Jews and Christians are one in believing that man is a responsible being. Having free will, he may obey God or he may do what no other creature can do, defy the very God that made him. The Messiah did not cancel the use of that faculty of the human soul. Hence it is not fair to blame the representatives of Jesus for the failure of the people of our country to be Christian in fact rather than merely so in name.
   Perhaps you do not know that there are thirteen thousand priests, one hundred and twenty-five thousand sisters, and I know not how many brothers, belonging to religious orders in our U.S.A. who, besides striving for personal perfection, intensifying love of God and love of neighbor (be he Jew, Protestant, Heathen or Catholic), perform works of service and charity in schools, orphan asylums, homes for the aged, for down-fallen women, as well as in hospitals, some of them for incurables and lepers. With all that, they take the vow of poverty, in addition to the vows of obedience and chastity, which means that they own no property save their personal belongings such as their clothing, and very simple, unglamorous wearing apparel at that. To charge such holy men and women as "not worthy of Jesus and with making a poor job of spreading His teachings" is as far from a proper evaluation of worthiness as to charge a good mother and father, who are religious in spirit and action, with being unworthy because some of their children act like devils rather than saints.
   That there are some unworthy individuals in the Church, no informed Catholic will deny, but they are relatively so small in number that there is no warrant for the general charge of unworthiness. "The proof of the pudding being in eating it" as you say, implies that the consumer knows what the pudding should taste like, what it is made of and its nourishing qualities, otherwise his judgment of the good is likely to be awry. Look at the principle as applied to the family instead of the stomach. That would be a fair test, as upon the integrity of domestic relations depends the joy of life and the stability of the state. With this vital principle as a standard of judgment, let us look at the "representatives of Jesus" to see if they are "worthy of Him and whether they have made a poor job of spreading His teachings." Every priest, sister and brother in the Catholic Church teaches what Jesus taught regarding matrimony, --that marriage is a life union; that marriage, once properly entered into according to the law of Christ and His Church, cannot be dissolved save by death; that if husband and wife separate, neither party to the union can marry while the other party lives; if he or she does marry, the one so doing is in adultery; because Jesus said, "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder" (St. Matt. 19:6). Every Catholic has been taught that principle, and therefore knows that if he or she violates this law, he or she is deprived of the sacraments, is excommunicated. Surely God's representatives in the Catholic Church have done an excellent "job in spreading that teaching."
   With this principle in mind, look at the condition outside the Catholic Church, in your own city. Legalized wife and husband swapping, successive polygamy and polyandry, is so common that such legalized prostitution is designated "going Hollywood." In listening-in evenings, one can hear Hedda Hoppa, in her daily broadcasts from Hollywood using her God-given talents to undermine God's law of matrimony, and yet claiming to believe in God. Surely God's representatives in the Catholic Church would not tolerate such a violation of God's law if they had the power to stop it. This able nationwide dramatic news broadcaster so glibly sets forth stories of elopements, marriages of many times divorced persons, in such joyful and fascinating voice, that listeners are led to believe that successive marital breakups and new matings are as proper as changing the restaurants where these immoral movie stars eat their meals. Surely the representatives of the Church in your own city, state, or in the nation are not responsible for that condition. While they have not succeeded in making our country Christian from a marital point of view, they have succeeded in getting over twenty millions of Americans who are Catholics to be the country's greatest moral stabilizing force from a martial point of view. Good men who are not Catholic, and there are many of them, ought to love the Catholic Church alone for her determination to stand uncompromisingly for God's law of marriage despite the Sodom and Gomorrah condition of family life that has become popular outside the Church.
   Now for the other points you raise, which must be dealt with tersely on account of the length of this epistle. I am pleased to say a word about them in order that you may get things Catholic straight, even if you do not agree with them. "Keep the Sabbath?" Yes, by all odds. Christians do that, though many of them ought to keep it more holy than they do. That Commandment is eternal, therefore Christians have no right to change the mandate, and Christians have not changed it.
   What Christians did do was to start the reckoning of the seventh day thirty hours later than the Jewish reckoning, beginning their Sabbath on Sunday morning instead of Friday night. God did not say KEEP SATURDAY HOLY. Jews kept the seventh day holy for over a thousand years before the world ever heard of a day named after the planet Saturn. Sabbath means rest, keep the rest day holy. This Christians do, as I said a moment ago. Christians keep the Sabbath on Sunday for spiritual reasons; whereas Jews keep the Sabbath on Saturday for natural reasons, though both hold it to be a day of prayer to the same God.
   Circumcision, which you good-naturedly suggest Christians adopt as a religious rite, was ordered by God in the Covenant made with Abraham exclusively for the Jews. That Covenant was displaced by the "New Covenant" that Jeremiah foretold (31:31). Hence baptism, instituted by Jesus, the Messiah, took its place. It is not reasonable, nor doctrinally possible, for Christians to go back from the butterfly stage of religious existence to the caterpillar stage from which they were metamorphosed.
   Regarding the Hebrew tongue, which you ask Christians "to return to" as part of the "religion of Jesus," permit me to say that is also impossible. Jesus spoke Aramaic, the Palestinian dialect, and not Hebrew, though there is no doubt that He had perfect knowledge of it. In fact most of the Jews of the days of Jesus in Palestine spoke some one of the many Aramaic dialects and Greek, as Hebrew was on the decline. No doubt you know that the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds, the Targumin and Midrashim were all written in that language, which is not Hebrew, though akin thereto. Hebrew is a holy tonque that had almost fallen into oblivion until the Jewish city of Tel Aviv was built, due in part to Reform Judaism as well as departure of Jews in growing numbers from belief in religion. Hebrew is taught in Catholic seminaries. While it is good for Jewish and Christian students, especially seminarians, to study Hebrew, it is entirely unfitted for such a universal religion as Christianity.
   As a concluding point, I register an agreement. Very likely you as a converted Jew might not have been as successful in business as you have been. I say likely, as the loss depends upon how much Jewish trade you have. Jews, with a few exceptions, would cease to patronize you. Protestants are not generally bitter towards converts from the Synagogue to the Catholic Church. Yet that is beside the question from a religious point of view. The norm of judgment is not whether you should nor should not be a Christian or remain a Jew because it might hinder or enhance your economic interests. You are a moral being, therefore you are obligated to follow the light of conscience. If, by the grace of God, you reach the point of understanding that the Catholic Church is the present Church of God, you are morally obligated to follow the light that God has blest you with into the Catholic Church. A Jew has no right to refuse to become a Catholic because it might check his success in business; nor had a Jew a moral right to become a Catholic for the sake of advancing his economic interest.
   All this is typed as a friendly gesture, as I admire your frankness even if I do differ with you doctrinally. Our basic difference is this, you, as an Orthodox Jew, look for the Messiah to come, whereas I, as a Catholic, believe that He came twenty centuries ago in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

Sholem Eleichem
D.... G........

Previous   |   Table of Contents    |   Next