My Top 10 Historical Novels for Young Catholics

Seven of my top 10. The others are in the house somewhere...

Having homeschooled our six children for going on twenty years now, I'm starting to feel like a veteran history teacher. While my older kids had to suffer a bit through dad's patchwork curriculum, my middles and youngers have had the benefit of Phillip Campbell's outstanding Story of Civilization series, which is the perfect baseline, big-picture history curriculum for Catholic kids. 

But as homeschoolers, we don't just follow a curriculum without enhancing it. There are some aspects of history that I like to cover on a much more granular level, and for that, we use a method that combines history and literature — a technique that others including Maureen Wittmann of Homeschool Connections have called "reading your way through history."

There are many advantages to this technique, not the least of which is that it really brings history to life for the student. History becomes less about places and dates, and more about real people, their thoughts, hopes, conflicts and reconciliations. To paraphrase G. K. Chesterton, it also makes history into the highest and noblest thing it can be: a good story. This exact principle is what led me to write my Belisarius books in the first place because there were practically no good historical novels about the fascinating Justinianic period suitable for younger readers.

Following is a list of the ten books that I have used most frequently with my own kids to get them interested in particular historical eras. I have also recommended them to many parents over the years, particularly those with children who are particularly voracious readers. Since I have reviewed many of these books in the past, I am including snippets from those reviews and links in case you want to read more.

Number 10: The Red Keep by Allen French

Reading age: 10+

Historical Period: 12th century Burgundy

I have recommended this novel dozens of times, and many parents have come back to me saying that it immediately became their child's favorite book. The Red Keep is a story of the petty nobility of 12th century Burgundy that effortlessly places young readers in Medieval Europe. The stronghold of a barony, the Red Keep is raided by the neighboring Sauval family. The Baron is put to the sword. Only his daughter, Anne, is rescued by the noble Baron Roger and his men. In the aftermath of the attack, the damaged keep is left abandoned—the bone of contention around which the story revolves. More.

Number 9: The Cottage at Bantry Bay by Hilda Van Stockum

Reading age: 7+

Historical Setting: mid-20th century Ireland

This is a story about a simple family just scraping by in 1930s Ireland. The events that happen to them are not the stuff of epic adventure. Instead, they are charming little anecdotes that tie together and lead to a satisfying ending. The story focuses on the O'Sullivan children: Michael (about 11), Brigid (about 10) and the twins Liam and Francie (6). The characters themselves drive the story and the reader can't help but get attached to them. Van Stockum does a wonderful job bringing them to life and is so successful that the reader is left a little bit disappointed that they are not real people. This is a great one for reading aloud. More.

Number 8: Wounds of Love by Phillip Campbell

Reading level: 9+

Historical Period: 20th century Italy

This is the newest book on the list and it also deals with more recent history, Padre Pio having won his victory over death in 1968. Wounds of Love is a fantastic book and I heartily recommend it to readers of all ages. For additional proof of how the story draws you in, I gave the novel to my 17-year old son to read, and he polished it off in about a week. What's more, he immediately moved on to a more in-depth biography of Padre Pio that we have on our bookshelves. I'd say that counts as a "mission accomplished!" More.

Number 7: The Joyful Beggar by Louis de Wohl

Reading level: 12+

Historical Period: 12th century Italy

Louis de Wohl is a wonderful, if underappreciated, Catholic novelist of the mid-20th century. Of all his works (many of which have been beautifully republished by Ignatius Press), this one is my favorite. The Joyful Beggar is much more than simply a novel about St. Francis of Assisi. It is a history lesson on the religious and political turmoil into which the great saint was born and which he, in a very significant and unexpected way, influenced and turned to the good. With great flair, de Wohl brings the historical figures to life: the put-upon yet good-hearted Pope Innocent III, the tyrannical excommunicant Otto IV, the intelligent but worldly Frederick II and his Islamic reflection, Sultan Al-Kamil. More.

Number 6: Masaru by Michael T. Cibenko

Reading level: 12+

Historical Period: 17th century Japan

If there's one thing I love, it's historical novels set in obscure time periods. Masaru fits perfectly into that category. Written by New Jersey author Michael T. Cibenko, Masaru tells the story of young Shiro Nakagawa, a convert to Catholicism fighting a desperate battle to maintain the Faith during the aggressively anti-Catholic Tokugawa Shogunate. If you have a teen who's into anime or Japanese language and culture more generally, this fast-moving novel will be a hit. More. 

Number 5: Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc by Mark Twain

Reading level: 12+

Historical Period: 14th century France

Published in 1896, Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc is a beautifully written homage to a uniquely Catholic heroine written in the irreproducible style of Mark Twain. Though an implacable foe of Catholicism earlier in his life, Twain handles his subject in this novel with a delicacy bordering on reverence. The work is an eloquent retelling of Joan's history, from her humble upbringing in Domrémy, to her glorious exploits on the field of battle, to the grotesque and awful mockery of a trial which condemned her as a heretic. More.

Number 4: Angels in Iron by Nichlas C. Prata

Reading level: 14+

Historical Period: 16th century Malta

Of course, Angels in Iron had to be included on this list. This is another book that I have recommended hundreds of times over the years, and so many times, parents have come back saying, "My son loved it. Do you have anything else like this book?" Granted, this is very much a boy book—not to say that girls haven't appreciated it as well, but the vast majority of readers who have appreciated this book have been of the young male variety. I often tell parents, "If this book had been out when I was a teen, it would have been my favorite book." It really is just that good. When the novel was first presented to me in manuscript form, I read the whole thing in one night. I tend to put this one at a 14+ reading level simply because the battle scenes are rather graphic. More.

Number 3: Citadel of God by Louis de Wohl 

Reading level: 14+

Historical Period: 6th century Italy

Here is another wonderful old novel by Louis de Wohl. Originally published in 1959, the work is a gripping journey through the history of the early 6th century AD, bringing alive many of the celebrated names of that epoch. The book is sub-titled A Novel of Saint Benedict, so it is not surprising that passages in the novel are based directly on the ancient biography of Saint Benedict as contained in the Dialogues of Saint Gregory the Great. Given that my own Belisarius books are set in the same era, I have always appreciated this novel as one of the few that cover the period with such historical detail and story-telling skill. More.  

