02 May 2024

A Requiem for Notre Dame

Notre Dame is so far gone that its name has become an insult to Our Blessed Mother!


From The Irish Rover

By W. Joseph DeReuil

“In matters of truth, the fact that you don’t want to publish something is, nine times out of ten, proof that you should publish it.” – G.K. Chesterton

More than two years ago, I co-authored a defense of the Irish Rover’s work after an article by then-Editor-in-Chief Mary Frances Myler initiated campus controversy.  

Myler’s article, “No Man Can Serve Two Masters,” succinctly defended Church teaching on marriage and sexuality and considered how Notre Dame had failed to promote this teaching. The outrage inspired by this charitable and straightforward articulation made all who were then writing for the Rover realize the important role of our reporting and writing—a fact that is easy to forget. 

I nevertheless wish to close my time at the Rover on a simpler note. Whatever objective goals we have accomplished over the past four years—growing our staff, increasing our reporting bandwidth, and expanding our reach on and beyond campus—the individuals involved with the paper certainly benefit more than the reader.

Writing for a campus paper teaches valuable lessons of clear communication, meeting deadlines, and standing firm for the truth once you have reported it. Student journalists usually experience a slow learning curve to the first two of these. But for the last—standing firm for the truth—one simply needs to prepare for an unexpected barrage of pressure whenever it may come.

As we noted in our defense of the Rover two years ago, “The Rover’s editorial team did not anticipate such an explosion of campus controversy” upon publishing “No Man Can Serve Two Masters.” Neither did I think two years ago that our writing would be discussed in hundreds of newspapers via the Associated Press and widely written about by many others, including in the Wall Street Journal and Fox News.

In addition to the excitement, knowing my name was being spread to millions of people across the globe is a terrifying feeling. But the public controversy I have faced by actors on campus, and the lack of support from Notre Dame administrators, is not why I title this piece “A Requiem for Notre Dame.”

More meaningful than what happens in public is the effect the controversy has on the individual. Some personal relationships have, no doubt, been injured through the Rover’s public controversies. 101 faculty and staff at Notre Dame published a letter in the Observer, vilifying the students who report for the Rover. Both Luke Thompson, the other student named in the suit, and I have had some of these professors in class and have learned a great deal from them. Gathering signatures of faculty to disparage the work and integrity of their own students, these professors claimed that we, their students, had departed from the “positive sociality afforded by university life” and engaged in a “campaign of targeted harassment.” Harassment indeed.

While it was shocking that our own professors, and such a large percentage of the Notre Dame faculty more broadly, would sign such an incendiary letter, neither is this the reason for my requiem. 

Yes, Notre Dame is dead; but only insofar as her image is herself. That is, she has been killed in the eyes of the large swaths of American Catholics who have populated her quads since her founding in 1842. This death is due in part to negative press brought upon herself—awarding Obama an honorary degree and giving Biden the “Laetare Medal” come to mind immediately—but I know that we students who report on campus controversy from the inside have also played a role.

The headlines about me and my friends that reached millions of people have seemed to confirm in the eyes of many faithful Catholics that Notre Dame has given up its soul. This assumption has been confirmed by alumni who send angry or distressed emails, telling us that they are ceasing their donations to Notre Dame because she is “no longer Catholic,” or asking where they can donate to help restore her Catholic identity. 

A requiem is a prayer for the dead, said in hope that the soul of the deceased might be purified and enter heaven. Of course, an institution has no eternal soul, but I wish to leave this as my final message to the readers of the Rover: The soul of Notre Dame, her animating principle, is not dead. If I had chosen to attend a Newman List school, I certainly would not have had to miss class to endure a five-hour deposition, but neither would I have learned how to read The Republic with Prof. David O’Connor, The Odyssey with Prof. Patrick Deneen, or Aristotle’s Politics with Prof. Susan Collins, to name only a few of my academic highlights. Nor would I have befriended the dozens of inspiringly faithful Notre Dame students who will soon populate the academia, law offices, and businesses of our nation.

Nor would I have met Ambrose Inman (there’s your shoutout, even if we didn’t publish your article on cocktails and fashion) through whom I re-met the Norbertines of St. Michael’s Abbey, where I will enter as a postulant this August.

Growth comes through conflict. Even if I would rather struggle through understanding Dante than learn how to articulate a two-sentence defense of the Church’s teaching on life to the Associated Press, I have grown immensely through doing both. The goal of the Rover is to restore the Catholic identity of Notre Dame, and we on the inside hope that the alumni who love this school just as deeply will help us in this effort. Then, the soul of Notre Dame will revive the body, ensuring that this great university will be a forum for excellent, Catholic education for years to come.

Notre Dame often presents herself as a dead creature—body separated from soul—to be accepted by the world’s elite academic institutions, which have invariably abandoned their founding missions. So yes, my fellow student writers and I have harmed Notre Dame’s image, but we have always acted in charity, hoping to bring to light what is wrong on the inside to ensure that the fight for her Catholic character continues. 

