The Disputation of St. Louis

/
The Disputation of St. Louis

Edmund Mazza begins The Scholastics and the Jews: Coexistence, Conversion, and the Medieval Origins of Tolerance by citing what he calls Jeremy Cohen’s “classic work,” The Friars and the Jews, in which Cohen argues that “the Dominicans and Franciscans developed, refined, and sought to implement a new Christian ideology with regard to the Jews, one that allotted the Jews no legitimate right to exist in European society.”[1] That “new Christian ideology” involved “an organized and aggressive mission to the Jews.” And what was involved in this form of aggression? Raymond of Penaforte, then general of the Dominican order, “committed himself to making contemporary Jews believing Christians.”[2] Working for the conversion of the Jews as a way of bringing about their eternal salvation qualifies in Cohen’s mind as “stirring up hatred against Jews.”[3] Full of rage at the very idea of conversion, Cohen concludes his diatribe against Raymond of Penaforte by claiming that “This Jew-hater was later made a saint.”[4]

Read More

Iconoclasm in St. Louis: How Identity Politics Became Identity Theft

/
Iconoclasm in St. Louis: How Identity Politics Became Identity Theft

The battle over the statue began as an exercise in identity politics, and before long it degenerated into an example of identity theft. The main protagonist in this story is Umar Lee, who was born Bret Darran Lee in 1974 to a southern Presbyterian family and grew up in Florissant, Missouri just outside St. Louis. Lee may or may not be Black, which is an ideological marker based upon but independent of biological fact, because he claims, according to The Jerusalem Post that he “has two younger siblings who are half African-American.”[1]

Read More

Black Frankenstein Turns on its Jewish Creators

/
Black Frankenstein Turns on its Jewish Creators

Once again Michael Brown has held me responsible for attacks on Jews. Last year it was Pittsburgh and Poway. This time it was Jersey City and Monsey, New York. In order to make these accusations sound plausible against me, a man who prefaced virtually every YouTube video he ever posted on the Jewish Question with the statement “no one has the right to harm the Jew,”[1] Brown had to confect an overarching principle known as “Christian anti-Semitism,” to condemn me for what I did not say. “Christian anti-Semitism” turns out to be an oxymoron if we construe it racially or a straight forward reading of the Scriptures if we change the term to “anti-Jewish.”

Read More

Invincible Ignorance

/

I appreciated Dr. Jones’ tone in his response to my letter October 2004 (“Privilege and Blessing”) that primarily addressed his June 2004 article (“Is St. John an Anti-Semite?”). And I want to again reiterate my respect for Dr. Jones for his scholarship and long-time service to the Church on various fronts. However, I submit respectfully that Dr. Jones did not accurately reflect my position in saying Mr. Nash proposes a dichotomy which may have currency in the culture wars but has no theological basis. Mr. Nash proposes a distinction between ADL Jews and “faithful Jews.”

Read More