Is Catholicism Anti-Semitic?

[Creator’s Note: The video makes use of digital video editing software. It is not our intention to mis-represent the essence of what is being said by people featured in this video, so to ensure full context is available to the viewer and reader, links to sources, articles and documentation are provided in this article.]

Fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono records or by any other means pecified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching , scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

Over the past week, a Zionist radio host by the name of Dr. Michael Brown, has gone on the offensive, smearing, mischaracterizing, and attempting to defame the Catholic Author Dr. E. Michael Jones as a “Christian anti-Semite.“

This all began when Dr. Jones accepted what he thought was a cordial invitation on to Dr. Brown’s show to discuss his historical literary works, and to discuss the current wave of censorship and the true meaning of anti-semitism. Of course, within the first few seconds of the discussion, it became evident that Dr. Brown was not coming from a good-faith perspective, when he began quoting from a dossier by a thoroughly discredited Jewish hate organization (The Anti Defamation League).

Brown said:

“I’m speaking with Catholic author E. Michael Jones who holds a Ph.D. from Temple University in American literature, and, in a piece that is very hostile to him published by the ADL, he is described as a “Catholic writer who seeks to defend traditional Catholic teachings and values from those he perceives as seeking to undermine them.“ It also calls him “an anti-Semitic Catholic writer who promotes the view that Jews are dedicated to propagating and perpetrating attacks on the Catholic Church and moral standards, social stability, and political order throughout the world."

 The dossier, if Dr. Brown even read it at all, states:

 “Jones takes pains to clarify that his views on Jews are not based on racial theories, and that he is ‘anti-Jewish’ but not ‘anti-Semitic.’”

The dossier states that Jones’ world view is informed by “the idea that Catholic doctrine obligates the faithful to oppose Judaism, regardless of the behavior of individual Jews. The Vatican and most Catholics have thoroughly repudiated anti-Semitism, but Jones still declares himself to be a defender of normative Catholic teachings.”

Jones stated on the video:

 “As you pointed out, I’m a Catholic which means that I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, and these teachings are expounded in books called the gospels. As a christian, I have to accept the scriptures as normative. St. Paul in 1 Thessalonians 2 says the Jews are the people that killed Christ. I have to accept that as a christian. I have to accept that there is a group Called “the Jews.”"

The term “anti-Semitism” was coined by Wilhelm Marr to get away from the Church’s understanding, definition, and doctrines that govern Christian interactions with “the Jews,” in favor of “scientific” and materialistic ideas and policies that had come about during a period of time when the symbiotic relationship between Church and state had been weakened by liberalism, and revolution. 

 To be an anti-Semite is to expressly reject the church’s supernatural understanding of the situation in favor of a biologically determinist, and thoroughly materialistic understanding of what a “Jew” is; something which has unfortunately led to violence and bloodshed ever since.

 What Dr. Brown and the ADL are missing is that the Catholic Church is the infallible spouse of Christ, the holder of all truth, which can never err by teaching that which is contrary to faith or morals. This same Church has made a necessarily theological distinction when she speaks of “the Jews,” and has done so since the time of Christ.

It should be obvious to all, that when Saint John speaks of the Jews he is obviously not speaking of a racial group, but a nevertheless identifiable group of people seeking the death of Christ by Crucifixion.

"And from henceforth Pilate sought to release him. But the Jews cried out, saying: If thou release this man, thou art not Caesar's friend. For whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh against Caesar. Now when Pilate had heard these words, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat,[…] and he saith to the Jews: Behold your king. But they cried out: Away with him; away with him; crucify him. Pilate saith to them: Shall I crucify your king? The chief priests answered: We have no king but Caesar.” [John 19:12-15]

