So I Had This Anthropology Essay

There is a long standing debate among anthropologists on the question of how organized governments came into existence. Many wonder what would cause the early humanity to abandon the egalitarian life style of hunter-gatherer societies in favor of governments which were decidedly non-egalitarian. Two dominant theories have emerged. The first, the Theory of Conflict, holds that the rights of these egalitarian societies were taken away violently, by armed force or the threat of armed force to which resistance was futile. The second, the Theory of Integration, argues that these rights were voluntarily relinquished by the society as a whole. Like much in the field of anthropology, the answer most likely lies somewhere in between the two extremes. Historical evidence suggests that rights were given up voluntarily at the beginning of civilization but these rights were not returned as the leaders of these new societies gained more power.

In his seminal work Leviathan, political philosopher Thomas Hobbes wrote about a “state of nature” in which humanity existed before governments were formed. He described this state of nature as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” and stated that “during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man.[i]" He further argued “that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself."[ii] This is a very compelling argument for the integration theory and history supports it. The idea of the strongest in combat leading the nation has roots in many cities. Clear examples can be seen in pre-Homeric Greece, where kings not only lead their armies in battle but many times were the chief combatants, fighting one on one against the royalty of the opposing armies, as seen in the duel between Hector and Achilles in the Illiad[iii]. Other examples exist among the Celtic and Germanic tribes, where a king had to win the loyalty of the chieftains and warlords in order to control a kingdom because the warlords controlled the armed men of the region. Frankish kings like Clovis and Charlemagne gained power by their ability to control these armed men and this system later evolved into feudalism.[iv] It is most likely, that as men began to emerge from the savage “state of nature” they handed over autonomy for the purpose of survival. To this end, they elected chieftains to protect them and lead them in combat, leading to the beginnings of government.

The people soon found out that it is extremely difficult to convince someone to give up power, especially when that person has armed men at his disposal. The Roman Republic, having successfully deposed a monarchy in 509 B.C. knew well the dangers of absolute power. They also knew however that times of crisis required quick and decisive action by a single leader and for this reason the Senate reserved the right to select a dictator to lead the Republic in times. One such man was Cincinnatus, a farmer, who was selected as dictator in 458 B.C. Cincinnatus led the Roman forces to victory over the attacking forces in the span of sixteen days and immediately stepped down, despite the fact that his term lasted for six months[v]. Cincinnatus, a man who withstood the temptation of absolute power, was held up as a model for succeeding generations of Roman statesmen but, sadly, few followed his example. By the first century before Christ, Rome was a Republic in name only and a succession of dictators such as Lucius Sulla and Gaius Marius and carried out bloody civil wars and proscriptions which culminated in the installment of Julius Caesar, dictator for life, whose successor Octavian became, Caesar Augustus, the first Roman Emperor.[vi] A similar fate awaited ancient Israel. Initially the twelve tribes of Israel were autonomous and led from time to time by Judges, men like Gideon, Jepthah and Samson, who would rise up to lead the Israelites in combat against foes such as the Philistines and than return to ordinary life. Around 1024 B.C. the Israelites decided that they wanted a king and compelled Samuel, the last of the judges, to anoint Saul as the first king of Israel.[vii] Samuel warned against the possible tyrannies of a monarchy citing a long list of rights that would be taken away but complied with the request.[viii] Rehoboam, only the fourth king after Saul, is quoted, “My father put on you a heavy yoke, but I will make it heavier. My father beat you with whips but I will beat you with scorpions.[ix]” By this time, no doubt, most Israelites wished their ancestors had listened to Samuel.

In light of the historical evidence from many different cultures, it becomes clear that a composite of the conflict theory and the integration theory most accurately describes the process by which egalitarian societies acquired the leaders we now refer to as chieftains and kings. The relinquishment of sovereignty to these men was a necessary evil for survival but once these men had the power securely in the grasp, the instruments of survival became the chains of slavery. This situation is summed up succinctly by the old adage of Winston Churchill, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

---

[i] Hobbes, Thomas Leviathan. 1651 Edwin Curley (Ed.) 1994. Hackett Publishing.

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Professor Thomas Brennan, US Naval Academy, The West in a Global Context, Fall 2008

[iv] Brennan

[v] Sherman , Dennis. "Pride in Family and City: Rome From Its Origins Through the Republic." The West in the World. /'Ed/' . Joyce Salisbury. Boston: McGraw Hill , 2006. p. 106

[vi] Ibid, 127-128

[vii] Ibid, 26

[viii] The New American Bible, 1 Samuel, Chapter 8, verses 11-17

[ix] The New American Bible, 1 Kings, Chapter 12, verse 14

The Antichrist and the Eucharist

"As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied Him."- John 6:66

Here's a fun fact.

This verse, from the Gospel reading this Sunday, is the only one in the New Testament that corresponds to the infamous Number of the Beast found in the book of Revelations: 666. People have been trying to figure out what the meaning of that number is since Revelations was written. John states:

"Wisdom is needed here; one who understands can calculate the number of the beast for it is a number that stands for a person." -Revelations 13:18

This verse seems very dark and mysterious to us reading it two millenia later. It has lead to a lot of confusion and more than a few crazy theories as to the identity of the man that will be known as Antichrist. Some thought it was Ronald Wilson Reagen because he had three names of six letters each. Some people even created a fictional papal title Vicarius Filli Dei and used to identify the Pope as the Beast because the numerical values of the Roman numerals in the title add up to 666. (Never mind that Pope has never used the title "Vicar of the Son of God". Ever.) In reality the answer is quite simple for a Christian or Jew living in the late first century, which is the intended audience of the Book of Revelations.

