The Catholic Thing

The Catholic Thing is a daily column rooted in the richest cultural tradition in the world, i.e., the concrete historical reality of Catholicism.

  1. 10h ago

    'I Am Arthur, [Catholic] King of the Britons'

    By Brad Miner In our current mood of skepticism and sense of superiority about our own ancestors, it's easy, almost obligatory, to mock their beliefs and foibles. The title of this column comes from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the British comedy group's 1975 send-up of all things medieval. (Adapted for the stage as Spamalot.) It is, at times, hilarious – that is when it's not being sacrilegious and lascivious. It's rated PG-13 but should be R. If you've seen it, you know; if you haven't, beware: it puts the rib in ribald. You've been warned. King Arthur, played with stodgy imperiousness by Graham Chapman, jogs across a sodden landscape with his faithful servant, Patsy (Terry Gilliam), following behind, clapping two coconut halves together to make the sound of hoofbeats. At one point, Arthur encounters some peasants, who seem to be harvesting. . . mud. They ask him who he is. King Arthur: I am your king. Woman (Terry Jones): Well, I didn't vote for you. King Arthur: You don't vote for kings. Woman: Well, how'd you become king then? [Angelic music plays…] King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king— Dennis (Michael Palin): [interrupting] — Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. Poor Arthur. No matter where he goes, it's always the same: skepticism reigns, not he. Yet to this day, Arthur has sovereignty over our imaginations if, that is, we are imagining a great king. And I'll go no further without noting that I'm leaving the true King, our Lord, out of this. When I was 6 years old, my father's mother came to visit and babysit my older brother and me while our parents took a short vacation. One afternoon, she took us to see Knights of the Round Table, which starred Robert Taylor as Lancelot, Ava Gardner as Guinevere, and Mel Ferrer as Arthur. I loved the movie. In high school, I bought the original Broadway cast recording of Lerner and Loewe's Camelot, with Robert Goulet as Lancelot, Julie Andrews as Guinevere, and Richard Burton as Arthur. In just the motion picture business, there have been several hundred Arthur films: from a dozen or more in the Silent Era to hundreds of "talkies," on the Big Screen and the small one. And most have had not the slightest thing to do with the real King Arthur, and that's okay, because Arthur is more a legend than a fact, which means what they call "poetic license" has been in play since "Arthur" first appeared in English literature. His name initially appears in Welsh sources from the early decades of the 9th century, which is more than four centuries after the events the documents purport to record. The pagan Romans had largely rooted out Britain's Druids and other pagans, and after four-and-a-half centuries of occupation, the Legions began heading back to Rome, crossing paths with Catholic missionaries coming up from the Eternal City, baptizing as they came, until new pagans, the Saxons, crossed the Channel in the middle of the 5th century. And this is the historical nexus from which the legend of "Arthur" arose. But every surviving source about Arthur comes from four centuries later. In the earliest, he's not a king but a warrior – and a Catholic warrior at that; a soldier, with an image of Our Lady on his shield. He is undefeated in battle. Then enter the Angevins. Angevin (from Anjou, a duchy in northern France) refers to the dynastic line that begins with Henry II. He was Count of Anjou before becoming King of England. And it was under his and his queen's influence that the story of Arthur catapulted from mere myth to national (even international) ethos. That queen, Eleanor of Aquitaine, was a formidable woman. Movie fans know her and He...

