Deus Non Vult? - Pope Leo XIV, Donald Trump, Clermont, and Lepanto

Medal showing Pope St. Pius V struck in honor of the victory of the Holy League at Lepanto.

Last week's blow-up between the Roman Catholic Pontiff and the American President generated considerable heat, but not very much light. Every pundit and influencer on every side registered an opinion, and most of them were ill-informed, facile, or just plain wrong.

Does the Pope have a right to sound off on political questions, even when his opinions are directly critical of a given country's current policies and actions? Of course he does. Popes have been doing this for centuries, millennia even, sometimes at tremendous cost to themselves. Many modern critics of the Papacy have often attacked Popes in hindsight for not sounding off loudly enough or soon enough on such issues.

Should Catholics be surprised if the Holy Father receives return-fire when he wades into political issues? No, we should not, particularly in the United States. There may be many Catholics in the U.S. but the vast majority of the country is not Catholic. When the Pope steps into the political arena, no Catholic should expect meek acquiescence from non-Catholic political figures who, rightly or wrongly, feel targeted.

Were Mr. Trump's broadsides against the Holy Father appropriate? I would say "yes" but only to the extent that Mr. Trump is a non-Catholic political figure who lives in a country where freedom of speech is enshrined as a civil right. Trump takes full advantage of that freedom, having made his reputation as a blunt-talking political street-fighter. There is very little nuance in what Mr. Trump says. If you say or do things he doesn't like, he won't pretend to be polite to your face and throw ashtrays in private. He'll tell you straight out what he thinks, vulgarities included. While this kind of talk tends to make America grate again on the world stage, it's hard to deny that his style has been a political success. Compared to the duplicity of most political figures, Trumps transparency is seen as refreshing by many. 

Trump's TruthSocial post calling Leo "WEAK on crime and terrible for foreign policy," was crass, provocative, and not thoughtfully presented. But coming as it did from a non-Catholic political figure who has no particular love or respect for the Papacy as an institution, it was not inappropriate. If you asked me whether Trump's obloquy was smart or effective, my answer is an emphatic "no" on both counts. Trump's attacks on Leo generated only expressions of horror, dismay, or misguided defense from his Catholic supporters, infighting amongst Catholics more generally, and joy from the anti-Catholic political Left who were only too happy to amplify the comments to foment division within the Church. 

In short, the Pope has the right and the duty to speak publicly and forcefully on pressing political issues. At the same time, he must realize that such comments will be polarizing and may engender or exacerbate exactly the types of conflict he's hoping to ameliorate. 

With the polemics flying last week, there was one statement by the Holy Father that caused some needless confusion among Catholics. It is this: 

"God does not bless any conflict. Anyone who is a disciple of Christ, the Prince of Peace, is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs. Military action will not create space for freedom or times of #Peace, which comes only from the patient promotion of coexistence and dialogue among peoples." [Pope Leo XIV, on X, April 10, 2026]

Posted as a stand-alone statement on social media, this statement seems to contradict the teachings of most of the previous Popes until very recently. By way of example, here is an excerpt from Blessed Pope Urban II's speech at Clermont in AD 1095, as recorded by Balderick of Dol:

Click for more info.

"If, forsooth, you wish to be mindful of your souls, either lay down the girdle of such knighthood, or advance boldly, as knights of Christ, and rush as quickly as you can to the defence of the Eastern Church. For she it is from whom the joys of your whole salvation have come forth, who poured into your mouths the milk of divine wisdom, who set before you the holy teachings of the Gospels. We say this, brethren, that you may restrain your murderous hands from the destruction of your brothers, and in behalf of your relatives in the faith oppose yourselves to the Gentiles. Under Jesus Christ, our Leader, may you struggle for your Jerusalem, in Christian battle-line, most invincible line, even more successfully than did the sons of Jacob of old — struggle, that you may assail and drive out the Turks, more execrable than the Jebusites, who are in this land, and may you deem it a beautiful thing to die for Christ in that city in which He died for us. But if it befall you to die this side of it, be sure that to have died on the way is of equal value, if Christ shall find you in His army. God pays with the same shilling, whether at the first or eleventh hour. You should shudder, brethren, you should shudder at raising a violent hand against Christians; it is less wicked to brandish your sword against Saracens. It is the only warfare that is righteous, for it is charity to risk your life for your brothers." [Krey: The First Crusade, p 35].

Later, in this same account, we see Bishop Adhemar of Puy receive the blessing of Pope Urban and undertake his commission as official Papal legate of the crusaders. 

As those present were thus clearly informed by these and other words of this kind from the apostolic lord, the eyes of some were bathed in tears; some trembled, and yet others discussed the matter. However, in the presence of all at that same council, and as we looked on, the Bishop of Puy, a man of great renown and of highest ability, went to the Pope with joyful countenance and on bended knee sought and entreated blessing and permission to go. Over and above this, he won from the Pope the command that all should obey him, and that he should hold sway over all the army in behalf of the Pope, since all knew him to be a prelate of unusual energy and industry. [Balderic of Dol's account of Urban II's speech at Clermont in Krey: The First Crusade, p. 36].

15th century miniature of Pope Urban II presiding at Clermont. Upon his call for a crusade,
the assembled cried, "Deus Vult!" ~ God wills it!

About 500 years later, Pope Saint Pius V sent this letter to Don John of Austria who had been given command over the forces of the Holy League in AD 1571: 

To our well-beloved son in Christ, health and the apostolic benediction. Almighty God, the author of all good, has been pleased that, with his divine favour, the League should be concluded, which our right dear son in Christ the Catholic King of the Spains your brother, and the Illustrious Republic of the Venetians some months ago began to negotiate against the most cruel tyrant, the lord of the Turks; which having come to so good an issue, it appeared to us right to congratulate your nobleness on the occasion, as by these letters we do, being assured that our message will be welcome and agreeable to you, on account both of your piety towards God, and of your desire for the increase of the Christian world. Greatly do we rejoice to behold you thus prosperously navigating this our sea, that together with the fleets of the other members of the League you may make a beginning of the destruction of the common enemy; and therefore do we entreat and warn you in Christ our Lord, that, imitating the virtue of the captains-general, your predecessors, you use your discretion diligently both to provide all things requisite to the success of the expedition and to avoid delay, which, in affairs of war, is so important and so praiseworthy. We would further urge this upon you with many reasons, did we not know that the business carries with it its reward in the common benefit of the Christian world, and your particular honour, and that you need no further exhortation from our zealous and fatherly love, being assured that your nobleness will never be found wanting either to the one or to the other.  Given at Rome on the 24th of May 1571 [Taken from Maxwell, Don John of Austria, Volume 1, p. 352-353]

When the Holy League's ships were ready to sail to meet their destiny at the Battle of Lepanto in October of 1571, we are told:

The Papal Nuncio, in virtue of the powers which he had brought from Rome, proclaimed a jubilee; the officers and men thronged to the churches to confess and receive the sacrament; and, with great state and ceremony, the Pope's representative, in his master's name, bestowed upon the whole armament of the Holy League — princes, generals, soldiers, sailors, slaves, and shipping — the Apostolical benediction, and announced anew the indulgences which in past times had been conceded to the conquerors of the Holy Sepulchre. [Taken from Maxwell, Don John of Austria, Volume 1, p. 383]

Any student of history can find dozens if not hundreds of additional examples of Popes summoning and blessing those who would make war for the defense of Christendom. This leaves the devout Catholic at something of a loss. Pope Leo XIV's statement is general and unequivocal in a way that appears at odds with prior Church teachings, as well as the words and actions the two Popes aforementioned, one of whom is Blessed, and the other a Saint. This is, perhaps a simplistic reading of the Pope's words, but that is the way most Catholics will read it.