At Notre Dame, there is still a fight and, more importantly, there are still some of the finest Catholic academics and students in the country. If I were to begin college over again tomorrow, I would certainly attend Notre Dame, provided they would still have me.

Pictured: The Main Building of the University of Notre Dame

The Devil, Communist China, & the Catholic Church ~ Interview With Steven Mosher

In cooperating with the ChiCom Slavemasters, there is no doubt that Francis is dancing with the Devil and I think he's being well bribed to do it.

From Catholics for Catholics


Join John Yep, CEO of Catholics for Catholics, as he engages in a riveting conversation with Steven Mosher, President of the Population Research Institute. In this thought-provoking interview, they delve into the chilling realities of Chinese communist infiltration within America and its impact on the Catholic Church.

Mosher’s latest book, The Devil and Communist China: From Mao down to Xiuncovers the hidden truths that will leave you questioning the delicate balance between faith, politics, and global power. Don’t miss this eye-opening discussion!

EU Moves to Further Institutionalize Ideological Blackmail

Germany moves to solidify its dictatorial control over Europe, fulfilling the delayed dreams of a certain failed Austrian artist.

From The European Conservative

By Tamás Orbán



A German initiative would enshrine rule-of-law conditionality in all EU budget payments—while preventing sovereigntist governments from protecting states punished for non-compliance.

French Journalist Fired For Discussions With Rassemblement National President

Political censorship, pure and simple! RadioFrance doesn't like the RN so nobody who works for them can even talk to the Right Wing.

From The European Conservative

By Hélène de Lauzun, PhD


With no contract or ongoing collaboration between the duo, the journalist was nevertheless dismissed for an alleged “serious conflict of interest.”

Managers at French public service radio just dismissed journalist Jean-François Achilli for “serious misconduct,” on the grounds that he was considering working with Rassemblement National (RN) president Jordan Bardella. The basis for the sacking is problematic, in that there were never any more than informal exchanges between the two men—proof instead of political censorship.

It took several weeks for the case to reach a conclusion. On March 14th this year, Achilli—presenter of the programme Les Informés on France Info radio and an employee of the public broadcasting service—was suspended and taken off air. The decision followed revelations in an article in Le Monde alleging that the journalist and RN president Bardella and head of its list for the European elections, had exchanged views, with the idea of writing a biography of the right-wing nationalist politician. 

The charges against the presenter are based on very slim facts. Excerpts written by Bardella were allegedly submitted for Achilli’s approval, who in turn refused to take part in the biographical work envisaged by Bardella. But according to Le Monde, the journalist ‘nonetheless worked in the shadows, helping Bardella recover his memories, thus enabling the beginnings of a text to see the light of day’. This was enough to trigger proceedings against Achilli by the management of the Radio France group, leading to his dismissal for serious misconduct a month and a half later, on Monday, April 29th. 

As far as ‘serious misconduct’ is concerned, there was never any contract or actual collaboration between the two men. At the time of his suspension, Achilli pointed out that his exchanges with Bardella were part of ‘his personal professional life’. Bardella, for his part, was outraged at the fate of the journalist: “I have just learned that Radio France is suspending one of its journalists for a “supposed” exchange about a book of interviews with me that never saw the light of day. These methods used by the public service are worthy of the worst regimes and are a disgrace to democracy.”

Achilli has since vigorously defended himself in a post on X:

I have not broken any professional or ethical rules. I spoke with Jordan Bardella as I have done with all politicians for the past twenty-five years. At his request, we talked about how he might express himself in a book of interviews. I refused the project. Since when can’t political journalists talk to all politicians? I am stunned by the brutality of the unjustified action taken against me by the management of France Info, which is seriously damaging my reputation.

Radio France maintains, however, that Achilli’s involvement in Bardella’s project, even on a one-off basis, constitutes a “serious conflict of interest.” Achilli’s involvement in a festival in Brittany called Think Forward, set up at the initiative of a local Les Républicains councillor, —although declared to management in accordance with the Radio France group’s internal procedures—is also being cited as evidence against him. 

It is not yet known whether Achilli intends to acquiesce, or whether he intends to take the matter to an industrial tribunal to challenge a clearly unfair dismissal. 

The interpenetration of political circles with journalistic circles is a near-universal trend, and never poses any problems of conscience—since it  is generally to the benefit of the Left. Journalists’ collaboration on memoirs or autobiographies of political figures is commonplace, and hardly ever gives rise to calls to order when mainstream figures are involved.

In a speech to the National Assembly on the Achilli case, RN MP Philippe Ballard cited several examples from the recent past of French publishing. Culture Minister Rachida Dati replied that the parallel did not apply, since the personalities quoted were bound by an explicit contract. What’s more, ethical rules have been tightened since June 2023: “Prior to any collaboration, or even at the limit of any discussion, to avoid any conflict of interest, all Achilli had to do was inform his management to say whether there was any collaboration envisaged. This was not the case, as Radio France found out through the press,” Dati said.