  2. 1d ago

    Thoughts from the Memory Hole

    By Francis X. Maier Americans don't suffer from amnesia. We prefer it. Memory shapes who we are as individuals, a nation, and a culture. But we define ourselves as a "new order of ages." Those words are stamped directly on America's Great Seal. Thus, Americans dislike the past. And since the 1960s, Europeans have followed suit. The reason is simple. History as it really happened is inconvenient baggage. We ignore or reinvent it, the better to reinvent ourselves. And this is exactly how the modern spirit (see here and here) treats our civilization's Christian roots. The term "Middle Ages," for example, is a creature of Renaissance humanists. The Enlightenment added a bitter flavor to the mix. For men like Voltaire, the Christian past was little more than a blend of cruelty, ignorance, and superstition. And that caricature – that perversion of real history – persists today. Robert Eggers' upcoming film Werwulf, releasing on Christmas Day 2026, features a predictably wicked priest in a ferociously bleak 13th century. Ridley Scott's 2005 film Kingdom of Heaven showcases 12th-century corrupt Christian clergy and psychotic crusaders quacking "God wills it!" in pursuit of mayhem. The trouble with caricatures is that they're false. They're a cocktail of fact and self-serving modern revisionism. The "Middle" Ages had plenty of disease, poverty, violence, and disorder. But they were also marked by extraordinary art, architecture, and scholarship. They also saw a profound religious renewal; a flowering of civil, canon, and common law; and a striking economic revival. As for the Crusades – that favorite target of modern critics – consider the following. Jonathan Riley-Smith (d. 2016) is revered as one of the great historians of the last 100 years. He's also widely seen as the premier scholar of the crusading era, a reputation built on a massive body of work. A convert to the Catholic faith in his Cambridge undergraduate years, he never diminished or romanticized the violence of the Crusades. Quite the opposite. He noted that they were often undermined by "indiscipline and atrocities" – including fierce outbursts of hatred against Jews – with immense suffering as a result. But he explained their context and content with exceptional accuracy. And he insisted on seeking to understand the Crusades through the eyes of their participants. Riley-Smith's book The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam, based on his 2007 Bampton Lectures at Columbia University, captures in barely 80 pages the realities of crusader motives, life, and times. He has special disgust for modern distortions like Kingdom of Heaven, in which: a cruel, avaricious, and cowardly Christian clergy preaches unadulterated hatred against the Muslims. The priests' stupidity and fanaticism are echoed in the minds of the crusaders, the Templars, and most of the leaders of the Christian settlement around Jerusalem. . . . [Yet in] the midst of zealotry and bigotry a brotherhood of freethinkers has vowed to create an environment in which all religions can coexist in harmony. They are in touch with [the Muslim leader] Saladin, who shares their aims of toleration and peace, but zealots on the Christian side set out to wreck any chance of an accommodation with Islam. For today's secular skeptic or the uninformed moviegoer, such a storyline might have value as entertainment. But as history, it's sheer counterfactual propaganda. As incomprehensible they might seem to the present-day mind, the Crusades were "collective acts of penance," "penitential war pilgrimages" and — most importantly — fundamentally reactive to Muslim conquest of the Holy Land and interference with Christian pilgrims. They emerged from an organic medieval theology of penitential warfare and Augustinian just-war thinking, not a perversion of it. As Riley-Smith notes, they had the support of saints from Bernard of Clairvaux to Thomas Aquinas to Catherine of Siena. The Crusades were never colonialist or imperialist in a mod...

  3. 2d ago

    Foolproof against Nothingness

    By Michael Pakaluk But first a note: Be sure to tune in tonight – Thursday, July 16 at 8 PM Eastern – to EWTN for a new episode of the Papal Posse on 'The World Over.' TCT Editor-in-Chief Robert Royal and contributor Fr. Gerald E. Murray will join host Raymond Arroyo to discuss the ongoing SSPX saga, synodality, and other current issues in the Church and the world. Check your local listings for the channel in your area. Shows are usually available shortly after first airing on the EWTN YouTube channel. Now for today's column... Last Sunday, at the small parish in the mountain village where I was on vacation, they sang – remarkably – all nine stanzas of Isaac Watts's famous hymn, "O God Our Help in Ages Past." It was sung as the closing hymn, putting to the test those parishioners most stalwart about not leaving for their cars until the singing is over. You remember the bit about "time like an ever-rolling stream." But I wager you have never sung these lyrics: The busy tribes of flesh and blood, With all their lives and cares, Are carried downwards by the flood, And lost in foll'wing years. Lugubrious? Yes, and yet also true. Most of us are forgotten soon after we die, certainly so in our work. If we are fortunate, children and grandchildren will remember us in their prayers. But even the most pious among us do not pray for our great-great-grandparents. That hymn is beloved because it invites us to look at our material strivings from God's point of view. We see that everything like that, which we take to be important now, will be reduced to nothingness. This should free us from care – "is not life more than food and clothing" – if we throw ourselves upon God. That's an important if. Bertrand Russell, in his book The Conquest of Happiness, describes an atheist's technique, an analogue of the hymn: "When some misfortune threatens, consider seriously and deliberately what is the very worst that could possibly happen. Having looked this possible misfortune in the face, give yourself sound reasons for thinking that after all it would be no such very terrible disaster. Such reasons always exist, since at the worst nothing that happens to oneself has any cosmic importance." Elsewhere, he counsels: think of how insignificant your care will appear a hundred years from now. That technique, however, makes good disappear as well as bad. Without God, all the persons in our lives, and all our goods, have no cosmic importance. Life would be "a tale, told by an idiot." Nihilism would be justified. A hundred years from now, your spouse will be of no importance. Go out two hundred, and your child is not. Go out a thousand, and your country is not. Everything valuable is carried downward by the flood and "flies forgotten as a dream." We know that in Christ we're promised eternal life. But what about immunity from the loss of any good? Suppose someone said, "Here's a special word, and if you say this word while doing something good, then the value of that good thing won't be swept away by time, but will be preserved forever." Wouldn't you be keen to know that word and be sure to use it? It would be like so many other things in Christianity: for just about no effort, we can acquire great good, and all we need to do is not neglect the proffered means. Each day in Christian life we face a situation like that of Naaman, a general of the King of Aram, who was looking to be cured of his leprosy, and all he needed to do was bathe in the river seven times. (2 Kings 5) I am speaking about offering up the good things in our life to God. Of this, St. John Vianney said, "Oh, what a beautiful thing it is to do all things in union with the good God! Courage, my soul; if you work with God, you shall, indeed, do the work, but He will bless it; you shall walk, and He will bless your steps." So far, he speaks of blessing. But then he turns to the preserving: "Everything shall be taken count of, the foregoing of a look, of some gratification – all shall be recor...

