult):

1) No meat
2) No eating until nightfall (or at least until "the seventh hour," i.e. noon). 

Carolus Magnus "Charlemagne"

As each Sunday is a "little Easter," today really marks the absolute beginning of our feast (so don't let missing yesterday, or even already having eaten breakfast this morning stop you from joining us. It's never too late!) For those not entirely inspired to jump onto the fasting bandwagon, let St. Josemaría Escrivá encourage you with some profound words from the Twentieth century (mortification isn't something we left behind in the Middle Ages!)

St. Josemariá makes a powerful, and to many today perhaps surprising, observation on the spiritual life, "unless you mortify yourself you'll never be a prayerful soul." (The Way, 172). Why, we might be tempted to ask. St. Josemariá answers, "no ideal becomes a reality without sacrifice. Deny yourself. It is so beautiful to be a victim!" (The Way, 175). This truth is a meditation on the very teaching of Christ, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me." (Lk 9:23) Which leads St. Josemariá to remark, "don't complain if you suffer . It is the prized and valued stone that is polished." (Furrow, 235). Why is self imposed suffering, i.e. mortification, so aidful to the Christian faithful? Because it is the most effective way of battling what St. Paul called "sarx" (the flesh). "The body must be given a little less than it needs. Otherwise it will turn traitor." (The Way, 196). 

Don't allow your body to "turn traitor," to be a Judas. Discipline it. Bring it firmly under the control of your spirit. Remember, the three things that war against us are the devil, the world, and the flesh. Fasting is one of the primary ways of battling the last of these. It is a way of taking charge of our bodies, bodies that once were completely docile to the spirit, but, thanks to the stain of original sin, are now all too frequently in rebellion against it. Purity, which is at the heart of holiness (which itself is the reason for which we exist) is something that primarily concerns man deep in his "heart" (cf. Matt 5:8). Man, however, being a psychosomatic (body-soul) unity (contra the gnostics and their Cartesian and "new age" modern followers), can only achieve inner-purity, inner holiness, by taming the passions that afflict his body. St. John Paul the Great made clear the absolute importance of being interiorly pure,

It is the purity of the "man of concupiscence," who is nevertheless inspired by the word of the Gospel and open to "life according to the Spirit" (in conformity with St. Paul's words), that is, by the "redemption of the body" achieved by Christ. This is precisely why we find in the words of the Sermon on the Mount the appeal to the "heart," that is, to the inner man. The inner man must open himself to life according to the Spirit, in order to share in evangelical purity of heart: in order to find again and realize the value of the body, freed by redemption from the bonds of concupiscence. (General Audience, April 1, 1981)

This inner "evangelical purity of heart" can be achieved only when we decide to war against the natural, postlapsarian, tendency to allow the servant (i.e. the body) control the master (i.e. the spirit). Fasting, as our Medieval ancestors, St. Josemaría, and St. John Paul the Great all well knew is one way to right this situation.

With that encouragement, I invite you to begin today to venture with us this week in mastering ourselves with our Charlemagne inspired fast.

Charlemagne Holy Week Lenten Challenge!

WHO WAS CHARLEMAGNE?
You are probably familiar with the name of the first Holy Roman Emperor, Charlemagne. He was the greatest of the medieval kings, the first man to be crowned a Roman Emperor (on Christmas Day, AD 800) in the west since Romulus Augustulus was deposed by the barbarian Odoacer, King of the Goths, in the late fifth century. Charlemagne, or Carolus Magnus "Charles the Great", nearly single-handedly dragged Europe back from the brink of cultural collapse by largely unifying post-Roman Europe, supporting the Holy Catholic Church, and patronizing learning and the arts. His reign launched what has since been called the "Carolingian Renaissance."

WHAT DOES CHARLEMAGNE HAVE TO DO WITH LENT?
I'd like to take a moment to look at how seriously this great emperor took the season of Lent, in the hopes that we can be inspired by his example. To this end, we're going to look at a few passages written by Notker the Stammerer, a contemporary of Charlemagne. As you read these brief passages, think to yourself, if an emperor, a man who can have anything he wants at the mere snap of his fingers, a man who ruled most of Europe, took Lent with such seriousness, how can I redouble my efforts here in the last weeks of this Lent.

Charlemagne... had the habit of eating at the seventh hour in Lent, that is after Mass had been celebrated and after evening lauds.By doing so he was not breaking the fast, but was obeying the Lord's command by taking food an hour before the time. (Charlemagne, Notker the Stammerer)

Charlemagne, Emperor of the Romans

Here we learn that Charlemagne would fast from the time he rose in the morning until "the seventh hour", about noon, every day during Lent. This would be a mighty fast for us moderns, but Charlemagne was actually accused by a bishop for being too lax, for breaking the fast before nightfall. Charlemagne, enraged at being dressed down by this bishop devised a particular means of proving a point

'My worthy bishop, he (Charlemagne) answered, 'you have been within your rights to criticize me. In return, I order you to eat nothing yourself until the last of the officials who belong to my court here has been fed.' (Charlemagne, Notker the Stammerer)

 At Charlemagne's court kings, princes, dukes, and various servants gathered to eat with their ruler. The meal was served out by rank, with the higher ranking noblemen eating first. Of course, the emperor ate first. Even with Charlemagne breaking the fast earlier than nightfall, the last man served (the bishop who rebuked him) wasn't fed until after midnight. Thus, as the bishop painfully learned, the emperor only ate while the sun was up to make sure the least in his court would be able to eat before the days end. Again, this was a fast every day for all of Lent and was observed on top of abstaining, again everyday for all of Lent, from meat. This later observance was so important to Charlemagne that he required it to be observed in his famous Capitulary on Saxony (AD 785):

4. If any one, out of contempt for Christianity, shall have despised the holy Lenten fast and shall have eaten flesh, let him be punished by death. But, nevertheless, let it be taken into consideration by a priest, lest perchance any one from necessity has been led to eat flesh.