I say this as someone who is not in favor of the current ill-conceived war against Iran that the United States has embarked upon. The rationale for this conflict has been haphazardly explained, and I struggle to categorize it as a just war as traditionally understood by Catholic doctrine. Politically, it seems like a foolish, short-sighted decision, appearing to be more a crusade to ensure the safety of the secular state of Israel than any kind of defense of Christendom. That said, I am happy to be proved wrong on any of these points should the miracle of an unexpected peace emerge in the chronically war-ravaged Middle East as a result of these actions. 

Lack of clarity and consistency in teaching, particularly on moral issues, was an unfortunate hallmark of the previous Papacy. One hopes and prays that Leo XIV will steer the course of thoughtful, prayerful nuance and consistency with his predecessors when offering his observations on political and foreign policy issues in the future. The last thing the world needs is a Pope who creates novel, contradictory doctrines which force Catholics into a position of having to side either with the current occupant of the See of St. Peter, or sainted Popes from history. 

As for Mr. Trump, he sees himself as an American patriot, and I do believe that his ultimate desire is for peace and prosperity among nations, even if, paradoxically, he thinks it takes B-2s and cruise missiles to accomplish the goal. He needs our prayers. I won't suggest that Mr. Trump attempt to be more nuanced in his public statements on social media—that will never happen. But perhaps Mr. Trump would do well to pray sincerely before he posts. A little humility would go a long way.

A better course of action for both the Holy Father and the American President would be to refrain from firing rhetorical fusillades at each other, and instead offer prayers that Almighty God will grant them both wisdom and charity. Based on the Holy Father's most recent statement, it seems like he wasn't intending to get into a shouting match with President Trump, and has declared that many of his statements have been misinterpreted by the media. In response, Vice President Vance has written a conciliatory post about the Holy Father, saying: "He will be in our prayers, and I hope that we'll be in his."

These are good signs. 

Leo XIV has only been Pope for about a year. He deserves an opportunity to grow into the role, and not be hammered for every diplomatic stumble. 

May Christ grant him the wisdom to be zealous and saintly Pope!

The Avignon Papacy at Mar-a-Lago? ~ Is the Trump Administration attempting to capture Pope Leo XIV?

Cardinal Pierre and Undersecretary Colby share a heated and contentious handshake
during their meeting in January 2026 (courtesy of DOW Rapid Response)

It is being reported with breathless enthusiasm by the normally Catholic-phobic Left-media that a meeting between Vatican US representative Cardinal Christophe Pierre and Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby back in January of 2026 went sideways in dramatic fashion. Anonymously-sourced reports say that Colby threatened Cardinal Pierre that the US, "has the military power to do whatever it wants in the world. The Catholic Church had better take its side." 

As if that wasn't bad enough, it was reported that "one official present" made reference to the Avignon Papacy — a period spanning nearly 70 years when the Papacy was captured and controlled by the French crown. The so-called Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy lasted from AD 1309 through 1376 and encompassed the reigns of seven recognized Popes, five anti-Popes, and three French kings. 

Since this news was first reported, both the Vatican and the Trump Administration have issued vigorous denials, stating that things were completely cordial at the meeting. That said, it seems clear that something happened to make certain parties freak out, but perhaps not the bombshell shouting match between US officials and Vatican liaisons that Left-media wishful thinking attempted to insinuate.

Of course, the historically illiterate or purposely obtuse Left-media immediately made much of the alleged mention of the Avignon Papacy. Stripping the claim of context, they imagined it to be some sort of threat by the US to capture Leo XIV and set him up as Pope-in-Exile under US control, perhaps at Mar-a-Lago. 

Assuming that the reference to Avignon happened at all — perhaps a stretch considering how readily the Left-media lies and exaggerates as a matter of course — I have a different interpretation. Perhaps the "one official present" mentioned the Avignon Papacy in the sense that the Papacy has already been captured, and has been in a state of captivity by globalist elites since 2013. 

Now admittedly, that may also be a stretch, but let's consider a few facts:

• During the run-up to the 2016 election, documents leaked from Hillary Clinton Campaign Chair John Podesta dating from February of 2012 to various correspondents revealed ideas to initiate a "Catholic Spring" to sweep away the "middle ages dictatorship" at the Vatican. 
• In mid-January of 2013, Obama's campaign chief and closest advisor, David Axelrod, fresh off the presidential election victory, appeared in Rome, ostensibly to advise Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti. That seems like an odd thing to do on the eve of Obama's second inauguration. 
• On February 11, 2013, about a month after Axelrod's visit, Pope Benedict XVI resigned the Papacy.
• On March 13, 2013, Pope Francis was elected Pope while Benedict XVI retained the title of "Pope Emeritus".
• On October 31, 2013, the Italian magazine Panorama published an article claiming that the US National Security Administration (NSA) tapped phone calls of Vatican officials before and during the Papal Conclave of 2013.
• Obama's administration used Theodore Cardinal McCarrick as a liaison between them and Benedict XVI's Vatican. McCarrick happened to be in Rome on February 14, 2013. It is speculated that McCarrick was an ally of the Saint Gallen Mafia group that was instrumental in pushing Jorge Bergoglio forward as a papal candidate. McCarrick himself was a vocal supporter of Cardinal Bergoglio. McCarrick, of course, would be disgraced and laicized by Pope Francis in 2019.
• Archbishop Carlo Viganò has claimed for several years that Benedict XVI's resignation was instigated by "deep state" forces within the US.
• In February of 2025, LifeSite News posted a petition to the Trump administration calling for an investigation into whether Obama officials forced Benedict XVI to resign.

And finally...

• Yesterday, April 9, 2026, as the story of the contentious meeting between the Pentagon and Vatican officials made world news, who should appear at the Vatican? That's right...David Axelrod. Now what do you suppose he was doing there?