  4. 3d ago

    Hard Lessons from a Priest Who Stayed in Gaza

    By Auguste Meyrat In the interest of diplomacy and personal relations, it's normally a good idea to follow the adage, "If you can't say anything nice about someone, don't say anything at all." But when it comes to assessing challenging and complex situations, this advice should be flipped: "If you can't say anything critical or incisive or even just useful, don't say anything at all." All too often, good-hearted people will smother a truthful analysis with platitudes that obscure issues and prevent potential solutions. Such, alas, is the case with the well-meaning but ultimately counterproductive book, The Priest Who Stayed in Gaza: A Witness to Hope in the Ruins by Fr. Gabriel Romanelli, an Argentinian priest who has ministered to the dwindling Christian community in Gaza for the past few years. Already run down and desperately poor, the Gaza Strip became an active war zone after the Israeli military responded to the horrific terrorist attacks on October 7, 2023, looking to recover hostages and remove Hamas from power. True to the book's title, Romanelli refused to leave the area. Amidst the bombs and fighting, he continued to run the Holy Family Church, directing instruction for the children; managing the living conditions for homeless families; overseeing medical care for the sick and wounded; and celebrating the Mass for the few Christians still coming to church. Unfortunately, the qualities that would make Romanelli an ideal observer prove to be his undoing. He is too close to the action to offer an objective perspective that would do the hard work of identifying causes and evaluating paths forward. He is too busy mediating conflicts between refugees, rationing food and water supplies, and entertaining the children to take a larger view of what is happening. Another problem is Romanelli's commitment to "avoid judgements, condemnations, denunciations, and other expressions belonging to the legal domain." He thinks doing this will help him "clarify [his] point, reflect the atmosphere of the moment, or explain a particular situation," as well as heal the many wounds inflicted by this conflict. But this approach usually leads to precisely the opposite. Everything he describes happens with hardly any explanation: bombs fall, refugees arrive, the IDF imposes blockades, humanitarian convoys are looted, hostages are taken and tortured, ceasefires are made and broken, reconstruction is prohibited – all for apparently unknown reasons. Although Romanelli thinks that this kind of indiscriminate reporting from an insider will encourage his audience to rise above blaming one side or the other, it mostly causes the reader to blame everyone for the seemingly senseless chaos. Despite their misery and the suffering it brings, the Gazans largely support Hamas and do little to create a workable society. Despite the heavy casualties and violent reprisals, the Israelis keep up their siege of Gaza and turn the area into an open-air prison. Perhaps worst of all is Romanelli himself, who, despite his endless trials in Gaza, never really explains why he is there or what he wants. In broad terms, he is a Catholic missionary preaching the Christian Gospel and overseeing a local parish. But in his book, he primarily preaches a generic secular humanism (summed up in a repeated line, "Primum vivere: one must live above all") and leads a refugee camp that primarily serves Muslims. Ironically, he becomes indignant when journalists portray him as a "man who works for a humanitarian NGO." He insists that he is "here for Christ – that is the truth." Meanwhile, the number of Christians under his care declined rapidly, and his pastoral duties mainly pertained to housing refugees and providing them free childcare and healthcare. In his defense, this is all he can do because of the radical Islamist rule in Gaza: "speaking was not possible: but giving a sign of charity, yes." Yet surely if speaking in Gaza was impossible, his writing to the rest of the world...