Gematria was a wide-spread practice in the classical world, especially among the Jews. (For an example of its continued use among modern Jews, look in Chaim Potok's The Chosen.) In it, a numerical value is assigned to each letter of the alphabet. At the same time, different numbers are given mystical properties. Thus, any word and any name has a numerical value which may or may not be mystically significant. John takes the Greek name of Caesar Nero and replaces the Greek letters with their Hebrew equivalents in a process known as transliteration. The sum of the numerical values of Nero's name is 666. That is why John says that wisdom is needed to calculate the number-it is a code telling the readers the identity of the antagonist without explicitly mentioning the name. Most, if not all, of the imagery in the Apocalypse is attacking the Roman Empire, specifically the Cult of the Divine Emperor. Therefore, the name attached to the number 666 is that of the Roman Emperor Nero. Case closed.

But the Church teaches that the symbolism in the book of Revelations is multi-layered. It may be meant to tell of a past event, or a tribulation yet to come or both. The Church teaches that the Antichrist will come during the final days before Christ's Second Coming in glory. He will be an individual person who will set himself up as a god and persecute the Church as ruthlessly as the Roman Emperors before him and who will ultimately be defeated by Christ Himself when He returns. I will not speculate as to the identity of this final archenemy of Christ and His Church. But the Church also teaches that there are and have been many antichrists (notice the little c) who are the manifestations of the spirit of antichrist in the world.

Interestingly enough, there is no mention of the word Antichrist anywhere in the Book of Revelations. In fact the only place that the word is used in the Bible is in the Epistles of John.

"Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh; such is the deceitful one and the antichrist."- 2 John :7

"Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that the antichrist was coming; so many antichrists have appeared. Thus we know this is the final hour. They went out from us but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us...Who is the liar. Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist."- 1 John 2:18-19, 22

This is very interesting in light of the first verse from the Gospel of John. (Modern Biblical scholars will try to tell you that the authors of the Gospel of John, the Johannine Epistles and the Book of Revelation are three separate people. I don't buy it. I think they were all written by Jochannin bar Zebedee, John the Beloved Disciple.) In the preceding verses, Jesus has stated emphatically that "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true flesh and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him." The crowd is shocked by Jesus' words but He does nothing to calm them down, instead He repeats Himself, saying "Amen, amen I say to you" to drive the point home. John even states that Jesus knew that many would reject His teaching on His Body and Blood and that Jesus used it as a test to see who His true followers were. Finally, in the verse that shares the Number of the Beast, Jesus' followers leave because they find His teachings hard to accept.

Could there be a connection?

If, as I believe, the verses examined thus far were penned by the same divinely inspired man, could it be a sign of some deeper meaning?

The only book of the Bible used more often than Revelations when talking about the End Times is the book Daniel. Both are apocalyptic literature, full of terrifying symbolism. Just as John was written for Christians living under the persecution of Domitian, Daniel was written for Jews living under the persecution of the Seluecid king Antiochus Ephianes. The following verses were written because Antiochus banned the sacrifices in the Temple during his persecution, but many believe it also applies to the final Antichrist:

"For one week, he shall make a firm compact with the many; half the week he shall abolish sacrifice and oblation." -Daniel 9:27

"It's power extended to the host of heaven, so that it cast down to earth some of the host and some of the stars and trampled on them. It boasted even against the prince of the host, from whom it removed the daily sacrifice, and whose sanctuary it cast down, as well as the host, while sin replaced the daily sacrifice."
-Daniel 8:10-12

The Protestants have this funny idea. They believe that the future Antichrist will abolish sacrifices in the Temple of Jerusalem. The only problem with this theory is that the Temple was burned down by the Romans in 70 A.D. and has yet to be rebuilt. Therefore they hold that the Jews will eventually build a Third Temple on the Temple Mount (nevermind that the Dome of the Rock is already there or that Jesus said that "no stone will be left upon another." Julian the Apostate tried to rebuild the Temple to prove Jesus and failed epically.) only to have it absconded and desecrated by the Antichrist, who will than proceed to outlaw all sacrifices within. Again. Than, and only than, will Jesus return to earth and defeat the Antichrist a neat and tidy seven years to the day that the Antichrist signed a peace treaty with Israel, kicking off the whole party in the first place. (This rather flawed interpretation of Daniel is one of the leading causes of our nation's unqualified support for the state of Israel, thanks to all those fundamentalist, evangelical Christians who think if Israel dies as a nation, the Temple will never be rebuilt and if the Temple is never rebuilt, Jesus will never return.)

All this confusion and hoop-lah is a direct result of the Protestant rejection of the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist and a misunderstanding about the sacrificial nature of Jesus' death. No one needs to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem or re-instate animal sacrifices because there already is a Temple in which a sacrifice is offered, not only daily, but perpetually.

All over the world, at all hours of the day, priests are offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Catholics believe that the Mass is the fulfillment of the prophecy of Malachi:

"For from the rising of the sun to its setting, my name is great among the nations; and everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering." -Malachi 1:11

This is echoed in the Eucharistic prayer although unfortunately the Latin occidentis and oreintis was mistranslated as "from to East to West" when it really means "sunrise" and "sunset." The Mass is generally believed to be the "daily sacrifice" referred to in Daniel as well.

