TAC: Orders of Charity

This is a good article.

I recommend that our Catholic readers read and digest it and wonder what changed. It doesn’t sound all too different from Luther’s idea of the Orders of Creation.


“As a Catholic theologian, Aquinas unsurprisingly identifies God as the preeminent object of man’s love. But this hierarchy also has broad implications for the ordering of society, beginning with the family and working outwards. Aquinas proposes two general principles for making determinations in reference to charity: from the object loved and from the union caused. He writes: “a thing is loved more in two ways: first because it has the character of a more excellent good, secondly by reason of a closer connection.” In other words, we love certain persons more either because of the nature of who or what they are, or because we enjoy with them some deeper union. We love the virtuous person more than the scoundrel, and we love our parents, our spouses, and our children over strangers, because we share deep, close bonds with them.

From the family, we can apply the Order of Charity outwards. Aristotle observes: “it is our duty to render to each class of people such respect as is natural and appropriate.” Aquinas assents: “we ought to love some neighbors more than others.” For example, “some neighbors are connected with us by their natural origin, a connection which cannot be severed, since that origin makes them to be what they are.” Just as there is an indelible givenness to our family, so there is with members of our communities and our nation that require the prioritization of our affections. Aquinas says, “Since our neighbor is more visible to us, he is the first lovable object we meet with.” In other words, because of his proximity to us in time and space, we love our fellow countryman before citizens of other nations. Thus, “in matters concerning relations between citizens, we should prefer our fellow-citizens, and on the battlefield our fellow-soldiers.”

Yet one might ask: doesn’t the Christian religion—as well as the secular humanism that often unknowingly derives many of its ethical principles thereof—teach that we should love all our neighbors equally? Not so fast. While we can love all persons with “one same generic good, namely everlasting happiness,” it is impossible to love all people equally. Says Aquinas: “we are bound to observe this inequality [of love], because we cannot do good to all.” As finite beings, we must daily make choices that demonstrate a prioritization of our loves and duties, even if unintentionally. Furthermore, because our love is inherently tied to intensity, attempting an equality of love is both unnatural and societally disastrous. Imagine a culture where husbands loved other men’s wives as much as their own, fathers loved other people’s children as much as their own, and workers loved their professional competitors as much as their own employers, and you’ll appreciate why. …”

It is natural to love your own wife, children and family more than others. It is natural to love your own kin and nation more than others too. There is nothing wrong with wanting to preserve these things. Wars have mostly been fought throughout history for these things.

Liberalism condemns and pathologizes this natural, healthy sentiment as “prejudice” and “bigotry.” In the place of traditional morality, the liberal cosmopolitan elite substitutes a cult of racial self hatred for Whites, a laundry list of -isms and -phobias which were made up and spread by television in the 20th century, a racial pecking order of victim groups and a license of unlimited individual freedom to engage in acts which used to be proscribed as cultural degeneracy.

The funny thing is, this is conflated with “Christianity” by some people, but that is because Christian churches are going with the flow and reflecting back the values of the liberal mainstream like a mirror. Christianity is no longer our dominant culture in the age of mass media. It is not the basis of the social order. It is a private practice that some people engage in these days. The current state of affairs was only made possible by the total breakdown of Christianity over the past two centuries. The fact that we have a Jewish cultural elite which is mainstreaming homosexuality and dissolving the “gender binary” only shows the weakness of the grip that Christianity has on our culture. This would have been unimaginable only a few centuries ago.

If you travel back in time before liberalism, you won’t find much of any of this in the West. You won’t even find much of it in the Enlightenment either although the language of “prejudice” and “bigotry” dates back to that era and was starting to take root then.

About Hunter Wallace 12367 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. I am glad you printed this. A Catholic catechism book we have says that we can and should love more those that God has made closer to us. That you love everyone in the same spiritual manner but not in the same amount. Yes, Love is Unequal.

    An example given in my Grandmother’s Baltimore Catechism 1954, says for instance that a certain girl is an American citizen but she is of French stock. She loves her family and friends first and then she loves French people best after that since her family came from France. The Catechism quite clearly answers that this French american girl has her love priorities correct.

    The Catechism also says that you should spiritually love people of your own religion before others.

    Not only is temporal Love unequal but even Spiritual Love is supposed to be unequal.

  2. HW, can southern nationalists be non-Christians or must we all believe in the virgin birth, resurrection of the dead, and Yaweh?

    • AW,

      I suggest that you submit that question to the readers of Identity Dixie, and sit back and watch the fireworks.

    • Why the hell would you want to be such, if you divorce Christendom from Christianity? You belong in Jew York City, and all of her atheist/agnostic asses, and nowhere else.

  3. The Jewish priest and Levite passed their own blood who was robbed and beaten on the side of the road and did nothing. The race-mixed outcast Samaritan stopped and cared for him with his own money. What was the Jewish Jesus saying with this parable?