Number 2: Crusader King by Susan Peek

Reading level: 12+

Historical Period: 12th century Kingdom of Jerusalem

Crusader King tells one of the great tales of history—the immediate prequel to the fall of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. Peek's rendition of Baldwin IV is both a tragic and uplifting tale. Stricken with leprosy as a boy, young Baldwin must somehow defend his tottering kingdom. Susan Peek's excellent novel tells how the sickly Baldwin managed to safeguard the kingdom for 11 years, despite scheming nobles angling for his crown, and the omnipresent threat of Saladin and his Islamic hordes. More. 

Number 1: Centurion's Daughter by Justin Swanton

Reading level: 12+

Historical Period: late 5th century France

France used to be known as "the eldest daughter of the Church," so it is perhaps appropriate that this novel about the earliest years of the Frankish kingdom was the favorite of my own eldest daughter for some time. Thanks to her endorsement, I have recommended the novel dozens of times. Centurion's Daughter is one of those rare pieces of historical fiction that successfully shines a light on a very obscure corner, allowing the extant (though scanty) history to speak for itself while providing a completely plausible literary framework. The book is an excellent story told in wonderful flowing prose, and includes about a dozen well-executed illustrations that ornament the text nicely. More.

Of course, a list of 10 barely scratches the surface of the books we've used to "read our way through history." There are so many other excellent novels for young Catholics out there. You won't find them in secular bookstores however. 

All these books and many others besides may be found here, at the Young Catholic's Bookshelf sponsored by Arx Publishing.

The Leper-King of Jerusalem Rides Again. A review of Susan Peek's Crusader King

Click for more info.

This is a review I wrote many years ago (and never posted here) for a book that has stood the test of time: Crusader King: A Novel of Baldwin IV and the Crusades by Susan Peek.

Peek's rendition of the story of the leper king of Jerusalem, Baldwin IV, is at the same time a tragic and uplifting tale. Young Baldwin was stricken with leprosy as a boy and ascended the throne of the tottering Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem at age 13. Despite scheming nobles angling for his crown even among his own family, and the omnipresent threat of Saladin and his Islamic hordes, the sickly Baldwin managed to hold his throne and safeguard his kingdom for nearly 11 years. 

Crusader King tells one of the great tales of history, and one feels genuine empathy for Baldwin as he struggles to do what he believes God has called him to do. Though his faithless nobles undercut him at every turn, Baldwin is supported by several very loyal Templars, one of whom, Theo, is his boyhood friend. Theo's loyalty and self-sacrificing excellence is really the heart of the book. While everyone else around Baldwin grasps at power, Theo refuses it at every turn, deciding instead to stick by his dying friend, no matter what the cost. Baldwin himself is presented as a devout, strong, and decidedly Catholic hero, suffering his dreadful crosses with courage and trust in God. As a Catholic myself, I found this to be a particular strength of the book.

Crusader King is an easy and quick read. The prose is rather light, even when dealing with difficult subjects—like Baldwin's progressing leprous disfigurement. Peek does use some modern colloquialisms, but mainly in an attempt to portray the informal banter between friends, or the cutting sarcasm among estranged family members. As such, it was wholly appropriate. I found this book to be an engrossing read and it made me seek out the historical accounts to get the actual story. If this was Ms. Peek's intention, she succeeded brilliantly. 

If you enjoy this type of book, or this particular time period in history, I encourage you to seek out Crown of the World: Book 1: Knight of the Temple by Nathan Sadasivan. This historical novel covers the time period immediately before the accession of Baldwin IV and the two books complement each other nicely.

Banned (Catholic) Books Week

Banned Book Week was last week. Did you miss it? 

For anyone who took it seriously, let me just say this: Banned Book Week is a complete fraud.

The books highlighted during Banned Book Week are the opposite of banned. If you look at any list of so-called banned books, you'll see titles that have been continuously promoted world-wide and most have sold millions of copies. They're not banned. They're everywhere. 

And given the cultural climate, you already know what kinds of books these are. Most are books that in any other era would have been correctly classified as obscenity. Worse, many of them are books specifically designed to introduce young children to deviant sex acts. 

The promotion of these so-called banned books is said to be a freedom of expression issue. It is, therefore, the ultimate irony that many of the libraries, bookstores, schools and cultural entities promoting Banned Book Week on social media last week summarily shut down their comments section. Why? Because many of people commenting have gotten wise to the fraud. They rightly point out that parents demanding that books promoted to their children be age-appropriate are not calling for book bans. But this reaction to Banned Book Week is, apparently, banned.

Let's look at some numbers, shall we? Let's see how the supposedly banned books are doing as compared to, say, popular Catholic books for the same age-range which are theoretically not banned. Catholics are, by the way, the largest religious group in the US in terms of sheer numbers, so one would think that books for and by Catholics would be well-represented in our libraries.

Get a copy here.

First, let's compare two books for children. On the one side, we'll start with Angel in the Waters by Regina Doman. This is a beautiful little book about an unborn baby and his guardian angel first published by Sophia Institute Press in 2004. The book follows the baby during his development in the womb until after his birth, and is engagingly illustrated by Ben Hatke. With a very pro-life message, Angel in the Waters has sold well over 100,000 copies since release and may be found in the collections of almost every big family. 

Checking WorldCat, which is a catalog of books in public and academic libraries, we can see that Angel in the Waters may be found in 96 libraries. Not bad, right? 

Now, let's look at another book for children: I Am Jazz by Jessica Herthel and Jazz Jennings. This is a book for children published in 2014 about one of the culture's pathologies-du-jour: transgenderism. Of course, it is heralded as a banned book. It has, in fact, been banned so successfully that WorldCat shows this book in 1,726 libraries — That's 18 times as many libraries as Angel in the Waters.

Get a copy here.

Moving on to the young adult category, we'll start with Angels in Iron by Nicholas Prata. An intense historical novel for teens and young adults chronicling the Great Siege of Malta of 1565, Angels in Iron is Arx Publishing's bestseller, with over 10,000 copies sold. Since publication in 2005, it has received rave reviews in Catholic media which has lauded the novel as an exciting adventure that should be read by all Catholic youth. The book been included in several bookseller and homeschool curriculum provider catalogs. 

