Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

John Hagee expresses "deep regret" for comments "hurtful" to Catholics

John Hagee has sent a letter (dated May 12, 2008) to Bill Donohue (whose name I continually misspell as "Donahue"; my apologies), which expresses his "deep regret for comments that Catholics may have found hurtful":

In my zeal to oppose anti-Semitism and bigotry in all its ugly forms, I have often emphasized the darkest chapters in the history of Catholic and Protestant relations with the Jews. In the process, I may have contributed to the mistaken impression that the anti- Jewish violence of the Crusades and the Inquisition defines the Catholic Church. It most certainly does not. Likewise, I have not sufficiently expressed my deep appreciation for the efforts of Catholics who opposed the persecution of the Jewish people. It is important to note that there were thousands of righteous Catholics - both clergy and laymen -- who risked their lives to save Jews from the Holocaust. According to many scholars, including historian Martin Gilbert and Rabbi David Dalin (author of The Myth of Hitler's Pope), Pope Pius XII personally intervened to save Jews.

In addition, I better understand that reference to the Roman Catholic Church as the "apostate church" and the "great whore" described in the Book of Revelation is a rhetorical device long employed in anti-Catholic literature and commentary.

I hope you recognize that I have repeatedly stated that my interpretation of Revelation leads me to conclude that the "apostate church" and the "great whore" appear only during the seven years of tribulation after all true believers - Catholic and Protestant - have been taken up to heaven. Therefore, neither of these phrases can be synonymous with the Catholic Church.   

The entire letter can be read in PDF format. See this FOX News story.

Donohue responded:

“The tone of Hagee’s letter is sincere. He wants reconciliation and he has achieved it. Indeed, the Catholic League welcomes his apology. What Hagee has done takes courage and quite frankly I never expected him to demonstrate such sensitivity to our concerns. But he has done just that. Now Catholics, along with Jews, can work with Pastor Hagee in making interfaith relations stronger than ever. Whatever problems we had before are now history. This case is closed.”

While growing up in a "non-denominational" fundamentalist environment in the 1970s and '80s, I knew very well by the time I was eight or years years old that the Catholic Church was "apostate" and was either part of or was the "great whore of Babylon" described in the Book of Revelation. This was an integral part of the "Rapture" theology that informed nearly every aspect of my thinking about Jesus, the Bible, and the world. Anyone familiar with books such as Dave Hunt's A Woman Rides the Beast: The Roman Catholic Church and the Last Days (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1994), is familiar with this rhetoric, which has been around for centuries, dating back to at least the Reformation era, and which has been readily embraced by dispensationalist writers since the inception of that belief system in the 1830s.

An obvious example can be found in the popular non-fiction work of Dr. Tim LaHaye, creator and co-author of the Left Behind series. In Revelation Unveiled (Zondervan, 1999), a revised version of Revelation Illustrated and Made Simple (Zondervan, 1973, 1975), his commentary on The Apocalypse, LaHaye made his case for the belief that "Babylon the Great" of Revelation 17 is a system of false belief clearly identified with the Catholic Church. Drawing on Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons and Loraine Boettner's Roman Catholicism, LaHaye (who was baptized as an infant in the Catholic Church) condemns the "mystery Babylonian religion" of the Catholic Church, (go here and here for details) and then writes:

After reading the above quotations, you may be inclined to think me anti-Catholic, but that isn’t exactly true; I am anti-false religion. ... In some respects the religion of Rome is more dangerous than no religion because she substitutes religion for truth. Human beings would be better off with their God-given desire for truth unfulfilled that they might seek after Him. Romes false religion too often gives a false security that keep people from seeking salvation freely by faith. Rome is also dangerous because some of her doctrines are pseudo-Christian. For example, she believes properly about the personal deity of Christ but errs in adding Babylonian mysticism in many forms and salvation by works. (p 267)

There is another variation of this approach that is, however subtly, somewhat different from this approach. This variation—which may or may not (depending on the particular "prophecy expert") condemn Catholic Church as she now exists—focuses more on figuring out the Catholic Church's role in the future, when the "prophetic clock" is restarted by the Rapture. This is hinted at, for example, in a booklet titled The Coming World Church, published in 1963 (and again in 1978) by Back to the Bible, a fundamentalist organization, James DeForest Murch describes the "Coming Great Church" and renounces the ecumenical movement as apostate and inspired by Satan. He writes:

