SURPRISE! Halloween Is Not Pagan After All !!!

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: So go ahead and dress those kids up and send them out for some fun. Of course if they're young you'll want to make sure they have some adult supervision. I would also recommend staying clear of anything that glorifies violence or the occult. That's the real problem with Halloween. Popular (Secular) culture has tried to ruin it, just like Christmas, by getting the focus onto anything other than what it's supposed to be about. By glorifying violence and the occult, Halloween has turned into something nasty. It doesn't have to be. For my kids, it's a night of dress up and make believe. My daughter usually goes as a princess or animal character. My son like superheros and Star Wars characters. One time my son asked if he could go as a skeleton, and I said "no" because Halloween is a celebration of life, and we don't want to use it to glorify death. So he decided to be Iron Man instead. When my daughter asked if she could dress up as a witch, again I said "no" because witchcraft (Wicca) is an occult religion, and we don't honor such things. She decided to go as a cat instead. Now maybe I'm being a bit strict here, but I think it's a fair adjustment. The kids get to celebrate the occasion, and the family doesn't have to worry about sending the wrong kind of message. These are just some personal family rules, but I imagine some variation of them would probably serve most Catholic families well. Some Catholic families might be okay with skeletons and witches, provided they are more cute than scary or occult.

I am a bit mortified at the whole "scary" business during Halloween. For heaven's sake, this is supposed to be a childrens' celebration! Why on earth would you put something on that would scare the pants off them and then go out in public!?! Honestly parents, we need to do a better job on this. If your kid is going out looking like death on a stick, maybe it's time to have a sit down talk with him/her.

The name "Halloween" comes from Old English. It began with the English reference to All Saints Day (November 1st) on the Catholic calendar. The English referred to the All Saints as "All Hallows." You've heard the term before right? "Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name..." It's just another way of saying "holy" or "sanctified." All Saints Day (November 1st) is the day on the liturgical calendar when we honor all those who have died in Christ and now LIVE in heaven. It's a celebration of eternal life! The night before All Saints Day is All Saints Evening, but the English would refer to it as "All Hallows Even." Gradually, over time, the name morphed into "Hallow'even" and eventually into "Halloween." A similar thing happened with the word Christmas, which is an abbreviation of the term "Christ's Mass" in reference to liturgical celebrations for the "Feast of the Holy Nativity" observed on December 25th in the Western Christian calendar.

Now the historic customs surrounding Halloween come from various sources, and most of them involve immigrants to the United States and there cultural distinctions in dealing with the celebration of All Saints Day (Nov. 1st) and All Souls Day (Nov. 2nd).  Most of what we do today comes from the Irish and the French. Trick-or-treat actually evolved from a sad prank English Protestants would play on English Catholics on Guy Fawkes Day (Nov. 5th).  Americans simply bumped the date back to October 31st, and turned it into something fun for everyone.  In recent years it has become in vogue for some Evangelical Christians to boycott Halloween. This is misguided and unnecessary. The day (and the night) belongs to us. It is our celebration - a Christian celebration - or at least it's supposed to be. Ancient Pagans knew nothing of Halloween or the modern customs we have associated with it. As Christians, it is not our place to curse the darkness, but rather shine a light. It's time to change the spirit of Halloween back to something more in tune with our Christian heritage. Instead of all the creepy stuff, decorate your home in cheerful and playful items that celebrate life. Typically in our home, we put out happy face jack-o-lanterns with cheerful scarecrows along with decor appropriate for harvest season.

Of course we understand that wherever you go, we're going to see somebody who's made a haunted house or some other macabre display. On that we just use our best judgment. If it looks ridiculously violent or occult, we just stay clear and move on to the next place. We don't scare our children with haunted houses or frighten them with scary movies. In fact, we generally don't watch scary movies in our home anyway.

What's important is that our children understand the meaning behind all of this. We are celebrating life, particularly eternal life with God, and in doing so we are honoring all those who have gone into heaven before us. Thus, we like to make sure they go to mass the following day - All Saints Day.

(BeliefNet) - We’ve all heard the allegations: Halloween is a pagan rite dating back to some pre-Christian festival among the Celtic Druids that escaped church suppression. Even today modern pagans and witches continue to celebrate this ancient festival. If you let your kids go trick-or-treating, they will be worshiping the devil and pagan gods.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The origins of Halloween are, in fact, very Christian and rather American. Halloween falls on October 31 because of a pope, and its observances are the result of medieval Catholic piety...

read full story here

Libertarian Economics Is Anti-Christian

G.K. Chesterton

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The great Anglo-Catholic convert to Rome, G. K. Chesterton, said the following about economics and politics. "The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."

Karl Marx

With that in mind I would like to turn our attention to economics. There are basically two schools of economics at work in the modern world. The first comes to us from Karl Marx in the form of Socialism, and we are all too familiar with the rabid Christophobia associated with that. How many millions of Christians died under the oppression of forced Socialist (i.e. Communist and Fascist) regimes during the 20th century? I suppose only God knows. Socialism is a total failure economically.  It has raped the taxpayers of every country it's influenced.  While it simultaneously drained their national treasuries to nothing, leaving them only with debt.  In America we see these very same ideas embraced by progressive universities, the entertainment industry and the Democratic Party.  During the 20th century, socialist policies enacted in the United States eventually brought the world's last remaining superpower to it's knees economically.  The progressive Democrat government put in place in 2008 has only exacerbated the problem.  As of 2010, over 56% of the U.S. federal budget was spent on "entitlement" programs, which are essentially socialist ponzi schemes, while the government ran a federal deficit of $1.17 trillion to pay for them.  The U.S. now faces a debt crisis that threatens to undermine it's very sovereignty.  So as the world ever so slowly begins to understand the failures of Marx, it gradually turns to another guru of economic despair - Ludwig Von Mises.

