Come Rack, Come Rope

I recently read (twice) English novelist Evelyn Waugh's life of St. Edmund Campion, the Jesuit priest who was martyred under Elizabeth I. Perhaps it is a certain Shakespearean quality--a kind of tragicomedy--about Campion's story that draws me to him. Perhaps it is the surprisingly contemporary character of his story--his Gospel of peace and reconciliation increasingly perceived as a threat to Crown and State. In any case, I cannot help but admire this brilliant and brave companion of Jesus.

Campion began his career as an Oxford scholar, and proved himself among the brightest lights of the University. He won the good favor of the Queen when she made her famous visit to Oxford in 1569, and even earned the patronage of the Earl of Leicester, the Queen's favorite suitor. He was ordained a deacon in the newly established Church of England, and commenced his Theology studies.

As he studied the Church Fathers, however, his conscience weighed heavier and heavier upon him. Was it possible that the true religion, as Christ had intended it, had remained hidden for 1500 years, only to be revealed in these last days to a few English elites? He sought the good opinion of every learned person he thought might be able to resolve his doubts, but in vain.

Not yet desiring the life of an outlaw, he attempted to buy himself time by traveling to Dublin to assist with the establishment of the University there (later Trinity College). However, this endeavor was short-lived, and in 1571 he fled to France. At the English College at Douai, a haven for Catholic ex-patriots, he was reconciled to the Catholic Church, and began his studies for priesthood.

After ordination, Campion traveled to Rome, where he joined the Society of Jesus. His early years as a Jesuit were spent teaching in Vienna and Prague. But in 1580 a mission to England was established, with Jesuits at the helm. Their mission was a dangerous one, as the Mass was banned, and any priest found saying Mass, or any lay man or woman found harboring a priest for the purpose of saying Mass, was considered guilty of treason.

Still, Campion's small group, entering England by different ports, disguised as merchants and assuming false names, were able to slip past the authorities. For the next year they preached and administered the sacraments to those English men and women who remained faithful to Rome, moving from house to house, rarely staying more than a night. This proved a difficult task, as the Crown employed informants, professional "priest-hunters", such as the infamous George Eliot.

It was no suprise, therefore, that on 15 July 1581, Campion and his companions were discovered. Campion's arms were bound, and a piece of paper bearing the inscription "CAMPION THE SEDITIOUS JESUIT" was stuck in his hat. He was led to the Tower of London, where he was met by the Queen herself. Elizabeth asked Campion whether he acknowledged her as his rightful Queen, and promised wealth and high office in her church if he would renounced his faith. Campion acknowledged that she was his rightful Queen, but refused to renounce his faith.

After many grueling months of torture, which included being racked twice, and theological debate with Anglican scholars who refused him the use of texts or notes, Campion and his companions were collectively tried for treason. They were quickly convicted and sentenced to death, at which the group sang the Te Deum laudamus. Upon the scaffold at Tyburn, Campion prayed that the Queen have a long and peaceful reign. He was then hanged until he was half dead, his genitals cut off, his bowels torn out, and his mangled body beheaded and quartered, the parts to be disposed with according to Her Majesty's pleasure.

In a letter to his mentor, Cardinal William Allen, Campion wrote, "I have made a free oblation of myself to His Divine Majesty, both for life and death, and I hope He will give me grace and force to perform; and this is all I desire."

Saint Edmund Campion, pray for us!

Why Believe in Jesus of Nazareth?

Today, as part of my Lord's Day observance, I watched the excellent documentary, The Case for Christ, based on Lee Strobel's book by the same name. In the film, Strobel, a journalist for the Chicago Tribune and former atheist, ably presents the evidence--collected over the course of years and with a journalist's critical eye--for belief in Christ.

Here are just a few highlights of the film:

The historical reliability of the Gospels. Strobel argues that, while one may choose to believe or not to believe that the four canonical Gospels (i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are divinely inspired, one cannot deny that they are reliable historical sources. He notes the scholarly consensus that the Gospels were written within the lifetime of the Apostles (i.e. before 90 A.D.). In other words, they were authored by, or with the assistance of, eyewitnesses to Jesus life, death, and resurrection. Further, since the proclamation of these Gospels was a community event, and that many of these eyewitnesses were still living in the community, they surely would have corrected the Gospel accounts had they strayed from the truth.

Strobel also easily refutes the argument that the Gospels are unreliable due to inconsistencies among the different accounts. He demonstrates that these inconsistencies are relatively insignificant and observes that, in a court of law, were the testimonies of many witnesses identical, the first objection would be "collusion", that the witnesses had conspired to produce a false testimony. In this respect, the small variations among the four Gospels only add to their credibility; they do not detract from it.

The consistent witness to the personality of Jesus. Strobel also refutes the argument that it is impossible to know who Jesus really was or what He really did, considering the proliferation of apocryphal "gospels" and other scriptures, particularly originating from the Gnostics (an early Christian sect that taught that matter was inherently evil and that salvation was achieved through esoteric knowledge, in Greek, "gnosis"). These Gospels, however, are universally recognized by scholars as being written well after the Apostolic era, and present a portrait of Jesus that is often disconsonant with the earlier, eye-witness accounts of Jesus and His ministry.