Evangelicals who are prophetically inclined are now warning us that we are witnessing the creation of an organization which is pictured in the Bible, not as the Bride of Christ, but as the adulterous woman bearing on her forehead the name, "Mystery Babylon." They see the ecumenical movement as a stage on the road which can eventually lead to the creation of an ecclesiastical body which has all the admixture of truth and error found in the Church of Rome, universal in scope, and eventually heading up the Romish abomination itself. (p 22)

In the late 1990s I had a couple of conversations with the pastor of the largest Baptist church in the state of Oregon. He had given a sermon on the "church of Thyatira", which is described in Revelation 2:18-29, and is often interpreted by fundamentalists as a description of the Catholic Church. The pastor used many of LaHaye and Company's standard anti-Catholic talking points, but his real interest was in trying to ascertain the role played by the Catholic Church during the seven years of Tribulation he believed (as most dispensationalists do) will come between the "Rapture" and the Second Coming. When I spoke to the pastor on the phone about his anti-Catholic rhetoric, he was both very polite and very unapologetic. His position, in essence, was that while he believed some Catholics are "saved," he was convinced that the unique size and influence of the Catholic Church strongly suggested that it would be, after the Rapture, the key institution of an apostate One World Religion. You simply cannot underestimate how obsessed such folks are with figuring out all of the details of their "end times" system!

That pastor's interest in the future is, from what I can tell and what his quote above suggests, similar to Hagee's stance. Which is, again, why I recently emphasized that while the issue of Hagee's offensive remarks is important, it needs to be understood in the light of his seriously flawed theological beliefs. And, just so I'm not misunderstood or misrepresented, I'm not dismissing or making light of Hagee's offensive remarks; on the contrary, I'm saying that as bothersome as they are, they aren't nearly as troubling as his entire theological system, which is shot through with notions and presuppositions that are not in keeping with basic Christian doctrines, especially his belief that Jesus is not the Messiah of the Jews, his belief in a "Rapture" event separate from the Second Coming, and his belief that Christians will not endure the final tribulation.

• For much more about all of those topics, see my book, Will Catholics Be "Left Behind"? (Ignatius, 2003).
• Pastor John Hagee: "Thank you, Pope Benedict" (April 29, 2008)
• Eschatological Fact and Fiction: Catholicism and Dispensationalism Compared | Carl E. Olson
• The Jews and the Second Coming | Roy H. Schoeman
• The End Times: The Secret Hidden From the Universe | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.

Chopra's Christ: A Review of "The Third Christ"

Chopra's Christ: The Mythical Creation of a New Age Panthevangelist | Carl E. Olson | A review of The Third Jesus: The Christ We Cannot Ignore, by Deepak Chopra | May 5, 2008

I'll begin with a positive note: Deepak Chopra's new book, The Third Jesus, has a well-designed, eye-catching dust jacket.

Now the negative: the rest of the book is not nearly so attractive. Not even close.

In fact, it is often downright ugly, in a New Age fundamentalist, Christian bashing, intellectually vapid, historically dismissive sort of way.

Chopra, a one-time medical doctor who was described in 1999 by TIME magazine as "the poet-prophet of alternative medicine," subtitled his book, "The Christ We Cannot Ignore." Would that we could ignore this book and the false Christ it presents. But Chopra, who has authored some fifty books and has earned millions of dollars from his particular brand of neo-Hindu monism for the masses (he studied under Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, founder of Transcendental Meditation), is quite popular. And it appears that The Third Jesus, published in February 2008, has sold well, having spent several weeks on The New York Times top ten bestsellers list for "Hardcover Advice" books. [1]

Worse, The Third Jesus has been praised by a number of Christians, some of them well known "progressives" such as John Shelby Spong and former Catholic priest Matthew Fox. A few of them are Catholic. For example, Father Paul Keenan, the host of "As You Think," a program on The Catholic Channel/Sirius 159, says, "In The Third Jesus Deepak Chopraunfolds for us the spirit of Jesus and with a reverence that is at once simple and profound makes his spirit accessible to us in our everyday lives." Perhaps Fr. Keenan didn't actually read the book. I hope that is the case, for if he thinks the Jesus conjured up by Chopra has anything to do with the historical, biblical Jesus worshiped by orthodox Christians, he needs to find a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and shore up his knowledge of Christology 101.

Read the entire review...

