The Point

Edited Under Fr. Leonard Feeney M.I.C.M. — Saint Benedict Center

July, 1957


Tactics of the Church’s Leading Enemies

The recent death of Spain’s Cardinal Segura, Archbishop of Seville, offered our Judaeo-Masonic press an opportunity of the sort which it will always pounce upon, with gusto. His late Eminence provided a timely “for instance” for that legion of editors whose favorite national aversion is Spain, and whose notion of all that is black, backward, and evil remains epitomized in the words, Spanish Catholicism — or (in quick descent from genus to species) Spanish Inquisition.

Apace with this secular attack, explanations and apologies for Spain and the Inquisition fill the question-and-answer columns of our Catholic press, and the Spanish chapters of our Catholic history texts. And, as if by some eerie pre-arrangement, neither the offense nor the defense in this chronic war dares a frank discussion of that urgent problem which made the Inquisition necessary in the first place.

Actually, it is no secret that the Spanish Inquisition was somehow concerned with Jews. Least of all, do the Jews try to hide the fact. Any Jewish discussion of the Inquisition will invariably and boldly lay the historical cards on the table. With their incomprehensible eagerness to boast about anything that any Jew has ever done, current Jewish spokesmen will give detailed reasons why the Inquisition and the Jews are inseparable. Those reasons are the key to centuries of history on either side of the Spanish Inquisition. And they are best summarized in that one eloquent word, Judaizing.

Generally defined, Judaizing is a term for any activity which aims at softening the attitude of Christendom toward Jews, or which results in the overthrow of Christian doctrines in favor of Jewish ones. The Inquisition was Spain’s answer to Judaizing. And it was the most effective answer the Jews have ever been given.

The particular, though not peculiar, tactic of the Spanish Judaizers was infiltration. During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, hundreds of thousands of Jews entered the Church’s ranks in Spain. They were recognized as a problem almost immediately. But by the time the remedy of the Inquisition was introduced, these “New Christians” were firmly established in all the higher levels of Spanish society, including, in pronounced numbers, the clergy. Representative of the kind of clerical case brought to the attention of the Inquisitors was that of Andres Gomalz, a Jewish parish priest who, on trial at Toledo in 1486, confessed that for fourteen years as a Jewish infiltrator he had said his parish Mass having expressly no intention to consecrate, and that during the same period he had, secretly, never given absolution to the penitents who came to him for Confession.

It is small wonder that the word applied to these Jewish Christians was “Marranos,” a vivid colloquialism derived from the Spanish word for swine. In its article on the Marranos, the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia acknowledges this unsavory etymology and continues, quite defiantly, “The Inquisition, which was newly organized in 1481, was intended to suppress the remnants of the old Faith (Judaism) among the Marranos. However, the proceedings of the Inquisition showed clearly, for the first time, the strong attachment of the Marranos to Judaism, how deeply the Jewish religion and traditions were rooted in their hearts.”

Spain’s vigorous handling of the Judaizing problem kept the evil effects of Jewish influence at a minimum. The Church in other nations, under other Judaizing pressures, has been less fortunate. The Apostles themselves suffered much from the wiles of Judaizers. Saint Paul had constantly to battle them, saying finally, in his Epistle to the Galatians, that anyone who now supports the Old Law against the New is under a curse directly imposed by God. Despite this warning, however, great numbers of the early Church heretics (Theodotus, Neotus, Paul of Samosata, Sabellius, Arius, etc.) were “sprung from the Jews,” as Bishop Challoner puts it.

The Church’s seventh Ecumenical Council, held at Nicaea in 787, was forced to enact severe legislation against Jews “who have become Christians in appearance only.” And it was, significantly enough, this same Council which condemned the widespread Eastern error, so identical with Jewish teaching, that the Faithful should not venerate images of Our Lord, Our Lady, and the Saints.

In the West, the episode of the Spanish Marranos had been preceded by the heretical disruptions of the Albigensians in Southern France. Here again, Jews boast of being the fomenters of religious discord, and it took all the preaching of a Saint Dominic and all the papal power of an Innocent III to restore order.

