"The Nativity Story" Film and the Evil of Blasphemy

“Let us pass on to the second gate of Hell, which is blasphemy… A certain author says: "Every sin, compared with blasphemy, is light;" and first of all, St. John Chrysostom says, there is nothing worse than blasphemy. Other sins, says St. Bernard, are committed through frailty, but this only through malice. With reason, then, does St. Bernardine of Sienna call blasphemy a diabolical sin, because the blasphemer, like a demon, attacks God Himself. He is worse than those who crucified Jesus Christ, because they did not know Him to be God; but he who blasphemes knows Him to be God, and insults Him face to face. He is worse than the dogs, because dogs do not bite their masters, who feed them, but the blasphemer outrages God, Who is at that very moment bestowing favors on him. What punishment, says St. Augustine, will suffice to chastise so horrid a crime? We should not wonder, says Julius III, that the scourges of God do not cease while such a crime exists among us.”
-Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Bishop and Doctor of the Church, Six Discourses on Natural Calamities Divine Threats and the Four Gates of Hell

Each year at this time families are settling down to walk the now ubiquitous set of Christmas movies for the average American.  These films can all be viewed at one time or another on TV because they have become such "classics" in American culture.  These I think would include: It's a Wonderful Life (1946), Miracle on 34th Street (1947), Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (1964),  A Charlie Brown Christmas (1965), etc.  I certainly do not have a problem with these films, especially since they are vastly superior to most films today, though if you have not read my post for the Feast of Saint Nicholas which contains my views on "Santa Claus" then I would refer you to it now.

Now into this series of "classics" have entered in any number of new Christmas movies in the last few decades, some remakes of the old classics and some new takes on old stories, but they all seem to have in common the very secular aspect of modern western Christmas.  So it is then most understandable that when a movie comes along that purportedly is centered on Christ and the actual message of Christmas that Christians and especially Catholics would latch on to it.  Unfortunately, doing this blindly is a most dangerous mistake indeed. While movies that are entirely secular are less than desirable at this time of year a film which is supposedly focused on Christ but which subtly twists and subverts the true message of Christ and important Catholic theological teachings is far worse and even diabolical.  

Enter then the 2006 film: The Nativity Story.  I personally witnessed the great excitement of many Catholics even in the Roman Curia over this movie, which soon became very popular and even received praise from many Catholics, including some in the hierarchy.  Unfortunately this film is fraught with theological errors and countless instances of blasphemy.  But because of the lack of education of Catholics most have no idea that this is the case.  Thankfully there have been a number of good and Holy priest who are so devoted to our Lady that they were willing to speak out forcefully against this movie even in the face of Bishops and Cardinals seemingly praising the film.

One such priest, who I know personally, gives his thoughts in a short sermon here, and places the teachings presented in this powerful medium of film in contrast with that of the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

Now I want to make clear that there are many issues in this film that make it unwatchable for any Catholic.  It is fraught with all sorts of blasphemy and even one blasphemy is one too many.  For the Holy Spirit speaks in no uncertain terms about the evil of blasphemy in Sacred Scripture: "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die." (Lev. 24:16).  Just as we cannot be accomplices in murder or any other sin we most of all cannot be accomplices or indifferent to such offenses against God.

One instance that is particularly repugnant is our Lady's consent to having witchcraft practiced upon her.  The ever blessed virgin Mary approving of occult practices!  What incredible blasphemy! Certainly our Lady and Saint Joseph knew their Scriptures well:

"When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God shall give thee, beware lest thou have a mind to imitate the abominations of those nations.  Neither let there be found among you any one that shall expiate his son or daughter, making them to pass through the fire: or that consulteth soothsayers, or observeth dreams and omens, neither let there be any wizard, Nor charmer, nor any one that consulteth pythonic spirits, or fortune tellers, or that seeketh the truth from the dead. For the Lord abhorreth all these things, and for these abominations he will destroy them at thy coming." (Deut. 18:9-12)

That being said, for my part I researched into one specific issue concerning a blasphemy most prominently presented in the film that deeply outrages me.  This concerns the dogmas of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, as well as her Immaculate Conception.  This particular doctrine of the Catholic faith is something that I always felt to be true before I had any support for it and it is something I have been bothered by in many accounts of the Nativity of our Lord that have appeared in film, TV, and on the radio. 

I am speaking here of the portrayal of our Lady having birth pains.

When I first heard this teaching that our Lady was free from pains of child birth it made perfect sense to me, because it is the most logical conclusion based on what the Church teaches.  Let me explain what I mean.

When Blessed Pope Pius IX infallibly declared the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of our Lady, in his encyclical Ineffabilis Deus on 8 Dec. 1854, he said the following:

“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful. Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.”

Now what follows from this then is that Mary would then be free from all the effects that we labor under who were indeed conceived with original sin.  No original sin means no effects of original sin.  It’s as simple as that.  Now what are these effects?  Principally: Concupiscence, with a darkened Intellect and weekend Will.  But God also gave some very specific punishments that were attached to the first fall:

“To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee.” –Genesis 3:16

The labor pains that all women now suffer then are a direct punishment from the original sin and all who have the mark of original sin are subject to it.  Thus it clearly follows that because our Lady had no original sin, and no effects therefrom, she suffered no labor pains in giving birth to Christ.  It all seems very clear and logical to me, but I know many Catholics still seem to baulk at this assertion.  This is not merely my conclusion or even simply that of some holy priests I know, but in fact it is the position held by the greatest Fathers and Doctors of the Church!

Before we turn to these most trustworthy sources for the constant teaching of Holy Mother Church let me first turn you again to the infallible word of God, which clearly and evidently teaches this very fact that Mary was even prophesied to bring forth Christ without labor pains:

“Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child.” -Isaias 66:7 

This verse has always been applied by the Church to our Lady, and I believe is incontrovertible evidence of this teaching, but for those who may yet be skeptical let me give you the argument made for this teaching by the greatest genius, philosopher, and theologian the Church has ever seen that great Angelic Doctor Saint Thomas Aquinas:

The Summa Theologiae

Tertia Pars

 Q. 35 - Christ's Nativity
 a. 6 - Whether Christ was born without His Mother suffering?

Objection 1. It would seem that Christ was not born without His Mother suffering. For just as man's death was a result of the sin of our first parents, according to Gn. 2:17: "In what day soever ye shall eat, ye shall [Vulg.: 'thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt] die"; so were the pains of childbirth, according to Gn. 3:16: "In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children." But Christ was willing to undergo death. Therefore for the same reason it seems that His birth should have been with pain.

