Black Death

A Movie Review

by Thomas A. Middleton

“The fumes of the dead hung in the air like poison. The plague… more cruel and more pitiless than war… had descended upon us. The pestilence that would leave half our kingdom dead, where did it come from? what carried it’s germ? The priests told us it was God’s punishment… for what sin? What commandment must we break that would earn this? No, we knew the truth. This was not God’s work, but devilry… or witchcraft. And our task… to hunt down a demon… was God’s cure.”

Set in Wales in the year of Our Lord1348, Black Death is an epic tale of war between good and evil; historical fiction, masterfully presented.  These actors have captured the essence of 14th century European Catholicism, seen through their battle with wickedness.  They have brought light to the legacy of the Church of the middle ages, often darkly portrayed by history. This film does not present lives of known saints, but it speaks for countless silent martyrs who are known but to God. In this tale, many overcome sin, stand - and die – martyred with Christ. Many denounce God and are lost. Countless die. The young surviving monk, though once redeemed, is deeply scarred…perhaps to madness…perhaps to worse.

When I first saw this movie, I was not yet a student of Church History. I thought the writers were attacking our beloved Church, presenting the sins of the Christians and the virtues of the fallen. Having studied Catholicism more deeply now, I appreciate the full impact of this portrayal of man’s ongoing struggle with evil. In the triumph of very human martyrs, we find hope for victory in eternal life.
As a Catholic, I noted the Bishop’s men had ample opportunity for confession, but they did not confess. Their sin seemed to invite the devil into their hearts, and he tempted them greatly while their minds were darkened. Nowhere was this more clearly portrayed than in the young monk, Osmond. Despite his vow of celibacy, he has a lover, and she begs him to leave the monastery with her. Sworn to his monastery as well as to celibacy, he will not betray God. “We already have”, she quips as she promises to wait for him every morning at dawn for one week, at a martyrs cross in Denbigh Forrest, after which she will be gone forever.

An envoy arrives from the Bishop, requesting a guide from the monastery for a trip into Denbigh Forrest. The Abbot is loath to give them a monk, but as the young Brother Desmond hears of this request, he discerns a way to leave the monastery honorably, and perhaps to meet his lover once again.

The film begins with a narrator, speaking over scenes of the dead falling from the plague. There is a scene of very young monks prostate on the floor before the crucifix (presumably being ordained into the priesthood with minimal priestly formation).

Though described by the Abbot as only a novice, Brother Osmond is apparently ordained a priest prior to his quest, for he later grants absolution to a dying man. History tells us that inadequately trained priests contributed to a host of problems, and these are represented in this film by the very youth of the main character, Brother Osmond .

Ostensibly he volunteers to guide the Bishop’s men because he knows well the great marsh in which a remote village is said to be located, protected from the plague by a heretical necromancer… someone who raises the dead to life. In reality, however, Brother Osmond is hoping to meet up with his lover at the appointed place.

This provides us with remarkable insight into the history and the state of the faith at the time. The disembodied narrator’s voice takes shape as one of the Bishop’s men, and in an early scene he goes on to explain his own belief. He was once part of “God’s greatest army” which was ordered by the English king, after defeating the French, to disregard the mercy of chivalry, to rip apart every surviving French soldier showing not an ounce of mercy.
All of the Bishop’s men, it seems, are of the Catholic faith but they are a rough bunch. Battle scarred, tough… even ruthless perhaps, exactly the sort one would send on a quest to dispatch a necromancer.
The Bishop’s men arrive at the remote village to find a curious people. They no longer practice the Christian faith, uncomfortable when the Christians pray before eating. Their spiritual demise illustrated by the now-abandoned church in their midst, complete with a primitive Celtic cross. Much like Satan would be, for he too once was an angel and remembers God, the villagers remember what a sin is, recognize the Lord’s Prayer and speak of the commandments.

The kindness shown to the Bishop’s men by the fallen seems at first to be quite a remarkable demonstration of morality in the absence of a belief in God. Outside of a belief in God, some people behave morally just so that society runs smoothly. We soon learn, however, that it was a trap. The men are fed wine laced with heavy sedatives, and are soon taken prisoner and placed in a cage to be murdered one by one.

The lead witch of the village shows Brother Osmond the “dead” body of his lover, leading Osmond to believe she is dead though in fact the witch merely drugged the girl. While they are away, the other men drink heavily of the drugged wines, collapse and are captured.

The woman arranges for Brother Osmond to “witness” from a distance as the woman leads a coven of witches, reaching into a fresh grave to “raise” his lover back to life. We later learn that she never was dead. Nonetheless, Brother Osmond is terrified and runs away. He concludes that his lover’s spirit is in purgatory, and the necromancer has somehow resurrected her body through devilry.