Double standards in Achilli’s case have been denounced by several voices on the Right. One example put forward is the case of journalist Léa Salamé, one of Achilli’s colleagues. Currently in a relationship with the socialist Raphaël Glucksmann, who heads the Socialist Party list for the European elections, she was finally taken off the air only after the Achilli scandal—for good measure.

Pictured: Jean-Francois Achilli (R) Interviews Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy (L) Credit: Eric Feferberg / AFP

Shakespeare’s Last Catholic Dynasty

I'm a lot less concerned with Richard's guilt than I am with the fact that, after his remains were found, he was buried in the desecrated ground of a Cathedral stolen from Holy Church.



From One Peter Five

By Mary Beth Bowen

Was Richard III, who took the crown of England in 1483, a usurper and a tyrant who murdered his nephews, or a true and just king innocent of that crime? After reading a controversial contribution pleading the innocence of King Richard III of England, I decided to read the popular play written by Shakespeare which bears the monarch’s name.

The play follows the somewhat ingenious plots and enterprises of the Duke of Gloucester as he aspires to be the next ruling king after his brother’s failing health brings his life to an end. The Duke proves that he will stop at nothing to get what he wants, being guilty of a total of eleven murders by the end of the play. One by one, he picks off all in the line before him, including his other brother, his nephews, and eventually his loyal friend and accomplice. Gloucester, who is later crowned King Richard III, proves that he has no human attachment or love for relatives and no remorse for his actions. Throughout the play, there is a sense that the living envy the dead during his reign. A group of the royal surviving women address the audience with their tears and distress as they mourn husbands and sons. In the end of the play, Henry Tudor is the hero who saves England from her plight and righteously destroys the usurper Richard.

For the most part, this is the story that we know of King Richard III. Of course we dismiss some of the drama as ridiculous, but we have a general feeling that “Richard = bad.” Some may find it surprising that coming to defend his innocence is none other than the late Dr. Warren Carroll. With all due respect to the Bard of Avon, Carroll relates that what we know of Richard is in line with a play that was made to celebrate the downfall of the Catholic Plantagenets to please the current ruling Protestant monarch of England – Elizabeth Tudor, whose reign of terror produced many Catholic martyrs. Perhaps Shakespeare underestimated the power of storytelling through the stage and of course the play could go no other way, but we are left with an unclear idea of the real Richard III because of it.

The poet and the historian tell two very different tales and here you will find the comparisons.

Shakespeare’s Richard opens the play with a long line containing the verses:

I am determined to prove the villain…
Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous…
To set my brother Clarence and the king
In deadly hate the one against the other:
And if King Edward be as true and just
As I am subtle, false and treacherous
This day should see Clarence closely mew’d up
About a prophecy, which says that “G”
Of Edward’s heirs the murderer shall be.

After this monologue, Richard’s closer brother, the Duke of Clarence passes on his way to the Tower. Clarence explains that since his first name is George, the king has arrested him and ordered an execution to take place in a little while because it is clear, according to the prophecy mentioned by Richard, that he will be the murderer of the king’s sons.

Carroll’s Richard is a character with principles and morals. He harbors natural feelings for kith and kin. The historian relates that Richard had stood unswervingly at his brother’s, the king’s, side and even lived by the motto “Loyalty binds me.”[1]

Both stories move rapidly to the king’s death, though Dr. Carroll records Richard’s absence from the scene and Shakespeare places Richard there. Carroll tells us that the declining King Edward IV “called his wife’s principal relatives, his close friend Will Hastings, and his other ministers together around his bed, urging them to love one another and to work together in the future.”

Shakespeare gives us the king’s moving last requests:

I every day expect an embassage
From my Redeemer to redeem me hence;
And now in peace my soul shall part to heaven
Since I have set my friends at peace in earth
Rivers and Hastings, take each other’s hand;
Dissemble not your hatred, swear your love.

The king entreats all around present to vow peace and love to each other in similar fashion. Carroll says that Richard was in Scotland at this time and so missed this event. He did not return until it was too late and the king was already dead. But Shakespeare places him  in the room, and the self-proclaimed villain makes false peace with those present as he swears:

I do not know that Englishman alive
With whom my soul is any jot at odds.

The queen then implores the king to remember his brother Clarence who is in the Tower and to extend peace to him as well. The king sends for him but it is too late, for Shakespeare’s Richard has already made sure that the execution order was carried out. The king is then heart-broken and unsuspectingly takes all the blame. Before dying, King Edward IV makes Richard Lord Protector over his teenage son, Edward V, until the latter is old enough to rule on his own. Carroll says that “there is no reason to believe that Richard would not be true to his brother’s memory and charge as he had always been true to him during his life and reign.”