Again, I admit that this is all pure speculation. But just perhaps, the Trump administration took LifeSite's suggestion seriously, investigated the Obama administration's role in Benedict XVI's resignation and the election of Francis, and discovered some rather unsettling things.

If Obama Administration officials were implicated in forcing the resignation of a Pope and pushed for the installation of a hand-picked successor, that might create a scenario at least somewhat similar to the politics of the Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy in 14th century Avignon. 

So to answer the question posed in the title of this article: No, the Trump administration is not attempting to capture Pope Leo XIV. The administration may, however, be willing to reveal to the world that some parties within the Vatican are more loyal to global politicians than they are to the Holy Father. Such a scenario would explain the freak out and flurry of anonymous leaks to the Left-media about this story.

We shall have to wait and see what, if anything, comes out.

May Almighty God reveal the truth as He sees fit.

"The Easter Hare is Inexplicable to Me" ~ Is the Easter Bunny a Christian or a heathen?

The Easter Bunny as imagined by Johann Conrad Gilbert in the late 18th century.  

OK, I admit it. I have never liked the Easter Bunny. 

Of course, as a kid I did enjoy getting a basket full of malted milk chocolate eggs on Easter Sunday. But the idea that those delicious chocolate eggs with the rich creamery filling made by Cadbury were actually laid by a fat, white, clucking lagomorph—that was a bridge too far.

Then, there was also the iconic lazy Easter Rabbit of Looney Tunes fame (Easter Yeggs, 1946), who tricked Bugs Bunny into delivering the eggs for him. Part of me rooted for Elmer Fudd when he said, "I'm waiting for the Easter Wabbit. When he comes in looking so fwuffy and cute with his wittle basket of Easter eggs... BANG! Easter Wabbit stew." 

My own kids were absolutely terrified of the grown men dressed up in giant bunny outfits hopping around in malls and other places during Easter-time. Honestly, who could blame them?

Lastly, before I knew better, I just took it for granted that those folks were correct who claimed that the Easter Bunny was yet another echo of pre-Christian paganism that had been absorbed into the Paschal feast by Catholics, thereby introducing an inappropriate element of the absurd into the celebration of Christ's resurrection.

But then I dug up some interesting facts that have made me have a slightly different view of the Easter Bunny and his "technicolor hen-fruit" as Bugs called it.

At the top of this post is a drawing of the Easter Bunny made by Johann Conrad Gilbert (1734-1812), a first-generation American whose parents emigrated from Baden-Württemberg, Germany in the 1730s. The Gilbert family were authentic Pennsylvania Dutch, and the town of Gilbertsville, Pennsylvania was named for them. Johann was a Lutheran schoolmaster who would be posted to various schools around Berks and Schuylkill Counties in PA throughout the late 18th century. According to Find-a-Grave, he was married to Anna Elizabeth nee Stoltz and was the father of eight children (though his will lists ten). During the Revolutionary War, he served on a pair of armed vessels of war, Eagle and Vulture.

So the earliest reference to the Easter Bunny in America comes from good old southeastern PA. And if the Bunny has pagan roots, it's not the fault of Catholics. Mr. Gilbert was very much a Protestant. 

But of course, the Bunny doesn't really have pagan roots. That theory follows a very tenuous thread that begins with Venerable Bede, runs through the Brothers Grimm, is frayed by the German philologist Adolph Holtzmann, and then subsequently metastasized into a myriad of fanciful legends depicting the Bunny as the magical familiar of a Teutonic goddess. 

The story begins with a single short passage in St. Bede's work entitled De Ratione Temporum, which runs as follows:

Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated "Paschal month", and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month.  Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honoured name of the old observance. [Taken from "Bede on 'Eostre'" on Tertullian.org]

Readers of this blog will realize that this is not a shocking revelation given that Pope Saint Gregory the Great encouraged his missionaries in England to retain those festal or cultural practices of the people which are neutral or universal. That the Anglo-Saxon Christians in England retained the name of a pagan goddess in their common word for the month of April, and thereby transferred it to the Paschal Feast is no more shocking than a modern Christian celebrating Holy Thursday or Good Friday. I suspect not many modern Christians attend the Liturgy of the Lord's supper with the Norse god of thunder (Thor) secretly in mind. Nor do they imagine the Norse goddess, Frigg, among the women of Jerusalem during Christ's passion.

St. Bede's fleeting mention of Eostre was forgotten for over a millennium. Eostre is not mentioned anywhere else at any time.

By contrast, rabbits and hares had been mentioned occasionally in early Christian literature, and normally not in a laudatory way. They were most commonly presented as a symbol of either sexual profligacy due to the rabbit's awesome procreative powers, or as an metaphor for prey, cowardice and timidity. Writing in the late 2nd century AD, Tertullian compares his contemporary Christian community to hares due to persecution, saying, "We ourselves, having been appointed for pursuit, are like hares being hemmed in from a distance." [Tertullian, Scorpiace, Chapter 1]

Writing some two centuries later, Saint Augustine admits his timidity, but acknowledges his one hope of safety: 

For I will confess mine infirmity, to the end that I may be timid like a hare, because I am full of thorns like a hedgehog. And as in another Psalm [104:18] is said, "The rock is a refuge for the hedgehogs and the hares:" but the Rock was Christ. [Augustine of Hippo, Exposition on Psalm 71]

During the Middle Ages, literary rabbits developed into more fearsome creatures, occasionally inhabiting the margins of illuminated manuscripts bearing weapons or inflicting damage on someone deserving it. These images were meant to convey a certain sense of good-natured irony, and given how popular they are in our own times (see this article from the British Library), I would have to say that the monks who drew them have successfully conveyed their whimsical sense of humor across the centuries. 

14th century manuscript showing two rough coneys abusing a hunter. (source)

It wasn't until sometime in the late 17th century, however, that the legend of the Easter Bunny emerged onto the world scene. In a work entitled, Satyrae medicae, continuatio XVIII. Disputatione ordinaria disquirens de ovis paschalibus von Oster-Eyern (or Medical Satires, Continuation XVIII. Investigating in a formal disputation concerning Easter eggs), German physician and botanist, Georg Franck von Franckenau, wrote the following:

In Upper Germany, our own Palatinate, Alsace and neighboring locations, as well as in Westphalia, these are called "Easter-Hare-Eggs" (die Haseneier) because of a story with which they deceive the simpler folk and children: that a Hare (The Easter Hare) hatches eggs of this sort and hides them in gardens in the grass, bushes, etc., so that they may be sought out more eagerly by the children, to the laughter and delight of their elders. [Satyrae Medica de von Franckenau, p. 6 - When searching the Latin, look for the phrase: "In Germania Superiore, Palatinatu nostrate, Alsatia & vicinis locis..."]