The climax of the movie is incredibly well done. Once with her, Brother Osmond finds that his lover is quite mad. Believing this is purgatory for her, he stabs her to death as a way to set her free. He frees his men, and a huge fight ensues in which most of them are killed along with their captors. The witch escapes, and the movie ends with Brother Osmond spending the rest of his days searching for her, killing random women who resemble her in his broken mind.

This movie was made to entertain, not to teach history, but it actually does a remarkable job of both. In all fairness to history, though, it is important to flesh out some of what the movie only dealt with lightly. The black plague did indeed decimate Europe, taking the lives of 50 million people in the 14th century, or perhaps 60% of the population. The brightest medical minds of the age were accurately represented in the film by the witch with her herbs and poultices. There was also a scene featuring men performing penance by carrying a huge cross in a river while whipping themselves.

During the black plague, as many as half of the priests fell to the disease. It was no surprise, since these selfless men went to the afflicted and the dying to render the sacraments, exposing themselves to the disease while growing exhausted by the constant ministering to their flocks with death all around them.

What made this movie so compelling for me was the intertwining of so many factors which continue to exert great influence today, and the opportunity to explain these historical influences to my son. There was the Church’s view of demonology at the time, the tale of jilted lovers, the struggle for celibacy, the returning Christian soldiers who knew no other line of work, and this curious band of witches. My son and I normally watch AMC’s The Walking Dead together, and frequently use their story lines to discuss concepts of good and evil, courage, perseverance as well as survival tactics in the event of disaster. The special effects in Black Death were very much on par with those used in The Walking Dead.

Since Black Death provided all of these elements and added the opportunity to discuss the temptation in general, the presence of evil in our lives, the Middle Ages, Catholic Church History, demonology, date-rape drugs, ethics among non-Christians, and the importance of the Sacraments in our lives, this movie was a stellar learning tool while providing riveting entertainment. I rate this movie a hearty ten out of ten.

Black Death. Perf. Sean Bean, Eddie Redmayne and Carice Van Houten. Magnolia Home Entertainment, 2010. DVD.

Saint Rita

DVD available through Ignatius Press

A movie review and personal testimony by Thomas A. Middleton

My initial introduction to St Rita came at a beautiful spiritual retreat center called Saint Anne’s Shrine in Isle LaMotte, Vermont. The parallels between her life and my own were stunning, and the powerful sign from God that would come to me through her intercession was like nothing else I had ever experienced.

Statue of Saint Rita at Saint Anne's Shrine, Isle LaMotte, Vermont Shortly after her husband’s murder, her two sons fell to the black plague and she was left alone in the world. She filled her days with prayer, fasting, penance and good works, and was admitted to a Convent of the Augustinian nuns. St Rita is said to have had a great devotion to the Passion of Christ, and was quite fond of the crucifix.

It was not long after the call came to become a priest. I toured the grounds and found a nice walking path with statues of various saints and a brief description of their life. I stopped and read each one, reflecting on how some aspect of the life of each particular saint seemed to have a parallel in my own. I prayed for the intercession of each saint I encountered, that they might help me discern whether I was truly called to the priesthood. I learned that St Rita had desired a vowed religious life from an early age. She had actually begged her parents to allow her to enter a convent, but they instead arranged a marriage for her to a man with a violent temper. A devoted wife and mother nonetheless, they had been married for eighteen years and had two sons together when he was mortally stabbed. He repented of his sins before he died, and Rita is credited with his salvation.

One day St Rita asked Jesus, “Please let me suffer like you, Divine Savior.” When she said this, and one of the thorns from her crucifix flew up and struck her in the forehead, leaving a deep wound that caused much pain for the rest of her days.

When I read these words before this blessed statue, a thought occurred to me. I too, asked God, through St Rita’s intercession, for a sign to help me discern His will for me. I reached out and gently touched the crown of thorns on the little crucifix held by the statue of St Rita with the fingers of my right hand.

I very slowly raised my hand to my own forehead in an act of pure faith, and began the sign of the cross. At the very instant that my fingers touched my forehead, I was immediately struck with incredibly sharp pain. It was an instant migraine headache, and an answer to my prayers.

Astonished, I fell to my knees at once. Hand trembling, I finished the sign of the cross and raised both of my arms to heaven, in a gesture of thanks for His incredible grace, and the affirmation which St Rita helped me to receive.

Many more signs would follow, in answer to my prayers, but few were as remarkable as this one. I kept a running count of them for a time, but stopped counting when I reached eighteen. In reflecting further on the parallels of the life of St Rita and my own, I began to further discern the fullness of God’s call for me.

Both St Rita and I had been married for eighteen years, though her marriage ended with the death of her husband and mine ended in an annulment. Both St Rita and I had felt an early call to religious life, but got married instead and experienced great suffering. Both of our families had been greatly affected by war. She lost both of her sons to the black plague, while we lost a child who was stillborn. With such a powerful message from God received through her intercession, I wanted to learn more about this special saint.