Objection 2. Further, the end is proportionate to the beginning. But Christ ended His life in pain, according to Is. 53:4: "Surely . . . He hath carried our sorrows." Therefore it seems that His nativity was not without the pains of childbirth.

Objection 3. Further, in the book on the birth of our Saviour [Protevangelium Jacobi xix, xx] it is related that midwives were present at Christ's birth; and they would be wanted by reason of the mother's suffering pain. Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin suffered pain in giving birth to her Child.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Serm. de Nativ. [Supposititious), addressing himself to the Virgin-Mother: "In conceiving thou wast all pure, in giving birth thou wast without pain."

I answer that, The pains of childbirth are caused by the infant opening the passage from the womb. Now it has been said above (28, 2, Replies to objections), that Christ came forth from the closed womb of His Mother, and, consequently, without opening the passage. Consequently there was no pain in that birth, as neither was there any corruption; on the contrary, there was much joy therein for that God-Man "was born into the world," according to Is. 35:1,2: "Like the lily, it shall bud forth and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy and praise."

Reply to Objection 1. The pains of childbirth in the woman follow from the mingling of the sexes. Wherefore (Genesis 3:16) after the words, "in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children," the following are added: "and thou shalt be under thy husband's power." But, as Augustine says (Serm. de Assumpt. B. Virg., [Supposititious), from this sentence we must exclude the Virgin-Mother of God; who, "because she conceived Christ without the defilement of sin, and without the stain of sexual mingling, therefore did she bring Him forth without pain, without violation of her virginal integrity, without detriment to the purity of her maidenhood." Christ, indeed, suffered death, but through His own spontaneous desire, in order to atone for us, not as a necessary result of that sentence, for He was not a debtor unto death.

Reply to Objection 2. As "by His death" Christ "destroyed our death" [Preface of the Mass in Paschal-time, so by His pains He freed us from our pains; and so He wished to die a painful death. But the mother's pains in childbirth did not concern Christ, who came to atone for our sins. And therefore there was no need for His Mother to suffer in giving birth.

Reply to Objection 3. We are told (Luke 2:7) that the Blessed Virgin herself "wrapped up in swaddling clothes" the Child whom she had brought forth, "and laid Him in a manger." Consequently the narrative of this book, which is apocryphal, is untrue. Wherefore Jerome says (Adv. Helvid. iv): "No midwife was there, no officious women interfered. She was both mother and midwife. 'With swaddling clothes,' says he, 'she wrapped up the child, and laid Him in a manger.'" These words prove the falseness of the apocryphal ravings.

You will note the close connection between this important teaching and the perpetual virginity of Mary which again is a Dogma of the Catholic faith and must be assented to by all the faithful or you cannot be saved:

"If anyone does not properly and truly confess in accord with the holy Fathers, that the holy Mother of God and ever virgin and immaculate Mary in the earliest of the ages conceived of the Holy Spirit without seed, namely, God the Word Himself specifically and truly, who was born of God the Father before all ages, and that she incorruptibly bore [Him], her virginity remaining indestructible even after His birth, let him be condemned."
-Pope Saint Martin I, The Lateran Council, Canon 3, 649AD (DS 256)

But Saint Thomas, and for that matter Pope Saint Martin, here are merely teaching what had always been taught, and lest anyone think this was an invention of the middle ages see the following for evidence against this fanciful notion:

"Mary's virginity was hidden from the prince of this world; so was her childbearing, and so was the death of the Lord. All these three trumpet-tongued secrets were brought to pass in the deep silence of God."
-Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop and Father of the Church, Epistle to the Ephesians, 19; 107 AD

"Who loves you is amazed and who would understand is silent and confused, because he cannot probe the Mother who gave birth in her virginity.  If it is too great to be clarified with words the disputants ought not on that account cross swords with your Son.”
-Saint Ephraim the Syrian, Father and Doctor of the Church, Songs of Praise 1, 2; 306-373 AD

"Believe in the Son of God, the Word before all the ages, who was...in these last days, for your sake, made Son of Man, born of the Virgin Mary in an indescribable and stainless way,-for there is no stain where God is and whence salvation comes..."
-Saint Gregory Nazianzen; Bishop, Father, and Doctor of the Church; Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:45; 381 AD

 "Though coming in the form of man, yet not in every thing is He subject to the laws of man's nature; for while His being born of a woman tells of human nature; virginity becoming capable of childbirth betokens something above man. Of Him then His mother's burden was light, the birth immaculate, the delivery without pain, the nativity without defilement, neither beginning from wanton desire, nor brought to pass with sorrow. For as she who by her guilt engrafted death into our nature, was condemned to bring forth in trouble, it was meet that she who brought life into the world should accomplish her delivery with joy."
-Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Homily on the Nativity, 388 AD

“So far as He was born of woman, His birth was in accordance with the laws of parturition, while so far as He had no father, His birth was above the nature of generation: and in that it was at the usual time (for He was born on the completion of the ninth month when the tenth was just beginning), His birth was in accordance with the laws of parturition, while in that it was painless it was above the laws of generation. For, as pleasure did not precede it, pain did not follow it, according to the prophet who says, Before she travailed, she brought forth, and again, before her pain came she was delivered of a man-child (Isaiah 66:7). The Son of God incarnate, therefore, was born of her, not a divinely-inspired man but God incarnate.... But just as He who was conceived kept her who conceived still virgin, in like manner also He who was born preserved her virginity intact, only passing through her and keeping her closed (Ezekiel 44:2).”
-Saint John Damascene; Bishop, Father, and Doctor of the Church; On the Orthodox Faith, IV, 14; 676-754 AD