Based on this, it seems that the Easter Bunny was an established tradition in certain areas of Germany by this time. It should be remembered, however, that Germany was not a single country in the late 17th century, but a patchwork of petty kingdoms and dutchies held together very loosely by a common tongue. What was traditional in Westphalia may not have even been known in Prussia or Bavaria.

It is safe to assume that the artist who created or Easter Bunny image at the top of this post, Johann Gilbert, was born into this tradition and his family carried it with them to Britain's American colonies when they arrived in the early 18th century.

About a century after Gilbert's birth, Jacob Grimm, one half of the Brothers Grimm of fairy tale fame, rediscovered the passage from Venerable Bede and mentioned "Eostre" (whom he called "Ostara") in his work, Deutsche Mythologie (Teutonic Mythology in English). Grimm added his own speculative embellishments saying: 

Ostara, Edstre seems therefore to have been the divinity of the radiant dawn, of upspringing light, a spectacle that brings joy and blessing, whose meaning could be easily adapted to the resurrection-day of the Christian's God. [Grimm: Teutonic Mythology, p. 291]

It should be stressed, however, that Grimm discovered no new mentions of Eostre in the historical literature. His assumptions are completely theoretical.

But theoretical though they may be, Grimm's elaborations of Eostre/Ostara were latched onto by another German, Adolph Holtzmann, in the later 19th century. It is Holtzmann who, in his 1874 work which was also entitled Deutsche Mythologie, proposed a speculative relationship between the Easter Hare and Eostre/Ostara. Holtzmann wrote:

The Easter Hare (Osterhase) is inexplicable to me; probably the hare is the animal of Ostara....However, in German mythology thus far, a hare appears nowhere...Moreover, the hare must have been a bird, since it lays eggs; perhaps Easter eggs do not even date back to paganism at all; for with Easter, the fasts end, and it is an old custom to consecrate eggs and meat in the church on Easter Eve, and children then receive such consecrated eggs. But the fact that one makes a nest for the children the evening before so that the hare can lay the eggs in it—that does seem to be a pagan idea. [Holtzmann: Deutsche Mythologie, p. 141]

All other connections between the Easter Bunny and neo-paganism emerge from this point onwards with no solid tie to antiquity.  

So to sum up, the Easter Bunny is a fun, humorous tradition that emerged in Germany and spread to other places around the world. There is no concrete evidence that he originated as a pagan spirit animal, only very tentative modern speculation and subsequent embellishment. And even if the mythical egg-laying hare had been part of a pagan German myth at some point in murky antiquity, the legend was religiously neutral enough to be adopted into Christian German cultural traditions with nary a trace of its origins remaining at all. 

Furthermore, it's worth emphasizing that however the legend developed, the Easter Bunny was not a Catholic tradition, but one that originated from German Protestants. 

But let there be no mistake -- the purpose of this article was not to give our lop-eared egg courier a bad name, so if like Bugs you've already got some bad names for the Easter Rabbit, maybe just reconsider calling him a sinister crypto-pagan or a demonic witch-pet. Given the connection cited by Holtzmann above, he was probably a good Christian fur-bearing critter, delivering eggs to those celebrating the end of their Lenten fasts and the making of all things new by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Also, if the Bunny tradition in the US originated from southeastern PA, that makes him a home-boy, and we always root for the home team around here. 

"He commanded them to rebuild the Temple." ~ Julian the Apostate's spectacular failure to reconstruct the Temple in Jerusalem in AD 363

"For I am rebuilding with all zeal the temple of the Most High God." –Julian the Apostate
as preserved in De Mensibus written by John Lydus, 6th century AD

Like clockwork, whenever there's a military conflict in the Middle East, articles begin popping up regarding the rebuilding of the Third Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. Some claim that construction is already secretly underway. Others maintain that the Temple can not be rebuilt except by the Messiah. The topic even came up at a White House press briefing last October when a reporter asked Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt if the topic of rebuilding the Temple had been brought up in Trump cabinet meetings.

"It has not," Ms. Leavitt replied. "No it hasn't"

Given that the Temple Mount is currently occupied by the Al-Aqsa mosque, building the Third Temple would entail destroying the third holiest site in Islam. So for the foreseeable future, it seems that no serious attempt can be made. And honestly, it's better that way.

The Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70 at the climax of the Jewish Revolt. Christ Himself predicted the Temple's annihilation some 40 years before the fact as recorded in the Gospel of Saint Matthew 24:1-2:

And Jesus being come out of the temple, went away. And His disciples came to show Him the buildings of the temple.  And He answering, said to them: "Do you see all these things? Amen I say to you there shall not be left here a stone upon a stone that shall not be destroyed."

The looting and razing of the Second Temple by Roman soldiers after the capture of Jerusalem is memorialized on the Arch of Titus in Rome.

Roman relief showing the looting of the Second Temple in Jerusalem by the soldiers of Titus.

The subsequent Bar Kokhba rebellion, which ended in AD 136, resulted in the defeat of the Jews by the Romans and their expulsion from Judea.

Between then and the present day, only one serious attempt was made to reconstruct the Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount. That effort was spearheaded by the Roman emperor Julian the Apostate in the early 360s AD. According to the 5th century historian Hermias Sozomen, whose Ecclesiastical History is well worth reading in its entirety, Julian showed favor to the Jewish people, but this was not inspired by any particular love for them. Instead, his goodwill toward the Jews was motivated by a desire to provoke his former co-religionists:

Click for more information.

Though the emperor hated and oppressed the Christians, he manifested benevolence and humanity towards the Jews. He wrote to the Jewish patriarchs and leaders, as well as to the people, requesting them to pray for him, and for the prosperity of the empire. In taking this step he was not actuated, I am convinced, by any respect for their religion; for he was aware that it is, so to speak, the mother of the Christian religion, and he knew that both religions rest upon the authority of the patriarchs and the prophets; but he thought to grieve the Christians by favoring the Jews, who are their most inveterate enemies. [Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, Book V, Chapter 22]

Sozomen offers the following rationale for why Julian allowed and encouraged the Jews to rebuild the temple:

[Julian] sent for some of the chiefs of the race and exhorted them to return to the observance of the laws of Moses and the customs of their fathers. On their replying that because the temple in Jerusalem was overturned, it was neither lawful nor ancestral to do this in another place than the metropolis out of which they had been cast, he gave them public money, commanded them to rebuild the temple, and to practice the cult similar to that of their ancestors, by sacrificing after the ancient way. [Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, Book V, Chapter 22]

With the cautionary wisdom of hindsight, Sozomen explains how fully and joyfully the Jews—and even many pagans—took to the monumental, but ultimately futile, task:

