Acta 38

Jews and Judaism in the Political Theology
of Radical Catholic Traditionalists
Mark Weitzman
ABSTRACT
The controversies over Holocaust-denying Bishop Richard Williamson, and earlier over Mel Gibson’s
film, The Passion of the Christ, have given prominence to radical Catholic traditionalists and their
growing influence. The recent pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI saw a great investment of political
capital seeking reconciliation with the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), yet this effort failed, in great
part due to the antisemitism that permeates the Society. Williamson and the Holocaust deniers are
often represented as isolated individual representatives of the radical traditionalists, especially after
Williamson’s expulsion from the SSPX. In reality it can be argued that the radical traditionalist
movement is based upon classical supercessionist theology and that there has often been an effort to cloak
this theology from public view. I will trace its roots from Europe to the United States, focusing on
Father Charles Coughlin, the “radio priest” whose audience stretched into the millions before World
War II; and the Irish priest, Denis Fahey, the theologian most quoted by Coughlin, whose influence
continues to be strong in those circles today. I will also survey connections with far right extremists and
neo-Nazis and demonstrate the shared Holocaust denial and classical theological antisemitism that
link these groups and threatens to negate the gains made since Vatican II that have nurtured the
Jewish-Catholic relationship over the past 45 years. Finally, we will assess some of the possible
implications of this trend for the future of Jewish-Catholic relations, particularly after the resignation of
Pope Benedict XVI and the election of Pope Francis.
_______________
In the time that has passed since the dramatic resignation of Pope Benedict
XVI and the election of Pope Francis there have been many attempts to assess
Benedict’s legacy. According to one view, as expressed by some of the former
Pope’s supporters, “Benedict’s papacy would be the final triumph of old-school
Catholicism.”1
As part of those efforts to reinforce traditional Catholicism, Benedict
reached out to many in the more conservative wings of the Catholic Church.
Included in his outreach was the attempt to heal the rift between the Church
and the radical traditionalist Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). Indeed, so
significant were his efforts in this regard that one commentator referred to the
discussions as “Benedict’s Unfinished Business,” and also suggested that
1 David Gibson, Analysis: The Surprising Afterlife of Pope Benedict XVI, http://
www.religionnews.com/2014/02/25/analysis-surprising-afterlife-pope-benedict-xvi/.
2 | Mark Weitzman
Benedict was motivated by fear that the rift “threatens the Vatican with what it
fears the most: a small but permanent schism.”2 Ultimately, the radical beliefs
of the schismatic SSPX could not be reconciled. A major sticking point has
been the group’s refusal to recognize the 1965 reforms of the Second Vatican
Council, including the institutional shift in relations between the Church and
the Jewish community, embodied in the document “Nostra Aetate.” These
Vatican II reforms were so dramatic that Catholic historian Michael Phayer
claimed they signified “the Catholic Church’s reversal of its 2,000 year tradition
of anti-Semitism.”3
Yet some within the Church refused to accept this seismic shift in theology.
The SSPX, and others like them, so bitterly resented these changes that in some
cases they even split with the Vatican. Benedict XVI made it a priority to try to
heal the rift with the largest of these groups; indeed, it was said of him “that he
invested a large share of his personal charisma and political capital seeking
reconciliation with the SSPX.”4 The announcement in the fall of 2012 that the
Vatican had broken off talks with the SSPX signified the complete failure of
this effort; the October statement by Archbishop Gerhard Müller, head of the
Congregation for the Defense of the Faith that “We cannot give away the
Catholic faith.... [T]there will be no compromises here; I think there will be no
new discussions” seemed unambiguous in signaling the end of negotiations.5
Yet later indicators from the Vatican have been inconsistent. In January 2013,
Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, one of the Vatican negotiators, wrote to the
SSPX leadership again, urging “reconciliation and healing” between the
2 Alessandro Speciale, “SSPX, Benedict XVI’s Unfinished Business,” http://www.

huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/sspx-benedict-xvis-unfinished-business_n2816304
.html/, accessed 7 Mar. 2013.
3 Michael Phayer, The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930–1965 (Bloomington, Ind.:
Indiana University Press, 2001), 203. A useful short summary of the history of “Nostra
Aetate” and its impact can be found in Elana G. Procario-Foley, “Heir or Orphan:
Theological Evolution and Devolution Before and After Nostra Aetate,” in Vatican II:
Forty Years Later, edited by William Madges (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2005), 308–39.
4 Speciale, “SSPX, Benedicts XVI’s Unfinished Business.”
5 Tom Heneghan, “Vatican plans no more talks with SSPX Catholic rebels: CDF
head Muller,” http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2012/10/05/vatican-plans-no-
more-talks-with-sspx-catholic-rebels-cdf-head-muller/, accessed 7 Mar. 2012.
Jews and Judaism in the Political Theology of Radical Catholic Traditionalists | 3
groups.6 And, according to the SSPX leadership, these signals emanated even
from the office of Pope Benedict XVI himself. In a news report, Bishop
Bernard Fellay, the SSPX head, claimed that “retired Colombian Cardinal Dario
Castrillon Hoyos, then-president of the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei,’
the office responsible for relations with traditionalist Catholics, had told him in
March 2009 that the society would be formally recognized....” Even if the
doctrinal congregation ruled against the society, he claimed the secretary told
him the pope would “overrule it in favor of the society.”7
Although the Catholic Church is still officially committed to the teachings
of “Nostra Aetate,” opponents of that document and of “modernity” in general
have continued their fight and appeared to have gained at least a hearing in the
Vatican under Benedict XVI. For these radical Catholic traditionalists
“International Judaism” and its desire “to radically defeat Christianty” was the
major reason for their radical rejection of “Nostra Aetate,” Vatican II, modern
democracy and religious tolerance.8 This is what motivated their continued
affirmation of what the French historian Jules Isaac labeled many decades ago
as “the teaching of contempt.”9
Following the sociologist Michael Cuneo, I will define these groups as
those who have rejected the reforms of Vatican II, and “entered into schism
from the institutional church.” Here I will focus primarily on the attitudes of
such extreme traditionalists toward Jews, Judaism, and the related area of reli-
gious freedom.10 It is important to note that there are a number of traditionalist
groups who have not rejected all aspects of Vatican II and who are maintaining
some relationship with the established Church. These groups are often seen by
6 “In letter to SSPX, Vatican archbishop appeals for unity,” http://www.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/in-letter-to-sspx-vatican-archbishop-appeals-for-unity/,
accessed 1 Mar. 2013. The letter was characterized by the Vatican’s spokesman as a
“personal appeal’ and not an “official document.”
7 Carol Glatz, “SSPX head says Vatican sent mixed messages during reconciliation
talks,” http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1300051.htm.
8 Bishop Gerald Sigaud to Cardinal Tardini, 22 Aug. 1959, posted under the title
“What Vatican II Should Have Done,” http://aventors.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-
vatican-ii-should-have-done.html, accessed 6 Sept. 2014.
9 Jules Isaac, The Teachings of Contempt (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964).
10 Michael Cuneo, Smoke of Satan (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), 6.
4 | Mark Weitzman
the radical Catholics as having sold out to, or been betrayed by Rome.11 This
loose constellation of groups and sympathizers makes an accurate assessment
of the exact numbers of radical Catholics very difficult. In 1998, estimates were
for approximately one million followers, loosely divided into those who were
official adherents of a number of different groups, and other sympathizers not
officially affiliated but still retaining membership in the Church.12 However, a
Catholic source in 2004, relying on “official Vatican figures,” claimed nearly
one million adherents for the SSPX itself.13 According to the SSPX, they now
maintain chapters in 37 different countries.14 By contrast, the Houses of the
Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) a traditionalist group that has accepted
many of the Vatican II reforms and is in good standing with the Church, lists
chapters in 15 countries.15 And more recently one traditionalist author
described the current picture as “slow growth in Europe” but more spectacular
progress in North America.16 While there are a variety of reasons for this
growth, those within the movement describe it as spurred by the belief that a
true Catholic is one who must “preserve the Holy Faith in a manner consistent with
how it has always been understood, and who strives to preserve all of the liturgical
rites and customs of the Church as they were before the Vatican II revolu-
11 For example, some of these groups are listed at a radical traditionalist website under
the warning “What has happened to other ‘traditionalist’ organizations who made an
agreement with Rome?,” http://www.truetrad.com/index.php/other-organizations-
who-made-a-deal-with-rome. The site itself is called TrueTrad.com, subtitled, “No
compromise with Modernist Rome,” accessed 6 Sept. 2014.
12 “All we want is the Latin Mass,” Catholic World News (1 May 2005) claims that
number of followers for the decade 1988–1998, http://www.catholicculture.org/news/

