What on earth are you talking about?

Please read this passage from the Bible. [1]

Matthew 25:31-46

31. "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33. and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. 34. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35. for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36. I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37. Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38. And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39. And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' 40. And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' 41. Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42. for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43. I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' 44. Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' 45. Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' 46. And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." [other translations] [2]

Again, what are you talking about?  Jesus never says anything about any conservatives or, as you call them, "right-wingers."

You're right.  But Jesus sends to Hell the very people whose actions precisely fit those of people who today call themselves conservative Christians.

How do you know how much conservative Christians give to charity?  Many I know are quite generous.

I'm not talking about their private charitable giving.  I'm speaking of their political choices and activism.

Oh c'mon, this passage from Matthew only applies to acts of individual charity. [3]

Right-wingers always make this claim, and many people, without really thinking, respond, "Oh yeah, that’s right."  Why?  Where does Matthew 25 say or even imply that it only applies to individual actions of a charitable nature?

The proper view is, you are individually held to account under Matthew 25 for your individual one-on-one acts of charity or lack thereof, but you are also individually held to account under Matthew 25 for how the actions you take influence your society in its treatment of the "least of these."

In the analysis directly following, as will often be the case in this essay, my assertions will be backed up by (1) plain meaning and logic -- analysis of the text itself; (2) Biblical antecedents -- reference to other Biblical passages; and (3) Papal teachings -- citing of relevant elements of the Catholic Church's official written social doctrine.

So let's first look at the Biblical text itself.

Jesus separates the goats and sheep by nations, not by individuals. 

Moreover, when the "righteous" -- the sheep -- address Jesus, they ask "Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?"  When the "cursed" -- the goats --address Jesus, they also speak collectively: "Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?"  The righteous and the cursed do not individually ask "When did I…"  or even "When did each of us…"

It is true that "nations" as used in Matthew 25 may not mean nation-states as we know them today, but it's still a collective noun.  That, together with the "we" language, certainly doesn't militate against responsibility to influence collective action, or excuse its failure.

This textual analysis, while not dispositive, is backed up by another factor: should a passage such as Matthew 25 really be interpreted narrowly so as to avoid responsibility?  To do so would be a perversion of the Golden Rule itself.

Having a narrow, stingy reading of Matthew 25 is, to put it more bluntly, absurd.  Would anyone seriously maintain that Jesus would say it’s okay for society as a whole to let people suffer and die, as long as some members give some money to charity? 

Please…  Jesus would charge the entire society with the responsibility.  There's every reason to think that each of us is judged by how the actions we each take influence our government and our society.  

What if an individual tries but fails to get the government or society to treat the "least of these" in a Matthew 25 fashion?  Is that individual punished because of the collective failure to act properly?  I would hope not, but in any case, such speculation is irrelevant for purposes of this essay, since as will be shown below, right-wing pseudo-Christians as individuals are on the opposing side of such proper action. 

(And to jump ahead on another point: this essay does not call for a government solution to any given problem.  It just calls for some solution).

That we are individually responsible for influencing the actions of our government and society is borne out quite clearly by the second element of our analysis: other parts of the Bible.

The Bible makes clear that God will hold a nation responsible for its wrongful acts toward the poor -- that is to say, for its political acts of omission or commission.   

The most famous example would probably be God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah because of the sins of their inhabitants.  The Bible makes clear that at least as far as Sodom is concerned, mistreatment of the poor was one element leading to its destruction:

Ezekiel 16:49-50

49. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it. [other translations]

Here's another example where the inappropriate actions of a city or nation's inhabitants towards the poor caused its destruction:

Zechariah 7:8-14

8. And the word of the Lord came to Zechariah, saying, 9. "Thus says the Lord of hosts, Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy each to his brother, 10. do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor; and let none of you devise evil against his brother in your heart." 11. But they refused to hearken, and turned a stubborn shoulder, and stopped their ears that they might not hear. 12. They made their hearts like adamant lest they should hear the law and the words which the Lord of hosts had sent by his Spirit through the former prophets. Therefore great wrath came from the Lord of hosts. 13. "As I called, and they would not hear, so they called, and I would not hear," says the Lord of hosts, 14. "and I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations which they had not known. Thus the land they left was desolate, so that no one went to and fro, and the pleasant land was made desolate." [other translations] [4]

In other instances, it was the government itself that was the instrumentality of the sin, and the cause of the nation being condemned and/or destroyed.  Sometimes the individual rulers themselves were singled out for criticism, and assigned blame for the punishment of the nation.

Since we in the United States live in a democracy and thus select our rulers and by extension the policies they will implement, either type of such criticism– whether broadly of the government or specifically of the actual officials -- can well be considered applicable to us today as a society:

Isaiah 10:1-5

1. Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression, 2. to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be their spoil, and that they may make the fatherless their prey! 3. What will you do on the day of punishment, in the storm which will come from afar? To whom will you flee for help, and where will you leave your wealth? 4. Nothing remains but to crouch among the prisoners or fall among the slain. For all this his anger is not turned away and his hand is stretched out still. 5. Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger, the staff of my fury! [other translations]

Micah 3:1-4

1. And I said: Hear, you heads of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel! Is it not for you to know justice? -- 2. you who hate the good and love the evil, who tear the skin from off my people, and their flesh from off their bones; 3. who eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them, and break their bones in pieces, and chop them up like meat in a kettle, like flesh in a caldron. 4. Then they will cry to the Lord, but he will not answer them; he will hide his face from them at that time, because they have made their deeds evil. [other translations] [5]

Biblical antecedents, therefore, support the conclusion that Matthew 25 does not just apply to individual acts of charity, but its standards are applicable to those actions we take or fail to take as a nation. [6]  And in a democracy, each of us is responsible under Matthew 25 for how our individual political and other decisions influence the national course of action.

The third element of my analysis -- the social doctrine of the Church – affirms my textual analysis and examination of Biblical antecedents, and similarly makes clear that individual acts of charity are not sufficient to satisfy Matthew 25. 

Let's go through the reasoning process behind the Church's position:

·       Even the anti-communist, anti-socialist [7], even anti-welfare-state [8] Pope John Paul II has strongly and repeatedly reaffirmed the Church's Matthew 25-based "preferential option for the poor":

As far as the Church is concerned, the social message of the Gospel must not be considered a theory, but above all else a basis and a motivation for action... Christ's words "as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me" (Mt 25:40) were not intended to remain a pious wish, but were meant to become a concrete life commitment... Love for others, and in the first place love for the poor, in whom the Church sees Christ himself, is made concrete in the promotion of justice... Centesimus Annus [9]

·       In this effort, individual acts of charity are not enough:

This constant dedication to the poor and disadvantaged emerges in the Church's social teaching, which ceaselessly invites the Christian community to a commitment to overcome every form of exploitation and oppression. It is a question not only of alleviating the most serious and urgent needs through individual actions here and there, but of uncovering the roots of evil and proposing initiatives to make social, political and economic structures more just and fraternal. Ecclesia in America [10]

·       The reason individual charity is not enough, and that collective political action is required, are the "political and economic structures" referred to by the Pope: [11]

[T]he decisions which either accelerate or slows down the development of peoples are really political in character. In order to overcome the misguided mechanisms mentioned earlier and to replace them with new ones which will be more just and in conformity with the common good of humanity, an effective political will is needed." Solicitudo Rei Socialis [12], [13]

·       So harmful are these structures that they can even be called "structures of sin":

If the present situation can be attributed to difficulties of various kinds, it is not out of place to speak of "structures of sin"... "Sin" and "structures of sin" are categories which are seldom applied to the situation of the contemporary world. However, one cannot easily gain a profound understanding of the reality that confronts us unless we give a name to the root of the evils which afflict us. Solicitudo Rei Socialis [14]

·       The Vatican itself will go beyond charitable work and seek to influence governmental and international bodies:

Once more I express the hope, which the Synod Fathers made their own, that the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace together with other competent agencies, such as the Section for Relations with States of the Secretariat of State, "through study and dialogue with representatives of the First World and with the leaders of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, will seek ways of resolving the problem of the foreign debt and produce guidelines that would prevent similar situations from recurring on the occasion of future loans." Ecclesia in America

In sum: yes, you are individually held to account under Matthew 25 for your individual one-on-one acts of charity or the lack thereof, but you are also individually held to account under Matthew 25 for how the actions you take influence your society in its treatment of the "least of these" – the "social, political and economic" choices to which the Pope refers.   (And no, I'm not saying government programs are the only answer.  Quite the contrary.  Read the section directly below.)

Even if Matthew 25 requires going beyond individual charity, conservative Christians have plans to help the poor, and that certainly satisfies the injunction in Matthew 25.

Their "plans" are inadequate to fulfill the Matthew 25 mandate.

Proposing that private charity should do whatever needs to be done, and hoping that there will be enough private charity, isn’t a plan -- it’s a hope.  Vague hopes that private charities will take up the slack from decimated or never-enacted government programs are worthless, and have never come to fruition.

Jesus didn’t say “I was hungry and you hoped I’d be fed.”  Or “I was hungry and you called upon people to feed me.”

Similarly inadequate for Matthew 25 are the vague hopes that "the market" [15] will solve the problem; or that "competition" will; or even that the seemingly-more-specific, yet just as bogus, long-discredited Reagan-era theory, "trickle-down" economics, [16] will provide the solution.

Vague hopes are not enough: plans to help the poor must be concrete.

Indeed, Church social doctrine makes explicitly clear that concrete action is required:

As far as the Church is concerned, the social message of the Gospel must not be considered a theory, but above all else a basis and a motivation for action... Christ's words "as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me" (Mt 25 :40) were not intended to remain a pious wish, but were meant to become a concrete life commitment... Love for others, and in the first place love for the poor, in whom the Church sees Christ himself, is made concrete in the promotion of justice. Centesimus Annus

The hungry must be fed, the thirsty must be given water, the naked must be clothed, the sick must be given medical care.  No excuses are acceptable:

The motivating concern for the poor--who are, in the very meaningful term, "the Lord's poor"…--must be translated at all levels into concrete actions, until it decisively attains a series of necessary reforms. Solicitudo Rei Socialis [17]

You don't have to advocate any particular ideology: Democratic, Republican, liberal, conservative, socialist, libertarian, or any other "ism."  But you have to have a plan.  It can be a totally non-governmental plan.  But you have to be able to say "Here's what we will do, if allowed, to solve this problem as soon as humanly possible."

The hallmark here is effective action, not a state of mind or expressions of verbal concern.

If someone proposes a plan to help "x" number of people, and you oppose that plan because, for example, it utilizes the evil government, then you better have a real alternative plan of your own that will help just as many people to the same degree – not a vague hope.  If not, that’s un-Christ-like, and will get you sent to Hell.

If you don’t like someone’s proposal, come up with another way with the same goal and scope.  If not, you’re not Matthew 25 compliant.  You’ve done exactly what the cursed are condemned for in Matthew 25 – giving the hungry no food, the thirsty no water, the naked no clothes, the sick no medical care.

So I would challenge the right-wing pseudo-Christians in every situation where they oppose a plan to reduce human suffering: give us your concrete plan for how the private sector will accomplish this goal.  Should churches tell their followers that their faith requires an additional "x" percentage of charitable tithing for these purposes?  Or how?

For example, let's say I have a plan for the government to provide health insurance for all uninsured children in this country.  You oppose that plan because you believe the government will be inefficient and ineffective, and because you prefer small government.  That's fine.  You have valid concerns.  So tell me your plan to ensure that all uninsured children in the country have health insurance.  Not to ensure that 10% or 30% or even 50% of the children have health insurance, but all the children.  And with as much assistance and as quickly as my plan.

I'm not saying right-wing pseudo-Christians are going to Hell because their plan to, for example, feed the hungry has a different ideological basis than the plan I would prefer, or because they oppose big government programs.  Other people can and should have a different ideologies and philosophies than mine, their own way of solving problems. I'm not a believer in communism, socialism, capitalism, or any other economic "-ism."  Whatever works and provides a fair opportunity for all of society's members to participate, and leads to a fair distribution of the society's resources among all its members, is fine with me. I'm not saying that right-wing pseudo-Christians are going to Hell because their plan to feed the hungry won't, in my opinion, work.  No, I'm saying they're going to Hell because they have no plan.

The key here is that you must have what I call an Equivalent Alternative Solution (EAS), which will:

·       help at least the same number of people who legitimately need help

·       provide at least the same amount of effective assistance to those people

·       get the help to them at least as quickly

·       be at least as certain to accomplish these goals

In complete violation of the need for an EAS, right-wing pseudo-Christians consistently advocate courses of action which they know are sure to fail to help all those legitimately in need, or will help them inadequately [18], or will help them for too short a time, or are much less certain to take effect.

Right-wing pseudo-Christians often advocate an initially inadequate first step, with no mandated follow up, just the vague hope that the rest of the necessary process for the solution will work itself out through the sheer force of those magical cure-alls, competition and the market. [19]

Instead of coming up with Equivalent Alternative Solutions, right-wing pseudo-Christians make excuses: fraud ,government waste, it’s their own fault.

But Jesus didn’t approvingly say “I was hungry and you ensured I wasn’t fed by an inefficient government program.”

My favorite right-wing pseudo-Christian line is, the individual's suffering is the result of decisions he or she has made.  Well, so is getting cancer, the result of what you eat, smoke, breathe.

In the Bible, God didn’t tell the enslaved Israelites it's their own fault.  God didn’t express to the Israelites the hope that Pharaoh would change his mind.  God didn’t tell the Israelites to be self-sufficient and free themselves.  God took the Israelites out of Egypt.  The lesson is, there are some situations where the suffering simply do not have the means to help themselves without outside assistance.  (That certainly applies to children.)

An endless string of excuses not to help those in need is not to follow Matthew 25!  Would you give those excuses to Jesus?

If Jesus Christ came back today and was sitting across from you instead of your computer monitor, and he said that you must help feed all the hungry in the world NOW, would you tell Jesus what you've just told me?  Would you give Jesus Christ those excuses?  Well then don't give them to me, because Jesus Christ is now right across from you, in the words of the Bible I've pointed out to you.

The true un-Matthew-25-like heartlessness of right-wing pseudo-Christians is shown in the fact that they virtually never take the lead in offering solutions to ease human suffering. 

If their backs are up against the wall and they feel it will hurt them politically not to do so, they'll come up with a plan, which will invariably help fewer people a lesser amount and less certainly than even the already inadequate plan offered by the Democrats. [20]

If right-wing pseudo-Christians ever do come up with an idea, it's never to solve the problem on a society-wide, systemic level – they have to be dragged kicking and screaming to help others.

For example, President Bush has established a goal to end "chronic" homelessness within 10 years.  The chronic homeless are 10% of the total homeless population.  So Bush's goal is nowhere near a complete solution.  And of course, it remains to be seen whether President Bush will even request, let alone receive from the Republican-controlled Congress, adequate funding to accomplish his already insufficient goal.