 While we might at first react with shock at the severity of the penalty, we have to keep in mind that this was the eighth century when use of capital punishment was widely applied to serious offenses due to a lack of other means of punishment (there were no prisons, after all). Lesser offenses were punished with fines. We will also want to keep in mind that Charlemagne was in the process of converting the Saxons from paganism and laws like these were put in place to aid this process. In fact, once the initial shock of the punishment subsides, we might be more surprised at how Charlemagne put two protections into his law. First, to be punishable, the fast had to be ignored "out of contempt for Christianity" and second, the case had to go before a priest to make sure the fast wasn't broken out of necessity.

Nonetheless, there can be little doubt that both Charlemagne and his subjects took Lent with great seriousness.

Coronation of Charlemagne, Christmas Day AD 800

THE CHALLENGE
And so, in the spirit of our heroic Catholic forefathers, I'm issuing a Lenten Challenge to my fellow modern Catholics, let's observe the old time fast for just Holy Week. We'll make it simple and just follow two rules:

1) No meat
2) No eating before nightfall (or at least until "the seventh hour" - noon)

Charlemagne and his fellow eighth century Catholics kept this fast for all of Lent (and abstained from other foods besides). Our challenge is just one week. What do you think?

It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God. (Matt 4:4)

"A Mass, a Mass, My Kingdom for a Mass!" - Richard III Finally Receives His Due

Yesterday, on the Feast of the Annunciation (the day our Lord become Flesh and dwelt among us), King Richard III of England received the requiem Mass (in Latin) that he would have wanted had he not been betrayed by the usurper Henry Tudor (father of the arch-schismatic Henry VIII).  As we've been following this story (HERE), I thought it would be well to report the happy news. From Catholic News Agency,

Nottingham, England, Mar 25, 2015 / 02:25 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- In preparation for the reinternment of the remains of Richard III, a 15th century English king whose body was only recently rediscovered, Cardinal Vincent Nichols of Westminster has offered Compline and a Requiem Mass for the late monarch....Cardinal Nichols noted Richard's achievements, including a development of the presumption of innocence, the concept of blind justice, the practice of granting bail, and translating laws into the vernacular, while adding that “nevertheless his reign was marked by unrest and the fatal seepage of loyalty and support.”... He recalled Richard as a man of prayer and “anxious devotion,” who composed a surviving prayer and established chapels....Cardinal Nichols remarked during his homily that “during this week, Mass is being offered in many Catholic Churches for the repose of the soul of King Richard III. Rightly so. That is exactly what he would have wished, having himself set up at least one chantry chapel for Masses to be celebrated for the dead of both sides of the Battle of Towton in 1461.”

The whole article, Catholics in England gather to pray for Richard III, one of their own, is well worth reading. Cardinal Nichols had some very powerful things to say. 

Say what you will about Richard, whose image in the popular conscience is entirely shaped by Shakespeare's great play (people do still read Shakespeare, don't they?), he seems, by all accounts, to have been a faithful Catholic, if a flawed leader of men. Whether or not England would have abandoned the ancient and Holy Faith under the house of York as it would under the usurping House of Tudor is unknowable. However, the lack of respect for the legitimate and lawful spiritual power (The Pope) by Henry VIII is surely reflected in, and maybe would be unthinkable without, the lack of respect for the legitimate and lawful temporal power (Richard III) by Henry VII. What our world (and indeed our country) would look like with a Catholic England is something left for the imagination of a Newt Gingrich "what-if" book. We are instead left to deal with the challenge of reestablishing the Holy Faith in England (which is moving along well, as accounts of more Catholics at Mass than Anglicans at "service" on any given Sunday show).

Please join me in praying for Richard's soul in word's he would have well known himself,

Requiem aeternam dona ei DomineEt lux perpetua luceat eiRequiescat in pace.

Rest in peace.

7 Reasons All Christians Should Confess to a Priest

Recently, in the comment section of a Catholic News Agency story on the Sacrament of Confession (or penance, or reconciliation), we Catholics were treated to a nonsensical rant by a Protestant against Confession. Confessions, according to this man, were only ever to be made "silently" in "one's heart" and only to Jesus. The comment got me thinking a bit about this Sacrament and I thought I'd share a few of those thoughts here.