Pastor John Hagee: "Thank you, Pope Benedict"

Perhaps you've already seen this column in The Washington Times, written by John Hagee, pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio and author of several "end times" books based in premillennial dispensationalism. Hagee has been accused of being anti-Catholic, but he takes pains to counter those accusations:

During his recent visit to the United States, Pope Benedict XVI not only conducted mass and met with the Catholic faithful, but he made a series of public statements about the role that our Judeo-Christian faith can play during these challenging times. As an evangelical Protestant I happen to disagree with Pope Benedict on many issues of Christian doctrine and ritual. But when it comes to his moral vision for America and the world I have one thing to say in response to the Pope's visit: Amen. <snip>

My reaction to Pope Benedict"s visit may surprise some who have come to accept certain caricatures of my views of the Catholic Church. But as I have noted from the start, my critics have ignored the real point and strong emphasis of my words. I have indeed been quite zealous about condemning the past anti-Semitism of the Catholic Church. But I have been equally zealous in condemning Protestant anti-Semitism. Furthermore, as I noted in my 2006 book "Jerusalem Countdown," I have long viewed Pope John Paul II and now Pope Benedict XVI as partners in this "righteous work" of overcoming our shared legacy of Christian anti-Semitism.

For decades I have taught that we Christians need to recognize that our roots are Jewish. As Christians we can only understand ourselves if we understand the Judaism from which we sprang. Pope Benedict made this very important point when he visited the Park East Synagogue in New York and shared that: "I find it moving to recall that Jesus, as a young boy, heard the words of Scripture and prayed in a place such as this." With visits and words such as these, Pope Benedict is continuing the important work of recognizing our enormous Christian debt of gratitude to the Jewish people.

Fair enough. I have no interest in questioning Hagee's sincerity, and his ecumenical attitude here is a pleasant surprise; after all, it's not something you'll likely find in the writings of, say, Tim LaHaye or Hal Lindsey. But a couple of things should be kept in mind:

• Hagee's beliefs, which flow from what might be called a "traditional" form of premillennial dispensationalism (as opposed to "progressive dispensationalism"), lead to the conclusion that the Jewish people have no need of the New Covenant because they already have a sufficient and equally valid covenant. Which means, strangely enough, that Hagee has more in common with Abraham Foxman than he does with many or most Evangelicals when it comes to the issue of evangelization and Jews. But Hagee's position is rooted in a rather logical take on John Nelson Darby's teachings, which were based on a heavenly-earthly dualism that insisted on a radical distinction between Christians (the heavenly people, according to Darby) and the Jews (who he called the earthly people of God). (See this June 2003 ZENIT interview for more.)

• Hagee has stated that Jesus was not the Messiah. This is apparently one of the key positions he defends in his recent book, In Defense of Israel. I've not read that book, but I suspect that his argument is simply a continuation of the first point: namely, (according to Hagee) since Christians and Jews have radically different covenants with God, it is wrong to say that Jesus is the Messiah of the Jews—that is, until they accept Him as such after the Rapture, the Tribulation, and the Second Coming. Other dispensationalists have adopted similar views. For example, Charles Ryrie, author of the very influential work, Dispensationalism Today (first ed., 1965), wrote this in his 1986 book, Basic Theology:

“Gabriel announced to Mary that her Baby would have the throne of David and reign over the house of Jacob (Luke 1:32-33). Throughout his earthly ministry Jesus’ Davidic kingship was offered to Israel (Matt. 2:2; 27:11; John 12:13), but He was rejected. . . . Because the King was rejected, the messianic, Davidic kingdom was (from a human viewpoint) postponed. Though He never ceases to be King and, of course, is King today as always, Christ is never designated as King of the Church . . . Though Christ is a King today, He does not rule as King. This awaits His second coming. Then the Davidic kingdom will be realized (Matt. 25:31; Rev 19:15; 20)” [Basic Theology, 259].

Ryrie's position is both confusing and untenable, but it is made necessary by the presuppositions of the dispensationalist system, at least in its older forms.

• Finally, the dispensationalist system is not only contrary to many key Catholic doctrines, it has often understood the Catholic Church as either being a system of antiChrist, or at least being the sort of global institution/religion that will facilitate the rule of antiChrist and a false, "one world religion." This perspective is not understood by those who hold it—as I once did—as being "anti-Catholic," but as simply being realistic about "Bible prophecy" and the world we live in. For Hagee and like-minded folks, salvation is about having a "personal relationship with Christ," which they believe has little or nothing to do with being a visible member of this or that church.