Here's a minimal challenge to the right-wing pseudo-Christians: what is your specific, concrete plan to end homelessness in your own city or town?  Your Equivalent Alternative Solution to fully implement Matthew 25 right in the very locality where you live?

Aren't you doing just what Sean Hannity says, claiming conservatives want to hurt kids and old people?

Sean Hannity [21] certainly does complain that the Democrats accuse him and other conservative Christians of wanting to kill the sick, hurt children and the elderly, and so on.  Hannity whines that he and his kind are being “demonized.”

Well, YES!!  They are being perfectly and accurately labeled [22].  Killing the sick and hurting children and the elderly are the very effects of the policies of Hannity and his ilk.  Such atrocities are the inevitable, reasonably-to-be-expected results of the courses of action they advocate. 

If a program is designed to save lives – food, medicine, drug rehab, etc. – and it will help fewer people or not as much or will take longer to take effect, then the results of right-wing pseudo-Christian non-EAS measures are more death and suffering: for example, the sick die because they wait to go to the emergency room for treatment until they’re horribly ill, when it's too late to help them; or people don't get preventive screening tests for cancer, and tumors are not discovered in time for effective treatment.  (A recent study estimated that 18,000 people die in the United States every year because they don't have health insurance.)

A real Christian – someone imbued with the spirit of Christ – advocates more help for the suffering, NOT LESS.  And less is what the right-wing pseudo-Christians advocate. 

Right-wing pseudo-Christians can rant and rave that money will be wasted, blah blah blah.  Yes, I know that.  But lives will be saved.  Following the right-wing pseudo-Christian path causes more death.

Indeed, right-wing pseudo-Christians play the role of a collective rich man ignoring Lazarus [23] at their gate.

Or that of a collective priest or Levite in the Good Samaritan parable [24] crossing to the other side of the street.

This is why it's not "tax-and-spend" liberals who are evil, but rather, the evil ones are those whom we can counterpart-like label as deny-and-destroy, cut-and-kill conservatives.

Advocating anything less than an Equivalent Alternative Solution violates Matthew 25 because however many fewer people are helped, or less assistance offered, or delay incurred in getting the help to them, means to that extent some of the "least of these" are being rejected.

In other words, it can be said of these people who are not helped at all, or helped less than necessary, or helped too late:

'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' 45. Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' Matthew 25:44-45 [other translations]

Come to think of it, what about the fact that conservatives don't just have less comprehensive plans or even no plans at all, but they actually oppose and block the efforts of others who do have workable, full solutions?

That's right, now you're beginning to think like a true Christian, or a true follower of any real spiritual path or discipline.  The sin of right-wing pseudo-Christians actually goes far beyond merely Lazarus-story-like ignoring the suffering.

Right-wing pseudo-Christians act like the most important goal is to prevent a government program from being the vehicle to help the "least of these."

Funny, but I don't recall Jesus approvingly saying to those on their way to Heaven, "I was hungry, and you gave me no food, but what was more important is that you made sure that I was not fed by a government program that could have been wasteful."

Without Equivalent Alternative Solutions of their own, and by vigorously opposing the plans offered by others to help the suffering, right-wing pseudo-Christians not only don’t feed the hungry, they prevent them from being fed, they take food out of the mouths of the hungry.

Sean Hannity et al are worse than the cursed "goats" Jesus places by his left hand and condemns to Hell.  In Matthew 25, Jesus recounts that the cursed didn’t help Jesus.  Sean Hannity et al prevent other people – indeed the society itself -- from helping Jesus.

Again: it isn't that conservatives advocate a plan to feed the hungry that I ideologically disapprove of.  It's not like they say, let's accomplish the goal this way, with private industry.  It's that they advocate not having a full solution, and therefore NOT feeding the hungry.  One must conclude that right-wing pseudo-Christians are not just against "big government," they are against the goals of these "big government" programs – helping "the least of these." 

Imagine if the Pharisee had not just crossed the road to avoid helping the person in need, but had then body-slammed the Good Samaritan and pinned him down, thus preventing the Good Samaritan from lending a hand.  How much worse would that be! [25]

This is the essence of the "pseudo" designation: you can't be a true Christian if the focus of your life is thwarting others and the society itself from fully implementing such a fundamental teaching of Christianity as Matthew 25.  You can oppose government programs, but then you must propose Equivalent Alternative Solutions.

It bears repeating: this is precisely why it's not "tax-and-spend" liberals who are evil, but rather, the deny-and-destroy, cut-and-kill right-wing pseudo-Christians.

Verily, a third category needs to be added to Matthew 25's sheep and goats, to separate out the merely negligent or personally stingy, from sinners like right-wing pseudo-Christians who actively seek to thwart those trying to help the "least of these."

Not so fast.  Jesus didn't say have a government program to feed the hungry.

True.  And so what?  Jesus never said to use a government program, and he never said not to use a government program.  Similarly, Jesus never said to use private charity, and he never said not to use private charity.  Matthew 25 doesn't say how or how not to help Jesus in the guise of the suffering, it just says you must help them. 

Jesus didn't say how, he just said do it.

Jesus said "I was hungry and you gave me food."  He didn’t say how to feed the hungry or how not to feed the hungry.  In whatever system you live under, however you want to do it, just do it!

Right-wing pseudo-Christians confuse mandatory, forbidden and permissible.  Just because something isn't specified as mandatory – e.g., using a government program – doesn't mean it's forbidden.  It's a permissible way.  If you don't like that way, fine.  But to avoid a Matthew 25  violation, you must offer an Equivalent Alternative Solution, which helps at least the same number of people the same amount, as soon and as certainly.

A critical point to understand is that while misfortune can be cured by charity, structural/systemic injustice – the type called "structures of sin" by Pope John Paul II -- can be cured only by structural/systemic solutions.  Charity can provide a sometimes critically necessary Band-Aid for the results of structural/systemic injustice, but charity alone cannot provide the cure.

Government is one legitimate structural/systemic means to use for solving problems that are society-wide and systemic, or are otherwise beyond the ability of private charity to handle. 

How can these right-wing pseudo-Christians with a straight face read 21st century rabid anti-governmentalism into a 1st century text?

Do they think Jesus would say, "OK, just give what you want to as individuals, and if the problem is too big for individuals to handle, don't pressure your government to help, because after all, even more important than feeding the hungry and helping all the least of these, is making sure the government is small."

Right-wing pseudo-Christians worship the Golden Calf of anti-governmentalism, instead of the God of justice and righteousness and love your neighbor as yourself.

It must truly be asked, how many of the sick and naked and thirsty and hungry of "the least of these" will right-wing pseudo-Christians crucify upon the altar of their hard-line anti-governmentalism?

And right-wing pseudo-Christians apply their anti-governmentalism selectively to boot!  They obviously believe in political action and government intervention to foster their own conservative religious beliefs – anti-abortion activism, anyone?

Right-wing pseudo-Christians don't just do work as private individuals or groups, one-on-one with those seeking abortions.  They seek to have the government outlaw abortion, and towards that end, elect representatives who will support such a position.  This is because right-wing pseudo-Christians know that no matter how many one-on-one encounters they are able to undertake, they can never reach, let alone convert,  everyone seeking an abortion, and that a systemic, structural change is necessary to achieve their goal: ending all abortions. 

So how can right-wing pseudo-Christians then turn around and argue that the explicit injunctions of Matthew 25, by contrast, are to be carried out solely by private individual or group efforts, without a government role, when the problems of hunger or lack of medical care are similarly beyond the capacity of a charitable, one-on-one effort to solve, and when again, systemic, structural change is needed?

Why don't right-wing pseudo-Christians seek to have the government outlaw hunger or lack of medical treatment?  Why don't they fervently campaign to elect representatives who support such positions?  Oh no, here it's only private efforts that Jesus wants, even if that dooms countless innocents to death by hunger and lack of medical care.  On these issues, right-wing pseudo-Christians are more concerned with avoiding any governmental role than in saving lives! 

What light does the Bible shed on this issue?  Right-wing pseudo-Christians, in saying there is no role for the government in aiding the poor and establishing justice, either deliberately misread the Bible, or have literally not read major portions of it:

As detailed above, the Bible is full of condemnations of entire societies and governments for not helping the poor and others who are the "least of these."

Indeed, it bears repeating that the prophets Ezekiel and Zechariah, in metaphors involving a shepherd, assume an affirmative duty on behalf of the government to take care of the weak, sick and disabled:

Ezekiel 34:1-4

1. The word of the Lord came to me: 2. "Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, Thus says the Lord God: Ho, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? 3. You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fatlings; but you do not feed the sheep. 4. The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the crippled you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them. [other translations]

Zechariah 11:15-17

15. Then the Lord said to me, "Take once more the implements of a worthless shepherd. 16. For lo, I am raising up in the land a shepherd who does not care for the perishing, or seek the wandering, or heal the maimed, or nourish the sound, but devours the flesh of the fat ones, tearing off even their hoofs. 17. Woe to my worthless shepherd, who deserts the flock! May the sword smite his arm and his right eye! Let his arm be wholly withered, his right eye utterly blinded!" [other translations]

In addition to logic and Biblical precedents, Catholic social doctrine also holds that a government role is appropriate in helping to effectuate Matthew 25.  Pope John Paul II over and over again speaks of the necessity of politicians and governments acting in accordance with the Church's teachings on what Matthew 25 means. In other words, the government must sometimes be an actor in order to effectuate Matthew 25 goals.  This applies both domestically:

This constant dedication to the poor and disadvantaged emerges in the Church's social teaching, which ceaselessly invites the Christian community to a commitment to overcome every form of exploitation and oppression. It is a question not only of alleviating the most serious and urgent needs through individual actions here and there, but of uncovering the roots of evil and proposing initiatives to make social, political and economic structures more just and fraternal. Ecclesia in America [26]

as well as internationally:

[T]he stronger and richer nations must have a sense of moral responsibility for the other nations, so that a real international system may be established which will rest on the foundation of the equality of all peoples and on the necessary respect for their legitimate differences. Solicitudo Rei Socialis [27]

Logic, Biblical antecedents and the teachings of the Church, therefore, all agree that both private and government roles are appropriate to implement Matthew 25.

The government is inefficient, and always screws things up.

You are setting up a straw man choice: either continue our present course, which is essentially doing nothing about a given problem, or, institute a bloated, inefficient, corrupt, wasteful government program that will make the problem worse.  I think there are other choices.  Intelligent men and women can fashion workable solutions.  Obstacles are challenges to be overcome by committed Matthew 25 followers; obstacles should not be used, as right-wing pseudo-Christians do, as easy excuses for throwing up their hands and sighing, "Oh me, oh my, it's beyond our ability to do anything about this."

In other words, Matthew 25 is all about the goals of our actions, not the specific means to implement them.  Don't have the government involved if you think Matthew 25 can be fulfilled without governmental involvement.  Just have a specific, concrete plan for how that will be achieved, an Equivalent Alternative Solution that helps at least the same number of people the same amount, as soon and as certainly.  If you don't have such a plan, you violate Matthew 25.

If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion then every professed Christian must endeavor to have a centralized government  meet the needs of everybody.  Centralized governments undertaking the role of your father are proven failures.  Ever growing government frankly is not sustainable.  [28]

Again – and no matter how many times I repeat this, it doesn't seem to get through -- I do not say it must be a government solution, let alone a centralized government approach.  But there must exist some specific, concrete, doable plan, an Equivalent Alternative Solution that helps at least the same number of people the same amount, as soon and as certainly.  If you don't have such a plan, you violate Matthew 25.

The best situation for the Christian to meet the needs of the poor is the free market. [29]

First, as discussed above, logic and official Church social teaching agree that a legitimate Matthew 25 effort can't consist merely of vague words and hopes; rather, it must be a concrete and specific plan.  Merely spouting an ideological platitude as a catchall solution is transparently a means to avoid actually trying to solve the problem.

Second, people working full-time for less-than-starvation-level wages are not served by a "free market."  The legitimate, critical needs of multitudes around the globe are not met by the "free market."

Third, I put the term "free market" in quotes because, if you're for a free market solution, then you have to make sure the "market" is truly "free." It cannot have structural injustices built into it.  But the domestic and international financial systems certainly do.

Official Church social doctrine agrees with these points.  Both the right-wing pseudo-Christians and the Pope are anti-Communist, anti-socialist and anti-welfare state.  The difference, however, is that the Pope is not blinded by his ideology, and acknowledges the evidence that the market on its own will produce certain undesirable results, and therefore needs some regulation.  The Pope teaches that:

·       The market alone can not address all human needs, and its shortcomings need to be addressed:

[T]here are many human needs which find no place on the market. It is a strict duty of justice and truth not to allow fundamental human needs to remain unsatisfied, and not to allow those burdened by such needs to perish… Even prior to the logic of a fair exchange of goods and the forms of justice appropriate to it, there exists something which is due to the person because he is a person, by reason of his lofty dignity. Inseparable from that required "something" is the possibility to survive and, at the same time, to make an active contribution to the common good of humanity. Centesimus Annus

[I]f globalization is ruled merely by the laws of the market applied to suit the powerful, the consequences cannot but be negative. These are, for example, the absolutizing of the economy, unemployment, the reduction and deterioration of public services, the destruction of the environment and natural resources, the growing distance between rich and poor, unfair competition which puts the poor nations in a situation of ever increasing inferiority… While acknowledging the positive values which come with globalization, the Church considers with concern the negative aspects which follow in its wake. Ecclesia in America

There is certainly a legitimate sphere of autonomy in economic life which the State should not enter. The State, however, has the task of determining the juridical framework within which economic affairs are to be conducted, and thus of safeguarding the prerequisites of a free economy, which presumes a certain equality between the parties, such that one party would not be so powerful as practically to reduce the other to subservience. Centesimus Annus [30]

·       Matthew 25 unmet needs are getting worse, not better; so much for trusting in the "market" (alone) to fix things:

More and more, in many countries of America, a system known as "neoliberalism" prevails... [a]t times leading to the neglect of the weaker members of society.  Indeed, the poor are becoming ever more numerous, victims of specific policies and structures which are often unjust. Ecclesia in America

[T]he leaders of nations and the heads of International Bodies... should not forget to give precedence to the phenomenon of growing poverty. Unfortunately, instead of becoming fewer the poor are becoming more numerous, not only in less developed countries but--and this seems no less scandalous--in the more developed ones too. Solicitudo Rei Socialis [31]

·       Unjust "political and economic structures" are one of the reasons the market produces undesirable results:

 [O]ne must denounce the existence of economic, financial and social mechanisms which, although they are manipulated by people, often function almost automatically, thus accentuating the situation of wealth for some and poverty for the rest. Solicitudo Rei Socialis [32]

·       So harmful are these unjust structures that they can even be called "structures of sin":

If the present situation can be attributed to difficulties of various kinds, it is not out of place to speak of "structures of sin"... "Sin" and "structures of sin" are categories which are seldom applied to the situation of the contemporary world. However, one cannot easily gain a profound understanding of the reality that confronts us unless we give a name to the root of the evils which afflict us. Solicitudo Rei Socialis [33]

·       Working to remove these structural injustices, or "structures of sin," is thus also required by Matthew 25, so much so that even the Vatican itself will become involved:

It is a question not only of alleviating the most serious and urgent needs through individual actions here and there, but of uncovering the roots of evil and proposing initiatives to make social, political and economic structures more just and fraternal. Ecclesia in America [34]

Once more I express the hope, which the Synod Fathers made their own, that the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace together with other competent agencies, such as the Section for Relations with States of the Secretariat of State, "through study and dialogue with representatives of the First World and with the leaders of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, will seek ways of resolving the problem of the foreign debt and produce guidelines that would prevent similar situations from recurring on the occasion of future loans." Ecclesia in America

Your leftist ways [35] do not require the poor to make an effort, your leftist ways breed dependence on government. [36]

No one is advocating dependency-fostering, or that the poor shouldn't "make an effort."  If you think solutions offered by others will create these problems, then you have to come up with a better solution in order to fulfill Matthew 25.  Certainly require the poor "to make an effort," certainly avoid breeding dependence on government.  But you must also present a specific solution, an Equivalent Alternative Solution that will help at least the same number of people the same amount, as soon and as certainly.  Just vaguely calling for "the free market" or "competition" to solve things, for example, is merely broad-brush sloganeering that fails the Matthew 25 standard. 