1) Christianity isn't Gnosticism
The early Church struggled with a group of heretics, known as the gnostics, who wanted to bifurcate between spirit (good) and matter (bad). The gnostics (and the Manichees, the Cathars, the Protestants, and most other heretical groups in the Church's history) couldn't get over just how physical Christianity is. Wouldn't a religion of "spirit," a religion neatly contained in one's head and one's heart, a religion of thoughts and ideas and ideals, be preferable to the meaty, physical, material religion of orthodox, historical Christianity (i.e. Catholicism)? So heretics have always been, and still are, tempted to reason. God, however, rather likes matter - He created it after all. Men aren't and (sorry New Agers) never will be angels. We are made to be a psychosomatic unity, a unity of matter and spirit, unlike any other creature. We are, as Dr. Peter Kreeft likes to point out, the stupidest spiritual beings and the most intelligent animals. We're in the middle. God, who made us this way precisely to be able to offer up the praise and worship (like angels can) on behalf of creation (the material world), refuses to treat us as if we were merely another animal (sorry Dawkins and company) or an angel temporarily "trapped" in a body (sorry Cartesians). Thus God, knowing us better than we know ourselves, ministers His grace (for our spiritual nature) through material things (for our corporeal nature). Jesus really wants us to physically eat His Flesh in the Eucharist, the laying on of hands really leaves a mark on the soul of the priest, the water and baptismal formula really takes away original (and all) sin. These aren't mere outward symbols, but the means of grace. Confession is no different. God hasn't established a "spiritual only" way for the forgiveness of post-baptismal sins, but a psychosomatic way. We need to physically confess our sins, aloud, to a minister of the Body of Christ, the Church, and we need even more to physically  hear the words of absolution. Spirit-and-matter working together for our salvation, that is how God made us to work. Indeed, it is how Jesus saved us. He didn't descend from on High in a merely spiritual way. He came with a real physical presence, a real fleshly Body, born of a real woman, died a real physical death, and rose again, not in some vague "spiritual way," (sorry modernists) but in the Flesh. The Sacraments simply continue the pattern set by Jesus. We should expect nothing less.

2) Confession to a Priest is Biblical
Jesus, in the Bible, clearly gives His authority and His power to forgive sins to the first ministers of His Church. In John 20:22-23 we read,

He breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgive; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Note, Jesus doesn't say, "anyone who believes the Gospel is automatically forgiven any sin, so don't worry about sins, only preach the Word." He also doesn't say, "have everyone confess their sins silently in their hearts to me alone and I will forgive them or not." He is quite clear that the person who will decide whether or not a sinner receives the forgiveness He won on the Cross will be the ministers of His Church, the Apostles and their successors.

In case their be any doubt on this point, on whether confessions are to be silent and to Jesus only or whether they ought to be aloud to members of the Church, St. James writes,

Therefore confess your sins to each other... so that you may be healed. (5:16)

Again you'll note, the Bible doesn't say "confess your sins silently in your heart to Jesus... so that you may be healed," but to "confess...to each other." But perhaps this means we can confess to any other Christian? Nope, St. James, in the same passage where he speaks of being "healed" tells us,

Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders (the Greek word here translated as "elders" is presbyterous from whence we get the English words "presbyter" and later "priest") of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. (5:14)

St. James, then, speaks about Confession and Anointing in the same breath as sacraments of healing to be preformed by a priest of the Church. A point made not just by Jesus and St. James (as if that wasn't enough) but also by St. Paul in his Second Letter to the Corinthians where we read,

All of this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and give us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. (18-20, emphasis added)

St. Paul is quite clear through whom we are able to receive reconciliation for our sins - through him and the other ministers of the Church, not through ourselves and a silent confession.

3) Confession to a Priest is Historical
If the Biblical case for Confession to a priest isn't overwhelming enough, the historical case is yet stronger. The earliest Christians, much like Catholics today and very much unlike Protestants, confessed to the ministers (priests) of the Church. We find repeated mentions of this in the first Christian centuries and find no mentions of confession "in the heart" only to Jesus. For example (emphasis added),

From the Diache (c. A.D. 50 - within the time when the New Testament was being written),

In the church you acknowledge your transgressions... every Lord's day gather yourself's together and break bread and give thanks after having confessed your transgressions (4, 14)

From the Letter of Barnabas (c. A.D. 75 - also with the New Testament era),

You shall not make a schism (something else Protestants aren't very good at)... You shall confess your sins... This is the way of light. (19)

From St. Irenaeus of Lyon's Against Heresies (c. A.D. 189),

(The Gnostics) have deluded many women...Some of them, indeed, make public confession of their sins; but others are ashamed to do this, and in a tacit kind of way, despairing of the life of God, have... apostatized altogether (1:13:7)

From St. Hippolytus of Rome (c. A.D. 215),

After this, one of the bishops present... laying his hand on him who is ordained a bishop, shall pray this way... And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have the authority "to forgive sins" according to your command. (Apostolic Tradition, 2-3)

From Origen of Alexandria (c. A.D. 249),

In addition to these there is also a seventh, but it is hard and laborious: the remission of sins through penance... when he does not shrink from declaring his sins to a priest of the Lord (Homilies on Leviticus, 2:4)

And we could go on. St. Ignatius of Antioch, Tertullian of Carthage, St. Basil of Caesarea, St. John Crysostom, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Jerome, St. Augustine of Hippo (every Protestant's favorite saint) and more besides all attest to the widespread, indeed universal, practice of the early Christians of confessing their sins, aloud, to a priest.