The movie opens with a young Rita, working in a field with nuns. She is symbolically carrying a lost lamb back to it’s flock. This scene is interspersed with parallel scenes in which a band of knights enters a village, setting fire to it and killing many of it’s inhabitants. We see one of the knights stop, however, and rescue an orphaned infant, carrying the child away with him on his horse.

This movie, available through Ignatius Press, was great drama. The movie depicts, as accurately as possible, both the life of this inspiring saint and the period of history in which her life takes place. There were no written accounts of the life of St Rita written during her lifetime, and the oral accounts of her life were not written down until many years after her death. A great deal of historical fiction had to be added to the known facts in order to make her story into a feature length film.

Filmed on location in Italy, the various city-states, dukedoms and small kingdoms present in Italy at the time were loosely part of the Holy Roman Empire.

The rivalries and violence depicted in this movie are typical of the place and the era, accurately reflecting this period in Church History we are currently studying.

We learn that the opposing forces in place at this time in what would later become Italy consisted of the Guelphs and the Ghibbeline. The Guelphs favored a republican form of government in which the middle class could rise to power. They were loyal to the Pope and the Papal State, while the Ghibbeline, though also Catholic, were the party of the old feudal nobility which had family connections to the Emperor and favored limits on Papal authority. Rita later articulates, in a scene with her father, that she did not know or care whether these men were Guelphs or Ghibbelines, since both seemed to murder the innocent.

The same troop of knights that just ravaged the village go galloping past, and all of the women in the scene withdraw in fear, except for Rita. One of the passing knights stops in front of her, and without saying a word to her, he hands her an infant wrapped in swaddling clothes. Rita discusses this one kind knight with Mother Superior afterwards. In the subsequent dialogue in which Rita discussed this knight with the nuns, we are reminded of St Augustine’s teachings (these are Augustinian nuns) that “Each one of us is given an opportunity to change… if we want to”. This theme returns throughout the movie.

There are other references to the wisdom of the saints and to Jesus sprinkled into the dialogue. For example, when Rita and some of the other women are tending to the wounded following a skirmish, one of the other women quotes St Nicholas of Torrentino; “Remember… you cannot cure the sick with herbs alone. Above all, it requires love. That is how Jesus healed.”

Rita’s future husband Paulo is portrayed as quite a soldier, but a man of honor. He is depicted tutoring his younger brother Francesco in the ways of war. In one scene his younger brother gains the upper hand in a knife fight, only to take mercy on the man when it was time to finish him off. The man breaks away during the hesitancy, and Paulo must put him to death by the sword.

In a scene which follows, the younger brother asks Paulo if he ever thinks of hell. Paulo’s answer is rather telling; “Whether you like it or not, this is our life”. Did Paulo feel he truly had a choice in taking up the sword?

This dialogue, while fictitious, is helpful in illustrating a point about Paulo and his family the Mancinnis, who are powerful Ghibbelines. The point made here is that the Catholic faith ran strong in Europe of the time, even among the warriors. That Paulo would try and assuage Francesco’s conscience by minimizing the aspect of freewill in the sin of murder. This dialogue speaks to Paulo’s own hidden conscience and the teachings of the Catholic Church in what is required for a mortal sin to occur, and even alludes to St Augustine himself and his teachings on the doctrine of a just war.

Interestingly, the movie portrays Rita’s marriage to Paulo as one in which the two of them fell in love and married of their own initiative, while the accompanying booklet makes the point that their marriage was likely arranged. The truth is simply unknown, since the first account of Rita’s life was not written down until 143 years after her death and her story was passed down through oral history for a time.

Regardless, the dialogue contains much Catholic teaching and wisdom. After Paulo returns from committing a murder, burns his bloody clothes and lies about it to Rita, she discovers the bloody remains of his shirt, and the truth, in the fireplace.

Rita turns to the Mother Superior of the Augustinians for advice. “You are a married woman”, Mother replies, “Where will you go? You are bound to him by the sacrament of marriage. You forget, he is your husband. If God let the two of you meet, there must be a reason. There’s a design for every one of us. We must try to understand it and follow His will. God asks us to love. Jesus said, ‘I haven’t come for the righteous, but for sinners’…what about Paulo? Maybe you are his only hope.”

A climactic scene follows, as Paulo finds and confronts Rita. He begins by calling her out and commanding her to return home, but she quickly turns the tables on him. “What’s the matter with you, don’t you fear God?!?”

Paulo seems to soften at her words, and he relates that “This is my life, only now if I have to live without you, I don’t want to live anymore.”

Rita returns home with her husband, promising to be a good wife, while Paulo promises to try and be a better man. After repeated run-ins with her mother-in-law, the repentant couple considers moving into a smaller, separate home on Paulo’s family’s lands, intent on becoming millers. They are soon blessed by the birth of twin sons. Their arrival brings out the softer side of the men in the family, showing that there does indeed remain a Catholic conscience and a fountain of hope inside of these men. Her mother-in-law cautions Rita not to set her hopes too high for her sons, that “soon they will grow up, and everything will change”.  Rita is even warned by Paulo’s sister, herself and Augustinian nun, that Paulo cannot change, for it would cost him his life.

