Pax et Bonum.

I mentioned St. Bonaventure as the definitive biographer of St. Francis because in 1260, during a time of crisis, the general chapter gave him the mandate to write an accurate account of the holy founder’s life. In fact, in the prologue of the Major Life (4), he expressly attests to the fact that he did his research and interviewed the living witnesses. In the writing, St. Bonaventure deliberately omitted narrations from Celano that he could not verify. His theological-thematic approach, rather than chronological, is also expressly intended. That approach does not vitiate the historical value of the work any more than the evangelists’ theological intent and approach undermine the historical value of the gospels.

This being the case, St. Bonaventure is only basing himself on the earlier accounts of Celano and, perhaps, de Vitry (the latter was in Damietta at the same time as St. Francis). If we cannot trust these accounts then we really know nothing of what went on with the saint and the sultan.

Also, what we know of St. Francis’ “opposition” to the crusades we know, as I have pointed out above, from Celano and from that account we learn very little except what the saint thought of a single battle. I have read of an alleged meeting of the saint with the the crusader commander Cardinal Pelagius, but have not found any direct reference to this in the primary sources.

Franciscans have always preferred peace to war, and rightly so, but there proclamation of peace cost them their lives all too often. In the case of St. Francis, the opportunity to die for Christ was his principle motive for risking the undertaking of making peace.

The peace for which St. Francis was willing to die is that which only Christ can give.

The historical context I have provided, I believe, speaks for itself, and is not a reconstruction based on a practical end. I fully appreciate the practical dilemma at hand, as have friars over the centuries, such as attested to by the rule of 1226 and by the life of Bl. Raymond Lull. Yes there are two options, but neither of them involve subjection to Islam (“Islam” means submission), nor do they mean ignoring the present danger and doing nothing to defend the common good.