Beyond that, you seem to be implying that the "poor" don't want to help themselves, that they're all freeloaders.  The fact is, no one works harder than the working poor, the people picking our fruits and vegetables here and abroad, for example.  Catholic social teaching recognizes the inappropriateness of a condescending, negative attitude towards the poor.  See the further discussion below on the issue of fostering negative attitudes towards the poor.

Matthew 25:31-46 was not meant to call upon the government to force people to give. [37]

In a democracy, you are "forced to give" to countless numbers of government programs – such as defense, highways, and medical research – all the time.  Assisting "the least of these" is a perfectly legitimate function of government.  (And it's one required by the Church's teachings, for example, if necessary "to make social, political and economic structures more just.")

So in a democracy, if the people decide collectively to help "the least of these," that's not "forcing people to give," it's allocating the resources of the society in a democratic way.

Remember, the current distribution of income and wealth was not produced by a divinely ordained system of commerce and exchange.  The current distribution of income and wealth is a result of a myriad of statutes and regulations that massively impact who earns how much and who keeps how much.  As even that conservative icon, George Will, admits:

"[A] mature capitalist economy is a government project.  A properly functioning free market system does not spring spontaneously from society's soil as dandelions spring from suburban lawns.

"Rather, it is a complex creation of laws and mores..." [38]

This "complex creation" is certainly subject to adjustment when the society deems it necessary to ensure fairness and to reduce the amount of unnecessary suffering amongst its citizens.

And as I seem to have to repeat over and over again, I'm not saying you must use the government to accomplish Matthew 25!  Do it without the government, but the operative words are "DO IT," not just vaguely express hopes for it.

All you have to do is implement an Equivalent Alternative Solution which will help at least the same number of people the same amount, as soon and as certainly.  But anything less, and you're violating Matthew 25!

If a law forces people to give something they truly in their hearts don't want to give in the first place, that type of giving is simply a dead work which God hates. [38a]

I don't disagree.

This question is really asking, What about those who oppose a government effort to help the "least of these," and the plan is implemented anyway?  Do these objectors then get the benefit under Matthew 25 for being part of a society that helps the "least of these?"

I agree with the question's premise: those objectors would not get any Matthew 25 benefit -- unless they had offered an Equivalent Alternative Solution which would have helped at least the same number of people the same amount, as soon and as certainly.

The very point of this essay is, indeed, that those who object to efforts to help the "least of these" without offering an Equivalent Alternative Solution of their own are precisely those people who will be considered to have dead faith, and will go to Hell.

We're not responsible for the whole world, just those who we encounter in our daily activities.

Really?  I somehow have trouble finding that concept in the language  of Matthew 25.

Jesus doesn’t speak of  "60%" of the hungry, or all those "within one mile" of your house.

Jesus doesn’t say “I was hungry and you fed me half the time.”

Jesus doesn't excuse any of the cursed by saying "I was hungry and you did not feed me, but that's okay because it was too inconvenient or expensive for you to do so."

Please, tell me, exactly which of the "least of these" did Jesus not really mean?  Tell me.

Tell me, what would the Jesus of Matthew 25 say to those who have so much while others within reach starve to death?  What would Jesus say to you?  What excuse would you dare give him?

Matthew 25 means what it says: ALL the hungry.  ALL the thirsty.  ALL the naked.  ALL the sick.

Jesus tells the cursed that they didn’t feed him when he was hungry, period!  There are no excuses acceptable for not doing so.  Certainly none of the excuses that right-wing pseudo-Christians offer! [39]

Certainly, it's better for the hungry to have jobs available to them that pay them enough to eat.  But right now they're starving to death, and before they die and can never work, they need food. [40]

Certainly some Third World governments are corrupt and some of the aid gets stolen before it reaches the people in need…  In fact, instead of going through the rest of the litany of right-wing pseudo-Christian excuses, let's assume that every one of their excuses is true in every single instance: that just makes the situation that much more challenging, that much more effort and ingenuity will be required to solve the problem.  But solve it we must. Throwing up our hands in surrender – as right-wing pseudo-Christians so eagerly do -- violates Matthew 25. [41]

Technology's Impact on the Meaning of  Matthew 25

It is true that in Jesus' time people didn’t instantly know what was happening all over the world, so an “only in your sight” interpretation of Matthew 25 might have made some sense then.

Kings in those times could have been informed of famines in different countries and sent aid, but it was still nothing like now, where instantaneous color communications let not only rulers, but everyone on earth, know about Matthew 25-like suffering in even the most remote corners of the globe.

The advance of technology means that today you must be a global-reach Good Samaritan -- not a global-reach Pharisee crossing to the other side of the street – let alone a global-reach Pharisee preventing the Good Samaritan from helping the needy.

All those whose suffering we become aware of through our modern technology must be helped in order to fulfill the Matthew 25 mandate.

In addition to expanding our awareness of who needs Matthew 25 help, the blessings of technology have exponentially and mercifully increased our ability to provide all the help that is needed.

Maybe in Jesus' time there was not enough food and other resources in the world to feed and otherwise help all the hungry, thirsty, naked and sick. [42]  Now there certainly is. 

For example, every day in the year 2000 there was enough food in the world to provide 2805 [43] calories for every man, woman and child on earth, far more than the world's population needs. [44]

Despite population increases, the number of calories available per capita has been increasing for decades, and such will be the case into the future.

Beyond an abundant global food supply, the amount of money necessary to effectuate all other Matthew 25 needs is laughably small compared to the resources available and not being used.

For example, the United Nations has estimated that for the entire world, "[p]roviding universal access to basic social services and transfers to alleviate income poverty would cost $80 billion."  [45]

According to Forbes, in 2003 the world's 476 billionaires owned $1.4 trillion in assets.  A 5% wealth tax would raise $70 billion, just about enough to wipe out poverty on earth – and would these billionaires even miss that money?  Of course not. [46]

Let's look at the United States all by its lonesome.  The total adjusted gross income of all individuals in the U.S. in 2000 was $6.4 trillion.  A 1% surtax would yield $64 billion, which would be a major hunk of the $80 billion. [47]  What a minimal effort it would take to live up to our ideals.

Beyond income, consider wealth: the total net worth in the U.S. in 1998 was $27.6 trillion. [48]  Even a ½ of 1% surtax would yield $138 billion!

And this does not even include, of course, the considerable personal income and wealth of the other Western industrialized democracies.

How do we measure up?  How much money do we currently utilize for these purposes?  In long-term development assistance, the Western industrialized countries fall woefully short of the U.N. goal of .7% of Gross National Income (GNI).  And the U.S. is perhaps most delinquent, spending just a little over 1/10 of 1% (.12%) of its GNI on foreign aid, for a contribution of about $13 billion. [49]  If the U.S. met the U.N. goal, that would produce another $78 billion.  And the other industrialized nations would contribute tens of billions of dollars more if they met the U.N. goal.  Again, the resources are certainly there, but it's questionable that – to use a favorite phrase of President Bush -- the "moral clarity" is.

So with our increased awareness and technological prowess comes increased Matthew 25 responsibility, but we fall woefully short. [50]  And the right-wing pseudo-Christians fall the shortest, not only by presenting clever excuse after clever excuse for non-action, but also by blocking the efforts of those who would like to implement a systemic, society/government-wide effort to effectuate the Matthew 25 mandate.

Church Social Doctrine

The Church's teachings on Matthew 25 confirm the global scope of the Matthew 25 imperative:

Sacred Scripture continually speaks to us of an active commitment to our neighbor and demands of us a shared responsibility for all of humanity. This duty is not limited to one's own family, nation or state, but extends progressively to all humankind, since no one can consider himself extraneous or indifferent to the lot of another member of the human family. No one can say that he is not responsible for the well-being of his brother or sister (cf. Gen 4:9; Lk 10:29-37; Mt 25:31-46). Attentive and pressing concern for one's neighbor in a moment of need [is] made easier today because of the new means of communication which have brought people closer together… Centesimus Annus

Today more than in the past, the Church's social doctrine must be open to an international outlook... [G]iven the worldwide dimension which the social question has assumed… this love of the preference for the poor, and the decisions which it inspires in us, cannot but embrace the immense multitudes of the hungry, the needy, the homeless, those without medical care and, above all, those without hope of a better future. It is impossible not to take account of the existence of these realities. To ignore them would mean becoming like the "rich man" who pretended not to know the beggar Lazarus [51] lying at his gate (cf. Lk 16:19-31) Solicitudo Rei Socialis [52]

One of the reasons we are responsible for all, the Church repeatedly and emphatically teaches us, is that the world's resources were meant for all to share equitably, so that each individual and people have a sufficient share.

It is necessary to state once more the characteristic principle of Christian social doctrine: the goods of this world are originally meant for all… The right to private property is valid and necessary, but it does not nullify the value of this principle. Private property, in fact, is under a "social mortgage"… which means that it has an intrinsically social function, based upon and justified precisely by the principle of the universal destination of goods.  Solicitudo Rei Socialis

God gave the earth to the whole human race for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favoring anyone.  Centesimus Annus

One of the greatest injustices in the contemporary world consists precisely in this: that the ones who possess much are relatively few and those who possess almost nothing are many. It is the injustice of the poor distribution of the goods and services originally intended for all. Solicitudo Rei Socialis [53]

Pope John Paul II is absolutely correct about the "injustice of the poor distribution" of the world's wealth.  Both domestically and internationally, income and wealth are so inequitably distributed as to cry out to Heaven for recourse.

The IRS tells us that the top 10% of individuals in the United States receive 46% of the income.  From Federal Reserve Board figures it has been calculated that the richest 10% of individuals in the United States control 71% of the wealth in this country. [54]

Globally, 25% of the people receive 75% of the income, and the richest 20% of the world's population monopolizes 86 per cent of global wealth. [55]

In other words: 80% of humanity must try to survive on a mere 14% of the world's wealth.  To look at it in perhaps more comprehensible terms: dividing up $100 among ten people in the same proportions would produce two people with $4.30 each, and 8 people with 18 cents each. [56]

As if matters weren't bad enough, the situation is getting worse and worse both domestically and globally: in the U.S., between 1979 and 1997, the richest 1% increased their income by 157% [57], ten times the rate of increase of those in the middle income percentiles. Globally, the income gap between the richest 10% of people in the world and the poorest 10% increased by nearly 39% from 1970 to 1997. [58]

The long and short of it is, if you want to obey Matthew 25, thereby following Jesus (and avoiding going to Hell), you must support enough of a reallocation of the world's wealth to save all the "least of these." [59]

A minimal challenge to right-wing pseudo-Christians: what is your specific, concrete plan, your Equivalent Alternative Solution, to feed the world's hungry? [60]

If you don't work you don't eat.  That's what it says.

You are probably referring to this passage:

2 Thessalonians 3:5-15

5. May the Lord direct your hearts to the love of God and to the steadfastness of Christ. 6. Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. 7. For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us; we were not idle when we were with you, 8. we did not eat any one's bread without paying, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not burden any of you. 9. It was not because we have not that right, but to give you in our conduct an example to imitate. 10. For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: If any one will not work, let him not eat. 11. For we hear that some of you are living in idleness, mere busybodies, not doing any work. 12. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work in quietness and to earn their own living. 13. Brethren, do not be weary in well-doing. 14. If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. 15. Do not look on him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother. [emphasis added] [other translations]

Your bringing this up shows a certain mean-spiritedness, as if everyone hungry on earth is hungry because they simply don't want to work.  How many people do you really think that applies to?  Is there anyone who would starve to death rather than work?  What about the children who are starving, how does this passage apply to them?  What about the people slaving away in agricultural fields who do not earn enough to feed their families… but are picking the food for you to feed yours?

Remember, we're not talking about lazy, able-bodied adults who don't want to work.  Why do right-wing pseudo-Christians and other conservatives always assume I want to give food to healthy adults who refuse to work?  Ranting on and on about welfare bums is a total straw man argument. [61]  That's not whom either I, or Matthew 25, are talking about.

I am talking about people who are starving, or who are gravely ill without access to medical care, or who work full-time at backbreaking labor but are still hungry because their wages are so low.

What about the children?  Are they lazy bums who refuse to work?  Did they make bad choices in life whose consequences they must now live with?  How could anyone read Matthew 25 and not realize that helpless children anywhere are 100% blameless for their plight and must be helped now with all the resources at our disposal?

Your question also evinces an air of superiority, when in reality, no one works harder than those who pick our crops from sunrise to sunset in sweltering, pesticide-contaminated fields.  Or those people who work two full-time jobs in what is often still a futile attempt to make ends meet. [62]  No one. 

In reality, the truly lazy are many of the rich, who live off their investments and do very little if any work, let alone hard labor, during their days of leisure.

Such an attitude toward the poor is part of a creeping demonization of the poor which right-wing pseudo-Christians seem particularly to excel at.

Do they not remember that Mary, Joseph and Jesus were a homeless family?!