The men in the family repeatedly present their resignation that “we will all go to hell”. They all seem to use this fatalistic view to justify their treacherous actions and rule out the idea of repentance. Paulo, however, seems to find a glimmer of hope in his new wife and family. He seems less willing to accept that hell is inevitable, and is beginning to sense that perhaps there might be a way to make it to heaven after all. Unfortunately, he can’t seem to find a way to survive in this earthly world and also the next.

It starts to become clear to Paolo that he must at some point make a choice between good and evil. Thankfully, through the intercession of his wife, he is eventually saved, though not until he has been through some really tough times.

Rita is torn between her love for her husband, whom she now sees as a murderer, and her love for Jesus, who of course holds that murder is immoral. She prays intently before her crucifix throughout the movie, and from the depths of her torment, she recalls that Jesus did not come for the righteous, but for sinners. She thus comes to terms with her role as Paolo’s wife… and savior. She also accepts that if she is to save Paolo, she must honor and obey him as her husband.

Paolo is forced into killing the man he believes has betrayed his family… his best friend. In the climactic scene which follows, the bloodied and distraught Paulo confesses to Rita, breaks his sword in two and swears off killing forever, moving his young family to the home where, for a time, they settle into a peaceful life of a miller family.

It soon becomes apparent that Paulo was not permanently released from his obligation to participate in the family’s bloody ways, but merely granted a reprieve for a few years. He is ordered to kill again, but refuses, and is soon struck down by an assassin’s blade. As he lay dying in Rita’s arms however, he does indeed repent and is saved.

After Paulo’s death, Rita’s two sons increasingly fall under the influence of the more violent men in Paulo’s family, especially their uncle Bernardo. The boys are taken from Rita and no one will tell her where they are. When she eventually tracks them down, she finds that they are quite ill and in danger of death. The black plague has arrived in Cascia. Like their father before them, both boys repent of violence and die in Rita’s arms.

Overrun with grief, now having lost both her husband and her sons, Rita turns to the Augustinians nuns. Weeping with Mother Superior, she holds herself responsible for their destruction. She is assured by Mother Superior that her loved ones are now in God’s arms by the grace passed to them through Rita. She begs to be permitted to take the vows now that she put off so long ago.

Wisely, Mother Superior says no. “Desperation does not bear fruit, Rita. I cannot let you stay here without a real vocation.  All you want is to escape life”. Showing her a withered old grapevine that once bore great fruit, she continues… “You would wither too, like that grapevine”.

This scene resonated within me, because of my own journey toward a vocation in the wake of marriage. It is something I still pray about. My response thus far is to go forward in faith, growing closer to God as He calls all of us to do, confident that He will continue to show me the way.

Just as Rita was certain of her calling to become a nun, I sincerely believe that He has called me to become a priest. I have found peace, however, in the knowledge that discernment is a two-part process. God will reveal His will, not just to me, but also to His agent the Catholic Church, which must also discern that I am truly called to Holy Orders if I am to one day be ordained. Secure in this knowledge, with a clear conscience then, I present myself fully and completely to God in prayer. The rest is up to Him. In God I have faith, and in Him I place my trust.

After a dark period alone as a beggar, Rita discerns that she has survived the death of her husband and sons, even survived the plague, in order to fulfill a higher purpose. When the priest, an Augustinian Prior responsible for the monastery turns her away due to the danger to the monastery that her presence there might bring, she discerns that she is called to make peace between the warring factions in town, just as her father before her.

“There are two kinds of peace, the peace of men, and the peace that comes from God. The one that is imposed by arms and the one that stems from the heart. The first is fragile, because it is based on fear. The second is true, because it is based on love. Take the first step… and put an end to this war. First you must find the desire for peace within yourself, and perhaps Bernardo will follow you.”

Soon, Rita’s efforts at peace are helped along by a most unlikely character, the plague itself. Her brother-in-law Bernardo, who now leads the family after the death of his father, has personally contracted the plague.

As she did with her late husband, Rita comforts Paulo’s brother Bernardo on his death bed, praying for his salvation. Through her intercessory prayers, Bernardo miraculously recovers from the plague. He falls to his knees before the crucifix, and then begs forgiveness of Rita. He soon presents himself to Guido seeking peace and forgiveness. They embrace in peace, and before God, the community and blessed by the Augustinian Prior, peace is formerly restored to Cascia.

God has shown Rita the way through forgiveness. She turns to Him in prayerful surrender at long last, falling into a deep sleep beside a stream. During her sleep she is miraculously transported through the air, above the locked gates, and into the Augustinian monastery grounds. She is awakened by the sound of the bells ringing in the monastery tower, though no one has gone to ring them. Mother Superior and the other nuns respond to the unexpected ringing of the bells, and are astounded to find her there, and they soon receive her into their ranks as she makes her full vows before God.