 There is absolutely no christian scholar (Catholic or otherwise) that could make the claim that Mary the Mother of God, Saint Mary Magdalene, or any of the other apostles or disciples had joined in the crowd identified by Saint John as “the Jews,” and joined in the call for Christ’s blood to “be upon us and our children.” [Matt. 27:25] This clearly demonstrates that the Catholic Church does not regard “the Jews” as a racial group, but in fact as a group of people who adhere to the theological and philosophical and revolutionary traditions of those “Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men; Prohibiting us to speak to the Gentiles, that they may be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath of God is come upon them to the end.” [1 Thess. II 15-16]

 The Jews, were at one moment in time in fact “a people” (a “race” to use modern terminology) chosen by God to bring about the salvation of mankind from sin. However, when presented with their messiah, Jesus Christ, they rejected that mission, and chose revolution against God and His Order when they cheered “give us Barabbas.”

 From this moment on, there has been a rupture of continuity with the True Faith held by Noah, Abraham, Moses and the patriarchs, and the Pharisees and Priests now belonged to a new religion who’s only foundational principle is the rejection of God, who from the moment of His incarnation became inseparable with the Person of Jesus Christ, and thus His Mystical Body: the Catholic Church. This became absolutely evident when the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D., and the Jews were no longer able to keep up even the appearance of the old religion. Without the temple, there can be no sacrifice. Without sacrifice, there can be no remission of sin. Without the remission of sin, there can be no salvation. This duty of sacrifice forever became the raison d’être of the Holy, Roman, Catholic, Apostolic Church.

 This new man-made religion, and it’s adherents are necessarily an anti-Christian, and perpetually revolutionary religion at odds with all of creation, because they have rejected Logos, or the order of the universe and all that entails, because Christ (the 2nd person of God) is inseparable with Logos. Adherents to this new religion have been and continue to be over-represented in revolutionary movements throughout history. 

Being Jewish and being a “nice person” are not mutually exclusive. Just because the Catholic Church recognizes the foundations of modern Judaism as fundamentally at odds with Christian society, that does not mean that we, as Catholics, are entitled to prejudice, or bigotry towards them. On the contrary. We must show these people true charity, and always seek their conversion back to the faith and worship of the True God that they are called to know love and serve, like every other human being on the earth. This charity also obliges us to recognize patterns of bad behavior, or sin, that if left unchecked lead to an environment or a society in which salvation becomes more and more difficult at an ever increasing rate . Filth, Sodomy, Perversions, Pornography, and Usury must be combated, no matter who is promoting these soul-damning vices.

This has all been heavily documented in Dr. Jones’ book “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit” and I highly recommend that you pick up a copy, as it provides the framework for understanding what a “Jew” is, and how our interactions with them should be governed.

So what does all this have to do with Dr. Brown?

After Dr. Jones’ appearance on "Line of Fire,” Dr. Brown’s Radio Show/YouTube Podcast, Brown began repeatedly characterizing Dr. Jones as some sort of anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, with radical and fringe views that are responsible for violent attacks like the one that occurred at the Poway Synagogue.

 “I’m not saying E. Michael Jones is directly connected to the synagogue shooting. But I am saying is that this type of rhetoric inevitably will lead to violence.” - Dr. Michael Brown

 Dr. Jones recently released an e-book “Is Christian Anti-Semitism Responsible for the Poway Synagogue Shooting,” outlining how the term “anti-Semite” is used to shut down discussion, which leads to a repression of speech, which leads to acts of violence.

 This is the same conclusion the synagogue shooter had reached according to Dr. Jones.

 Jones developed the ideas in the shooter’s manifesto, and concluded that the shooter was attempting to use terrorism to fuel a dialectic with the goal of destabilizing America. The shooter’s idea was to commit an act of terrorism against Jewish people, which would lead to a repression of speech about Jews, leading to an intolerable situation because of this repression, eventually, more acts of violence… If this dialectic continues long enough, the shooter believes it will lead to a revolution. 

The e-Book by Dr. Jones was a warning: If Jewish groups and advocates like Danny Danon and the ADL succeed in criminalizing “anti-Semitic hate speech,” it will ultimately lead to more violence.