Ludwig Von Mises

Ludwig Von Mises was the founder of the Austro-Libertarian school of economics. The Von Mises school of thought advocates minimal to zero government intervention in economics with maximum free trade on a global level. In America, it's an idea that is frequently promoted on conservative talk radio, and there are many advocates within the Republican Party. The Libertarian Party is practically based on it. Many see it as the exact opposite of Socialism, and therefore the cure to what ails us in this post-Socialist environment. Sadly, there are problems, and this is not the "fix" many are hoping for.  Austro-Libertarian policies are what gave us NAFTA and GATT.  These are free trade deals that allow American corporations to outsource their workforce, making products in other countries for a fraction of the cost, then selling them back to Americans with no tariffs to lower their profit.  It puts Americans out of work, and rewards companies for hiring virtual "slave labor" overseas.

The only Christian voice that has truly tackled the issue of economics in the modern world is that of the Catholic Church. From the social encyclicals of the popes, we see that what the Church advocates is something akin to what G. K. Chesterton called "Distributism." In today's terminology, it might better be described as "Micro-Capitalism." Perhaps the term "Distributed-Capitalism" may be another way of putting it. By this is meant the free market. But the market is not truly "free" if it is dominated by a handful of men who have cornered it with monopolies. In this sense, the government truly does have a role in economics in the form of protecting the free market from those few powerful businesses that would seek to crush the free market trade of smaller businesses. For the most widely distributed ownership of property, via legitimate free market trade at a local level, is the most sure safeguard against widespread poverty and dependency. It is also the most consistent producer of charity for the poor among individuals. The problem with Austro-Libertarian economics is that a locally controlled market is lost to international free traders and cutthroat competition coming from the "big box" retail outlets.

Christopher A. Ferrara

Thomas E. Woods

To make matters worse however, the founder of this school of thought was just as Anti-Catholic and Christophobic as the father of Socialism - Karl Marx himself. Mises, like so many of his followers today, failed to understand the nuance of Catholic Social Doctrine, describing it as authoritarian in nature, and even going so far as to accuse the Catholic Church of embracing Socialism for it's own self interest.  While it is fair to say that both Catholic and Protestant individuals have in the past abused Church social teaching for Socialist ends, it is not true to say that the Church itself in any way supports Socialism.  In fact, the Holy See has a reputation of excommunicating Socialists masquerading as theologians, and has actually condemned all forms of collectivism in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  This is a "straw-man" logical fallacy, used by Mises to justify his own philosophy and malign Catholic Social Doctrine.  The following are excerpts from the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. They were compiled as a reference for a heated exchange between Christopher A. Ferrara, author and President of the American Catholic Lawyers Association, and respected historian Dr. Thomas E. Woods, both practicing Catholics.  Dr. Woods, a scholar and author, has sided with the Von Mises perspective on economics and has written some articles in defense of it.  While Mr. Ferrara has faithfully held to the traditional Catholic perspective of the popes. In this open written exchange, Ferrara takes Woods to task on his departure from the traditional Catholic understanding of social teaching and calls upon him to reconsider his views. Drawing from the Ludwig Von Mises Institute's website as a source, Ferrara demonstrates the blatantly anti-Catholic and Christophobic position of Mises and his Austro-Libertarian school of economics.

The source of this text (and accompanying open letter) can be found HERE.

LUDWIG VON MISES

VERSUS

CHRIST, THE GOSPEL AND THE CHURCH

From Chapter 29 of Socialism

http://mises.org/books/socialism/part4_ch29.aspx

1. Jesus’ preaching of a Kingdom to come destroys all social ties:

The expectation of God’s own reorganization when the time came and the exclusive transfer of all action and thought to the future Kingdom of God, made Jesus’s teaching utterly negative. He rejects everything that exists without offering anything to replace it. He arrives at dissolving all existing social ties….

2. Jesus is like the Bolshevists:

…His zeal in destroying social ties knows no limits. The motive force behind the purity and power of this complete negation is ecstatic inspiration and enthusiastic hope of a new world. Hence his passionate attack upon everything that exists. Everything may be destroyed because God in His omnipotence will rebuild the future order. No need to scrutinize whether anything can be carried over from the old to the new order, because this new order will arise without human aid. It demands therefore from its adherents no system of ethics, no particular conduct in any positive direction. Faith and faith alone, hope, expectation—that is all he needs. He need contribute nothing to the reconstruction of the future, this God Himself has provided for. The clearest modern parallel to the attitude of complete negation of primitive Christianity is Bolshevism. The Bolshevists, too, wish to destroy everything that exists because they regard it as hopelessly bad. But they have in mind ideas, indefinite and contradictory though they may be, of the future social order. They demand not only that their followers shall destroy all that is, but also that they pursue a definite line of conduct leading towards the future Kingdom of which they have dreamt. Jesus teaching in this respect, on the other hand, is merely negation.

3. Jesus despises the rich, inciting the world to violence against them and their property, and His teaching has borne “evil seed”:

One thing of course is clear, and no skilful interpretation can obscure it. Jesus’ words are full of resentment against the rich, and the Apostles are no meeker in this respect. The Rich Man is condemned because he is rich, the Beggar praised because he is poor. The only reason why Jesus does not declare war against the rich and preach revenge on them is that God has said: “Revenge is mine.”

