THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: On January 10, 2012, Jefferson Bethke uploaded a video to YouTube that recorded a poem he had written, in which he said that Jesus hates religion, that he came to abolish religion, and that Jesus Christ is opposed to religion. Of course, this is a highly Evangelical way of thinking, but the video was an overnight sensation. As of the date of this blog entry, it has received more than 15 million views. The video is here...
In addition to the Catholic reply above, the video has also prompted a response from Fr. Robert Barron here...
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: There is a popular teaching in many Evangelical circles that is a regular source of irritation for me, namely because it demonstrates such a poor level of Biblical scholarship that it would almost be humorous were it not so intoxicating to the general Evangelical public. The error has to do with the identity of a group cited in the Book of Revelation as the 'Nicolaitans'...
But you have this in your favour: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. -- Revelation 2:5-7
Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. -- Revelation 2:14-16
These two passages are the full extend to which the Bible mentions the sect of the Nicolaitans. From these two passages, the Scriptures tell us only three things about them. The first is that one of the churches listed in the second chapter had members who embraced their teaching. The second is that one of the other churches hated the teachings of the Nicolaitans. The third is that God hated their teachings too. That's it. That's all we have from Scripture on this sect, nothing more and nothing less, yet from these two passages some modern Evangelicals have constructed a very elaborate explanation.
Essentially, they claim the word 'Nicolaitans' is itself a combination of two words. The first being 'nico' which has its root in the word 'to rule' or 'dominate' and the second is 'lait' from which the word 'laity' can be constructed. Therefore in this Evangelical explanation, the 'Nicolaitans' were those Christians who constructed a separation between the clergy and the laity. (Do you see where this is going?) The Evangelicals then triumphantly claim that God must hate the separation of clergy and laity, thus these passages are used as a vindication of Evangelicalism which has no clear distinction between clergy and laity (even though it really does, just in a more subtle way). By constructing this explanation, it gives Evangelical pastors (a type of subtle clergy by the way) an opportunity to bash Catholicism and traditional Protestantism as well, claiming that God hates the clerical system, thus God prefers Evangelicalism and hates Catholicism (and traditional Protestantism). Evangelicals generally fall for it, because the guy at the front of the chapel preaching it just happens to be wearing a common suit and looks a lot like the guys sitting in the pews next to them. 'Ah ha!' the Evangelical says; 'Here in our Evangelical church we are all equal because we all dress the same and there is no distinction between us.' Never mind the fact that the man preaching at the front of the chapel is functioning in the role of clergy in spite of how he is dressed, and the man who looks the same in the pew would be in for a rude awakening should he ever try to walk up to the front and preach in the pastor's place. Yes, Evangelicals make a very clear distinction between clergy and laity, but they just don't use clothing to define it. Rather the distinction is subtle, but it is there, and it is enforced fully in every way. When I was an Evangelical, I once witnessed an extreme example of this, where a man from the congregation tried to walk up to the front of the chapel and take the pastors place. That man was literally tackled by the ushers and dragged out of the chapel screaming. The poor fellow was probably a deranged lunatic and certainly needed to be stopped. I'm not criticising the ushers here. Their actions were justified. However, the point I'm trying to make is that there is a clear distinction between clergy and laity in Evangelical churches. They don't use clothing to define it, but they do most certainly enforce it. So when an Evangelical pastor uses these above verses to condemn clericalism, he does so hypocritically, because he himself functions as a cleric even though he may not dress as one or call himself one. Anyone who dares to take his place, without going through the proper channels, will be put down rather quickly and in some rare cases -- physically.
The problem here comes with the way Evangelicals often handle the Bible. They are trained by the most strict Protestant discipline to reject all traditional explanations for Scripture as the 'traditions of men' and try to extract from the very words of the Bible their own interpretation of the overall text. This is an admirable trait, up to a point, but the Bible was not written in a vacuum. It was written in an historical and cultural context, therefore, it should not be interpreted in a vacuum either. Rather it should be interpreted in the historical and cultural context in which it was written. Yes, there are many instances when we can extract from the words of Scripture themselves a deeper meaning to the overall text, but sometimes we need to look at the life and times of the people who wrote the text to get a better understanding. This is what is called 'contextual interpretation' of Scripture, and it stands in contrast to the 'literal interpretation' often employed by Evangelicals, or the 'allegorical interpretation' sometimes employed by Modernists. In the case of the Nicolaitans, because Scripture gives us no indication of who they were, it makes sense to look back into the context of history and culture to get some more information. Sadly, a good number of Evangelicals have never done this.
Who were the Nicolaitans? Multiple sources dating back to around the time of the early Church tell us the Nicolaitans were a Gnostic sect, founded by an apostate Church deacon named Nicholas. The name Nicholas itself simply means 'victorious over people,' which helps to explain the Evangelical interpretation error. This is recorded by Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and Theodoret. (Since the name Nicholas was fairly common, we do not know if there is any relation to the deacon named Nicholas mentioned in Acts 6:5, though Irenaeus records that the Nicolaitans themselves claimed him as their founder.) The early Church historian Eusebius tells us this sect was short-lived. Irenaeus specifically tells us 'they lead lives of unrestrained indulgence.' (Adversus Haereses, i. 26, §3; iii. 11, §1.) The church historian, Venerable St. Bede, stated that Nicolas allowed other men to marry his wife. While Thomas Aquinas stated that Nicholas supported either polygamy or the holding of wives in common (group marriage).
[Nicolas] had an attractive wife, and had refrained from intercourse as though in imitation of those whom he saw to be devoted to God. He endured this for a while but in the end could not bear to control his incontinence.... But because he was ashamed of his defeat and suspected that he had been found out, he ventured to say, 'Unless one copulates every day, he cannot have eternal life.'
-- Epiphanius, Panarion, 25, 1
Here the early Church Father Epiphanius, the Bishop of Salamis (a city on the Island of Cyprus) gives us a good deal of information on how the sect of the Nicolaitans was understood in the late 4th century. We can get a lot from this citation. Apparently Nicholas was a deacon (possibly the native from Antioch mentioned in Acts 6:5, who was ordained by the apostles in Jerusalem in 33AD, but we cannot say that with certainty), who admired the discipline of celibacy practised by many clergy within the early Church.