“How can death claim as its prey this truly blessed one, who listened to God's word in humility, and was filled with the Spirit, conceiving the Father's gift through the archangel, bearing without concupiscence or the co-operation of man the Person of the Divine Word, who fills all things, bringing Him forth without the pains of childbirth, being wholly united to God?... It was fitting that the body of her, who preserved her virginity intact in childbirth, should be kept from corruption even after death. She who nursed her Creator as an infant at her breast, had a right to be in the divine tabernacles.... It was fitting that she who saw her Son die on the cross, and received in her heart the sword of pain which she had not felt in childbirth, should gaze upon Him seated next to the Father.”
-Saint John Damascene; Bishop, Father, and Doctor of the Church; Second Homily on the Dormition of the Mother of God; 676-754 AD

It is then clear that this teaching is ancient and universal and following the guide of Saint Vincent of Lerins we can see what this means: 

"In the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors." -Saint Vincent of Lérins, Father of the Church, The Commonitorium

But now I would like to return to that last point made by Saint John Damascene, the great Doctor of the Dogma of the Assumption, and that is of the suffering of our Lady on Calvary.  I have heard it suggested, particularly by women, that it is more beautiful to consider our Lady suffering the pains of childbirth, because otherwise I suppose they have nothing to look to in their own sufferings of labor and otherwise in their life.  This is, however, to miss a most important point of Catholic Theology and Mariology: Mary did not suffer in giving birth to her Son's physical body, but rather she suffering in giving birth to His mystical body, which is the Church!


Mary's "labor pains" in giving birth to the Church took place upon Calvary.  Where the all spotless and immaculate Virgin Mary the Mother of God saw her divine Son our Lord Jesus Christ, the Immaculate Lamb, suffer the most terrible death that has ever and will ever take place, unto the remission of the uncountable sins of mankind who are yet so ungrateful.  There she saw Him abandoned by even His closest friends, save one, and striped of everything even his very flesh.  Here it was that our Lady suffered pains unimaginable to us and certainly, had she not been sustained by the grace of God, it would have caused her to die of sorrow.

We must then at all times and in all places have no tolerance for blasphemy of any kind, and we ought to pray and do penance for the conversion of those who blaspheme God, His mother, His saints, or any other holy thing.

"Tell me, blasphemer, of what country are you? Allow me to tell you, you belong to Hell...What is the language of the damned?-----blasphemy. And they blasphemed the God of Heaven because of their pains and wounds. What do you gain, my brethren, by these your blasphemies? you gain no honor by them. Blasphemers are abhorred even by their blasphemous companions. Do you gain any temporal advantage?...What pleasure do you derive from blaspheming God? The pleasure of the damned; and that moment of madness past, what pain and bitterness does it not leave in your heart? Resolve to rid yourself of this vice in any event. Take care, if you do not abandon it now, that you will not carry it with you to death, as has happened to so many who have died with blasphemy in their mouths." -Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Ibid

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. " -Genesis 3:15

An Open Letter to All Catholic Women

My dear Sisters in Jesus and Mary,

I write this letter to you because of the deep brotherly charity I have for you in my heart.  I am not writing to condemn or to blame, but rather to enlighten you to what, until now, I suspect the vast majority of you were simply unaware.  This topic is a rather delicate one, but one which must be spoken about for your sake and for mine and for the rest of your brothers in Jesus and Mary.

I have been pondering writing something of this sort for quite some time, and the ideas that I hope to express in it have been in my thoughts and prayers for many more years before that.  I have hesitated until now because I have had some difficulty forming in my mind what I would say and how best to say it to you.  But finally I have been so deeply moved that I felt I could wait no longer but must write this whether or not I can do it well.

What prompted me to end my procrastination was a story I most unwittingly stumbled across that deeply saddened me.  This story dealt with the clear loss of innocence of a famous young actress who my youngest sister grew up watching on a children’s TV show.  Now having “come of age” she has now apparently on several occasions appeared at big media events dressed, or should I say undressed, to a most scandalous degree, for any woman, let alone a girl of her age.

Now, I have read and even seen many instances of the loss of innocence and the horrible abuse of the young, and especially of young girls, in our modern culture and especially in the media.  I suppose I have long been very sensitive to this subject because I have two younger sisters, and I believe also that our Lady has put some of her own tenderness in my heart for such things.  And I suppose one might ask why does this one instance matter so much as opposed to the others (many of which were much worse)?  And I say not that I am wounded in my heart for this one young girl alone who has been sucked away into the modern culture, but rather for all women and what has been done to you, is being done to you, and sadly I fear will continue unless Godly men stand up to defend you.

What is this I am saying has been done to you?  You who share the same sex as the all spotless and highly honored ever Blessed Virgin Mary have been made objects of lust for godless men and a stumbling block for men trying to live chastity in their state in life.  You have been fed the lies of Feminists which were founded upon the thinking of none other than Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and his Communist Philosophy, which has no other origin than from the deepest depths of hell.

Many, if not most, good Catholic women are aware of the errors of Feminism in general, but far fewer are aware of these errors in the specifics.  While they reject Feminism as an ideology they yet are so enveloped in the culture that was produced by it that they are yet unwitting victims to it.

One of the greatest tragedies, in my opinion, is the nearly total and complete loss of true feminine modesty in dress and behavior.  This then is what I want to speak to you about and to ask you to please read what I have to say and do so with an open mind and heart and in a prayerful spirit.  And again please remember that I am writing this out of charity for you my sisters and for our brothers in Jesus and Mary.

I would like to begin with the words of the glorious Apostle Saint Paul:

“Let your modesty be known to all men.” (Philippians 4:5)

How I wish these words were heeded today!  For we live in a time that I dare say is more awash in perversion and immodesty than any other time in history with the possible exception of the city of Rome during the reign of the Emperor Nero.  The state we find ourselves in today was prophesied by our Lady at Fatima to the children and is recounted by little Blessed Jacinta Marto as follows:

"Wars are a punishment from God for sin...Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much...More souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason."

Our Lady also said that if people did not stop offending our Lord a more terrible war than WWI, which was just ending, would break out during the reign of Pope Pius XI.  This was in 1917 and what followed was the “Roaring 20s” and the introduction of new immodest fashions for women and the rise of the Feminist movement.  True to our Lady’s word because we not only continued, but even increased, our offending God the world was scourged with the most terrible war the world has ever known.  And still we did not repent.  Just a little over a decade after the end of the war came one of the most destructive decades to western civilizations in its entire history. 