In God’s Kingdom the poor shall be rich, but the rich shall be made to suffer. Later revisers have tried to soften the words of Christ against the rich, of which the most complete and powerful version is found in the Gospel of Luke, but there is quite enough left to support those who incite the world to hatred of the rich, revenge, murder and arson. Up to the time of modern Socialism no movement against private poverty which has arisen in the Christian world has failed to seek authority in Jesus, the Apostles, and the Christian Fathers, not to mention those who, like Tolstoy, made the Gospel resentment against the rich the very heart and soul of their teaching.

This is a case in which the Redeemer’s words bore evil seed. More harm has been done, and more blood shed, on account of them than by the persecution of heretics and the burning of witches. They have always rendered the Church defenseless against all movements which aim at destroying human society….

4. The Church, not Enlightenment liberalism, cleared the way for Socialism:

…. It would be foolish to maintain that Enlightenment, by undermining the religious feeling of the masses, had cleared the way for Socialism. On the contrary, it is the resistance which the Church has offered to the spread of liberal ideas which has prepared the soil for the destructive resentment of modern socialist thought. Not only has the Church done nothing to extinguish the fire, it has even blown upon the embers….

5. Christian doctrine is destructive of society, prohibits concern for sustenance and work, preaches hatred of the family, and even endorses castration:

…. So it is that Christian doctrine, once separated from the context in which Christ preached it—expectation of the imminent Kingdom of God—can be extremely destructive. Never and nowhere can a system of social ethics embracing social co-operation be built up on a doctrine which prohibits any concern for sustenance, and work, while it expresses fierce resentment against the rich, preaches hatred of the family, and advocates voluntary castration.

6. The Gospel played no part in the building of Western civilization:

The cultural achievements of the Church in its centuries of development are the work of the Church, not of Christianity. It is an open question how much of this work is due to the civilization inherited from the Roman state and how much to the idea of Christian love completely transformed under the influence of the Stoics and other ancient philosophers. The social ethics of Jesus have no part in this cultural development. The Church's achievement in this case was to render them harmless, but always only for a limited period of time….

7. Because it opposes liberalism, the Church is an enemy of society:

The fate of Civilization is involved. For it is not as if the resistance of the Church to liberal ideas was harmless. The Church is such a tremendous power that its enmity to the forces which bring society into existence would be enough to break our whole culture into fragments. In the last decades we have witnessed with horror its terrible transformation into an enemy of society. For the Church, Catholic as well as Protestant, is not the least of the factors responsible for the prevalence of destructive ideals in the world today…

8. Liberalism is superior to Christianity and has restored humanity by overthrowing the Church, which is why the Church hates it:

Historically it is easy to understand the dislike which the Church has shown for economic liberty and political Liberalism in any form. Liberalism is the flower of that rational enlightenment which dealt a deathblow to the regime of the old Church and from which modern historical criticism has sprung. It was Liberalism that undermined the power of the classes that had for centuries been closely bound up with the Church. It transformed the world more than Christianity had ever done. It restored humanity to the world and to life. It awakened forces which shook the foundations of the inert traditionalism on which Church and creed rested. The new outlook caused the Church great uneasiness, and it has not yet adjusted itself to even the externals of the modern epoch.

9. Christianity has become a religion of hate, seeking to destroy the “wonderful new world” of liberalism:

True, the priests in Catholic countries sprinkle holy water on newly laid railways and dynamos of new power stations, but the professed Christian still shudders inwardly at the workings of a civilization which his faith cannot grasp. The Church strongly resented modernity and the modern spirit. What wonder, then, that it allied itself with those whom resentment had driven to wish for the break-up of this wonderful new world, and feverishly explored its well-stocked arsenal for the means to denounce the earthly struggle for work and wealth. The religion which called itself the religion of love became a religion of hatred in a world that seemed ripe for happiness. Any would-be destroyers of the modern social order could count on finding a champion in Christianity.

10. Because they follow the Gospel and have not been “inoculated” with liberal philosophy, priests and monks are the enemies of society:

Priests and monks who practiced true Christian charity, ministered and taught in hospitals and prisons and knew all there was to know about suffering and sinning humanity—these were the first to be ensnared by the new gospel of social destruction. Only a firm grasp of liberal philosophy could have inoculated them against the infectious resentment which raged among their protégés and was justified by the Gospels. As it was, they became dangerous enemies of society. From the work of charity sprang hatred of society.

11. The Church and the Papacy seek to enslave men by depriving them of reason and the spiritual freedom of capitalism:

The Church knows that it cannot win unless it can seal the fount from which its opponent continues to draw inspiration. As long as rationalism and the spiritual freedom of the individual are maintained in economic life, the Church will never succeed in fettering thought and shepherding the intellect in the desired direction. To do this it would first have to obtain supremacy over all human activity. Therefore it cannot rest content to live as a free Church in a free state [the very slogan of Cavour, the great Masonic enemy of the Church and Blessed Pius IX - CAF]; it must seek to dominate that state. The Papacy of Rome and the Protestant national churches both fight for such dominion as would enable them to order all things temporal according to their ideals. The Church can tolerate no other spiritual power. Every independent spiritual power is a menace to it, a menace which increases in strength as the rationalization of life progresses.