4) A Bigger Problem for Protestants
These historical writings can't be so easily dismissed by Protestants either. Not only do they give clear witness to the deep historical roots of the Catholic practice of confessing sins to a priest, but these self-same Christians are the one's responsible for determining the Canon of the Bible (i.e. which books make up the Bible and which don't). As Protestant's already can't turn to an infallibly guided Church to assure only the right books and all the right books made it into the Bible, so too they can't turn to "the early Christians" as they think "the early Christians" were wrong about Confession (and the perpetual virginity of Mary, and the authority of the bishop of Rome, and the centrality of the Eucharist as Jesus' Flesh and Blood to worship, and Purgatory, and contraception, etc. etc. etc.). If "the early Christians" were so wrong about Confession, they might just have been wrong about which books make up the Bible, which undermines our ability to even know which writings are inspired and which aren't. In that case, the whole Protestant-project, predicated on sola scriptura as it is, collapses upon itself.

5) It's Both/ And not Either/ Or
"But isn't it Jesus to whom we ought to confess?" Someone might ask. The answer, of course, is YES! but that is exactly what Catholics are doing in the Sacrament of Confession. We are confessing to Jesus, whose grace and forgiveness we seek, though the agency of the priest. It isn't "either confess to a priest or confess to Jesus" it is "both confess to the priest as a means of confessing to Jesus." Jesus uses the priest to judge whether we are sorry for our sins and to articulate the words of absolution to us. The "either / or" mentality is the seedbed of all heresies. Arius asked whether Christ was God or man. Nestorius whether Mary was the Mother of God or the Mother of Jesus. The Monothelites asked whether Jesus had a Divine Will or a human will. The Reformers asked whether the Bible or the Church had authority. Orthodox, historic Christianity (i.e. Catholicism) has answer all these questions in the same way - BOTH! Jesus is both God and man, Mary is both the Mother of God and the Mother of Jesus, Jesus has both a divine and a human will both the Bible and the Church have authority, and we confess to both Jesus and to His priest who stands in persona Christi as His representative to His people.

6) Get Thee to a Confessional!
For my Catholic readers, please get to Confession. We have been given this great and venerable Sacrament by Christ so that our sins might be washed away. Unfortunately, many (most) of our Catholic brothers and sister have given up on the Confessional. Too many Catholics either confuse themselves with Our Lord, who was like us in all things but sin (cf. Heb 4:15), or confuse Catholicism with New Age or Eastern religions that teach there is no such thing as sin (which, incidentally, is, according to Chesterton, the one doctrine that can be proven - go ahead turn on the news and test his theory). We're all sinners (cf. Rom 3:23) and Christ calls us to the Confessional to receive the mercy and grace He won for us on the Cross. Remember, He is the Lord. He is God. He gets to decide how we may freely receive the grace He has won for us. We can't take His grace on our terms.

For my Protestant readers, please consider why you are outside the Church. Joe Heschmeyer, from Shameless Popery, has a great post up in which he quotes the president of the Evangelical Theology Society who rightly points out that Catholicism is the default position for Christians. You are separated from the Church established by Jesus (cf. Matt 16:18), the Church that is visible, like Christ's Body (cf. 1 Cor 12:27), the Church that is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15), do you have a good reason to be? What, exactly, are you protesting? If you can't think of anything, come home to the Church where your sins can be forgiven in the way Jesus intended.

7) In Case You Still Need Some Encouragement:

English King Richard III to be Afforded a Latin Requiem Mass

King Richard III of England. What images does that name bring up? Perhaps his monstrous form,

But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks, Nor made to court an amourous looking-glass; I, that am rudely stamp’d, and want love’s majesty To strut before a wanton ambling nymph; I, that am curtail’d of this fair proportion, Cheated of feature by dissembling nature, Deform’d, unfinish’d, sent before my timeInto this breathing world, scarce half made up, And that so lamely and unfashionable That dogs bark at me as I halt by them;¹…

Bones of Richard III

Or perhaps our mind's eye sees the beleaguered king calling out. "a horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!²" on bloody Bosworth Field before being cut down and having his throne usurped by the future King Henry VII (father of the schismatic King Henry VIII).

Whatever images we might have of this king, they probably are none too pleasant, mostly thanks to Shakespeare's immortal play. Nevertheless, Richard, despite whatever defects he may have had as a man and as a ruler, lived, ruled, and died a Catholic. He may or may not have been a very good Catholic³ (he certainly was no St. King Louis IX of France), but a Catholic he was.⁴

This, of course, mattered little until the late King's bones were found under a parking lot in Leicester a few years ago. Historians and British officials were suddenly presented with a unique problem, Richard would need reburied (and ought to receive a burial fit for a monarch) but should he be buried according to the rites of the Catholic Church to which he belonged or should he be buried in accord with the Anglican Church which was founded by the son of his murderer?

Put that way the answer seems rather straightforward. However, the Anglican Church likes to (occasionally) think of herself less as a Protestant era church and more as the ancient and apostolic Church in England. Under this admittedly absurd and revisionist history of the Church in England (established, you'll recall, by St. Augustine of Canterbury under orders from Pope Gregory the Great) all Englishmen had always been Anglicans, including Richard III. Allowing the King to be buried with the funeral rites of his own Catholic Faith, then, would be a tacit admission of the Sixteenth century foundation of the Anglican communion. Unable to allow such an admission (even as the Anglican communion drifts further and further away from any similarity to the ancient faith held by men like Richard), the Anglican officials have decided to bury the King in Leicester Cathedral in an Anglican service.