Several years later, as an old woman now, Rita is depicted praying intently before the crucifix and asking Jesus to join Him now on the cross. She is immediately struck by one of the thorns in his crown, giving her a stigmata. Nearing her own death, deep in winter, she asks for a rose and some figs, telling the sisters that nothing is impossible through God. There in the midst of winter, they find ripe figs and a single bright red rose growing through the snow. Saint Rita was canonized a Saint in 1900 and is the patron saint of hopeless causes.

Bibliography

Saint Rita. Prod. Lux Vide. Perf. Victoria Belvedere, Martin Crews, Una Sastri. Ignatius Press, 2007. DVD.

"Photo of St Rita's Tomb, Displaying Her Incorrupt Body, Basilica of Cascia."Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2016. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rita_of_Cascia>.

Image of Saint Rita and husband Paolo from the DVD. Digital image. Ignatius Press, n.d. Web. 8 Mar. 2016. <http://www.ignatius.com/Products/SRITA-M/saint-rita.aspx>.

Saint Rita’s body has remained incorrupt ever since her death in the year 1457. Her body is on display in a glass coffin at the Basilica of Cascia in Italy. (pictured to the right).

Mary

Mother of God

Mother of the Church

Many Protestant apologists claim that Catholic veneration of and doctrines about the Blessed Mother are late inventions of the Church that have no justification in Scripture.  As Dr. Scott Hahn explains in an excellent lecture available on video, nothing could be further from the truth.  The Catholic Church’s teachings about Mary are completely based in Scripture and they have been taught in some form since the very beginning of the Church.  In fact, there is extensive evidence in the writings of the Church Fathers of the first few centuries that Marian doctrines were widely taught and accepted by the faithful.[1]

Impact of Mary on the Early Church

Beliefs about Mary in the early Church had a huge impact on the development of Christological doctrines and the resolutions of some of the heresies in the early Church.  For example, when the Council of Ephesus resolved the Nestorian heresy, the bishops affirmed that Mary was Theotokos (Mother of God), not just Christotokos (Mother of Christ).  Mary was the mother of a person not just the mother of a nature, and that person, Jesus, was divine.  Therefore, Mary truly was the Mother of God and Jesus, her son, was clearly fully human as well as clearly divine.[2]

As Mary’s role as Mother of God was affirmed, devotion to her grew dramatically.  Churches dedicated to Mary were built throughout the early Church.  She was recognized as the model disciple, intercessor, and loving mother that Jesus gave us to emulate.  In short, Mary also became recognized as the Mother of the Church.  She guides the Church to Jesus showing us how to follow Him, and telling us, as she did at the Wedding of Cana, “Do whatever He tells you.” (Jn 2:5)

Scriptural Basis of Marian Doctrine and Related Christology

Although there are only approximately fifteen Scripture passages that reference Mary, each one tells us something very important about Mary’s role in the Church.  According to Dr. Hahn, some of the important truths that we learn about Mary can be summarized as follows:

- Mary is the new Arc of the Covenant.  In Revelation, the heavens open and the Arc of the Covenant (long lost to history after the destruction of Jerusalem) is seen.  The very next passage speaks of the woman clothed with the sun - - Mary.  These passages are not unrelated.  Mary is the Arc of the New Covenant.

- Mary is the New Eve.  Both at the Wedding at Cana and at His crucifixion, Jesus refers to Mary as “woman”, which can sound very strange to modern ears.  But, the Church Fathers clearly recognized that title as a reference to the woman named in Genesis.  Mary is the New Eve who unties the knots of sin that Eve created with her disobedience.

- Mary is the Immaculate Conception.  When the angel at the Annunciation addressed Mary as "full of grace", he was affirming that Jesus' saving act had already been applied to Mary preserving her from original sin.  Hence, Mary, untainted by sin, could become the Mother of God.[3]

As Dr. Hahn repeatedly emphasizes, through Scripture we see in Mary the model of true discipleship because “her prerogatives are not primarily physical but spiritual, they are not primarily biological, they are truly theological.”[4]

In summary, from the earliest days of the Church, teachings about Mary both confirmed and complemented Christological dogmas.  Mary, always points us back to Jesus.  That is her special role - - bringing her adopted children to her divine Son.   We recognize the tremendous gift the Apostles received in spending three years with Jesus during his earthly ministry.  Consequently, no one questions the value of the Apostles to the Church or their importance in God’s plan.  Mary carried Jesus in her womb for nine months and lived with him in the Holy Family for thirty years.  How could the Church not affirm the value of her example, love, and intercession?