12. Christianity needs socialism in order to maintain theocracy against the threat of “independent production”:

Now independent production does not tolerate any spiritual over-lordship. In our day, dominion over the mind can only be obtained through the control of production. All Churches have long been dimly aware of this, but it was first made clear to them when the socialist idea, rising from an independent source, made itself felt as a powerful and rapidly growing force. It then dawned upon the Churches that theocracy is only possible in a socialist community.

13. The Church must “transform” itself by embracing capitalism rather than papal teaching, such as that of Pius XI:

If the Roman Church is to find any way out of the crisis into which nationalism has brought it, then it must be thoroughly transformed. It may be that this transformation and reformation will lead to its unconditional acceptance of the indispensability of private ownership in the means of production. At present it is still far from this, as witness the recent encyclical Quadragesimo anno.

Palestine Is Not Israel's "Promised Land"

(CNN) -- Roman Catholic bishops for the Middle East concluded a two-week conference with a call for the international community, especially the United Nations, to work "to put an end to the occupation" of Palestinian territories.

"The Palestinian people will thus have an independent and sovereign homeland where they can live with dignity and security," the group said in a statement Saturday at the end of a meeting headed by Pope Benedict XVI. "The State of Israel will be able to enjoy peace and security within their internationally recognized borders.

"The Holy City of Jerusalem will be able to acquire its proper status, which respects its particular character, its holiness and the religious patrimony of the three religions: Jewish, Christian and Muslim. We hope that the two-state-solution might become a reality and not a dream only."

read full story here

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: There has been a lot of hysteria surrounding the statements of some Catholic prelates after the Vatican's holy synod on the Middle East. This mainly comes from Israelis and Evangelical Zionists in the United States. While I doubt my own comments will clear the air for any of these people, it may help some others confused by the whole situation.

Zionism is not the same as Judaism. While Judaism is a religion, Zionism is a political philosophy based on false religious notions. Zionism is not attached exclusively to the Jewish religion either. In fact, there are more Christian Zionists than there are Jewish Zionists. This is because Zionism can come from either bad Jewish theology or bad Christian theology. Under bad Jewish theology, Jews are led to believe their dreams of restoring their Biblical ancestral homeland can be accomplished through modern Secular politics without the intervention of the promised Messiah. Many religious Jews object to this, pointing out that their traditions have always stated the promised Messiah must come first, then comes the return to Zion (promised land). Under bad Christian theology, many Evangelicals are led to believe the restoration of the State of Israel is a prophetic sign that God has decided to restore the ancient Biblical kingdom and it is to be supported by Christians without condition in order to gain the favor of Christ. Of course orthodox Christian theologians have pointed out for decades the first advent of Christ altered the traditional nature of God's covenant with Israel, making the Church into the new "Israel of God" and eliminating the separation between Jews and Gentiles. A proper understanding of Biblical prophecy points to the destruction of the ancient Kingdom of Israel, and the demolition of the Second Temple back in 70 AD, as the real prophetic event that defines the last 2,000 years. Christ is the new temple, and the Church is the new Israel. Therefore any attempt to restore the ancient Biblical "Kingdom of Israel" on some real estate in the Middle East is misguided and potentially blasphemous.

All that being said, Zionism (both in it's Jewish and Christian brand) became the dominate political force in the Middle East over the latter half of the 20th century. It came to be countered only by Islamic Fundamentalism which is the source of many of our problems with the Muslim world today. As of today, October 26th 2010, the State of Israel exists, and has become the homeland for millions of Jews (both religious and secular) as well as many Christians and Muslims. It is what it is, for better or worse, and these people have lived there now for almost three generations. They must be respected in their homes and persons. They are entitled to live in peace, just as any other people. While the modern State of Israel is a secular democracy (not a Biblical kingdom), and it promotes some policies that are anti-Christian in nature, it nevertheless has brought a higher standard of living to the Middle East as well as some religious freedoms unheard of in this region for nearly a thousand years. For this the Israelis should be commended.

On the other side of the coin, the State of Israel has a supremacist side that is a threat not only to the indigenous people of the region, but also it's own survival. The Israeli government has at times been influenced by Zionist fundamentalism which seeks to expand Israeli territory into the regions commonly known as Gaza and the West Bank, as well as make Jerusalem the "eternal capital of Israel," and rebuild the ancient Jewish Temple on the site where it once stood. This site is suspected to be just to the side of where the Muslim Dome of the Rock now stands. To accomplish these goals, Zionist Fundamentalists build Jewish settlements in disputed Palestinian territory with the consent of the Israeli government and often backed by Christian Zionists in the United States. They have also formed a society called the "Temple Mount Faithful" which has trained a small army of men to serve as Jewish priests in a new rebuilt temple. They have also restored all the sacred objects and vestments of the ancient Jewish priesthood. These groups also pressure the Israeli government to give them control of a portion of the Temple Mount next to where the Dome of the Rock now stands. Meanwhile they have already succeeded in getting the Israeli government to declare Jerusalem as it's capital, even though most foreign governments do not recognize this and place their embassies in Tel Aviv instead. It is this sort of influence behind the recent legislation in Israel that would force all immigrants in Israel to sign an allegiance to Israel as an exclusively "Jewish state."

What the Western World, particularly the United States, has failed to see is that Israel is a multi-religious country. Granted, most Israelis identify themselves as "Jews," but only a small percentage actually practice Judaism. A good number of those "Jews" are completely Secular, respecting no religion at all. Some of them are Buddhists and New Agers. Still others practice an occult variation of Judaism called Kabbalah. There are a good number of Christians in Israel, of various different denominations, as well as many Muslim Israelis. There are even Israeli Mormons! who are actually working to build a Mormon temple there someday. To say Israel is an exclusively "Jewish" state has no basis in reality unless one were to make it as a political statement exclusively. If it's political, than it's Zionism not Judaism.