Despite the book's enduring popularity among the nation's largest religious group, Angels in Iron has found its way into only 33 libraries nationwide.

Let's compare this to the #1 "banned" book—Gender Queer by Mia Kobabe. Published in 2019 for the teen/young adult market, this book is a memoir in graphic (and I do mean graphic) novel form about a poor confused soul who uses made-up pronouns. The book's promo text boasts that it includes explorations of "bonding with friends over erotic gay fanfiction." You'll be surprised (or not) to find out that this profound work of literary genius, though "banned", is available in 2,259 libraries, or 68 times as many as Angels in Iron.

Finally, let's compare two books for teen and young adult readers that have been published for a long time. 

Get a copy here.

On the one hand, we have The Joyful Beggar, one of the best-known works by prolific novelist Louis de Wohl. Originally published in 1958, The Joyful Beggar tells the parallel stories of Francesco Bernadone—the man who would become Saint Francis of Assisi—and the fictional knight errant, Roger of Vandria. This brilliant historical novel would be turned into a motion picture in 1961 and the edition by Ignatius Press remains popular with Catholic audiences to this day. I reviewed it a few years back—it's a personal favorite. It's the kind of book that should be required reading in every Catholic school. The Joyful Beggar is found in 309 libraries according to WorldCat.

Let's compare this with The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison which is #6 on the "banned" book list compiled by the "Unite Against Banned Books" website. If one reads the summary of this novel, originally published in 1970, it sounds like a fairly typical exploration of racism in America. What few of the summaries reveal is that the book contains ugly and graphic depictions of sex, including a horrifying scene where a very young girl is raped. This book showed up in my house when I was a kid, and I read it as a teen, having no idea of what was in it. To this day, I wish I hadn't. And yet, amazingly, this book is regularly assigned as required reading for high school students. The Bluest Eye is found in 6,015 libraries or 19 times as many as The Joyful Beggar. 

So in case it's not abundantly clear at this point, none of the books on the banned books lists are actually banned. In fact, a strong case could be made that books with sexually explicit content—especially deviant sexual content aimed at children, teens, and young adults—are favored in libraries and are generally ubiquitous.

At the same time, excellent works of literature which promote themes of heroism, saintliness, the sacredness of human life, moral courage, and the glorification of Almighty God are much more rarely found. Dare I say that such books are largely banned from our nation's libraries?

I leave it for the reader to ponder how this situation has come to pass, what effect it is having on children and young people, and what should be done about it.

The 2024 Presidential Debates in a Nutshell

Just for Fun.

"There they go again." ~ The critics hate Reagan. But they're wrong -- again.

Is anyone surprised that the critics have absolutely savaged the new film, Reagan? 

I'm not. 

As a teenager in the 1980s, I came of age during the era when the likes of Dan Rather, Sam Donaldson, and Connie Chung savaged President Reagan on TV every single night. It was then at the pre-dawn of my political awareness that I started asking myself why such a folksy, likeable, patriotic American president like Ronald Reagan was so hated by seemingly everyone on the nightly news. Why did these talking heads despise him so much, while the actual human beings in my life—my parents and other adults I respected—did not? 

It wasn't until somewhat later that I realized that President Reagan was an anomaly. In an era when everyone was supposedly anti-communist, but most American politicians were just faking it, Ronald Reagan was a true believer. He recognized the threat that militant, expansionist international communism represented. He was keenly aware that this threat possessed the ability to destroy the United States—on the military level with the thousands of Soviet nuclear ICBMs pointed at us; on the political level by infiltrating and subverting our cherished institutions; and on the spiritual level by spreading propaganda to convince Americans that God and religion were useless fictions and that Christianity was particularly pernicious.

Reagan not only recognized this threat, he was fiercely determined to fight it.

This is what made Reagan so different from his flaccid predecessor, Jimmy Carter. This is what set Reagan apart from his insincere globalist successor, George H. W. Bush. Unlike previous Republicans such as Richard Nixon, Reagan was not interested in détente—in lowering tensions through diplomacy. He realized that détente only made the US weaker, while the Soviets and other communist nations grew stronger because they never had any intention of holding up their ends of the bargain. Détente was always a one-way street which led, inevitably, to defeat for America.

And Reagan was interested in victory—in securing peace for America by standing up to thugs and bullies on the world stage. 

All of this comes through very clearly in the newly-released film, Reagan.

I entered the theater to see this film with some trepidation. Films which seek to portray unique historical figures who were alive during the living memory of the viewer can often seem contrived or become parody. But once Dennis Quaid appeared on screen in the primary role, any sense of strangeness wore off within minutes. After that, Quaid became Reagan. Indeed, by the end of the film, he almost became more Reagan than the man himself. Quaid should be congratulated for a truly stellar performance that likely would have earned him an Academy Award in the era before the entertainment industry became captive to the political hard left. 

Biopics about individuals who lived such long and eventful lives can also suffer from trying to do too much in two hours. This defect may be found in Reagan, but the pacing of the film is so good that the viewer is engaged throughout and never gets lost in the weeds.

But where the film really shines is simply conjuring the halcyon days of the 1970s and 1980s. The sets and costuming were beautifully created and highly evocative of the era. Period music such as Land of Confusion by Genesis helped enhance the drama, while a few well-placed if unexpected covers—like Bob Dylan singing Don't Fence Me In over the end credits—provided the proper atmosphere.

The other aspect of Reagan that really appealed to me—and will likely provide no end of irritation to your standard leftist reviewer—is the storytelling. The film is told in retrospect from the point of view of an elderly KGB agent, played effectively by John Voight. The agent has come to terms with the defeat of the USSR and finds himself explaining to a young, up-and-coming Russian politician how it all happened. These scenes will be triggering to our present-day friends on the left. They don't like to be reminded about how much they adored and apologized for the Russians from the 1960s through the 1980s. They also don't like to be reminded of how the Evil Empire came crashing down in the early 1990s, despite their insistence at the time that the Soviets were ascendant. And they get particularly uncomfortable when people start asking why they cozied up to the communist Russians prior to 1990, but utterly despise the post-Soviet Russians of our own time. These inconvenient questions alone suffice to explain the terrible reviews this fine film has garnered from the usual suspects. 

