Anyone who would dispute either Henry Sire’s Faith or his historical expertise would be very foolish, and I have no desire to be foolish. Moreover, I agree entirely with his points on the monstrosity of the renewed Kingdom of Israel under Christ NOT being Jewish, and the individual importance of Our Lady. But the difficult question facing the writer facing a difficult question is what he can write in limited space. Obviously I renounce in a heart beat any real or apparent diminution of the role of the Mother of God in Salvation. That the Empire of Christ should have been Jewish is true, and their rejection of it horrible.
But if I neglected these points, let me make clear what I was trying to do. There are a great many young men out there, most — but not all — of Caucasian descent, who are continually told they should hate themselves because of their DNA. Not being stupid, they see the falsity of this, but are opened thereby to other falsehoods: that their sense of pride ought to be based on their DNA, and their worship turned to whatever false gods shall reinforce its worth. My point is that this is not whence their pride should come, but from being heirs by Baptism of that Kingdom — which thus far has been, as an historical reality, centred in Europe and her daughter countries, and that rather than rejecting those of other bloods, they should embrace all joined to them by Baptism. In a word, I have tried to build up their pride in being who they are on supernatural basis. In this context, dwelling at length on the culpability of the Jews in rejecting Christ’s Kingdom seems a bit counterproductive. Young gentlemen of this sort often know and would like to know more about Jewish failings.
Rembrandt, The Baptism of the Eunuch, 1626, Museum Catharijneconvent, Utrecht.