What the Western World, particularly the United States, has also failed to see is that the regions specifically referred to as Palestine are also multi-religious. While the vast majority are Arab Muslims, there is also a sizable Arab Christian population. These Christians are generally non-political and have nothing to do with the militant actions often associated with Palestinian advocates, but they nevertheless suffer the penalties of simply being Palestinians under the heel of Israeli occupation. Many Evangelical Christians in the United States are indifferent toward the plight of their Christian brethren in Palestine. Many would take the position that it's better for Christians to leave Palestine than remain in a disputed area that "rightfully belongs to the Israelis." This is in spite of Christian justice, which unequivocally calls for the peace and respect for all indigenous people in Palestine as well as Israel, regardless of their religious persuasion.

It is in this backdrop the Vatican assembled the holy synod on the Middle East, presided over by Pope Benedict XVI. From this synod came a voice of clarity. The State of Israel, while deserving peace and security, is not entitled to unlimited expansion into the territories commonly known as Palestine, and that Christian justice demands the indigenous people of Palestine are themselves entitled to their own homeland, a sovereign state with real borders and real autonomy.

The implication of this, which has caused so much controversy, is the assertion that there is no Biblical argument, neither Jewish Zionist nor Christian Zionist, that can rightfully justify the immoral and Antichrist notion of Israeli supremacy over the Palestinian territories. The State of Israel exists, for better or worse, and the people of Israel are human beings deserving respect and peace. We must all learn to live with that, especially the Arab peoples. However, that does not give the Israelis the right to occupy conquered territories for decades, and oppress the people that live therein. The Palestinians are people too, deserving respect and peace, and so for better or worse, Christian justice mandates that it is time to create a sovereign and autonomous Palestinian State alongside Israel.

Catholics Are Needed At the TEA Parties

If These Sisters Can Show Up To A TEA Party - So Can YOU!

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: I've blogged on this before, and I'll blog on it again. Faithful orthodox Catholics are needed at the TEA Parties. As Catholic Americans it is incumbent upon us to show up in our nation's time of need. America is in peril, and the very survival of our republic is at stake. If you won't do this for yourself, than at least do it for your children. For if we don't act now, our children will pay an unimaginable price as America falls. The TEA Parties are a grassroots movement, (not a political party), that protests the expansion of big government, wasteful deficit spending and oppressive taxation on the middle class. They are family-friendly events, which usually involve mothers and children, as well as their fathers and elders. Their intention is good, but they lack clear direction. The problem with the TEA Parties is lack of participation by faithful practicing Catholics who are vocal about orthodox Catholic Social Teaching. The National Review Institute and McLaughlin & Associates conducted a survey of the TEA Parties and found that only 28% of participants are Catholic in comparison to some 60% Protestant. That needs to change. When you consider the strong social teachings of the Catholic Church, and the nature of the TEA Party rallies, there is no excuse for Catholics to make up any less than 35%-40% of the TEA Party participants.

Thus the TEA Parties have lacked a clear direction of reform. Tea Party demonstrators have thus far relied on the message of the nation's founding fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin. That's nice to a certain extent, but these men are not necessarily the kind of role models we want our children to emulate. Their message of limited government was mixed with Masonic Deism and civil disobedience. We Catholics are called to a much higher standard, and a good number of Evangelical Christians would agree.

The message of the TEA Parties is a good one, but it's not clear. It needs to be tweaked just a little, to bring people back to a proper understanding of limited government from a truly Christian perspective. Therefore, I'm calling upon all of my readers to show up at the next TEA Party in your area with a large bright yellow home-made sign with one single word written on it. That word in capital letters should read...

S U B S I D I A R I T Y

Have your sign in one hand, and rosary in the other, then stand where everyone can see it and pray. With any luck, others will soon join you. You might want to bring some printed copies of this text, should anyone ask what "subsidiarity" means. That way you can easily just hand it to them. Simply click here and then print 25 to 50 copies for the event. Of course, if you have a good understanding of subsidiarity, you could always just explain it yourself.

Bring the family. Teach your children what real Christian solidarity is, the kind advocated by Pope John Paul II. Come on! Do it for your kids! It's their future we're fighting for.

If you don't know when or where the next TEA Party in your area is going to be, visit this link here and sign up for email updates. Please share this article with others by using the "share" icons below.

UPDATE 11/9/2010.....

Already Catholics from around the nation are beginning to rally to the call of The Catholic Knight above.  They are constructing the signs I suggested in their own creative ways and preparing to show up to the next wave of TEA Parties.  One creative version comes to us from Steve Mueller and family...

Materials and paint cost less than $10.

As requested above, these faithful Catholics have created bright yellow signs with the word "SUBSIDIARITY" written across it.  In my original post above, I imagined hand written signs on yellow construction paper.  Mr. Mueller has taken this to a whole new level.  Using discarded window blinds he cut them into the shape of submarines, spray painted them yellow, and stenciled the word SUBsidiarity across them.  The catch phrase being: "Sink communism, save the family!"  You gotta love it!  There is a deep symbol of irony to all of this.  I'll let you amateur historians figure it out.

So let the Catholic SUBmarines sail out of port this coming year, and let "phase two" of the Second American Revolution begin.  You thought last year's TEA Parties were a spectacle?  Just wait until the Catholics come out.  You haven't seen anything yet!