Note; here we have yet more evidence of celibacy practised by early Church leadership. St. Paul mentions this many times in Holy Writ. However, Deacon Nicholas was married, as were many deacons and priests (presbyters) as well. The practice of clerical chastity in the early Church is nearly identical to how it is practised today. Whatever you enter the ministry as is what you stay. If you enter the ministry married, you stay married of course, but that's it. You accept the life (and the wife) that God has given you. You are faithful and loyal to her, denying her neither affection nor children. If she should die before you, than that's it, you accept the lot that God has given you and you move on into full celibate service of the Lord. Likewise, should you ender the ministry as an unmarried celibate man, than an unmarried celibate man you shall stay in full service to the Lord. All of this is outlined in St. Paul's writings (1st Corinthians 7). The Biblical teaching was the one kept by the early Church. Remain as you are, married or single, if you can when you enter the ministry, for this is the path the Lord has chosen for you.
However, based on Epiphanius citation of Deacon Nicholas, it would appear that he made a common mistake often duplicated by many lay Catholics today, with the false assumption that celibacy somehow makes one 'more holy.' This is a totally false assumption and flies in the face of official Catholic teaching, but it is a fairly common mistake. The Catholic Church's teachings on marriage are outlined in 1st Corinthians 7, and basically state that marriage is a holy sacrament, equal to holy orders (the ministry), and married men may become ministers (deacons and priests) provided they are married BEFORE they enter the ministry. (The only exception to this is in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, one of 23 rites actually, which only admits unmarried men into the priesthood, with only rare exception.) After they enter the ministry they should accept the marital state God has placed them in (wither married or single). Deacon Nicholas apparently committed the error of thinking celibacy made him a better Christian, and in doing so he denied his own needs and the needs of his wife. Other sources tell us he initially gave his wife away in marriage to another man, but then later could not stand to be without her. Thus he rekindled the marriage with her, while she was married to the other man, and in doing so Deacon Nicholas concocted the doctrine of polygamy or polyamory (group marriage) to justify his actions. His followers then did the same with their wives, and before long the whole thing degenerated into multiple-partner group marriages for everyone! Family households became polyamorous as we see demonstrated in this video documenting the modern equivalent....
So there you have it. While it is likely that the Nicolaitans also taught various doctrines of 'secret knowledge' necessary for salvation, as was common among Gnostic sects, it is likely this marital practice that singled them out individually for their namesake.
The Nicolaitans likely justified their behaviour under the grace of God, assuming that because Jesus died for our sins, it's okay to go ahead and sin as you please, so long as it's all done in a spirit of brotherly love. It's sort of like Calvinism (the teaching of 'once saved always saved') abused and run amok, but in a way that neither John Calvin nor his followers would ever condone. Based on Church history, and the writings of the people who lived closest to the time, this is the most accurate understanding of the teaching and deeds of the Nicolaitans. Outside of this historical understanding we should not tread, for to do so is to risk twisting the Scriptures into something they were never intended to say.
Switching gears for a moment, let's go back to the popular Evangelical interpretation of this passage, which is a vain attempt at condemning clericalism. As I pointed out above, when Evangelical pastors do this, they do so hypocritically, because they themselves function as clergy even though they refuse to dress or identify as such. This notion that there is no hierarchy within the Church is not Christian in origin. For from the very beginning, we see that Jesus himself set up a hierarchy structure even among his apostles. This translated into the clergy in the Book of Acts, as the apostles separately ordained bishops and deacons, the deacons holding a lesser ministerial role than the bishops. Gradually, over the first twenty years or so, the early Church separated the office of bishop into two clerical positions, one lesser than the other, the bishop and the priest. This is alluded in the Scriptures as the term 'presbyter' appears in the New Testament to describe bishop-like clergy who are not fully bishops.
All of this comes from the Biblical concept of ordination, of which the Greek words cheirotonia and cheirothesia are used, meaning 'the laying on of hands.' This comes to the Church through the Jewish custom by the Hebrew word semichut. The scriptural concept of ordination is a transferring of the character of one's office. Case in point; when a Jewish priest ordained a man to the priesthood, that man took on the full authority and religious character of the one who ordained him. The ordination was full and complete. The ordained possessed all the powers of the ordainer -- unless the ordainer intentionally specified to only share some of his ministerial powers. In this latter case, the ordained could receive only part of the powers given by the ordainer.
Now as this practice translated to the early Church, we have Jesus Christ himself, who is both God and the promised Messiah. He is both the ultimate High Priest, and the King of kings. Jesus ordained his apostles, and in doing so he shared many (but not all) of his ministerial powers with them. Then he instructed them to go out and make disciples of the whole world. To do this, these apostles ordained other men as bishops (meaning 'elder' or 'overseer'), and gave them their full apostolic authority. As these men ministered in the areas the apostles left behind, they shared part of their ministerial powers with other men who would help them administer the Church in that area. Those ordained as presbyters were given all the powers of the bishop, minus the ability to ordain others, and minus authority over other ordained persons. Those ordained as deacons were given many of the authorities needed to help the presbyters, but not the full ministerial authority of a presbyter. This was the primitive hierarchy of the early Church, and this hierarchy continued to develop over the centuries. There is nothing wrong with this, and in fact, it was a pattern modelled by Jesus and the apostles themselves. In all human endeavours, some kind of authority structure is needed, and God understands this. He understood it in the Old Testament, and he understood it in the New Testament. The Church's hierarchy structures we see today are the natural progression of this.
So where does the occasional Evangelical pastor get off by teaching that God hates the clerical structure (even though he himself is technically part of it). The notion comes not from Christianity but from Freemasonry (the Masonic Lodge), where men are taught that they are all equals and not one of them has authority over the other. Their leadership rotates based on elections, and any man is eligible to become the 'Worshipful Master' in time as the elected rotation progresses. Thus there is no clerical separation in the Lodge. Religious rituals (and yes they are 'religious' in nature) are carried out in the lodge by those in elected authority, and those people rotate every so many years, so no one man holds the same office for very long. Thus all are 'equal' and there is no 'separation' between members. This is where the warped interpretation of Nicolaitans likely comes from, and in some Protestant sects (especially during the 18th and 19th centuries) the notion of elected clergy became in vogue. Some modern Evangelical and Pentecostal sects continue with a slightly reduced version of this today, wherein a 'board of elders' is elected and rotates every so many years, while the pastor is often interviewed and hired by this board. All of this comes from Freemasonry's influence on Protestantism over the last few-hundred years. That's not to say that every Evangelical who preaches the anti-clerical version of the Nicholaitans is a Freemason or has some connection to the Lodge. Far from it! I've personally heard some Evangelical preachers condemn clericalism and Freemasonry in almost the same breath! These pastors may be anti-Mason in their beliefs, but they promote Masonic teaching unwittingly in their actions; by preaching a Masonic interpretation of the Nicolaitans and practising the Masonic tradition of electing elders and hiring pastors.
Remember that next time some Evangelical tells you that God hates clericalism and that it's in the Book of Revelation. The only thing God hates is wife-swapping (Nicolaitanism), and those who say God hates clericalism are actually promoting a Masonic concept which in itself is something else God hates.
