We’d had a conversation about religion and politics only a few days before, Brother Michael and I. This afternoon, he’d come by to deliver a package but he’d missed me by an hour and left the package at the door. I ripped open the large manila envelope. There was a book inside, Michael S. Rose’s Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church. There was a note inside the book. The note read:
This is from the Tome of Damasus.
Canon 289: “If anyone denies that the Son of God is true God, just as the Father is true God, having all power, knowing all things and equal to the Father: he is a heretic.”
Canon 290: “If anyone says that He [The Son] made flesh was not in heaven with the father while He was on earth: he is a heretic.”
I’m saying this because it is the basis of my faith and it is what the people in this book are trying to undermine with their know-nothing of Christ that builds their whole faith on the difficulties in the Bible, and belittles the miracles, claims of Jesus, beliefs of the apostles, beliefs of the fathers of the Church and the defined doctrine of the Church. I’m what the book mentions as rigid because I’m not willing to say I believe in this or that.
I sat silently, focused by what I had read. Canons 289 and 290 were essential truths of the Catholic Church accompanied by powerful and succinctly expressed sentiments from the deft pen of the normally invisible Brother Michael. Reading the first few pages of Goodbye, Good Men, I wondered how difficult it might be for an elderly monk who has lived most of his life in an austere prayerful environment to tolerate the kind of stress generated by the clashes between socially fluid networks of homosexual priests and traditionally celibate priests in their bid to rule the priesthood of the American Roman Catholic Church. I did not know what to do for Brother Michael. I had to do something.
Turning the pages of Goodbye, Good Men, I was exposed to a deliberate infiltration of Catholic seminaries…by a clique of homosexual dilettantes, along with an underground of liberal faculty members determined to change the doctrines, disciplines, and mission of the Catholic Church from within. Through the seminaries, liberals had brought a moral meltdown into the Catholic priesthood.
Michael S. Rose’s moral outrage over the infiltration of the seminaries stood in stark contrast to the rant of liberal pundits who brazenly declared the churches fanatically intolerant for their rejection of homosexuality. The fundamental disagreement over homosexuality in the liberal/conservative divide would have to be explored and understood. What were the origins of the Church’s sexual prohibitions? How did homosexuality come to be prohibited in the major religions?
In the Book of Leviticus, Chapter 18, the Lord tells Moses that the Israelites are not to conform to the institutions of Canaan or Egypt. The Lord then introduces a host of sexual taboos, among them a prohibition against a man lying with another man as with a woman. What is most interesting are not the prohibitions themselves, which we will address later, but what the Lord says after he lists the prohibitions. He says:
You shall not make yourselves unclean in any of these ways, for in these ways the heathen, whom I am driving out before you, made themselves unclean. This is how the land became unclean, and I punished it for its iniquity so that it spewed out its inhabitants. You, unlike them, shall keep my laws and my rules: none of you, whether natives or aliens settled among you, shall do any of these abominable things. The people who were there before you did these abominable things and the land became unclean. So the land will not spew you out for making it unclean as it spewed them out; for anyone who does any of these abominable things shall be cut off from his people. Observe my charge therefore, and follow none of the abominable institutions customary before your time; do not make yourselves unclean with them. I am the Lord your God.
Have you ever really thought about what “spewing out” in these lines from Leviticus means? When you look at each of the sexual prohibitions in turn, you’ll notice that engaging in any of these forbidden practices dissipates the focus on family stability, procreation, and child rearing and makes sex an end for its own sake. A family, tribe, nation, or race that lost the disciplined focus on reproduction must logically expect its population to drop—quite literally “spewing it out” of the land. Less and less of the group would occupy the land with each succeeding generation until the group was threatened and then extinct.
What had generated this fear of extinction and led to its expression in these now fiercely debated sexual prohibitions in Leviticus? What was life actually like around the time of the Babylonian exile?
Cyrus, the Persian king of conquered Babylon, was of the tribe of Pasargadae and the clan of the Achaemenidae. Tribes are large extended families. In Cyrus’s time, when you said an Achaemenian was on the throne, you were often also saying that his tribe was in the ascendancy. In a multi-tribal milieu, in which people identify with a specific culture and a recognizable phenotype, an aggressive tribe can be expected to mount specific initiatives to jeopardize any competing tribe’s reproductive success, quantitatively and qualitatively.
Cyrus the Persian let the Hebrew people go to rebuild their temple in 538 B.C. Herodotus, the “father of history,” was born in 485 B.C. and finished his monumental work The Histories around 425 B.C., a little over a hundred years after Cyrus ended the Babylonian exile. In Herodotus’s Histories you can savor the savagery of biblical antiquity:
[Periander] sent an agent to Thrasybulus to ask what was the safest kind of government to establish, which would allow him to manage the state best. Thrasybulus took the man sent by Periander out of the city and into a field where the crops were growing. As he walked through the grain, he kept questioning the messenger and getting him to repeat over and over again what he had come from Corinth to ask. Meanwhile, every time he saw an ear of grain standing higher than the rest, he broke it off and threw it away, and he went on doing this until he had destroyed the choicest, tallest stems in the crop. After this walk across the field, Thrasybulus sent Periander’s man back home, without having offered him any advice. When the man got back to Corinth, Periander was eager to hear Thrasybulus’s recommendations, but the agent said that he had not made any at all. In fact, he said he was surprised that Periander had sent him to a man of that kind — a lunatic who destroyed his own property — and he described what he had seen Thrasybulus doing. Periander however understood Thrasybulus’s actions. He realized that he had been advising him to kill outstanding citizens, and from then on he treated his people with unremitting brutality.
Intertribal warfare in the sixth century B.C., about the time the Temple was rebuilt and numerous books of the Bible edited, consisted of murdering the finest of your own people who stood up to you and the same or a refined genocidal strategy for any people you conquered. Consider the Persian treatment of the Ionians:
Whenever the Persians took one of the islands, they “trawled” for the inhabitants. Trawling involves forming a chain of men with linked arms across the island from the northern coast to the southern coast, who then traverse the whole length of the island hunting people down….
When they [the Persians] had conquered the settlements, they picked the best looking boys and castrated them, cutting off their testicles and turning them into eunuchs; they also took the most attractive girls and sent them to the king as slaves.
The Persians then gave the Ionian land to others. For all practical purposes, the Ionians had been “spewed out” of the land. The Persians are not just killing the best, as Thrasybulus advised Periander. That would be economically inefficient. They are preventing the best of the conquered population from reproducing while frugally preserving the phenotypes for a lifetime of service.