The Jews entered upon the undertaking, without reflecting that, according to the prediction of the holy prophets, it could not be accomplished. They sought for the most skillful artisans, collected materials, cleared the ground, and entered so earnestly upon the task, that even the women carried heaps of earth, and brought their necklaces and other female ornaments towards defraying the expense. The emperor, the other pagans, and all the Jews, regarded every other undertaking as secondary in importance to this. Although the pagans were not well-disposed towards the Jews, yet they assisted them in this enterprise, because they reckoned upon its ultimate success, and hoped by this means to falsify the prophecies of Christ. Besides this motive, the Jews themselves were impelled by the consideration that the time had arrived for rebuilding their temple. [Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, Book V, Chapter 22]

They had not long been at this work, however, when tragedy struck:

When they had removed the ruins of the former building, they dug up the ground and cleared away its foundation; it is said that on the following day when they were about to lay the first foundation, a great earthquake occurred, and by the violent agitation of the earth, stones were thrown up from the depths, by which those of the Jews who were engaged in the work were wounded, as likewise those who were merely looking on. The houses and public porticos, near the site of the temple, in which they had diverted themselves, were suddenly thrown down; many were caught thereby, some perished immediately, others were found half dead and mutilated of hands or legs, others were injured in other parts of the body. [Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, Book V, Chapter 22]

This earthquake, which is well attested in literary sources of the period and via archaeological evidence, was very destructive, but it was not enough to discourage these eager builders from a task which was mandated not only by the emperor but, they felt, by God himself. Yet, their desire to resume the work met such a serious check that the builders found themselves unable to continue:

[I]nstead of regarding this unexpected earthquake as a manifest indication that God was opposed to the re-erection of their temple, [the Jews] proceeded to recommence the work. But all parties relate, that they had scarcely returned to the undertaking, when fire burst suddenly from the foundations of the temple, and consumed several of the workmen. This fact is fearlessly stated, and believed by all; the only discrepancy in the narrative is that some maintain that flame burst from the interior of the temple, as the workmen were striving to force an entrance, while others say that the fire proceeded directly from the earth. In whichever way the phenomenon might have occurred, it is equally wonderful. [Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, Book V, Chapter 22]

This second disaster was enough to dampen the ardor of even the most enthusiastic of the re-builders. Beyond that, Sozomen claims that yet another miraculous occurrence connected to the Temple re-build led many to embrace the Christian religion: 

A more tangible and still more extraordinary prodigy ensued; suddenly the sign of the cross appeared spontaneously on the garments of the persons engaged in the undertaking. These crosses were disposed like stars, and appeared the work of art. Many were hence led to confess that Christ is God, and that the rebuilding of the temple was not pleasing to Him; others presented themselves in the church, were initiated, and besought Christ, with hymns and supplications, to pardon their transgression. [Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, Book V, Chapter 22]

These events took place in AD 363, a few months before Julian himself was killed while on campaign in Persia. With the emperor's death, the Christian Jovian was elevated to the throne, thus ending the short-lived reconstruction effort on the Temple Mount.

It is easy to discard Sozomen's account as the fantastical tale of a later Christian. While it's true that Sozomen was not a contemporary of Julian, he was likely born within 20 to 30 years of Julian's demise, and was actively writing within the living memory of the events. It should also be remembered that Sozomen was a native of Bethelia, a town in Roman Palestine near Gaza, and it is clear from his writing about other historical episodes in and around Palestine that he was intimately familiar with the local lore. From his closing passage on this particular topic, Sozomen hints that he himself had spoken to those who witnessed the failed effort to resurrect the Jewish Temple:

If any one does not feel disposed to believe my narrative, let him go and be convinced by those who heard the facts I have related from the eyewitnesses of them, for they are still alive. Let him inquire, also, of the Jews and pagans who left the work in an incomplete state, or who, to speak more accurately, were able to commence it. [Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, Book V, Chapter 22]

For any who may find the preceding story a tough one to swallow coming as it does from an unapologetic Christian source of great antiquity, perhaps consider that there are numerous other accounts of it, including one from the Roman History of Ammianus Marcellinus. Recall that Marcellinus was a pagan and furthermore, was a direct contemporary of Julian, even accompanying that emperor on his doomed campaign against the Persians. His short account of Julian's efforts regarding the Temple reads as follows:

[B]eing eager to extend the recollection of his reign by the greatness of his exploits, [Julian] proposed to rebuild at a vast expense the once magnificent temple of Jerusalem, which after many deadly contests was with difficulty taken by Vespasian and Titus, who succeeded his father in the conduct of the siege. And he assigned the task to Alypius of Antioch, who had formerly been proprefect of Britain. But though Alypius applied himself vigorously to the work, and though the governor of the province co-operated with him, fearful balls of fire burst forth with continual eruptions close to the foundations, burning several of the workmen and making the spot altogether inaccessible. And thus the very elements, as if by some fate, repelling the attempt, it was laid aside. [The Roman History of Ammianus Marcellinus, Book XXIII, Chapter 1]

This and the several similar accounts found in the works of St. Gregory Nazianzan, Socrates Scholasticus, St. John Chrysostom, and even oblique references in the extant fragments of Julian's own letters, make it abundantly clear that the Julian the Apostate did make an attempt to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple, and this this effort failed under mysterious—perhaps miraculous—circumstances.

For a deeper dive into the multitude of ancient sources which recorded this event, visit the Eternal Christendom site.

Here are links to several additional articles on Julian that have appeared on this blog. If nothing else, Julian is a fascinating historical figure. Though unlikely, it may be hoped that he repented on his deathbed.

• A passionate longing to acquire (and destroy) books ~ The cognitive dissonance of Julian the Apostate 
• The Sudden Collapse of Greco-Roman Paganism and Rise of Christianity during the 4th century AD ~ Some Stark Clues Courtesy of Julian the Apostate
• "A monarch more wicked than all the nations of the earth" ~ Julian the Apostate and the martyrdom of Saints Juventius and Maximus
• "He hated the entire city intensely" ~ St. Eupsychius and Julian the Apostate's reaction to the destruction of the Temple of Fortune in Caesarea in Cappadocia
• December 2 ~ Saint Bibiana, 4th century martyr during the reign of Julian the Apostate.
• "Martyrs Neither Ignoble Nor Few" ~ The death of Hypatia and mob violence against Christians during the reign of Julian the Apostate

"Wherever the foot chanced to fall it rested on ashes." ~ The Great Peshtigo Fire, Adele Brice, and The Woman in the Trees

Servant of God Adele Brice surrounded by the children Our Lady called her to teach.

The National Shrine of Our Lady of Champion (originally known as Our Lady of Good Help), is the only formally approved Marian apparition site in the United States. Considering the site is near Green Bay, Wisconsin, I had at one time, in my profound ignorance, assumed that it must have something to do with the Packers various Super Bowl victories. 