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: When we look back at the panorama of the 20th century, and most specifically the warning of the Blessed Virgin given at Fatima, it is the subject of Hell that is brought to the forefront. It seems that one of the greatest strategies of the Evil One in the last 100 years is to convince modern man that there is no Hell. This has perhaps been the precursor that has led to such rampant immorality in our Western world.
On the topic of Hell, Michael Voris does a good job here, pointing out that it is our understanding of Hell that needs revision, not the doctrine itself. When we think of hell, the vision of flames comes to mind. The Scriptures however, also use the analogy of thirst to describe the pains of Hell, and when we consider this it becomes obvious. Hell cannot be imagined by the human mind. It is a spiritual state of lost souls, a state that is opposed to God, and is apart from God, or at least "tries" to be apart from God. Since God is omnipresent however, that is not possible, so Hell is a state of existence that seeks to be apart from God, but cannot be, because that is impossible. Those souls in Hell find the presence of God repulsive but cannot escape Him. It is an experience that the human mind cannot fathom, but one that can only be compared to everlasting flames and eternal thirst.
Watch this primer on Judaism by Michael Voris, then read The Catholic Knight's article below.
The Conversion of St. Paul on the Road to Damascus
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Today (January 25) is the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul. It's generally not one of the major feasts we look forward to in the Church, but it is nevertheless a very important commemoration, and it's one that is extremely applicable to our time. You see, one of the biggest problems in Christianity today is a fundamental lack of understanding of what the Church really is. By "Church" I mean the "Catholic Church" directly, and those who are tied to the Catholic Church through baptism indirectly.
First, let me clarify that last sentence. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly teaches that those who are baptized according to the Trinitarian formula, that is in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have effectively received an authentic Catholic baptism, even if the baptism was not performed by a Catholic priest or deacon. "Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: 'For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.' 'Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn.'" - (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1271) So what does that mean? It means that virtually every Protestant has received an authentic baptism recognized by the Catholic Church! It means that virtually every Protestant is in a similar situation to a Catholic who was baptized in the Church, but walked away from the Church before receiving confirmation and holy Eucharist. It means that virtually all Protestants (Evangelicals, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, etc.) effectively have one foot in the door of the Catholic Church, by virtue of their Trinitarian baptism alone. Their communion with Rome does exist, by virtue of our common baptism, but that communion is imperfect and impaired. In addition to that, there are also the Eastern Orthodox Christians, who's sacraments Rome recognizes entirely, who are only separated from Rome simply by canonical issues that can be remedied when the time comes. So when I say the "Church" I am speaking primarily of the Catholic Church directly, and other Christians united to her in baptism indirectly. The Catholic Church can be compared to a great ship with many small rafts tethered to it. There is only one ship, which is the "bark of Peter," but many small rafts tethered to her. The rafts contain groups of Christians, who for whatever reason, are not in full unity with Rome, and the tethered ropes are like the common bond of baptism that unites us. Now that I've defined things a bit, let's move on to the topic at hand...
The Catholic Church is Israel.
I hope that last sentence stands out for you. Here is the scripture reference to back it up. "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And whosoever shall follow this rule, peace on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God." - (Galatians 6:15-16) Here St. Paul tells his readers that in Christ neither circumcision (Jewish law) nor uncircumcision (Gentile custom) matters. What matters are those who follow the gospel, and those who follow the gospel are the "Israel of God." It is absolutely essential that Christians (not just Catholics) fully understand this. We, the Church, are the "Israel of God." We are Israel. We are the spiritual remnant of ancient Israel, expanded and multiplied, to encompass the whole world. This was (and is) God's plan of salvation. It has not changed. For in the Church, it matters not whether you are Jew or Gentile. What matters is that you are in full-communion with that one Jew who unites us together. I'm speaking of the Jewish rabbi who is both Messiah and King - Jesus of Nazareth. "In fact, from the beginning of his ministry, the Lord Jesus instituted the Twelve as 'the seeds of the new Israel and the beginning of the sacred hierarchy.'" - (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 877)
Artist Sketch of an Olive Tree
The Church, particularly the Catholic Church, is Israel. There is no other Israel today, in a Biblical sense, than the Church. The Church is also Zion. There is no other Zion, in a spiritual sense, than the Church. The Church is also the New Jerusalem. There is no other "Jerusalem," in a spiritual sense than the Church. This is a fundamental teaching of the New Testament. Without this understanding, everything becomes convoluted. If you read Israel and the Church as being two separate entities than you've missed the boat, and one of the most fundamental teachings of the New Testament just went right over your head. In the eleventh chapter of St. Paul's epistle to the Romans he uses the illustration of an olive tree to make his point. He compares the Church to a tree that has its roots in the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), and its trunk representing the Law and Prophets in the Old Testament. No tree trunk grows upward into infinity. At some point it must sprout branches, and so St. Paul's "olive tree" does the same. These branches make up the modern Church in Jesus Christ. Some branches are Jewish Christians. Many branches are Gentile Christians. Both are precious in the eyes of God. This is the "Israel of God."
What about those Jews who refused to believe in Jesus Christ? St. Paul himself tells us those are the branches that were cut off from the tree - at least for the time being. These branches can however be grafted back in at any time, and indeed he assures us that someday they all will be, in the fullness of time. As far as we're concerned anyway, Christianity (neither Judaism nor some piece of real estate in the Middle East) makes up the new "Israel of God," and it's been this way ever since Christ initiated the New Covenant some 2,000 years ago.
This is how we Christians are to understand ourselves, and the Church, in the context of Israel and the Old Testament. I cannot stress how incredibly important this is, because if it is not understood, the errors that will arise from it will be nothing short of monumental!
Where does this put the Church in relation to the rest of the Jewish people? Simply put, we (the Church) are Zion! We are Israel! That is what it explicitly says in the New Testament and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. To become complete as a Jew is no different than what it takes to become complete as a Gentile. We all must be "grafted in" to Israel - which is The Catholic Church! The path is no different for a Jew than it is for a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or Wiccan. We are all the same in God's eyes now, and the door is open to all of us equally.
It had to be this way you see. Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant, and established a New Covenant that puts us all on equal footing. He didn't destroy the Old Covenant - he FULFILLED it! The Old Covenant still remains, but is fulfilled in Christ, and must be understood fully in the context of Christ.