At the same time these people and organizations were advocating for this criminalization, Dr. Brown was parading around on the Internet throwing around the term “anti-Semite,” and attacking anyone and everyone that he disagrees with concerning the interpretation of scripture, or who makes statements about Jews that he doesn’t like. 

Meanwhile, Dr. Brown has no issues when people with Jewish heritage make identical claims like Milo Yiannopoulos.

 "Anti-Semitism, or allegations of anti-Semitism are deployed to cut off debate. To stop people asking questions. To shoo people away from awkward and inconvenient facts, whether it was something that Israel did that was a bit much, or whatever it is.” - Milo Yiannopoulos

 While anti-Semitic hate may exist, his attempt to use this as a weapon against Dr. Jones will ultimately fail, because Dr. Jones’ “interpretation” of Scripture, is not actually his.

 As Catholics, in order to be Catholic, we must believe what the Church believes, and accept the traditional interpretation given to us by Holy Mother Church. We do not accept new doctrines, and we cannot twist the interpretation of scripture to suit our needs, not even the Pope.

In the infallibly pronounced dogmatic constitution, Pastor Aeternus of July 18th, 1870, it is stated:

“For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”

 This understanding of Church doctrine is key. Doctrine can never change, but our understanding can grow over the years with study, prayer and debate amongst scholars and theologians.

 Another principle within the Catholic Church is Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, meaning the law of what is to be prayed statutes that which is to be believed. With these principles in mind, we can look at approved interpretations of the Scriptures as well as liturgical practice to understand what it believes. Since the Catholic Church has condemned and repudiated anti-Semitism, we can safely say that if you believe what the Catholic Church believes, you are not an anti-Semite.

 We can begin our examination, by looking at the Divine Office, or the prayers of the Church that the priests are obliged, under pain of sin, to pray every day. On Good Friday, Catholic priests for hundreds and hundreds of years have prayed:

“They whetted their tongue like a sword. The Jews cannot say: We did not murder Christ, albeit they gave Him over to Pilate His judge, that they themselves might seem free of His death. For when Pilate said unto them, Take ye Him: and kill Him, they answered, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death. They could throw the blame of their sin upon a human judge: but did they deceive God, the Great Judge? In that which Pilate did, he was their accomplice, but in comparison with them, he had far the lesser sin. John xix. 11•.Pilate strove as far as he could, to deliver Him out of their hands; for the which reason also he scourged Him, John xix. 1, and brought Him forth to them He scourged not the Lord for cruelty's sake, but in the hope that; he might so slake their wild thirst for blood: that, perchance, even they might be touched with compassion, and cease to lust for His death, when they saw What He was after the flagellation. Even this effort he made! But when Pilate saw that he could not prevail, but that rather a tumult was made, Matth. xxvii. 24, ye know how that he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying: I am innocent of the blood of this Just Person. And yet he delivered Him to be crucified! But if he were guilty who did it against his will, were they innocent; who goaded him on to it? No. Pilate gave sentence against Him and commanded Him to be crucified. But ye, O ye Jews, ye also are His murderers! Wherewith? With your tongue, whetted like a sword. And when? But when ye cried, Crucify Him! Crucify Him!” -Feria Sexta in Passione et Morte Domini - Matins - Lectio VI

 In 1925, Pope Pius XI released the encyclical Quas Primas, which instituted the Feast of Christ the King. This liturgical practices promulgated by the Pope included a special Mass for the day, as well as a prayer Consecrating The Entire Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. The text of the prayer reads:

“Turn Thine eyes of mercy towards the children of the race, once Thy chosen people: of old they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Savior; may it now descend upon them a laver of redemption and of life.”

 Cornelius a Lapide, a Flemish Jesuit priest who lived from 1567 to 1637, wrote one of the most comprehensive commentaries of the New Testament using the approved interpretations of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. In his commentary on 1 Thessolonians 2:15-16.