Protestants miss this because of a faulty understanding of the words of St. Paul:
"Just as it is appointed that men die once, and after this the judgment, so also Christ, offered once to take away the sins of many, will appear a second time." Hebrews 9:27-28

Protestants argue that the Mass is offering Jesus as a sacrifice again and again, which is impossible since He was offered once. They say that the priest is essentially killing Christ again and again. This is not true. Christ instituted the Mass at the Last Supper, mystically connecting his coming death with the Passover meal of bread and wine. Although we are constrained by time, God is not and the sacrifice of Jesus on Golgotha is timeless. Thus we can unite ourselves in the sacrifice that occurred 2.000 years ago every day at Mass. The Baltimore Catechism explains:

The manner in which the sacrifice is offered is different. On the cross Christ physically shed His blood, and was physically slain., while in the Mass there is no physical shedding of blood nor physical death, because Christ can die no more; on the cross Christ gained merit and satisfaction for us, while in the Mass He applies to us the merits and satisfaction of His death on the cross.

Thus, we can see that the daily sacrifice is the Mass and the Temple which the Antichrist will enter and defile is the Roman Catholic Church. He will outlaw the sacrifice of the Mass and will persecute those who celebrate it. His Mark is the rejection of the basic doctrine of the Eucharist. Just as John wrote, the spirit of antichrist is to deny that Christ come in the flesh, first as a man to save and redeem us; secondly that He comes in the Flesh to us, every day, in the Blessed Sacrament.

The spirit of antichrist is already at work in the world and even in the Church. John saw it in the first century and it has been paving for its final manifestation for some time. John said that many of the number of Christians belong to the Antichrist and in Revelations he shares a vision of the Dragon casting down a third of the stars from the sky. Daniel states that "the little horn" shall cast down to earth some of the heavenly host. St. Paul speaks of a gradual falling away from the faith, also called the Great Apostasy:

"We ask you brothers, with regard to the coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling with Him, not to be shaken out of your minds suddenly, or to be alarmed either by a spirit, or an oral statement, or by a letter allegedly from us to the effect that the day of the Lord is at hand. Let no one deceive you in this way. For the apostasy comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one doomed to perdition."
-2 Thessalonians 2:1-3

We see this falling away evident as Catholics reject more and more basic teachings of the Church. None is more clear than the rejection of the Real Presence of Christ. 70% of Catholics claim that they do not believe that Jesus is present Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist. Could be this be the beginning of the foretold Great Apostasy. No one knows for sure. But if the spirit of Antichrist so vehemently hates the Eucharist no doubt it will strive to eradicate all traces of belief in the Real Presence in order to make it easier for the Abomination of Desolation to enter the Sanctuary of the Church founded by Christ. John Paul the Great stated that the Eucharist is the source and summit of the spiritual life of the Church. It is what identifies us most as Catholics.

"As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied Him."- John 6:66

The Number of the Beast is 666.

The Beast is the Antichrist.

The Spirit of Antichrist rejects that Jesus came in the flesh.

The Antichrist shall abolish the "daily sacrifice."

Daily, Jesus comes in the flesh in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

70% of Catholics do not believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The spirit of the Antichrist is to deny the truth of Jesus in the Eucharist.




Let us pray for a return to devotion to the Holy Eucharist

Optimus Prime is a Chrisr figure

So I saw the new Transformers movie the other day.

It is amazing.

It has everything.

Good looking girls, explosions, humor, plot continuity and most importantly ***SPOILER*** (but not a huge one) a battle between two enemies one of whom is an ancient Cybertronian referred to only as The Fallen who rebelled and abandoned his brothers because he hated humanity, the first Primes and serves as Darth Sidious to Megatron's Darth Vader. The other is Optimus Prime, a hero with two names but who is usually referred to by the last (which turns out to be a title), a leader who dies to save Earth, and than is resurrected to defeat the Fallen. (See where I'm going with this?)***SPOILER END*** And the U.S.S. John C. Stennis C.V.N. 74 was in the movie, the ship that I had my Youngster cruise on!

But I noticed something very interesting. It has to do with the way that the government handles the Decepticon threat. In the first movie you had the character of the Secretary of Defense played by the awesome Jon Voight (one of my favorite actors) who is extremely proactive, doesn't take any shit from anyone, lest of all a talking robot and even wields a shotgun when the time comes. He is an example of the kind of reaction one would expect from a member of the Bush administration.

Incidentally, while Bush is never named in the first movie, the President, seen briefly when Air Force One is attacked, is clearly meant to resemble W. Obama is, in fact, named in the second movie in a news report after the Decepticons sink an aircraft carrier (not the Stennis).

In the second movie, Sam Witwicky has all the knowledge from the AllSpark downloaded into his brain when he touches a shard of the AllSpark. After utterly pwning most of the planet, including the US Navy, the Fallen hi-jacks most of Earth's communication system in order to broadcast a demand to surrender Sam to them. (Sounds like the terrorists) They want the information in Sam's head, so the can find the Matrix of Leadership, which will activate a Sun Harvester, which has the capability to wipe out life on Earth (this entire plan if the reason the Fallen fell in the first place).

A government agent, who is a liason to the Autobots, actually suggests that they might hand Sam over to prevent another Decepticon attack. This is after he suggests that the Autobots go home, alleging that their presence is the reason that the Decepticons did not leave Earth after the AllSpark was destroyed.

This is exactly what the Obama administration would do in a situation like this! In order to prevent conflict they would negotiate with the people who JUST SANK A FUCKING AIRCRAFT CARRIER! They would be naive enough to believe that the Decepticons would go away if their enemies the Autobots went away too. Wrong! They would just finish the job and destroy the planet. The Obama administration would dialogue with these evil, destroying robots from outer space.

In its characterizations of both of the last two Presidencies, the Transformers movies have been spot on.

Like I said, this new Transformers is awesome! It might be better than the original. Unfortunately, however the same was said about X-Men 2, Dead Man's Chest, and Spider-Man 2 and we all saw how well that turned out. (One alright, another okay and one absolutely awful)

See well just have to wait and see and hope that the Transformers movies turn out like the Lord of the Rings movies.