---

[1] Scott Hahn, “Hail, Holy Queen,” Serviam Ministries: Mercy and the Kingdom Conference, EWTN On Location, (May 2, 2015), Video, https://gloria.tv/media/Kn64F4EPr97

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

Bibliography

Hahn, Scott. “Hail, Holy Queen.” Serviam Ministries: Mercy and the Kingdom Conference. EWTN On Location (May 2, 2015). Video. https://gloria.tv/media/Kn64F4EPr97

The Crusades

Reality, Myths, & Politics

Both the rationale for and the events that transpired during the Crusades are seriously misunderstood and misrepresented in contemporary popular history.  Given the frequency with which people, ranging from religious leaders to U. S. Presidents to Islamist terrorists, point to the Crusades to justify or explain some modern day occurrence, it is extremely important for Catholics and all people who seek truth to do a better job in setting the record straight.

Politics’ Impact on Popular History

As Dr. Thomas Madden points out, one of the most important things to recognize about the Crusades is that much of what is believed in popular culture today is contradictory to modern historical scholarship.

It is generally thought that Christians attacked Muslims without provocation to seize their lands and forcibly convert them. The Crusaders were Europe’s lacklands and ne’er-do-wells, who marched against the infidels out of blind zealotry and a desire for booty and land. As such, the Crusades betrayed Christianity itself. They transformed “turn the other cheek” into “kill them all; God will know his own.”

Every word of this is wrong. Historians of the Crusades have long known that it is wrong, but they find it extraordinarily difficult to be heard across a chasm of entrenched preconceptions. For on the other side is, as Riley-Smith puts it “nearly everyone else, from leading churchmen and scholars in other fields to the general public.” . . . It was (Sir Steven) Runciman who called the Crusades “a long act of intolerance in the name of God, which is a sin against the Holy Ghost.” The pity of it is that Runciman and the other popular writers simply write better stories than the professional historians.

So we continue to write our scholarly books and articles, learning more and more about the Crusades but scarcely able to be heard. And when we are heard, we are dismissed as daft.[1]

Why would so many educated people continue to repeat the disproven myths about the Crusades despite the overwhelming historical scholarship?   Whether it is true ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation, the political ramifications are very detrimental.  For example, when leaders such as a former U.S. President point to the Crusades as the rationale for modern-day Islamist terrorism, without at least questioning or clarifying their true historical basis, it can make many westerners reticent to forthrightly confront such extreme views.  For example, shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and other U. S. targets, former President Bill Clinton, stated in a speech at Georgetown,

Those of us who come from various European lineages are not blameless . . . Indeed, in the First Crusade, when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with three hundred Jews in it, and proceeded to kill every woman and child who was Muslim on the Temple Mount. The contemporaneous descriptions of the event describe soldiers walking on the Temple Mount, a holy place to Christians, with blood running up to their knees.  I can tell you that that story is still being told today in the Middle East, and we are still paying for it.[2]

Erroneous Beliefs

Perhaps the most fundamental error about the Crusades is that there was no reasonable basis for the Church to undertake them.  Many people including Catholics assume that Christians of the Middle Ages engaged in the Crusades for selfish and essentially immoral reasons.

Westerners in general (and Catholics in particular) find the Crusades a deeply embarrassing episode in their history. As the Ridley Scott movie Kingdom of Heaven graphically proclaimed, the Crusades were unprovoked campaigns of intolerance preached by deranged churchmen and fought by religious zealots against a sophisticated and peaceful Muslim world. According to the Hollywood version, the blind violence of the Crusades gave birth to jihad, as the Muslims fought to defend themselves and their world.[3]

The reality of the Crusades, however, is much different than the popular narrative.  Catholics need to acknowledge the excesses, but clearly point out four truths that can put the Crusades in a totally different perspective.

1)  The Crusades were primarily defensive wars against Islamic expansion.  Christian pilgrims en route to the Holy Land had long been attacked and persecuted.  Muslim armies had overtaken most of the formerly Christian lands in northern Africa and the Middle East through armed jihad.  And, the First Crusade was called at the request of the Byzantine emperor because Constantinople was in danger.

2)  The vast majority of those who went on the Crusades did so as an act of religious piety and a penitential pilgrimage.  They “took the Cross.”

3)  Going on a crusade was extremely costly for the crusaders - - in terms of material wealth, health, and risk to life.  Many knew they would never return alive.

4)  While they were ultimately unsuccessful in liberating Jerusalem, the Crusades did do great good in certain areas.  The Reconquista  in Spain eventually succeeded in returning that country to Christianity.  Also, many of the other crusades slowed or weakened Muslim advances and in so doing prevented further conquests in the West.

Encounter Between the Saint and the Sultan: A Fascinating “What-If”

Many people like to contrast the armed battles of the Crusades with the attempt at achieving peace that St. Francis engaged in.  That meeting between St. Francis and the Sultan of Egypt during the course of a disastrous battle for the crusaders is one of the most legendary encounters of the crusades.