  5. 4d ago

    The Anthropological Unity of Magnifica Humanitas

    By John M. Grondelski Magnifica humanitas, Pope Leo XIV's inaugural encyclical, is largely understood by the public as addressing artificial intelligence. The general public's view is that, like his namesake 135 years ago in Rerum Novarum, Pope Prevost intends to address the "new things" of the 21st century. To quote Abraham Lincoln: "There is some truth in this. . ." But to continue his quotation, ". . .I am glad of it, but it is not WHOLLY true." (emphasis in original) There are even those who want to spin Magnifica humanitas as a papal abandonment of "pelvic theology" in favor of "social justice." There is far less truth in that. While the pope sought to address "new things," good stewards know how to bring out of the Church's storehouse "things old and new." (Matthew 13:52) Yes, we need to address "new things." But we address them with the wisdom of old. What is a more central point to Magnifica humanitas, however, is a more central anthropological truth: the human person cannot be replaced. The human person is non-substitutable. As Vatican II reminded us, the human person is the one creature on earth that God wanted for itself. (Gaudium et spes, 24) The challenge artificial intelligence poses, on the practical level, is the likelihood of causing human unemployment by the technologization of work, especially basic work often branded as "entry-level." That especially threatens vulnerable populations: the young, trying to break into the job market; the inexperienced; and the untrained. If, a decade ago, a certain smugness told miners to "learn to code," today's hubristic reply might be "polish your barista skills." Employment and unemployment are not just economic phenomena because work (as Pope John Paul II noted 45 years ago in Laborem exercens) is not just a cost factor. Employment is essential to human flourishing (which is a bigger and more important category than even economic prosperity, though they are not exclusive). People need to work. A society that deprives people of work – in the name of a utopian vision or to maximize profits – is an inhuman society. And let's not allow some people to get away with downplaying that truth because they won't admit what they want is a society driven purely by economics. As in the old adage, these are folks who know the price of everything but the value of nothing. AI also poses a theoretical challenge. Ever since Plato – and especially since Descartes – there's been a temptation to think of the human person as a mind merely inhabiting a body. Contemporary transhumanism simply radicalizes that mistake by imagining consciousness detached from embodiment. Christian anthropology insists instead that the human person is an embodied unity whose dignity cannot be reduced to information or computation. (Of course, according to certain early theologians, it was precisely that incarnational state that provoked diabolical rebellion). That some "transhumanists" have visions of minds detached from bodies dancing in their heads suggests that the theoretical threat continues. The core problem is not technology: it's humanity. Oren Cass captured this problem in his reflections on the common social-event question, "What do you do?" It typically functions, Cass observes, to pigeonhole people: doing X gets you special creds, doing Y is meh (except when the specially credentialled need food deliveries, plumbing repairs, or electrical work). Very few ask the question from the standpoint of the Christian anthropological value of work, i.e., what does who you are find expression in what you do? A crucial truth of Magnifica humanitas is the centrality and irreplaceability of the human person. Man is not just a thinker that a machine can replace. Man is not just a worker that a robot should replace. The encyclical asks the question: do you think that a person's qualitative distinction trumps his potential functional technological-economic substitutability? Is a person more than just a cog in somebody...