The Jews’ greatest triumph, however, in the art of dividing Christendom by injecting new and Jewish ideas into the midst of the Church, came with the multiple revolts of the Protestant “reformers.” Each one of them is a detectable creature of the Judaizers, and Jewish commentators from Graetz down to Louis Israel Newman have been most happy to acknowledge them as such. In his Jewish Influence On Christian Reform Movements, Newman summarizes: “Protestantism made its greatest stand where the Marrano Jews were active ... They helped break down the authority of the Vulgate and thereby prepared Europe for the Reformation.”

The reference to Saint Jerome’s “Vulgate” version, the Catholic version, of the Bible is no idle one. The entire Reformation era rocked with the “battle of the books” controversy, in which Jewish-trained Hebrew scholars were constantly pressing for the authority of Hebrew texts, and for the universal study of those numerous Jewish books which the Church had everywhere been censoring or burning — chief among them, the blasphemous Talmud.

*   *   *   *   *   
To indicate the scope of Judaizing influence on the Protestant revolt, we need only mention the names of such leaders among the revolutionaries as Michael Servetus, initiator of the Unitarian movement, who took his anti-Trinitarian ideas from the Marrano teachers of his native Spain; John Hus, whose followers were called “the friends of the Jews” by Saint John Capistrano, and whose sentence of condemnation by the Church branded him as, “Thou accursed Judas, who, breaking away from the counsels of peace, hast consulted with the Jews”; John Calvin, whom the rigidly-Protestant Dr. Robert Willis lumps with the other “Judaic” reformers and charges they “interspersed the religion of Christ with such an amount of Judaism that their Christianity was in many respects a relapse into the bonds of the Law”; Martin Luther, who, though later embittered against the Jews who would not worship his religious authority, started off his movement by saying, “The Jews belong to Christ more than we. I beg, therefore, my dear Papists, if you become tired of abusing me as a heretic, that you begin to revile me as a Jew.”

*   *   *   *   *   
Unquestionably, the Jews had taken a long gamble in promoting revolt against the Church. If Catholic Europe had been able to repel the Reformation’s assaults on its Faith, it would then, inescapably, have turned its attention to the race which had instructed, financed, and urged on the heretics.

But the Jews’ gamble paid off. Luther and the heretics prevailed. Christendom was sundered. And, as the Jews had foreseen, a politically exhausted and doctrinally-divided Europe provided them the most satisfying climate for living and working that they had known in 1500 years.

Those nations that had remained faithful did, it was true, try to stay clean of Jewish influence. In 1555, Rome ordered its Jewish population into a ghetto. In 1582, Hungary expelled all Jews from the country; as did Austria in 1670, and France in 1682. But such efforts were just so many fingers in a fast-cracking dike. The Protestant states, though petty, were numerous, and they were committed to letting the Jews plot as they pleased. Using those states as bases, the Jews pressed steadily for the downfall of all Catholic governments.

Suddenly, in the middle of the eighteenth century, the floods came. Forgetting the lesson of the Reformation, the Catholic nations had thought to preserve their security simply by keeping an eye on the troublesome race itself. Now, too late, they realized that the Jews had once again enlisted Gentile agents to effect their will: this time a league of backroom atheists calling themselves Freemasons. And this group was far more consciously (and ruthlessly) dedicated to serving the Jewish cause than the Reformation heretics had been. Operating through secret and highly-placed agents in every country, the Freemasons staged a series of well-timed revolutions, beginning with the barbaric dismemberment of France in 1789, and culminating in the overthrow of the Papal States, the Pope’s own domains, in 1870. In place of the traditional Faith-enforcing, Jew-restraining regimes, the Masons then set up a network of constitutional republics, modeled to their own enlightened specifications. These governments were guaranteed to perform the double function of (1) keeping the Church from ever having the main say in society, and (2) allowing the Jews the run of the land.

Jewish emancipation was now complete, and Judaizing entered a new era.