Now the Gospel was given first to the Jews - that is to the apostles and disciples of Jesus - and then to the rest of the world. It was delivered to the synagogues first, where the apostles would gather a small remnant of faithful Jews who would in turn help them deliver the gospel to the Gentiles. "The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: 'theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh' (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people." - (Nostra Aetate, 4; Second Vatican Council, October 28, 1965) The one and only boasting privilege of being a Jewish convert to the Church is knowing that God came in the flesh as one of your own kinsmen, and he gave the Gospel to your kinsmen first, and they in turn gave it to the world. That is what it means to be a Jewish Christian - a Hebrew Catholic. Yet there is more, St. Paul tells us that the rejection of the gospel by the majority of Jews is actually a blessing to the world, because by doing so, the gospel has been given to the Gentiles, and it has allowed the Church (God's Israel) to expand to the farthest reaches of the earth. That is not the end of the story though, St. Paul gives us a prophetic glimpse of the future of the Jewish people. While the Church gains more Jewish converts in every era, Paul tells us that a day will come when the Jewish people will accept the gospel en mass, thus completing the Church and bringing the final epic of human history to a close. He more than hints that the fullness of Israel (the Church), by the inclusion of all the Jewish people together with the Gentiles, will result in the Second Advent of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the life everlasting! But there is more, the apostle also tells us that there will never be a time in human history when the Church will be vacant of faithful Jewish Christians. He assures us that throughout all of history, God always has a remnant of his original covenant people in the Church. No other race or ethnic group has been given such a promise. It is unique only to the Jews. So we Gentile Christians must never be haughty or nasty toward the Jewish people, whether they are believers or not, for God has promised their tribe more than any of us. One day they shall ALL be our Christian brethren, so we must treat them appropriately, and until that day comes, there will always be a faithful remnant of them in God's Israel - that is The Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church (Israel) has soundly condemned all forms of hatred or bigotry toward people of Jewish heritage and culture. Specifically, some corrupt individuals throughout history have tried to collectively blame ALL Jews for the crucifixion of Christ. This is unfair. The only people responsible for this were the people who actually condemned Jesus Christ to death - meaning the Jewish Sanhedrin of 33 AD. We're talking about a group of no more than 71 men here - and not all of them agreed. Some of them actually rose to Jesus' defense. However, the majority of these 71 men (at least 37 to 50 men) found Christ "guilty" of blasphemy and condemned him to death. These are the only men we should ever hold fully responsible, and all of them have been dead for some 20 centuries now. To hold the Jewish people of today collectively responsible for a crime that was committed by about 50 men some 2,000 years ago is irrational and prejudice. The Catholic Church has categorically condemned such irrational prejudice and specifically teaches: "although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures" and "furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone." - (Nostra Aetate, 4)
A great fallacy has been circulating the globe for the last century and a half. It has particularly taken root in Anglophone (English-speaking) countries. It is the fallacy called Dispensationalism. It is a heresy that not only permeates many Protestant denominations and affiliations, but it has even penetrated the Catholic Church. Yes, there are Dispensationalist groups even among Catholics. The fallacy teaches that God has formed two covenant peoples. There are the Jews of the Old Covenant, and the Church of the New Covenant. The fallacy continues to teach that the modern day Jews of today are still "Israel" and that Israel is a completely separate entity from the Church. So the fallacy goes, God has one plan of salvation for ethnic Israel (the Jews), and another for the Church (primarily Gentiles). As the fallacy of Dispensationalism has played out over the last century and a half, the national State of Israel is incorrectly assumed to be the "true Israel" while the Church is simply considered "the Church" having no real connection. Some Christians use this rationale to blindly support the State of Israel, regardless of it's politics that often harm both Palestinian Christians and Muslims. This ideology is called "Zionism" and it is contrary to the gospel. Jesus, the rightful King of Israel, plainly stated that his Kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36), because if it were his servants would fight. Jesus however, did not instruct his apostles to fight. He instructed them to pray and to teach instead. This teaching upset some of his followers, perhaps even Judas Iscariot (who eventually betrayed him), because they were waiting for years for a Messiah that would violently take back the old Kingdom of Israel from the Romans. They dreamed of a glorious battle of liberation not seen since the time of the Maccabees. Jesus had different plans. The Kingdom of God (Israel) is not about a piece of real estate and who owns it. That is not why God gave them the promised land in the first place. The promised land wasn't about the promised land, it was about providing a nursery suitable for God to raise up his people for a much greater task ahead. That being the task of taking the gospel to the world, and expanding Israel (the Church) to cover the whole planet. It was not to be a kingdom of laws and men, but rather a Realm of Spirit and Truth, founded on Jesus Christ and built on Peter the rock. To focus on real estate in the Middle East is to completely miss the point. The ancient Land of Israel was merely a nursery to raise God's people for something bigger and better. It was a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. The problem with Zionism is that it focuses completely on the land - real estate - and ignores the role of the Church.
Some Christians use the Dispensationalist rationale to seek religious fulfillment in modern Jewish ceremonies and liturgies. This is a very ancient error called "Judaizing," an error strongly condemned by St. Paul. (Most Christians who do this today are Evangelical Protestants who often call themselves "Messianics" or "Messianic Jews.")
The above are the modern manifestations of the fallacy of Dispensationalism, but it is the fallacy itself that is most dangerous, because it denies the Biblical place of the Church in the divine plan of God.
Christians would do well to remember that St. Paul, and the apostles, thought the Greek version of the Jewish scriptures (Septuagint) was just as authoritative as the Hebrew and Aramaic versions. In fact it can be said they even thought it far more relevant to the New Covenant than any other version, as the majority of quoted Old Testament passages in the New Testament come from this Greek version. Christians would do well to remember that the word most commonly used for the Nation of Israel in this Greek Old Testament is "Ecclesia" which means literally "a called out people." It's the exact same word used in the original Greek New Testament for the Church. In the eyes of St. Paul and the apostles, Israel and the Church were one in the same. This was in perfect continuity with the Old Testament as demonstrated in St. Paul's "olive tree" illustration (Romans 11).
Let us remember today why St. Paul was on the road to Damascus some 2,000 years ago. Back then he was known simply as "Saul," a pious Jew who took it upon himself to persecute the Church. He was knocked off his horse and blinded by an apparition of the Lord Jesus Christ - who asked him "Saul, why are you persecuting me?" St. Paul was persecuting the Church, using Jewish laws, in a form of inquisition sanctioned by the scribes and pharisees in Jerusalem. These scribes and pharisees had no recognition of the Church being part of Israel, but the irony was that the reason why they did not recognize Israel in the Church was because the scribes and pharisees were no longer part of Israel - at least not in a spiritual sense. They had cut themselves out, through self-excommunication, by denying Jesus as the promised Messiah. In turn, Jesus revoked the authority of the Jewish leadership, by giving the "keys of the kingdom" to St. Peter (Matthew 16:18-19) effectively making the fisherman the King's prime minister - spokesman for all Israel. St. Peter later went to Rome and founded the Church there where he eventually met up with St. Paul, and together they led the Church there, and ultimately shed their blood for her.