Groups posing a potential threat were subdued and domesticated. In the Histories, we find Croesus persuading King Cyrus to spare the Lydians. Rather than kill them, Croesus suggests that Cyrus
Send a message that they are forbidden to own weapons of war, that they are to wear tunics under their coats and slippers on their feet, they are to take up the cithara and the harp, and that they are to raise their sons to be retailers. Before long, my lord, you will see them become women instead of men, and so there will be no danger of them rising up against you.
You could murder an enemy outright with his women and all his children. You could absorb his tribal line if you chose by killing all of a tribe’s people save the vigorous virgin girls. You could remove a man’s reproductive capacity and tame him for service by castrating him. You could move entire populations to splinter a tribe’s communities, enslave and exile a tribe’s leaders. You could forbid a people over generations to behave like men until they behaved like women and were unlikely to resist you.
How do you counter such vicious tactics? How do you stay alive?
The Lord spoke to Moses and said, speak to the Israelites in these words: I am the Lord your God. You shall not do as they do in Egypt where you once dwelt nor shall you do as they do in the land of Canaan to which I am bringing you; you shall not conform to their institutions. You must keep my laws and conform to my institutions without fail: I am the Lord your God. You shall observe my institutions and my laws: the man who keeps them shall have life through them. I am the Lord.
Stop and consider the italicized words above, perhaps for the first time: “The man who keeps them shall have life through them.”
He will have life for himself and his descendants, each life a link in a chain of endless life. Strictly observing the sexual prohibitions of Leviticus in a barbaric tribal environment ensured your survival, and not simply your innocence. The prohibitions were a vital hedge against total conquest and extinction. Attacking an enemy tribe’s reproductive capacity was a strategy of ancient warfare. If you were a nomad, you scattered your tribe’s communities so they wouldn’t compete with one another (see Genesis 13:1-12) and couldn’t all be killed in one fell swoop, and you kept your birth rates high (see Exodus 1:7-8) to replace those of you who were murdered, castrated, and enslaved.
Men have abundant sexual energy to more than maintain their populations from generation to generation, but if they expect to live in a stable and functional extended family within whose folds they stand a better chance of survival than they would on their own, their abundant sexual energy must be channeled with family stability in mind. Leviticus addresses family stability here:
No man shall approach a blood relation for intercourse. I am the Lord. You shall not bring shame on your father by intercourse with your mother; she is your mother, you shall not bring shame upon her. You shall not have intercourse with your father’s wife; that is to bring shame upon your father. You shall not have intercourse with your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home; you shall not bring shame upon them. You shall not have intercourse with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter: that is to bring shame upon your self…
The specific forbidden relations continue for a number of lines but they are all summarized in the first line: No man shall approach a blood relation for intercourse. The prohibitions span space and time. Practitioners fluidly navigate a cohesive network of family relations solidly connected to the parents who preceded them and the children who follow. With the environment secure, the focus turns to reproduction:
You shall not approach a woman to have intercourse with her during her period of menstruation. You shall not have sexual intercourse with the wife of your fellow countryman and so make yourself unclean with her. You shall not surrender any of your children to Moloch and thus profane the name of your God: I am the Lord. You shall not lie with a man as with a woman: that is an abomination. You shall not have sexual intercourse with any beast to make yourself unclean with it, nor shall a woman submit herself to intercourse with a beast: that is a violation of nature.
The sexual behaviors in Leviticus 18 are prohibited because they do not lead to family stability or reproduction. You’ve seen the potentially disastrous consequences for a family, tribe, nation, or race of people who choose to ignore, among other biblical admonitions, the sexual prohibitions in Leviticus. They are portrayed for us in Herodotus’s biblical world of perpetual ethnic warfare with its risk of brutal conquest or progressive decline followed by extinction.
The Bible’s prohibitions have been observed and passed down religiously from generation to generation by countless of our ancestors who all survived to reproduce. The Lord himself said, the man who keeps my institutions shall have life through them. In the nineteenth century, hard on the heels of Darwin, Herbert Spencer spoke of organized religion as an adaptation conducive to survival. He wrote:
Ecclesiastical institutions maintain and strengthen social bonds, and so conserve the social aggregate; and they do this in large measure by conserving beliefs, sentiments, and usages which evolved during earlier stages of the society, are shown by its survival to have had an approximate fitness to the requirements, and are likely still to have it in great measure.
It is our time and our generation. We are the social aggregate, the current link in the chain of endless life, but there is a strong intellectual argument that religious law and ecclesiastical institutions no longer enjoy “an approximate fitness to the requirements” — if there is a God at all. We are well into the Darwinian revolution. There is no turning back. Since Brother Michael has raised the issue for both of us, have you honestly asked yourself why Michael S. Rose is morally outraged over the infiltration of the seminaries today, in the twenty-first century? What’s wrong with homosexuality, or abortion, or even contraception for that matter, today?
The Persians aren’t trawling anymore. Many of today’s intellectual elites mock organized religion. In our allegedly postmodern age, “God is dead.” So why are the Christians, particularly the conservative Catholics and the conservative Protestant denominations, crying moral meltdown…and why only the Christians? The Levitical prohibitions are from the Torah, Judaism’s holiest scriptures, yet except for a few ultra-orthodox communities, most Jews seem strangely silent about these sexual prohibitions: We see again and again highly leveraged non-orthodox Jews in academia, business, government, the arts, and the media actively engaged in providing the intellectual and financial stimulus for countless initiatives nurturing homosexuality, abortion, feminism, and sexual promiscuity in general, initiatives that appear to fly in the face of the prohibitions in Leviticus. Yet these non-orthodox Jews as a whole are powerful, prosperous, intelligent, a “chosen” people with a history going back thousands of years. Why isn’t non-orthodox Jewry concerned about being “spewed out of the land”?
Social Divisions in Indo-European Communities
|I. Priests||brahmanas||priests and magistrates||flamines||Orthodox communities|
|II. Warriors||ksatriyas||warriors||milites||gentile nobility|
|III. Producers||vaisyas||laborers and artisans||quirites||gentiles|
Table modified from J. P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans, Language, Archeology and Myth (last column on Judaism added by this author for comparison).
The Structure of an Advancing Religious System
The Rig Veda is a collection of more than a thousand hymns, the earliest lengthy composition in any Indo-European language, significantly more ancient than the Bible. In one of the Vedic hymns, Man is dismembered to create a society split into three classes: Brahmin, princes, and professionals and merchants.
When they dismembered Man,
Into how many parts did they separate him? What was his mouth, what his arms, What did they call his thighs and feet?