features/index.cfm?recnum=37861.
13 “Roman Catholic Traditionalism?,” http://web.archive.org/web/20091026233659;
http://geocities.com/catholic_traditionalist/.
14 http://www.fsspx.org/en/la-fraternite-en-chiffres/?pid=48. Statistics as of 1 July
2014.
15 http://www.fssp.org/en/coordonnees.htm
16 Luc Perrin, “Papers of the Conference on Summorum Pontificum II: “Catholic
Traditionalism from a French Perspective,” http://sthughofcluny.org/2011/11/

papers-of-the-conference-on-summorum-pontifcum-ii-prof-luc-perrin.html/. He also
estimated the number of French followers as 50,000.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre,

founder of the Society of St. Pius X,
at a 1984 ordination mass.
tion.”17 Thus the radical traditionalists often focus liturgically on the appeal of
the Tridentine Latin Mass and dogmatically on the rejection of the innovations
of modernism (described by Pope Pius X as the “synthesis of all heresies”).18
The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), named after the Pope whose 1907
encylical against Modernism, Pascendi Dominici Gregis serves as the rallying point
against any innovation,19 has become the locus of the extreme Catholic tradi-
tionalist world. It was created in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who
first came to attention when he refused to sign onto the Vatican II statement
on religious liberty and the Church in the modern World.20 In 1970 he founded
a traditionalist seminary in Écône, Switzerland as well. The SSPX came to the
United States in 1973, with chapels being established in California, Texas, and
New York. Lefebvre continued to publicly criticize the reforms of Vatican II,
including the liturgical changes, and came into more overt conflict with Rome.
He was ordered to close down his Swiss seminary in 1974 by Pope Paul VI, but
refused. As a result, in 1976 his priestly functions were suspended. This did not
stop Lefebvre, who in 1983 threatened to consecrate a successor.
Trying a different approach, Pope John Paul II in 1984 permitted (under
some conditions) the Tridentine Latin Mass as a gesture of conciliation to the
traditionalists. Lefebvre and the traditionalists were not reconciled however,
17 http://www.fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html.
18 Ibid.
19 The official English text of the encyclical can be found at http://www.vatican.va/
holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-
gregis_en.html.
20 Cuneo, Smoke of Satan, 91.
6 | Mark Weitzman
Bishop Richard Williamson,

formerly affiliated with SSPX.
Source: Photo taken 3 June 1991 by
jcapaldi (Creative Commons)
and three years later Lefebvre again threatened to consecrate a successor. This
time the Vatican responded by entering into negotiations with the group, and
indeed, on May 5, 1988 Lefebvre signed an agreement that required him to
acknowledge his loyalty to the Vatican, and to accept the new Mass (Novus
Ordo) of 1969 as legitimate. In return, the SSPX was to be recognized and
allowed to continue to use the Tridentine Mass. The very next day Lefebvre
repudiated the agreement, and on June 30, 1988 he consecrated four bishops in
defiance of Rome’s authority. This time the Vatican responded forcefully,
excommunicating Lefebvre and his priests and declaring the SSPX to be in a
state of schism.21 Lefebvre died in 1991, but by then the SSPX had become
well-established and able to withstand the loss of its founder. Swiss Bishop
Bernard Fellay was elected Superior General in 1994, and reelected in 2006.
THE CONTROVERSIAL BISHOP WILLIAMSON
A firestorm erupted when Bishop Richard Williamson (one of the four bishops
consecrated by Lefebvre in 1988) questioned the reality of the Holocaust. In
January 2009, Pope Benedict XVI had lifted the group’s excommunication.
However, on the same day, in an interview aired on Swedish TV, Williamson
said “I believe that the historical evidence is strongly against, is hugely against
six million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate
policy of Adolf Hitler.” The bishop added: “I think that 200,000 to 300,000
21 Ibid., 91–92.
Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, but none of them in gas

