www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Jesus Christ - You Are Banned

Dear Lawrence,

Actually, there was an article on EWTN a while back - could have been a few years back - discussing this and the renewal of a Catholic movement in Scotland for Wallace's canonization.

That he was venerated by Scots as a martyr after his death - that we know, but the canonization process never got anywhere (as with King Macbeth's process).

The article stated he was a "warrior monk" - I'm assuming that means he was a Templar, unless there were some feisty Franciscans around then . . .

Holy William Wallace, Protector of Scotland, pray unto God for us!

Alex

Alex
I'd be very suspicious about the reports about Wallace, since so much of what's been written about him, came long after he was dead. What we do know was that he was certainly no angel. One of the provable charges brought against him at his 1305 trial, was that he burned or laid waste religious houses, killed clergy, women and children. In his defense, it could be said with certainty, that he was not in fact a traitor.

You know, I've always admired Scotland and this country usually comes to mind when I enter the Ukie bar on Friday nights before my choir rehearsal. It really is a blessed country.
Lauro

Dear Lawrence,

Aye, but the wee lads in Scotland knew what they were about when they begun honourin' the Wallace after he was done to death by the Sassanachs!

I think I trust the spontaneous outpouring of devotion of the people toward someone they themselves knew better than historians.

Most of what has come down to us about the Wallace was written by English historians from a certain perspective that was none to complimentary toward Scottish indepedence.

The charges of his killing clerics were nonsense and were typical of the day to ensure that someone the government didn't like would be found guilty and worthy of death.

Earl Simon de Montfort was similarly maligned by King John in England - and the king had Simon excommunicated by the Church to prevent his becoming a sainted martyr canonized by Rome!

Remember that if we trusted Shakespeare's account of Joan of Arc and that of the English in her time - she would never have been canonized a saint by Rome.

King Macbeth as well was viciously maligned by Shakespeare and the English - and yet he was honoured locally in Scotland for centuries for his charity toward the poor etc.

When the English Church began encroaching on Scotland, Macbeth travelled to Rome to see the Pope to get him to tell the English to leave be.

He might have as well used force of arms to keep the English at bay, but he didn't.

Imperial powers do those kinds of things all the time.

The English were so hell-bent on destroying Wallace that they tried to prevent him from confessing before his horrific death (hanging, drawing and quartering had just been introduced in England and Wallace was to become the first celebrity victim of that form of execution there).

Even the English who hated Wallace as a bandit saw him with his psalter and rosary as he climbed to his death.

And Mel Gibson, great actor and producer that he most certainly is, did not produce "Braveheart" in accordance with all the historical facts ( ).

For one thing, "Braveheart" was the name given to Robert the Bruce much later, rather than to Wallace . . .

Alex

Dear Lauro,

In my family, the Irish patriot, Eamon de Valera was highly honoured - and in my Ukie community.

His name was so often mentioned at family gatherings when I was growing up - I thought for sure de Valera must be some great Ukrainian or something!

Ukrin go bragh!

Alex

I wasen't attempting to demonise Wallace, if the Scottish want him as one of there national heroes, that's there business. At the same time though, considering him for possible Sainthood would not only take a far stretch of the imagination, but would also require re-writing history. Of course English historians wrote a winners history, but Scottish historians were no less un-biased, and in the case of Wallace, the first detailed accounts of his life weren't written until the poetic accounts of Blind Harry in the 15th century. Realistically speaking Wallace was probably neither Saint or demon, but in all likelyhood somewhere in between. He died bravely, after receiving absolution from the Archbishop of Canterbury, but his 1297 raid into Northern England would I think disqualify him from Sainthood. In his defense, he certainly wasen't as ruthless as Edward I or Robert Bruce.

Alex,

Use of the terminology "the Wallace" suggests Wallace was a Clan Chief, as only they were so styled. He was not.

As to his saintliness, the Scots saw Wallace as a martyr to the cause of Scottish nationalism, not a martyr in any religious sense. No account of his life and death, by Scots or English historians, that I have ever read - and its a fairly exhaustive list - suggests any move afoot to seek canonization of him or to promote veneration of him in a religious sense.

Frankly, at this point in their history, Scots were generally less concerned about their religion - which was not yet at issue and wouldn't be for some 2 centuries after his death - than they were about their independence. Cults of personality related to bloody heroics enacted in the name of nationalism, then as now, evince popular admiration, and a 'deification' of sorts, but rarely take on religious overtones when the faith of those for whom war is waged is not at risk.

I do not deny the role that Wallace played in Scots history, nor that "Braveheart" (which, btw, is an appellation that I've never seen or heard applied to Robert Bruce, only to Wallace) is less than historically accurate. However, your paen to him is likewise over the top.

Many years,

Neil

Alex,

If you had grown up in an Irish household, you'd have at least half a chance that de Valera would have been demonized rather than honored. Not all Irish were enamored of his political decisions after escaping the death penalty suffered by most of his fellow conspirators in the Easter Uprising because of his American citizenship.

Neil

Also, DeValera's refusal to except the Irish Free State as a stepping stone to an eventual Irish Republic, was the deciding factor in bringing on the bloody Irish Civil War.