But no. The site has nothing to do with Vince Lombardi, Brett Farve, or Aaron Rogers. It is much more closely associated with Our Lady, Star of the Sea, than Bart Starr. 

My general lack of knowledge about this shrine has been remedied to a reasonable degree by reading the novel The Woman in the Trees by Theoni Bell. This relatively recent work arrived among a box of books from TAN slated for our parish bookrack. I snatched it up immediately, suspecting that it would make for good Lenten reading. I was not disappointed.

Click for more info.

The Woman in the Trees sets out to tell the origin story of the Shrine of Our Lady of Champion through the eyes of a fictional immigrant girl from Belgium, Slainie Lafont. The story of the Shrine is told from an oblique angle which adds an enticing touch of mystery to the factual elements of the tale. Servant of God Adele Brice, the recipient of our Lady's apparition in 1859, is not one of the central characters of the book. Instead she flits in and out of the story like a guardian angel, arriving when she is most needed. Her impact on the main characters however, particularly Slainie and her irascible and immovably stubborn mother, is profound.

As a visionary, Adele does not follow the archetype set by the simple radiant beauty of Saint Bernadette. Nor does she appear like one of the wide-eyed innocents who received the locutions of Our Lady of Fatima. On the contrary, Adele had suffered a particularly horrible facial injury as a child which left her scarred and missing an eye. Yet despite her potentially frightening appearance, Adele persevered in the mission given to her by Our Lady to "gather the children in this wild country and teach them what they should know for salvation."

This novel is of that type of historical fiction that I enjoy the most in that it creates memorable characters and weaves them in, around, and through the history without making them a Pollyanna or secret genius without whom the defining events could not have happened. The novel entertains and informs at the same time. Best of all, it brings the history to life and makes the reader want to learn more about that newly settled woodland region of Wisconsin in the mid-19th century in general, and the Shrine of Our Lady of Champion in particular. Among the historical events that impact the story are the immigration of Walloons from Belgium to Wisconsin, the American Civil War, and most especially, the Great Peshtigo Fire of 1871.

If you've never heard of the Peshtigo Fire, you're not alone. Strangely enough, it happened on the same day—October 8, 1871—as the better remembered Great Chicago Fire. But as horrible as the Chicago fire may have been, the great Peshtigo Fire was much worse. In the space of 24 hours, the firestorm scorched an area of about 1.2 million acres of forest and farmland in eastern Wisconsin. The burn zone included several towns, and the fire moved so quickly, that thousands of people were unable to flee in time. The death toll was never fully determined. It was estimated that somewhere around 2,000 people were killed.

In the middle of the burn zone was the small shrine of Our Lady of Good Help and a few surrounding buildings. The shrine chapel itself was a small wooden structure which had been set up by the family of Servant of God Adele Brice at the spot where Our Lady had appeared to Adele as a young girl twelve years before. During the intervening years, as Adele's apostolate flourished, a convent and school building were added nearby the chapel. 

19th century engraving from Harper's Weekly showing the devastation wrought by the fire.

As the firestorm approached on October 8, many people from the surrounding farms and villages fled to the chapel. Led by Sister Adele, they prayed the Rosary, sang hymns, and processed around the chapel with the image of the Blessed Virgin before them. 

The great firestorm raged all around them. It burned the outside of the fence surrounding the shrine buildings—but proceeded no further. 

Early the next morning, a soaking downpour doused the fire.

When the smoke finally cleared, the area around the shrine was a scene of apocalyptic destruction. An eyewitness who very nearly lost his life in the fire, Father Peter Pernin, described the what he saw in Peshtigo when he returned three days after the fire:

About one o'clock in the afternoon, a car was leaving for Peshtigo, conveying thither men who went daily there for the purpose of seeking out and burying the dead. I took my place with them. The locomotives belonging to the Company, having been burned, were now replaced by horses, and we progressed thus till we came up with the track of the fire. We walked the rest of the way, a distance of half a league, and this gave me ample opportunity for examining thoroughly the devastation and ruin wrought, both by fire and by wind. Alas, as much as I had heard on the sad subject, I was still unprepared for the melancholy spectacle that met my gaze.

lt is a painful thing to have to speak of scenes which we feel convinced no pen could fully describe nor words do justice to. It was on the eleventh of October, Wednesday afternoon, that I revisited for the first time the site of what had once been the town of Peshtigo.

Of the houses, trees, fences that I had looked on three days ago nothing whatever remained save a few blackened posts still standing, as if to attest the impetuous fury of the fiery element that had thus destroyed all before it. Wherever the foot chanced to fall it rested on ashes. The iron tracks of the railroad had been twisted and curved into all sorts of shapes, whilst the wood which had supported them no longer existed. The trunks of mighty trees had been reduced to mere cinders, the blackened hearts alone remaining. All around these trunks, I perceived a number of holes running downwards deep in the earth. They were the sockets where the roots had lately been. I plunged my cane into one of them, thinking what must the violence of that fire have been, which ravaged not only the surface of the earth, but penetrated so deeply into its bosom. 

Then I turned my wondering gaze in the direction where the town had lately stood, but nothing remained to point out its site except the boilers of the two locomotives, the iron of the wagon wheels, and the brick and stonework of the factory. All the rest was a desert the desolation of which was sufficient to draw tears from the eyes of the spectator—a desert recalling a field of battle after a sanguinary conflict. Charred carcasses of horses, cows, oxen, and other animals lay scattered here and there. The bodies of the human victims—men, women, and children—had been already collected and decently interred, their number being easily ascertained by counting the rows of freshly-made graves. ("The Great Peshtigo Fire: An Eyewitness Account," Wisconsin Magazine of History, 1971)

Given the totality of the destruction, the fact that the shrine of Our Lady of Good Help survived intact has been considered by many to be a miraculous sign of God's mercy. 

The entirety of Fr. Pernin's account may be found at the link above and is well worth a read.

Also well worth reading is The Woman in the Trees. I highly recommend the novel for young readers of age 11 or 12 and older. It makes for a quick, easy, and satisfying read for adults as well—an ideal book to read aloud with your kids.

Click here to find out more about the Shrine of Our Lady of Champion.

Click here to learn about Adele Brice's cause for canonization.

The Youth Movement that Brought Catholicism to Korea

Korean scholars studying the Western Learning in the late 18th century. 

The host city for World Youth Day 2027 will be Seoul, South Korea. The fact that an American Pope will be presiding and that Korean culture generally is pretty popular in the US means that interest in attending should be pretty high among Americans. I suspect that some of my own kids may find their way over there for the event. 

This being the case, what better time for American Catholics to find out about the vibrant past and hopeful future of the Church in Korea? Seoul is a particularly appropriate site for WYD 2027 considering that Catholicism had its origins in Korea largely as the result of a youth movement.