The sexual revolution of the 1960s accompanied by an unbelievable increase in the distribution of dangerous mind altering drugs and the introduction of Rock and Roll have shaped the world we live in today.  Unfortunately, it was just at this time that the Catholic Church itself began to fall into a most dire crisis that prompted Pope Paul VI to say the following disturbing words in an Address to the Lombard Seminary in Rome on the 7^th of December 1968:

“The Church finds herself in an hour of anxiety, a disturbed period of self-criticism, or what would even better be called self-destruction. It is an interior upheaval, acute and complicated, which nobody expected after the Council. It is almost as if the Church were attacking itself. We looked forward to a flowering, a serene expansion of conceptions which matured in the great sessions of the Council. But one must notice above all the sorrowful aspect. It is as if the Church were destroying herself.”

One wonders if this comment was not in direct reference to the complete rejection, in some cases of entire Bishop’s conferences, around the world to his infallible teaching on morality contained in his Encyclical Humanae Vitae, which was published earlier that year.

It was just then at the critical moment when the unchanging teaching of the Catholic Church on modesty and chastity was so very needed that it ceased being preached by her Bishops and Priests.  We then have been wallowing in darkness for more than four decades, and we are a generation born of a generation of Catholics who did not receive the Catholic faith, or at least not without great adulteration.  Certainly the devil knew what he was doing when he hit us as hard as he could at our lowest point.

It is then no wonder that young Catholic women do not know what true modesty is, and nor for that matter do young Catholic men know what true custody of the eyes is, and neither know what it takes to live out true Catholic chastity according to their state of life in today’s day and age?

Why is this so important?  Because life is at stake, and not this passing one but eternal life!  While it is true that men must pay the penalty for their sins of impurity, it is just as true that women too must pay for the sins committed by men that they lead into sin because of their immodest dress and/or behavior.  And so many young women today, even many Catholic women, are simply unaware that they are leading many young men into sin because of their immodesty.  And worse this often happens even in Church at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass!  The great Doctor of the Church and Patriarch of Constantinople Saint John Chrysostom did not mince words when it came to this very thing:

"You carry your snare everywhere and spread your nets in all places. You allege that you never invited others to sin. You did not indeed, by your words, but you have done so by your dress and your deportment.  When you have made another sin in his heart, how can you be innocent? Tell me, whom does this world condemn? Whom do judges punish? Those who drink poison or those who prepare it and administer the fatal potion? You have prepared the abominable cup, you have given the death dealing drink, and you are more criminal than are those who poison the body; you murder not the body but the soul. And it is not to enemies you do this, nor are you urged on by any imaginary necessity, nor provoked by injury, but out of foolish vanity and pride."

Indeed, as our Lord said:

“And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matt. 10:28)

Again, I will say that I do not condemn for I believe there are very few who knowingly perpetrate this terrible evil, but there are innumerable young women totally ignorant of the illicitness of their dress and actions which are so dangerous to the purity of young men.  And though because of their ignorance their culpability will be less there will yet be a price to pay.

Catholic women today must not allow themselves to be ignorant any longer.  You have a strict duty in charity to be your “brother’s keeper” and always dress and act in a manner befitting your dignity as daughters of Jesus and Mary.  Just as men have a strict duty in charity to protect their sisters in Christ from any dishonor or evil men who seek to ensnare them.

And before you begin to attack what I am saying as merely my own opinion please read what one of our Holy Fathers had to say on this very subject:

"One cannot sufficiently deplore the blindness of so many women of every age and condition; made foolish by desire to please, they do not see to what a degree the indecency of their clothing shocks every honest man, and offends God. Most of them would formerly have blushed for those toilettes as for a grave fault against Christian modesty; now it does not suffice for them to exhibit them on the public thoroughfares; they do not fear to cross the threshold of the churches, to assist at the Holy sacrifice of the Mass, and even to bear the seducing food of shameful passions to the Eucharistic Table where one receives the heavenly Author of purity. And We speak not of those exotic and barbarous dances recently imported into fashionable circles, one more shocking than the other; one cannot imagine anything more suitable for banishing all that remains of modesty."

These are the words of Pope Benedict XV in his Encyclical: Sacra Propediem, which was written in 1921!  And have things gotten any better in the intervening time?  I believe decidedly not.  And why has this been so?  Why has modestly been universally abandoned by even the majority of good Catholic women?  The Venerable Pope Pius XII explains how this has come to pass:

"Numbers of believing and pious women in accepting to follow certain bold fashions, break down, by their example, the resistance of many other women to such fashions, which may become for them the cause of spiritual ruin. As long as these provocative styles remain identified with women of doubtful virtue, good women do not dare to follow them; but once these styles have been accepted by women of good reputation, decent women soon follow their example, and are carried along by the tide into possible disaster." (May 22, 1941)

"The good of our soul is more important than that of our body; and we have to prefer the spiritual welfare of our neighbor to our bodily comforts. If a certain kind of dress constitutes a grave and proximate occasion of sin, and endangers the salvation of your soul and others, it is your duty to give it up.  O Christian mothers, if you knew what a future of anxieties and perils, of ill-guarded shame you prepare for your sons and daughters, imprudently getting them accustomed to live scantily dressed and making them lose the sense of modesty, you would be ashamed of yourselves and you would dread the harm you are making of yourselves, the harm which you are causing these children, whom Heaven has entrusted to you to be brought up as Christians…Now many girls do not see anything wrong with following certain shameless styles (fashions) like so many sheep. They would surely blush if they could only guess the impressions they make and the feelings they evoke (arouse) in those who see them." (Speech given to Catholic Young Women's Group in Italy 17 July 1954)

Believe me when I say that I have tears in my eyes as I read these words of a successor of Saint Peter.  It is an indescribable tragedy what has happened to western civilization, which was founded upon the great Catholic culture that once permeated it.  All I can think of is little Jacinta weeping and doing penance, more terrible than what many grown men could endure, for these offenses being perpetrated against the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, and I weep with her.