In Carroll’s history, the Duke of Buckingham now takes the stage. “He immediately attached himself to Richard, and told him that the Woodvilles (the queen’s family) would never accept him as Protector.” In both Shakespeare’s and Carroll’s narrative, Richard’s next move is to arrest the Queen’s relatives, Rivers, Richard Grey and Thomas Vaughan. Carroll affirms that “everyone in England was aware of the inordinate ambition of the Woodvilles; historians writing five-hundred years later cannot credibly portray them as innocent victims.” In Shakespeare’s play, these three Woodvilles are speedily and unjustly executed and Shakespeare does his part in attempting to portray them as innocent victims:

Be satisfied dear God, with our true blood,
Which, as thou know’st, unjustly must be spilt.

Richard now possessed control of the young king-to-be Edward and had two loyal supporters: Buckingham and Hastings; and these he commanded to swear loyalty to the prince. In Carroll’s narrative, Hastings is eager to not be outdone by Buckingham. But in Shakespeare’s telling, Hastings is shaken by the recent proceedings and moves forward with caution.

It is Carroll’s opinion that if Richard “was then planning to usurp the throne… he would have made such a point of requiring these oaths of loyalty to a boy king he was about to remove.” Within a five day period, Carroll’s Richard is faced with a small uprising from the Woodvilles and he hastily begs for military aid against them. In this confusion, many things develop. Here’s Carroll’s treatment:

Something new, unexpected and alarming had obviously happened between the 5th and the 10th. Richard’s critics say that what had happened was simply his own decision to usurp the throne from his young nephew; his defenders say that he had discovered the conspiracy which he signally punished … by the summary execution of Hastings, his former friend, without trial, on a charge of treason concerted with the Bishop of Ely and the Woodvilles, possibly due to Hastings’ jealousy of the ascendant influence of the Duke of Buckingham with Richard – and possibly a startling report that Edward IV’s children were illegitimate.

Of course, Shakespeare’s Richard is the author of several “illegitimate” stories, the first of which was that Edward always had a lustful eye, and the final of which is:

Tell them, when that my mother went with child
Of the unsatiate Edward, noble York
My princely father then had wars in France…
Found that the issue was not his begot…
Being nothing like the noble duke my father:
But touch this sparingly, as ‘twere far off;
Because you know, my lord, my mother lives.

The illegitimacy of the princes is portrayed a little differently by Dr. Carroll. At the time, a Friar Shaw delivered a sermon in which he announced that the children were illegitimate because Edward IV and Elizabeth’s marriage was invalid due to the fact that Edward was previously betrothed. In a matter of days, it was accepted by Parliament that Edward’s son was illegitimate and that Richard was now the rightful heir.

Carroll defends the Lord Protector by recording that

Richard had been known as a man of high moral principle and a devout Catholic. His conscience would not have permitted him to keep silent about such a fact if it were true… however much he might have wished to save his brother’s reputation. That proclaiming it served his personal interest so well will always cast some doubt on the reality of the betrothal; but Richard’s reputation up to this point makes it harder to imagine him inventing so despicable a betrayal of his brother’s memory, if it were false, then accepting that he genuinely discovered a truth which happened to make him King.

Only five days after Edward V was supposed to be crowned, Richard was declared king of England with a coronation ceremony to follow shortly.

With Hastings’s head now brought before him, Shakespeare’s Richard pressures Buckingham to agree that Edward’s sons must be removed from the picture. Buckingham hesitates now to agree. The ever-ready accomplice who carried out every foul deed for his friend now the king, has lost his high place,

The deep-revolving witty Buckingham
No-more shall be the neighbor to my counsel:
Hath he so long held out with me untired,
And stops he now for breath?

Buckingham makes his escape, knowing what is in store for him if he tarries. In Shakespeare’s play, he sides with Henry Tudor.

The disappearance of Edward IV’s sons is “the most impenetrable mystery in English history.” In the play, Richard hires a man named James Tyrell to carry out their murders. Carroll says that the confession of the said Tyrell “has now been rejected by almost all historians, even those most hostile to Richard.” Carroll continues that “ever since Richard III died fighting for his crown at Bosworth Field in 1485, the dominant viewpoint among historians and English tradition is that he had them killed. But no one knows when or how.” The deed was done very quickly and without reason. The timing was horrible because it happened within the week of Richard’s coronation. As he was touring England immediately after the coronation, Richard was away and could not provide the necessary coverup. Carroll gives countless reasons why Richard might not have been responsible and instead focuses on the actions of another individual. Again the “hesitating” Buckingham comes to perform, but this time, with a possibly larger role in history’s play.

Carroll:

Before Richard could return to London, rebellion had broken out… in the name of Henry Tudor and the Duke of Buckingham, who both had a claim to the throne… if Richard were eliminated and the princes were truly illegitimate… Richard had trusted Buckingham completely and had made him Constable of England, but the young Duke did not hesitate to betray him.