The initial Catholic response, including thousands of signatures on a petition calling for the King to receive a burial according to his own faith, was muted a bit by a seemingly unfortunate "ecumenical" decision by Catholics to go along with the Anglican burial. While I admit to being a bit dismayed at this at first (would you want to be buried Anglican?), I kept faith in the English episcopacy to do the right thing and offer a Mass for the repose of King Richard's soul (if the legends are true, and if he died repentant, he would seem to be in quite need of one, after all). That faith was justified by news I received just today,

A Requiem Mass in the traditional Latin form is to be offered at a Catholic church in Lancashire to mark the reinterment of King Richard III, which will take place on the same day at Leicester’s Anglican cathedral.
The mortal remains of Richard III, who died in the Battle of Bosworth in 1485, before the Reformation, will be reinterred in the cathedral on March 26, in the presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury and an invited congregation.
The Requiem Mass for the repose of Richard III’s soul will be held on the same day St Catherine’s Church, in Leyland, Lancashire, at 7.30pm. It will be a Sung High Latin Mass with singers from the Laeta Cantoribus Choir, “in the style and manner of (Richard III’s) day”.
“The idea is that it will be closer to what he might have experienced in his own lifetime, as a pre-reformation Catholic,” said parish priest Fr Simon Henry.⁵

All I can say is "bravo!"

Please join me in offering up a prayer for King Richard's soul,

Requiem aeternam dona ei Domine
Et lux perpetua luceat ei
Requiescat in pace.
Amen.

_____________________
1. Shakespeare, Richard III, Act 1, Scene 1
2. ibid. Act 5, Scene 4
3. Our sources, and Shakespeare's, are from the Tudor period and are colored by the desire to justify the treachery of Henry VII in usurping the throne from Richard. That, of course, doesn't mean Richard as any less of a monster than Shakespeare imagined, but it does give some room for historians to dig into the past and see if Richard's reputation is deserved or not.
4. "There is a lot of evidence that Richard III had a very serious personal faith. If Richard III had not have died, maybe the Anglican church would never have existed." according to Dr. John Ashdown-Hill (source)
5. Via The Catholic Herald: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/03/04/latin-mass-to-be-offered-to-mark-reinterment-of-richard-iii/ (emphasis mine)

Pope Leo the Great Stops Attila the Hun. Catholic Church Saves Civilization.

Interested in learning more about your Catholic Faith and the history of our glorious Church? New president of Catholic Answers (a phenomenal Catholic apostle - check them out at their website), Christopher Check gives a masterful lecture on the very important, and not very widely known, history surrounding the advance of Attila the Hun to the gates of Rome where he was turned back, not by Rome's Legions, which had collapsed, but by one man - the Successor of St. Peter, the Bishop of Rome, the Holy Father, St. Pope Leo the Great. If you have a spare hour, you'll find little better use than learning a bit more about a period in history which still shapes our world to this very day. I highly recommend checking it out,





It is especially important to remember that the Church - the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church - centered on Peter, and his successors, that is the light in this dreary and dark world. Christ has entrusted His mission to His Church to be continued on through the centuries by, yes, fallible, men. We, as Catholics, certainly have shown that even high ranking Churchmen can be cads, remembering another Leo (Pope Leo X) will suffice for that, but the Church has, out of all proportion, produced many holy men (and women) who have left an indelible mark on the world we all live in. Even the most virulent atheist must, if he be honest, thank the Church for the great good she has done, and continues to do, in the Name of Christ, in the world. Stopping the Huns from leveling Western Civilization is but one example among many, but one - as Mr. Check brilliantly shows - that has lasting implications today.

Often in the past it has been precisely the Roman Catholic Church who has turned back evil when it has treated to swamp the world and darken the Light (think of the Crusades for example). Pope Leo the Great did it with Attila. Pope John Paul the Great did it with the USSR. And, I suspect, another great pope will be called upon to do so with the ever increasing threat of Islamic extremism.

Why Bad Popes Don't Disprove Catholicism

Last week I was sent this meme and wanted to take a moment to share my response (and elaborate on it) here for others who might be presented with this line of attack. It is the old "hey, look this pope did something bad, so Catholicism is false" argument.

The meme basically makes three claims about Leo X. First, he was an immoral man. Second, he sold tickets to heaven to people who committed horrible crimes. Third, he didn’t believe in Christianity, he “let the cat out of the bag” that the whole Jesus thing is made up so for the wordily gain of those running the Church. Let’s look at each in turn, starting with the most damning claim, that the pope didn’t believe in Christianity.

Claim 1 - Pope Leo X Admitted Christianity is Made Up

This is, so the meme claims, “the most infamous and damaging state about Christianity in the history of the Church.” And so it certainly would be, except it was never said by Pope Leo X. I challenged the atheist who sent me the meme to find the original source where this quote originates, to show some evidence that this “most damaging” quote is true. Needless to say he declined to take me up on the challenge. 

The quote first emerges in history not from the mouth of Leo, but from the pen of (you guessed it) an anti-Catholic Protestant writer during the Reformation, John Bale, who, in his anti-Catholic play "The Pageant of the Popes," has the pope-character proclaim, 

"All ages can testifie enough howe profitable that fable of Christe hath ben to us and our companie." 

That’s right, it comes from an anti-Catholic propaganda piece. It would be like reading a movie script on the life of Martin Luther King Jr., written by Ku Klux Klansmen, reading where MLK says he too believes white people make up a superior race, and believing the real MLK said it. 