    That Jewish people should care about their own people/blood and that is doing ‘God’s’ will.

    How were Jews going to defeat their Roman oppressors when they didn’t even care about their own Jewish neighbors who were robbed, beaten, and dying on the side of the road?

    Jesus definitely wasn’t an Optics Cuck. He befriended many Jewish people who were socially marginalized.

    Maybe there is a lesson somewhere in there…..


    • Oh, this pile of excrement again. The sole refuge of the Novus Ordo pseudo-Xtian. the Samaritans were NOT ‘mixed race,’ they were of the same race. Thus, ‘neighbor. Here, let me quote from Christogenea.

      “Before proceeding to the parable of the Good Samaritan, we should discuss the word neighbor. The Greek word translated neighbor is usually from the adverb, with the article, ??? ???????, which literally means one who is near, and nothing else. By itself it really does not distinguish between nearness in relationship or in geographical proximity. However the Hebrew does, and so does the context of scripture where it is often found.

      The Greek word ???????, which is both an adverb and a preposition, means “near, close to…” (Liddell & Scott) and itself is a derivative of the adverb ????? which is “near, hard by, close…” (ibid) Either word, ????? or ???????, used as a Substantive, was used to denote one’s neighbor, and Liddell & Scott give examples of this from secular writers who used either ? ??????? or ? ?????. Yet in secular Greek there are other words used by contemporary authors and also in the New Testament which are translated “neighbor”: ?????? (1069), which is explicitly “one of the same land, a neighbour…” (ibid) and is found at Luke 14:12; 15:6, 9; and John 9:8, and ????????? (4040) which is “dwelling round…?? ????????? neighbours…” (ibid) and which is found at Luke 1:58.

      While it can surely be demonstrated, that in Palestine and throughout the ????????? (the Greco-Roman world), one’s neighbor was most often, and was expected to be, of one’s own tribe, that this is the true meaning of ??? ??????? in the New Testament is evident in other ways, besides the use of ?????? or ????????? where it was appropriate.

      First, at Acts 7:27, an account of Exodus 2:11-14, one Israelite is referred to as ??? ??????? (A.V. “Neighbor”) in relation to another Israelite, but certainly not in reference to the dead Egyptian – yet Moses, as evidenced in the Exodus account, could not have known that these men lived in proximity to one another, as we understand the term “neighbor” today. He only could have known that the men had a tribal relationship. Now some may think this conjectural, but it surely is the circumstance.”

      And the pertinent part, to stuff your lying mouth with this blasphemy of which you know NOTHING.

      “Understanding the parable of the Good Samaritan requires some background on just who the Samaritans were, how they were viewed by the Judaeans at the time, and why Yahshua chose them for His illustration here. The Roman district of Samaria was roughly equivalent to the ancient lands of Ephraim and that portion of Manasseh west of the river Jordan. It is evident that while most of the Israelites were taken into Assyrian captivity (to later become known as Kimmerians, Scythians, Sakae, Saxons, etc.), many were left behind either purposely (i.e. 2 Kings 25:12) or because they managed to elude capture (i.e. 2 Chronicles 30:6). Later the Assyrians moved foreign peoples into Samaria to resettle the land, and these were people who were made subject from other lands which they had also conquered. While many of the tribal names of these people are obscure (cf. 2 Kings chapter 17; 2 Chronicles chapter 33; and Ezra chapter 4), knowing the regions which the Assyrians had conquered there is little reason to doubt that these were Adamic peoples, and certainly many of them were, such as the Elamites, who were Persians, mentioned at Ezra 4:9. The history of Samaria is very sketchy during this period, and there is not even assurance that these other tribes remained in Samaria, especially since the Persian period was more forgiving to displaced peoples, as Cyrus was to the Judaeans by allowing them to return to their original homeland if they so desired.

      There is no doubt, however, that the people of Judaea from the earliest times despised the Samaritans, as it is evident in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah and in the New Testament (cf. John 4:9), and the feeling was evidently mutual (Josephus’ Antiquities, 11.4.9, 20.6.1). Yet it is also evident, at the time of Christ, that many of the people in Judaea were not actually Israelites but were Edomites or other Canaanites (John chapter 8, Romans chapter 9, Antiquities 13.9.1), and that some of the “Samaritans” were truly Israelites. When certain Pharisees claimed to be the children of Abraham, Yahshua Christ denied their claim (John 8:33-44), where the record shows that these were indeed children of Esau, and since Esau took Canaanite wives his offspring are illegitimate (Genesis 26:35, 27:46, and 36:1-2; Malachi 1:1-3; John 8:33 – the Israelites were in bondage in Egypt, and in Assyria and Babylon; and Romans 9:1-13, 21-23 et al.). Yet when a certain “Samaritan” woman, who voiced an expectation of Israel’s coming Messiah, claimed to be a daughter of Jacob, her claim was not denied, but was rather substantiated by the subsequent events described in John chapter 4 (John 4:12 and 25, and 39-42)! It is obvious that first century Judaeans, those who were Israelites, were making distinctions based upon religious and political boundaries much as we do today, and ignoring the more important, permanent bonds of kinship and race, much as many also do today. The “good Samaritan” Christ had in mind was certainly a descendant of Adam, and was very likely a “lost” Israelite (Matt. 15:24).”