But even absent the political overtones (to which I admittedly have a strong predisposition) this is simply a solid, feel-good film. It's a love story between Ron and Nancy. It's a regular-guy-makes-good story. And, it's a solid history lesson. Throughout the film, I found myself leaning over to my wife, saying: "That actually happened." 

One historical incident portrayed in the film that I had to look up afterwards was the visit of Democrat House Speaker Tip O'Neill to Reagan's hospital room after the president was shot in March of 1981. In this scene, O'Neill is shown with a Rosary in his hand, praying the 23rd Psalm with the wounded Reagan. Did this actually happen? Yes, it did. You see, in those days, there were still a few Democrats who believed in God. Regarding the assassination attempt, there is also a statement from the KGB agent in the film that it wasn't their idea. Then, later in the film, it is hinted that someone in our own government may have played a role. Now that is something I had never heard of or considered, but apparently, the theory is out there. 

The historical aspects of the film were greatly enhanced by the reel at the end showing photos and video clips of the man himself. The footage of his beloved Nancy approaching his coffin may evoke a tear or two.

In sum, if you're a child of the 1980s, go see this film. I guarantee you'll get a kick out of it. If you're the child of parents who grew up in the 1980s, go see this film. It will give you some insight into why your parents behave as they do. 

And for heaven's sake, don't pay any attention to the critics. They hated Reagan in the 70s and 80s. They hate Reagan now for the exact same reasons. 

Reagan hasn't changed. 

And neither have they.

A library of memes at the Arx Publishing website

Arx Publishing has recently gone live with a page of glossy quote cards for purchase. If some of them look familiar, it's because nearly all of them have appeared on this blog at some point or another. Most if not all of these memes were created by yours truly.

In the wild pre-throttle days of social media, several of these memes were passed around and enjoyed by thousands of people. In fact, even now, I see some of the earliest ones pop up occasionally on my feeds. A few of them have even been incorporated into other memes. 

If you're on Facebook, you can see my complete output here: Paolo Belzoni on Facebook. They don't get much traction these days on Facebook—I can almost pinpoint the exact day that the Facebook censors put the clamps on my account. But lots of people still see them on Reddit.

At some point, we thought it would be fun to turn these memes into physical artifacts. While everyone else in the world is digitizing physical items, we decided to pull a Chesterton-style paradox and turn some digital objects into physical ones. We started printing out these photo cards to give away at conferences. Arx also includes them in book shipments they send out to individual customers. I know for a fact that some of them end up tacked to people's refrigerators for years.

Here are several low-res samples from the new Arx Meme Page:

"We become like that which we love. If we love what is base, we become base; but if we love what is noble, we become noble."
~Ven. Fulton J. Sheen
[Source]

"Not by numbers of men, nor by measure of body, but by valor of soul is war wont to be decided."
~Flavius Belisarius
[Source]

"If I am not in God's grace, may He put me there; and if I am, may He so keep me."
~Joan of Arc
[Source]

"The primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas."
~Pope St. Pius X
[Source]

"The divine commandment of purity of soul and body also applies without diminishment to today's youth.
~Ven. Pope Pius XII
[Source]

"A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, "You are mad, you are not like us."
~St. Anthony the Great
[Source]

For the record, yes I do benefit financially if someone purchases these. So if you would like to support my work, please feel free to purchase them and hand them out!

"Bravery cannot be victorious unless it is arrayed along with justice." ~ Belisarius's speech at Abydos, AD 533

"Bravery cannot be victorious unless it is arrayed along with justice."
~Belisarius

This quote is taken from an exhortation by the Roman general Belisarius in AD 533 to his troops as they set out on the great campaign to wrest north Africa from the Vandals. The setting is the beach at Abydos, a city set on a promontory projecting into the Hellespont between the Aegean Sea and the Sea of Marmara. 

Having left Constantinople by ship shortly before, Belisarius and his army had landed at Abydos to collect an additional load of cavalry mounts. Before they could set sail again, however, the wind died and left the fleet becalmed. Several days of inactivity while they waited for a fresh breeze soon created disorder in the army, and two of the federated Hun soldiers, in a state of inebriation, murdered one of their comrades. 

Annoyed at the disorder, and seeking to set a strong example for the rest of the expedition, Belisarius had the offenders impaled on a hill outside the camp. Some of his troops were incensed by what they considered an overly harsh punishment. Particularly upset were the Hun federates who argued that the drunken state of the malefactors should have mitigated their punishments. 

Click for more info.

Belisarius disagreed.

Here is the speech he gave to his army to settle the issue. It was recorded by Procopius of Caesarea, Belisarius's secretary, who was an eye-witness.

This scene is portrayed in detail in my book, Belisarius: Glory of the Romans

"If my words were addressed to men now for the first time entering into war, it would require a long time for me to convince you by speech how great a help justice is for gaining the victory. For those who do not understand the fortunes of such struggles think that the outcome of war lies in strength of arm alone. But you, who have often conquered an enemy not inferior to you in strength of body and well endowed with valor, you who have often tried your strength against your opponents, you, I think, are not ignorant that, while it is men who always do the fighting in either army, it is God who judges the contest as seems best to Him and bestows the victory in battle. Now since this is so, it is fitting to consider good bodily condition and practice in arms and all the other provision for war of less account than justice and those things which pertain to God. For that which may possibly be of greatest advantage to men in need would naturally be honored by them above all other things. 

Now the first proof of justice would be the punishment of those who have committed unjust murder. For if it is incumbent upon us to sit in judgment upon the actions which from time to time are committed by men toward their neighbors, and to adjudge and to name the just and the unjust action, we should find that nothing is more precious to a man than his life. And if any barbarian who has slain his kinsman expects to find indulgence in his trial on the ground that he was drunk, in all fairness he makes the charge so much the worse by reason of the very circumstance by which, as he alleges, his guilt is removed. For it is not right for a man under any circumstances, and especially when serving in an army, to be so drunk as readily to kill his dearest friends; nay, the drunkenness itself, even if the murder is not added at all, is worthy of punishment; and when a kinsman is wronged, the crime would clearly be of greater moment as regards punishment than when committed against those who are not kinsmen, at least in the eyes of men of sense. Now the example is before you and you may see what sort of an outcome such actions have.

