Loading ...
Our fearless traddie reporter, sojourning in Mohammedan lands, relates the story of an even more fearless Catholic come from France to Turkey, and thence to the Holy Land.
After Mass this Sunday, at the Jesuit chapel located in the old French chancellery in Ankara, I was eager to talk with a young man whom I easily identified as a traditional Catholic - they tend to stand out at most Masses these days, even here in Turkey.
His name is Armel. He is 28 and has 10 brothers and sisters, including one who is a priest in the FSSP and another brother who is considering the priesthood. Early last year in June 2006, Armel resigned his commission as a captain in the French infantry. One month later, in July, he began a pilgrimage on foot from France to Jerusalem. He had spent Christmas in Istanbul and had recently arrived in Ankara. Armel stayed in our home Monday - and departed Ankara Tuesday morning after morning Mass, continuing his journey across the cold winter mountains of eastern Turkey, and then, God willing, into Syria, Lebanon, and finally Palestine.
He travels anywhere from 20 to 30 km per day and relies totally on the providence of God and the charity of strangers for his sustenance. He sleeps wherever the local people will allow him - in gas stations, apartment building basements, or, if need be, abandoned shacks in the middle of nowhere. (The nights in Turkey currently can drop to below -10 C.)
Likewise with food, he relies totally on charity. He asks gas station operators or small local restaurants for bread and water — almost always the hosts provide him with a complete meal. He passes out Miraculous Medals in payment for the kindness of the local people.
His praying and meditation are obviously intense - but aside from the spiritual contemplation occurring during his long periods of walking in total isolation, he spends 3 to 4 hours a day in prayer during the periods in the morning, midday, and evening when he is not walking.
The most dangerous aspect of his trip is the wild dogs. The back-country of Turkey and the Balkan countries, too, are full of wild dogs. Armel carries a big walking stick with many pointy parts on the end - a stick he cut and honed from his own property in France prior to departing - and a stick made of considerably tough wood since a mere 3 cm has worn off the bottom end after more than six months of walking.
The most afraid he has been is in Turkey, unfortunately. A man in a small village had invited Armel into his home for some food. Surrounded by the host and other Turkish men, a discussion began about religion, and after a while, the Turkish man asked Armel to repeat some words, one after another. After the second or third word, Armel asked what the complete phrase was supposed to be. The man told him the phrase - it was the Muslim profession of faith. At this point Armel told the man that he would not say anymore of this phrase. The man became very angry. The mood in the room became cold and hostile. Armel quickly thanked his host and departed - wondering if he would make it out of the house and village alive.
During the few nights that he was unable to find a heated place to stay during the winter months in Turkey and was forced to sleep in old, abandoned homes or shacks located 1 km or so off the road, he thought of the prospect of freezing to death and that his body might never be found.
Our family felt blessed to have him in our home. Despite what one would imagine to be an exhausted constitution, he played for many hours with our children - and even went for a walk for several hours during the day on Monday! We pray that he arrives safely in Jerusalem.
An amazing story - not unprecedented, of course - but surely a rarity these days! I wonder whether Armel’s pilgrimage has received any attention in the French press, or at least in the papers of his home town? God speed, Armel!
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
Incredible story. It certainly puts my few hours walking at the March for Life today to shame.
Incidentally, the rally was almost just as expected. I say almost because one speech in addition to Yehuda Levin’s was worth listening to: that of a black Protestant preacher. He asked rhetorically why the black pulpit (nudge to Jackson, Sharpton, I’m sure) doesn’t speek out on abortion, even though 15 million African Americans have died from it since Roe v. Wade. Back to Levin, he proposed a new ecumenism, with “no dialogue, no apologies,” just working together on moral issues. Amen to that. And I believe EWTN broadcast that live.
Johnboy: “Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow . . .”
Oh, this is wonderful. I’ve often lamented that there don’t seem to be people like this in the world anymore (stylites, desert hermits, etc.)
Apparently there are…
So now we have some righteous souls’ answers.
Seriously, I understand the intent of Joe Six Pack and other Pharisees — to put it directly — but my point was did he have plans, what did his family think, etc. A proper answer would be something like this:
“No he did not have plans; his family was shocked but he is single so he’s not skirting God’s will; he will walk back to France and find a job - but he does not have any specific work in mind.”
Again, interpret my work to your own righteous indignation.
Thanks for “confirming my suspicion”.
Tobias,
No duh on the dude’s inspiration which is made obvious in Joe Six Pack’s post.
Thanks for another — how shall I put this — “silly” response.