Most fitting words on this subject can be found written by the glorious and amazing Saint Anthony Mary Claret (1807-70) whose miracles and holiness are of the highest order, and whose purity was so great that for the last years of his life the Blessed Sacrament remained constantly present within him between communions each day:

"Now, observe, my daughter, the contrast between the luxurious dress of many women, and the raiment and adornments of Jesus. Tell me: what relation do their fine shoes bear to the spikes in Jesus' Feet? The rings on their hands to the nails which perforated His? The fashionable coiffure to the Crown of Thorns? The painted face to That covered with bruises? Shoulders exposed by the low-cut gown to His, all striped with Blood? Ah, but there is a marked likeness between these worldly women and the Jews who, incited by the Devil, scourged Our Lord! At the hour of such a women's death, I think Jesus will be heard saying: 'Cujus est imago haec... of whom is she the image?' And the reply will be: 'Demonii... of the Devil!' Then He will say: 'Let her who has followed the Devil's fashions be handed over to him; and to God, those who have imitated the modesty of Jesus and Mary'."

What then is this modesty of Jesus and Mary?!  It is my great desire to tell you this! And I pray always that you may truly live it, and that we all might live chastity according to our state in life.

In the Marian Year of 1954 Venerable Pope Pius XII directed the Bishops throughout the world to "take action against this most serious plague of immodest fashions".  He even went so far as to  asked the Sacred Congregation of the Council to make a forceful appeal to all Catholics, but especially those in authority, to "leave no stone unturned which can help remedy the situation."

He then republished the Instruction on Modesty in Dress previously published by his predecessor, Pius XI, who had asked this same Sacred Congregation to publish a standard of modesty in dress in 1930:

By virtue of the supreme apostolate which he wields over the Universal Church by Divine Will, our Most Holy Father Pope Pius XI has never ceased to inculcate, both verbally and by his writings, the words of St. Paul (1 Tim. xi,9-10), namely, "Women ... adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety ... and professing godliness with good works."

Very often, when occasion arose, the same Supreme Pontiff condemned emphatically the immodest fashion of dress adopted by Catholic women and girls -- which fashion not only offends the dignity of women and against her adornment, but conduces to the temporal ruin of the women and girls, and, what is still worse, to their eternal ruin, miserably dragging down others in their fall. It is not surprising, therefore, that all Bishops and other ordinaries, as is the duty of ministers of Christ, should in their own dioceses have unanimously opposed their depraved licentiousness and promiscuity of manners, often bearing with fortitude the derision and mockery leveled against them for this cause.

Therefore this Sacred Council, which watches over the discipline of clergy and people, while cordially commending the action of the Venerable Bishops, most emphatically exhorts them to persevere in their attitude and increase their activities insofar as their strength permits, in order that this unwholesome disease be definitely uprooted from human society.

In order to facilitate the desired effect, this Sacred Congregation, by the mandate of the Most Holy Father, has decreed as follows:

Exhortation to Those in Authority

1. The parish priest, and especially the preacher, when occasion arises, should, according to the words of the Apostle Paul (2 Tim. iv, 2), insist, argue exhort and command that feminine garb be based on modesty and womanly ornament be a defense of virtue. Let them likewise admonish parents to cause their daughters to cease wearing indecorous dress.

2. Parents, conscious of their grave obligations toward the education, especially religious and moral, to their offspring, should see to it that their daughters are solidly instructed, from earliest childhood, in Christian doctrine; and they themselves should assiduously inculcate in their souls, by word and example, love for the virtues of modesty and chastity; and since their family should follow the example of the Holy Family, they must rule in such a manner that all its members, reared within the walls of the home, should find reason and incentive to love and preserve modesty.

3. Let parents keep their daughters away from public gymnastic games and contests; but if their daughters are compelled to attend such exhibitions, let them see that they are fully and modestly dressed. Let them never permit their daughters to don immodest garb.

4. Superioresses and teachers in schools for girls must do their utmost to instill love of modesty in the hearts of maidens confided to their care and urge them to dress modestly.

5. Said Superioresses and teachers must not receive in their colleges and schools immodestly dressed girls, and should not even make an exception in the case of mothers of pupils. If, after being admitted, girls persist in dressing immodestly, such pupils should be dismissed.

6. Nuns, in compliance with the Letter dated August 23, 1928, by the Sacred Congregation of Religious, must not receive in their colleges, schools, oratories or recreation grounds, or, if once admitted, tolerate girls who are not dressed with Christian modesty; said Nuns, in addition, should do their utmost so that love for holy chastity and Christian modesty may become deeply rooted in the hearts of their pupils.

7. It is desirable that pious organizations of women be founded, which by their counsel, example and propaganda should combat the wearing of apparel unsuited to Christian modesty, and should promote purity of customs and modesty of dress.

8. In the pious associations of women those who dress immodestly should not be admitted to membership; but if, perchance, they are received, and after having been admitted, fall again into their error, they should be dismissed forthwith.

9. Maidens and women dressed immodestly are to be debarred from Holy Communion and from acting as sponsors at the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation; further, if the offense be extreme, they may even be forbidden to enter the church.

Donato Cardinal Sbaretti, Prefect

Congregation of the Council

Rome, January 12, 1930

The standard for modest in dress, which was then put rather succinctly by the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation in 1956, Pietro Cardinal Ciriaci, is this:

"A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper." (Imprimatur, 24 September 1956)

On 21 August 1954 the Prefect had already said the following in a letter:

"Everyone knows that during the summer months particularly, things are seen here and there, which are certain to prove offensive to anyone who has retained some respect and regard for Christian modesty. On the beaches, in country resorts, almost everywhere, on the streets of cities and towns, in public and private places, and, indeed, often even in buildings dedicated to God, an unworthy and indecent mode of dress has prevailed.  Because of this, the young particularly, whose minds are easily bent towards vice, are exposed to the extreme danger of losing their innocence, which is, by far, the most beautiful adornment of mind and body. Feminine adornment, if it can be called adornment, feminine clothing, if that can be called clothing which contains nothing to protect either the body or modesty, are at times of such a nature, that they seem to serve lewdness rather than modesty . . . Well did the ancient poet say of this matter, 'Vice necessarily follows upon public nudity.' "

This point of going to the beach is one that is hotly contested by many young women I have spoken with, even of many Catholics.  They will even agree with these rules set by the Church about modestly in dress, but will then completely illogically say something like: “…well except at the beach of course”.  But if they really stopped and thought about what they were saying they would realize how ludicrous what they just said sounded.  If certain dress is not modest… then it is not modest anywhere or at any time.  The thought experiment I have attempted to work my little sister through in this regard goes as follows:

Q: “You wouldn’t walk down the street in your underwear would you?”