But as for you, it is your duty to avoid laying violent hands upon anyone without provocation, or carrying off the possessions of others; for I shall not overlook it, be assured, and I shall not consider anyone of you a fellow-soldier of mine, no matter how terrible he is reputed to be to the foe, who is not able to use clean hands against the enemy. For bravery cannot be victorious unless it be arrayed along with justice."

Source: Procopius, History of the Wars, Book III, Chapter 12. 

Mocking Christ in Paris

The Last Supper in cast iron, as found in the Mercer Museum, Doylestown, PA

I'm not going to get into the details of the disgusting mockery of the Last Supper perpetrated by those responsible for the opening ceremonies of the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris. Let it suffice to say that the blasphemous display was perfectly in keeping with the evil times in which we live. So I congratulate the Paris Olympics Committee for providing an unmistakable public proof of just how vulgar and odious French culture has become, and broadcasting it to the wide world.

That said, there is a social media trope out there that maintains that the tawdry performance was not meant to ridicule the Last Supper at all. That it was, instead, merely an attempt to mimic a well-known French painting showing the pagan gods at a Bacchanalian. Those who can not appreciate this homage to French art—so the trope goes—as performed by a bunch of overweight men prancing around in their granny's flapper garb, are ignorant, uneducated, intolerant, overly-sensitive, and otherwise bad people who can be safely ignored. 

I took the time to research and respond to one such post that showed up in my feed. I am recording my findings here for posterity because I fully expect that my response will be summarily deleted by the original poster or memory-holed on the particular social media platform where I posted it.

For the record, the original painting was by a Dutchman, Jan Harmensz van Biljert, not a Frenchman. And the painting, The Feast of the Gods, is itself pretty clearly a parody of da Vinci's Last Supper, but with a Bacchanalian twist. 

Furthermore, someone at Paris2024 apparently admitted to Washington Times reporter Valerie Richardson that the insipid performance was, in fact, "inspired" by the Last Supper. 

Click to enlarge.

In case the image gets pulled down later (which has happened before), the text of the email reads as follows:

Dear Valerie,

Thank you for your inquiry. Please find below a statement, which can be attributed to a Paris 2024 spokesperson.

“Clearly, there was never an intention to show disrespect towards any religious group or belief. On the contrary, each of the tableaux in the Paris 2024 Opening Ceremony were intended to celebrate community and tolerance.

“For the ‘Festivities’ segment, Thomas Jolly took inspiration from Leonardo Da Vinci’s famous painting to create the setting. [Bold is mine] He is not the first artist to make reference to what is a world-famous work of art. From Andy Warhol to the Simpsons, many have done it before him.” 

Best,

The Communication Team

Paris 2024

If you need more evidence of the intentionality of this cheap shot at Christians, and the subsequent lying about it, screenshots of later-deleted posts by folks involved may be found here: Lying about the Olympic Last Supper a sign of our times.

May St. Genevieve, St. Louis, St. Joan, and St. Therese pray for France which has fallen down.

St. Clair Augustin Mulholland ~ Irishman. Philadelphian. Artist. Civil War Hero. Catholic.

General St. Clair Augustin Mulholland later in life.

As Independence Day approaches each year, I make a habit of finding a patriotic movie or two to pop into the DVD player to watch with the kids. This year, we began with Gods and Generals, that beautiful but flawed epic of the first two years of the Civil War. The film contrasts the career of Confederate General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson with that Union General Joshua Chamberlain, and while focusing on these two, it introduces several other figures as bit players. 

One of these who showed up during the Battle of Fredericksburg was St. Clair Augustin Mulholland. When his name was shown on the screen, it looked familiar. Where had I seen it before? Ah, yes! He appeared prominently in a previous post: "One of the most impressive religious ceremonies I have ever witnessed" ~ Father William Corby's general absolution at Gettysburg.

Mulholland had been at Gettysburg where he witnessed Fr. Corby's general absolution. It was his account of the act that I had included in the post, taken from his book, The story of the 116th Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteers in the War of the Rebellion.

But as with so many of these amazing men from the Civil War period, there is much, much more to General Mulholland's story than mere gallantry in combat—though there is plenty of that.

And he is practically forgotten today, even in his adopted hometown of Philadelphia where his earthly remains lie interned in Old Cathedral Cemetery. 

St. Clair Augustin Mulholland was born a son of the Emerald Isle in County Antrim in AD 1839. When still a boy, his family emigrated to the United States in the midst of the Potato Famine. As with many Irish youth, Mulholland gravitated toward a military career, and by the time the American Civil War erupted in 1861, he would become a colonel at the ripe age of 23. 

Mulholland in uniform
during the Civil War.

Serving throughout the war, Mulholland saw action at Fredericksburg where he was wounded leading the ill-fated charge up Marye's Heights. He would be awarded a Congressional Medal of Honor for his gallantry covering the Union retreat at Chancellorsvile. As mentioned above, he served at Gettysburg where his regiment was practically annihilated. He survived to fight and receive wounds at Wilderness. He was wounded again at Po River, and badly injured by a musketball to the groin at Topotomy Creek. 

For his outstanding courage during the the Civil War, Mulholland was given brevet rank of Major General.

But that's not where his story ends, not by a long-shot. 

Following the war, Mulholland returned to Philadelphia where he became chief of police in 1868. In that post, he was credited with bringing discipline to the department which had been in some disorder before his arrival. He is also praised for breaking up a gang known as the "Schuylkill Rangers" which had been terrorizing the city.

He served many years on the Board of Prison Inspections. According to a eulogy written at the time of Mulholland's death in 1910 in the Journal of the American Irish Historical Society:  

It was said of him that he personally helped more unfortunates to start life anew than any other man in the state. He made the subject of prison discipline and its reform a study, and it was he who formed the committee that drafted the new parole law.

General Mulholland was also a lover of American history, particularly the contributions which Irish and Catholic Americans had played in it. Perceiving that secular and Protestant historians tended to minimize or ignore completely the role played by Catholics in American history, Mulholland participated in a campaign of speeches and memorials to remind the nation of their contributions. As part of this effort, Mulholland and his fellow Irish Catholics funded and built several memorials. 

Statue of Commodore Barry in Philadelphia.