There is another, closely related radical dichotomy at work here, which is that between the spiritual and the material realms—itself based on the heavenly-earthly distinction noted above (I examine this at length and in detail in my book, Will Catholics Be "Left Behind"?). For the typical dispensationalist (and most fundamentalists), the "Church" consists of all those who are spiritually united in saving faith in Jesus Christ (here's a good example of what I'm referring to). The church you attend is a secondary issue. And so there exists the notion that one can be perfectly saved and yet belong to an imperfect, local church. Thus, from this perspective, a Catholic can be "saved," (by the skin of his teeth!) even if the Catholic Church is not just flawed, but even apostate and blasphemous.

Hagree is absolutely right to denounce anti-Semitism. But there are some serious problems with his theological ideas, especially how he understands the relationship between the Old and the New Covenants, the person of Jesus Christ, and the nature of the Church. For me, frankly, the key issue is not if John Hagee is anti-Catholic. Rather, it's whether or not some of his core beliefs are actually Christian, even in the most general, "mere Christianity" sense of the word.

• Eschatological Fact and Fiction: Catholicism and Dispensationalism Compared | Carl E. Olson
• The Jews and the Second Coming | Roy H. Schoeman
• The End Times: The Secret Hidden From the Universe | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.

The Inquisitions of History: The Mythology and the Reality

The Inquisitions of History: The Mythology and the Reality | Reverend Brian Van Hove, S.J. | Ignatius Insight

An ecclesiastical inquisition in Europe was a court system adapted from Roman law. It was an institutional tribunal charged with protecting orthodox religious doctrine and church discipline. From 1414-1418 (Constance) and 1438 (Basle), the church was shaped by lawyers who were consulted for the councils. Canonists were needed for church order and to make crucial distinctions.

Jurists keep good records, clean records and abundant records. Curialists write neatly. Scribes are taught to be legible. Because of this legal infrastructure, we can today study the inquisitions, unlike some other institutions which are lost to us due to a lack of quality documentation. Fortuitously, inquisition material survived European wars. We should also use the plural and speak of "inquisitions" since there were a number of them in different times and places. We now use the capital letter "I" to refer to a specific historical inquisition, such as the Venetian or Spanish, or even the earliest one during the Albigensian era in southern France. For the Inquisition and its procedures in Italy during Galileo's time, we have John Tedeschi's The Prosecution of Heresy: Collected Studies on the Inquisition in Early Modern Italy (1991).

Due to the work of newer historians, such as Edward Peters in his Inquisition (1988), we use The Inquisition to speak of the mythology surrounding these institutions. Such mythology passed down to us as folklore, the result largely of successful Protestant anti-Roman propaganda, particularly coming from the Spanish Netherlands.

Read the entire article...

If this guy is a "reporter," then I am a mezzo soprano

And, of course, everyone knows that I'm actually a coloratura baritone. Just like most people who pay attention to the news know that Pope Benedict XVI, while flying to the U.S. for his recent visit, took questions from reporters and spoke (among other things) about the sex abuse scandal. But journalist Jorge Ramos must have missed that minor, hardly reported, and under-the-radar story, for he writes this in an April 24th piece for Dos Mundos (ht: Stohn):

Popes do not grant interviews to the press. Nor do they equivocate. Or at least that is what the defenders of papal infallibility believe. But the reality is that it would have been extremely difficult for Benedict XVI to visit Los Angeles without being grilled by the press on this subject.

Ramos, according to his site, is a well-regarded, high-profile reporter and author. And yet its hard to take him seriously when he starts his piece with sort of angry nonsense:

The only reason the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the United States attracted any attention is that it was his first as pope -- nothing more. There are no changes and no new debates to be engaged in. After all, Joseph Ratzinger is known for defending the Roman Catholic Church’s most traditional values. He travels a lot, but he doesn’t change.

Actually, Pope Benedict doesn't travel that much, especially compared to John Paul II. More importantly, it's so obvious that Ramos must be an angry Catholic or former Catholic who would rather rant about his dislike for the Church and her teachings than try to actually report on something of substance. After all, if Ramos is really interested in the Pope entering into "debate" with those who disagree with the Church on this or that issue, he might consider taking a look at Benedict's three-year-old papacy—especially the writings produced by the Pope—and note that it has been, in many significant ways, a papacy of debate and dialogue. Benedict, in other words, has been continually interacting with and responding to ideas and beliefs that often differ from his own, including those coming from Islam (see the Regensburg address), secularism (ditto, and Spe Salvi), Judaism (see Jesus of Nazareth), the academy (the Sapienza lecture), cafeteria Catholics and non-Catholics (see Deus Caritas Est), and so forth and so on.