Late in the summer of 1219, Francis of Assisi crossed enemy lines during the Fifth Crusade, hoping that he could convert Egypt’s Sultan Malik al-Kamil to Christianity.  Francis, who had begun his ministry after recovering from the trauma of a horrific battlefield experience and imprisonment, hoped to end the violence of the Crusade by winning over the sultan.[4]

There are conflicting accounts of what transpired between St. Francis and the Sultan and none can be documented well enough to know the details, but all accounts seem to agree on three seemingly miraculous aspects of their meeting:

- St. Franicis and a friar named Illuminato were conducted safely across Muslim lines by Saracen sentries and ushered into the presence of Sultan Malik al-Kamil

- St. Francis and the Sultan did engage in significant conversation and St. Francis was allowed to try to persuade the Sultan about the truth of Christianity despite the opposition of other Muslim religious leaders who were present

- St. Francis and his companion were treated as respected guests and were ultimately escorted safely back to the Christian side along with the gift of an ivory horn, now displayed in the Basilica in Assisi.[5]

Although St. Francis was unable to convert the Sultan to Christianity, his endeavor did show the medieval world that a reasonable dialogue could be held even between enemies during a period of conflict. “The contemporary concept of interreligious dialogue didn’t exist at the time, but this was nonetheless a dialogue—a peaceful exchange of ideas about two competing religions.”[6]

We can only wonder what might have happened if St. Francis had succeeded in converting Sultin al-Kamil to Christianity.  Could it have changed the course of history as dramatically as Constantine’s conversion had done 900 years earlier?  Since God at least allowed the failure in His permissive will, we can trust that He will bring some good from it, even if we never comprehend it in this world.

At the same time, Catholics need to avoid the temptation to characterize St. Francis’s efforts as good and all the crusaders efforts as evil.  The need for some just wars will probably always be a reality in our world because sin will be present in the world until Jesus’ second coming.  To minimize the need for future armed conflict, we must objectively study our history and proclaim the truth.  We must also affirm the legitimate sacrifices of Christian warriors of the past.  Many of them died to preserve the Christian heritage that we too often take for granted.

---

[1] Thomas F. Madden, “Inventing the Crusades,” First Things, June, 2009, accessed February 18, 2016, http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/06/inventing-the-crusades

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Paul, Moses, "Mission improbable: St Francis & the Sultan," Commonweal, 136, no. 16 (September 25, 2009): 11, ATLA Catholic Periodical and Literature Index, EBSCOhost, accessed February 26, 2016, http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=a743bbed-b972-439e-8b05-b1b079c54771%40sessionmgr4001&vid=3&hid=4205

                 [5] Ibid, 12,16.

                 [6] Ibid,15.

Bibliography

Madden, Thomas F. “Inventing the Crusades.” First Things. June, 2009. Accessed February 18, 2016 http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/06/inventing-the-crusades

Moses, Paul. "Mission improbable: St Francis & the Sultan." Commonweal, 136, no. 16 (September 25, 2009): 11-16. ATLA Catholic Periodical and Literature Index, EBSCOhost. Accessed February 26, 2016. http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=a743bbed-b972-439e-8b05-b1b079c54771%40sessionmgr4001&vid=3&hid=4205

St. Peter

Accepting God’s Mercy & Call

St. Peter is a powerful movie about our first pope with Omar Sharif in the lead role and a strong supporting cast of lesser known, largely Italian, actors.  Originally released in Italian as San Pietro and shot on location in Tunisia, the film beautifully depicts the life of St. Peter from the crucifixion of Christ through St. Peter’s own crucifixion.   It also includes a number of flashbacks to Jesus’ ministry and his three years teaching the Apostles.

Dramatically, the film centers on the transformation of Peter from a man almost completely destroyed by his betrayal of Christ to the faith-filled leader of the early Church willing to embrace martyrdom in the name of Jesus, his Lord and Savior.  Throughout the film, Sharif does an excellent job of portraying St. Peter’s great love of Jesus along with his own human weaknesses, especially when Peter is overcome by fear or doubt.  That contrast shows us one reason why Jesus may have chosen Peter to be the first pope.  We can see ourselves in Peter - - his great desire to love and serve Jesus, yet his tendency toward impetuosity and self-preservation.

Peter’s transformation is especially well demonstrated in two sections of the film.  Immediately after Jesus’ death and before the resurrection, Peter is overcome with shame.  Initially, he wants to withdraw from the other disciples, believing that he is a total failure.  But, the Apostles urge him to be their leader, reminding him that Jesus chose Peter for that role knowing that Peter would deny him.  Peter ultimately, trusts in God’s mercy and begins to take on the mission to which Jesus has called him, praying “Help me Jesus, I am not worthy.  Help me to understand what I must do for my brothers.”  He exhorts the Apostles who were weakening in their faith to remain in Jerusalem for the coming of the Spirit as Jesus had commanded them.  This is contrasted with the news that Judas has given in to despair and hung himself.