The Next French Revolution

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT:  Ever since their first Revolution (AD 1789–1799), the French have had a history of uprising and civil unrest.  This has become particularly acute during the latter half of the 20th century until now.  Because of the frequency of French civil uprisings, the rest of the world has come to yawn at the latest.  These things tend to affect French leaders more than anyone else, and aside from a little disruption of tourism, French civil unrest is largely an internal matter.  Rarely do people get seriously hurt, and foreigners usually stay clear of the trouble spots.

For the most part the uprisings are peaceful.  Demonstrations might in some places resemble the docile TEA Parties in the United States.  It's a small percentage of rioters that are the real problem for the French.  These are the "rent-a-riot" anarchists who always seem to show up at European demonstrations of this type.  Usually paid by some nameless Marxist benefactor, these college drop-outs show up at demonstrations uninvited and then proceed to "do their thing."  Out come the baseball bats, bricks and Molotov cocktails.  Sporting hooded sweaters and ski masks, these urban terrorists then go right to work, turning what was once a peaceful demonstration into a chaotic riot.  Yes, we've seen these punks in America too, usually "doing their thing" across the street from the U.N. building or some convention center hosting the latest G8 summit.  For the most part however, their primary source of "income" from nameless benefactors is centered in Europe, and Europe seems to be where they get most of their "business."  France is their most reliable customer.

Who are these people?  Well, we don't know a whole lot about them, but what we do know is telling.  One, they're usually college age drop-outs.  Two, they're overwhelmingly Marxist when it comes to economics.  Three, they have anarchist tendencies on everything else.  Four, they believe the ends justify the means.  Five, they're paid for their "services."

They tend to do well in Europe, which is overwhelmingly Socialist on economic matters.  In France, their most reliable customer, they show up whenever the government attempts to reduce "entitlement" benefits, or renegotiate a trade deal that helps big business.  What makes them so successful in France is the willingness of the French people to tolerate them.  I dare say if these punks showed up to one of America's TEA Parties, it wouldn't be the police they would have to worry about.  By in large, mainstream Americans don't tolerate civil unrest, and I pity the poor fools who might try to start some at a TEA Party.  The police would only be needed to save them from the angry mothers beating them with their protest signs because they endangered their children who were nearby.  Perhaps that's why we haven't seen their likes at any of America's TEA Parties.  Perhaps they know the police would be the only thing to save them from the wrath of angry mothers.  Of course, the message of the TEA Parties is a little different than what these "rent-a-riot" punks are aiming for anyway.  They want more Socialism, while the TEA Parties want less.  So it may be safe to say that's playing a big role as well.

That's the difference you see.  The TEA Parties are comprised of mainstream Americans, and while mainstream Americans will protest in large numbers, they generally don't tolerate rioters and anarchists.  In France, it's a little different.  I once spoke with a lovely French exchange student about this back in my college days.  We were discussing the nature of our respective governments.  Her perspective was enlightening.  She observed that the United States government walks all over the American people, and allows big-business to control them.  She said that in America, people were afraid of the government, but in France the government fears the people.  I asked why, and she said it was because the French government knows if it doesn't give the people what they want, the people will riot.  She then proceeded to explain why rioting is good for a country and how many positive things come from it.  I asked if she ever rioted, to which she laughed and said "No, but we have courageous people who do that, and we support them with our numbers."  The conversation continued but that was the major highlight.  Perhaps it's a mistake to project her attitude onto the majority of the French population, but I suspect it's not.  I suspect this is how a lot of French people feel, certainly not all of them, but a fairly high number.  So when "rent-a-riot" punks show up at a gathering, the real protesters back off and let the punks "do their thing" while the real protesters stand at a distance and cheer.  That's my suspicion anyway, based on the limited but enlightening information I've been given.

There is a common thread in all of this.  That thread is Marxist-Socialism.  What incites these demonstrations is usually cuts in the "entitlement" programs of the European Socialist states.  European Socialists have effectively created the ultimate "spoiled child" in their own population.  Like the little "monster" who doesn't get what he wants, after his parents have pandered to his every whim for so long, the tantrum starts.  For a brief (or not so brief) moment in time, the child becomes a potential threat to himself and everyone else nearby.  It's usually quite a spectacle, sort of like French civil disobedience.

There is a more serious problem boiling underneath the surface.  Marxist Socialism doesn't work.  Everywhere it's been tried, it has failed miserably, leaving nations bankrupt in the process.  Of course Socialists remain blindly convinced that Socialism is not to blame, but rather they continually assume the right people just haven't tried it yet.  As the late President Ronald Reagan once observed: “It's not that liberals don't know anything; it's that so much of what they know is wrong.”  They have assumed that making people dependent on the government does not fundamentally change their maturity level.  The problem is it does, and to be quite frank about it, who can blame them?  They've been lied to.  They were told the government could meet all their basic necessities, and they were forced to submit to the idea through excessive taxation and regulation,  Then after they were raped of all their potential wealth, and the truth was finally known, it became obvious the government couldn't keep it's promises, and so it began to cut back.  The people realized they had been lied to and so they felt cheated.  They simply reacted the way any spoiled child would at perceived injustice.  We Americans are not so different than the French, it's just that the federal government hasn't cut deep enough into the entitlement programs yet.  Just wait until they start cutting Social Security and then see what happens!