But Ramos is not only not interested in paying attention to what Benedict actually says and does, he falls back on the same old tired clichés that flow thoughtlessly from chronic chronological snobbery and inchoate thought:

Perhaps it’s a matter of age. John Paul II was elected pope when he was 58 years old. Benedict XVI -- who was described by Mahoney as “very intelligent but always humble” -- began his papacy at 78. And save exceptional cases, men that age, whatever their religion, generally don’t change the principles that have guided them throughout their lives.
That is why Benedict XVI will not be the pope of change. And, if his attire is any indication, it is more likely he will ratify the values of the past.

For more of Ramos' rantings, see this April 18, 2005, column (see how many empty clichés you can find!), written on the cusp of the election of Pope Benedict XVI.

Oh, and for those who are curious: No, I don't have any audio proof that I am a coloratura baritone. But, hey, I don't need proof: I'm just a coloratura baritone blogger, not an off-key reporter.

James Carroll's "documentary" indulges in one-sided, pseudo-scholarly sloppiness

A big surprise? Hardly. Steven D. Greydanus has written a detailed, thoughtful review of Carroll's film Constantine's Sword, which is based on the book of the same name (also by Carroll), which in turn relied heavily on "John Cornwell’s now–substantially discredited Hitler’s Pope, another anti-Catholic exposé–cum–critique of Church policy." Read the entire review on DecentFilms.com.

Who knew that "God consciousness" was so bigoted and ignorant?

Fundamentalist New Age guru/televangelist Deepak Chopra preaches the pantheistic/monistic Gospel of "God consciousness," which he attempts to describe (albeit with unrelenting vagueness) at length in several books, including The Third Jesus. In that book, Chopra muses, "Everyone who asks, receives. Every thought triggers a response; nothing is lost in the universe. Divine intelligence manifests whatever we can imagine."

Oooh...that's deep. Deep like a birdbath in the Sahara Desert. So, how might this "divine intelligence" manifest when the topic is Pope Benedict XVI? Gotham Chopra, Deepak's son, gets in touch with his inner source of cosmic genius, and offers the following on the Beliefnet blog:

I've asked a few of my Catholic friends this week how pumped they are for the arrival of Pope Benedict the XVI, and I am not gonna lie to you - the response has been far from overwhelming. That said, the Pope's arrival on our shores will reveal a lot depending on what he's here to say. To that end, there's interest amongst Catholics and Philistines alike as to what exactly the Pope is coming to say . Will he stick to the vague "Christ our hope" messaging or will he venture out to talk about the good stuff - Gays getting hitched, abortion, where God stands on this crazy Iraq War, and why Catholic Priests disproportionally sexually mess with young boys...?

The truth is that while there is definitely some degree of backlash - Americans adopting conservative values of various faiths - the overwhelming and inevitable trend seems to point toward most ditching their blind faith. I for one, think this is a good thing. No offense to Big Ben, but to me the fewer people who show up to his various events, the better off we all are. For that reason precisely, it's a sure bet that the Pope will dig his heels in and try to create some outrage - most likely condemning Gays (easiest target). Likewise, his excellency George Bush will also certainly make much ado about the Pope's visit if only to remind Americans that he exists. To me though, they are both lame ducks, both with out-dated views, both men whose flocks are in obvious and overt retreat. The fact that they will find resonance in one another is no real surprise.

The biggest issue the Pope will find on this visit to America, a nation where Catholics still make up the single largest religious group, is that he and the Church are just not as relevant as they once were. Am I alone in thinking that's not such a bad thing?

Actually, I think you are alone in thinking that this is actually "thinking," when it is really just the angry and irrational rantings of an immature, bigoted, Catholic-basher. Come to think of it, having recently finished reading The Third Jesus, I can see that the rotten apple didn't fall far from the poisonous tree. More on that next week, when I post my review of The Third Jesus.

Those who chirped, "TDVC was just a novel," need to contact...