The quote has been popular in anti-Catholic Protestant (and now I suppose atheist) circles ever since. Which just goes to show that some people will believe just about anything as long as it attacks the Holy Catholic Church. There's no need to fact check sources, no need to see if the claim even makes sense, as long as it assaults Mother Church, some people will swallow anything. 

Claim 2 - Pope Leo X Allowed Evil People to Buy Their Way Into Heaven

It can’t be a surprise to any of my readers that our atheist meme creator misunderstands what an indulgence is and what it does. An indulgence doesn't earn someone "pardon from hell for such sins as murder, polygamy, etc" In fact an indulgence doesn't earn anyone "pardon from hell" for any sin. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains indulgences nicely,

"An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints." (1471)

Indulgences don't get people out of eternal punishment (hell), they merely remove some or all of the temporal punishment due to sins which have already been forgiven. An Indulgence will do a sinner no good for any unforgiven sins. Thus, indulgences merely allow someone who has already received forgiveness (normally through sacramental confession) to begin to "pay off" some or all of the punishment that is still due on their forgiven sins. It is basically a way to begin (and possibly complete) the process of purgation before death. Of course, the indulgence will do no one any good if they die in a state of mortal sin, in that case the sinner is damned - indulgence or no. In other words, indulgences can't get you into Heaven. Which means Leo couldn't have sold them to "pardon" people from "hell". 

Claim 3 - Pope Leo X Was an Immoral Man

The answer to this claim is... so what? Leo X isn't a saint, I know of no one who holds him up as a model of virtue or as a splendid example of a Roman Pontiff (although he did commission some fantastic art for the Church). The meme seems to think the immorality of Pope Leo is something to hold against Catholicism. This seems to be an example of the common confusion between papal infallibility (which the Church teaches) and papal impeccability (which the Church doesn't). Infallibility means the pope, when teaching officially as the pope on faith or morals, can teach without error. This is of no benefit to himself, it is a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church for the faithful - through the infallibility of the Magisterium of the Church (which the pope can exercise by himself) the faithful can be certain the Church will not teach heresy. Impeccability would mean that the pope cannot sin. We don't believe the latter and Leo X is a good example proving it isn't true. Of course he isn't the best example, I can think of several other popes who outdid Leo - HBO's favorite, Alexander VI; the all-time worst pope Benedict IX, and a few others. That greatest of poets, Dante Alighieri, even puts a couple popes, including the one reigning while he wrote Inferno, in hell.

In the pit of the simonists Dante meets Pope Nicholas III who mistakes the pilgrim for Pope Boniface VIII:

Out of the mouth of each one there protruded
The feet of a transgressor, and the legs
Up to the calf, the rest within remained....

"Master, who is that one who writhes himself,
More than his comrades quivering,"
I said, "and whom a redder flame is sucking?"...

"Whoe'er thou art, that standouts upside down,
O doleful soul, implanted like a stake,"
To say began I, "if thou canst, speak out."...

And he cried out: "Dost thou stand there already,
Dost thou stand there already, Boniface?
By many years the record lied to me....

And truly was I son of the She-Beear,
So eager to advance the cubs, that wealth
Above, and here myself, I pocketed.

Beneath my head the others are dragged down
Who have preceded me in simony,
Flattened along the fissure of the rock.

(Canto XIX)

Popes, it turns out, are sinners in need of a savior just like the rest of us. They too must work out their salvation in fear and trembling and they too will be judged for how they lived their life. Christ promised the Church would not fail, he didn't promise a never ending parade of papal saints. That being said, the few bad popes we hear about here and there (and their "badness" is usually exaggerated) are absolutely overwhelmed by the number of truly holy men who have held the office of Peter. I can think of no other walk of life that has seen such holiness, from martyrs willing to die painful deaths for Christ, to great theologians, mystics, and men of heroic virtue the papacy has produced much more better fruit than it has bitter fruit. Pope Leo X might not have been among the saintly popes, he might even now be roasting in the fires of hell (although I certainly hope not - please join me in praying for the repose of his soul), but that is no stick to beat the Church with. You don't judge a medicine, to paraphrase Frank Sheed, by those who don't take it. And despite his many failings, Leo X never taught error - the one thing Christ promised the pope would never do.

In some ways, I must admit to wondering if the Holy Spirit didn't deliberately raise men like Leo X to the Throne of Peter. In Giovanni Boccaccio's Decameron (an Italian masterpiece written during the reign of a 'bad pope'), we read (in the second tale of the first day) of a Jewish man named Abraham who is friends with a Catholic - Giannotto di Civigni who wishes to convert his friend to the Faith. Abraham is a master of jewish law and a devout man who "had been born in (the Jewish faith), and intended to live in stand die in it." After many failed attempts to bring Abraham around, Giannotto finally begins to prevail upon his friend. Abraham finally tells him,

"Look here, Giannotto, you want me to become a Christian, and I am quite prepared to do so. So much so, that I want first to go to Rome and see him whom you call God's Vicar on earth, to observe the ways and customs of him and his brother Cardinals. And if they seem to me such that... I can come to see that your faith is better than mine... I will do what I have said. But if not, I shall remain a Jew."