Obviously, this is one of those things that one would take their hats off to — based on what JSP said. I hope you all don’t get pernicious ideas about me not including this in my first post…
srJohnboy says -
“Seriously, I understand the intent of Joe Six Pack and other Pharisees — to put it directly — but my point was did he have plans, what did his family think, etc. A proper answer would be something like this:
“No he did not have plans; his family was shocked but he is single so he’s not skirting God’s will; he will walk back to France and find a job - but he does not have any specific work in mind.”
I stated clearly in the original story that
1) he had no plans and he was relying totally on God’s providence and the charity of strangers.
2) he was single and recently resigned his commission as a military officer
So, why did you need me to restate this?
In your original response to the story you said:
“This is indeed outrageous; crazy.
“But what on earth prompted him to do such a thing?
“And why abandon one’s work..
Frankly, these questions, to me, sound like they come from a protestant or what I thought would be the Novus Ordo reaction.
What on earth prompted him? ummmm, God.
Why abandon one’s work? This sounds totally protestant to me.
The protestants are the ones who shut down all the convents and monasteries in the newly protestantized countries of Europe. “What’s the point of these institutions,” they would say. Their Calvinist minds thought it was a waste of time and manpower.
You came off like a protestant when you gave your original response. Don’t play bait and switch with me, sir. If you form your words to sound like a nutty protestant, don’t blame me for presuming you as such. Even respecting the fact that blogs and the written word in general can be misunderstood, your writing invited criticism — not just from me but others as well chimed in.
And you are playing bait and switch with Tobias Petrus as well –
In your first post you said:
“But what on earth prompted him to do such a thing?”
And then after Tobias Petrus’ gives a response, you say -
“No duh on the dude’s inspiration which is made obvious in Joe Six Pack’s post.
“Thanks for another — how shall I put this — “silly” response.”
Well, if it was so obvious in my original post, why ask the question in your post?
When you asked, “What about his family?” I thought you had not understood that he was single and had no family responsibilities. But I understand now that you understood he was single.
So, if you know he’s single what of you question “what about his family?”
Well, Johnboy, traditional Catholic men don’t ask their mommies and daddies for permission before making decisions. His job is to save his immortal soul. This is a monumental task. Our Lord said it’s as hard as a camel going through the eye of a needle. Nay, in the Novus Ordo world of today, saving one’s soul is like a humpback whale going through the eye of a needle. So, I certainly wouldn’t let a weeping mother or grandmother (which I’d surely expect would occur if a young man decided to go on such a pilgrimage) stand in the way of my eternal salvation.
The French pilgrim went to a dessert to speak with God. Leave him alone, for he did it for himself, not for us to argue who he is and what for. Rather, when we accidentally meet an hermite, it is a sign from God and call to purify our souls, instead.
And Clara: Yes, there are still anachoretes on the Egyptian desert. Desert fathers did not vanish… (Yay!)
Bless this young man! My prayers and a little bit of my envy go with him…
Leave him alone, for he did it for himself, not for us to argue who he is and what for.
My questions were serious. Evidently no else thinks so.
As for it being outrageous & crazy–perhaps you can take it any way you want.
Bickermongers…
PS–I was being hypothetical, Joe Six Pack, when I said “he is single so he is not skirting God’s will” etc.
Whiners…
Johnboy, I rather think that someone so serious as to undertake this endeavor did in fact consider the ramifications for the situation in the military that he left behind, for his family, for you name it. The Apostles also left their families, their cushy govt. jobs (like St. Matthew), etc., etc. Our Lord rejected one potential disciple because he wanted to go home and bury his father. “Let the dead bury the dead.” St. Ignatius Loyola left a military post behind, St. Francis disobeyed his father, on and on. So, when someone does something really outstanding for the Faith, something none of us would dare, please don’t be so pretentious about it. You can address your serious questions at his beatification and canonization processes, where you can stalwartly maintain that Armel was a deadbeat loser. Your questions in and of themselves have worth, but we can see from your tone and your track record that they were not meant in a charitable way.
(I edited an earlier, intemperate version of this post.)
Well, when you decide to become a saint and take a pilgrimmage across Europe; I’ll hold back the following comment/questions:
“This is indeed outrageous; crazy.
But what on earth prompted him to do such a thing?
And why abandon one’s work? Does the soul have any plans when he gets to Jerusalem? Will he walk back to France? What about his family? What on earth does he plan to do when he gets back to France?”
I might get quite a backlash…
Well, Johnboy, the problem is that when you asked your questions, and some people attempted to answer them, you insulted them. Look, you either honestly wanted an answer to the question, in which case you got answers, or else you were just being rhetorical in order to diminish our admiration for someone who is doing something good. That, or you simply wanted to get a “rise” out of us. Which is it? Apparently Armel didn’t divulge every last little detail of his reasoning and preparation when he spoke to Joe Six Pack. So we simply can’t answer those questions with sufficient knowledge. We should simply hope that he is doing what he is doing for the right motives. I wonder if in the 1930s, when Mother (then Sister) Teresa left for Calcutta, you would have asked silly questions like, “What is she doing for her family? What could have motivated this crazy, outrageous behavior?”