For reference, the text of 1 Thessolonians 2:14-16 in the Jerusalem translation (which is more recent than the previously quoted Douay Rheims version, was approved by the Catholic Church in 1966 [after Vatican II]) reads:

 “[14] For you, my brothers, have modeled yourselves on the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judaea, in that you have suffered the same treatment from your own countrymen as they have had from the Jews,

[15] who put the Lord Jesus to death, and the prophets too, and persecuted us also. Their conduct does not please God, and makes them the enemies of the whole human race,

[16] because they are hindering us from preaching to gentiles to save them. Thus all the time they are reaching the full extent of their iniquity, but retribution has finally overtaken them.”

 Lapide’s approved commentary states:

 “Who (namely the Jews) indeed killed the Lord Jesus and did not please God (that is, most greatly displeased Him, and opposed the salvation of all men; they indeed opposed Christ the Savior and His Good News, and are opposed to us, His heralds, whom they most obstinately resist and avidly persecute, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles so that they may be saved - this agrees even so with Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Anselm.

“In order that [they] fill up [their] sins always NOTE - These Jews forthwith their own sins as [well as the sins of their fathers for whom they killed Christ, very greatly multiply them [their sins] as if by a hereditary wickedness until [they] fill up the measure, which God has appointed that it be filled, so that He will soon and fully punish all of their sins together by the destruction of the whole people by Titus and the Romans.”

These prayers and scriptural interpretations are currently being used, taught and disseminated at Catholic Parishes in good standing all around the world and have never been repudiated, abrogated or disavowed by the Church. It is safe to say that these texts demonstrate the Church’s belief that a group of people that can be called “the Jews” killed Jesus Christ and called His blood down upon them and upon their people, meaning that the people who continue to adhere to this pseudo-religious ethno-centric revolutionary ideology, continue to be guilty of this hatred of God and rejection of Logos that led to deicide [See Sarah Silverman] and are still in need of redemption from their sin.

 This need of redemption is also contested by Dr. Brown who has stated on multiple occasions that Jews do not need to convert in order to be saved.

Of course, the Catholic Church opposes Dr. Brown on this position, and finds it’s most explicit formulation in the papal bull Cantate Domino issued by Eugene IV on February 4, 1442:

 “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot have a share in eternal happiness; but that they will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the Devil and his Angels, unless they unite themselves to the Church before their death; and that so precious is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those who abide in it can benefit from the Church’s Sacraments for their salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, alms giving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militancy. No one, no matter how much he has given in alms and even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

 Now, having read these papal decrees, liturgical texts, and approved commentaries produced by the Catholic Church, we can see that the ideas espoused by Dr. Jones are not even Dr. Jones’ interpretations or opinions, but the interpretations, traditions and opinions of the Holy Catholic Church.

After understanding this, we can see that Dr. Brown, who challenges and denies Church teaching, practices and authority, will of course take issue with Dr. Jones when he reiterates the traditional teachings of the church. Recently, one of his anti-Catholic defamatory tirades was banned by YouTube for “violating community guidelines,” which spawned a series of articles and a call-in show to continue pushing his oxymoronic narrative that the Catholic Church is anti-Semitic.

 In one of his most recent articles, “The Video that YouTube Banned,” Dr. Brown states in the following excerpts:

 “I defend Dr. Jones’ right to speak openly, contrary to his insinuations to the contrary. I defend his right to speak critically of the Jewish people and Israel. I do not believe his speech should be criminalized.

 "Why on earth would YouTube ban a video exposing lies, hate speech, and anti-Semitism? Why would YouTube ban a video that actually enforces, rather than violates, YouTube’s community guidelines?

 “I confront anti-Semitism and respond to lies […] on YouTube by Catholic scholar E. Michael Jones […] My issue [is] with YouTube refusing to allow me to expose his anti-Semitism.

 “[…]we expose hate speech and get banned for hate speech. We challenge anti-Semitism and get banned for violating Community Guidelines.”