Giannotto, who isn't exactly pleased to hear this proposal, thinks,

"I have wasted my labor, which I thought I had employed so well, in the belief that I had converted him. Now, if he goes to the Court of Rome and sees the filthy and rascally life of the clergy, not only will he not turn from a Jew to a Christian, but if he had turned Christian he would inevitably become a Jew again."

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Papal Court in Boccaccio's day. Unable to convince Abraham to change his mind and convert without seeing the pope, Giannotto despairs as he watches Abraham leave. Finally, after a long trip from Paris to Rome and back again, Abraham returns and meets his old friend. Upon asking what he thought of the clergy of Rome, Abraham replies,

"It seemed to me that God is very kind to them all. For, if my observation is of any value, I saw there no sanctity, no devotion, no good works or examples of life.... But it seemed to me that lechery, avarice, gluttony,... and worse were so much in grace... that I consider Rome a forge of devilish rather than divine labors. In my opinion your Shepherd... endeavors with all haste... to reduce the Christian religion to nothing and to thrust it our of the world."

Giannotto's greatest fears were founded after all it seemed. The 'bad pope' had proven too much for his friend to bear. Or had it? Abraham continues,

"Now, since I perceive that what they endeavor to achieve (the destruction of Christianity) does not occur, but that your religion continually increases and becomes brighter and more illustrious, I justly am of the opinion that the Holy Spirit is its support and foundation...now...nothing shall prevent me from becoming a Christian. Let us go to a church, and there I will be baptized."

Abraham realized that no human institution could possibly have endured the human weaknesses of the earthly leaders of the Catholic Church, yet the Church has prospered, has flourished, for 20 centuries. Any man-made institution would have long ago collapsed (as, in fact, every other institution from 20 centuries long ago has). The bad popes, in a strange way, prove the truth of Catholicism by proving the Church hasn't been sustained by human genius or greatness, but has grown despite the failings of her leaders. More than that, the bad popes, Leo included, might have sinned, but none of them - not one - ever used his position as pope to teach that those sins he liked were okay. Popes may have, for example, had sex, but none of them taught such behavior, even in a pope, was moral. The bad popes did the one thing Jesus promised all popes would do - never error when teaching faith or morals, although some of them certainly didn't practice what they preached. Jesus warned us about this and told us how to deal with such leadership,

you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. (Matt 23:3)

Thus we see the meme fails to land a blow against the Holy Faith on any of the three charges it raises against it. One is an outright lie, another a complete misunderstanding, the last actually an argument for the Divine Institution of the Church.

I didn't get emailed the first 10 "know your popes" memes, but for some reason I'm guessing the holy lives of men like St. Gregory the Great, St. Leo the Great, or St. John Paul the Great are not listed among them. Atheists certainly have their fair share of men of less than heroic stature (Joe Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, etc), but they don't seem to have the equivalent of those Catholics (the saints) who lived such inspiring lives. Maybe the creator of the meme hasn't considered the old idiom, "those who live in glass houses should not throw stones." Reflecting on that (and checking a fact here or there) might result in less mindless memes floating around cyberspace.


Recommended Reading:

Seattle to Replace Columbus Day with "Indigenous Peoples Day. " How Should Catholics React?

Over at HuffPost, I see the ever increasing lunacy of "political correctness" has spread to replace Columbus Day with "Indigenous Peoples Day" (rolls off the tongue doesn't it?) While I'm all in favor of giving Native Americans the respect they deserve by celebrating their cultures on a given day, I see no justifiable reason for jettisoning Columbus Day in the process (if you agree check out - http://www.savecolumbusday.com and sign the petition!)

Hero or Villian?

I could go on about the absurdity of this decision, but perhaps the best response is to simply allow Pope Leo XIII to remind us of what Columbus means to both Americans and Catholics by looking once again at Pope Leo XIII's Encyclical July 16, 1892 on the occasion of the Quadri-centennial of Columbus' famous voyage. (With my comments and emphases).


To Our Venerable Brethren, the Archbishops and Bishops of Spain, Italy, and the two Americas.

Now that four centuries have sped since a Ligurian first, under God's guidance, touched shores unknown beyond the Atlantic, the whole world is eager to celebrate the memory of the event, and glorify its author. Nor could a worthier reason be found where through zeal should be kindled. For the exploit is in itself the highest and grandest which any age has ever seen accomplished by man; and he who achieved it, for the greatness of his mind and heart, can be compared to but few in the history of humanity. By his toil another world emerged from the unsearched bosom of the ocean: hundreds of thousands of mortals have, from a state of blindness, been raised to the common level of the human race, reclaimed from savagery to gentleness and humanity (we often forget today, in our age of cultural relativism and hatred of Western Civ. how brutral native society was. "Savagery" - human sacrifice and cannibalism were ritually practiced - and "blindness" - technologically the native populations were in the Stone Age - darkened pre-Columbian America), ; and, greatest of all, by the acquisition of those blessings of which Jesus Christ is the author, they have been recalled from destruction to eternal life (extra ecclesiam nulla salus - even though the natives were in invincible ignorance of the Catholic Faith, unrepentant violation of the moral law leads to damnation and without the teachings and graces available to Catholics the road to destruction is indeed very wide.) Europe, indeed, overpowered at the time by the novelty and strangeness of the discovery, presently came to recognize what was due to Columbus...amidst so lavish a display of honor, so unanimous a tribute of congratulations, it is fitting that the Church should not be altogether silent; since she, by custom and precedent, willingly approves and endeavors to forward whatsoever she see, and wherever she see it, that is honorable and praiseworthy. It is true she reserves her special and greatest honors for virtues that most signally proclaim a high morality, for these are directly associated with the salvation of souls(i.e. Columbus is not a saint. He did evil things and his ultimate fate is unknown to the Church); but she does not, therefore, despise or lightly estimate virtues of other kinds (i.e. although Columbus wasn't a saint, we still can, indeed should, praise his virtuous actions)...