Weaning people off of Socialism is a difficult task, and as we've seen, it's one rife with civil unrest.  Let this be a lesson to the leaders of future generations.  Think twice before making grandiose government promises to "care for the people's basic needs."  The government was not designed for this, and when you discover that it can't make good on these promises, don't be surprised if the people take you down because of it.  What's boiling underneath the surface is a coming riot so big that governments will be unable to stop it.  In France this will likely result in civil war, and other European nations should be put on notice for this as well.  The future of North America is more uncertain.  While it is possible this continent could degenerate into anarchy, it is far more likely that cooler heads will eventually prevail.  Americans and Canadians have a tendency of working toward political compromise and renegotiation.  By in large, the pioneer spirit of a hundred years ago still has some breath in North America, and there are still enough people willing to start anew with the promise of independence and self sufficiency.  That spirit no longer exists in Europe and has been gone for centuries.  Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that the wean from Socialism will go differently for Europe than for North America.  While North Americans may put up a stink initially, the promise of freedom and self sufficiency will likely entice enough people to embrace the changes over the long run.  In Europe however, the needed changes will not go over so well.  Europeans have grown accustomed to being pampered by the state, and they're hasn't been a rugged pioneering spirit in Europe since the end of the middle ages.  More tantrums are coming, and one of these days, it's going to get out of hand.

What's Wrong With America?

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Just two weeks out from the 2010 midterm elections a very sad but familiar pattern is emerging.  While the Republicans stand to make great gains in the U.S. Congress, the quality of many of these future congressmen is very disappointing.  Yes, we will get a new Congress in November.  Yes, the Republicans will score well, taking back the House and probably retake the Senate, or at least eliminate the Democrat majority.  Yes, Speaker Pelosi will be gone.  (Ding dong the witch is dead!)  As she will return to Congress next year a lowly member of the minority party, effectively thrown back to the angry mob of her own colleagues, who have grown to hate her over the last four years.  President Barack Obama will find his administration handicapped, unable to push through legislation like he did over the last two years, and now hindered by an opposition Congress that will fight him at every turn.  Obama will be forced back into perpetual campaign mode, as a good deal of his time will be spent warding off Republican accusations and attacks.  The federal government will be gridlocked for the next two years, leaving Obama with foreign policy as the only way to assert his will unencumbered.  (Don't be surprised if he takes the nation to war, as this will be the only means he has left to rally the people behind him.)  Yes, the election of 2010 will be historic, but as we look back over the last thirty years, what we see here is more of the same, except this time on a larger scale.

As a backdrop there is the economy.  Though the market has been temporarily stimulated by some impending election "feel goodism," as the people think they're getting some more of that "change you can believe in" garbage, reality will creep back in before the new year.  The American economy is in a depression.  Nobody wants to admit that, but it's true, and it's not going to emerge from that depression anytime soon.  The Democrat-Republican split in Washington over the next two years will insure that nothing of real substance gets done during that time.  So the economy will be left to stagger along with nothing but Prozac to mask the symptoms of it's depressed mood.  Then of course there is the threat of inflation looming over us as well, as the federal government comes to the realization that the only way to deal with the national debt is to allow the value of the dollar to drop.  Higher grocery bills?  Ah yes, that's more change you can believe in.

America is in decline, and there is a reason for this, but it's not what you think.  Everything has a cause, a root source that leads to the symptoms we see all around us.  Yes, the U.S. federal government has a spending problem, and while that is the source of our national deficit and debt woes, it is not the ultimate source in an of itself.  Washington's spending problem is but a symptom of something much more seriously wrong with the American republic.

Let's take a look at an object lesson.  The 2010 race for Ohio's 15th Congressional District is a perfect example.  Here we have three candidates running for office.  The first is the incumbent, Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy.  She's pro-abortion and tows the party line when it comes to other issues.  She is the quintessential Democrat, a perfect example of the cancer that is destroying this republic.  Opposing her is the second candidate, Republican Steve Stivers, who is also pro-abortion in some cases, has supported the pro-gay "Log Cabin Republicans" and refuses to repeal the Obama Healthcare law.  He is the quintessential example of everything that is wrong with the Republican Party.  Recent polls show that he's losing the race anyway.  With a choice like this, it's no wonder conservative voters can't be rallied to knock out the Democrat incumbent.  With Republicans like that, who needs Democrats?  Any vote for Stivers is nothing more than a vote for the lesser of two evils, and when you vote for the lesser of two evils you are still voting for evil, and that my friends is what's wrong with America. 

America is in a moral crisis.  It starts in our homes and neighborhoods with little compromises.  We compromise on little moral issues, and that leads to compromises on bigger moral issues later on.  We're constantly looking for the lesser of two evils, and choosing that, instead of standing on principle.  Is it any wonder than that our daughters are pregnant out of wedlock?  Is it any wonder than that our sons are smoking weed?  Is it any wonder that our cities are filled with graffiti and schools filled with drugs and violence?  Compromise with evil leads to more compromise, which leads to more compromise and so on, until all there is left is evil.  We compromise with our morals in the home, finding the lesser of two evils.  We compromise with our entertainment, seeking the lesser of two evils.  We compromise with our decisions on just about everything, trying to find the lesser of two evils.  Should we be surprised than when Republicans are okay running candidates like Steve Stivers because they assume conservatives will likely roll over and vote for the lesser of two evils? 

We are inclined to make excuses for ourselves and our decisions.  We are inclined to say it's the only choice we had.  Sometimes that's true, but most of the time it's not.  America's financial woes are just a larger example of this same problem.  For decades Americans have compromised on their moral principles by voting for the "lesser of two evils" rather than more obscure candidates who actually represent them.  So in a moral sense, we as a nation are getting exactly what we deserve.