The Brahmin was his mouth;
The Rajanya (Princes) became his arms;
His thighs produced the Vaisya (professionals and merchants); His feet gave birth to the Sudra (laborer).
In this social system called tripartition, social classes are categorized by function. The Brahmin priests have magical and legal functions, the princes have a warrior function, and the professionals and merchants produce the wealth of the society (an underclass of laborers is not functionally distinct). Some suggest that these three divisions of society proposed by Georges Dumezil for the Indo-Europeans are natural and generic to any society. Table 1 compares tripartition across different civilizations. I have taken the liberty of appending an additional group to the end of Professor Mallory’s table: medieval Jews. Note how I have classified their social strata by function.
Before the French revolution, Jewish communities, though scattered within non-Jewish host nations, were typically closed communities. Most Jews did not leave their communities to venture out and non-Jews did not casually venture in. Evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald writes, in A People That Shall Dwell Alone, ”Among the factors facilitating the separation of Jews and gentiles over historical time have been religious practice and beliefs, language and mannerisms, physical appearance and clothing, customs (especially the dietary laws), occupations and living in physically separated areas, which were administered by Jews according to Jewish civil and criminal law,” and he tells us that “the uniqueness of the Jews lies in their being the only people to successfully remain intact and resist normal assimilative processes after living for very long periods as a minority in other societies.”
In their self-segregated environments, medieval Jews socialized among themselves while customarily appointing representatives to conduct business with the privileged classes of their hosts. “Jewish economic activity has historically been characterized by high levels of within-group cooperation and patronage,” and (as we might expect) “Jewish elites overwhelmingly tended to employ other Jews in their enterprises.”
Unfortunately, “Jews have commonly been utilized as an intermediary group between a ruling elite (especially alien elites) and the native population. In these situations, the elite gentile group has often actively encouraged Jewish economic interests to the detriment of other sectors of the population.” In our table of tripartite societies we find:
This medieval tripartite structure of a segregated Jewish community, a gentile nobility, and their subjects was rendered obsolete on September 27, 1791, with the passing of a law in the French Constituent Assembly:
Legal emancipation led to a profound transformation of Jewish society. Jews became fluent in the French language, flocked to the cities (Paris above all), entered into new careers and professions, became involved in political life and enthusiastically welcomed the values of French civilization, its culture and education.
The impact was enormous:
Jewish society had been designed to produce intellectuals… Jewish society was geared to support them…rich merchants married sages’ daughters…quite suddenly, around the year 1800, this ancient and highly efficient social machine for the production of intellectuals began to shift its output. Instead of pouring all its products into the closed circuit of rabbinical studies…it unleashed a significant and ever growing proportion of them into secular life.
The ancient eugenic practices of self-segregated Jewish communities, now empowered by Enlightenment-based legislation, had unleashed a new, rapidly rising, culturally and ethnically cohesive group within a host nation. In The Bell Curve, we are told, “Ashkenazi Jews of European origins—test higher than any other ethnic group” and that “Jews in America and Britain have an overall IQ mean somewhere between a half and a full standard deviation above the mean, with the source of the differences concentrated in the verbal component.”
Newly emancipated Jews who flocked to the cities after the French Revolution possessed the IQ potential to excel at anything they chose to do, with the ability to rise rapidly as a cohesive group in any social hierarchy they entered. The closed communities of orthodox Judaism, financiers and advisors to gentile nobility for thousands of years, were now vigorously shedding their own gifted nobility. Table 2 shows tripartition modified to accommodate the class of emancipated Jewry that has emerged since the French Revolution.
|I. Priests||Orthodox communities||Orthodox communities|
|II. Warriors||gentile nobility||Jewish nobility|
In addition to a functioning priestly class, Judaism now has a functioning warrior class, a relatively recent modification to Judaism’s social structure that ensures the Jewish people, while apparently violating all the Levitical prohibitions, will never be “spewed out of the land.”
Modern non-orthodox Jewry need not fear for the extinction of the Jewish people. It is the priestly caste, the orthodox communities at the religious core, that ensures the continuity and adaptive fitness of the Jewish people. Non-orthodox Jews who choose to function as warriors need only engage with their hosts. Due to the modified tripartite structure and specialized functions, modern non-orthodox Jewry is functionally free of the Levitical prohibitions. Their “sins” negatively affect only themselves and their immediate lines.
In fact, the continuity and adaptive fitness of the Jewish people would not be threatened if all of non-orthodox Jewry abandoned reproduction. The Jewish people will remain vitally aggressive and resilient in the face of demographic insult as long as the orthodox breeding communities scattered all over the world remain culturally and genetically segregated from society at large while maintaining high birth rates of superior offspring, as they have for thousands of years. In Table 2 Judaism is functionally complete and a host’s warrior class superfluous.
In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin wrote, “[t]hroughout nature the forms of life which are now dominant tend to become still more dominant by leaving many modified and dominant descendants.” Non-orthodox Jews are the children, perhaps a few generations removed, of orthodox Jews. They need not have children of their own for the Jewish people to survive. The creating orthodox core will continue to salt the earth with “many modified and dominant descendants.” It is Judaism’s orthodox core communities, the wellspring from which all Jews emanate, who continue to observe rigidly those fiercely debated Levitical prohibitions while remaining segregated from the irreligious immoral world of low-quality, low-quantity birthing outside their insular communities in the maintenance of the priestly function of tripartition.
If we, or for that matter, any of the peoples of the world, are to survive as unique families in the face of repartitioned Judaism, we must consider the nascent warrior class within each orthodox community, unbound by Leviticus, who may choose to engage openly and freely with us or assimilate, because since the French Revolution they can. The situation since repartition is similar to that of the Israelites just prior to the conquest of Canaan. There are two biblical versions of the manner in which that conquest was accomplished. In the Book of Joshua it is dramatic and decisive. The cities are taken and their inhabitants put to the sword. In the other version of the conquest of Canaan in the Book of Judges, however, the Israelites lack “chariots of iron” and are forced to rely on cunning and strategy to gain the upper hand over the indigenous population, until the locals are eventually absorbed into the emerging Israelite majority in a subordinate role.
“They reduce[d] them to forced labor.”
Today, scholars tend toward the gradualist sequence found in Judges. The Lord himself explained why the Israelites were unable to dramatically and decisively take Canaan:
I said, I will never break my covenant with you, and you in turn must make no covenant with the inhabitants of the country; you must pull down their altars. But you did not obey me and look what you have done! So I said, I will not drive them out before you; they will decoy you, and their gods will shut you fast in the trap.