Right-wing pseudo-Christians should beware: the Bible notes with disapproval how the poor are often the object of negative feelings:

Proverbs 14:20-21

20. The poor is disliked even by his neighbor, but the rich has many friends. 21. He who despises his neighbor is a sinner, but happy is he who is kind to the poor. [other translations] [63]

And official Church teachings -- in words seemingly directly addressed to right-wing pseudo-Christians -- explicitly warn against a demonization of the poor:

It will be necessary above all to abandon a mentality in which the poor - as individuals and as people - are considered a burden, as irksome intruders trying to consume what others have produced. The poor ask for the right to share in enjoying material goods and to make use of their capacity to work, thus creating a world that is more just and prosperous for all. The advancement of the poor constitutes a great opportunity for the moral, cultural and even economic growth of all humanity. Centesimus Annus [64]

A true Christian should, Pope John Paul II emphasizes, understand that extreme, life-threatening poverty is caused by injustice, not laziness:

[T]he poor are becoming ever more numerous, victims of specific policies and structures which are often unjust. Ecclesia in America

[O]ne must denounce the existence of economic, financial and social mechanisms which, although they are manipulated by people, often function almost automatically, thus accentuating the situation of wealth for some and poverty for the rest. Solicitudo Rei Socialis [65]

Shame on you for so cavalierly stating that "If you don't work you don't eat," as if such a hard-hearted assertion absolves you of Matthew 25 responsibilities.

So you're saying that Jesus would be a socialist if he came back today? [66]

I was wondering how long it would be before you brought out the old "Commie" and "pinko" epithets.

Your doing so brings to mind the old line that if Marx were alive today he wouldn't be a Communist – because of how the social justice principles and goals of theoretical Communism were distorted into brutal left-wing dictatorships.  Similarly, many Christians today ask, if Jesus were alive in our present time, would he be a Christian?  That's in part because if someone espouses some of the most elementary principles of justice enshrined in both the Old and New Testaments, right-wing pseudo-Christians immediately start their red-baiting.

I would more usefully frame your question: if there were only two choices, do you think Jesus would be a socialist or a conservative?

We are given some hints in the Church's teachings:

·       As discussed above, there is Christian social doctrine that the resources of the earth, and the output of man's work, are meant to be shared equitably by all.

·       As discussed above, there is the Church's "preferential option for the poor."

·       As will be discussed below, there is the overwhelming concern for the poor and for economic justice that permeates the Old Testament.

·       There is the redistribution of wealth injunction of the Old Testament Jubilee Year, when slaves were released and land returned to its original owners. [67]

·       And last but not least, do I even have to bring up the clarion words of Jesus repeated in virtual identical fashion in three of the Gospels:

Mark 10:25

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. [other translations] [68]

Such a teaching directly out of the mouth of Christ does not indicate a favorable attitude towards the type of unbridled accumulation of wealth celebrated by right-wing pseudo-Christians. [69]

To hear the right-wing pseudo-Christians, the Messiah's real name must have been Jesus “Adam Smith” Christ.  Could someone please tell me where Jesus extols the effectiveness – let alone the morality -- of trickle-down economics?  Or the genius of the "free market"?  Or where Jesus indicates even in the slightest way that the suffering should not be helped?

Socialism, at least in its concern that the world's goods be distributed equitably and that the suffering be helped, seems a lot closer to Church social doctrine than does the blind, idol-level market-worship of right-wing pseudo-Christians. [70]

In short, is not "Do unto others…" the essence of the goal of socialism, and the opposite of the operating principle of unregulated capitalism?

On the entire question of redistribution of wealth and income, having rich people is fine, as long as no one is dying because the rich hoard too much of the wealth.  Once everyone is at least minimally taken care of, then the super-greedy can be allowed to have more than their fair share. [71]

The case now, however, is that because the rich monopolize such a grotesquely huge share of the income and wealth, there's not enough left for everyone else. [72]

As noted above, and bearing repeating: the top 10% of individuals in the United States receive 46% of the income and control 71% of the wealth in this country.  Globally, 25% of the people receive 75% of the income, and the richest 20% of the world's population monopolizes 86 per cent of global wealth. [73]

In other words: 80% of humanity must try to survive on a mere 14% of the world's wealth.  To look at it in perhaps more comprehensible terms: Dividing up $100 among ten people in the same proportions would produce two people with $4.30 each, and 8 people with 18 cents each.  How can anyone doubt that such an inequitable division of the world's resources means that those at the bottom will suffer and die as the very least of "the least of these"? [74]

Bottom line: it really isn't about socialism, capitalism, or any other
-ism.  It's only about ensuring the well-being of "the least of these."

The purpose here is not to argue that Jesus would be a socialist if he were alive today. It is to point out how ludicrous it is for people who profess to be Christians to redbait solely because serious measures to ameliorate economic injustice are proposed.

At the very minimum, Jesus would be for enough regulation of capitalism to accomplish the Matthew 25 goals, not for the law-of-the-jungle, let-them-suffer-it's-their-own-fault Hobbesianism of the right-wing pseudo-Christians.

Even if what you've said so far is correct, the only way to get to Heaven is to accept Jesus as your savior.  Works alone don't cut it. [75]

This oft-repeated refrain which I receive from right-wing pseudo-Christians is based, they claim, on passages like:

John 14:6

I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.  [other translations]

Well, "by me" can mean not verbal acceptance, but through doing God's will, as Matthew 25 details.

Another passage offered by right-wing pseudo-Christians is: 

Ephesians 2:8-9

8. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God -- 9. not because of works, lest any man should boast. [other translations]

What the right-wing pseudo-Christians omit is that however much faith and grace are indispensable, they are clearly not by themselves sufficient:

James 2:14-17

14. What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? 15. If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, 16. and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? 17. So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.  [other translations] [76]

A bit further on:

James 2:20-24

20. Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? 21. Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22. You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, 23. and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God. 24. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. [other translations] [77]

In other words, both faith and works are required:

[F]aith which is not reflected in one's actions is not real faith. Our actions, our works, are the evidence that our faith is genuine... [A]t  the end of our life the best evidence of what we have believed is to be found in what we have done. [78]

Pope John Paul II says the same thing:

Conversion, therefore, fosters a new life, in which there is no separation between faith and works in our daily response to the universal call to holiness. In order to speak of conversion, the gap between faith and life must be bridged. Where this gap exists, Christians are such only in name. To be true disciples of the Lord, believers must bear witness to their faith, and "witnesses testify not only with words, but also with their lives"… We must keep in mind the words of Jesus: "Not every one who says to me, "Lord, Lord!' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" (Mt 7:21)....

The social dimension of conversion...

[C]onversion is incomplete if we are not aware of the demands of the Christian life and if we do not strive to meet them....  Hence, for the Christian people of America conversion to the Gospel means to revise "all the different areas and aspects of life, especially those related to the social order and the pursuit of the common good"... Involvement in the political field is clearly part of the vocation and activity of the lay faithful.  Ecclesia in America

So it is clear both profession of faith, and works to evidence that faith, are required.  Certainly there's no way to interpret John 14:6 to mean faith without works gets you into Heaven, since the plain language of James 2:14-17 says it won't.

And the type of works you need to do, what you need to accomplish, is set out clearly in Matthew 25. [79]

So right-wing pseudo-Christians, be aware that you need to do more than verbally affirm your belief in Jesus.  Each of you must do far more than exhale while utilizing your lips and tongue to form words.  You have to change your ways, and start acting in accordance with the Gospel.

Let me add that even if a non-Catholic Christian wants to maintain a belief that their adherence or not to Matthew 25 has no effect on whether they will go to Hell, certainly they would still want to follow the explicit Matthew 25 injunctions of Christ anyway, wouldn't they?

Finally: if I believed the Bible was the literal word of God, I'd make darn sure I was fully covered by both faith and works, given the eternally negative consequences of being wrong on this issue!

Your arguments about what Matthew 25 means and what it requires of us may be logical, but they just don't accord with the teachings of the Church.

Yes they do!   You need to read more carefully -- the Church's official teachings on Matthew 25 and related subjects have been sprinkled throughout this essay.  

In order to present them in a single coherent whole [80], here is a link to a document containing all of the Church teachings utilized in this essay. [81]

You quote the Pope a lot.  Who cares what religious leaders think?

It's true that religious leaders are often ignored.  They were not heeded in the 1980's on their call for a nuclear freeze.  On the other hand, people did pay some attention in the 1990's to calls from religious figures in favor of international debt forgiveness.  Recently, many mainstream religious denominations came out against a U.S. "preemptive" attack on Iraq.  While their advocacy did not prevent the war, it remains to be seen how influential their views will ultimately turn out to be. [82]

That being said, this essay is not about the opinions of religious leaders on particular issues.  This essay is about the crux of a religion and what is teaches about the proper way to live on earth.

I submit that Matthew 25 is the central defining passage -- it encapsulates and is the logical and eschatological fulfillment -- of the Old and New Testaments, indeed of all the world's great religions.  All is subsumed in it.

In Matthew 25, God exercises divine judgment on humanity.  Those being judged are not asked if they prayed every day or whether they observed the rituals faithfully.  They are not queried about how high their salary was, how big their house, how expensive their car.  Their workaday accomplishments of selling goods, building objects, shuffling papers from here to there are not at issue.  No, the only thing they are judged upon is whether they helped the needy person whom they saw, that needy person actually having been, in all cases, Jesus himself.

This essay is addressed most particularly not to non-believers – who may not care what the Bible or the Pope have to say -- but to right-wing Christians who claim to hold the Bible inerrant.  Matthew 25 lays out how a true Christian must act in this flesh-and-blood world.  Not what a true Christian must say, or claim they believe.  But do.  Right-wing pseudo-Christians fail this test.

To them I simply say, either you believe Matthew 25 is the literal word of God, or you don't.  If you do, act that way.  And if your actions show you really don't, then never again quote to me the Bible about any other issue.

Alright, let's assume for the sake of argument that your analysis of Matthew 25 is correct.  What kind of things are we talking about doing?

This is not a policy paper, so I can only make some general suggestions based on the language of Matthew 25 itself, and related Church teachings. [83]

Five concrete, doable things that would greatly help effectuate the Matthew 25 mandate to help the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the sick and the stranger are:

·       emergency relief, followed by development assistance, for the immediately-at-risk;

·       a living wage for the working poor;

·       universal health care;

·       immigration reform; and

·       revamping of the global economic system, for the establishment of worldwide, long-term justice.

Emergency relief and development assistance for the immediately-at-risk

Every day, 365 days a year, 30,000 children around the world under the age of five die needlessly from preventable/treatable diseases, over half involving malnutrition as a cause of death. [84]  That is 11,000,000 [85] children a year. [86]

No wonder, since "[l]ife-saving medicines are not available to two billion people — one third of the world's population."

As discussed above, the world already has the food and resources available to stop this tragedy. [87]   And innovative new ideas that could be implemented either by governments, the private sector, or a combination of both, are being constantly developed and tested.  But unfortunately, as Pope John Paul II has written in discussing the failure to address the continued global suffering of masses of humanity, it's the political will that has been lacking: [88]

[T]he decisions which either accelerate or slows down the development of peoples are really political in character. In order to overcome the misguided mechanisms mentioned earlier and to replace them with new ones which will be more just and in conformity with the common good of humanity, an effective political will is needed. Unfortunately, after analyzing the situation we have to conclude that this political will has been insufficient. Solicitudo Rei Socialis

The Western industrialized countries fall woefully short of the U.N. goal of .7% of GDP for development assistance.  And among these Western nations, the U.S. is perhaps most delinquent, spending just .1% of its GDP on foreign aid.  So obviously these numbers must come way up.  Again, the resources are certainly there, but it's questionable that – to use a favorite phrase of President Bush -- the "moral clarity" is.

A living wage for the working poor

Many millions of low income, minimum wage workers in the United States are not paid enough to survive on. [89]  A "living wage" requirement is essentially a hike in the minimum wage.  It is not a government program that spends money. 

The Pope is an ardent anti-communist and anti-socialist, and is against overly paternalistic governments, but even he knows that a living wage is neither communistic nor overly paternalistic, but baseline structural justice of the type required by Matthew 25 to eliminate structural injustice. 

 [I]n every case a just wage is the concrete means of verifying the justice of the whole socioeconomic system and, in any case, of checking that it is functioning justly. It is not the only means of checking, but it is a particularly important one and in a sense the key means… Just remuneration for the work of an adult who is responsible for a family means remuneration which will suffice for establishing and properly maintaining a family and for providing security for its future. Laborem Exercens

Other Popes have written of their support for a living wage also:

"[T]he worker must be paid a wage sufficient to support him and his family. …[I]f this cannot always be done under existing circumstances, social justice demands that changes be introduced as soon as possible whereby such a wage will be assured to every adult workingman."  Quadragesimo Anno [90]

In addition to being part of Church social doctrine, the concept of a living wage is also inherent in certain Biblical passages:

Deuteronomy 24:14-15

14. "You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brethren or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns; 15. you shall give him his hire on the day he earns it, before the sun goes down (for he is poor, and sets his heart upon it); lest he cry against you to the Lord, and it be sin in you. [other translations]

Leviticus 19:13

"You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him. The wages of a hired servant shall not remain with you all night until the morning. [other translations] [91]

The reason why wages have to be paid before the sun goes down, and not kept overnight, is because the worker needs those wages immediately for food and shelter to survive the night. [92]

Right-wing pseudo-Christians, as part of their ever-present attempts to defeat measures which would truly help the poor, rant and rave about how a living wage will cause prices to go up to an unacceptable degree. [93]  Yet as I've written elsewhere, studies show that raising the price of a head of lettuce picked in California by two cents, or a T shirt manufactured in Bangladesh by five cents, would pay for a living wage and lift the workers involved out of poverty.  How dare anyone professing to be a moral person not support such measures! [94]

If any of the right-wing pseudo-Christians reading this can stop their frantic internal mental jabbering about how a living wage is communism, socialism, whateverism, they might want to ponder the fact that Pope John Paul II -- and earlier Pontiffs going back over 100 years -- have all supported the living wage concept. So while even Popes are pro-living wage, these hard-hearted current-day pseudo-Christians advocate even against the heads of their own supposed religion.

And of course, if the right-wing pseudo-Christians don't want to follow the Pope's prescription and support a living wage, they must come up with their own Equivalent Alternative Solution which will which help at least the same number of people the same amount, as soon and as certainly.  Merely expressing vague hopes that some of their pet economic theories will produce such a result is not sufficient.

Universal Health Care

Even in the United States, the richest country on earth, we have 41.2 million Americans who are the "least of these" without health insurance, including an unbelievable 8.5 million children.  That's more than 1 out of every seven Americans.

There is beginning to be a call even from insurance companies [95] for universal health care coverage, at least partly in the form of the government subsidizing medical insurance premiums for those who can't afford them.  This is quite ironic, since at the very same time – as in all times of budgetary shortfalls -- health care aid is one of the first things being cut by the states in order to balance their budgets. [96]

It does seem, however, that some sort of guarantee of universal health care to all is an idea whose time has come – about 2000 years too late for those professing to follow Christ. [97]  If those who claim to follow Christ but whom I have labeled right-wing pseudo-Christians don't like the plans being offered, they need to step up to the plate and present their own Equivalent Alternative Solution which will help at least the same number of people the same amount, as soon and as certainly.  Or else they will show themselves to be the cursed "goats" they truly are.