 It should now be painfully obvious to everyone, that Dr. Brown views himself as an activist, an “enforcer” to use his word. Enforcing what? He seeks to enforce censorship and restriction of the speech and liberty of the Catholic Church and its adherents. We are seeing an attempt being made by an identifiable group of people, who reject membership in the Mystical Body of Christ, to criminalize the preaching and discussion of the Catholic religion.

 Since Dr. Brown admits he read Dr. Jones’ “screed” he knows that the Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations recently stated:

“The time for talking and having a conversation is over, what Israel and the Jewish community around the world demand is action - and now."

 Danon, speaking on the sidelines of the United Nations Security Council meeting, said that those who engage in anti-Semitism "must be punished. Whether it is here at the UN [or by] political leaders, editors, policy pundits or college professors, it does not matter.

 Anti-Semitism should have no place in our society […] Until it becomes criminal, this bigotry will persist; it will fester. It is only a matter of time until it erupts again in violence and bloodshed.” - The Jerusalem Post

 Dr. Brown in one and the same breath states that he “supports Dr. Jones right to speak freely” and on the other hand, knowing there is a push to criminalize “anti-Semitic hate speech” falsely labels Dr. Jones a Christian anti-Semite, and complains that YouTube and Amazon are letting his “hate speech” spread across the internet like a virus.

 Brown insinuates that Dr. Jones traffics in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in his article when he jokes

 “On the lighter side, this would refute the conspiratorial idea that YouTube is owned by “the Jews.” I might as well conclude from this episode that YouTube is owned by “the Catholics”!”

 Dr. Jones has never espoused this position, or even mentioned this kind of an idea, but after doing some digging, I was kind of surprised at Dr. Brown’s ignorance. 

 As it turns out, the current CEO of YouTube, Susan Wojicicki is listed as being of “Russian Jewish Decent” on her Wikipedia Page. The same goes for the founders of Google (YouTube’s parent company) Sergey Brin and Larry Page.

Google’s CEO from 2001-2011 Eric Schmidt is said to have praised "the Jewish state during a visit this past June could not have been more emphatic. “There are no disadvantages to investing in Israel – just advantages,” he was quoted as saying. “Israel has the most important high-tech center in the world after the US.”" 

 Imagine if he had said that of a Catholic country with a restored relationship between Church and State? The idea is preposterous, and revolutionaries of all flavors would be in open revolt against the restoration of such a state. Just look at how homosexual activists have reacted to the recent declaration by 30 towns in Poland that they are “free of LGBT ideology”.

 Is Dr. Brown really that dense?

 Brown’s article also states:

 “At the same time, YouTube also approved and monetized our video which answers the question, “Did the Jews Kill Jesus?””

Even Judas couldn’t keep his 30 pieces of silver…

 In short, if you believe what the Catholic Church has always taught, namely that the Jews killed Jesus Christ, Dr. Brown has and will continue to consider this an attack on the Jewish people as a whole and will call you an anti-Semite without regard to the truth of the statement, or its consequences.

 God Help Us.

Sources and Documentation:

Pastor Aeternus:

Nostra Aetate:

Cantate Domino:

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi:

Matins - Good Friday:

Consecration to the Sacred Heart of Jesus:

Cornelius a Lapide:

St. John Chrysostom’s Commentary on 1 Thessalonians 2:

St Thomas Aquinas’ Commentary on 1 Thessalonians 2:

Douay-Rheims Bible:

Jerusalem Bible:

Pope Pius XI: - Quas Primas - Christ The King

Traditional Teaching of the Church:

Wilhelm Marr:

CEO of YouTube & Creators of Google:

ADL’s involvement in banning what they deem to be “hate speech” on social media:

Poland Declares Its Self Free of LGBT Ideology:

Danny Dannon at United Nations:

Sources From - Brown and Jones - Ted Pike Interview - Synagogue Shooting Video - Milo Interview - Critics Call In Show - Do Jews Need To Convert? - Did “The Jews” Kill Jesus? - Banned Video