Today a new kind of persecution of the Church is going on, and it's rooted in the fallacy of Dispensationalism. This fallacy leads to the worst form of anti-Catholicism, as is evidenced by the volumes of anti-Catholic writings produced by Dispensationalist authors. While in some cases, Dispensationalism actually causes Christians to support some very unChristian things - such as Zionism and Judaizing for example. Let's not beat around the bush here. Dispensational theology is physically harming Christians! How? This is how it works. Dispensationalism leads Christians to support Zionism. Zionism in turn leads to the blind support of the Nation of Israel and all its policies, regardless of their effect. Many of those policies are directed against the Palestinian people, regardless of their religion, and many of those Palestinian people are Christians. Those Palestinian Christians suffer poverty and physical infirmity because of those policies. The strange irony of our time is that many Christians in the West, (mainly Evangelical Dispensationalists), are blindly supporting a regime that is directly persecuting their Christian brethren (Palestinian Christians) in the very homeland of Jesus Christ, and they do this thinking Jesus somehow approves. The strange irony is that while St. Paul instructed Western Christians to take up collections to help Palestinian Christians during his time, Dispensationalist pastors actively take up collections to support a regime that persecutes them in our time. Dispensationalism is a fallacy that must be resisted, but this can only be effectively done by knowing and understanding the place of the Church as the new "Israel of God." This is what the New Testament teaches. It is not "replacement theology" as some have incorrectly labeled it. This is authentic "olive tree ecclesiology" as understood by the man who invented it - St. Paul himself - and has been historically called by the name "Covenant Theology."
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Each year we deck out our homes in evergreen and lights. A Christmas tree is often displayed with beautiful ornaments. Gifts are exchanged and carols are sung, but do we really know the true origin of Christmas? Most people don't think about it, and among those who do, even fewer actually know the answer to the question. I used to be one of those who thought I knew, that is, until I did a little deeper study on it. Like many people today, I once subscribed to the notion that Christmas was originally a Pagan celebration in pre-Christian Europe. I was under the impression that Christianity commandeered a Pagan celebration and used it to redirect European focus away from Pagan beliefs, and toward the Christian gospel. I couldn't have been more mistaken.
Today, a small but growing number of Evangelical Christians object to the celebration of Christmas. This is because of Christmas' alleged Pagan roots. They'll have nothing to do with Paganism, and so Christmas is out! I wish them the best of luck in this endeavor, because they're gonna need it. Around the world, the Christmas celebration is the most beloved holiday time of the year. Christmas-banning Evangelicals are going to have an uphill fight with their families and children around the holidays. It's easy to say you're gonna ban Christmas in your home, but it's quite another thing when it comes to actually doing it. Sadly, this notion is misplaced, and it's one based on ignorance of the facts.
If I had a nickel for every time I heard somebody say Christmas came from Paganism... well, let's just say I'd have a lot of nickels. There is a partial truth to this, but it is only partial. Indeed, some ancient Pagans did make a practice out of worshiping the sun. This is how the year came to be divided into four seasons: Fall, Winter, Spring and Summer. The time when the earth is closest and farthest from the sun is called a "solstice." The time when the earth is about midway from the sun is called an "equinox." The seasons of summer and winter are marked by a solstice. The seasons of fall and spring are marked by an equinox. Knowing and understanding how these seasons worked was essential to farmers in ancient times, so virtually every culture developed an elaborate method of predicting the start of spring, which was optimal for planting crops. These elaborate systems usually involved study of the stars, and especially the careful observance of the sun's movement across the sky. During the winter months, the sun moves across the sky at a much lower latitude than it does throughout the rest of the year. This lowering of the sun's path was viewed negatively by ancient Pagans, who worshiped the sun, simply because it seemed to be a sign of the sun's weakening or dying power. The fact that most vegetation goes dormant during the cold weather of winter only served to strengthen this notion. The point where the sun moves across the sky at the lowest latitude falls on December 20th through the 23rd, depending on the year. The day when the sun began moving upward in latitude again was marked as the winter solstice, and ancient sun-worshipers commenced a celebration called the "Feast of the Unconquered Sun." This feast usually fell between December 23rd through the 27th, depending on the year, according to the Roman calendar.
Caesar Aurelian (270 to 275 AD) did manage to combine the assortment of Pagan worship practices into one, and marked December 25th for their celebration. The exact reason for his specification of this date is not known. It is peculiar because although it was marked as the "Feast of the Unconquered Sun," it was not observed during the winter solstice (Dec. 20-23), and only landed on the actual day of the feast once every four years (Dec. 25). So why would a Pagan emperor do that? Why celebrate a solstice days after it had passed, and a feast that was only accurate to a fixed date once every four years? The answer may be surprising. Aurelian was known for his fairness toward Christians. He was by no means sympathetic to Christianity, but he did not persecute the faith either. Instead he held Christians under the law equally with Pagans. Aurelian came to power during a troubling time in ancient Rome's history. He was attempting to unify an empire that was falling apart. One of his methods for doing this was to streamline and organize the pantheon of Pagan religions. A practice that most Pagan religions had in common was sun worship. Because of this, Aurelian tried on many occasions to have sun worship declared the official religion of the empire. His attempts failed, but his dating of the "Feast of the Unconquered Sun" on December 25th did manage to stick, and his choice of date was extremely interesting. While most Pagan religions observed December 23rd through 27th as the celebration of this feast, a rapidly growing eastern religion (Christianity) was observing a different feast at about the same time. Was Aurelian trying to trump this growing Christian celebration by fixing the date of the Pagan feast on the same day Christians were using? Or was Aurelian simply trying to reconcile Christians and Pagans by making them celebrate their feasts together. Nobody can say for sure exactly what was going on in Aurelian's mind. The only thing we know is that he tried to standardize a Pagan celebration, that depends on a moving date for meaning and accuracy, to a particular fixed date (Dec. 25) already being used by Christians for some eastern celebration.