chambers.”22
The reaction from outraged Jews and many others was immediate, and
grew upon exposure of Williamson’s history of antisemitic comments that
included a belief in the accuracy of the notorious fabrication, the Protocols of the
Elders of Zion.23 The resulting storm of criticism caused the Vatican to insist
upon Williamson’s renunciation of Holocaust denial, which he refused to do.
He did say, however, in a letter in February 2009, that “observing these
consequences I can truthfully say that I regret having made such remarks.” He
never recanted his views, however.24 The negative import of Williamson’s
comments, coming amidst the ongoing reconciliation discussions with the
Vatican, was not lost on the SSPX leadership. Fellay weighed in on the matter
by issuing a statement that said:
It’s clear that a Catholic bishop cannot speak with ecclesiastical
authority except on questions that regard faith and morals. Our
Fraternity does not claim any authority on other matters. Its mission
is the propagation and restoration of authentic Catholic doctrine,
expressed in the dogmas of the faith. It’s for this reason that we are
known, accepted and respected in the entire world. The affirmations
of Bishop Williamson do not reflect in any sense the position of our
Fraternity. For this reason I have prohibited him, pending any new
orders, from taking any public positions on political or historical
questions.25
22 http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/01/26/pope.holocaust.denial/
index.html?iref=24hours.
23 http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/10/24/sspx-expels-bishop-
williamson. See also Steven L. Jacobs and Mark Weitzman, Dismantling the Big Lie: The
Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav and the Simon Wiesenthal Center,
2003) for examples of the current use of the Protocols, as well as a detailed refutation of
the text.
24 http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/the-text-of-a-bishops-semi-apology
/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0, accessed 17 Aug. 2014.

25 http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=2721, accessed 26 Jan. 2009.
8 | Mark Weitzman
Williamson’s antisemitism was neither new nor hidden. In a letter posted

on the SSPX seminary website, dated February 1, 1991, Williamson reflected on
the (first) Gulf War. First he pontificated that the war was instigated by Russia
in an attempt to “kill with one stone...obstacles to the advance of International
Socialism,” that would then allow “Russia to march through the now
unguarded gateway to Europe.” But hidden behind the Russian advance,
according to Williamson, was another, even more sinister cause. “However,
behind the Gulf War, and even behind Russia, may one not, thirdly, fear the
looming figure of the Anti-Christ?” The war was a creation of “the many
friends of Israel in the USA...whooping for the United States to break the Arab
strong man.” Finally Williamson puts these comments into a clear theological
perspective:
Until they [the Jews] recover their true messianic vocation [by
accepting the Church] they may be expected to continue fanatically
agitating, in accordance with their false messianic vocation of Jewish
world domination.... So we may fear their continuing to play their
major part in the agitation of the East and the corruption of the
West.26
In another letter to his supporters, written on the letterhead of the SSPX’s
St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota just a few months later,
Williamson quoted the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion:
it is indispensable to stir up the people’s relations with their

governments in all countries so as to utterly to exhaust humanity
with dissension, hatred, struggle, envy...so that the goyim see no
26 Originally at http://www.sspxseminary.org/publications/letter/1991/February/
February.shtml. Now it is posted at http://williamsonletters.blogspot.com/2009/02/
gulf-war-and-state-of-catholic-church.html, a site which states: “This collection of
pastoral epistles by Bishop Richard Williamson was removed from the SSPX website
after their contents (along with other comments by the bishop) became an embar-
rassment to the organisation of which he has for many years been a leading light.”
other course open to them than to take refuge in our complete