The Lord specifically commands. “You must pull down their altars.” Church and state were one and the same in the ancient world. Pulling down a people’s altars was tantamount to dismantling their shared belief system, crippling their ability to respond collectively to threats to their existence as a distinctly identifiable human family. The Lord’s consistent demand that the Israelites pull down the altars of indigenous peoples is fundamental in Judaism. The same demand is made in the Old Covenant itself:
The Lord said, here and now I make a covenant. In full view of all your people I will do such miracles as have never been performed in all the world or in any nation. All the surrounding peoples shall see the work of the Lord, for fearful is that which I will do for you. Observe all I command you this day and I for my part will drive out before you the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites. Be careful not to make a covenant with the natives of the land against which you are going, or they will prove a snare in your midst.
No: you shall demolish their altars, smash their sacred pillars and cut down their sacred poles.
The Liberal/Conservative Divide
Moving away from the language of religious warfare we find a remarkable analogy in the language of simple politics. One who supports established and traditional institutions, and who may actively resist changes in them, is said to be “conservative.” One who is open and supportive of ideas that challenge established and traditional institutions is said to be “liberal.”The tension that manifests itself as a liberal/conservative divide within a nation is caused by people who want fundamental change (liberals) resisted by people who don’t (conservatives).
Modern non-orthodox Jews aren’t confined to closed medieval communities. With a significant IQ advantage and the cohesion generated by their shared religious traditions and ethnicity, they multiply rapidly and rise to positions of power and influence in the free and open societies they find themselves in, but standing squarely in their way are the indigenous peoples with their own traditions and established institutions that reflect and advance their own unique being-in-the-world. Indigenous peoples already occupy the land’s lucrative niches, and as one might reasonably expect, indigenous peoples prefer to conserve their established ways of life.
The established socially cohesive hierarchies of an indigenous people are difficult for even gifted newcomers to penetrate. Available niches a host nation bound by Leviticus might readily offer a newcomer would include those niches taboo to the indigenous people. Immigrants not bound by taboo would easily occupy those unexploited niches. Later, once the fringe niches were occupied, the not-so-newcomers with now greater financial means would find it possible to migrate from the fringe niches to establish new competitive institutions of their own rather than (or in addition to) laboriously penetrating the established institutions. The establishment would gradually be supplanted.
Modern non-orthodox Jewry need not possess the widespread conscious aspiration nor the military technology, those “chariots of iron” spoken of in the Book of Judges, to dispossess the indigenous peoples of host nations.
They are religiously bred for superior intelligence and they are socially cohesive, having a sense of themselves as a Jewish nation, a Jewish race, and a religious people uniquely worthy of survival, destined for rule. As individuals in our free and open societies, they are under enormous ecological pressures generated by the intense religiosity of their prolific core communities to appropriate the niches of indigenous peoples, and they eventually will — out of sheer aptitude, rising numbers, and leveraged wealth. A warrior class abroad in a strange land, post-Enlightenment non-orthodox Jewry tends naturally to a rapacious liberalism, an openness to new ideas and ceaseless change that subjects established host institutions everywhere to radical criticism and eventual disintegration. Liberal disestablishmentarian politics are logically consistent with the ecological pressures on Jewish populations that have sharply increased with repartition.
Modern non-orthodox Jewry is slowly taking possession of the land, and as they do, they create their own traditions and establish their own institutions that reflect and advance their own unique being-in-the-world, a being functionally free of the Levitical prohibitions due to the tremendous religious zeal of their self-segregated and widely dispersed orthodox breeding communities. As the priests at the core religiously maintain their reproductive strategy, and the warriors at the agonistic interface establish themselves in strength, our altars will come down.
Already, many previously unexploited liberal niches traditionally taboo to indigenous Christians because they violate the Levitical prohibitions have been seized and are now devoted to organizing minority groups composed of dissenters of one persuasion or another from among our own indigenous populations who are promised a justice that can only come with the demise of traditional culture. Among the minority positions rising to prominence are the feminist movement, the “pro-choice” movement, and the object of Brother Michael’s concern, the homosexual agenda. These ideologies and their attendant behaviors adopted in the aggregate weaken the traditional family structure and lower the quality and quantity of births across whole populations. Each disaffected minority group is socially organized to attack the greater host population by delegitimizing its practical and adaptive religious traditions.
The Loss of Racial Awareness
I’ve used the Internet to engage intellectually with people from all over the world. Of late, I am engaged “over the wire” on the subject of the Levitical prohibitions to refine my understanding for Brother Michael. I had naively thought that people could discern the effects of repartition from the few historical facts I’ve mentioned or could come to the realization handily when the processes were pointed out to them, but I’ve found very few willing to listen. In an exchange on an Internet discussion list with Christian scientists, one liberal gentleman wrote, “I am very much in agreement with both Doug and Bill where they demonstrate an uncommon love for gays and lesbians over against hardened prejudices and proof-texting.” The barb was aimed at me and I repelled it:
You can’t assume a position contrary to yours automatically stems from an uncommon hatred. If we were all “gay,” human life would end. That’s a fact, not a position or an opinion. Homosexual behavior is simply not religious. You cannot force established religions to disregard prohibited sexual practices and remain religions. Genesis 9:7 reads, “you must be fruitful and increase, swarm throughout the earth and rule over it.” Religion invokes absolutes. Life-sustaining communal rules cannot compromise reproduction — if they’re only 85 percent effective at advancing reproduction, they’re not religion. Religion wants all of you — 100 percent. You don’t reform religion by abandoning the absolute. You discipline the “self” to religion. You don’t discipline religion to the “self.”
And then a young woman entered the thread with a one-liner that suggested the source of my failure to communicate the situation to other Christians and why I might never get through to them. She wrote in response to my quote from Genesis:
“But we have swarmed throughout the earth….”
And of course, she meant all of humanity had swarmed over the earth and not any specific family, nation, or race. She would probably never identify herself as a European-American Christian. The entire human race might be fractured by the mere definition. She was not racially aware and could not extend her compassion out to a greater family she did not know. Christian agape, generations of good living in America, and the traitorous media had burst her ethnic and racial bonds.
Most Christians I spoke to denied their race altogether, branding the very concept repulsive, a concept I knew they would have to fathom if Christians of European stock were to generate the necessary awareness and subsequent religiosity to survive Judaism’s repartition. To most European-American Christians, racial awareness was something to be ashamed of, something that was over and done with.
Ironically, because they morally rejected the very sense of racial awareness, they could conceive of threats to every race — but their own.