So what was it Christians were celebrating back then? In all probability, it was a Christian modified version of Hanukkah. You see, many of the early Christians were Jews, and it's perfectly reasonable to assume that some Jewish celebrations were carried over into Gentile Christian homes. Hanukkah commemorates the great victory of the Jews, under the leadership of Judah Maccabees, over the forces of Antiochus Epiphanes who tried to destroy the Jewish faith back in 168 BC. After years of fierce fighting, Judah Maccabees was finally able to lead his troops into Jerusalem for victory. There, the Jews began the work of purifying and rededicating the Temple, which had been defiled by the occupation of Antiochus. It is told that when Judah’s men were cleaning out the temple, they found just a single jar of holy oil. It was only enough to keep the menorah before the Holy of Holies burning for one day. There wasn't enough time to make more holy oil, so what they had would have to do. Miraculously, this one jar burned for eight days and nights, the exact time needed for re-dedication of the Temple. As a remembrance of this joyous occasion, every year in Jewish homes a special menorah (or candelabra) is lit, consisting of eight candles instead of the traditional seven (together with an additional ‘servant candle’ used to light the rest for a total of nine candles). A new candle is lit on each night of the festival, one candle being lit on the first night, two on the second, and so on. The dead giveaway to the origin of Christmas is found in the liturgical celebration of the Christmas feast in the Catholic Church – the most ancient Christian calendar available. According to the Roman Catholic calendar, the feast of Christmas is exactly eight days long, starting on December 25th and ending on January 1st. It is officially called the "Octave of Christmas." Octave, of course, means "eight days." The end of the octave marks the beginning of the civil new year, according to the Catholic calendar, which is observed by the entire Western world. The Biblical precedence for the early Christian observance of this Jewish feast is found in John 10:22-23 where Jesus observed the "Feast of Dedication" (or Hanukkah), by visiting the Temple in Jerusalem. There he was confronted by the Pharisees who demanded that he reveal his identity as they contended with him over his claim to be the Son of God. The feast of Hanukkah is a time marked by the light of a menorah filling the Temple. From a Christian perspective, this feast could just as easily be observed as a time marked by the Light of God (Jesus Christ) coming into the world. Such was the most ancient celebration of Christmas, (or the "mass of Christ"), an eight day feast, probably marked in the early Church by the lighting of lamps, songs and prayers. Yet the question still remains about December 25th. Why would a Roman caesar try to use it to trump a Jewish-Christian celebration that couldn't have existed on December 25, since Hanukkah only rarely falls on that date? To answer that, we must first look at calendars. The ancient Romans used the Julian calendar, similar to what we use today. The ancient Jews used their own Jewish calendar, still used by Jewish rabbis today. Since the Roman calendar is based on the solar year, and the Jewish calendar is based on the cycles of the moon, the months between them almost never match up perfectly. In fact, they frequently overlap with variation. This is why the date marking the start of Hanukkah always seems to change annually. Though it tends to fluctuate on the Roman calendar from year to year; on the Jewish calendar, the date for Hanukkah is fixed, always falling on the 25th day of the Jewish month of Kislev. The evening of the 24th day marks the beginning of the celebration because on the Jewish calendar, a day always begins at sundown the previous day, as opposed to midnight on the Roman calendar. Thus Kislev 24 is the "eve" of Hanukkah -- a very special night for Jews. How interesting that Christians also mark the "eve" of Christmas as an especially holy night. During this particular period of time (late third-century) the early Church would have been made up of a growing number of Gentiles and a shrinking number of Jews. The traditions of the Jewish Christians remained, but they would have been slowly taken over by Gentile Christians. These Gentile Christians probably would not have continued to use the Jewish calendar, and so the Roman month that most closely corresponds with the Jewish month of Kislev is December. Thus, the eight-day Christian celebration of Hanukkah would have switched from Kislev 25th to December 25th, and that would explain the growing number of Christian Gentiles adopting a “foreign” feast around the same time as the winter solstice. This may explain Caesar Aurelian's attempt to fix the celebration of the winter solstice, and the 'Feast of the Unconquered Sun," to a specific date. It was a date which just happened to be the exact same date used by Christians in their celebration of the Christian Hanukkah. This was intentional, because Caesar Aurelian was attempting to unify the empire by getting everybody celebrating their various feasts on the same day. The point here is that Christians were using the fixed day of December 25th, as their Christian Hanukkah, long before that date was set for a Pagan feast by a Roman caesar. The fixing of the winter solstice, and the 'Feast of the Unconquered Sun,' to an artificial date (Dec. 25), was an attempt to unify the empire and preserve the dying Pagan religions. December 25th was selected as the day because Aurelian knew Christians would not change their own celebration to accommodate an order for some other date (like Dec. 22nd or Dec. 23rd for example). The only people who would obey his decree were Pagans, and so Aurelian ordered that Pagans change the dates of their Pagan celebrations to accommodate the Christians, not vice versa. December 25th was a fixed date for Christian celebration long before the Pagans adopted it, and it remained a Christian celebration long ager the Pagan religions died out.
In the centuries to follow, the Christian Hanukkah came to be known simply as the "Christ Mass" (or Christmas) for the birth of the Christ child, with the first day of the Octave marked by the "Feast of the Nativity" announcing the Light of God (Jesus Christ) entering the world. Some relatively harmless Pagan practices, (such as mistletoe, evergreens and yule logs), did eventually find their way into the Christian celebration. Surprisingly, the Christmas tree wasn't one of them. That actually came from Martin Luther during the Protestant Reformation. Legend has it that Martin Luther admired the custom of Eastern Orthodox Christians, in which they displayed a fruit tree in the early part of December to commemorate the “Feast of Adam and Eve.” He wanted to do something similar in the Protestant Church of Germany. So he brought a fir tree into the chapel and decorated it with candles, placing a nativity beneath it. The candles were designed to represent the star of Bethlehem and the choir of angles that sang “Glory to God in the highest...” Eventually the Eastern Orthodox custom, and the Protestant Lutheran custom, merged together resulting in the decoration of the tree with round ornaments to represent the Orthodox fruit tree, stars and angels to represent the Lutheran concept.
The modern tradition of Santa Claus is a commercialized version of the original Christian observance of the Feast of Saint Nicholas, which usually falls on December 6th. The original Saint Nicholas was a Catholic bishop who lived in the middle 4th century. He is the patron saint of children, and was widely known for his charitable giving. There are several legends associated with that. The merging of this tradition with the myths of elves, reindeer and the north pole came about as the result of commercial marketers in the middle to late 19th century. The image of Santa Clause as a fat old man was part of a marketing campaign by the Coca Cola company in the early 20th century, and was accompanied by department store “Santas” as a gimmick to bring Christmas shoppers into their stores.
Today, Christians can get in touch with the spiritual roots of the Christmas celebration simply by extending their own observances of Christmas out to the full eight days from December 25th through January 1st.
Rather than trying to cram it all into one day, (as the commercialized celebration has taught us over the last 100 years), we can spread things out a little, giving ourselves some breathing room to actually enjoy the season a little bit more. We could light a candle for each day of the octave, similar to the Jewish practice, which is probably where the Christian celebration came from anyway. The reason for the whole celebration is remembering that Christmas marks the coming of the Light (Christ) into the world. That's what the feast is about. I don't know anybody who believes Jesus was really born on December 25th, and that's not the official teaching of the Church either. Regular church attendance should be central to the observance of this Christmas Octave, and the continuation of Christmas songs and prayers throughout the week will also help. Of course the end of the Octave is already well marked for us with the celebration of the new year, and isn't it fitting that an eight-day feast marking the coming of Christ into the world should end with a really big party.