When our daughters come to us asking for birth control pills, we could rationalize, and say that in comparison to teen pregnancy, it's the lesser of two evils.  However, there is another choice.  We could lovingly teach our daughters, from a very early age, the moral and spiritual problems with sex outside of marriage and the medical problems associated with artificial birth control.  When our sons start hanging out with the wrong kids when they're young, we could put a stop to it, and lovingly teach them the meaning of a true friend, and the consequences of hanging out with the wrong people, as well as the dangers associated with drug abuse.  Yes, we do have options.  No, things don't always turn out the way we had hoped, but we don't have to compromise with evil either, not in our homes, not in our neighborhoods, and not in politics! 

In our object lesson of Ohio's 15th Congressional District, the people do have another choice.  They don't have to compromise with the "lesser of two evils."  There is a candidate running on a truly pro-life, pro-family and staunchly conservative platform.  His name is David Ryon.  He's a veteran, a practicing Catholic, a 3rd degree knight, and the Constitution Party's nominee for Ohio's 15th Congressional District.  He's running against the Democrat Incumbent Mary Jo Kilroy.  The people of Ohio's 15th Congressional District don't have to compromise with the "lesser of two evils."  They do have a principled choice, and they are free to make it.  Sadly, however, the mentality of compromise is all too prevalent in America today.  Thousands of conservative voters in Ohio's 15th Congressional District so far dismiss Ryon's candidacy, with the excuse "he can't win."  It's a lame excuse to say the least, for if those exact same people all decided to stand by their principles and vote for him, he would handily win the election.  That's what is happening in Colorado with Tom Tancredo's gubernatorial campaign, and that involves a whole state, not just a single congressional district.  If such a large group of voters in Colorado could choose to stand by their principles, rather than tow the Republican Party line, it could happen in Ohio's 15th Congressional District as well.  A single congressional district election can turn on a dime, and it doesn't take much for a third-party dark horse candidate to steal the show.  Conservatives in Ohio's 15th Congressional District only need to do a small fraction of the work done in Colorado, and yes, two weeks is enough time to do it in.  So the only question now is will these conservative voters stand by their principles, or once again "vote for the lesser of two evils?"  They've been voting for the lesser of two evils for years.  I wonder how well that's working for them.  So far polling data indicates the Republican nominee won't win.  They're about to endure another 2 years of Democrat cancer eating away at their district.  So my only question to the conservative voters of Ohio's 15th Congressional District is "what have you got to lose?"  At this point you might as well stand by your principles and vote for the candidate who actually represents your values.

The Ohio race is just one example.  Another example is the governor's race in Colorado.  There the people have decided to vote for the man who actually represents them, rather than the Republican Party candidate who was chosen for them.  Yes, it can happen.  Yes it does happen.  Yes, in Colorado, it probably WILL happen.  There is no reason why it can't happen in other states and congressional districts all across America.  All it takes is for the people to stop compromising with evil and start voting according to their moral principles regardless of what they fear may be the result.  It's called "Faith, Hope and Trust" that God rewards those who do the right thing.  If Americans wake up and start doing that, we can save this republic.  If not, well, we will continue to get what we deserve, which is more of the same, and our children will pay the price for it.

Vatican: Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians Must Repent PUBLICLY

Archbishop Raymond Burke

 THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: A Vatican official, Archbishop Raymond Burke, who is the Prefect of the Apostolic Signature, the highest court in the Catholic Church, took bishops in the Western World to task on the issue of communion given to pro-abortion Catholic politicians. For years (decades even) so-called "Catholic" politicians (especially in the United States) have been playing a little game. Many of them support abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, euthanasia and gay marriage. Some of them claim to "disagree privately" but as a matter of public policy, they support these issues. Then they make whatever private confession they can (if any) just before receiving communion in the Catholic Church. A few of them even bring members of the press to mass with them, to make sure the photographers get a few pictures of them receiving communion. The pictures are then circulated in the news to create the image that the Catholic Church "approves" of their political stance, and that it's "okay" for Catholics to oppose Church teaching in the realm of politics.

This is a crock! Many Catholic politicians (especially in the United States) have been playing this little game for decades, and Archbishop Raymond Burke (Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura) has just put the "smack down" on every Western bishop who has played along with this, or turned a blind eye to it. So-called "Catholic" politicians who publicly support teachings contrary to the Church have in effect committed a public sin. Therefore, in order to avoid further scandal, their repentance must be public as well before they should be allowed to receive communion....

(LifeSiteNews.Com) - Turning to the issue of scandal within the Church, the archbishop said, “We find self-professed Catholics, for example, who sustain and support the right of a woman to procure the death of the infant in her womb, or the right of two persons of the same sex to the recognition which the State gives to a man and a woman who have entered into marriage. It is not possible to be a practicing Catholic and to conduct oneself publicly in this manner.”

To resounding applause Burke said, “When a person has publicly espoused and cooperated in gravely sinful acts, leading many into confusion and error about fundamental questions of respect for human life and the integrity of marriage and the family, his repentance of such actions must also be public.”

The Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura then voiced a concern that struck a deep chord with many of the Catholic pro-life activists present at the conference. “One of the ironies of the present situation is that the person who experiences scandal at the gravely sinful public actions of a fellow Catholic is accused of a lack of charity and of causing division within the unity of the Church,” he said. “One sees the hand of the Father of Lies at work in the disregard for the situation of scandal or in the ridicule and even censure of those who experience scandal.”

read full story here