Though he had a claim to the throne, he did not voice this at the time but chose instead to support Henry Tudor.

It is hard to believe that, given his genealogy and character, he was not biding his time until he could remove and supplant Henry after, with his indispensable help, Henry removed and supplanted Richard III. By murdering the princes Buckingham could throw the odium for their disappearance upon Richard. As Constable of England, Buckingham could as easily have entered the Tower of London and done what he wished there, as Richard himself.

The case against the Duke of Buckingham as the murderer of the princes is at least as plausible as the case against Richard… The manner in which he gained great favor with Richard then betrayed him, all in less than six months, reveals a man with no moral restraints on his ambition. Richard’s record… displays a much higher moral standard.

In both Shakespeare’s and Carroll’s stories, Buckingham is caught and executed. He begs to speak to the king but is refused. Shakespeare’s Richard is still angry with Buckingham’s hesitancy to co-operate but Carroll gives a different reason. “From the moment of his capture… to his execution… he begged and pleaded for permission to speak with Richard… Richard refused to see him. Buckingham may have hoped to gain his life in return for information about the fate of the two princes that he alone could provide.”

Now we arrive at the play’s last horror, Richard’s final murder, that of his wife. In the play Richard must get rid of her in order to strengthen his claim to the throne by marrying his brother’s daughter, the “illegitimate” sister to the princes which he murdered. First he clears himself by spreading that his wife is ill before he kills her:

Rumor it abroad,
That Anne, my wife, is sick and like to die.

Carroll’s Anne has a different fate. The Queen died most likely of tuberculosis shortly after their own son died.

There is much evidence that Richard had a profound love for Anne… These two intense personal tragedies (the loss of his wife and his son) and the suffering Richard must have undergone if he were innocent of the murder of his nephews… may help explain the apparent fatalism which Richard approached the decisive battle with Henry Tudor.

Carroll’s Richard turns to the battle field with a heavy, broken heart while Shakespeare’s enters the fray as a mad tyrant. Although a proven military genius, Carroll’s Richard charges Henry with a small force and is betrayed once again by one of his men. Shakespeare’s Henry is the hero in the tale as he frees England from her murderous tyrant king and promises prosperity and peace.

O, now, let Richmond and Elizabeth,
The true succeeders of each royal house,
By God’s fair ordinance conjoin together!
And let their heirs, God, if Thy will be so,
Enrich the time to come with smoothed-faced peace
With smiling plenty and fair prosperous days!

Henry Tudor does marry Richard’s niece Elizabeth and suppressed all mention of her being illegitimate. I will let Carroll answer his own question which was asked at the opening of this essay:

Historians are left with the mystery of the two vanished princes and the choice of whether to see Richard III, corrupted by ambition, usurping the throne of England, killing them, and consequently suffering his just deserts by being overthrown and slain by Henry Tudor, or to see him as the innocent victim of as searing a cumulative tragedy as may be found in all the annals of the kings of Christendom. The mystery will never be conclusively resolved. Each student weighing the evidence can only make his best judgment. The writer of this history judges that Richard III is innocent.

The reign of Richard III has enduring significance in that it brought a completely new and very different dynasty to the throne of England, whose second generation was to breach the millennial English tradition of loyalty to the Catholic Church and whose third generation was to destroy that tradition forever – the worst single loss the Catholic Church has suffered in its entire history.

Richard’s innocence deserves to be defended. His short rule and fast fall was not simply the fall of a king, but it was the fall of a Catholic king whose ancestry ruled England from the Middle Ages. His successors’ descendants were to sever the bond of England from the Roman Catholic Church, maybe forever. If he was a tyrant and usurper, what came after was far worse. For Queen Elizabeth Tudor was illegitimate and guilty of more than eleven deaths.


[1] All quotes of and references to Dr. Warren Carroll are taken from his historical work, The Glory of Christendom.

Pictured: Earliest surviving portrait of Richard III, ca 1520

St Athanasius, Bishop & Confessor

Today's Holy Mass from Corpus Christi Church, Tynong, VIC, Australia. You may follow the Mass at Divinum Officium.

St Athanasius, Bishop and Doctor of the Church ~ Dom Prosper Guéranger

Thursday of the Fifth Week After Easter ~ Dom Prosper Guéranger

St Athanasius, Bishop & Doctor of the Church


From Dom Prosper Guéranger's The Liturgical Year

The Court of our divine King, during his grandest of Seasons, is brilliant beyond measure: and today, it is gladdened by the arrival of one of the most glorious champions that ever fought for his holy cause. Among the guardians of the Word of Truth, confided by Jesus to the earth—is there one more faithful than Athanasius? Does not his very name remind us of the dauntless courage in the defense of the sacred deposit, of heroic firmness and patience in suffering, of learning, of talent, of eloquence—in a word, of everything that goes to form a Saint, a Bishop, and a Doctor of the Church? Athanasius lived for the Son of God; the cause of the Son of God was that of Athanasius: he who blessed Athanasius, blessed the eternal Word; and he insulted the eternal Word, who insulted Athanasius.