The joint witness of the empty tomb and the blood of the martyrs. For Strobel, as for most Christians, the primary issue is Jesus' resurrection from the dead. He observes several idiosyncrasies (as we might call them) about the Gospel accounts of the resurrection. For instance, the Gospels report that it was women (including Mary Magdalene, a woman with a dubious past) that were the first witnesses to the resurrection. Strobel argues that, had the story been fabricated, the Gospel authors certainly would not have relied on the witness of women, distrusted as they were in first century Palestine. Further, the Gospels report that it was Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin (the Jewish governing body that condemned Jesus to death), who offered his new tomb for the burial of Jesus. Surely the Gospel authors would not have reported this potentially embarrassing fact had they fabricated the story. Finally, Strobel observes that after His resurrection, Jesus appears not to a select few, but to hundreds of people. Many, if not most, of these early witnesses to the resurrection gave up their lives in martyrdom rather than deny what they saw with their own eyes, and heard with their own ears, and touched with their own hands. And not only these, but others who were initially opposed to Jesus, such as the Pharisee Saul of Tarsus (a.k.a. Paul the Apostle). It is highly unlikely, Strobel argues, that people would choose to die for what they knew was false.

Strobel, fine journalist that he is, has certainly done his homework. I highly recommend this film to both believer and skeptic alike.

Watch the entire film here (or on Hulu.com):

A Southern Comfort Christmas (Sort Of)

Brothers and Sisters,

A very Merry Christmas to all!

This Christmas I had the great privilege to hear Midnight Mass in Savannah's historic Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist. Bishop Kevin Boland presided and gave the homily. I was particularly struck by His Excellency's concern for two groups of Catholics: those who have fallen away and those who are persecuted.

Regarding fallen away Catholics, he recalled the now-famous "Catholics Come Home" campaign, in which the Diocese of Savannah is participating. He observed that there are (according to a recent study) several reasons that Catholics have left the Church, but none so frequent as the fact that many are frankly too lazy to attend mass on Sunday mornings (although, with the advent of Saturday Vigil masses and Sunday evening masses, this should no longer be a problem). He reminded his listeners that the practice of our faith always comes at a price, be it great or small. For us in the United States, where we are blessed with religious freedom and peace, the price is comparatively small.


For persecuted Catholics in such places as Iraq and Pakistan, however, the price is great. Many, such as those martyred in the All Saint's Eve attack on Our Lady of Salvation Syriac Catholic Cathedral in Baghdad, have paid with their lives. The violence, instigated by Muslim jihadists, has caused Iraqi Christians to cancel their Christmas festivities this year. Let us not forget during this season of peace that many of our brothers and sisters in the faith still live under a pall of fear. Let us pray for the relief of the persecuted and for the conversion of the persecutors, begging the intercession of the Martyrs of Baghdad.

Ultimately, Bishop Boland said, the mission of the Church remains the same as in centuries past: that Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, be born in every human heart. Only then can there be true and lasting peace on earth. Let's get busy.

Here is the well-known tv spot encouraging Catholics to "come home":



And here is a beautiful "Hail Mary" sung in Syriac:



May the Infant Jesus, Word made Flesh and Prince of Peace, be born again in your hearts this Christmas season.

Render Unto Caesar

This is not a political blog, and intentionally so. My purpose here is to witness to the perennial truths of the Gospel, not to advocate one policy over another or one politician over another, though I could and, in certain circumstances, should. However, Senator Barack Obama's abuse of Scripture, both Hebrew and Christian, in support of a fundamentally flawed and self-contradictory view of religious pluralism, impels me to speak out.

There are two things that distinguished the Roman Empire, which in many ways provides an ancient model for our American "empire": 1) supreme religious plurality and tolerance and 2) emperor worship. Among the many and varied cults that crowded the temples of the Eternal City, the worship of the emperor as the bringer of national prosperity and security was, as they say, an institution. Chesterton warned, "abolish the God and the government becomes the God" (Christendom in Dublin). While Rome did not exactly abolish God, it did the next worse thing, exalting in a national pantheon every deity who ever claimed dominion over the fates of men, which unfortunately included the likes of Nero and Domitian.

Thus it is imperative to remember that the first-century Christians were not persecuted for their tolerance of the Hebrew god, but for their intolerance of every other god, including the mighty Caesar. They were persecuted for their insistence that such titles as "son of God" were the sole property of the Son of Man, and rigidly refused to make the small concession of lending them to the emperor. Saint John speaks of this bitter trial in his Apocalypse:

Fascinated, the whole world followed after the beast [the Emperor]. They worshipped the dragon [Satan] because it gave its authority to the beast; they also worshipped the beast and said, "Who can compare with the beast or who can fight against it?" (13:3, 4)

Senator Obama erroneously suggests that democracy requires that believers "translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific values", even as he chides secularists for their lack of religious vocabulary in a clever, but ultimately transparent attempt at moderation. What to make of such a proposal? Why cannot Senator Obama and his fellow progressives see that morality divorced from religion is wholly subjective and arbitrary, totally dependent upon the whims of the individual or the mob? When Lincoln boldly declared that our nation was "dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal", he was really making two mutually dependent theological assertions, that men are created and that they are equal. The proposition that all men are created by God, therefore no man is God, and therefore no man may rule another is the only sure foundation of democracy. It was the Creed that cut the chains of a race enslaved.

The Roman martyrs would not leave their religious language at the door of the Forum, and so were left to the the lion's mouth in the Colosseum. The lesson here: religious pluralism is no guarantee of religious freedom and can (paradoxically) usurp that fundamental right. Let us not be deceived by false prophets who cry "peace, peace," or even "hope, hope".