A Father's Day Message from the (Catholic) Bible

Many people, especially Catholics, hold up Joseph, the foster father of Jesus, as the role model for all fathers. I find the inherent comparison to be unfair. Saint Joseph was married to the Immaculate Conception and, one episode of adolescent rebellion in the Jerusalem Temple notwithstanding, Yeshua bar Joseph was, by all accounts, the perfect Child.

Aside from Joseph, most fathers in the Bible were abject failures at fatherhood. Noah's son laughed at him when he passed drunk and naked. Abraham banished his first son into the desert and than almost sacrificed his remaining heir. Jacob's favoritism toward his youngest children led his other sons to sell their brother into slavery. David's firstborn son and heir apparent raped his half-sister while another son, Absalom, plotted a coup against his father. Most Biblical fathers are an example of what NOT to do.

That is why Catholics are lucky. We have a positive example of fatherhood in the book of Tobit, a book which the Protestants reject as apocryphal. It is the story of a righteous Jew whose family was carried off to Nineveh when the Assyrian armies conquered the kingdom of Israel. While still in Israel, Tobit traveled to Jerusalem to worship in the Temple, while most of his fellow Israelites worshipped in Samaria or in high places which were not dedicated to God. While in Nineveh, Tobit follows the dietary laws, which most of his countrymen ignore. He also makes sure that the Israelites who were executed by Sennacherib in revenge for his defeat at the hands of King Hezekiah of Judah. are given proper burials. He leaves a feast in order to bury a corpse of his country man. In short, Tobit follows the laws of God scrupulously and always does the right thing.

But bad things still happen to him. He had to go into hiding when the king finds out that Tobit is the one who is burying his victims. His neighbors, including fellow Israelites, ridicule him. To top it all off, he is blinded when a bird poops in his eyes while he is sleeping outside because he is unclean due to contact with a corpse. Even his marriage becomes strained. Life is so bad that he prays for death.

In anticipation of the fulfillment of his prayer, Tobit sends his only son Tobiah off to Rages in Media to collect a very large sum of money from Tobit's cousin. After a chapter's worth of paternal advice, Tobit sends Tobiah on his journey, along with a guide named Azariah, who just happened to be hanging out at the city gate, looking for a job, when Tobiah came by. The author of Tobit (who isn't Tobit) quickly informs the readers that Azariah is really the archangel Raphael in disguise, sent by God to heal Tobit as well as a relative of his, Sarah, who lives in Media.

Sarah is a beautiful young woman who has been married seven times. In each case, the husband died mysteriously before consummating the marriage. The author states that the demon Asmodeus strangled the men. That sounded almost as ludicrous as it would today and Sarah's servant accused her of murdering her husbands. Sarah is in such despair that she, like Tobit, prays for death.

While on the road, Tobiah goes to swim and bath in a river. In the water, he is attacked by a large fish. Azariah instructs him to kill the fish by grasping its gills and than gut it and remove the gall, liver and heart, which apparently are useful as medicines. The pair arrives in Media and need a place to stay. Azariah insists they stay at the home of Raguel, Sarah’s father, who greets the duo excitedly when he learns that Tobiah is Tobit’s son.

When they enter the house, Tobiah notices Sarah and falls in love. She is his kinswoman, a member of the same tribe and he is her closest living relative, which according to the Levirate law, gives him the undisputable right to marry her. Tobit had instructed his son earlier to only marry a woman from their tribe of Naphtali. Tobiah’s only hesitation in the matter arises from the fact that a demon has killed the last seven men she married. Fortunately, Tobiah is friends with an archangel which comes in handy when dispatching a demon.

After Raquel agrees to allow Tobiah to marry his daughter, Raphael instructs Tobiah to burn the heart and liver on the brazier so that the smoke will ward off Asmodeus. Tobiah does so and prays along with Sarah in the bridal chamber on their wedding night. He asks for God’s protection and blessing on his marriage. At the same time Raphael chases Asmodeus into Upper Egypt and chains him there in the desert. (I wonder of anyone noticed that Azariah was missing?) Raquel and his servants secretly dig a grave for Tobiah but joyfully find him alive after which Raquel has his servants fill the grave back in (sucks to be those servants).

Sarah’s family was so happy that they gave the couple a fourteen day wedding feast. Azariah went to Tobit’s cousin to collect the money and bring him back for the feast. When Tobiah left to return to Nineveh, Raquel gave him half of his property as a wedding gift.

Meanwhile, Tobit and Anna are terrified that their only son had died. As they approached Nineveh, Azariah told Tobiah to smear the gall of the fish on Tobit’s eyes. Tobiah does so and the cataracts fall off his eyes him to see. Tobiah tells everything that happened to him to his father and both men praise God. (And have another wedding feast. These guys knew how to party!) When Tobiah attempts to give half of what he brought back from Media to Azariah as payment, Azariah outs himself as an archangel. “I am Raphael, one of seven who serve before the Glory of God,” he says, before ascending back into Heaven.

The moral of the story goes like this: bad things happen to good people but God uses these bad things to accomplish even better things for His people. If Tobit had never been blinded, Tobiah would never gone to Media, never would have met Sarah, never collected the money and gotten rich and most importantly Tobit would have never had a visit from an archangel to affirm his heroic faith. Sarah probably would have hung herself and Tobit would have died without grandchildren because Tobiah would have never married. Tobit’s glorification came about through his son, but it is called the book of Tobit because it is about him. He trusted in God no matter what. He never spoke against Him or questioned His ways. At least three times is praised as an outstanding and noble father. Tobit should be a model for all fathers on Father’s Day.

