TIA,

I thought TIA and its readers would find this an interesting piece of history. It came from an article in the Boston Globe ("Enter Christianity" by James Carroll, August 9, 2010).

In 1904, the founder of Zionism, Theodore Herzl, met with Pope Pius X to ask for Vatican support for the Jewish return to Palestine. The pope was dismissive. "The Jews who should have been the first to acknowledge Jesus Christ have not done so to this day," he said. "And so if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we will be ready with churches and priests to baptize all of you."

As a Jesuit theological journal of that time explained, "The Jewish people must always live dispersed and vagrant among the other nations so that they may render witness to Christ by their very existence."

The article also explains that while St. Augustine argued that Jews should be allowed to survive in Christendom as Jews, he also considered it their fate to be a wandering people. When the Catholics were in control of Jerusalem, they limited the number of Jews who could reside there, not just out of bigotry, but because when they rejected Jesus Christ and called for His death, they lost their right to a homeland.

The Vatican refused to recognize the State of Israel in 1948. Then after Vatican II, everything changed. The Church began to embrace them as 'elder brothers,' and Pope John Paul II recognized the State and was the first Pope to visit a synagogue. Benedict has already been to three - in New York, Germany and Rome. The Catholics aren't there 'to baptize them' as Pope Pius X wanted. Instead, the Catholics are the ones being driven out, and today they are a tiny persecuted minority. What a difference from the time of Pope St. Pius X!

While the Jews may dominate Israel today ' supported by the international community and US dollars, '  I don't believe Israel can be considered their homeland. I agree with Atila Guimaraes in one of his articles, when he pointed out they really don't have a homeland, as, since the beginning, the land has been in a state of war with the Jews contending over possession of the land with the Palestines.

St. Augustine is still right. What is wrong is the Church's new position of openness. It doesn't work, and it won't work. We need to return to the Holy Land and conquer it for Christ.

     In Cristo Rey!

     P.H.

Dear Dr. Horvat,

Your criticism of the vulgarism of using "kids" in place of "children" was exactly right.

Allow me to point out that, in a similar vein, the words "mom" and "dad" ought to be considered almost as offensive. I am not referring to those words used as terms of endearment when addressing one's mother or father en famille. Rather, I am strenuously objecting to using them as general descriptive nouns in place of "mother" and "father." The latter words are dignified and respectful, whereas the former are coarse and graceless, and serve to cheapen the vocation of parenthood.

They are subtle examples of the Revolution's inevitable degradation of speech. Counter-revolutionaries should avoid them.

     Sincerely,

     T.D.

Dear Dr. Horvat,

Please accept my criticism even while it comes from an unlearned, poor person.

Civility is a bi-product of virtue, but virtue is not necessarily a bi-product of cultured civility. I do, however, appreciate your comment on how when civility was popular in a Catholicized world, it was a time when men measured their every move. However, there are many men who are born of very civil customs, and yet they are anything but Catholic in their belief systems.

While it is true that persons of greater rank should be given greater respect, it is not to say that we should be not careful with those who are of no rank, perhaps even to put them above ourselves - regardless of our rank, status, etc. in society. (Think of the Holy Family who sought shelter on the occasion of the birth of our Lord - and how we should remember our Lord saying to us, "Whatever you do to the least ... you do also to me."

And regarding certain States, even here there are some exceptions as to the sex, age, and degree of health in some cases. For instance, even though I am a woman, I will hold the door open for a grown man if he happens to be in need of physical assistance, such as if a man is in a wheelchair or is using a walker, etc. What is most civil is that we assume the lowest place at all times before all people as much as our office and/or state permit. The only differences are in the degree to which we lower ourselves is relevant to the temporal dignity of one's state (as it is given to them by God), lest we create a scandal against our office and/or state, or, if it has been revealed to us by way of Divine Law and the Church, then it is also relevant to the spiritual dignity of one's state (ex., Popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, professed religious).

Perhaps you would agree with me on these comments. Some of your colleagues at TFP [Note of the Editor: TIA and TFP are different organizations; at present Dr. Horvat has no colleagues at TFP], however, would apparently disagree, based on what I've read of their articles. One example of this is the article that declares that predisposition towards virtue is in one's blood (hence the term you even use of "good breeding").

What I have witnessed is that there are some traditional Catholics who make an idol out of what they perceive to be their god-given status. They have sinned so many times against charity that they have elevated themselves, and God, being the ultimate Gentleman, simply permitted them to their errors. Their pride blinds them, eventually to the point that they will expect some level of temporal success, as if it was due to them by Divine justice, and robbed or at least somehow prevented by those who are less faithful to God's holy Will.

This blindness begets further acts against charity, and develops the blindness even more. They will sin against hope as they assume to themselves things to be their right by Divine Providence, by their avarice for human respect rather than love of and trust in God. In their plight to maintain or take their elite statue, they may even try to take hope from others, in the name of soliciting for the temporal goods they believe are rightful theirs by their inherent nobility or elitism - and all even in the name of doing the will of God.

Finally, they sin against faith - even those that proclaim most vocally to fight in order to protect the faith. How do they do this? After (super-naturalized) charity and hope have been fatally injured, they fail to see the events of their life through spiritual eyes, taking upon themselves even Divine rights that do not belong to them.

Some examples of this might be: working on Sundays or demanding that their employees work on Sundays - in the name of supporting their 'divine'-inspired cause, doubting the validity of a current Pope, or provoking others to disrespect Church authority, priests, etc.

The modernists are the same, as they will obtain their various degrees and suddenly they are a theologian who can speak for the Church. They cannot perceive the audacity of their endeavors because there are so many who are seeking the truth, and will inevitably fall under their heresies, whether they do so materially or formally.

In my personal experience, I have been very disappointed to see such traditional Catholics give other Catholics and non-Catholics a bad impression due to their arrogance and lack of charity.

We were put on this earth to become holy and serve God, not to be served according to our state. And if we are, by our state, to be served, this is merely a temporal blessing, while yet a spiritually cross.

I don't agree with those people who make natural law a type of idol, looking to be served according to their state, rather than to serve all (due to love of God) according to their state. (I think the expression here is that we then lose "our first charity". 'I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them that are evil, and thou hast tried them, who say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: And thou hast patience, and hast endured for my name, and hast not fainted. But I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first charity." (Apocalypse of St. John 2:2-4)

If only intelligence, education and "good breeding" were enough to make holy men and women, our world would be a better place - by even the minority of traditional Catholics alone. However, pride has taken over those who see themselves more willing to be served than to serve, and they do not take up the cross that God might have chosen for them. Humility is the rarest human traits and always, and in each one of us, the most lacking.

The love of God of those traditional Catholics who believe themselves to be of the "nobility and analogous elites" often dissipates into felicity - a carefree, love of God for the state in which He has placed them, which is a mere love of concupiscence, rather than a love of God borne out of true charity. While it is true that we should hope in Him, God deserves to be served. As St. Alphonsus comments, "There the soul, entirely forgetful of herself, and divested of all self-love, loves God with all her strength, and with a most pure love".

Civility is not always a mark of one who is charitable. Civil acts are often charitable acts, but it is a means and not an end, and they are not always demonstration of one's charity.

May this season find you greatly blessed...

Ad Jesum per Mariam,

     L.T.

Follow us

  Middle East: Hawks & Doves

  Jewish Sanhedrim Re-Established

  Catholic Church, a Branch of the Synagogue?

  Please Say Children, Not Kids

  The Holy Family Belonged to a Royal House

  Inequalities Are the Base of Society