No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2025
I approach this subject much in the spirit in which Tertullian wrote against the heretics of his day. We might adapt the words of the powerful, if acrimonious, apologist. ‘We must first see to whom the Saints belong lest they be claimed by those who have no right to them.’ As the gnostics of Tertullian’s day claimed a right to the Scriptures, so the agnostics and other misguided folks of our day claim St. Francis. As the self-constituted teachers of those days interpreted Scripture according to their own fancy, and suppressed such parts of it as did not please them, so modern non-Catholics admire their own views in St. Francis and shut their eyes to those aspects of his personality—often fundamental aspects—which do not fit in with their views. I wish to summarise in a rough way the recent non-Catholic appreciations of the Poverello. Furthermore, I would like to make Catholics grasp that St. Francis is theirs: that he is a product of the supernatural vitality of Christ’s Church : and that if non-Catholics admire him, they must do so from afar, preferably in sackcloth and ashes. You can only really imitate St. Francis in loving the birds and flowers, if you have fasted with him on Mount Alverna, and approached Confession and Communion at his side. Let Mr. Sidney Dark close this paragraph for me:
’ Finally, do not be deluded into the belief that St. Francis preached and taught despite the authorities of the Church. There was no difficulty in persuading Pope Innocent III that St. Francis was a saint. The Holy Father realised that great fact the first time that he saw him, and he encouraged him, and guided him with amazing wisdom.’
1 Cf. De praescr. haer. c. xv..
2 The Daily Herald, Oct. 4, 1926.
3 With what has been written by Catholics I do not intend to deal in this place. I will only record my disagreement with not a little of what has appeared.
4 The Evening Standard, Sept. 8, 1926.
5 St. Martin's Review, Sept., 1926. The entire number is devoted to St. Francis.
6 An exception is found in the S.P.C.K. Theology (Sept., 1926), in the article ‘St. Francis the Mystic,’ by R. LI. Langford-James. The whole of the September number of Theology is ‘devoted to the commemoration of two great figures of the Catholic Church, whose centenaries will be celebrated within the next few weeks—St. Francis of Assisi. … and Lancelot Andrewes.’ We scarcely need to read the articles to know their contents.
7 Lansbury's Labour Weekly, Sept. 25, 1926.
8 October 2, 1926.
9 It seems a pity that this article of The Times should have been singled out by a talented Catholic writer for special praise, since the writer really seems to be noting St. Francis' orthodoxy as a blemish.
10 September 30, 1926.
11 The writer does not seem quite sure about the superiority of the view of ‘these later days.’ But on a point like this hesitation is fatal.
12 There are exceptions, of course, Bishop Barnes being the most outspoken. Many have replied to his attack on St. Francis—but perhaps the best answer was given by Mr. Chesterton in G.K.'s Weekly of October 16.
13 Rite expiatis. English transl. by St. Antony's Press (Forest Gate); pp. 10–11.
14 The Latin text will be found in the critical edition of St. Francis' works (Quarracchi, 1904), pp. 87–98. In the English translation by Fr. Paschal Robinson, O.F.M., the Letter appears on pp. 98–108.
15 The Letter also contains a very explicit declaration of belief in the eternal punishment of Hell (Quarracchi ed., p. 97). Mr. Jerome K. Jerome recently declared Hell to be quite un-Franciscan.