Why Christianity is awesome

First of all lets get one thing straight-I am not a big fan of the Gathering Place. I find rampantly militant Fundamentalist Christianity offputting and frankly-somewhat disturbing-probably has something to do with the fact that I am a practicing Roman Catholic. But this battle isn't being fought over the Gathering Place. This battle is about the Christian faith (not religion) and its unique claim to the truth. 1) Many people and religions have claimed their founder was a divinely inspired prophet or even a god. But very few have made the claim that their founder rose from the dead. Fewer still can back up that claim. Halie Saliese, the Messiah of the Rastafarians is dead-that is an undisputed fact. Mohammed is buried in his tomb in Medina. Buddha attained Nirvana, but he's still dead (reincarnation does not count as resurrection). Jesus Christ was crucified by the Romans and buried in a stone tomb. Three days later his body was missing. His followers claimed He had risen from the dead. The Jewish authorities maintained that someone had stolen the body. Put the body was never found! Christianity could have been brought to a rather abrupt end if someone came forward with the body of Jesus. No one did. The best the Jewish priests could do was to bribe the guards at the tomb to say that someone stole the body. And in two thousand years, no archaeologist has uncovered the bones of Jesus. The closest anyone can claim is an ossuary with scratches on it that could be the (very common Jewish) name Yeshua bar Joseph. Therefore the claim that Jesus Christ rose from the dead holds itself up to scrutiny. Relics like the Shroud of Turin lend credence. 2)People have died, are dying and will continue to die for believing in the resurrection of Christ. From prison, the Apostle Paul stated that the Christian faith was worthless without the truth of the resurrection. As far as founders of religions go a Jewish carpenter turned itinerant preacher who got Himself crucified by the Romans after only three years of spreading His Message is not very impressive. Yet from the beginning, people were willing to die for Him. This makes absolutely no sense if Jesus had not risen from the dead. The Apostles were thrown in jail and flogged only 50 days after Jesus' death and yet they rejoiced that they "could suffer for His name." Surely if anyone would know the circumstances of Christ's death and his Resurrection it would be his twelve closest friends. If it had been faked, they would know, they probably would have perpetrated the fraud. Yet all but one wound up suffering deaths of varying brutality for refusing to deny their Lord. It is a miracle that Christianity survived three hundred of systematic albeit off and on persecution at the hands of the most powerful force in the known world at the time: the Roman Empire. The witness of these martyrs was so great that their own tormentors were converted many times and the plans of their persecutors backfired as the martyrdoms led to more Christians rather than less. "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church" Iraneus said and even today martyrs in Iran, China, India and Africa bear testament to the veracity of Christ's resurrection. 3)Furthermore, Christianity-in particular the Catholic Church-has survived for 2,000 years against every single storm imaginable. Christianity stared defiant in the face of Nero, Diocletian, Atilla the Hun, Robespierre, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin and Obama and have not blinked-and have won. That is a claim that Muslims, Rastafarians, Wiccans, Buddhists, Hindus, Raelians and Zorastrians can not and never will be able to mak

Which St. Thomas are you named after?

Funny question right?

A lot of people read that and they're like, "What, the only St. Thomas I know of is an island in the Caribbean."

I actually have had this question asked of me multiple times especially in my late elementary school-early middle school years when all my friends were home schooled Catholics like I was at the time.

You see, non-Catholics are probably only aware of one religious figure named Thomas, the Apostle Thomas a.k.a. "Doubting Thomas." But we Catholics have this annoying habit of naming our offspring after the saints. So, naturally over the course of 2,000 years as Catholics make their way through the Pearly Gates, the number of saints sharing the same name is going to increase exponentially. (It got to the point where the Catholic Church at one point actually lost count of its saints-I shit you not-and went on a spree, unceremoniously removing any saint that they couldn't find authentic proof of existence from the official list.) For this reason they are no less than five saints who share the name Thomas. In order to distinguish these servants of God from one another, the Church slaps descriptive monikers on the end of their names. (Some come ready made, Thomas Aquinas and Thomas More use their last names. Others are identified by their place of origin: Thomas of Canterbury and Thomas of Villanova. Others just describe in what capacity they served-Thomas the Apostle.)

I used to always identify with Thomas the Apostle but as I studied the Lives of the Saints I had a lot in common with all of them. Well not necessarily "in common"-more like attributes which I could relate to or virtues to emulate. Some of their patronages coincided with aspects of my own personality or something I wanted to be involved with later in life. So I now claim all the Saints (does anyone know the plural form of my name) Thomas (except Villanova) as my own. Here's why:

Thomas the Apostle
Feast: July 3
Nicknames: "Doubting Thomas"

Thomas wasn't even his real name! Thomas is the English translation of the Hebrew word for "Twin." (Didymus in Greek) His name was most likely "Judah" making him the third apostle named thus. (Jude Thaddeus and Judas Iscariot the others-both Jude and Judas are variants of the very common Jewish name of "Judah.) Second names such as "Thomas" were used frequently in Jewish culture because of the small number of first names available-someone had to be able to distinguish one Judah from the other 5,000 (rough estimate) running around Jerusalem in 30 A.D. In this way "Thomas" would be similar to "Kephas" or "Peter": the name Jesus gives to Simon bar Jonah, making him "Simon Peter."