Christianity got a comparatively late start on the Korean peninsula. The first murmurings of Catholic doctrine only arrived in Korea in the 18th century. This was largely due to the closed nature of the country during the Joseon Dynasty (1392-1897). But that hasn't stopped Koreans from catching up quickly. At present, there are nearly 6 million Catholics in Korea, representing about 12% of the total population. 

Perhaps the most awe-inspiring aspect of the advent of Catholicism in Korea is that unlike practically every other country in the world, the Faith did not first arrive there courtesy of foreign missionaries. Indeed, foreigners were strictly forbidden from entering the Joseon kingdom. Though several French martyr-saints would play key roles later on, Catholicism would first emerge in Joseon based solely on the Holy Spirit-inspired intellectual curiosity of a few Korean scholars. 

Western literature began to filter into Korea in the mid-18th century, courtesy of embassies sent from the Joseon royal court to the imperial court of Qing Dynasty China. Interest in Western learning was particularly strong among the young members of noble families. Though brought up to follow the strict doctrines of neo-Confucianism which stressed right living and filial piety, these young scholars were eager to get their hands on anything related to the outside world.  

By the early 1780s, enough Western literature had reached Korea for scholars to set up study-groups to explore Western philosophy and religion. One of these scholars, a young man named Yi Seung-hun, joined an embassy to China. While in Peking, he found a French Catholic priest who instructed him in the Faith and baptized him, giving him the Christian name of Peter. 

Portrait of Peter Yi Seung-hun.

Peter Yi Seung-hun returned to Korea with a treasure trove of Catholic books, crucifixes and artifacts which he presented to his study group. These men were deeply impressed by some of the unique teachings of Catholicism, among them: that God not only exists but actually condescended to appear on Earth in the form of the man Jesus Christ; that all men possess an immortal soul; that a man's soul is destined either for eternal life of bliss in Heaven or eternal torment in Hell based on how well he follows the teachings of Christ in the Gospels.

Among the study group was a revered senior scholar named Yi Byeok who had encouraged Peter Yi to join the embassy to China in the first place. Upon reading the books brought back from China by Peter, Yi Byeok was convinced that Catholic teaching was true. He and several other members of the study group desired baptism and Peter did the honors.

What happened after that was again unique in the history of the Church. Based on their limited knowledge of Church practice, this first handful of Korean Catholics stood up their own church in imitation of the Catholic Church. This included the creation of bishops and priests, and the administration of the sacraments, including Holy Eucharist in a liturgical setting. This pseudo or improvised church endured for several years until in response to letters sent to China seeking guidance, the Korean Catholics were told that they could not celebrate the sacraments without properly ordained priests, and that priests could only be ordained by legitimate bishops.

From that point on, Korean Catholics would petition the Church to send priests and bishops to minister to them. Given that foreigners were absolutely forbidden from entering the Joseon kingdom except on official business with the court, and that any foreigners who attempted to enter without permission could be tortured and executed, it was exceedingly dangerous to attempt to smuggle a Catholic priest into the kingdom.

But what caused the new Korean Catholics the most distress was the instruction that the traditional form of Confucian ancestor worship, including the offering of food and drink to their deceased relatives, was a superstition that could not be reconciled with Catholicism. Failing to perform these rites made one unfilial and a public disgrace. For members of the upper class, the censures for such failures to revere their ancestors were more dramatic. By 1791, Korean Catholics who refused to perform the rites of ancestor worship were being condemned and executed.  

Many noble Catholics, Yi Byeok among them, refused to repudiate ancestor worship and subsequently abandoned the nascent Church. Those brave souls who remained were viewed with increasing suspicion and hostility by the Joseon court. By 1795, Catholicism was considered a subversive foreign religion disruptive to the harmony of the Joseon state, and the first larger scale persecutions of Korean Catholics erupted. 

The reigning monarch at the time was King Jeongjo, a rather high-minded ruler who tolerated a certain amount of internal dissent in the interest of national unity. The idea of kingdom-wide persecution of Korean Catholics would not fly as long as he was in power. During the reign of Jeongjo, a Chinese Catholic priest, Fr. James Zhou Wen-mo, managed to enter Joseon and it is estimated that the Catholic community in the country grew to nearly 10,000 adherents. Peter Yi Seung-hun, who had vacillated due to intense pressure from his family, remained one of the leaders of the Church at this time. Also among the leaders was a man named Alexius Hwang Sa-yeong.

Unfortunately, Jeongjo passed away in 1800. His successor was his 10 year-old son, Sunjo. This boy-king was under the thumb of his great grandmother, Grand Queen Dowager Yesun, who ruled Joseon as regent during Sunjo's minority. Yesun did not share the same scruples as Jeongjo when it came to Catholics. During her regency in 1801, the Shin-yu persecution was initiated, in part as a political maneuver to incriminate a rival faction at court that was more sympathetic to the Catholics. 

The Joseon court produced a edict entitled the Imperial Message Prohibiting the Evil Learning. In no uncertain terms, this document declared Catholic teaching to be in opposition to Confucianism, which was considered the True Learning. The followers of the Evil Learning would be forced to abandon it. As the edict itself declared:

All who disobey will be considered as rebels and guilty of high treason....[T]he head of each unit of five families shall immediately denounce any who persist in following the Evil Learning. All such persons are to receive condign punishment so as to root out the Evil Learning once and for all and to leave no trace of it remaining. [Kim & Chung: Catholic Korea: Yesterday and Today, p. 54-55].

Among the first victims of the Shin-yu persecution was Fr. Zhou who surrendered himself and was executed. Hearing about this event, Alexius Hwang Sa-yeong retreated to the mountains to escape capture. While in hiding, he composed the famous Silk Letter. Written on a sheet of silk roughly one foot by two feet, the Silk Letter was addressed to the Bishop of Peking and related the travails of the Korean Church. In 13,000 Chinese characters, the letter provided estimates of the numbers of Catholics in Korea, an account of the martyrdom of Fr. Chou and other Korean Catholics, and an appeal for help. Most critically, Alexius Hwang suggested that the Bishop enlist the help of the Qing Emperor of China and European nations to intervene with the Joseon court to protect Catholics.

The original Silk Letter of Alexius Hwang (Source)

The Silk Letter was never sent. Alexius Hwang was captured by Joseon government authorities and the letter was confiscated. Its contents seemed to prove the worst suspicions about Catholics. To the deeply isolationist Joseon court, the Silk Letter was incontrovertible evidence that Catholics were a subversive element who would not hesitate to appeal to foreign powers for aid against their own government. As a result, the Shin-yu persecution intensified. Alexius Hwang was found guilty of high treason, was executed and his body dismembered. His family was exiled. 