Immigration Reform

Logically following from Matthew 25's "I was a stranger and you welcomed me" would be humane, caring treatment of economic and political refugees, many of whom right-wing pseudo-Christians incessantly belittle and dehumanize as "illegals."

The Matthew 25 "welcoming the stranger concept" undoubtedly is based on similar Old Testament admonitions, repeated over and over again, all variations of "You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt."  It is worth noting these Old Testament teachings:

·       We must love the stranger, even as much as we love ourselves.

Leviticus 19:34

The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. [other translations] [98]

·       Accordingly, we must not  wrong or oppress the stranger.

Exodus 22:24

"You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. [other translations] [99]

·       The same laws should apply to the stranger as to the native.

Leviticus 24:22

You shall have one law for the sojourner and for the native; for I am the Lord your God." [other translations]

·       This applies, for example, to justice,

Deuteronomy 24:17-18

17. "You shall not pervert the justice due to the sojourner or to the fatherless, or take a widow's garment in pledge; 18. but you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you from there; therefore I command you to do this. [other translations] [100]

·       to wages,

Deuteronomy 24:14-15

14. "You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brethren or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns; 15. you shall give him his hire on the day he earns it, before the sun goes down (for he is poor, and sets his heart upon it); lest he cry against you to the Lord, and it be sin in you. [other translations]

·       and to charity.

Deuteronomy 24:19-22

19. "When you reap your harvest in your field, and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow; that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. 20. When you beat your olive trees, you shall not go over the boughs again; it shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow. 21. When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not glean it afterward; it shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow. 22. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt; therefore I command you to do this. [other translations] [101]

It is important to note that the Bible does not exclude "strangers" from protection and care because they entered the country from economic as opposed to political pressures, or because they entered without the permission [102] of the governing authorities.

So Sean Hannity and his cohorts, who never tire of complaining that "illegal" immigrants are receiving health care and education in this country, should take especial note of these passages.

Firmly grounded in the just-described Biblical injunctions, the Pope specifically endorses a Matthew 25 responsibility to help immigrants:

"Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me" (Mt 25:40; cf. 25:45). The awareness of communion with Christ and with our brothers and sisters… leads to the service of our neighbors in all their needs, material and spiritual, since the face of Christ shines forth in every human being… It is expressed in Christian love which seeks the good of others, especially of those most in need.

…Taking the Gospel as its starting-point, a culture of solidarity needs to be promoted, capable of inspiring timely initiatives in support of the poor and the outcast, especially refugees forced to leave their villages and lands in order to flee violence. [103]  Ecclesia in America

And the Pope explicitly rejects the Hannitian "they're illegal so send them back no matter what their suffering" approach to immigration:

In its history, America has experienced many immigrations, as waves of men and women came to its various regions in the hope of a better future. The phenomenon continues even today, especially with many people and families from Latin American countries who have moved to the northern parts of the continent, to the point where in some cases they constitute a substantial part of the population... With this in mind, the Synod Fathers recalled that "the Church in America must be a vigilant advocate, defending against any unjust restriction the natural right of individual persons to move freely within their own nation and from one nation to another. Attention must be called to the rights of migrants and their families and to respect for their human dignity, even in cases of non-legal immigration." Ecclesia in America

Matthew 25 -- and the Church social doctrine regarding immigration based upon it -- should have special resonance for Americans, since we or our ancestors were all (except, of course, for Native Americans) strangers in the land of America at some point.  Unfortunately, Sean Hannity insists we use a Biblically irrelevant, immoral distinction that his forebears were "legal," and thus all human decencies and Biblical/moral injunctions towards the present day "illegals" can be discarded.  Sounds like an excuse that the Matthew 25 Jesus would not be very accepting of!  [104]

Revamping of the global economic system

Understanding Church social doctrine on globalization is the key to determining what needs to be done:

·       The interdependence produced by globalization includes but extends beyond economics, into the moral realm:

[I]t is already possible to point to the positive and moral value of the growing awareness of interdependence among individuals and nations. The fact that men and women in various parts of the world feel personally affected by the injustices and violations of human rights committed in distant countries, countries which perhaps they will never visit, is a further sign of a reality transformed into awareness, thus acquiring a moral connotation....It is above all a question of interdependence, sensed as a system determining relationships in the contemporary world, in its economic, cultural, political and religious elements, and accepted as a moral category. Solicitudo Rei Socialis

·       This broad-scale interdependence gives rise to a duty towards the suffering that the Pope calls "solidarity" [105]:

When interdependence becomes recognized... the correlative response as a moral and social attitude, as a "virtue", is solidarity. This then is not a feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress at the misfortunes of so many people, both near and far. On the contrary, it is a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all. This determination is based on the solid conviction that what is hindering full development is that desire for profit and that thirst for power already mentioned. These attitudes and "structures of sin" are only conquered--presupposing the help of divine grace--by a diametrically opposed attitude: a commitment to the good of one's neighbor with the readiness, in the Gospel sense, to "lose oneself" for the sake of the other instead of exploiting him, and to "serve him" instead of oppressing him for one's own advantage (cf. Mt 10:40-42; 20: 25; Mk 10: 42-45; Lk 22: 25-27). Solicitudo Rei Socialis [106]

·       The requirements of solidarity must inform all analyses of the costs and benefits of globalization:

The globalized economy must be analyzed in the light of the principles of social justice, respecting the preferential option for the poor who must be allowed to take their place in such an economy, and the requirements of the international common good... The Church in America is called... to cooperate with every legitimate means in reducing the negative effects of globalization, such as the domination of the powerful over the weak, especially in the economic sphere, and the loss of the values of local cultures in favor of a misconstrued homogenization. Ecclesia in America

A feature of the contemporary world is the tendency towards globalization... [I]f globalization is ruled merely by the laws of the market applied to suit the powerful, the consequences cannot but be negative. These are, for example, the absolutizing of the economy, unemployment, the reduction and deterioration of public services, the destruction of the environment and natural resources, the growing distance between rich and poor, unfair competition which puts the poor nations in a situation of ever increasing inferiority... While acknowledging the positive values which come with globalization, the Church considers with concern the negative aspects which follow in its wake. Ecclesia in America [107]

·       Such analyses make clear a Christian duty to create a world economic system that is fair to all (not just to the richer nations):

By virtue of her own evangelical duty the Church feels called to take her stand beside the poor, to discern the justice of their requests, and to help satisfy them... The same criterion is applied by analogy in international relationships. Interdependence must be transformed into solidarity, based upon the principle that the goods of creation are meant for all. That which human industry produces through the processing of raw materials, with the contribution of work, must serve equally for the good of all... Surmounting every type of imperialism and determination to preserve their own hegemony, the stronger and richer nations must have a sense of moral responsibility for the other nations, so that a real international system may be established which will rest on the foundation of the equality of all peoples and on the necessary respect for their legitimate differences. Solicitudo Rei Socialis [108]

Flowing from this, the Pope has pointed out specific areas that need to be addressed:

·       the international trade system

The international trade system today frequently discriminates against the products of the young industries of the developing countries and discourages the producers of raw materials. There exists, too, a kind of international division of labor, whereby the low-cost products of certain countries which lack effective labor laws or which are too weak to apply them are sold in other parts of the world at considerable profit for the companies engaged in this form of production, which knows no frontiers. Solicitudo Rei Socialis

This is not an abstract issue, but rather a question of life-and-death for the "least of these" of the world.  For example, when global coffee prices plunge, coffee farm workers and their families starve. [109]

·       the international monetary system

The world monetary and financial system is marked by an excessive fluctuation of exchange rates and interest rates, to the detriment of the balance of payments and the debt situation of the poorer countries. Solicitudo Rei Socialis

·       technological exchanges

Forms of technology and their transfer constitute today one of the major problems of international exchange and of the grave damage deriving therefrom. There are quite frequent cases of developing countries being denied needed forms of technology or sent useless ones. Solicitudo Rei Socialis

·       international debt

The principle that debts must be paid is certainly just. However, it is not right to demand or expect payment when the effect would be the imposition of political choices leading to hunger and despair for entire peoples. It cannot be expected that the debts which have been contracted should be paid at the price of unbearable sacrifices. In such cases it is necessary to find--as in fact is partly happening--ways to lighten, defer or even cancel the debt, compatible with the fundamental right of peoples to subsistence and progress. Centesimus Annus [110]

As always, if any right-wing pseudo-Christians disagree with these suggestions, all they need to do in order to stay in faith with the Jesus of Matthew 25, is to offer their own Equivalent Alternative Solutions which will help at least the same number of people the same amount, as soon and as certainly.  Is that a deafening silence I hear?

What do you make of the fact that right-wing Christians go out of their way to call themselves "compassionate conservatives," and claim that they are the ones who are truly interested in, and able to, help the poor?

It's not an unfair characterization to liken Sean Hannity and his brethren and sistren to false prophets in the literal Biblical sense. Why?  Let's look at what the Old and New Testaments have to say about false prophets.

False prophets are condemned in general over and over again:

Jeremiah 29:8-9

8. For thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Do not let your prophets and your diviners who are among you deceive you, and do not listen to the dreams which they dream, 9. for it is a lie which they are prophesying to you in my name; I did not send them, says the Lord. [other translations]

2 Peter 2:1-3

1. But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2. And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled. 3. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words; from of old their condemnation has not been idle, and their destruction has not been asleep. [other translations] [111]

Beyond such general condemnations, however, many Biblical passages about false prophets seem particularly addressed to the circumstances surrounding today's right-wing pseudo-Christians:

People love to hear false prophets,

Jeremiah 5:30-31

30. An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land: 31. the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule at their direction; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes? [other translations]

so much so that they literally even request false prophecy:

Isaiah 30:9-11

9. For they are a rebellious people, lying sons, sons who will not hear the instruction of the Lord; 10. who say to the seers, "See not"; and to the prophets, "Prophesy not to us what is right; speak to us smooth things, prophesy illusions, 11. leave the way, turn aside from the path, let us hear no more of the Holy One of Israel." [other translations]

This is especially so when the false prophets tell people that the evil they are doing is wonderful:

Jeremiah 23:17

17. They say continually to those who despise the word of the Lord, 'It shall be well with you'; and to every one who stubbornly follows his own heart, they say, 'No evil shall come upon you.'" [other translations] [112]

And Sean Hannity certainly does that, and his audience just eats it up.  Keep telling your listeners, Sean, that our earth-destroying SUV's are wonderful, and that the poor are just a bunch of lazy bums who made bad choices in life and now must live with the consequences. [113] 

Keep telling them, because they love to hear such false prophecy, that our nation is so wonderful and perfect that any criticism of it can be summarily dismissed as "blame America first" rubbish.  This type of false prophecy was most famously expressed as crying "Peace, peace" when there is no peace:

Jeremiah 6:13-14

13. "For from the least to the greatest of them, every one is greedy for unjust gain; and from prophet to priest, every one deals falsely. 14. They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, 'Peace, peace,' when there is no peace.  [other translations] [114]

False prophets like Hannity literally "strengthen the hands of evildoers," to use an appellation much in vogue of late:

Jeremiah 23:14

But in the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen a horrible thing: they commit adultery and walk in lies; they strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness; all of them have become like Sodom to me, and its inhabitants like Gomorrah." [other translations]

It's appropriate that these false prophets aid the evildoers, since these false prophets are really speaking the evil in their own heart:

Jeremiah 23:26

26. How long shall there be lies in the heart of the prophets who prophesy lies, and who prophesy the deceit of their own heart… [other translations]

In other words, a false prophet is one who turns people away from God's commandments (like Sean Hannity does from the Matthew 25 injunctions), even if such prophet otherwise produces signs or wonders that come true (e.g., huge Nielsen ratings?):

Deuteronomy 12:32-13:5

32. "Everything that I command you you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to it or take from it. Deuteronomy 13:1. "If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2. and the sign or wonder which he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, 'Let us go after other gods,' which you have not known, 'and let us serve them,' 3. you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4. You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him, and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and cleave to him. 5. But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to make you leave the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from the midst of you. [other translations]

Indeed, false prophets often appear to be the exact opposite: Sean Hannity oozes pious declarations of religiosity, but his words are – as the Sermon on the Mount puts it – akin to a ravenous wolf in sheep's clothing; Hannity does not just strengthen the hand of evildoers, he is an "evildoer."

Matthew 7:15-23

15. "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17. So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. 18. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20. Thus you will know them by their fruits. 21. "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23. And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.' [other translations]  [115]

As it is elsewhere put in starkest terms, "even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light":

2 Corinthians 11:13-15

13. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15. So it is not strange if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds. [other translations]

Indeed, if Satan were going to appear on earth, he would speak sweet, beguiling words which on the surface express the intention of helping people, but whose real effect would be preventing the amelioration of – indeed actually increasing the amount of -- human suffering.  Is not this a description of right-wing pseudo-Christians to a tee?

Right-wing pseudo-Christians are, in essence, not practicing Christianity.  They are practicing their own wolf-in-barely-disguised-sheep's clothing brand of Satanism. [116]

To all those who listen favorably to these false prophets walking  among (or more accurately broadcasting to) us, the Bible warns you:

Lamentations 2:14,17

14. Your prophets have seen for you false and deceptive visions; they have not exposed your iniquity to restore your fortunes, but have seen for you oracles false and misleading. 17. The Lord has done what he purposed, has carried out his threat; as he ordained long ago, he has demolished without pity; he has made the enemy rejoice over you, and exalted the might of your foes. [other translations] [117]

Others Who Decieve

In addition to false prophets, there are others described in the Bible who mislead, who speak and teach falsely. Indeed, at times the Bible almost seems to be explicitly describing Sean Hannity.