Anyway, Thomas makes a small number of appearances in the Bible. He is virtually non-existent in the Synoptic Gospels-his only mention is the obligatory listing in the listing of the Twelve Apostles. He has a greater role in the Gospel of John. He is most famous for his appearance in Chapter 22. Thomas was away from the upper room on Easter Sunday, the reason is not given. Other passages in the Gospel give hints. Thomas is listed among the disciples who were fishing on the Lake of Tiberius when Jesus appeared to them after the Resurrection. As these men had been fishermen before meeting Jesus, perhaps Thomas was attempting to return his old life before Jesus as well. In any case, Thomas returned at some point and the other Apostles told him that "they had seen the Master." In what was to become his most enduring quotation, he says skeptically "Only if I touch the holes left by the nails in His hands, or place my hand in the wound in His side will I believe." The next Sunday, Jesus appears in the upper room and instructs Thomas to do just that. Thomas believes and falls to his knees saying "My Lord and My God."

Thomas is always remembered for being the "Doubter" in this situation but I think he gets a bad rap. The guy fell to his knees and worshipped Christ, right there. The Gospels say that at least some of the other Apostles "still doubted" (Matthew 28:18, Mark 16: 14) even up to the Ascension. But Thomas was willing right then and there, to put it on the line. This kind of faith should come as no surprise to readers of John's Gospel. In Chapter 11, Jesus is telling his disciples that Lazarus is ill and that they must go to Bethany to visit him. Now, that was a problem because Bethany was in Judea and about a days walk from Jerusalem. The Jewish authorities there at this point had decided that they had to "deal with" the carpenter from Nazareth…and by "deal with" they meant 'kill." The Apostles are a little perplexed that their Master would just walk back into the lion's den and point out that the number of times that Jews almost stoned Jesus. (John 11:7-8.) Thomas gets up and says to everyone, "Let us also go to die with him." (John 11:16) That statement sounds a bit pessimistic I know but it shows the depth of faith Thomas had in his Master. He was willing to follow the Lord anywhere, even if it seemed to point toward certain death. No wonder he felt lost after Christ died.

The final appearance of Thomas in Holy Writ is no where as dramatic but gives insight into his character. Jesus and His Apostles are at the Last Supper and Jesus has just said that He is going to prepare a place for them in His Father's house. He says "where I am going, you know the way." Thomas says, "Master, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?' which launches Jesus into His famous "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life" dissertation. (John 14:4-6)

Here is "Doubting Thomas" again. Jesus has just said that He is going somewhere and that the Apostles are to follow. But this makes no sense to Thomas. He points that Jesus never mentioned where He was going so how are they supposed to follow Him there? This is why I identify with Thomas a lot. He does not take any statement on face value. He analyzes everything and must have proof for it. Things confuse him and he's not too proud or stubborn to say so and ask for clarification. (I need a lot of help in this area, so I've been praying to Thomas a lot for help in that area.) And he's courageous. He was probably 98% sure that the Jesus would be killed by a Jewish mob when He returned to Judea, but He was so loyal to his Master that he was willing to go with Him, instead of trying to convince Him to change course. When all the other Apostles were cowering in fear in a locked room, Thomas wasn't there. His faith may have faltered from time to time (nothing worse than Peter did) but in the end; he was more faithful than ever. He was like an ordinary skeptical man with doubts, but he did not let these get in the way of his faith in the Risen Christ. That is why I admire "Doubting Thomas."

***Whew…sorry that particular impassioned defense of my patron took so long-I just hate it that all he's remembered for is his doubting episode. All of the following has absolutely no basis in Scripture. Just a forewarning for all you "Scripture Alone" folks. If you are one of those, feel free to read one about three more amazing Servants of God. Just remember, I warned you. I don't want of those annoying idolatry accusations or necromancy attacks…***

Sir Thomas More and Thomas Becket (of Canterbury)
Feast: June 22 and December 28

These two saints from England have more in common than just their Christian names.
Both were friends with a young prince named Henry, who went on to be King of England. (More was close friends with Henry VIII and Becket had been the drinking buddy of Henry II.)
Both were appointed to be Lord Chancellor by their buddy.
Both were forced to choose between his friend; the King and his loyalty to his Church and her temporal ruler: the Pope. In both cases the king was attempting to build up his own power by wrangling it away from the Church. (Henry VIII was attempting to name himself "Head of the Church in England" while Henry II was attempting to take control of land that belonged to the Church.)
In each case, both kings expected the Lord Chancellor to support him against the Church and in each case the king felt extremely betrayed when the Chancellor opposed his plans
Both resigned their Chancellorship in order to remove themselves from the conflict of interest.
Finally, in each case, Thomas was killed by the dubious orders of the king and under false pretenses.

Now the details differed. Thomas More was never a cleric, although he considered becoming a monk upon his wife's death. Thomas Becket was a bishop of Canterbury before he became Chancellor, he had most likely been placed there so Henry would have a close ally in the church. More was legally executed after a long and protracted treason trial where he brilliantly defended himself against all charges and (like his Lord Jesus) convicted only on the basis of a pre-arranged perjured testimony. Becket's death on the other hand was a classic case of vigilante justice. Henry II was rumored to have said "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" in a moment of frustration. Whether or not he meant for someone to "deal with" the bishop is beside the point-four of Henry's knights galloped to the Cathedral of Canterbury and murdered Thomas at the altar.

Perhaps these parallels were fated to take place. Although the martyrdoms of the two men were separated by four centuries, there is no question that Chancellor More was carrying on the legacy of Chancellor Becket. Thomas More was most likely named after Thomas Becket. Almost immediately following his death, Thomas Becket was acclaimed as a hero. Everyone in England was still a Catholic and many were appalled at the acts of Henry's knights. He went on to become quite possibly the most famous English saint. His tomb became the greatest pilgrimage site in England, a sort of Mecca for English Christians. (Chaucer's Canterbury Tales are told by a group of pilgrims traveling along the road to Canterbury to visit Becket's tomb.) When More was born, Becket was the only English saint with the name of Thomas. More was one of many young English boys who were given the great archbishop to be his patron.