(AP) - The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, issued a statement late Friday noting that the Munich vicar-general who approved the priest's transfer had taken "full responsibility" for the decision, seeking to remove any question about the pontiff's potential responsibility as archbishop at the time.
Victims advocates weren't persuaded.
"We find it extraordinarily hard to believe that Ratzinger didn't reassign the predator, or know about the reassignment," said Barbara Blaine, president and founder of SNAP, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.
The pope, meanwhile, continues to be under fire for a 2001 Vatican letter he sent to all bishops advising them that all cases of sexual abuse of minors must be forwarded to his then-office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and that the cases were to be subject to pontifical secret.
Germany's justice minister, Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, has cited the document as evidence that the Vatican created a "wall of silence" around abuse cases that prevented prosecution. Irish bishops have said the document had been "widely misunderstood" by the bishops themselves to mean they shouldn't go to police. And lawyers for abuse victims in the United States have cited the document in arguing that the Catholic Church tried to obstruct justice.
But canon lawyers insisted Friday that there was nothing in the document that would preclude bishops from fulfilling their moral and civic duties of going to police when confronted with a case of child abuse.
They stressed that the document merely concerned procedures for handling the church trial of an accused priest, and that the secrecy required by Rome for that hearing by no means extended to a ban on reporting such crimes to civil authorities.
"Canon law concerning grave crimes ... doesn't in any way interfere with or diminish the obligations of the faithful to civil laws," said Monsignor Davide Cito, a professor of canon law at Rome's Santa Croce University....
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The pope is innocent, plain and simple. That is the fact. If SNAP really cared about getting justice for the victims they claim to represent, they would go after the abuser and the man who has ALREADY ADMITTED to transferring the pervert priest without Archbishop Ratzinger's knowledge. The problem surrounding Archbishop Ratzinger was similar (but in this case much smaller) to the problem surrounding Cardinal Law and many others, wherein underlings made executive decisions without the bishop's knowledge in a misguided attempt to shield the bishop from scandal and perhaps even protect the abuser in the process.
As for the Vatican document requiring secrecy, any layman with a novice understanding of canon law knows these laws apply to activities WITHIN the CHURCH. They do not extend to civil law. It's not rocket science people. For any member of the clergy to claim that he thought Cardinal Ratzinger's letter extended to anything more than conduct WITHIN the Church is an insult and a lame excuse. It's lame because there is no way any member of the clergy could honestly believe that - unless he's an idiot. It's an insult because he dares to expect others to believe it.
As news unfolds about the growing sex-abuse scandal in the Catholic Church in Europe let us keep in mind the lessons learned from the Catholic sex-abuse scandal in the Anglophone world, particularly in the United States.
First, the media salivates over things like this, and frequently uses bad news for selfish reasons. They're notorious for hyping and pumping these stories to increase their ratings. Sex sells, as they say in the advertising world, and it's no different in the news media. Sexual scandals mean money - lots of money - for those who report them, and it is in their interest to make the scandal appear as large as possible, and as far-reaching as possible, because that's what sells newspapers and gets people to watch news broadcasts. It's a money thing and we should not forget that. This is why you will almost never hear or read about the actual statistics of those involved in sex-abuse scandals, because if the actual ratio were reported it would quickly be discovered that sex-abuse is actually much higher in non-religious institutions.
Second, once the dust settles, the media hype is over, and the damage to public image is done, the actual numerical statistics will start to come in. What they will find in Europe will probably be similar to what was found in the United States and the rest of the Anglophone world. The actual number of sex-abusing perverts (and those who protect them) is around 5% or less of all clerics in the Church. This means two things. The statistical number of perverts in the Church is almost half of the statistical number found in other public service sectors. For example, the statistical number of perverts in the United States public school systems is around 10%. The same goes for the daycare industry as well as public clubs such as boyscouts and various sports. So in actuality, while there is always room for improvement, the Church is actually doing a better job filtering out perverts than the secular world. Don't expect to hear this reported by the news media though. That wouldn't sell many papers. The second thing this means, and we must never forget this, if about 5% or less of the clergy are involved in this disgusting activity, then that simultaneously means 95% or more of the clergy are not involved in it. These are your good priests, bishops and clerics of all sorts who are doing their jobs correctly. They cannot be made to suffer for the crimes of the tiny minority. Statistically speaking there is at the very least a 95% chance that the average parish priest is a good priest. That's the story typically lost in these scandals.
Third, while it is true the Church needs to do a lot more to filter out the perverts and report them once they're known, the same could be said of any religious organization, and even more so for non-religious organizations.
Fourth and finally, these types of scandals tend to bring out the worst kinds of anti-Catholics. First you have the opportunists. These are those who see an opportunity to make some easy money. They may be alleged abuse victims, or lawyers working on their behalf, or organizations claiming to represent their interests. Then of course there are those who would like to use the government to persecute the Church by stripping her of her rights. Then finally there are those who already hate the Church, for one reason or another, and will endlessly use this latest scandal in their arsenal of negative propaganda to dish out against Catholics at every opportunity they get.
What's important to remember are the facts. Sexual abuse is a problem that effects all of western civilization, not just the Church. This includes cover-up. Both sex-abuse and cover-up are actually much higher in non-religious institutions, especially the public schools. Sorry that's just a statistical FACT. Look it up. People can try to scapegoat the Catholic Church all they want, and of course they will, because it's been going on ever since the Church's founder (Jesus Christ) was scapegoated for every social problem that plagued Judea two-thousand years ago. It's human nature to scapegoat, but it does nothing to solve the underlying problem. What's important for Catholics to remember is that sex-abuse and cover-up is a civilization wide social problem. It affects all social institutions of which the Church is no exception. Simultaneously the Church is NOT the source of the problem either. It's a problem that all institutions must look into, and while the Church does tend to do a better job filtering out the perverts than non-religious institutions, everyone needs to work harder.