The Failure of the Churches
Evidence of the catastrophic failure to recognize the effects of Judaism’s repartition on the traditional practice of Christianity and Christians of European stock can be seen in the documents of the Catholic Church and the publications of its intellectuals.
In a publication titled The Church and Racism: Towards a More Fraternal Society, issued by the Pontifical Commission for Justice and Peace in 1988, I found an extraordinary and wildly inappropriate validation of the Jewish people:
The Hebrew people, as the Books of the Old Testament testify, were aware to a unique degree of God’s love for them, manifested in the form of a gratuitous covenant with him. In this sense, since they were the object of a choice and a promise, the Hebrew people stood apart from others. The criterion of distinction, however, was God’s plan of salvation unfolded in history. Israel was considered the Lord’s very own among all peoples. The place of other peoples in salvation history was not always clearly understood in the beginning, and these other peoples were at times even stigmatized in prophetic preaching to the degree that they remained attached to idolatry. They were not, however, the object of disparagement or of a divine curse because of their ethnic diversity. The criterion of distinction was religious, and a certain universalism was already foreseen.
The document correctly states that the Hebrew people stood apart from others in the ancient world. It does not tell us orthodox Jewish breeding communities continue to stand apart from us in the modern world. However, the Church document legitimizes their racial segregation, their “standing apart,” because the criterion of distinction is religious. It is “God’s plan.” However, the Jews themselves definitively assert that the criterion of their distinction is religious because it is racial:
The kohen, or priest, was historically the chief religious functionary of the Jewish people. It was understood that Judaism could not survive without the kohen and the detailed laws of tradition. Since the laws required meticulous concern for tradition, the stability of an hereditary priesthood was indispensable. The purity of the kohen’s heredity has guaranteed the purity of his heritage.
These lines from Maurice Lamm’s The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage indicate the Jews themselves trust their religious heritage to the purity of a kohen’s blood:
As the sacrifice he offered could have no blemish, the kohen himself could have no blemish. Thus to maintain the purity of his lineage he was kept to stricter marriage standards than his Jewish brothers.
To the exalted kohen, bearer of Judaism’s sacred traditions, racial diversity is literally a “blemish,” a defect, a flaw. Turning again to the papal document we find that
Historically, racial prejudice, in the strict sense of the word — that is, awareness of the biologically determined superiority of one’s own race or ethnic group with respect to others — developed above all from the practice of colonization and slavery at the dawn of the modern era.
“Above all”? How morally wrong and injurious to Christians of European stock to suggest that racial awareness and a sense of biologically determined superiority did not exist before European colonization! It is written in Ezra that
The land which you are entering and will possess is a polluted land, polluted by the foreign population with their abominable practices, which have made it unclean from end to end. Therefore do not give your daughters in marriage to their sons, and do not marry your sons to their daughters, and never seek their welfare or prosperity. Thus you will be strong and enjoy the good things of the land, and pass it on to your children as an everlasting possession.
In these lines we encounter racial prejudice, religious and racial segregation, and a forced colonization, which finally leads to forced labor (slavery) religiously perpetrated by the Lord’s very own people.
These racial sentiments are religiously absolutist sentiments that have not changed at all over the centuries. On the inside cover of an issue of Jewish Action Magazine distributed in local supermarkets in 2001 by the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, I was amazed to find an unselfconscious letter addressed to Jewish children:
Our aim is nothing less than to convince a record number of Jewish youngsters that interdating and intermarriage are a betrayal of who they are.
In this context, the “idolatry” of race is not a betrayal. The ultimate betrayal is a Jewish population obliterated by diversity. The pontifical document continues:
Greco-Roman antiquity, for example, does not seem to have known racial myths. If the Greeks were convinced of the cultural superiority of their civilization, they did not, by the same token, consider the so-called “barbarians” inferior because of innate biological reasons. Slavery doubtlessly kept many people in a deplorable situation. They were considered “things” at their masters’ disposal. However, in the beginning, these were largely persons who belonged to groups conquered in war, and not persons who were despised because of their race.
Yet we find evidence of Judaism’s racial nature and racial segregation practiced by Jews and Greeks in Greco-Roman antiquity in Hayimm Schauss’s The Jewish Festivals. Schauss tells us the Jews of Palestine found themselves sandwiched between Syria and Egypt at the end of the third century B.C. Syria had been Hellenized and was “made up of various peoples and countries….” Therefore, the unity of the Syrian kingdom could only be maintained by its universal Hellenistic culture. Egypt, on the other hand was self contained and exclusively Egyptian, and had no fear of disintegration. There were two classes in the population, the native Egyptians, who had no voice in the rule of the land, and the ruling class of Macedonians and Greeks. The ruling class kept itself apart from the inferior native inhabitants and there was no talk of a melting pot for the nation…
Schauss then tells us, “The conservative Jewish circles of Judah were, therefore, in favor of Egypt, because of their religious interests.”
They kept themselves apart, religiously and genetically segregated from the host culture and the indigenous inferiors just as the Greeks and the Macedonians had, because Jewish conservative interests in Greco-Roman antiquity were religious and therefore racial interests. In the first few pages of A Historical Atlas of the Jewish People, the authors plainly ask, “How did we become a nation?” Again and again, in Scripture and throughout history, it is absolutely clear that Jewish religious interests are racial interests.
In The Catholic Viewpoint on Race Relations, Father John La Farge quotes from a letter that Francis Cardinal Spellman, then archbishop of New York, wrote to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People:
The church repudiates, as abhorrent to her very nature, the pernicious doctrine that men are born with the stamp upon them, of essential racial superiority or inferiority. She recognizes no master race, but proclaims the God given equality before God of all souls, for whose salvation our blessed Redeemer suffered and sacrificed.
Spellman’s theologically correct remarks that the Church recognizes no master race are incompatible with the pontifical document in which the Hebrew people are recipients of a “gratuitous covenant” with God, a people who stand apart from others because the criterion of their distinction is God’s plan of salvation unfolded and they are the Lord’s very own among all peoples.
Weren’t the Hebrews the Lord’s own because they kept his commandments? Doesn’t the New Covenant teach that we can all be the Lord’s very own? I don’t see that essence infusing this document. The language in the pontifical document seems clear. The Jews stand above and apart because the Old Covenant says they do. In Lamm’s explanation of the kohen’s exalted status, racial superiority and religious perfection are woven from the same cloth, a declared fact seemingly unconsidered in this pontifical document in which (inexplicably) a “superior race” receives the stamp of validation from God himself through his instrument, the Roman Catholic Church.