Never did our holy Faith go through a greater ordeal than in the sad times immediately following the peace of the Church, when the Bark of Peter had to pass through the most furious storm that hell has, so far, let loose against her. Satan had vainly sought to drown the Christian race in a sea of blood; the sword of persecution had grown blunt in the hands of Dioclesian and Galerius; and the Cross appeared in the heavens, proclaiming the triumph of Christianity. Scarcely had the Church become aware of her victory, when she felt herself shaken to her very foundation. Hell sent upon the earth a heresy which threatened to blight the fruit of three hundred years of Martyrdom. Arius began his impious doctrine—that he, who had hitherto been adored as the Son of God, was only a creature, though the most perfect of all creatures. Immense was the number, even of the clergy, that fell into this new error; the Emperors became its abettors; and had not God himself interposed, men would soon have set up the cry throughout the world, that the only result of the victory gained by the Christian Religion was to change the object of idolatry and put a new idol, called Jesus, in place of the old ones.

But He who had promised that the gates of hell should never prevail against his Church, faithfully fulfilled his promise. The primitive faith triumphed; and Council of Nicæa proclaimed the Son to be consubstantial to the Father; but the Church stood in need of a man in whom the cause of the Consubstantial Word should be, so to speak, incarnated—a man, with learning enough to foil the artifices of heresy, and with courage enough to bear every persecution without flinching. This man was Athanasius: and every one that adores and loves the Son of God, should love and honor Athanasius. Five times banished from the See of Alexandria by the Arians, who even sought to put him to death, he fled for protection to the West, which justly appreciated the glorious Confessor of Jesus’ Divinity. In return for the hospitality accorded him by Rome, Athanasius gave her of his treasures. Being the admirer and friend of the great St. Antony, he was a fervent admirer of the Monastic Life, which, by the grace of the Holy Ghost, had flourished so wonderfully in the deserts of his vast Patriarchate. He brought the precious seed to Rome, and the first Monks seen there were the ones introduced by Athanasius. The heavenly plant became naturalized in its new soil; and though its growth was slow at first, it afterwards produced fruit more abundantly than it had ever done in the East.

Athanasius, who has written so admirably upon that fundamental dogma of our Faith—the Divinity of Christ—has also left us most eloquent treatises on the mystery of the Pasch: they are to be found in the Festal Letters, which he addressed, each year, to the Churches of his Patriarchate of Alexandria. The collection of these Letters, which were once thought to have been irretrievably lost, was found a few years back in the Monastery of St. Mary of Scete, in Egypt. The first, for the year 329, begins with these words, which beautifully express the sentiments we should feel at the approach of Easter: “Come, my beloved Brethren, celebrate the Feast; the season of the year invites you to do so. The Sun of Justice, by pouring out his divine rays upon you, tells you that the time of the Solemnity is come. At such tidings, let us keep a glad feast; let not the joy slip from us, with the fleeing days, without our having tasted of its sweetness.” During almost every year of his banishment. Athanasius continued to address a Paschal Letter to his people. The one in which he announces the Easter of 338, and which he wrote at Treves, begins thus: “Though separated from you, my Brethren, I cannot break through the custom which I have always observed, and which I received from the tradition of the Fathers. I will not be silent; I will not omit announcing to you the time of the holy annual Feast, and the day on which you must keep the Solemnity. I am, as you have doubtless been told, a prey to many tribulations; I am weighed down by heavy trials; I am watched by the enemies of truth, who scrutinize everything I write, in order to rake up accusations against me and, thereby, add to my sufferings; yet notwithstanding, I feel that the Lord strengthens and consoles me in my afflictions. Therefore do I venture to address to you the annual celebration; and from the midst of my troubles, and despite the snares that beset me, I send you, from the furthermost part of the earth, the tidings of the Pasch, which is our salvation. Commending my fate into God’s hands, I will celebrate this Feast with you; distance of place separates us, but I am not absent from you. The Lord who gives us these Feasts, who is himself our Feast, who bestows upon us the gift of his Spirit—he unites us spiritually to one another, by the bond of concord and peace.”

How grand is this Pasch, celebrated by Athanasius an exile on the Rhine, in union with his people who keep their Easter on the banks of the Nile! It shows us the power of the Liturgy to unite men together and make them, at one and the same time, and despite the distance of countries, enjoy the same holy emotions, and feel the same aspirations to virtue. Greeks or Barbarians, we have all the same mother-country—the Church; but what, after Faith, unites us all into one family, is the Church’s Liturgy. Now there is nothing in the whole Liturgy so expressive of unity as the celebration of Easter. The unhappy Churches of Russia and the East, by keeping Easter on a different day from that on which it is celebrated by the rest of the Christian World, show that they are not a portion of the One Fold of which our Risen Jesus is the One Shepherd.