...director Bruce Burgess and have a chat with him. After all, he seems quite convinced that Dan Brown and Co. have it right. The British movie-maker and conspiracy theorist has directed and co-produced a "documentary" called Bloodline that purports to finally (yes, finally, at last, at last!) set the record straight about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, their alleged marriage, their alleged children, and the three-armed aliens who commute by telepathy and the internet between Area 51 and the Secret Vatican Archives (or something like that. Hey, don't laugh. It's possible.) From a notice of a special screening:

“A discovery that can prove to be one of the most explosive and controversial of the century.” – Elizabeth Snead, Los Angeles Times

BLOODLINE investigates the popular belief that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, who fled to southern France with their child.

Filmmaker Bruce Burgess and team make connections between the Knights Templar, the legend of Mary Magdalene, hidden clues found at the famed church at Rennes-le-Chateau and make some stunning discoveries: a buried chest with artifacts that date to first century Jerusalem and a tomb with a mummified corpse draped in a shroud bearing a distinctive red cross.

Have they been the first to find the evidence?

Uh, I doubt it. Unless (gulp) Dan Brown was a consultant on the film. Be sure to watch the trailer and be completely blown away by how calm Burgess remains as he is running for his life from mysterious operatives, angry aliens, and the ghost of the Ark of the Covenant (if that super witty remark makes no sense, see this list of films made by Burgess.)

The Idiotic Column of the Week brought to you by...

...a certain Randall H. Miller, described as "an American educator and blogger currently living in the Dominican Republic." In an article titled, "How to Incite Muslims", posted on OpEdNews.com, Miller attempts to engage with reality, but reveals that he is not quite up to the daunting task:

Just in case you don’t recognize the charming man in this photo, it’s Pope Benedict XVI (formerly Cardinal Ratzinger) the head of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. When he’s not busy sending thousands of Catholic operatives to Africa to teach against condom use (even between married couples where only one partner is infected) or condemning anybody whose not Catholic to eternal hellfire, he can be found inciting Muslims with his arrogance and poor judgement.

And how has the condom-hating, hellfire-spewing Pope incited Muslims? Perhaps by yelling, "Death to the Jihadists!" from his window at the Vatican? By sponsoring terrorism against innocent men, women, and children around the world? By calling Muslims names such as "pigs" and "swine" and "vermin"? No, no, no—something far worse:

Religious tension around the world is so thick you could cut it with a crucifix. Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists (yes, even them!), and the super-delusional Scientologists are all embattled in their own struggles brought about by their religious convictions. This tension can manifest itself violently in the blink of an eye. So, what does the Pope do? He personally baptizes Magdi Allam on Easter Sunday in Saint Peter’s Basilica to much fanfare. Why the show? I’m all for civil rights and free speech, but did he not consider that doing so could put a target on the back of every Catholic around the world? Couldn’t Allam have been baptized in his local parish like everyone else?

Because, don't you see, dear reader, that a quiet act of religious expression is a most despicable and confrontational thing? Don't you see that any Muslim who heard of this unspeakably offensive action cannot help but be outraged, angered, and even incensed? You see, it is our fault. No theirs. We have free will. They don't. We must take responsibility for our actions. They don't.

The Muslim world needs to be engaged by the West. Not all nice and snuggly, but seriously engaged. They need to be educated them that our values like free speech, gender equality, and democracy are things we will never, ever give up. The message needs to be sent clearly that they don’t have to like our ways, but they’d better get used to them. Unfortunately, we won’t get to that kind of direct dialogue as long as high-profile religious zealots like the Pope continue to sabotage the way with unnecessary incitement. Baptizing a Muslim on Easter Sunday in Saint Peter’s Basilica?

And who, in fact, is engaging the Muslim world in serious, non-snuggly dialogue? One guess.

NBC producing Catholic-bashing mini-series, "The Last Templar"

Variety reports that NBC is producing a four-hour mini-series based on the novel, The Last Templar, by Raymond Khoury, which was one of about five billion Da Vinci Code clones released since Dan Brown's novel sold ten billion copies:

Oscar-winning thesp Mira Sorvino has signed on to star in "The Last Templar," an NBC miniseries based on the bestselling novel from Raymond Khoury.

Sorvino joins a cast that also includes Victor Garber. Shooting begins next month in both Montreal and Morocco for an airdate later in the year.

Romantic adventure-themed mini stars Sorvino as Tess Chaykin, a Manhattan archaeologist searching for the medieval Knights Templar. Garber plays Monsignor De Angelis, who helps find the artifact.