2. But there is, besides, another reason, a unique one, why We consider that this immortal achievement should be recalled by Us with memorial words. For Columbus is ours; since if a little consideration be given to the particular reason of his design in exploring the "mare tenebrosum," and also the manner in which he endeavored to execute the design, it is indubitable that the Catholic faith was the strongest motive for the inception and prosecution of the design; so that for this reason also the whole human race owes not a little to the Church.

3. ...We say not that he was unmoved by perfectly honorable aspirations after knowledge, and deserving well of human society; nor did he despise glory (he did demand the title "Admiral of the Seas"), which is a most engrossing ideal to great souls; nor did he altogether scorn a hope of advantages to himself (he was to profit nicely from any discoveries he made); but to him far before all these human considerations was the consideration of his ancient faith, which questionless dowered him with strength of mind and will, and often strengthened and consoled him in the midst of the greatest difficulties. This view and aim is known to have possessed his mind above all; namely, to open a way for the Gospel over new lands and seas (Do we still feel the spread of the Gospel and the salvation of souls to be the greatest good for man?).

4. ...when he learned from the lessons of astronomy and the record of the ancients, that there were great tracts of land lying towards the West, beyond the limits of the known world, lands hitherto explored by no man, he saw in spirit a mighty multitude, cloaked in miserable darkness, given over to evil rites, and the superstitious worship of vain gods. (The native populations were lost in a sea of polytheism and nature worship. These gods are "vain" because they either don't exist at all or are demons deluding men and leading them astray, leading them into "evil rites" such as human sacrifice.) Miserable it is to live in a barbarous state and with savage manners: but more miserable to lack the knowledge of that which is highest, and to dwell in ignorance of the one true God. Considering these things, therefore, in his mind, he sought first of all to extend the Christian name and the benefits of Christian charity to the West (the moral teachings of Christ), as is abundantly proved by the history of the whole undertaking..(Columbus) hastens to seek missionaries from Pope Alexander VI, through a letter in which this sentence occurs: "I trust that, by God's help, I may spread the Holy Name and Gospel of Jesus Christ as widely as may be." He was carried away, as we think, with joy, when on his first return from the Indies he wrote to Raphael Sanchez: "That to God should be rendered immortal thanks, Who had brought his labors such prosperous issues; that Jesus Christ rejoices and triumphs on earth no less than in Heaven, at the approaching salvation of nations innumerable, who were before hastening to destruction.(These were all people no Catholic knew. Men, like Columbus, risked their lives for the salvation of unknown souls. Before we begin casting stones, perhaps we ought to ask if we have, if we even would, do the same.)"

5. ...Columbus threw open America at the time when a great storm (Protestantism) was about to break over the Church. As far, therefore, as it is lawful for man to divine from events the ways of Divine Providence, he seemed to have truly been born, by a singular provision of God, to remedy those losses which were awaiting the Catholic Church on the side of Europe (Today, almost half of all Catholics are in lands discovered by Columbus).

6. ...We mention what is indeed well known, but is also characteristic of the man's mind and soul. For being compelled by the Portuguese and Genoese to leave his object unachieved, when he had reached Spain, within the wall of a Religious house he matured his great design of meditated exploration, having for confidant and adviser a Religious—a disciple of Francis of Assisi. Being at length about to depart for the sea, he attended to all that which concerned the welfare of his soul on the eve of his enterprise. He implored the Queen of Heaven to assist his efforts and direct his course; and he ordered that no sail should be hoisted until the name of the Trinity had been invoked. When he had put out to sea, and the waves were now growing tempestuous, and the sailors were filled with terror, he kept a tranquil constancy of mind, relying on God. The very names he gave to the newly discovered islands tell the purposes of the man. At each disembarkation he offered up prayers to Almighty God, nor did he take possession save "in the Name of Jesus Christ." Upon whatsoever shores he might be driven, his first act was to set upon the shore the standard of the holy Cross: and the name of the Divine Redeemer, which he had so often sung on the open sea to the sound of the murmuring waves, he conferred upon the new islands. Thus at Hispaniola he began to build from the ruins of the temple, and all popular celebrations were preceded by the most sacred ceremonies .

Columbus Landing in the New World

  ...

10. Meanwhile, as a pledge of heavenly favors and of Our own paternal goodwill, we lovingly bestow the Apostolic Benediction in Our Lord upon you, Venerable Brethren, and upon your clergy and people.

Leo XIII

Regardless of what other Americans may say or do, far be it from the Holy Catholic Church to turn her back upon a son of the Church who did so much to save so many. 

Please join me in praying for the repose of Christopher Columbus' soul

Requiem aeternam dona ei Domine
Et lux perpetua luceat ei.
Requiescat in pace.
Amen.

May the souls of Christopher Columbus and all those brave men who voyaged with him rest in eternal peace. Amen.