R: “No, of course not.”

Q: “How really different is a bikini than your underwear?  It covers the same amount of you body?”

R: “…well…it’s not the same…”

Ah, but it is the same.  If it is immodest and indecent to walk down the street in your underwear then it is immodest and indecent to do so in a bathing suit.  I don’t see how anyone can argue this except that they have become so accustomed to this terrible evil that they don’t see it for what it really is.

Ultimately, I think the best guide for women to live true Catholic modesty is to imitate the modesty of our Lady.  The following list of principles for “Marylike” dress I think are a good rule to follow since they are not in the spirit of doing as much as one can get away with and still “technically being modest”, but rather truly seeking to live in the spirit of “Marylike” modesty:

1. "Marylike" means modesty without compromise -- "like Mary," Christ's pure and spotless Mother.

2. Marylike dresses have sleeves extending to the wrists; and skirts reaching the ankles.

3. Marylike dresses require full and loose coverage for the bodice, chest, shoulders, and back; the cut-out about the neck must not exceed "two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat" and a similar breadth around the back of the neck.

4. Marylike dresses also do not admit as modest coverage transparent fabrics -- laces, nets, organdy, nylons, etc. -- unless sufficient backing is added. Fabrics such as laces, nets, organdy may be moderately used as trimmings only.

5. Marylike dresses avoid the improper use of flesh-colored fabrics.

6. Marylike dresses conceal rather than reveal the figure of the wearer; they do not emphasize, unduly, parts of the body.

7. Marylike dresses provide full coverage, even after jacket, cape or stole are removed.

8. Marylike fashions are designed to conceal as much of the body as possible, rather than reveal. This would automatically eliminate such fashions as slacks, jeans, shorts, culottes, tight sweaters, sheer blouses, and sleeveless dresses; etc. The Marylike standards are a guide to instill a "sense of modesty." A girl or woman who follows these, and looks up to Mary as her ideal and model, will have no problem with modesty in dress. She will not be an occasion of sin or source of embarrassment or shame to others.

I understand that all of this might very well be nearly impossible for you to accept.  Believe me I understand where you are coming from living in the culture we live in today.  But please prayerfully consider what I have said.  And I also understand those who accept what I have said, but still cannot go out tomorrow and buy an entire new wardrobe of modest clothes, because even if you had the money where would you buy them?  But if anyone is in this position I put you in contact with a company where you actually can buy quality modest clothing.

Also I would like to address those, like my little sister, who are terrified that if they do not dress in a certain (immodest) way they will not be attractive to young men.  But please let me tell you on behalf of many good Catholic young men I know that this is not true.  You must believe me that if you dress as I have suggested above with irreproachable modesty that you will be very attractive, that is, to all the right young men who are the good and virtuous ones.  These are the men who are more interested in learning about you and your family and loving your beautiful soul and not lusting after you body.  These are the men who will be devoted husbands and fathers and who will defend you with their lives.  These are the men who will do their very best to be true help mates that will struggle alongside you unto the salvation of your soul, his own, and your children.  Do not settle for less than you deserve as blessed daughters of Jesus and Mary!  There are good men out there, and trust me that just as modesty will attract all the right men, immodesty will repulse the very same men.

I pray for you all from the bottom of my heart filled with brotherly charity for you.

I would then like to conclude this letter to you my dear Sisters in Jesus and Mary with a short work by Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, the Doctor of Moral Theology, on the Chastity of our Lady, which is wonderful material for mediation.

The Virtues of the Blessed Virgin

by St. Alphonsus Liguori, Bishop and Doctor of the Church

Mary's Chastity

After the fall of Adam, man's senses became rebellious to reason. As a consequence, chastity is the most difficult of all the virtues to practice. Saint Augustine says: "Of all inner conflicts the most arduous are concerned with chastity. These battles are of daily occurrence, but victory is rare." May God be praised eternally, however, because in Mary he has given us such a shining example of this virtue. "Mary is with good reason called the Virgin of virgins," says Saint Albert the Great. "Without the advice or example of others, she was the first to consecrate her virginity to God." In this way, she led to God all who imitated her virginity, as David had foretold: After her shall virgins be brought...into the temple of the king (Ps 44:15). Without advice and without any example! Saint Bernard says: "O Virgin, who taught you to please God by your virginity and to lead an angel's life on earth?" Saint Sophronius replies: "God chose a pure virgin for his mother, that she might be an example of chastity to everybody." That is why Saint Ambrose calls Mary "the standard-bearer of virginity."

Because of Mary's purity the Holy Spirit declared that she is as beautiful as the turtledove: Your cheeks are beautiful as the turtledove's (Cant 1:9). "A most pure turtledove" is what Aponius calls her. For the same reason, Mary is also called a lily: As the lily among the thorns, so is my love among the daughters (Cant 2:2). On this passage Denis the Carthusian remarks: "Mary was compared to a lily among thorns because all other virgins were thorns, either to themselves or to others; but the Blessed Virgin was not so, either to herself or to others." She inspired everybody who saw her with chaste thoughts. Saint Thomas confirms this when he says that the beauty of the Blessed Virgin incited to chastity all who looked at her. Saint Jerome maintains that Saint Joseph remained a virgin as a result of living with Mary. Writing against the heretic Helvidius who denied Mary's virginity, Saint Jerome said: "You say that Mary did not remain a virgin. I say that not only did she remain a virgin, but that even Joseph preserved his virginity through Mary." Saint Gregory of Nyssa says that the Blessed Virgin loved chastity so much, that to preserve it she would have been willing to renounce even the dignity of Mother of God. This seems evident from her reply to the archangel: How shall this happen, since I do not know man? (Lk 1:34). And from the words she added then: Be it done to me according to your word (Lk 1:38), signifying that she gave her consent on the condition that, as the angel had assured her, she should become a mother only by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.