The document continues:
Pope Pius XI clearly condemned Nazi racist doctrines in his encyclical, Mit brennender Sorge, stating in particular: “Whosoever takes race, or the people or the State…or any other basic value of the human community…in order to withdraw them from [their] scale of values…and deify them through an idolatrous cult, overturns and falsifies the order of things created and established by God.”
Only by ignoring the racial foundations of Judaism can the Church, in this document, assume the paradoxical position of affirming for one people the very distinction it denies to all others, in effect, if not intention, behaving like an idolatrous cult deifying a “chosen” people.
Since Pope Pius XI, Francis Cardinal Spellman, and the composers of the pontifical document are all unaware of the robust racial core of Judaism, how can any family, tribe, nation, or race on earth turn to the Catholic Church or any of the liberal Christian denominations for preservation in the face of Judaism’s repartition?
The Structure of a Declining Religious System
It is impossible for a Catholic priest to legitimize homosexuality and fulfill his dual functional role, which consists of maintaining the religion (the priestly function) and preserving the continuity of Catholic families from generation to generation (the warrior function). The Catholic priesthood’s legitimacy lies in the necessary and sufficient discharge of these functions. A Catholic priest, literally the Christ among us, is a priest forever in the succession of Melchizedek. Melchizedek is a biblical figure whose name means king and priest. The king protects his people and the priest preserves their laws.
|I. Priests||Orthodox communities||celibate priests|
|II. Warriors||Jewish nobility||celibate priests|
Fiercely independent biblical patriarchs preferred a world in which men ontologically looked one another straight in the eye. They did not tolerate kings imposing taxes or priests demanding sacrifice. In the tribal world, a priesthood does not maintain the Law. Tripartition is dissolved. Each family patriarch serves the dual role of priest and king. God’s Law is written on a man’s heart. The intuitive understanding of the Law emanating from one’s heart is later called the New Covenant, but it is simply a reformation and a return to the earliest one, personified by the dual functions of Melchizedek, to whose order Jesus belongs. The preservation and protection of a family, tribe, nation, or race in the face of extinction is the justification for observing the Levitical prohibitions, which are as vital a part of Catholicism as they are of Judaism.
The “priests” of Judaism, the rabbis of the core orthodox communities who most stringently maintain their religious traditions, are family men. These same men responsible for the continuity of their families are also responsible for maintaining their communities’ religious beliefs. Because those roles are combined in the same individual and mutually reinforce one another, some of their religious communities are able to boast the highest mean IQs and the highest birth rates in the world. They accomplish those ends by religiously observing the Levitical prohibitions and providing their most intelligent sons with preferential access to high-status wives religiously dedicated to childbearing and motherhood while remaining racially segregated from the host populations among whom they reside.
In stark contrast, the priests of Catholicism are celibate. They do not raise families and rarely have blood relations among the people in the pews. Since there is no genetic relatedness between the priest and his flock the essence of the priest’s sacrifice is a deliberate and calculated act of loving strangers, an act of biological insanity, which is precisely why it is a transcendent sacrifice (given the sacrifice is made) and why we accord the priest such respect. Catholic priests are drawn from the reproducing lay population each generation. They are not directly affected by the sexual sins of the lay population, and the consequences of their priestly descent into homosexuality have not been immediately apparent as they live separately from their worshiping lay communities. It is unfortunate that lay oversight has diminished as laymen continue to abandon their churches. It is also unfortunate that only a tiny fraction of the diminished number of laymen who remain will ever interact with their priests beyond the formal rituals. The sexualization of the American Catholic priest prevents him from serving as the living symbol of religious discipline he has sworn to be. Without the priest to discipline the laity to greater religiosity, priest and laity alike are deprived of the self-sacrifice. It is a mark of the centralized Church’s present integrity that Pope John Paul II has come out against the sexualization of the Catholic priesthood. Scientific evidence supports the Vatican’s concern.
Biologists, ecologists, and psychologists have found morality and religion to be culturally evolved adaptations whose benefits determine who survives and what the quality of their lives will be. Traditional religious beliefs and practices cannot simply be discarded or “liberated.” First, they must be understood.
In The Fates of Nations, the ecologist Paul Colinvaux wrote, “If the effect of a custom is to keep people alive, or to refine their breeding strategy, then the people who practice that custom will flourish: and people who avoid the practice may fare less well.” In The Creation of the Sacred, Walter Burkett simply reminded us that “Religion keeps to the tracks of biology.” If I am to convey anything of value to you at all, let it be this: These and other modern studies in religion strongly suggest that when all are lost to God (in the religious sense), none survive (in the biological sense).
Another structural difference between Catholicism and those widely separated orthodox Jewish communities is the Achilles heel of Roman centralization. A successful infiltration of the centralized Church in Rome on the scale of the liberal infiltration of the American Church by what Michael S. Rose calls “a clique of homosexual dilettantes, along with an underground of liberal faculty members determined to change the doctrines, disciplines, and mission of the Catholic Church from within,” would alter religious beliefs and adaptive Catholic behavior for all the Catholic peoples of the world. Such an infiltration would be a great tragedy. Some say it has already occurred. The sacrifice of the Cross is as essential a truth for Christians as the Torah is for the Jews. It is the Church’s function to maintain the essential truth of Jesus’ self-sacrifice. It was this sacrifice that internalized the Law and dissolved tripartition, making Catholicism the universal egalitarian reproductive strategy it is.
Unlike centralized Catholicism, decentralized orthodox Jewish communities belong to loose confederations: unions and congresses. Individual communities interpret their shared Torah independently to some degree, as the independent families they are, in the manner of the ancient patriarchs who served the dual role of priest and king before the advent of tripartition. Organized at an arm’s distance, the sins of one community need not compromise the welfare of other communities. Authority is kept naturally within families, and the adaptive flexibility that is lost to a centralized organization such as the Catholic Church is retained for the Jewish nation of families as a whole.
Repartitioned Judaism’s unique structural advantages and their effects can be seen through Darwinian eyes. Unfortunately (and here I think warmly of Brother Michael) we cannot bring people back to God. Just as scientists such as the evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald and the evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson begin convincingly demonstrating the adaptive nature of religion, our priests abandon their functional role, and we abandon their churches.
The Core of Personal Religion
In a competitive engagement with men from another family, tribe, nation, or race, you have the choice between two absolutes at opposite ends of the behavioral range — you can choose to run or you can choose to fight. Individuals can run some of the time and survive, but coordinated group behaviors could not have developed in human communities if we all ran, every man for himself, from every confrontation. Coordinated group behaviors developed when one proto-human family refused to run, stood its ground in the face of inevitable confrontation, and engaged a common enemy. Since that decision was made, the human communities that have excelled in competitive engagements with other communities have done so by disciplining themselves to face death under the stress of repeated engagement.