Mulholland played a key role in raising $10,500 (the equivalent of about $350,000 in today's dollars) for the creation of the prominent statue of Commodore John Barry which may be seen to this day in dramatic pose behind Independence Hall in Philadelphia. Of Commodore Barry, Mulholland would offer the following praise in a speech: 

One of the most illustrious of Ireland’s sons, a brilliant child of the wind and waves, a heroic warrior of the sea who never knew defeat, the Father and Founder of the Navy of the United States.

It was General Mulholland who first conceived the idea of raising a statue to his friend, Fr. Corby, saying that it would "be of great benefit to the Catholic Church, identifying the Church with patriotism on the battlefields of our country." [Memoirs of a Chaplain's Life, Appendix 2] As chairman of a committee of the Catholic Alumni Sodality, General Mulholland was instrumental moving the project forward. The statue of Fr. Corby was completed shortly after Mulholland's death in 1910. 

Also late in his life, Mulholland was appointed to head the commission to create the Pennsylvania memorial at Gettysburg. Though he did not survive to see the completion of the project, the Pennsylvania memorial would be built and is the grandest on the battlefield. 

While doing the research on this post, I was surprised to discover that there was another side of General Mulholland. Beneath his rough exterior hardened by years of exposure on the march and danger on the battlefield, St. Clair Mulholland retained the softer soul of an artist. Similar to Lew Wallace, who eclipsed his fame as a general during the Civil War by writing a memorable novel (Ben Hur), St. Clair Mulholland was an accomplished painter of landscapes. Following the war, he embarked on a five year tour of Europe where he painted many beautiful scenes. Some examples of his work may be seen below:

Grand Canal, Venice.

Rowing in the Marsh

Shipping of the Coast

Mulholland was also personally devout and chivalrous. In a 1928 essay, Anne Easby-Smith records the following about the general: 

Yet this richly gifted man was, in his piety, as sincere and simple as a little child. His devotion to the Blessed Virgin was touching. From the age of fifteen until his death, he recited the rosary daily. His courtesy to women is illustrated by an incident during the War. Leading a hundred men through the swamp of Chickahominy, he came to a narrow pass where there was room for only one. Two Sisters of Charity were approaching. Immediately, the young officer stepped into the muddy swamp, to be followed by the whole regiment, to the great confusion of the Sisters.

For all his accomplishments, General Mulholland seemed to remain a humble soul to the very end of his life. When he died in 1910, he was buried in Old Cathedral Cemetery in a grave without a marker. The existing plaque was added much later. In the conclusion of her essay, Anne Easby-Smith sums up General Mulholland's character in this way:  

A soldier first and last, General Mulholland had simple tastes and few personal wants. “When I die,” he had said, “wrap me in the American Flag and put me in the hole. That is all the funeral I need.” Faithful to the flag for which he had fought and bled, General St. Clair Mulholland was equally faithful to the creed of his fathers, a true Catholic layman who stood before the world proud of the dual loyalty to God and country of which his entire life was a noble illustration.

What more is there to say? General Mulholland is yet another of those incredible, multi-faceted individuals whose characters were shaped in the forge of the American Civil War and whose subsequent noble lives are an ornament to the country they loved. Given General Mulholland's devotion to God, Ireland, America, and the memory of Civil War comrades, I suspect that the depiction of the sacrifice of the 116th Pennsylvania at Fredericksburg in Gods and Generals would have met with his approval, even if his own prominent presence in the film as their heroic leader may have piqued his humility.

Here are a few other posts on the Civil War that have appeared on this blog:

• Gen. James Longstreet: "Brave soldier, gallant gentleman, consistent Christian"
• Commander of the Union Army: Giuseppe Garibaldi?
• Civil War Vets Aboard the Cruiser Olympia ~ Seamen Purdy and McCue Re-fight their Ancient Battle
• "One of the most impressive religious ceremonies I have ever witnessed" ~ Father William Corby's general absolution at Gettysburg
• Will the Left tear down Stand Watie's monument?
• The Conversion of Frederick Douglass

Quo Primum and the rumored forthcoming attack on Traditional Mass communities

About two years ago, I wrote a post lamenting the continuing efforts to restrict access to the Traditional Latin Mass by the spiritually tone-deaf, aging radical contingent which is currently favored in Rome. At that time, I quoted the encyclical of Pope Saint Pius V, Quo Primum, which grants in perpetuity the right of all priests to celebrate the Tridentine Mass.

Since doing that, I realized recently that I left off a fairly critical piece, namely the closing admonition of Pope Saint Pius V, which reads as follows in Latin:

Nulli ergo omnino hominum liceat hanc paginam Nostrae permissionis, statuti, ordinationis, mandati, praecepti, concessionis, indulti, declarationis, voluntatis, decreti et inhibitionis infringere, vel ei ausu temerario contraire. Si quis autem hoc attentare praesumpserit, indignationem omnipotentis Dei, ac beatorum Petri et Pauli Apostolorum eius se noverit incursurum. 

This translates to English as follows:

Therefore, let it be licit for none among men to infringe upon the permissions, statutes, ordinances, mandates, precepts, concessions, indults, wills, decretals and inhibitions in this document of ours, or to have the rashness to oppose them. If, however, someone should presume to attempt this, he should know that he will incur the anger of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Those in Rome attempting to push forward the rumored harsh restrictions, assuming they believe in God, should tremble before doing so. It should be recalled that St. John Chrysostom warned: "If you have sinned, but in your own person merely, you will have no such great punishment, nothing like it: but if you have sinned as bishop, you are lost." Our bishops and priests ignore at their own peril the warnings of the saints and the will of the Holy Spirit, who bestows good fruit upon the devout, and evil fruit upon the worldly.  

And it is well to recall the observations of Fulcher of Chartres in the 12th century AD: 

When the Roman Church, which is the source of correction for all Christianity, is troubled by any disorder, the sorrow is communicated from the nerves of the head to the members subject to it, and these suffer sympathetically....For when the head is thus struck, the members at once are sick. If the head be sick, the other members suffer.

The head is clearly sick. Thus, we suffer. Thus, the world suffers. 

If further restrictions come, no one should be surprised at what happens next.

Justinian and Theodora in meme-form

The anxiety of being married to Empress Theodora.

I've been creating a good number of memes lately. While what happened to Pope St. Silverius is certainly no laughing matter, I figured something like this is a good way of starting conversations about Silverius and encouraging folks to ask for his intercession. The meme has garnered a good bit of attention on Reddit and other places where I've posted it, so who knows?