There is the fool, who "speaks folly, and his mind plots iniquity… to leave the craving of the hungry unsatisfied, and to deprive the thirsty of drink."  Note the "deprive the thirsty of drink" condemnation – it eerily predicts Hannity's opposition to providing emergency water stations in the desert to avoid the continuing tragedy of undocumented aliens dying of thirst in such border desert regions:

Isaiah 32:1,5-8

1. Behold, a king will reign in righteousness, and princes will rule in justice. 5. The fool will no more be called noble, nor the knave said to be honorable. 6. For the fool speaks folly, and his mind plots iniquity: to practice ungodliness, to utter error concerning the Lord, to leave the craving of the hungry unsatisfied, and to deprive the thirsty of drink. 7. The knaveries of the knave are evil; he devises wicked devices to ruin the poor with lying words, even when the plea of the needy is right. 8. But he who is noble devises noble things, and by noble things he stands. [other translations]

And there is also, as described in the passage directly above, the knave, who "devises wicked devices to ruin the poor with lying words":

Isaiah 32:7-8

7. The knaveries of the knave are evil; he devises wicked devices to ruin the poor with lying words, even when the plea of the needy is right. 8. But he who is noble devises noble things, and by noble things he stands. [118] [other translations]

Such "lying words" are the endless false excuses of right-wing pseudo-Christians about why we don't need to help the suffering, or better yet, the claims of these cut-and-kill conservatives that their policies which kill the poor actually will help them. [119]

Political leaders can also mislead the people:

Isaiah 3:12-15

12. My people -- children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, your leaders mislead you, and confuse the course of your paths. 13. The Lord has taken his place to contend, he stands to judge his people. 14. The Lord enters into judgment with the elders and princes of his people: "It is you who have devoured the vineyard, the spoil of the poor is in your houses. 15. What do you mean by crushing my people, by grinding the face of the poor?" says the Lord God of hosts. [other translations].

Does not a mental image of that famous right-wing pseudo-Christian George Bush immediately come to mind?  Can you not hear an echo of his fractured syntax as he claims to be a "compassionate conservative" helping the poor, while in deed he continually shreds the safety net and directs tax cuts to the wealthy? [120]

Finally, there are yet unnamed others who preach falsely:

Romans 16:17-18

17. I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. 18. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded. [other translations]

Note that these persons "serve" "their own appetites" – could that be a fair description of those who insist on their right to waste all the oil they want to in their beloved SUV's, who insist on their right to aggrandize unto themselves ever-more-obscene proportions of the nation's – and world's – income and wealth?

Could the "fair and flattering words" be the beguiling lies of Limbaugh and Hannity?

And as for "the simple-minded" whose hearts are deceived – are they not the audiences of 8th grade social studies class-level understanding-of-the-world worshippers of these talk show devils?

Sean Hannity et al can take comfort in one thing, however: unlike the Old Testament, the New Testament does not seem to require that we kill these false prophets, but merely that we "avoid" them.

So Sean Hannity and other right-wing pseudo-Christians should be shunned by true Christians.

You seem to single out Sean Hannity quite a bit.

Yes I do, and he well deserves it.  To be quite honest, I've tried to keep invective against Hannity to a minimum in this essay, but now that it's been brought up as a separate subject, I'm going to let 'er rip a little.  Please allow me to bluntly lay out some of the thoughts that have occurred to me as I've witnessed and contemplated Hannity's most un-Matthew-25-like behavior over the years.

At the very least, Hannity is a moral illiterate.  He's shrill, shallow, repetitive and, above all, cruel.  Think Sean "Heart of Stone" Hannity.

Hannity coarsens the public dialogue, lowers the bar of acceptable cruelty, by widely broadcast example makes it perfectly acceptable to say we shouldn't provide water for people dying of thirst in the desert.

Isaiah 41:17

When the poor and needy seek water, and there is none, and their tongue is parched with thirst, I the Lord will answer them, I the God of Israel will not forsake them. [other translations]

God will not forsake them, but Sean Hannity will!  Hannitian cruelty –and Biblical violation -- obviously know no bounds.

Did you ever see Sean Hannity get excited and happy when suffering people are helped?  No, he lights up only when an aid program is defeated or the government is demonized.  He worships the Golden Calf of anti-governmentalism and marketism.

Oh yes, he also lights up when discussing the need to execute criminals or go to war against tiny, impoverished Third World nations.

Hannity complains that Democrats accuse him and other right-wing pseudo-Christians of wanting to kill the sick, hurt children and the elderly, and so on.  Well, YES!!  Killing the sick and hurting children and the elderly are the very effects of the policies of Hannity and his ilk. 

It all goes back to the Equivalent Alternative Solution standard.  To avoid a Matthew 25  violation, you must offer an Equivalent Alternative Solution, which helps at least the same number of people the same amount, as soon and as certainly.  The right-wing pseudo-Christians virtually never do so.  When an effort is being mounted to save lives – food aid, medical care, drug rehab, etc. – and the right-wing pseudo-Christian "solution" will help fewer people or not as much or will take longer to take effect, then the results of such right-wing pseudo-Christian non-EAS measures are more death and suffering.

Hannity often states that he is a devout Catholic. As I've suggested elsewhere, someone – perhaps Hannity's priest -- needs to ask him whether his copy of the Bible has Matthew 25 torn out of it.

Perhaps Hannity's Bible did not have these pages torn out. Maybe Hannity has a special unabridged version of the Bible which contains heretofore unknown modifications to Matthew 25.

What we can call the "Hannity exception clauses" perhaps provide that the sick must be ministered to "but only when such sick person is at a level of distress requiring emergency room care;" that the stranger must be welcomed "except when said stranger lacks proper immigration papers;" and of course, the catch-all Hannity exception clause: "and all such requirements to minister to those in need shall not apply when the neediness of said individuals is the result of their choices in life, including their failure to secure a more advanced level of education."

What is Hannity's worst insult? To call someone a "tax-and-spend" liberal.  This truly reveals the essence of the right-wing pseudo-Christians.  I ask you:  who is it liberals want to "tax and spend" on, themselves?  No.  They want to expend their own money and the society's collective financial resources -- allocated via a democratic process -- to, in effect, effectuate Matthew 25 goals.  They want to spend it on "the least of these." You can criticize liberal programs or methods, but the "tax-and-spend" epithet really criticizes the goal itself.  Because what do the right-wing pseudo-Christians offer instead?  At best barely half-measures, but most often, nada. Zilch. Nothing.

In fact, the cut-and-kill conservatives want to accomplish the opposite of Matthew 25, they want to have more money for themselves and the richest among us: the Hannity mantra is "Me, Me, Me.  I want the money.  I need a bigger house.  I need a bigger car.  The money is MINE."

“Tax-and spend liberals”?  How about deny-and-destroy, cut-and-kill conservatives?  Deny and destroy health, dreams, lives.  Cut funding for life-and-death programs, and surely people will die as a result.  The answer to fraud and waste isn’t to kill the program, abandon the goal and let the people die.  The answer is to FIX IT or DO IT ANOTHER WAY!

And please don't tell me that if only the cut-and-kill pseudo-Christians paid less taxes, they'd have more money for charity.  First, as discussed above, charity alone is not sufficient to accomplish the Matthew 25 mandate.  Second, only a small fraction of the tax savings or corporate welfare doled out to cut-and-kill pseudo-Christians and their allies will ever be put to even charitable, let alone systemic-problem-solving purposes.

Hannity thus leads the charge in repeatedly violating the most basic premise of Christian social doctrine: the resources of the planet were given to us to all share equitably. [121]

Contrary to Hannitian pseudo-Christian philosophy, the Pope reminds us that we are all (still) our brother's (and sister's!) keeper:

Sacred Scripture continually speaks to us of an active commitment to our neighbor and demands of us a shared responsibility for all of humanity....  No one can say that he is not responsible for the well-being of his brother or sister (cf. Gen 4:9; Lk 10:29-37; Mt 25:31-46).  Centesimus Annus

Unlike the Catholic Church and Pope John Paul II, who teach a "preferential option for the poor," Sean Hannity seems to think that there's  a preferential option for the rich!

Instead of liberation theology, Hannity's is an oppression theology. [122]

Sean Hannity preaches the exact opposite of the Jesus Christ of Matthew 25.  He fosters to millions a form of anti-Christianity:

Do not love your neighbor as yourself

Do not feed the hungry, clothe the naked, or heal the sick.

Right-wing pseudo-Christians like Sean Hannity think Christianity is defined as opposition to abortion, homosexuality and pornography – interestingly enough, three things Jesus never mentioned even once, did he?!

Imagine Sean Hannity interviewing Jesus Christ!

If Jesus Christ came back today and began walking the earth preaching as he did before, Sean Hannity would call him a bleeding heart liberal who doesn't live in the "real" world, and would then add for good measure that Jesus Christ is a homeless bum who deserves his position because he didn't bother to get a proper education.

Hannity and his worshippers are truly Mephistophelean wolves in Christian sheep’s clothing.

It's truly incredible how Hannity and his demon-possessed, pseudo-Christian brethren, his devils-in-Christian clothing sistren, all these mean-spirited, let-everyone-die-because-it’s-their-own-fault bastards, try to pass themselves off as Christians!

Hannity and his ilk must be a morally and spiritually retarded evolutionary offshoot from the rest of humanity. [123]  Either that, or there really must be a Devil that possesses them, because no 21st century humans could act the way these right-wing pseudo-Christians do.

I watch Sean Hannity the way many people are compelled to view an automobile accident scene – it’s repulsive and vile to look at, but you can’t take your eyes off it.  With automobiles, it’s physically mangled bodies.  With Sean Hannity, it’s a spiritually mangled soul – possessed by the real Evil One, Satan himself!  [124]

Hannity's Self-Delusion and His Path Ahead

Some of the things Hannity says show an incredible blindness:

"The Bible teaches whoever is great, the greatest among you shall be your servant," he added. "That was the example of Christ. I mean, He didn't come here to be served; He came here to serve. He came here to heal the sick, He came here to let the blind see, help the crippled, exorcise demons, preach to the world and to ultimately sacrifice His life so that we may live and be reconciled. That's the example, but you have to be an active participant."

Gee, so how does Sean Hannity choose to be an "active participant"?  By working to deny effective solutions if they involve the evil government, and offering no Equivalent Alternative Solutions of his own.  Sean Hannity must be self-delusional.

Jesse Helms said recently, when asked about his new-found fervor to fund overseas efforts to prevent mother-to-child transmission of AIDS:

"Some may say that this initiative is not consistent with some of my earlier positions," wrote Mr. Helms. But he continued, "in the end our conscience is answerable to God. Perhaps, in my 81st year, I am too mindful of soon meeting Him, but I know that, like the Samaritan traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho, we cannot turn away when we see our fellow man in need."

Sean Hannity and company should heed these words, not wait until they’re old and gray before opening their eyes.  Most are far younger than Jesse Helms’ 81, but any of them could still die tomorrow, or (as may you the reader) in the very moment you are reading this.

The most pathetic thing is, Hannity really does think he's a good Christian.  Hannity probably thinks that God approves of what he does, just like self-deluded humans have done since Biblical times:

Micah 3:9-11

9. Hear this, you heads of the house of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel, who abhor justice and pervert all equity, 10. who build Zion with blood and Jerusalem with wrong. 11. Its heads give judgment for a bribe, its priests teach for hire, its prophets divine for money; yet they lean upon the Lord and say, "Is not the Lord in the midst of us? No evil shall come upon us." [other translations] [125]

But as shown earlier, Hannity is in reality just another in a long line of false prophets that the Bible speaks of, and fortunately for him, the New Testament does not require killing such false prophets, but merely avoiding them:

Romans 16:17-18

17. I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. 18. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded. [other translations]

So Sean Hannity should be shunned by good Christians as the false prophet, Satanic, even anti-Christ-like figure he is.

And when he does eventually face divine judgment, Hannity will not, I suspect, receive such relatively mild punishment as shunning. [126]  The only question –

Wait!  I sense a Heavenly presence in the room… a "corrected" version of the Lazarus passage in Luke is coming to me.  Let me quickly write down these words before they vanish again into the ether:

Luke 16:19-31

19. "There was a rich man named Hannity, who was clothed in pinstripe gray and fine wool and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20. And at the door to his nation, yea at the very door of his Fox News office building, lay a poor immigrant named Jose, full of sores, 21. who desired to be fed with what fell from Hannity's table. But Hannity said the man had failed to respect the sovereignty of Hannity's nation, the greatest nation ever given mankind by the Lord, and thus Jose must be immediately deported back from whence he came. 22. The poor man Jose was deported, and died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man Hannity also died and was buried; 23. and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Jose in his bosom. 24. And Hannity called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Jose to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.' 25. But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Jose in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.' 27. And Hannity said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my Fox News office building, 28. for I have political colleagues there, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' 29. But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' 30. And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31. He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.'"

I am now receiving an alternative corrected version:

Luke 16:19-31

19. "There was a rich man named Hannity, who was clothed in pinstripe gray and fine wool and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20. And at the door to his office building, lay a poor homeless man named Lazarus, full of sores, 21. who desired to be fed with what fell from Hannity's table. But Hannity said the man had made certain choices in life, and must abide by the results, and that above all, a government program should never be used to help a man such as Lazarus. 22. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man Hannity also died and was buried; 23. and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus in his bosom. 24. And Hannity called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.' 25. But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.' 27. And Hannity said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my Fox News office building, 28. for I have political colleagues there, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' 29. But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' 30. And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31. He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.'"

Yes, now I'm sure: the only question is, utilizing the schema of Dante's Hell, into what circle will Hannity be cast. [127]

There isn't a circle where false prophets as such are put, but one should be created. There really should be a special circle of Dante’s Hell reserved for those like Hannity who mislead by preaching peace while they wage war.

If there can't be a separate circle, I have two alternative suggestions:

1) In the eighth, next-to-deepest circle of Hell, Dante placed Mohammed.  Dante was strongly anti-Islamist, and felt Mohammed deserved this place in Hell not only for being a false prophet, but for creating a schism in Christianity.  We in the modern era know better, and we would rightly take Mohammed out of Dante's Hell altogether -- and we should rightly put instead in that eighth circle one Mr. Sean Hannity for his incessant and deadly false prophecy.  And while it's true that Hannity has not caused a schism in the Roman Catholic church, perhaps he should be causing one, with all true Christians refusing to be part of any Church establishment which has not excommunicated Hannity and his ilk for their virulently anti-Christ-like behavior.

--or--

2) In the deepest circle of Hell, eternally tormented in one of the three mouths of Satan himself, is Judas Iscariot, for betraying Jesus.  A fourth mouth should be added into which Hannity would most properly be placed.  Worse than Judas, Hannity betrays and helps kill Jesus not once, but thousands if not millions of times, every time Hannity advocates letting any of "the least of these" suffer and die:  'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.'

OK, so according to you, all the right-wing Christians go to Hell, and all the wonderful liberals go to Heaven?

Not really. Liberals and those further left on the political spectrum, such as myself, are also in a heap of trouble when Matthew 25 is applied to us.

Why are you saying that liberals and other progressives violate Matthew 25?  They are the ones considered to be on the side of the poor and disenfranchised.

I don’t offer my home to the homeless person I walk by.  Jesus didn't say "I was hungry and you gave me a quarter."  Jesus said the needy one was satisfied.  If we really believed that as we do it to the "least" of us is as we do it to Jesus... think of it!  If we really believed that this homeless person was Jesus, wouldn't we take him out to the best dinner in town, and then ask, even beg him to stay in our home?

On a broader level, the goals set even by non-conservatives who are thought of as overly idealistic, fall far short of Matthew 25.  For example, a U.N. goal is to reduce the number of hungry people in the world by 50% within 15 years.