Peter Yi Seung-hun was also a victim of the Shin-yu persecution. Considered one of the leaders of the Catholic Koreans, he was arrested and tortured over the course of eight days and then executed. Since then, Peter Yi's status as a martyr or an apostate has been the subject of considerable debate. Very recently, the Korean Bishops' Conference declared him a Servant of God—the first step toward canonization.

By the time the Shin-yu Persecution subsided, the Joseon government had executed several hundred Catholics and exiled many more. It seems that a large number also apostatized. As the persecution had focused by design on educated Korean Catholics, the remnants tended to be from the poorer classes and survived in hiding in the provinces. 

Click for more info.

This would be the first of many persecutions that the young Church in Joseon would endure. This pattern of uneasy peace punctuated by periods of intense persecution was the world into which later notable Korean Catholics like Paul Jeong Ha-sang, Andrew Kim Dae-geon, Thomas Choe Yang-eop, and numerous others would soon be born. During the mid-19th century, thousands of faithful Korean Catholics would endure tremendous suffering before the age of martyrdom finally drew to a close after 1866. The victories, defeats, heroic deeds and heartbreaking betrayals of this time are brought to vivid life in Martyr of Blood, Martyr of Sweat: The Letters of Saint Andrew Kim Dae-geon and Thomas Choe Yang-eop, translated, edited, and annotated by Brothers Anthony and Han-yol of the Community of Taizé. If you'd like a good introduction to the early years of Catholicism in Korea, this collection of authentic letters by the first two native-born Korean priests is an excellent source and a very engaging read.

If you're not a big reader, some of the events related above are interwoven through the plot of the series, Yi San. This K-drama tells a romanticized but very poignant version of story of King Jeongjo in which Catholic Koreans and their status as pawns in the factional battles of the Joseon court are mentioned. The drama focuses on the early life of King Jeongjo and his romance with his favored Royal Consort. The main villain in the drama is Queen Dowager Yesun. If you have 70 hours or so to spare, I highly recommend it.

"It is everyone's duty to serve God." ~ The martyrdom of St. Lucia Park Hui-sun

Three saintly martyrs of Korea: St. Agatha Jeon (left), St. Lucia Park (center),
and St. Julietta Kim (right).

This post is the first in a series drawn from a new book entitled Martyrs of Blood, Martyrs of Sweat: The Letters of Saint Andrew Kim Dae-geon and Venerable Father Thomas Choe Yang-eop, as translated and edited by Brothers Anthony and Han-yol of the Community of Taizé, published by Arx Publishing.

This engrossing work contains all of the extant correspondence of these first two native Korean Catholic priests. Andrew Kim would go on to be martyred and later canonized a saint. Thomas Choe perished of exhaustion and sickness after ministering in his native land for over a decade. 

During their ministries, these two priests would encounter hundreds of secret Korean Catholics who strived to maintain their faith through periodic intense persecutions initiated by the neo-Confucian (and therefore very anti-Christian) Joseon court. These persecutions resulted in the imprisonment, impoverishment, torture and death of hundreds if not thousands of Korean Catholics, and impacted all levels of society.

Following is one example. Park Hui-sun (1801-1839) was born into a wealthy family and would be chosen by the Joseon court to serve as a court lady (Gungnyeo) to the royal family of King Sunjo (reign: 1800-1834). Distinguished by her beauty, wit, skill and prudence, she was promoted to the first rank among the Queen's handmaids. The rest of the story, as told by St. Andrew Kim in his Deeds of Several Important Martyrs of the Gihae Persecution of 1839, is as follows:

Click here for more info.

Lucia was a Gungnyeo, prudent and diligent in her manner, and her nature was always upright, and was outstanding among virgins. 

After her mother died, she was chosen by the royal court as a court maid and she entered the palace. She set an outstanding example for people with a noble life. When she was around 30, she heard about the Christian doctrine and she immediately accepted it. Then, knowing that she would be unable to follow a religious life in the court, she used illness as an excuse, and she was given permission to leave the palace, and she went to a acquaintance’s house to live. Because her father was extremely hostile and hated the Christian faith so much, she could not dare move into his house. 

She soon turned her family to the True God with her example and persuasion. She thanked God often and cherished Him deep in her heart. She regarded worldly fame and glory as nothing and diligently followed a life of faith. She was often engrossed in prayers and meditations, used crude clothing and poor food, and she struggled to discipline herself. She often recalled her Lord’s Passion and shed tears of gratitude. 

Eventually, when the persecution intensified, her entire family fled to a believer’s house. The satellites [servants and informers in the employ of government officers] noticed this and attacked the house. At that time, she acknowledged that this was God’s Providence, and she comforted and encouraged believers on the one hand, and treated the satellites very kindly on the other. 

Following the police official, she was taken to the Sagwancheong, the first court to interrogate criminals. There she confessed the Truth and was taken to the police court. 

The judge asked. “Why do you believe in Christianity while you are a court lady?” 

Lucia answered. “It is everyone’s duty to serve God.” 

Again Lucia was commanded to forsake God and betray other believers, but she refused. She was tortured, but in view of her bravery, she was taken to the Hyeongjo court and was subjected to severe torture. Her flesh was torn and her bones were exposed. As Lucia endured with constant perseverance, she rejoiced that she could, to some extent, imitate the suffering of Christ. After a few days, all her wounds healed completely and her health was restored. When this fact was confirmed, the satellites said that it was done by magic. 

During her punishment, she confused the enemies by explaining much of the Truth of the religion. The judge who had failed to make her apostatize eventually sentenced her to death. 

When Lucia was taken to her execution, she was so happy that she did not stop praying to God. Her head was cut off and she flew to her Lord. Her age was 39. [Martyr of Blood, Martyr of Sweat, pp. 135-6].

A second biography embellishing upon the above is also included in Martyrs of Blood, Martyrs of Sweat, among the writings of Ven. Thomas Choe Yang-eop.

Lucia Park Hui-sun was canonized a saint of the Catholic Church on May 6, 1984, by Pope St. John Paul II, along with her sister, Maria Park Keun-agi. 

A biography of St. Lucia from the Vatican website includes an additional anecdote from her life as a court maid, indicating that her youth and beauty caught the eye of the king. Despite the king's attention—a favor that every court maid coveted—Hui-sun rebuffed the king's advances out of respect for her patroness, the Queen. 

Upon hearing of this incident later on, Bishop Imbert, a martyr and saint in his own right, would remark: "This is an act of bravery and uprightness, the like of which has never been seen in Korea before."

Other related posts of interest:

• "I came out with a joyful heart and gave thanks to God." ~ Thanksgiving in luxury and in persecution
• Letter of Saint Andrew Kim Taegon (martyr) to Bishop Jean Joseph Ferréol, 1846
• Yi San - An enthralling Korean historical drama (with Catholics!)
• Our TV is Lousy and Now it Must Die! or, What the West Can Learn from South Korean Television