We will now read the sketch of St. Athanasius’ Life, given in the Breviary.

Athanasius, the stern defender of the Catholic Faith, was born at Alexandria. He was made Deacon by Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, whose successor he afterwards became. He accompanied that Prelate to the Council of Nicæa, where, having refuted the impious doctrine of Arius, he became such an object of hatred to the Arians, that from that time forward, they never ceased to lay snares for him. Thus, at a Council held at Tyre, at which the majority of the Bishops were Arians, the party suborned a wretched woman, who was to accuse Athanasius, that when lodging in her house, he had offered violence to her. Athanasius was accordingly brought before the Council. One of his priests, by name Timothy, went in with him, and pretending that he was Athanasius, he said to the woman: “What! did I ever lodge at thy house? Did I violate thee?” She boldly answered him: “Yes, it was thou.” She affirmed it with an oath, besought the judges to avenge her, and punish so great a crime. The trick being discovered, the impudent woman was ordered to leave the place.

The Arians also spread the report, that Athanasius had murdered a certain Bishop Arsenius. Having put this Arsenius into confinement, they brought forward the hand of a dead man, saying that it was the hand of Arsenius, and that Athanasius had cut it off for purposes of witchcraft. But Arsenius having made his escape during the night, presented himself before the whole Council, and exposed the impudent malice of Athanasius’ enemies. But even this they attributed to the magical skill of Athanasius, and went on plotting his death. They succeeded in having him banished, and accordingly, he was sent to Treves in Gaul. During the reign of the emperor Constantius, who was on the Arian side, Athanasius had to go through the most violent storms, endure incredible sufferings, and go wandering from country to country. He was driven several times from his See, but was restored, at one time by the authority of Pope Julius, at another by the help of the emperor Constans, Constantius’ brother, at another by the decree of the Councils of Sardica and Jerusalem. During all this, the Arians relented not in their fury against him; the hatred of him was unremitting; and he only avoided being murdered, by hiding himself, for five years, in a dry well, where he was fed by one of his friends. who was the only person that knew the place of his concealment.

Constantius died, and was succeeded in the Empire by Julian the Apostate, who allowed the exiled Bishops to return to their respective Sees. Accordingly, Athanasius returned to Alexandria, where he was received with every possible mark of honor. Not long after, however, he was again obliged to flee, owing to the persecution he met with from Julian, who was instigated by the Arians. On one occasion, when he was being pursued by the Emperor’s satellites, who were ordered to put him to death, the Saint ordered the boat, in which he was fleeing from danger, to be turned back. As soon as he met the persecutors, they asked him if Athanasius was anywhere near. He answered, that he was not far off. While they, therefore, went one way, he sailed the other, and got back to Alexandria, where he remained in concealment till Julian’s death. Another storm soon arose in the City, and he was obliged to hide himself, for four months, in his father’s sepulcher. Having thus miraculously escaped from all these great dangers, he died peacefully in his own bed, at Alexandria, during the reign of the emperor Valens. His life and death were honored by great miracles. He wrote several admirable treatises, some on subjects pertaining to practical piety, and others on the dogmas of Catholic faith. He for six and forty years, and amidst the most troubled of times, governed the Church of Alexandria with extraordinary piety.

The Greek Church, which celebrates the Feast of our Saint at another season of the year, is enthusiastic in her admiration of his virtues. The following stanzas are from the Hymn she sings in his praise.

HYMN
(Die XVIII. Januarii.)

Hail, O Athanasius! model of virtue, most brave defender of the Faith! who didst courageously rout the impiety of Arius by the force of thy venerable words. Thou didst preach the power of the Godhead, one in three Persons, which made all creatures, both spiritual and material, out of nothing, solely because of his own infinite goodness. Thou explainedst to us the difficult mysteries of the divine operation. Pray for us to Christ, that he grant to our souls his great mercy.

Hail thou rock of the Patriarchs!—sweet-voiced trumpet—admirable mind—most persuasive tongue—most clear eye—interpreter of true dogmas—true shepherd—most brilliant lamp—axe that felled the whole forest of heresies, and burned them with the fire of the Holy Spirit—most firm pillar—unshaken tower—preaching the supersubstantial power of the Three Persons! pray them, that they grant plenteous mercy on our souls.

O Father! thou armedst the Church with the divine dogmas of orthodoxy: thy teachings were a death-blow to heresy; thou finishedest thy holy course, and, like Paul, thou didst keep the faith; as to the rest, there was laid up for thee, O glorious Athanasius, a crown justly won by thy labors.

Like a star that never sets, even now that thou art dead, thou enlightenest the Faithful throughout the world with the rays of thy teaching, O wise Pontiff Athanasius!