  6. 5d ago

    The TLM and the Four Last Things

    By Robert Royal I recently attended the funeral of a young man who died tragically. It happened to be a solemn high Traditional Latin Mass, entirely licit and even affirmed by the presence of our local bishop, his retired predecessor, and a couple dozen priests. That liturgy, however, was – all extraneous considerations aside – definitely not something to be reduced to the controversies surrounding the recent SSPX consecrations, the back and forth about Traditionis custodes (Pope Francis' sharp curtailing of the TLM), or the short- and long-term fallout of Sacrosanctum Concilium (the Vatican II document on liturgy). It was all directed towards prayer for the eternal destiny of the young man's soul and the souls of us all, which – sad to say – seem to get scant attention in the Church today, even at funerals. It was a deeply moving experience, and it got me thinking, afterwards, as to why modern funerals so often are not. There's been a massive shift in the Church towards what are often even called – even at Catholic funerals – "celebrations of the life" of someone who has died. And there seems to be an unspoken current running beneath it all that, despite all Our Lord's warnings about the narrowness of the gate, everyone ends up in Heaven. (By the way, it won't do to blame Hans Urs von Balthasar or, more recently, someone like Bishop Robert Barron among others, for encouraging this attitude. I noticed during the Rosary before Mass that the Fatima prayer contains the formula, "And lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of thy mercy." Sure. The prayer doesn't say that all are saved, or even that many are. And in truth, to judge from the Scriptures, not all of us are. But it certainly expresses that hope, which we all should have.) Still, the easy assumption that all or almost all are saved is not only a theological question. We have to recognize that it basically short-circuits the whole of Christian life, which is at least a drama, and oftentimes a spiritual battle. If not, why, then, did Jesus have to die on the Cross to save us? Why, even, does He have to tell us to leave all and follow Him? We know that missionary work (now replaced by the tonier but vaguer "evangelization") has also dissipated in recent years. Is it too much to think that missionaries now are just another victim of the soft and formulaic "dialogue" and "respect" for other religions (and none) that seem to have displaced the command to preach the Gospel to all nations? And is that, too, just another consequence of the current etiquette that pretty much everyone is eternally fine, whatever they believe or, often enough, even whatever they do? There was a time when everyone in the Church, even schoolchildren (in my own case), was taught about the "Four Last Things": Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell. There was no squeamishness in talking about such ultimate matters – but this was before the advent of the Christian snowflake. It's all still present in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (¶ 1020-1060). But does anyone preach such truths or take them seriously anymore? And how long before, without renewed attention to the main things, they disappear entirely from catechesis? There are even teachings, Catholic teachings, in the Catechism about Purgatory. There's been a long-running debate between Catholics and Protestants over whether Purgatory is mentioned in the Bible. If you accept the text of the Old Testament that the early Church used, which included prayers offered for the dead (Maccabees), Purgatory is the logical consequence. It is not, if you choose the slimmer canon of Jewish Scriptures, as do some Protestants, which had a complex history but was probably defined some centuries later by rabbinic Judaism after the destruction of Jerusalem and dispersal of the Jews. If you think about it for a moment, unless Purgatory exists, it makes no sense to pray for the souls of the dead. The families and friends of the departed can gather toge...

  7. 6d ago

    Focused on Eternity

    By Fr. Benedict Kiely As a young man of around fourteen or fifteen, it was an amusement, late at night in my bedroom in England, gently to move the dial on the shortwave section of my radio until it picked up the faint crackling broadcasts of Radio Tirana. It was the late 1970s and Albania was a mysterious and almost impossible place to visit. The broadcasts, with the signal going in and out, spoke of decayed Western capitalism and the glorious achievements of the Communist regime of Enver Hoxha. Sadly, at that early stage in my life, I did not realize that the humor of listening to this absurd propaganda hid the unutterable horrors of what ordinary Albanians, especially the persecuted Church, was enduring. Hoxha, the "Supreme Comrade, Sole Force and Great Teacher," after taking power in 1945, winning the "election" with an implausible 93 percent of the vote – his Communist Front was the only party allowed to stand – began immediately to persecute all religions, but attacked the Catholic Church with particular ferocity, alleging that it was a foreign and disloyal entity. Priests, bishops, and many laypeople were arrested, sent to work camps and prisons, tortured, and denounced. At one point, it is estimated that a third of Albanians were spied upon by their government, making Albania the world's first true total surveillance State. Christ's warning that children would betray their parents and parents their children came true; the possession of Bibles or religious images, if seen in the house, would lead to arrest and imprisonment. This persecution was intensified when, in 1967, Hoxha declared Albania to be "the world's first atheist State." All religious buildings, of all faiths, including all the churches, were either destroyed or occupied for secular purposes. The cathedral in Shkoder, the most Catholic part of Albania, for example, was turned into a gymnasium. The tortures and experiences of clergy and laity during this period, until the regime finally fell in 1991, defy belief. Saint John Paul II said that "history has never seen before what happened in Albania." Reading the chapter on Albania in Robert Royal's magisterial book The Catholic Martyrs of the Twentieth Century, one is dumbfounded by the depravity and demonic cruelty inflicted upon Albanian believers. Prisoners were tied in sacks with wild animals – one of the beatified Albanian martyrs, a religious novice, Blessed Maria Tucci, was tortured to death in this manner. Along with other equally bizarre tortures and death sentences, prisoners of conscience were forced to work in mines and in other extreme conditions, with thousands dying of starvation, exhaustion, and sickness. Yet despite this intense persecution, as Communism collapsed between late 1990 and 1991, the underground Church emerged. Secret seminaries had been in operation, and a few of the priests who had been in captivity appeared in public. One such was Father Ernest Simoni. Ordained in 1956, he had been sentenced to death in 1963 for celebrating a Requiem Mass for President John F. Kennedy. When word reached Hoxha that Father Simoni would only utter words of forgiveness, somehow divine grace touched the heart of the dictator, and his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. When arrested, he had told his captors that "we must forgive, love, and pray for our enemies." Suffering for nearly thirty years in prisons and the copper mines, he finished his sentence working for ten years in a sewage canal. Saint John Paul II visited Albania for one day in 1993 and ordained four bishops: men who had been secret seminarians were ordained shortly afterwards. During his pastoral visit to Albania in 2016, Pope Francis wept as he heard Simoni, then 84-years-old, dispassionately and humbly describe his suffering. To honor all the martyrs, including white martyrs like Fr. Simoni, Pope Francis named Ernest Simoni a Cardinal in 2016. A martyr, as we know, is a witness, if necessary to the point of death. A witne...