Peter’s tremendous spiritual growth is also clearly shown in the scenes depicting the controversy about whether gentiles can be baptized or brought into the Church without being circumcised.  Initially, Peter wants to avoid the issue and not deal with the conflict between Matthew and Paul.  In one scene, he defaults to the position that Jews cannot eat with pagans.  But, St. Paul reminds Peter that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been given to the gentile Cornelius and challenges Peter to recognize that the issue must be decided definitively or the fledging Christian community will be torn apart.  Peter ultimately steps into his role as pope, and, after unresolved arguments among the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem, says that he must make the final decision.

Although it is not explicitly stated in the film, St. Peter points strongly to the Scriptural basis and early Church affirmation of the primacy of Peter and the office of the Pope.

The title deed of the papacy as an institution in its claim to universality in the spiritual sphere of government is found in two crucial passages of the New Testament . . . (Mt 16.18–19), which traditional exegesis understands to have been a promise made by Christ to St. Peter; the other is the fulfillment of the promise contained in . . . (Jn 21.17). Both passages gave rise to the claim of two kinds of primacy (primatus) in the Roman Church: a magisterial and a jurisdictional primacy; the former is concerned with the final definition of doctrine and teaching; the latter, with government in the sense of a final decision . . . in the Biblical passages . . . Christ founded a new society, namely, the Church, and provided a government for the Church by conferring on Peter a fullness of power. It was a unique, creative act of Christ Himself.[1]

Through poignant flashback scenes, the above-referenced passages are convincingly reenacted.  We see Jesus giving Peter this primacy, both jurisdictional and magisterial.  When Jesus looks at Peter with great love and solemnly declares, “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” (Mt 16:18), the viewer receives a clear message that St. Peter has been given a unique mission and authority.   Later, when Jesus gives Peter the opportunity to repent for his triple denial of Jesus by declaring his love for Jesus three times, Christ clearly entrusts Peter with the responsibility for overseeing the Church as its chief shepherd, commanding Peter to, “Feed my lambs . . . Tend my sheep . . . Feed my sheep.” (Jn 21:15-17)

Because the flashbacks occur at crucial points in the movie when Peter has to exercise his authority, we literally see Jesus’ plan for the papacy being lived out.  Peter’s magisterial primacy is demonstrated when He makes the final decision regarding gentiles being co-heirs to the gift of the Spirit and salvation through Christ’s sacrifice.  Peter’s jurisdictional primacy is demonstrated when he tells the disciples who want to flee Jerusalem after Jesus’ crucifixion that they must remain together in prayer as Jesus had commanded, and when Peter is shown directing the apostles to the various lands where they will preach the Good News.

By beginning and ending the film with parallel crucifixion scenes, we also see the redemptive power of God and the amazing expansion of the early Christian community.  Whereas Jesus was abandoned at the end of His life, except by the Blessed Mother and St. John, by the time of Peter’s crucifixion, there was a growing Christian community in Rome willing to endure increasing persecutions by the Romans.  Also, the rest of the apostles had spread out establishing new Christian communities throughout much of the known world.

Although the scenery and costumes seemed very realistic in St. Peter, and the quality of the film was

generally very good, it had two aspects that detracted from the film in this reviewer’s opinion.  In the scene depicting Peter’s miraculous escape from prison (described in Acts 12:6-12), the angel who releases him is not shown or referenced at all.  The only thing that appears is a bright light.  Peter then just arrives at the upper room.  It is confusing how he got there if one does not know the Scripture.  A second bigger issue is that the majority of the second half of the film is an invented and complicated love story about a young Christian woman and the son of a powerful Roman nobleman.  Actual events, such as Peter’s preaching in Rome, Paul’s beheading, and Christian opposition to pagan practices such as the killing of gladiators for entertainment, are interwoven into the story.  But, the over three hour running time of the movie could have been shortened considerably and better focused on the life of St. Peter without the invented storyline.

St. Peter is now available on DVD in two English versions from Amazon.  The first is a 2007 release from Lions Gate studio (ASIN: B000M9BPG2).  The second is a 2014 release from Ignatius Press (ASIN: B00HUFCK7).  It is also periodically rebroadcast on the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN).

---

[1] W. Ullmann and G. Schwaiger, "Papacy." New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed. Vol. 10 (Detroit: Gale, 2003), 829-830, Gale Virtual Reference Library, accessed March 1, 2016, http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3407708448&v=2.1&u=23009&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=d93f9968f4f36f0ffc128d87b97d56f7.

Bibliography

Ullmann, W., and G. Schwaiger. "Papacy." New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed. Vol. 10. Detroit: Gale, 2003. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Accessed March 1, 2016. http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3407708448&v=2.1&u=23009&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=d93f9968f4f36f0ffc128d87b97d56f7