For what it's worth, Silverius is one of the individuals to whom I dedicated Book III of my Belisarius series, Rome the Eternal. And it seemed fitting given that his sad reign plays a major role in the story. 

For other posts on Pope Saint Silverius, see:

• Pope Saint Silverius ~ Resisted state-mandated heresy. Died a martyr.
• The Martyrdom of Pope St. Silverius -- Starved to death on the Island of Palmarola in AD 538
• The epitaph of Pope Saint Hormisdas, written by his son, Pope Saint Silverius
• "I am receiving the reward for my deeds" ~ The Miserable Reign of Pope Vigilius, AD 537-555

What if Belisarius had accepted the Gothic offer to become Western Roman Emperor in AD 540 ~ And why he didn't

A fanciful portrait of Belisarius as Augustus of the Western Roman Empire.

I left off the previous post considering what might have happened if Belisarius had accepted the imperial diadem of the Western Empire when it was offered to him at the end of the first war in Italy in AD 540. Could he have remained on the throne? How would Justinian have reacted? Did Belisarius have the diplomatic and administrative skills to manage the Western Empire? Would his men have remained loyal to him and willing to advance his military goals abroad?

In a best-case scenario that's perhaps not too far-fetched, the answer is yes, Belisarius could certainly have ruled successfully as Western Roman Emperor. The Goths were not only accepting of him, but positively enthusiastic for him to rule them. The core of the Roman army in Italy was made up of his household troops, some 7,000 strong. It's hard to imagine that these elite soldiers would not have remained loyal to the commander who had recruited and trained them. And Belisarius was known to be extraordinarily generous toward his men. Some of the imperial troops and their commanders—men like John the Nephew of Vitalian, Aratius and his brother Narses—would have been reluctant to go along. But future events would prove that these men were all flawed as commanders, unable to work in tandem and largely unloved by the men serving under them. Belisarius would have either received their pledges of loyalty, offered them a one-way ticket back to Constantinople, or quelled them and their forces if they attempted to resist.

For his part, Justinian would not have attacked Italy, certainly not immediately. As mentioned in the previous post, the emperor was at that time facing a very dire threat from Chosroes who had marched the Persian army into the Roman eastern provinces. In fact, by the time Belisarius arrived back in Constantinople, Chosroes had sacked Antioch, the fourth largest metropolis of the empire, leading away tens of thousands of captives which he would settle in a city he built for them called "Better-than-Antioch." Though Justinian would have been rightfully furious over the betrayal of Belisarius, he wouldn't have been able to do anything about it until Belisarius's position in Italy was solidified and made permanent. Most likely, Justinian would have instructed his diplomatic corps to make a virtue of necessity, and initiate friendly relations with the new Western Emperor to ensure there was peace on the western frontier while he dealt with the Persian menace.

Where Emperor Belisarius and Justinian would likely have come into conflict was over Africa. Once news reached Africa of Belisarius's accession to the Western Empire, it is not unlikely that the Africans would have declared for Belisarius. After all, Africa was traditionally a Latin-speaking province of the West. Its fertile crops had supplied Rome with wheat for centuries. Beyond that, it had been the brilliant deeds of Belisarius five years before that liberated Africa from the Vandals. More recently, he had again saved Africa from a dangerous mutiny of the garrison army that Justinian had left unpaid. The fact that Solomon, the governor of Africa in AD 540, was once a member of Belisarius's household tends to seal the deal. Once again, if Africa had switched its loyalty to Belisarius in AD 540, there's not much Justinian could have done to prevent it given his preoccupation with the Persians.

Considering his strategic genius, it's not impossible that Belisarius would have been able to extend Roman power into the former provinces, particularly those which retained significant Roman population centers. Given the disparate units that he managed to command successfully in his own household guard: Illyrian and Thracian Romans, Isaurians, Huns, Heruls, etc., he would have had little difficulty commanding the Gothic army. I suspect that the Goths would have been downright eager to learn and master the tactics of the man who had defeated them. With a reconstituted and re-tooled Gothic grand army built around a core of his magnificently trained household troops, Belisarius would have had a force powerful enough to face the Visigoths or Franks in the open field. He likely would have pressed Gothic claims in Septimania—a region of southern Gaul that the Ostrogoths had unwillingly ceded to the treacherous Frankish king, Theudibert, during the Italian war. However, given the prostration of Italy which was still recovering from famine, and the incipient waves of plague which had begun sweeping across the Mediterranean world beginning in AD 542, it's hard to imagine Roman arms making much more progress in the West. Perhaps he would have found some limited success in Spain as Justinian did later.

In Books II and III of my series of novels, I have Belisarius himself offer some counter arguments—conflicts that could have turned the speculative reign of Belisarius into a disaster. In both cases, it is Belisarius's ambitious wife, Antonina, who plays the role of devil's advocate. 

In Glory of the Romans, Antonina tempts Belisarius to view himself in the role of king after his defeat of the Vandals. Belisarius's reaction is forceful and immediate:

Click for more info.

     [Antonina] moved in close to her husband until she whispered in his ear. “Every day, you enter the Vandal palace and sit on the throne to administer Carthage. And every day, I see you and think to myself: what a magnificent king he would make.”
     His eyes wide with horror, Belisarius pulled away from Antonina with a jerk as if she had touched his face with a red-hot iron poker.
     “Antonina,” he finally gasped. “I will forget that such words ever escaped your lips.”
     Undaunted, she closed with him and put her mouth again close to his ear. “Why not? You are a hero in this place. You have a mighty army and a fleet. And Africa is rich! No one could touch us. We would be free!”
     “Free,” he stammered, holding her away from him. “Free you say? You would make me a king while I live, but upon my death, I shall be a slave chained in the lowest depths of hell. Is that the fate you wish for me?”
     Now it was Antonina’s turn to be surprised by Belisarius’s vehemence.
     “I took an oath, wife!” he growled, keeping his voice down lest anyone hear. “Without my oath, what good am I to anyone? An oath-breaker is the most despicable of all men. A betrayer I would be, no better than Judas. And worse, to break an oath made before God? It is unthinkable! May I be struck dead before I ever do such a thing!”
     Antonina stood back aghast. She had gravely miscalculated.
     “Justinian is my lord here on earth, Antonina. I will never betray him. Never! Even if he stripped me of all rank, title, and wealth. Even if he deprived me of my very life! He is the God-protected emperor. Any authority I have comes through him. Were I to defy my emperor, what right would I have to claim the loyalty of the men under me?”
     “Forgive me, husband,” Antonina muttered, ashamed.
     Belisarius continued as if he hadn’t heard her: “I would have no claim on their loyalty. They would defy me as I defied my lord. And they would be right to do so for I would have shown myself to be a contemptible scoundrel and worse—a liar, a betrayer, and a murderer of the truth.”