My first thought? "Here we go again..." And as if to confirm my semi-cynical, world-weary perspective, a post on the Blend Television blog offers this breathless, confused commentary:

What I love about the story of the Knight’s Templar is that, whether it is based in truth or not, it is still interesting. It has captured imaginations for eons, and will continue to because it can’t be proven or disproven. This miniseries will hopefully be a nice taste of the story that won’t cause too much outrage amongst Christians who can’t comprehend that fiction can be fun, and that it sometimes it is just fiction, not anything else.

[Commence sarcasm] Yeah, those stupid Christians. Sheez. You write a novel claiming to be based in fact and full of damning evidence showing that Christianity and the Catholic Church are based on nothing but lies, big lies, and more bloody lies, and what do they do? They get upset. Can you believe that? What gives? Morons. Ungrateful, prudish, backwards thinking lowlifes. Don't they know it's just a story? Well, hey, let's check out what the author's website says about The Last Templar:

On one level, The Last Templar is a fast paced contemporary adventure/thriller set in New York and in various settings around the Mediterranean, intercut by five epic chapters set during the closing years of the Crusades in which the last Templar of the title, entrusted with the Order's secret, escapes from the burning city of Acre and struggles to make it back to France. On another level, The Last Templar works as a thought-provoking exploration of religion in today's world, and of historic fact versus faith, particularly regarding the origins of the Catholic Church. Through the investigation into the Templars' history and their mysterious discovery, and though the interplay between Tess - the agnostic, scientific skeptic - and Reilly, who turned to the Church after his father shot himself when Reilly was just a boy, the book presents a spirited look at the early days of the Church and invites the reader to question matters which most of us take at face value.

See, you silly, overreacting Christians? It's just a novel that tells the truth about your outrageous, infantile beliefs? Don't you get it? [Cease sarcasm. Wipe brown with damp towel.]

Robert P. Lockwood, in this May 2006 article for The Catholic Catalyst, took a long look at some of the Coded Clones, including The Last Templar:

Because of the movie connection Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code has received most of the attention. But the proliferation of these additional anti-Catholic novels proves an ancient adage: there is money to be made in appealing to visceral anti-Catholicism.

The plots in The Third Secret and The Last Templar center on intrepid couples running around the globe tracking down hidden historical truths that will prove the Catholic faith to be fake.

In The Last Templar, our intrepid couple track down the diaries of Jesus, which had been discovered in the Holy Land during the Crusades by the Knights Templar. The diaries reveal that all that stuff about miracles, salvation and the Resurrection was a fabrication of the Church to consolidate its power. <snip>

  These books in one way or another sell three anti-Catholic stereotypes that are as old as the Reformation. The first anti-Catholic legend is that the Catholic Church forcibly repressed a true Christianity that had existed since the days of the Apostles. It was a common post-Reformation propaganda point that there was a pure Christianity subversively maintained over the centuries that served as a counterpoint to the apostolic claims of the Church. The real Church was this "invisible Church."

Khoury's book takes that anti-Catholic tenet and gives it a New Age twist. He describes the alleged purity of the original teachings of a thoroughly human Jesus mouthing pious platitudes. Berry puts in the mouth of the Blessed Mother a laundry list of contemporary secular grudges against the Church that can be found in any news story: abortion, contraception, homosexual marriage, celibacy and a male-only priesthood. <snip>

Khoury portrays a Church that first paid extortion, then viciously suppressed the Knights of Templar so that their secret would be maintained and the Church could still exercise power.<snip>

Khoury has his Church leadership arguing that it knows the Scripture to be false, but that it maintains its beliefs solely because people can find some glimmer of hope in an otherwise senseless world. <snip>

Khoury's book is the least offensive of the two, if only because of a plot twist at the end and at least a vague acknowledgment that faith accomplishes some good in the world. (Although he is at pains to point out that it is a faith not grounded in reality.)

Say, here's an idea: a mini-series about how the major networks and MSM, while accomplishing some good in the world, are really about making money, gaining power, sensationalism, distorting what is true, praising what is false, saying there is no "true" or "false", and suppressing stories that contradict their view of the world. What's that you say? Too grounded in reality? Yeah, you're probably right...

Those interested in the true story of the Templars, see pages 194-222 of The Da Vinci Hoax. Also recommended is The Templars (Cambridge, 1999), by Piers Paul Read.

• "It's "a thought-provoking exploration of religion in today's world, and of historic fact versus faith..." (Dec. 31, 2005. An Insight Scoop post about The Last Templar.)