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Fast forward the above YouTube clip to 2:30 minutes and watch it until you get to about 3:50 minutes. There is a section in here that's of particular interest to us. Here Michael Moore trounces Sean Hannity on the issue of socialism v. capitalism. To set the stage, both men are "Roman Catholics" - believe it or not. They both attend mass regularly, and they both claim to subscribe to the teachings of the Church. Now we could debate their fidelity to Church teaching from now until kingdom come, but that doesn't serve our purpose here. What does serve our purpose is the observation that neither men have any clue what the Scriptures teach about economics and property rights. Both men appear to possess a small piece of the picture, and admittedly, Michael Moore is far more skilled at defending his. Now I've watched, and listen to, both men for a while. I'm not too particularly impressed with either one. Hannity, though having gone through divinity school, has always been a huge disappointment. I think he lost a lot of credibility in my book a few years back when the 'Passion of the Christ' movie came out, and the man could not adequately explain on air the reason and message behind the atoning suffering and death of Jesus Christ, and this from a man who attended divinity school! So I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that he was completely unable to defend a simple Church teaching about economics and property rights. Michael Moore has been at least as disappointing as Sean Hannity, if not more so. Like many who subscribe to the heretical view of "Liberation Theology" (Christian Socialism), Moore is adept at pointing out sections of Scriptures that exhort compassion toward the poor. However, he conveniently leaves out some very important details.
Now 'The Catholic Knight' is not a theology major. I never went to divinity school or seminary. That however, does not make me incompetent as a Christian. I can make some simple observations of Scripture and Church teaching, as can anyone with at least half a brain, and point them out in a public setting like this blog.
Michael Moore, like many "Christian" socialists, is very adept at pointing out passages of Scripture that exhort compassion for the poor, and judgement for the rich who fail to help them. This is all well and good. What he fails to point out is context. For the sake of brevity I will not bother to indulge in these multiple passages, since I'm sure our Christian socialist friends can point them out ad nauseum. Instead I'll focus on two passages which give us a universal context in which to place all Scripture references on the subject. They both come from the Book of Acts...
Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. - Acts 2:43-45 NIV
----------------
Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.
Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.”
When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him. - Acts 5:1-6 NIV
They slaying of Ananias and Sapphira is a miracle of terror which should strike fear and trembling into the heart of every Christian believer. The point of the story has more to do with authority than anything else. You see Ananias and Sapphira were lying to the apostles, and in doing so they were lying to the Church, and ultimately to God. The point of the story is the Church occupies God's position of authority on earth. Lying to the Church is no different than lying to God himself. Ananias and Sapphira have been enshrined in Scripture as perpetual examples of what not to do. Don't lie to the Church!
Now having dealt with the reason why these two were slain, let's deal with the context. The first passage from Acts 2 deals with the habits of the very first Christians. They were very communal, in the sense that they shared everything. It was the love of Christ that compelled them to do this, and it was their right to do so if they so desired. However, by the time we get to Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5, we discover something else about the early Church. After having lied about donating all of their possessions, St. Peter confronts Ananias about this, pointing out to him that it was certainly within his right as a Christian to retain his property and give only as he saw fit. Regarding Ananias' property, Peter asked: "Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?" In other words, you had the right to do with it as you pleased. Nobody was forcing you to give it all to the Church. So why didn't you just give what you saw fit? Why did you LIE and tell us you are giving the full amount? In this Peter is pointing out a fundamental human right that is acknowledged by the Church. It is the right to own property, buy and sell it, make a reasonable profit, and do with it as you please. The context of Christian communal living is the right to not participate, which is what makes the communal living of the first Christians so remarkable. They didn't have to do it. There was no sin in retaining their property and just giving a small donation to the Church. In spite of this however, the first Christians chose to give up everything! And that is what makes them so remarkable. If we fail to acknowledge their Christian right to keep their property for themselves, we diminish their sacrifice, and we damage their testimony.
From this early communal living arose the Christian concept of monasticism. Throughout the ages, Christians have voluntarily engaged in this lifestyle. It was (and still is) their choice, and if we say it was (or is) anything other than a choice, a Christian "duty" for example, we lessen their sacrifice. Herein we have the quintessential difference between Social Justice and Socialism.
In contrast, Socialism is a form of Marxism, and it arises from the misguided utopian notion that if everybody were forced by the government to sacrifice most of what they have, or all of what they have, society would be more "fair" and "just." Typically the needs of the poor are promoted as the reason for socialism. In other words, instead of voluntarily sacrificing your own property for the sake of the poor out of a sense of compassion and selfless charity, you should be FORCED by the government to surrender it against your will.
Marxism, in all it's forms (including communism, socialism, fascism and liberalism) has been condemned by the Catholic Church. This is especially true for so-called "Liberation Theology" or Christian Socialism. The problem with these ideologies is their reliance on government force to accomplish a job that is reserved for the Holy Spirit alone. Christians are supposed to be convicted by the Holy Spirit of God to feel compassion for their fellow man, and thus be compelled to sacrifice their own property (as they see fit) to assist those in need. There is absolutely nothing in Biblical Scripture, nor in the teachings of the Catholic Church (thus nothing in the teachings of Jesus Christ), which suggests that people (Christian or otherwise) should be FORCED by the government, against their will, to give part (or all) of their property to assist their fellow man. To force this action is to deprive the Holy Spirit of his job, and effectively put government in the place of God. It also deprives Christians of their role in the world, effectively minimizing the ministry of the Church to a mere academic role.
Now having said all that, the Church does not subscribe to a laissez-faire approach to capitalism either. The problem with this again goes back to property rights. Pure and unregulated capitalism can become just as oppressive as socialism because once again, through unbridled market forces, it can deny people of basic property rights. A perfect example of this is the minimum wage. When employers refuse to pay their employees at least a basic standard, they can effectively conspire together to keep wages low, as they have in the past, resulting in a lower social-economic class of citizens who are economically enslaved by their employers. Another example is free-market trading practices, which effectively allow the rich and powerful to trade property (flash trading) at speeds beyond the reach of middle class citizens. Monopolies are another example, wherein competent middle class citizens are denied the right to commercial property due to market practices that unfairly undercut their competition for the purpose of driving all competitors out of business and maintaining the monopoly. The list goes on and on, but you get the idea. The Church would not even bother to address such things, if it didn't believe that free-enterprise property rights are the basis of economic social justice.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church...
2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with "communism" or "socialism." She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of "capitalism," individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market." Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.
So the moral of the story is that Michael Moore and Sean Hannity are both wrong. Each of these so-called "Catholics" subscribes to an ideology the Catholic Church opposes. Moore is a socialist, and the Church has condemned this philosophy by name, and historically has even gone so far as to excommunicate those who espouse this ideology as "Christian." (Better be careful Michael!) On the other hand Sean Hannity also subscribes to an ideology of "libertarian capitalism," a type of laissez-faire that goes far beyond what the Church approves. Both ideologies oppress the poor when taken to their logical conclusion, and both ideologies have historical examples where this is exactly the case. Both men are ideologues, and neither one of them makes a case for authentic Catholic Social Justice. Moore abuses Church teaching, and Hannity has no idea how to defend it.