Thomas More is considered the patron saint of lawyers. I plan to become a lawyer so I pray to Saint Thomas mainly in order to help me along the path to law school. Thomas did what most politicians are astoundingly unwilling to do: he did not attempt to separate his religious beliefs from his political decisions. This is a pet peeve that really annoys me. I have promised to myself and to God that if I do become involved in politics, I will do my best to make all my decisions in line with my Faith and I pray to St. Thomas to help me with that and to stay strong.

However the greatest reason I admire both Thomas Becket and Thomas More is the same reason I admire Thomas the Apostle. All of them were courageous and all of them stood up to the powers of their day (the King of England, the Romans, and the Sanhedrin) in the face of certain death. I have this knack for being a bit of a rebel against the establishment and like all the saints named Thomas, I say what I mean most of the time, not afraid to cause a little conflict. Both Becket and More had cahones to openly defy the king.

Thomas Aquinas
Feast: January 28
Nickname: "Dumb Ox"

Unlike the other saints named Thomas, Thomas Aquinas is not a martyr. He did not make a courageous last stand against the enemies of his faith. He was a monk in the Dominican monastery in Italy. He is most famous for writing the Summa Theologica, which is considered the greatest work of Catholic Theology. Thomas is considered one of the greatest preachers of all time. He was named a Doctor of the Church and is considered the greatest of all thirty-three.

Thomas' genius was not evident at first during his studies. Thomas was a rather large and heavyset young man. He was also very quiet, shy and withdrawn. Many of his classmates took this as evidence that he was unintelligent or perhaps even unable to speak. (The original meaning of the word dumb is: "unable to speak.") As it turned out Thomas was quite possibly the smartest student in the class. He quickly began to impress his teacher Saint Albert the Great and he even grew to surpass his teacher. He loved the Lord in the Eucharist with every beat of his heart and wrote the songs Tantum Ergo, O Salutaris Hostia, and Pange Linqua to celebrate his devotion to the Eucharist. These songs are still used in the ceremonies of Adoration and Benediction.

I identify with Aquinas the most. The reason for this is the fact that Thomas demonstrated his faith through learning and writing about it. This is my favorite aspect of living my Faith, studying it and learning as much as possible from it. I know that God gave me a gift of knowledge and intelligence and I want to use it for His Glory as Thomas Aquinas did. Thomas also had difficulty in his studies in the beginning of his time at university as I have during my first year at the Naval Academy so I continue to pray to him in order to help me do better in my coming time here.

First Century Christian versus Twenty-First Century Catholic

My main interest in history is Ancient Rome, especially Imperial Rome. One of the most infamous aspects of this time period was the Ten persecutions that were carried out against the Christians of the Empire. Contrary to popular belief, the persecutions were not carried out due to an intense Roman hatred of strange religions. It was the result of the complicated relationship between religion and politics in the Roman state.

The Romans had gods for everything. The Romans initially had an animist religion that had more in common with the Native Americans than with the Greek gods of Olympus. They saw spirits everywhere, in the wind, the water, the forest; under the thresholds and over the doorposts. They worshipped the spirits of their ancestors and each household had its own set of gods, particular to that family alone. When the Romans conquered the Aegean peninsula in the 3rd century before Christ, they adopted many aspects of the Greek culture they found there. They identified the Olympian gods: Zeus, Poseidon, Hermes and Aphrodite with the most powerful of their own. They took on the identities and mythological back stories of their Greek counterparts. For the first time, the Roman state religion became organized, with temples and sacrifices and priests. A good Roman citizen was faithful to these “Gods of Rome”.

As the Romans conquered land after land, and country after country, they tried to adapt the customs of these nations to their own. They started with the gods. The Romans would tell the conquered tribe’s war god was the same as Mars, the Roman god of war. The Romans were very good at assimilating the religious practices of other nations into their own. The city of Rome became filled with temples to foreign gods. Romans worshipped gods like Isis, Serapis and Mithras alongside Jupiter, Mars and Minerva.

In 42 B.C., the Roman Senate, under pressure from the Second Triumvirate, deified Julius Caesar, starting the cult of divis Iulius. This allowed Caesar Octavian, who would later take the name Caesar Augustus, to refer to himself as divi filius “the son of a god.” (Divis being different from deus, in that divis referred to a demigod, or lesser god, usually a half-human or human elevated to godhood, while deus referred to an all powerful god such as Jupiter or Apollo.) Once Augustus officially took power as Emperor in 27 B.C. he was referred to as The Divine Emperor. This practice continued among all of Augustus’ successors within the Julio-Claudian line. Although, officially, a Roman emperor was not deified until after he had died, the emperor was treated as a divinity while still alive. Prayers were offered to him, statues and temples were erected in his honor. It is unlikely that the emperors Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius actually believed that they were gods. They used the cult of the divine emperor to cement control over a superstitious empire but they all had temples erected to them in their lifetimes (Augustus in Pergamum, Tiberius in Smyrna, and Claudius in Colchester, Britain). And one can be certain that the insane emperors Caligula and Nero fancied themselves as gods. (Caligula married his sister because that’s what Jupiter did.)