But Jesus didn't approvingly say, "I was hungry, and you pledged that within 15 years there will be a 50% chance I will be fed."

That's a shamefully and murderously insufficient goal.

Or take the U.N.'s goal for securing access to potable water for those who do not have it: Jesus didn't say he would send nations to Heaven because "I was thirsty and you said that within 13 years there will be a 50% chance that I will have water to drink."

The same disgraceful inadequacy applies to the U.N. goal of cutting global poverty in half by 2013.

That’s not good enough.  What’s their plan to end it, and as soon as possible [128]? 

What's worse, we don't seem to be able to meet even these shamefully insufficient goals.  The U.N. laments that "[p]rogress in reducing hunger has virtually halted," to the extent that at the present rate, it will be 148 years before hunger is even cut in half!

And the goal of reducing hunger in half by 2015 is so easy to achieve:

[P]ublic investment of US$24 billion a year would be enough to jump-start an accelerated campaign against hunger that could reach the WFS goal. Taken in perspective, the price tag is startlingly low, dwarfed by the more than US$300 billion that the OECD nations transferred to support their own agriculture in 2001. As the economist Jeffrey Sachs has pointed out, in comparison to a global economy measured in the trillions, US$24 billion could be considered a “rounding error”, representing barely five cents for every US$100 of income. [129]

Indeed, every day in the year 2000 there was enough food in the world to provide 2805 [130] calories for every man, woman and child on earth, far more than the world's population needs. [131]  Despite population increases, the number of calories available per capita has been increasing for decades, and such will be the case into the future.

Even a much more ambitious goal of eliminating global poverty is easily within reach: as noted earlier, the United Nations has estimated that for the entire world, "[p]roviding universal access to basic social services and transfers to alleviate income poverty would cost $80 billion." [132]  Yet In long-term development assistance, the Western industrialized countries fall woefully short of the U.N. goal of .7% of GNI.  And among these countries, the U.S. is perhaps most delinquent, spending just a little over 1/10 of 1% (.12%) of its GNI on foreign aid, which comes to about $13 billion. [133]  If the U.S. met the U.N. goal, that would produce another $78 billion.  And the other industrialized nations would contribute tens of billions of dollars more if they met the U.N. goal.

Data presented earlier is worth repeating for its stark illustration of how pitifully little effort is really made to effectuate the Matthew 25 goals:

According to Forbes, in 2003 the world's 476 billionaires owned $1.4 trillion in assets.  A 5% wealth tax would raise $70 billion, just about enough to wipe out poverty on earth – and would these billionaires even miss that money?  Of course not. [134]

Let's look at the United States all by its lonesome.  The total adjusted gross income of all individuals in the U.S. in 2000 was $6.4 trillion. [135]  A 1% surtax would yield $64 billion, which would be a major hunk of the $80 billion.  What a minimal effort it would take to live up to our ideals.

And this does not even include, of course, the considerable personal income of the other Western industrialized democracies.

Beyond income, consider wealth: the total net worth in the U.S. in 1998 was $27.6 trillion. [136]  Even a ½ of 1% surtax would yield $138 billion!

Can anyone really argue that any of our pitifully small efforts satisfy Matthew 25, when we provide so much less help to "the least of these" than we're able to?  As FAO Director-General Dr. Jacques Diouf recently said:

We do not have the excuse that we cannot grow enough food or that we do not know enough about how to eliminate hunger. What remains to be proven is that we care enough, that our expressions of concern in international fora are more than rhetoric...

What's the result of our failure to act?  Every day, 365 days a year, 30,000 children around the world under the age of five die needlessly from preventable/treatable diseases, over half involving malnutrition as a cause of death. [137]  That is 11,000,000 [138] children a year. [139]

Put more bluntly, each and every year, this world's children suffer, and we clearly witness, [140] a Double Holocaust By Malign Neglect. [141]  We can stop it, we simply choose not to. [142]

For this unequivocal and truly evil violation of Matthew 25, I think it not unlikely that we will all be joining Sean Hannity et al in Hell, perhaps in a less painful circle thereof.  This applies to us all.  We are all going to Hell.  Our nation as a whole.  The other industrialized nations.  The elites in Third World countries.  Every world leader. 

We don't even try, or even pretend to try, to solve this problem, or a myriad of others, like homelessness. [143]  It's not as if we had a good-faith plan and it failed, or that we have a 10-year plan that will take too long, but at least the goal is present and will eventually be reached.  It's not as if we did the best we could, gave it our best shot.  No, we just said to "the least of these" among us, we all just said to Jesus Christ himself, "Frankly, Mr. Christ, we don't give a damn."

What about non-Catholic Christians?

Catholics are the largest Christian denomination, making up almost one-third of the nation's 159 million adult Christians.  The breakdown is as follows for numbers of adults in the top denominations: 50 million Catholics, 33 million Baptists, 14 million Methodists, 9 million Lutherans and 5 million Presbyterians.

I suggest that in the context of this essay's discussion of Matthew 25, doctrinal/theological disputes between the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian denominations are not relevant and can be put aside. The Pope's analysis of Matthew 25 can and should be used as a benchmark by all Christians to understand what Matthew 25 requires of those who seek to follow the teachings of Jesus.

What about other religions? Jews? Muslims? Hindus? Buddhists?  Aren't you just Christian-bashing?

To the extent that any religion

·       commands its followers to take Matthew 25-type actions

·       proscribes the ultimate punishment for disobedience, and

·       the followers of that religion do not undertake such actions

then such followers would be condemned also.  Let's look at Judaism, since it is from that soil that Christianity grew.

It is not, in contemporary America, an often-taught aspect of the Old Testament – neither in right-wing pseudo-Christian churches, nor in mainstream Jewish synagogues -- that scores of passages in that scripture command us to not oppress the poor; to treat them fairly; and as individuals and nations to in all situations behave in a manner consistent with social justice.  I will present some of these passages below, both to justify my assertion that Jews as well as Christians would be adhering to their religious tenets by following the Matthew 25 injunctions, and as well, to point out that the Matthew 25 injunctions themselves as explicated in this essay follow naturally from the Old Testament.

Indeed, the first passages I will cite are literal forebears of Matthew 25's use of treatment of the poor as an eschatological determinant.  These passages may well have actually provided the schema and language for Matthew 25:

·       The great prophet [144] Isaiah, in proclaiming the kind of a holy day fast God desires of us, says that if you follow what are, in effect, the Matthew 25 injunctions, the Lord will answer you and be with you and you shall prosper:

Isaiah 58:6-12

6. "Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? 7. Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh? 8. Then shall your light break forth like the dawn, and your healing shall spring up speedily; your righteousness shall go before you, the glory of the Lord shall be your rear guard. 9. Then you shall call, and the Lord will answer; you shall cry, and he will say, Here I am. "If you take away from the midst of you the yoke, the pointing of the finger, and speaking wickedness, 10. if you pour yourself out for the hungry and satisfy the desire of the afflicted, then shall your light rise in the darkness and your gloom be as the noonday. 11. And the Lord will guide you continually, and satisfy your desire with good things, and make your bones strong; and you shall be like a watered garden, like a spring of water, whose waters fail not. 12. And your ancient ruins shall be rebuilt; you shall raise up the foundations of many generations; you shall be called the repairer of the breach, the restorer of streets to dwell in. [other translations]

·       The prophet Ezekiel proclaims that if a man performs Matthew 25-like actions, he shall live; if he doesn't, he shall die:

Ezekiel 18:5-13

5. "If a man is righteous and does what is lawful and right -- 6. if he does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor's wife or approach a woman in her time of impurity, 7. does not oppress any one, but restores to the debtor his pledge, commits no robbery, gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment, 8. does not lend at interest or take any increase, withholds his hand from iniquity, executes true justice between man and man, 9. walks in my statutes, and is careful to observe my ordinances -- he is righteous, he shall surely live, says the Lord God. 10. "If he begets a son who is a robber, a shedder of blood, 11. who does none of these duties, but eats upon the mountains, defiles his neighbor's wife, 12. oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore the pledge, lifts up his eyes to the idols, commits abomination, 13. lends at interest, and takes increase; shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominable things; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself. [other translations]

·       Job says that if he has violated any of the Matthew 25 injunctions, God should punish him:

Job 31:16-22

16. "If I have withheld anything that the poor desired, or have caused the eyes of the widow to fail, 17. or have eaten my morsel alone, and the fatherless has not eaten of it 18. (for from his youth I reared him as a father, and from his mother's womb I guided him); 19. if I have seen any one perish for lack of clothing, or a poor man without covering; 20. if his loins have not blessed me, and if he was not warmed with the fleece of my sheep; 21. if I have raised my hand against the fatherless, because I saw help in the gate; 22. then let my shoulder blade fall from my shoulder, and let my arm be broken from its socket.  [other translations]

·       Job also says that a person who has violated the Matthew 25 injunctions is doomed:

Job 22:5-11

5. Is not your wickedness great? There is no end to your iniquities. 6. For you have exacted pledges of your brothers for nothing, and stripped the naked of their clothing. 7. You have given no water to the weary to drink, and you have withheld bread from the hungry. 8. The man with power possessed the land, and the favored man dwelt in it. 9. You have sent widows away empty, and the arms of the fatherless were crushed. 10. Therefore snares are round about you, and sudden terror overwhelms you; 11. your light is darkened, so that you cannot see, and a flood of water covers you. [other translations]

·       Finally, the prophet Ezekiel uses a metaphor involving a shepherd and his sheep to condemn rulers who violate the Matthew 25 injunctions:

Ezekiel 34:1-4

1. The word of the Lord came to me: 2. "Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, Thus says the Lord God: Ho, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? 3. You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fatlings; but you do not feed the sheep. 4. The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the crippled you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them. [other translations] [145]

Many, many [146] other Old Testament passages provide general injunctions regarding the proper way to treat the "poor" [147] (in other words, the Matthew 25 hungry, thirsty, naked, sick):

Leviticus 25:35-38

35. "And if your brother becomes poor, and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall maintain him; as a stranger and a sojourner he shall live with you. 36. Take no interest from him or increase, but fear your God; that your brother may live beside you. 37. You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit. 38. I am the Lord your God, who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan, and to be your God. [other translations]

Proverbs 14:31

He who oppresses a poor man insults his Maker, but he who is kind to the needy honors him. [other translations] [148]

Note that since accordingly to Matthew 25 how one treats the poor is how one treats Jesus, you are literally insulting your Maker to his face when you oppress a poor man. 

The Old Testament makes it crystal clear that God watches over and will hear the cries of the poor if they are mistreated:

Psalms 72:12-14

12. For he delivers the needy when he calls, the poor and him who has no helper. 13. He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy. 14. From oppression and violence he redeems their life; and precious is their blood in his sight. [other translations]

Isaiah 41:17

When the poor and needy seek water, and there is none, and their tongue is parched with thirst, I the Lord will answer them, I the God of Israel will not forsake them. [other translations]  [149]

Numerous passages specify the consequences if one does or does not obey these injunctions:

One will be rewarded for helping the poor:

Proverbs 19:17

He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed. [other translations]

Note that since Jesus says how you treat the poor is how you treat him, you are literally "lending to the Lord" when you help a poor person.

Psalms 112:5,9

5. It is well with the man who deals generously and lends, who conducts his affairs with justice. 9. He has distributed freely, he has given to the poor; his righteousness endures for ever; his horn is exalted in honor. [other translations] [150]

Conversely, if one hurts the poor, terrible consequences will follow, as in both the Ezekiel passage cited above that actually tracks the Matthew 25 language, and in the following:

Proverbs 28:27

He who gives to the poor will not want, but he who hides his eyes will get many a curse. [other translations]

Proverbs 22:16

He who oppresses the poor to increase his own wealth, or gives to the rich, will only come to want. [other translations] [151]

This latter verse is quite interesting in light of the advocacy by right-wing pseudo-Christians of policies which cut taxes mostly for the rich.

There are passages where the bad fate of those who have abused the poor is recorded:

Ezekiel 22:29-31

29. The people of the land have practiced extortion and committed robbery; they have oppressed the poor and needy, and have extorted from the sojourner without redress. 30. And I sought for a man among them who should build up the wall and stand in the breach before me for the land, that I should not destroy it; but I found none. 31. Therefore I have poured out my indignation upon them; I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath; their way have I requited upon their heads, says the Lord God." [other translations] [152]

Ezekiel 16:49-50

49. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it. [other translations]

How perfectly does Ezekiel 16:49-50 apply to ever-more-obese and stingy nations like the U.S!

Even more numerous are passages where those who have hurt the poor are condemned by the Biblical prophets, and told they will suffer God's wrath in the future:

Jeremiah 2:34-35

34. Also on your skirts is found the lifeblood of guiltless poor; you did not find them breaking in. Yet in spite of all these things 35. you say, 'I am innocent; surely his anger has turned from me.' Behold, I will bring you to judgment for saying, 'I have not sinned.' [other translations] [153]

This passage from Jeremiah is quite interesting in light of the ever-present denials by right-wing pseudo-Christians and other conservatives that they are hurting the poor. [154]

Other times the Prophets don't use the word "poor" but condemn the mistreatment of those who obviously fall into that category:

Jeremiah 5:26-29

26. For wicked men are found among my people; they lurk like fowlers lying in wait. They set a trap; they catch men. 27. Like a basket full of birds, their houses are full of treachery; therefore they have become great and rich, 28. they have grown fat and sleek. They know no bounds in deeds of wickedness; they judge not with justice the cause of the fatherless, to make it prosper, and they do not defend the rights of the needy. 29. Shall I not punish them for these things? says the Lord, and shall I not avenge myself on a nation such as this?" [other translations] [155]

The utter seriousness with which God views the mistreatment of the poor is indicated by the incredibly caustic language used by the prophets.  Their harrowing words, after all, reflect the thoughts of God.