  8. Jul 11

    American Heroism and Our Lady of Walsingham

    By Joanna Bogle This summer, as in so many summers past, I will be making a pilgrimage to Walsingham. This Norfolk village is the home of England's national shrine to Our Lady, and I'll be on a coach from London, and telling the story of the shrine along the way. One result of our country's complicated history is that many Catholics – here at home but also abroad – don't know the story of some of our ancient shrines, abbeys, and churches. Better known is the modern story that starts with Henry VIII's destruction in the 1530s, with resulting horror and heroism, and the poignant – and it has to be said, hauntingly beautiful – sight of great ruined arches standing amid glorious and silent countryside. The Walsingham story starts with the vision of a lady – her name has come down to us as Richeldis – living in this part of Norfolk, some six miles from the sea – in the 11th century. The year is 1061 and it is a time of uncertainty. Who will be the next king? Edward the Confessor has no heir. There are rumors that the throne has been promised to William of Normandy. Meanwhile Christendom itself feels threatened. The Moslem religion has swept across what were once the Christian heartlands of the Middle East, and the Holy Land, where Christ Himself lived and walked, may soon be in their hands. Pilgrimages which have been taking place for centuries are now dangerous. In the vision, Richeldis heard Our Lady ask that her house, the holy house at Nazareth, be rebuilt in Walsingham. Richeldis set about the task – she had been given the exact specifications – but the workmen struggled to make the measurements work. Nothing seemed to fit. They retired to rest after some grueling days with the thing unfinished. That night, all slept soundly. The next morning, the sun rose on a perfectly completed house. Down through all the following years – through the Norman Conquest and up to the 16th century – pilgrims flocked to Walsingham, filling the lanes and highways summer after summer. The village flourished – a great Priory was built, in addition to a Franciscan house, and of course many taverns welcoming travelers from across Europe. Then came the destruction under Henry, and long years of abandonment and silence, and then the restoration – initiated by a local Anglican vicar – and the new story began. Traveling in a coach is the main way modern pilgrims reach Walsingham: there is no railway station. Much more enjoyable is a walking pilgrimage with overnight stays in pleasant villages and glorious walks down country lanes. I have done it in traditional style – sleeping on the floors of church halls and so on – and also in greater comfort, with overnight stays in comfortable rooms. Like so many other pilgrims, I have memories of prayers said in wooded glades and picnics in sunny meadows – and the sense of triumph on arrival, especially if the timing has worked and we arrive at the main Pilgrim Mass on a Sunday, sore feet forgotten as we join in rousing hymns and grateful prayers. I've also attended some of the great events held at Walsingham over recent years – the big New Dawn gatherings with hundreds of families camping in the neighboring fields, the Youth 2000 pilgrimages with a new generation beginning the fresh evangelization of our country at the start of a new Millennium. And I've been at Walsingham as coaches arrive from parishes or dioceses or from various ethnic groups – notably the Tamil pilgrimage with delicious food cooked on arrival and generously offered to all. But my main reason for writing about all this for an American Catholic readership is something specific, in this year when America is marking its 250th anniversary. As our coach makes its way from London to Walsingham through Cambridgeshire, we will effectively pass a little bit of America on the way. Not literally – the stretch of land is British sovereign territory. But at one point the great Stars and Stripes flaps against the sky, and the gateway leads you along wide...

Ratings & Reviews

4.7
out of 5
35 Ratings

About

The Catholic Thing is a daily column rooted in the richest cultural tradition in the world, i.e., the concrete historical reality of Catholicism.

More From Faith & Reason Institute

You Might Also Like