A discipline becomes religious when it is taken to its logical absolute. When you make the conscious decision to disregard your individual self for an ultimate concern, what you believe to be the greatest good, you are a religious man. The total commitment of what is an ancient and noble warrior’s perspective is known by many names but is most often called “gnosis” in the West and “enlightenment” in the East. This very core of all personal religion is a recognizable self-sacrifice. Its goal is mastery of the body. Jesus called it doing the will of the Father. He made very specific reference to the self-sacrifice when he said, “This is why the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me but I lay it down on my own. I have power to lay it down and power to take it up again. This command I have received from my Father.”
Catholics say Jesus is one in being with God, his Father. Whatever he did was the will of his Father, which was his own will. Since he was doing what he chose to do, and was God by definition, we must naturally assume his behavior was flawless and intuitive. To live perfectly and intuitively is, also by definition, to have achieved gnosis or to be enlightened. Regardless of how one may philosophize about the significance of Gnosticism vis-a-vis Christian doctrine, the technical discipline for achieving gnosis and the technical discipline for assuming the self-sacrificial role of a Jesus as Christ are identical. The self-sacrifice is a universal. It is the common thread that runs through all formal religion, and it emerges in the oldest religious texts we have.
In the Rig Veda, Agni is chosen by the gods to bring the self-sacrifice to man. The philosopher Antonio de Nicolas tells us that Agni is considered first among the gods, and even though Agni is only the representative of the gods, he is the leader of the sacrifice and no sacrifice can be efficiently performed without him. An obvious analog for the Rig Vedic Agni is in Canon 289, regarding the personhood of Jesus Christ. The canon reads, “The Son of God is true God, just as the Father is true God, having all power, knowing all things and equal to the Father….”
According to this canon, Jesus is the living representative of God and he is “one in being with the Father.” The definitive act of Jesus’ life was his sacrifice on the Cross. In the much earlier Vedic hymns, Agni is also the representative of the gods. At the same time he is the leader of the gods who brings the self-sacrifice to man and he is essential in making a perfect sacrifice.
Ontologically, Jesus and Agni are identical.
I’d found the self-sacrifice 4,000 years ago in the Indus Valley in the person of Agni and 2,000 years ago in Jerusalem in the person of Jesus, but I didn’t fully appreciate the worldwide scope of the self-sacrifice until D. T. Suzuki introduced me to Zen:
The Kamakura era is closely related to Zen, for it was then that as an independent school of Buddhism Zen was first introduced to Japan. Many great masters of Zen ruled the spiritual world of the time, and in spite of their contempt of learning, learning was preserved in their hands. At the same time the soldiers thronged about them, eager to be taught and disciplined by them. The method of their teaching was simple and direct; not much learning in the abstruse philosophy of Zen was needed. The soldiers were naturally not very scholarly; what they wanted was to be not timid before death, which they had constantly to face.
The Japanese warriors sought the self-sacrifice to discipline themselves to face death under the stress of repeated engagement. The similarities between eastern and western mysticism were due to the universality of this self-sacrifice.
Jesus is remembered in the Stations of the Cross, a series of graphic symbols of his self-sacrifice. The Buddha is remembered in the woodcuts of the yoking of the ox, symbols for the steps in the self-sacrificial path to enlightenment. Jesus uses parables to teach religious truths. Zen Buddhists later use koans, literal paradoxes, to convey religious truths. The Buddha’s enlightenment is attainable to all and so is Jesus’ Kingdom of God attainable universally through faith because the self-sacrifice is a potential within us all. The self-sacrifice had traveled to the west by way of Zoroaster and to the east by way of the Buddha.
Spiritually transcending the suppression of the tripartite sacrificial systems from which they had emerged, the modern Buddhist and Christian ontologies were egalitarian. Neither their ontologies nor their ideal societies were dismembered by caste. Priest and warrior were one. Tripartition was dissolved. Buddhism, born of the Buddha’s abrupt realization, traveled to China and crystallized in Japan to become what it originally was, the eminently pragmatic discipline of warriors. Buddha had intuited the ontology of the ancient and egalitarian self-sacrifice before its dismemberment into caste. Jesus had made his life an actual demonstration of the warrior’s ontology by deliberately confronting the corruption of the tripartite sacrificial system in Jerusalem fully aware that the cost would be his own life. Agni, the Vedic god who brings the self-sacrifice to man, had also sacrificed his own godly self in the Vedic hymns 2,000 years before.
The warrior’s self-sacrificial discipline is in the religious texts of the ancient Indo-Aryans. It is at the core of Zen Buddhism and at the core of Christianity in Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross. It is the discipline of the priest/king Melchizedek to whose order Jesus and Catholic priests belong. It is the priest’s duty to be the Christ among us, and that is why it is impossible for a Catholic priesthood to legitimize homosexuality. Self-discipline is the core of the universally held self-sacrifice, and the perfect self-sacrifice fulfills Melchizedek’s two functions, the priest’s function of preserving the religious traditions of the people and the warrior’s function of ensuring their survival.
A man properly loves another man by calling him to the self-sacrificial discipline of Jesus Christ. You call him to discipline himself to the Law until it is written on his heart because you cannot religiously do otherwise.
Redemption: A Discipline and an Ethic
Religion consists of a discipline bound to an ethic. The discipline and the ethic are evolved behavioral strategies that serve to keep an individual and his community alive. It is the self-sacrificial discipline of Judaism’s orthodox breeding communities bound to the Levitical prohibitions that accounts for their high-quality, high-quantity birth rates, which further accounts for their survival and phenomenal success as a gifted people for thousands of years. Since the French revolution, countless genetically gifted Jews released from the confines of previously closed medieval communities have naturally begun to fashion the world after their own design. These highly leveraged non-orthodox Jews in academia, business, government, the arts, and the media, actively engaged in providing the intellectual and financial stimulus for countless initiatives nurturing homosexuality, abortion, feminism, and sexual promiscuity in general, initiatives that appear to delegitimize the prohibitions in Leviticus, are not running any reproductive risks at all. They need not fulfill a reproductive function for the borderless Jewish nation to be maintained from generation to generation. That is the function of the segregated orthodox communities.