In the second chapter of the book of Revelation, John says to the church at Pergamum, “I know you live where Satan’s throne is.” He is referring to the cult of the divine emperor which was headquartered in Pergamum at the temple of Augustus. (Long since dead and deified.) At the time of writing, John was exiled to the Aegean island of Patmos by Domitian, since they could not figure out how to kill him in Rome. (Boiling oil didn’t work.) The entire book of Revelation is an apocalyptic masterpiece in the vein of the visions of Daniel. John is writing against pagan Rome primarily against the divine emperor cult. He uses thinly veiled language to describe Domitian as the “great Beast who rules the world.” He is described as having blasphemous names: while he was still alive Domitian had the titles Dominus et Deus (Lord and God) applied to him and had coins struck with that motto. He is described as having a mortal wound which was healed, arguing that he was the symbolic (or perhaps not so symbolic) return of Nero who had killed Peter and Paul. (Perhaps the Witnesses of Chapter 11?) He is described as having seven heads and ten horns to correspond to the Roman emperors who numbered ten not including Domitian at the time with only seven having any real import. Finally, John even names the Beast applying to him the infamous number 666 which can be applied to either Nero, Domitian or even Caligula depending on how one works the gematria.

The imperial cult itself is identified in the seventeenth chapter of Revelation as a scarlet woman named Babylon who rides the (seven headed, ten horned, blasphemous name covered) Beast, sits on seven hills and drinks the blood of the Christian martyrs. An angel says, “The kings of the earth have had intercourse with her and the inhabitants of the earth have become drunk on the wine of her harlotry. (17:2) She is identified as a harlot because it was common Roman practice to spread the imperial cult throughout the provinces of the Empire through specially ordained priests they set up as imperial agents. This was the main method of instilling loyalty among the subjects of the Empire, essentially whoring itself out to willing subjects.

The Caesar cult was the big problem facing Christians in the Roman empire and the main reason behind the persecutions in the first place. While it is true that Nero needed someone to blame after his pyromania consumed a third of Rome, he was able to scapegoat the Christians because they were already mistrusted by most. They meet in secret in dank underground tombs, were told to love their brothers and sisters, and eat the body and blood of the crucified Jew who they worshipped. Many Romans were willing to accept the different rituals- there was plenty of weird stuff going on in the various temples of the “eastern gods” that had made their way to Rome. What sealed the deal for the Christians was their refusal to worship the divine Caesar.

To most Romans, it didn’t matter what god you worshipped and what you did in your worship of said god. Most Romans didn’t worship every single god but picked certain ones as their “patron” and prayed to others as needed. Romans joined cults dedicated to one particular god and this was the god they worshipped. To the Romans, the new Christians were just such a cult. But every Roman, no matter what god he worshipped was required to render divine homage to the emperor in order to be a good Roman. Most Romans did not see a problem with worshipping the emperor-it was a civic duty. And very little was required for it. The ceremony required the citizen to drop a few grains of incense into a censer in front of an image of the emperor. Occasionally, this was followed by a salutation such as Salve Divis Caesar “Hail, the Divine Caesar.” That was it. All someone had to do was drop the incense than go on to worshipping whatever god he wanted. It didn’t even matter if he actually believed the Emperor was divine.

The Roman’s violent reactions to certain religions are the exceptions that prove the rule. They destroyed the power of the Druids in Britain by burning their sacred tree groves and killing as many Druids as they could find in the Black Year of 61 A.D. Nine years later in 70 A.D. they razed the Jewish Temple so that “a stone was not left atop another.” Like the Christians, these religions had defied the imperial cult by insisting that their god(s) were superior to those of Rome and that they would not bow to the emperor. The Romans could not understand why the Christians did not simply perform the duty required of them and than continue to worship Christ.

It became a question of separating one’s religion and personal morals from one’s political positions. This is the first example of a Christian who is pressured to abandon the principles of his faith for political expediency. One could easily separate his political views from his religious views. In public one could offer the incense to Caesar, and in private go to Mass in the catacombs and worship Christ. For him, the grain of incense meant nothing, we was just being a good Roman citizen. Why would a first century Roman Christian not say, “Well, I’m personally opposed to the worship of Caesar, but it’s not my place my own beliefs on Jesus of Nazareth on anyone else?” It’s not just because they thought that Jesus was en route for the second coming. They believed with an incredible faith that astounded even their tormentors and guards. Granted, Nero was so insane he would have probably killed them anyway but history shows that this was not the case with many of the persecutions. Hadrian told the prefect of Spain not to hunt out Christians but only to prosecute them when they refused to offer the incense. Marcus Aurelius only began his persecution when his co-emperor, Lucius Verus, convinced him that Christians not worshipping the emperor were the cause of the problems that the Empire was facing at the time. Aurelius was a Stoic and most likely did not even believe in his own divinity.

Now, in the 21st century, Christians, especially Catholics, so easily separate their religious views from their political ones. They support abortion or at least support politicians who support it. Catholic politicians like Nancy Reid, John Kerry, Kathleen Sebelius and Edward Kennedy offer their incense to Caesar and than state that they are devout Catholics who follow their faith very much. Right. It’s not like the first Christians had to sacrifice a baby to Jupiter in order to keep their heads attached to their shoulders. All the had to do was burn a tiny grain of incense before any image of the emperor. For not doing it they faced decapitation, being fed to lions, crucifixion or (my personal favorite) being tied to a stake, covered with oil and set on fire to illuminate Nero’s garden parties. We have not been called to give our lives for our religious beliefs (yet). All a person who stands up for the rights of the unborn is possible loss of an election (if a politician) and being lumped in with “those fanatical pro-lifers.” God forbid if it ever did come to a persecution, Catholics right and left would be renouncing Christ before they even showed them the implements of torture.

Christians, especially Catholics, need to look at the example of these early Christians. For the first three centuries of the Church, the only ones who were honored as saints were the Martyrs because their deaths were such a powerful witness to the truth of the Gospel of Christ. Martyrs during the later persecutions looked to the first Christians, men like Peter and Paul, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna to inspire them to hold true to the Truth and the Faith. We should follow their example and pray to the martyrs (Lord knows there’s a lot of them) for moral courage in this age of less severe martyrdom but martyrdom nonetheless.