Guided by the Holy Ghost, thou, O holy Pontiff, turning thy mind to the sublimest contemplations, didst investigate the hidden treasures of the divine oracles, and didst distribute their riches unto men.

Like a high and shining tower of divine truths, thou guidest all that are tossed on the sea of error, leading them, by the calm beauty of thy words, to the tranquil haven of grace.

General of God’s army, thou didst put to flight the ranks of the Lord’s enemies, courageously destroying them with the sword of the Holy Spirit.

Holy Father! thou hadst the fountain of Life within thy heart, and thou wateredst the whole earth.

In thy flesh, O holy Father, thou filledst up the sufferings of Christ, suffering many persecutions for his Church.

Learn justice, O all ye inhabitants of earth, from the holy words of Athanasius; for, by his faith, he was as the mouth of the Eternal Word.

O blessed one! thou didst make the Church of Christ to be indeed a paradise, for thou sowedst in her the holy word, tearing up the thorns of heresy.

O God-bearing Saint! thou wast a river of grace, a spiritual Nile, bringing to the Faithful the good fruits of holy doctrine, refreshing us all, and nourishing the whole earth.

With the staff of thy teachings, thou drovest heretical wolves far from the Church of Christ. Thou didst encompass and defend her with the fortifications of thy words, and didst present her sound and safe to Christ. Beseech him, therefore, that he would deliver from perversion and all dangers us who faithfully celebrate thine ever venerable memory.

Thou wast throned, O Athanasius! on the Chair of Mark in Alexandria; and thy name is emblazoned near his on the sacred Cycle. He left Rome, sent, by Peter himself, to found the second Patriarchal See; and thou, three centuries later, visitedst Rome, as successor of Mark, to seek protection from Peter’s successor against them that were disturbing thy venerable See by injustice and heresy. Our Western Church was thus honored by thy presence, O intrepid defender of the Faith! She looked on thee with veneration, as the glorious Exile, the courageous Confessor; and she has chronicled thy sojourning in her midst as an event of dearest interest.

Intercede for the country over which was extended thy Patriarchal jurisdiction; but forget not this Europe of ours, which gave thee hospitality and protection. Rome defended thy cause; she passed sentence in thy favor, and restored thee thy rights; make her a return, now that thou art face to face with the God of infinite goodness and power. Protect and console her Pontiff—the successor of that Julius who so nobly befriended thee, fifteen hundred years ago. A fierce tempest is now raging against the Rock, on which is built the Church of Christ; and our eyes have grown wearied looking for a sign of calm. Oh! pray that these days of trial be shortened, and that the See of Peter may triumph over the calumnies and persecutions which are now besetting her, and endangering the faith of many of her children.

Thy zeal, O Athanasius! checked the ravages of Arianism; but this heresy has again appeared, in our own times and in almost every country of Europe. Its progress is due to that proud superficial learning, which has become one of the principal perils of the age. The Eternal Son of God, Consubstantial to the Father, is blasphemed by our so-called Philosophers, as being only Man—the best and greatest of men, they say, but still, only Man. They despise all the proofs which reason and history adduce of Jesus’ being God; they profess a sort of regard for the Christian teaching which has hitherto been held, but they have discovered (so they tell us) the fallacy of the great Dogma which recognizes, in the Son of Mary, the Eternal Word, who became Incarnate for man’s salvation. O Athanasius, glorious Doctor of holy Mother Church! humble these modern Arians; expose their proud ignorance and sophistry; undeceive their unhappy followers by letting them see how this false doctrine leads either to the abyss of the abominations of Pantheism, or to the chaos of Skepticism, where all truth and morality are impossibilities.

Preserve within us, by the influence of thy prayers, the precious gift of Faith, wherewith our Lord has mercifully blessed us. Obtain for us that we may ever confess and adore Jesus Christ as our eternal and infinite God; “God of God; Light of Light; True God of True God; Begotten, not made; who, for us men, and for our salvation, took Flesh of the Virgin Mary.” May we grow, each day, in the knowledge of this Jesus, until we join thee in the face-to-face contemplation of his perfections. Meanwhile, by means of holy Faith, we will live with him on this earth, that has witnessed the glory of his Resurrection. How fervent, O Athanasius, was thy love of this Son of God, our Creator and Redeemer! This love was the very life of thy soul, and the stimulus that urged thee to heroic devotedness to his cause. It supported thee in the combats thou hadst to sustain with the world, which seemed leagued together against thy single person. It gave thee strength to endure endless tribulations. Oh! pray that we may get this same love—a love which is fearless of danger, because faithful to Him for whom we suffer—a love which is so justly due, seeing that he, though the Brightness of his Father’s glory, and Infinite Wisdom, emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, and humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the Cross. (Philippians 2:7-8How else can we make him a return for this his devotedness to us, except by giving him all our love, as thou didst, O Athanasius! and by striving to compensate the humiliations he endured for our salvation, by ever singing his praise?