However, the hostility of the “chosen” people toward the peoples and religions of their host nations is biblically and historically attested and increasingly evident in the media, in the schools, and in the courts. That hostility, coupled with the abandonment of the Levitical prohibitions by the indigenous peoples, will eventually result in the diminution and even extinction of the indigenous peoples in the form of a progressive decline, just as occurred in biblical Canaan according to the Book of Judges. The indigenous peoples of host nations cannot follow secular Jewry into an unrestrained liberalism, because the latter only appear to abandon the Levitical prohibitions. That is the secret of their persistence while other nations have perished. The relatively unknown racial nature of their religious core is largely perpetrated in private behind the walls of self-segregated orthodox communities and hidden in allegories woven into the book of Genesis. The ultra-conservative breeding communities ensure the survival and the success of worldwide Jewry by maintaining the Levitical prohibitions with a religious vengeance, while the non-orthodox apostates who function as warriors behave as they choose, seemingly bereft of any altars of their own while pulling our altars down.
The indigenous peoples have no one fulfilling the reproductive function, no one working the Levitical prohibitions with a religious vengeance, but themselves. Their celibate priests do not have a reproductive function and are increasingly unwilling or incapable of communicating the significance of either the self-sacrifice or the Levitical prohibitions to their congregations, who are abandoning the churches en masse, though the indigenous peoples will have to return to religion if they expect to reverse the decline of their institutions and their populations. In Deuteronomy Moses warned what would happen to those who ignored the word of the Lord. He said, “You will become a horror, a byword, an object lesson to all the peoples amongst whom the Lord disperses you.”
We can assess the level of religious commitment necessary for indigenous peoples to redeem their cultures and their populations by considering orthodox collective behavior.
In the summer of 2001 an orthodox rebbe disappeared while on a day hike near Franconia Notch in New Hampshire. His community called for volunteers to search for him. Many hundreds of them arrived. They traveled from New York, New Jersey, and Montreal. They arrived in a huge Winnebago, an ambulance, five buses, and dozens of private vehicles. “I’ve never seen a better-organized group of volunteers, never, ever,” an official from the Fish and Game Department commented. For this entire community to respond to the disappearance of one individual is a phenomenal event relative to the response most communities exhibit upon the disappearance of a community member, barring the involvement of civil authorities (the Jewish community far outnumbered the 80 odd civil authorities that arrived), but it is the kind of discipline brought to bear by religious communities.
Religious discipline generates tremendous political leverage when orthodox communities like New Square in New York transact with political entities such as Bill and Hillary Clinton. One thousand four hundred residents of the New Square community voted for Hillary Clinton. Twelve did not. Only a religiously committed population can deliver that kind of phenomenal bloc vote, but they do, and when they do, the synagogue is the state. The greatest Jewish Diaspora of all time is occurring now as a result of repartition. Prolific orthodox communities, religiously bound to selective breeding, grow rapidly. Genetically gifted Jews who leave those orthodox communities will continue to rise to positions of power and influence providing them with enormous leverage to fashion the world after their own design. They must pull down the altars of the indigenous peoples of host nations if they are to actualize their potential.
The indigenous peoples who live in the liberalized world the modern Jewish Diaspora creates lack segregated breeding communities insulated from societal decline (society without altars) and religiously dedicated to improving and maintaining their bloodlines. Unless the indigenous peoples come to a degree of racial awareness, brave a Darwinian interpretation of the Bible, and generate the necessary religiosity to maintain their populations and conserve their institutions, their families over the generations will come to occupy the meanest strata of a mean, commoditized society and then eventually be “spewed out of the land.”
They cannot reverse the decline because they have learned to be ashamed of the racial awareness biblical Jews religiously cultivate among themselves with the errant blessing of the indigenous peoples’ own religious leaders. They cannot see their greater human families decline as they abandon the Levitical prohibitions because they deny there are greater human families at all.
When I returned to regular church attendance in 1995, I found an unfamiliar focus on the feminine passive nature of religion. Attention I had expected to see focused on the self-sacrifice of the Cross was diverted to Mary, the mother of Jesus as mediatrix. The popular religious figure was not Jesus himself or a male figure of action or even a female figure of action like St. Joan of Arc, but St. Therese of Lisieux, who had written beautiful poetry while bravely enduring terminal disease, not an imperfect life to be sure, but a passive model. Nor did I find the degree of social or political organization within urban parishes I had expected. The priests didn’t encourage any, and there was indeed more than a suggestion of a homosexual subculture within the priestly community.
When I attended a conference on anti-Catholicism at Fordham University, the audience was invited to write questions on index cards and submit them to the panel. Questions on Jewish anti-Catholicism were not accepted, though I knew more than a few had been submitted, one by a theologian. At one point Bill Donohue of the Catholic League stood next to me. When I leaned over and mentioned that my questions about Jewish anti-Catholicism had not been accepted for public review, Bill just smiled. I was dumbfounded when a Jew on the panel (yes, the panel was composed partly of Jews) called Catholicism not the world’s great religion, or even America’s great religion, but “one of America’s great religions.”
The altars were coming down.
Catholic observers as diverse as Greeley, Weigel, Martin, and Donohue have noted in common that official Catholic positions on abortion, homosexuality, and the role of women in the community are so targeted for cultural ridicule, media carping, and political litmus testing so often, and so nastily… that a palpable but indefinable something else can reasonably be argued to be going on.
You’ve now had a look at the structure and dynamic of that “palpable but indefinable something else” that is going on.
I’ll print out these notes and place them in the same large manila envelope Brother Michael had wrapped the book and letter in that started my ruminations over the Levitical prohibitions. Then I’ll walk the package over to the rectory. I am praying Brother Michael will take the information I’ve gathered for him and explain tripartition to the priests in residence. If they have eyes to see and ears to hear they’ll spread the word until the word radiates like ripples on a pond. In my mind’s eye I can see them calling the liberals in their ranks back to the discipline of the Cross, and they’ll come. Then they’ll call us all back to the churches and we’ll go and we’ll learn to bloc vote until church bells ring every Sunday in every city in the country and there is a crucifix on the wall in every Christian home to remind us all of the sacrifices that have to be made from time to time to protect our people and preserve our way of life.
I am hoping they’ll listen to Brother Michael. They haven’t listened to me. It’s all very simple, really. Some truths never change. Once you’ve determined the finest ways to behave in the face of unchanging truth, and gone through the trouble of preserving those ways for thousands of years, why in heaven or on earth would you abandon them? A rational man would maintain the finest behaviors religiously, even rigidly as they say Brother Michael does, because the word of the Lord is eternally true.
The Lord had said, “You shall observe my institutions and my laws: the man who keeps them shall have life through them.”
And the man who doesn’t shall die and his family will be spewed out of the land.