Saint Ambrose says that "anyone who preserves chastity is an angel; anyone who loses it is a devil." Our Lord assures us that those who are chaste become angels: They...shall be as the angels of God in heaven (Mt 22:30). But the unchaste become hateful to God, like devils. Saint Remigius used to say that the majority of adults are lost by this vice.

We have quoted Saint Augustine as saying that a victory is very seldom gained in this combat. Why is this? Because the means by which the victory may be gained are very seldom used. These means are threefold, according to Bellarmine and the masters of the spiritual life: fasting, the avoidance of dangerous occasions of sin, and prayer. 1. By fasting we mean especially mortification of the eyes and the appetite. Although our Blessed Lady was filled with divine grace, she nevertheless practiced mortification of the eyes, according to Saint Epiphanius and Saint John Damascene. Her glances were always modest and she never gazed fixedly at anyone. She was so unassuming, even from childhood, that everyone who saw her was charmed by her reserve. Saint Luke remarks that when she went to visit Elizabeth, she went with haste (Lk 1:39), in order to avoid the public gaze. Philibert relates that it was revealed to a hermit named Felix that as far as her food was concerned, when she was a baby she took milk only once a day. Saint Gregory of Tours maintains that she fasted throughout her life. Saint Bonaventure explains this: "Mary would never have found so much grace if she had not been moderate in her meals, for grace and gluttony do not go together." In short, Mary was mortified in everything, so that it was true to say of her: My hands dripped with myrrh (Cant 5:5).

2. The second means is avoidance of the occasions of sin: He that is aware of the snares shall be secure (Prov 11:15). Saint Philip Neri coined the expression: "In the war of the senses, cowards conquer." By cowards he means those who flee from dangerous occasions. Mary fled as much as possible from the gaze of men. Remember Saint Luke's remark that, in going to visit Elizabeth, Mary went with haste into the hill country. One author calls attention to the fact that Our Lady left Elizabeth before Saint John was born: And Mary remained with her about three months and returned to her own house. Now Elizabeth's time was fulfilled that she should be delivered, and she brought forth a son (Lk 1:56-57). Why did Mary not wait for Saint John's birth? Because she wanted to avoid the hubbub and excitement that usually accompany such an event.

3. The third means is prayer. The Wise Man said: And as I knew that I could not otherwise be continent except God gave it...I went to the Lord and besought him (Wis 8:21). Mary revealed to Saint Elizabeth of Hungary that she did not acquire any virtue without effort and without continual prayer. Saint John Damascene calls our Immaculate Mother "a lover of purity." She cannot endure those who are content to be unchaste. And if anybody appeals to her to be delivered from unchastity she will certainly help him. All he has to do is call upon her confidently. The Venerable John of Ávila used to say that many have conquered impure temptations merely through devotion to Mary Immaculate.

O Mary, most pure dove, how many are now in hell on account of impurity! Most gracious Lady, obtain for us the grace always to fly to you in our temptations, and always to invoke your name, pleading: "Mary, Mary, help us!" Amen.

A Catholic Ruler is the Key to a Christian Land

A Catholic Ruler is the Key to a Christian Land:

Saint Augustine of Canterbury 

and the Conversion of King Saint Ethelbert

          England was first reached by the Roman Empire some sixty years before the birth of our Lord, by Caius Julius Caesar.  The initial settlement of the Island with Romans, however, began after the Emperor Claudius conquered it, along with the Isles of Orkney, 105 years later.[1] Thus when Christianity began to spread throughout the empire it also spread to Britain.  When the time of the persecution of Diocletian came there were many Roman Christians in England who suffered and died planting the seeds of faith for future generations of English people.  One of the most famous of these was Saint Alban who was martyred in the year 301.[2] Following the days of the persecution there was peace for some years until the outbreak of the Arian Heresy.  At the beginning of the fifth century the Roman Empire fell and shortly after there was a mass exodus of nearly all Romans from Britain, which included most of the Christians as well.[3]

          Britain, without the Roman Legions to protect it, was then cast into darkness by plagues of marauding barbarians coming in from every side of the island.  Britain was again a pagan land, though several missionary journeys were made to preach the gospel to the heathens and minister to the few Christians that still remained there.  While these laid the groundwork for its later conversion, there was not lasting and widespread success.  In the year 596 Pope Saint Gregory the Great sent Saint Augustine of Canterbury along with some monks to preach the Catholic faith to the inhabitants of the Island that, because of his efforts, would one day be known as the Island of Saints.­[4]

          Though of course Saint Augustine had the aid of almighty God and the backing of the Holy Father, still there seems to be one crucial factor of his success among the Britons.  This key to winning over Britain was Augustine’s first winning over the pagan King Ethelbert, who initially only gave his approbation for the carrying out of missionary work, but who would eventually convert.  In 597 Augustine met with the King for the first time and preached the Gospel to him and explained his plans for his missionary work in Britain.  Augustine impressed the King with his preaching, but he was unwilling to give up the old pagan ways of his people, yet he still granted permission for Augustine to preach in the very city where he resided: Kent, which would later become the first Diocese in Britain.[5] This was a monumental victory for Augustine at the very outset of his work in Britain.  He was then able to move around fairly freely and preach the faith to the people and win many to it.  This story is strikingly similar to another that happened a century earlier on the island just to the West when another missionary was sent to convert a pagan people.  This missionary was Saint Patrick and the island was Ireland.  He was able to have similar success in converting that island after receiving the approbation of the pagan Irish High King Laoghaire who preferred Saint Patrick’s preaching to that of the Arians, but would not himself give up his pagan beliefs.[6]

      While Laoghaire never converted, however, King Ethelbert did convert to the Catholic Faith at the urging of Saint Augustine.  The conversion of the British King was a boost to the Catholic Faith in the Kingdom since now both secular and ecclesiastical authorities were working in consort to rid the land of paganism and institute the Catholic Faith.  It was during this time that Pope Gregory wrote a letter to the King in which he compared this new Christian Ruler to the Emperor Constantine and spoke of how beneficial it was to have a ruler that professes the faith.[7] This too even more profoundly parallels what happened a century earlier just to the south in Gaul when Saint Remigius converted the pagan king Clovis.  Unfortunately, the parallel is similar in a dark way as well for in both instances upon the death of these good Christian Kings their respective Kingdoms immediately plunged back into paganism.  Yet in both cases these lands would again be restored to the faith by later Christian rulers. 