Today it is no longer necessary for Jews to feign membership in the Church in order to attain respectability and authority. In our Mason-made world, they hold that status as Jews. They are thus enabled to work for the destruction of the Church from outside her — a far more efficient arrangement than working from within, where fear of discovery constantly deterred their ambitions. Consequently, for every Father Oesterreicher gnawing at Catholic teaching in New Jersey, for every Father Klyber nibbling away in Nebraska, there are thousands of steadfastly unconverted Jews subverting the Church from the outside — and with staggering success. For Judaizing is proceeding at a faster pace than ever in history. Objectives that a Marrano bishop in Medieval Spain would have considered fantastic are now being tidily accomplished by assistant directors of your local Jewish Community Center.

The following items — of a sort that can be plentifully culled from any newspaper — indicate how American Judaizers have been able to make a shambles of Catholic doctrine and tradition (themselves, meanwhile, climbing ever higher on the ruins).

— In one of our major east-coast cities, the Jews of B’nai B’rith announced that they had chosen the city’s Catholic Archbishop as their “man of the year,” and had a plaque they would like to give him. The Archbishop accepted gratefully, then, plaque in hand, repaid his Jewish benefactors by lavishing praise not only on themselves but on their Jewish Talmud (thereby, presumably, repairing the injury done by men of the Catholic past, like Saint Louis of France, who ordered the Talmud burned, and Pope Gregory IX who condemned it as “containing every kind of vileness and blasphemy”).

— In the same archdiocese, an auxiliary bishop recently urged the women of his parish to enlarge their scope by paying a visit to a local synagogue.

— In the Great Lakes area, a Catholic summer school attended by teaching-nuns has been put under the direction of a Jewish representative of the Anti-Defamation League.

— In the Midwest, one of the largest American Catholic universities has invited the Israeli Ambassador to the U. S. to deliver a major address to its student body, informing them of the reasons why Jews (not Catholics) should possess the Holy Land.

— In New England, a zealous member of the American Jewish Committee has been allowed to listen in on parochial school classes, just to make sure the students aren’t being taught anything detrimental to his race.

— In a popular weekly column, syndicated to diocesan newspapers all over the country, the author, a Paulist priest, has made this declaration of dependence: “We depend upon the Jewish religion just as much as we depend upon Jesus Christ.”

*   *   *   *   *   
The main gain the Judaizers have thus far achieved, however, and the one ultimately responsible for such aberrations as the above, has been persuading Catholics to accept the Jewish cult of “Brotherhood.” This infidel innovation holds that all men, by some undefined lineage, are brothers. Moreover, in a strange interpretation of family life, the Jews insist that every brother (e. g., a Catholic) is bound to praise, honor, and glorify whatever opinions or creeds any other brother (e. g., a Jew) might happen to hold.

To see how effectively the Church in this country has been muzzled by submitting to this gibberish, we need look no farther than the recent, notorious “Hildy Case.”

Catholic spokesmen made it plain that they wanted the child, Hildy McCoy, to be taken from the Jewish Ellises and returned to the custody of her Catholic mother. (The mother had originally agreed to let the Ellises adopt Hildy, thinking they were Catholics; discovering she had been deceived, she had been trying, for six years, with the support of the Massachusetts courts, to get the child back.) The Jews of America, on the other hand, wanted Hildy to stay with the Ellises, and made their plans accordingly.

The Jews well knew that by accepting the terms of Jewish Brotherhood, Catholic ecclesiastics had effectively removed themselves from the fight. The strongest arguments they could offer for Hildy’s return were some rather stuffy, totally unavailing exhortations to the Jews to “respect the law.” These churchmen were obliged to iterate and reiterate that “there is no religious issue involved.” And so, when the governor of Florida, eyeing Miami’s heavy Jewish vote, decided the Ellises would not be extradited to face trial in Massachusetts, the jubilant Jews flaunted their victory over the Church in banner headlines.

*   *   *   *   *   
In the face of the new and even graver “Hildy Cases” which are bound to follow, The Point will continue to remind American Catholics of the Church’s historical and unchangeable position against the Judaizing menace.

Yet more than for our own work, we ask the prayers of our readers for that one American bishop, wherever he may be, who will be the first to speak out against the Jewish threat; who in the ignominy of some future “Hildy” episode will decide that the time at last has come to turn the Judaizing tide.

It has always happened elsewhere. It will happen here.

Point Magazine Index