If you should ask me the same questions, if and when I should go on such a pilgrimage, then I would be able to answer them, since then I would actually know. If you should happen to meet this Armel some day, would you say to his face, “What possessed you to do this crazy, outrageous thing? Didn’t you think of family, the army, etc.?” In other words, would you be so bold in his physical presence, or were just trying to “stir the pot” for us? My inquiring mind wants to know.
Just to eliminate any ambiguity, the things we don’t know about Armel’s situation are his particular plans for what he will do after returning to Europe, why he thought that this was the particular path (literally) for him, etc. We do know that Catholic devotion has encouraged countless souls to do similar things over the millennia, despite the doubts lodged against them by people who’d never do anything nearly so arduous.
Armel doesn’t know exactly what the future holds for him. He has not completely ruled out religious life, but since one brother is already a priest and another is discerning that vocation, he thinks being a family-man is more his duty. He is the oldest son and wants the family name to live on and all that…
He is toying with the idea of being a politician in his small village back home. He realizes many people will call him a crazy reactionary Catholic, but he has an impressive spirit and will, maybe he can pull it off.
As for his motives - like I said earlier, he is trying to discipline his mind and body from bad habits and make reparation for sin.
Well, good, then. Thanks, JSP. Johnboy, are you satisfied?
Oh. Interesting.
As for my motives…I was serious but phrased it purposely in a manner such that it could be taken either way; and I did this with a certain grin. I guess I do this often.
PS- I do have at least one track record last I checked. It was junior high (7th & 8th grade) long jump (17′3/4″).
“PS- I do have at least one track record last I checked. It was junior high (7th & 8th grade) long jump (17′3/4″).”
Thank you for this. But I think Armel has you beat for long-distance walking, and I rather think he is less smug about it.
“but phrased it purposely in a manner such that it could be taken either way; and I did this with a certain grin. I guess I do this often.”
So you “purposely” set out to provide an occasion of sin (of hasty judgment, I suppose) for the rest of us. How edifying. I wonder if this sort of needlessly provocative behavior is among the vices that poor Armel is cleansing himself of via (pun intended) his sojourn.
For love of debating?
Well, thanks for admitting your apparent sin of hasty judgement; although I would also consider a double standard, perhaps. Case in point see JSP’s provocation that I am a not a Catholic since “only a Catholic can understand these types of crazy things” vis a vis my questions that, as you yourself put it, “in and of themselves have worth”.
Not for love of debating. For turning good news about this pilgrim soul into a debate, for . . . for what? Calling Armel’s choice “outrageous” and “crazy” can only be justified if 1) one knew that he was doing these things for the wrong reasons, or 2) one judges his actions by the world’s *non-Catholic* standards. As you admit, you intentionally exposed yourself to misunderstanding. If you’d stated from the beginning: “What Armel is doing is not necessarily outrageous or crazy, since countless Catholics have done similar things. I am concerned over the following questions though . . .” Then JSP and the rest of us could have had no grounds for criticism.
Look, someone’s doing something great here. I’d be alot more willing to engage in a debate for debate’s sake, with all the requisite smack-downs, etc., if someone’s reputation weren’t the topic. We’re “bickermongers” because your ambiguous remarks could be read as calling a man’s virtue in to question for less than serious motives.
“I hope you all don’t get pernicious ideas about me not including this in my first post…”
Look, now you’ve admitted that you purposely wrote the first post the way you did with a “smile” on your face. I’ve had that smile myself, so I know that it is a pernicious smile indeed. Got me?
“Well, thanks for admitting your apparent sin of hasty judgement”
I judged, correctly, that you were not entirely in earnest in what you wrote and were looking to rustle feathers. I judged, apparently incorrectly, from what you wrote, that you deemed Armel’s behavior to be “outrageous” and “crazy” in your own estimation. But that is what your own writing led me to believe.
That’s about all the more I have to say on the subject.
“Well, thanks for admitting your apparent sin of hasty judgement”
I judged, correctly, that you were not entirely in earnest in what you wrote and were looking to rustle feathers. I judged, apparently incorrectly, from what you wrote, that you deemed Armel’s behavior to be “outrageous” and “crazy” in your own estimation. But that is what your own writing led me to believe. I also thought that your secondary motivation (to rile us) excluded your serious desire to find out the truth of the matter.
That’s about all the more I have to say on the subject.
Okay, for whatever reason I can no longer delete posts without going through a complicated rigmarole about “updating my account.” Between my last two posts, please disregard the former. Thanks.