All of the above (not otherwise cited) is related by Saint Bede the Venerable in what is considered his greatest work: History of the English Church and People.[8] Bede was a prolific writer in the history of the Catholic Church, and though he wrote mostly commentaries on Sacred Scripture, because of his aforementioned work he was given the title “Father of English History” by Pope Leo XIII on November 13^th, 1899 when he declared him a Doctor of the Church.[9]  Bede was a monk in England living under the rule of Saint Benedict during the late 7^th Century and well into the early 8^th Century after Christ.[10] He never left the confines of the shores of Britain, and thus had to rely on extant documents available to him at the time for his information of the outside world.[11]

          Warren Carroll also covers this period of time of the sending of Saint Augustine of Canterbury to England by Pope Saint Gregory the Great.[12] It is interesting to note that his treatment of the subject is very similar to that of Saint Bede, but Carroll does not even refer to the great Father of English History.  Instead he relies principally upon the work of F. Holmes Dudden[13] and Margaret Deanesly[14], both Anglicans.  These authors seem to have been in possession of more information than Bede as Carroll draws from them a number of details not given by the Saint.  One of these details is that the wife of King Ethelbert, whom Bede does not mention, was the great-granddaughter of King Clovis of the Franks.[15]  It is probable that she had a similar impact on her husband as did her great-grandmother Saint Clotilda.  Another detail mentioned by Carroll, and at best obscure in Bede, is that when King Ethelbert converted and was baptized: “Augustine immediately asked Pope Gregory for more priests, knowing that the Church would now grow very rapidly in England.”[16] This clearly demonstrates Augustine’s understanding of the great importance of winning over a ruler in order to win over the people.  Finally, while Bede mostly confines himself to what was going on in England during this time, Carroll gives a much broader historical context.  He also speaks about the concurrent conversion of the rulers of Spain at the hands of Saint Leander, and in particular way the staunch orthodoxy of the Merovingian Princess Ingunthis who married the Gothic Prince of Spain Hermenegild and converted him to orthodoxy from the Arian heresy in which his country was then steeped.[17] Hermenegild would eventually be martyred by his own Arian Father, and after his death his brother Reccared succeeded to the throne.[18]  He it was who would secured the official conversion of Spain to the orthodox Catholic faith and who personally addressed the 65 Bishops at the Council of Toledo in 589 which permanently sealed the orthodoxy of Spain and the condemnation of Arianism in that land.[19]  Thus both the great Catholic Kingdoms of Spain and England seem to have been closely connected, if not in some way brought about, by the conversion of the Eldest Daughter of the Church and her leaders.  Saints Remigius, Augustine, and Leander performed a powerful work when one considers the vast host of Saints that would be raised up by God in these great Catholic lands for hundreds of years after these great men had left this earth to their eternal reward.

When Ethelbert’s son Eadbald came to the throne he rejected the faith of his father and banished two Bishops who had been consecrated by Saint Augustine.[20] This misfortune was soon reversed when, before he too left Britain, Augustine’s successor Laurentius converted Eadbald and the Church could again grow.   The next King was Edwin who was a heathen but who married the Christian daughter of King Ethelbert and once he converted he “received wide additions to his realm, and brought under his sway all the territories inhabited by the Britons, an achievement unmatched by any previous English King.”[21] During his reign this Christian King inspired the pagan high priest in his realm to destroy his own altars and convert to the true faith.[22] When his nephews succeeded him after his death they both promptly apostatized from the faith resulting in much suffering for the people of the kingdom.[23] Both met their end a short time into their reigns and the Kingdom was again restored to peace by the Christian King Oswald.[24] One can then see this trend continue through the history of the English nation that when it has a good Christian ruler the faith flourishes and when the ruler is a pagan or heretic much damage is done to the faith of the people and the work of the Church.  Sadly this culminated when nearly a thousand years after Augustine came to England the once Catholic King Henry VIII broke with the Church and took the entire English nation with him.  How we must pray that England will once again be ruled by a good Catholic ruler and bear the title Island of the Saints proudly once more.

Collect for the Feast of Saint Edward the Confessor (Oct. 13th)

Deus, qui beátum regem Eduárdum Confessórem tuum æternitátis glória coronásti: fac nos, quǽsumus; ita eum venerári in terris, ut cum eo regnáre póssimus in coelis.  Per Dóminum nostrum Iesum Christum, Fílium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spiritus Sancti, Deus, per ómnia sǽcula sæculórum. Amen.

O God, Who hast set upon the head of thy blessed Confessor King Edward a crown of everlasting glory, grant unto us, we beseech thee, so to use our reverence for him here upon earth, as to make the same a mean whereby to come to reign with him hereafter in heaven. Through Jesus Christ, thy Son our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end. Amen.

---

[1] Saint Bede the Venerable, A History of the English Church and People, Trans. Leo Sherley-Price, (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1955), 40-42.

[2] Ibid, 44-47.

[3] Ibid, 50-51.

[4] Ibid, 66-67.

[5] Ibid, 68-71.

[6] Hugh De Blacam, Saint Patrick: Apostle of Ireland, Ed. Joseph Husslein S.J. PH.D. (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1941), 67-8.

[7] Bede, A History of the English Church and People, 88-91.

[8] Fr. Christopher Rengers O.F.M. Cap., The 33 Doctors of the Church (Rockford: TAN Books and Publishers, 2000), 220.

[9] Ibid, 230.

[10] Ibid, 220-1.

[11] Ibid, 221.

[12] W. Carroll, A History of Christendom, vol. 2, The Building of Christendom (Front Royal: Christendom College Press, 1987),197-9.

[13] F. H. Dudden, Gregory the Great, His Place in History and Thought (New York, 1905, 1967), 2 vols.

[14] Margaret Deanesly, Augustine of Canterbury (London, 1964).

[15] Carroll, The Building of Christendom, 198.

[16] Ibid, 198.

[17] Ibid, 192.

[18] Ibid, 195.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Bede, A History of the English Church and People, 106-8.

[21] Ibid, 112.

[22] Ibid, 124-6.

[23] Ibid, 138-39.

[24] Ibid, 139.