This scene is meant to portray Belisarius's steadfast loyalty to Justinian as well has his devotion to the truth as a Christian. It should be recalled that in Book I, Belisarius willingly took an oath over the Sacrament of the Altar to be loyal to Justinian unto death. That scene was meant to correspond with the statement from Procopius featured in the previous post to the effect that Belisarius "had been bound by the emperor previously with most solemn oaths."

In this next scene taken from Rome the Eternal, Antonina, attempts to persuade her husband to take the imperial power once he has the Goths on the point of capitulation. Belisarius presents her with his reasons why he will not do so. Considering the later criticisms of Belisarius for his uxoriousness, perhaps these reasons are persuasive, not necessarily because he bows to her will—he doesn't—but because he cares more about what might happen to her than to attaining power and glory:

Click for more info.

     “If you achieve this victory—and let us admit that the situation shows every indication of resolving in our favor—your name will be mentioned among the most brilliant generals in history,” Antonina quipped, as she quaffed her cup of honeyed wine. “Constantine. Pompey. Even Alexander. Have you considered that? Belisarius the Great. It rolls right off the tongue.”
     Belisarius snorted. Though he was reading over reports from his garrison commanders in southern Italy, he was attentive to every word his wife said.
     “What? Is not the conquest of two immensely powerful barbarian nations something worthy of mention in the annals of history? Procopius certainly thinks so.”
     “You know very well that I do not fight for fame or glory,” Belisarius replied, looking up from his reading.
     “Yes, yes. And not for power, wealth, or from an inordinate lust for battle,” Antonina groused impatiently. “I know all that. You fight for Justinian, because he commands you to. But just once, I wish you would fight for yourself. Or, God forbid, for me.”
     “We’ve had this conversation before,” said Belisarius, his face grave. “You already know my answer.”
     “I do. And the answer is ludicrous,” Antonina said, meeting his gaze. “I see how the Gothic ambassadors regard you, how they address you, how they respect you, admire you. These are men who value nothing more than strength, both of character and of the right arm. You have both in abundance. If you but said the word, the nobles of the Goths would cast that feeble dotard Vitiges off his throne and put you...that is, they would follow you. Then, with your biscuit-eaters and the swords of all the Goths behind you, no one in the world could command you.”
     “And as I said to you once before, no honorable man would follow a general who did what you propose,” Belisarius replied with mounting frustration. “What’s more, you do not know what you are asking.”
     “How so?” Antonina said. “I’m not an idiot, you know.”
     “I never suggested that you were, my love,” Belisarius softened. “But let us play out your ambitious scheme a bit. Let us assume that the Goths depose Vitiges and elevate me in his place. And I, shattering all bonds of loyalty, accept their acclamations. And ignoring this act of perfidy, my army supports the claim and allows me to sit in security upon a throne in Italy. Have you thought about what happens next?”
     Antonina smiled, her eyes glistening with avarice. “Yes. You rule brilliantly, and I rule beside you as your consort as Theodora does in Constantinople.”
     “No, my dearest,” Belisarius said, a little sadly. “Within a month, my subjects will notice that I have but one child—a girl-child who resides in the East within easy reach of the Emperor and Empress. You don’t expect that our Joannina will be allowed to leave and join her traitorous parents, do you?”
     “That is of no concern,” Antonina whispered urgently. “I have agents in Byzantium who could spirit her away before anyone in the palace knew.”
     “For their part, the Goths will not accept Photius,” Belisarius continued in the same tone.
     “Why not? He is your son...”
     “They will see him as your son, not mine,” Belisarius declared. “They will demand a natural son to be my heir. For them, blood is of paramount importance. Do you begin to understand? They will encourage, cajole, wheedle, and threaten me to put you away and marry another woman—a younger woman—who will bear me sons. Recall how they have treated Amalasuntha and her son? How they have treated Matasuntha, though she is the granddaughter of Theodoric? Most likely, they will declare Matasuntha’s marriage to Vitiges annulled, seeing how the vows were made under duress. They will urge me to set you aside and marry her. And considering I have already broken my sacred oath to Justinian, sundering my marriage vow would be a comparatively small thing.”
     Antonina smiled. “There is only one problem with your scenario,” she said seductively, moving her lips toward his ear. “Justinian doesn’t love you as I do.” With her perfectly manicured fingers, she caressed his beard. “You will never set me aside. I have no anxiety. What’s more, do not doubt my ability to handle threats to us. I shall work upon the Gothic nobles, playing one off against the other, arranging advantageous marriages for their sons. I have no fear of court intrigue, for if you make me a queen, I will hold to my diadem with a death-grip every bit as tight as that of my mentor, Theodora.”
     Belisarius sighed, not unkindly, and kissed her. Then, rising to his feet, he gave her hand a squeeze and smiled affectionately. “I have no doubt you were born to be a queen, my love.” Collecting his papers, he made his way toward the door. “But unfortunately, you have married a mere soldier.”

So in the end, it seems likely that Belisarius could have had a long and successful reign as Western Roman Emperor—and it's very likely that he knew that the political and military situation was favorable to him—but he refused the imperial diadem for three reasons:

1. Because he would not transgress the solemn oath he took to Justinian.
2. Because he would not transgress the solemn oath he took to his wife. 
3. Because he was a devout Christian and to him, the keeping of oaths was more important than glory in this world.

If the above reasons are correct, Belisarius becomes a rather rare bird in human history. And we can more easily understand why the Gothic nobles were so utterly flabbergasted when Belisarius ended up leaving Ravenna and rejecting the greatest office in human history: Emperor of the Romans.