  4. Orthodox pffffts about Acquinas:

    “Western theology, however, has differentiated itself from Eastern Orthodox theology. Instead of being therapeutic, it is more intellectual and emotional in character. In the West [after the Carolingian “Renaissance”], scholastic theology evolved, which is antithetical to the Orthodox Tradition. Western theology is based on rational thought whereas Orthodoxy is hesychastic. Scholastic theology tried to understand logically the Revelation of God and conform to philosophical methodology. Characteristic of such an approach is the saying of Anselm [Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093-1109, one of the first after the Norman Conquest and destruction of the Old English Orthodox Church]: “I believe so as to understand.” The Scholastics acknowledged God at the outset and then endeavoured to prove His existence by logical arguments and rational categories. In the Orthodox Church, as expressed by the Holy Fathers, faith is God revealing Himself to man. We accept faith by hearing it not so that we can understand it rationally, but so that we can cleanse our hearts, attain to faith by theoria* and experience the Revelation of God.

    Scholastic theology reached its culminating point in the person of Thomas Aquinas, a saint in the Roman Catholic Church. He claimed that Christian truths are divided into natural and supernatural. Natural truths can be proven philosophically, like the truth of the Existence of God. Supernatural truths – such as the Triune God, the incarnation of the Logos, the resurrection of the bodies – cannot be proven philosophically, yet they cannot be disproven. Scholasticism linked theology very closely with philosophy, even more so with metaphysics. As a result, faith was altered and scholastic theology itself fell into complete disrepute when the “idol” of the West – metaphysics – collapsed. Scholasticism is held accountable for much of the tragic situation created in the West with respect to faith and faith issues.” – http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/hierotheos_difference.aspx

    And from the reformed (Baptist) camp,


    Luther was a scholastic, even as he was also a nominalist. THIS is the crap the Reformation sought to be free from.
    You go down this road, Brad, and you’ll end up as schizo as E. Michael Jones, whose ‘Ethnos needs Logos’ I am slogging through right now.

    Jones is a blasphemous nut-job, when you read his rationale for the phoney baloney ‘apparition’ of that mestizo whore/demonic ‘Nuestra Senora de Guadalupe’ who is a mixed-race bastard, and NOT the ethnically pure, ‘daughter of Eve’ caucasoid Adamite, that is the true Virgin Mary of the Bible.

    Thanks, but no thanks. Rome is hemorrhaging to death right now, and deservedly so. Bergoglio is the perfect Novus Ordo hierarch, which is telling…. Flee from Rome.

  5. The word neighbor even in mainstream dictionary’s like Merriam Webster has listed in definition #2 biblical context Matthew 19:19 (FellowMan)”thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”

    Click on Fellow Man and it says “a kindred human being” Now lookup kindred and it says in definition #2 “of the same ancestry”(kindred tribes/same race)

    In Romans chapter 13, verse 9, Paul quotes the ten commandments and says, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” a commandment found in Leviticus 19:18, which reads:

    “Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD.”

    In that passage alone, where the command first appears in Scripture, we see that the concept of neighbor must be limited to the reference of “the children of thy people”, or
    the people of one’s own race.

    In Mark 12:30-31 Christ said to him, “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and
    with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

    The second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other
    commandment greater than these.”

    So the lesson learned here is to Love Your God and Love Your Race.

    The Bible says Man was created in God’s image: Genesis 1:26. The word Man in Genesis 1:26 & Genesis 2:7 & means Adam. Strong’s definition of Adam means RUDDY, man who shows blood in the face and is able to blush. Strong’s H119 & H120.

    Genesis 5:1 says: “This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him. The Race of Adam is White & Ruddy.

    The Song of Solomon in verse 5:10 is used as a type for Christ: “My beloved is White and Ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand.”

    The 1980 Jewish Almanac says; “Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a ‘Jew’ or to call a contemporary Jew an ‘Israelite’ or a ‘Hebrew.”

    • Thank you, Mark. I just didn’t have the time to do all the relevant research in my earlier comment, but yes. You are correct. I bless this comment.

      The fallacy that LIBERAL GODLESS JUDAIZED ‘Synagogues of Satan’ have given the world, about ‘love thy negro’ and ‘the Hmong is our neighbor’ were merely eisogesis (reading into scripture things that are not there) versus exegesis (finding the TRUTH contained in Holy Writ),


      It’s time to jettison the entire JEW PACKAGE.
      DEATH to the JEW World Order.

Comments are closed.