·       The prophets condemn those who have "crushed and abandoned the poor":

Job 20:17-20

17. He will not look upon the rivers, the streams flowing with honey and curds. 18. He will give back the fruit of his toil, and will not swallow it down; from the profit of his trading he will get no enjoyment. 19. For he has crushed and abandoned the poor, he has seized a house which he did not build. 20. "Because his greed knew no rest, he will not save anything in which he delights. [other translations] [156]

·       who "grind the face of the poor":

Isaiah 3:14-15

14. The Lord enters into judgment with the elders and princes of his people: "It is you who have devoured the vineyard, the spoil of the poor is in your houses. 15. What do you mean by crushing my people, by grinding the face of the poor?" says the Lord God of hosts. [other translations]

·       and who "trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth":

Amos 2:6-7

6. Thus says the Lord: "For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment; because they sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes -- 7. they that trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth, and turn aside the way of the afflicted… [other translations] [157]

In the Matthew 25 context, it is important to note that a passion for justice is a pervasive Biblical theme on its own, mentioned in over one hundred verses.  Here is a small sampling:

Man is enjoined to act justly:

Micah 6:8

He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? [other translations] [158]

God loves justice and God executes justice:

Deuteronomy 10:17-19

17. For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the terrible God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. 18. He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. 19. Love the sojourner therefore; for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt. [other translations] [159]

Acting with justice will be rewarded:

Psalms 112:5,9

5. It is well with the man who deals generously and lends, who conducts his affairs with justice. 9. He has distributed freely, he has given to the poor; his righteousness endures for ever; his horn is exalted in honor. [other translations] [160]

Acting unjustly will be punished, this admonition expressed in breathtakingly harrowing language:

Micah 3:1-4

1. And I said: Hear, you heads of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel! Is it not for you to know justice? -- 2. you who hate the good and love the evil, who tear the skin from off my people, and their flesh from off their bones; 3. who eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them, and break their bones in pieces, and chop them up like meat in a kettle, like flesh in a caldron. 4. Then they will cry to the Lord, but he will not answer them; he will hide his face from them at that time, because they have made their deeds evil. [other translations]

It seems clear that the Matthew 25 injunctions apply to those of the Jewish faith who would want to truly follow the mandates of their religion. 

And lest I be accused of Christian-bashing, suffice it to say that the vast majority of Jews, like the vast majority of Christians, can not be said to be even attempting a Matthew 25-level of effort.

Beyond Christians and Jews, the scriptures of other religions are beyond the scope of this essay (knowledgeable readers are of course encouraged to send in relevant citations).

Preliminary support for the proposition that Matthew 25-type injunctions are universal in true spiritual disciplines is indicated by this excerpt from the writings of Abbot John Daido Loori, Roshi, a prominent American Zen Buddhist:

Right from the outset, we should understand clearly that individual liberation is a contradiction in terms… This teaching has always been implicit in Mahayana Buddhism from its inception thousands of years ago… We live in an age of communication, knowing very well what is going on in the furthest corners of the earth. We have the potential to feed the world. We have the potential to heal the earth. We have the potential to take care of the waste that we produce, to house the homeless, to bring world peace. It is said that there are three million Buddhists in the United States. That is a formidable number of people who are vowing every day to save all sentient beings. Why isn’t there more political action arising within Buddhist communities? [161]

I don't hear many religious leaders preaching this uncompromising version of Matthew 25.

They should be. 

The Bible over and over and over again says God watches over the poor, that we are to treat the poor fairly.

The Bible uses amazingly harsh words to denounce those who harm the poor, the type of speech rarely if ever heard from mainstream preachers in their Sunday sermons.

And the Bible makes it crystal-clear: if we violate these injunctions, God will punish us – for all eternity in fact, as Matthew 25 warns.

I would ask all priests and other clergy: why aren’t you telling your flocks this?  As a central teaching!

Far too many – it can be argued most -- rabbis, priests, pastors and other "official" Men of God are shameful frauds. They emasculate the Bible: first they strip it of -- or at best ignore -- all that is God-like; then they extract and present from it only those shreds that allow them to tell their flocks: "You are good. All is okay. We and our society are wonderful." [162]

Many religious leaders worry themselves to death about how to prevent a human with a vagina instead of a penis from conducting religious rites.  But the people these leaders see starving to death they do virtually nothing about.

The recently departed Phillip Berrigan, a former priest and ardent anti-war advocate, prophetically said:

The Gospel the church preaches is a precise statement of the life it leads — a degenerate stew of behavioral psychology, affluent ethics and cultural mythology, seasoned by nationalist politics…

We confront the Catholic Church, other Christian bodies, and the synagogues of America with their silence and cowardice in the face of our country's crimes.

One of those crimes is undoubtedly the willful ignoring of all the suffering and dying that could easily be prevented.

Religious leaders need to come up with their own $80 billion plan to accomplish in the real world the Matthew 25 injunctions.

Or, they need to tell their followers, you must do so, or you'll be excommunicated [163] and will later go to Hell.

Yes, honesty requires the Church to excommunicate those who make a travesty of Matthew 25, who treat Jesus Christ himself with contempt and cruelty. [164]

While I've approvingly quoted many of the Pope John Paul II's writings throughout this essay, as he himself says [165], words are not enough: Why doesn't the Pope order the Christians of the world to feed the hungry of the world?  Isn't that what Jesus commands us, at least as clearly as all the things that the Pope does spend so much time requiring Christians to tow the official line about?

The Pope talks the talk, as all the quotations in this essay show.  But where is he walking the walk full-time, where is his injunctive ferocity to do something about implementing Matthew 25 now?

Here's what Pope John Paul II wrote about the Church's own obligations:

[P]art of the teaching and most ancient practice of the Church is her conviction that she is obliged by her vocation she herself, her ministers and each of her members to relieve the misery of the suffering, both far and near, not only out of her "abundance" but also out of her "necessities". Faced by cases of need, one cannot ignore them in favor of superfluous church ornaments and costly furnishings for divine worship; on the contrary it could be obligatory to sell these goods in order to provide food, drink, clothing and shelter for those who lack these things. Solicitudo Rei Socialis

I haven't noticed any selling off of the Vatican jewels, have you?

Why don't we just do what is required of  us?

The problem is, good intentions are legion, but follow-up is rare. Take the recently much-reported "conversion" of then-Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill. Chatting with reporters on the last night of his 2002 trip to Africa with rock star Bono, O'Neill suggested that he was returning home a changed man:

"If you didn't learn something, you're a piece of wood or something," he said.

Having started the trip convinced that a half-century of aid to the developing world had produced little in the way of results, Mr. O'Neill finished it saying there could no longer be any excuse for failure to address the basic needs of the world's poorest people, especially for clean water.

"If we approached it in the same way we did the need to beat fascism in the Second World War, in two or three years' period of time, we could bring clean water to all of those people," Mr. O'Neill proclaimed.

To which his traveling companion, the rock star and social activist Bono, replied: "I like that kind of talk."

Bono also noted a need to ensure that development aid makes a measurable difference in the world's neediest populations.

"We're going to lose millions of lives unless there's a significant jump in aid from the United States and Europe ," Bono said, turning to Mr. O'Neill. "The only reason people won't be prepared to make that jump with us is actually the reason why this man is the right man for the job: They need to believe the money will get to the people, and I think he's the best insurance policy I've ever met that the money will be well spent."

But what kind of follow-up was there by O'Neill, once he got back to high-tech, comfortable Washington, D.C. ? Didn't seem like much, and unfortunately, Right-Wing-Pseudo-Christian-in-Chief George W. Bush fired him not long thereafter. We'll have to wait and see what O'Neill does as a private citizen to show he's not "a piece of wood or something."

Sometimes people talk big after their greatest opportunity to help has passed. For example there is Bill Clinton, who recently pontificated that we have an absolute moral obligation to treat everyone in the world with AIDS with the high tech drugs that can save, or at least significantly prolong, their lives. I somehow don't remember such a line item being in any budget Mr. Clinton submitted to Congress when he was President.

As noted earlier, the ancient Jesse Helms has gotten some religion lately about helping those with AIDS; for some, facing one's final destination apparently beneficially focuses the mind.

Maybe repeated contact with the true poor of the earth, and/or advancing age, should be mandatory requirements for holding elective office.

Or maybe we humans are just not at that stage of spiritual evolution where we can even begin to act in accordance with Matthew 25.

Even if your interpretation of Matthew 25 is correct, who are you to condemn people to Hell?  Who appointed you God? 

I am not condemning anyone.  I am saying their own scripture condemns them.

They -- right-wing pseudo-Christians -- condemn me to Hell simply because I don’t believe what they believe.  In other words, they say I’m going to Hell because I don’t accept Jesus as my savior.  

In contrast, I’m merely pointing out that the explicit terms of what they say they believe condemns them to Hell for their actions.  This is the standard they have set up to judge themselves.  In other words, I’m just pointing out how their own rules apply to themselves, which they don’t seem to want to do.   

If right-wing pseudo-Christians claim that the no-Jesus-as-savior path to Hell is valid as to me, then the violate-Matthew-25 path to Hell has to be valid as to them.

Ultimately, it’s their God who says these right wing pseudo-Christians will go to Hell, not me. [166]

Well, then, who the heck are you to be the one writing this?

I believe Jesus was a spiritually enlightened being.  But since I don’t believe in the existence of an ontologically-other “God,” by definition I don’t think of Jesus as being the literal son of God, born of a virgin impregnated through immaculate conception.

Likewise, I’m not sure there will be a "Jesus" sorting the nations at some future time.

But I do know that Matthew 25 sets forth a spiritual truth about how we will all be ultimately judged, in whatever fashion that judgment takes place.  It sets forth a bedrock moral and spiritual guide for our interactions with our fellow humans.  How can anyone deny that Matthew 25 is an eschatological embodiment of the universal rule of human interaction, the Golden Rule?

For all I know, Christian theology is true.  In that case, I’m just interpreting the plain words of a seminal passage and applying it to those who believe these words are directly from God and claim to live by them.

-Isms

I don't have a particular "-ism" I'm in love with, that I want to push on people, to get everybody to go along with to guide their society's actions.  Capitalism, socialism, communism, liberalism, conservatism – I don't care.  In many cases private enterprise could do a better job than government in Matthew 25-type areas of endeavor.

I just look at results on the ground, at the flesh & blood level.  Is there now more suffering or less suffering?  More well-being or less well-being?

Concern for the suffering, especially the hungry, first grabbed hold of me when I was in 4th grade.  I asked my teacher, if we had a food surplus, like the butter and other food items they loaded up our school lunch trays with, why are people starving to death elsewhere in the world?  Why don't we just give them the food?  The teacher had no ready answer and said she'd check.

The next day I asked what her answer was.  She explained that to give away surplus food would drive the price down, blah blah blah.  Even as a 10 year old I said to myself, "That's a stupid answer.  The starving person wasn't going to buy any food anyway.  But if the starving person lives, they could very well recover to buy food later."  It was an excuse.  You can always find an excuse not to do the right thing.

But who was I to challenge the teacher, and since moral concerns were not that pressing to me at the time, I let it drop.

Looking back now on this episode, I apparently understood the ultimate truth of Matthew 25 without ever having read it!

So I don't think I'm such an inappropriate person to have written this essay.

How can someone who admits he's not even a believer in Christian theology lecture others on what the Bible means?

Well, besides not believing in Christian theology, I'm also no paragon of virtue.  I'm an admittedly deeply flawed messenger.

But let's say you're crossing the street and someone screams "Watch out!"  You know that the person warning you is against SUV's and automobiles in general, and promotes using bicycles and mass transit to commute to work.  Even though you disagree with that person, you'd certainly still immediately look to see if a car is about to hit you, because of the severe consequences if that person's warning is correct.  I'm giving you a similar warning, that you're about to be hit by a veritable theological freight train.  It doesn't and shouldn't matter if I don't believe in the divine origin of the words like you do.  The words I've written are true because they're true, not because it's me who has written them.

In short: just consider the truth of the words I write, not their source.

Well, I don't have anything else to ask you.  I'm not sure I'm completely convinced you're right, but you've sure given me a lot to think about.

Ok, keep an open mind and maybe reread this entire essay in a day or two.  There's a whole lot in here to digest! [167]

And let me briefly add just one more thing: I mis-titled this essay.  It shouldn’t be "What Would Jesus Do?" and "Jesus Would Send..."  After reading this essay, perhaps you will agree with me that the title should really be "What Will Jesus Do" and "Jesus Will Send…"  Yes, Jesus Will Send All These Right-Wing Pseudo-Christians Straight to Hell (and likely the rest of us with them).

INDEX OF QUESTIONS

What on earth are you talking about?. 1

Again, what are you talking about?  Jesus never says anything about any conservatives or, as you call them, "right-wingers." 1

How do you know how much conservative Christians give to charity?  Many I know are quite generous. 1

Oh c'mon, this passage from Matthew only applies to acts of individual charity. 1

Even if Matthew 25 requires going beyond individual charity, conservative Christians have plans to help the poor, and that certainly satisfies the injunction in Matthew 25. 5

Aren't you doing just what Sean Hannity says, claiming conservatives want to hurt kids and old people?. 8

Come to think of it, what about the fact that conservatives don't just have less comprehensive plans or even no plans at all, but they actually oppose and block the efforts of others who do have workable, full solutions?. 9

Not so fast.  Jesus didn't say have a government program to feed the hungry. 10

The government is inefficient, and always screws things up. 12

If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion then every professed Christian must endeavor to have a centralized government  meet the needs of everybody.  Centralized governments undertaking the role of your father are proven failures.  Ever growing government frankly is not sustainable. 13

The best situation for the Christian to meet the needs of the poor is the free market. 13

Your leftist ways do not require the poor to make an effort, your leftist ways breed dependence on government. 15

Matthew 25:31-46 was not meant to call upon the government to force people to give. 15

If a law forces people to give something they truly in their hearts don't want to give in the first place, that type of giving is simply a dead work which God hates.

We're not responsible for the whole world, just those who we encounter in our daily activities. 16

If you don't work you don't eat.  That's what it says. 19

So you're saying that Jesus would be a socialist if he came back today?. 21

Even if what you've said so far is correct, the only way to get to Heaven is to accept Jesus as your savior.  Works alone don't cut it. 23

Your arguments about what Matthew 25 means and what it requires of us may be logical, but they just don't accord with the teachings of the Church. 24

You quote the Pope a lot.  Who cares what religious leaders think?. 25

Alright, let's assume for the sake of argument that your analysis of Matthew 25 is correct.  What kind of things are we talking about doing?. 25

What do you make of the fact that right-wing Christians go out of their way to call themselves "compassionate conservatives," and claim that they are the ones who are truly interested in, and able to, help the poor?. 32

You seem to single out Sean Hannity quite a bit. 36

OK, so according to you, all the right-wing Christians go to Hell, and all the wonderful liberals go to Heaven?. 41

Why are you saying that liberals and other progressives violate Matthew 25?  They are the ones considered to be on the side of the poor and disenfranchised. 41

What about non-Catholic Christians?. 43

What about other religions? Jews? Muslims? Hindus? Buddhists?  Aren't you just Christian-bashing?. 44

I don't hear many religious leaders preaching this uncompromising version of Matthew 25. 49

Why don't we just do what is required of  us?. 51

Even if your interpretation of Matthew 25 is correct, who are you to condemn people to Hell?  Who appointed you God?. 52

Well, then, who the heck are you to be the one writing this?. 52

How can someone who admits he's not even a believer in Christian theology lecture others on what the Bible means?. 53

Well, I don't have anything else to ask you.  I'm not sure I'm completely convinced you're right, but you've sure given me a lot to think about. 53

 
ENDNOTES