Stanley Glass posted a comment to my last post on Halloween that I think deserves a response.  I intentionally did not mention any specifics about the origins of Halloween as a pagan festival because, in my studies, I have found far too many conflicting claims.  Of course, the neo-pagans want to claim it for their own and find evidence to support what they want to believe.  The fundamentalist Christians want to see demons and the devil in it, so they perpetuate dubious history to support what they want to see.  Some satanists themselves are only too happy to claim these and other supposed traditions to make it an unholy day for them to celebrate, and the average secular person doesn't really care about any of this and sees it as just a fun day to dress up, go to parties, and eat candy.

Because there is no clear winner, in terms of historical veracity, I prefer to simply withhold judgment and not perpetuate potential myths, speaking instead to the practical matter of what I see to be the reasonable response of a practicing Catholic (or even just plain Christian). 

Some things are clear from history, though:
1. All Saints' Day was originally celebrated on the 13th of May, instituted as a celebration of the Blessed Virgin and all Martyrs by Pope St. Boniface IV in 609 or 610.
2. Pope St. Gregory III moved the day to the 1st of November during his reign.
3. About 100 years later, Pope Gregory IV *extended* the feast day to all the Church.

You'll note that I emphasize "extended" above.  This is because I want to make a point.  There is a common misconception that the date and even the holiday itself was somehow a reaction to the Celtic pagan holiday of Samhain.  Yet it is clear, by the documented history of All Saints' Day, that the date of Samhain likely played no part in the date set, especially considering the date was set for ~100 years in the Roman diocese prior to its being extended to the rest of the Church.

This is not to say that the timing definitely had nothing to do with pagan holidays.  Many cultures celebrated the harvest in one way or another, including the pre-Christian Romans, so it is likely that there were still vestiges of pagan harvest festivals even in Rome in the 8th century, although by this time they were likely just that (vestiges). 

One source suggests that the moving of the date from May to November was purely pragmatic, in that it is much easier to celebrate great feasts during harvest time as opposed to Spring, when many reserves have been depleted through Winter.  I personally find this highly believable because my studies of Catholic pastoral activities have shown that practical matters are often intertwined with liturgical matters.

And this is not to say that the Church did not utilize this timing to its advantage.  Certainly, as suggested before, it was not uncommon to promote alternative festivals that coincided with pagan festivals to help, especially the new, Christians to cope with not celebrating their traditional festivals.  Again, this was a pastoral matter. 

I hardly think that having an alternative festival would “draw pagans away” from their faith.  The Church didn't just go throw big galas in missionary pagan territory to entice people to convert.  It wasn't like they said “Come see what great parties we throw!  You'll definitely want to be a Christian after this shindig!“

Rather, as a matter of course during the early medieval age, most popular conversions took place as a tribal matter.  A missionary's targets were the leaders of groups of people because, in those days, one's religion was tightly interwoven with one's society.  If the king, chieftan, or thane converted, so did everybody under his protection.  We have to remember that medieval society and the medieval mind were significantly different from our own.

The point here is just to say that perceiving Christianization of pagan holidays as proselytical is inaccurate.  It was rather a pastoral activity to help those who had already converted to adjust to their new religion. 

In any case, it is unclear what the motivations for moving All Saints' Day to November were.  I do tend to think it was likely a blend of pastoral and practical matters.  For both pagans and Christians, harvest time is just a better time to celebrate.  I wouldn't doubt that the date of All Saints' Day was a happy coincidence for many parts (including Britain and Ireland) of the Church.  Who knows, extending the feast to the rest of the Church could have been in response to petitions from other bishops who wanted this great holiday.

How all this relates to Halloween should be fairly obvious from the previous post, as it is the vigil feast of All Saints' Day.  For the Church (and for the Catholic), though, it is clear what the reason for celebration is.  It does have something to do with death--the death of the saints, especially the martyrs--but it is not a celebration of death itself.  It is a celebration of the new life Christians have in Christ and especially of the heroic virtue of all the saints who have gone before us.