sovereignty in money and all else.27
Later in the same letter Williamson also cited Protocol 14 (“in countries known
as progressive and enlightened, we have created a senseless, filthy, abominable
literature”) referring to the “alternative life-style” which, in Williamson’s view is
“so horrible as to cry to heaven for vengeance.” Williamson’s belief in the
Protocols has remained consistent. A decade later, in a letter of May 1, 2000,
Williamson wrote “God puts in men’s hands the ‘Protocols of the Sages of Sion’…if
men want to know the truth, but few do.”28
Williamson’s letters demonstrate not only his brazen antisemitism but also
his racism and sexism. In another letter he explains the 2005 unrest in France:
So when white men give up on saving Jews, looking after other
races and leading their womenfolk, it is altogether normal for them
to be punished respectively by the domination of Jewish finance, by
the refusal to follow of the non-white races and by rampant
feminism.29
In November 1991, Williamson even combined two of those themes, noting
criticism of an earlier letter in which he condemned women for wearing pants
and jocularly compared it to criticism of his Holocaust denial:
Few of you will be surprised to learn that the September letter ap-
pealing to the women not to wear trousers caused a strong reaction,
comparable only to the reaction of the Seminary letter which
referred to scientific evidence that certain famous “holocaust gas-
chambers” in Poland cannot have served as gas-chambers at all.30
27 Richard Williamson, letter of 3 Nov. 1991, copy in my possession. It can also be

found in various sites online, such as http://jloughnan.tripod.com/sparwill.htm.
28 Richard Williamson, 1 May 2000, quoted in Thomas Fox, “Lefebvre movement:
long, troubled history with Judaism,” http://ncronline.org/news/lefebvre-movement-

long-troubled-history-judaism.
29 Robert Williamson, “Denial of Christ Creates Chaos,” http://www.dailycatholic.
org/issue/05Nov/nov14lit.htm.
30 See note 13 above.
10 | Mark Weitzman
When Fellay issued his statement in 2009 distancing his organization from
the controversy, Williamson’s antisemitism was well-known, having been pub-
licly disseminated within the SSPX for at least eighteen years. Thus it is clear
that Fellay was being disingenuous at best when he claimed that “the
affirmations of Bishop Williamson do not reflect in any sense the position of
our Fraternity.” In fact, the SSPX and the radical Catholic traditionalist
movement in general are shot through with antisemitism which is indeed one of
the foundational doctrines of the movement.
TRADITIONALIST ANTISEMITISM AND ANTI-JUDAISM
Lefebvre’s own record on Jews and Judaism was also highly questionable. In an
August 31, 1985 letter to Pope John Paul II he spoke approvingly of both the
World War II-era Vichy Regime in France and the far-right National Front,
identifying the contemporary enemies of the faith as “Jews, Communists and
Freemasons.” Lefebvre criticized all the reforms carried out within the church
for more than twenty years to please heretics, schismatics, false religions, and
declared enemies of the church, including the Jews.31 After Pope John Paul II’s
dramatic visit to the Rome synagogue, Lefebvre wrote: “And, most recently, the
Pope has been into the synagogue of the Jews in Rome. How can the Pope pray
with the enemies of Jesus Christm and they continue to fight against Jesus Christ
everywhere in the world.”32
According to Thomas C. Fox, Lefebvre also gave an interview to the
journal of the National Front in France, suggesting that Catholic opposition to
a residence for Carmelite nuns at the site of the Auschwitz death camp was
instigated by Jews.33
Lefebvre’s followers often share this outlook. One of the four bishops he
ordained in 1988, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais (the authorized SSPX biographer
of Lefebvre), said in 1997:
31 Thomas C. Fox, “Lefebvre Movement: Long, Troubled History with Judaism,” 26

Jan. 2009, NCR Online, http://ncronline.org/node/3180.
32 Typescript, “The Archbishop Speaks,” 30 March and 18 April 1986, Box 192, 8, 7,
American Catholic History Research Center and University Archives (ACUA), Catholic
Universy, Washington, D. C.
33 Ibid.
The church for its part has at all times forbidden and condemned
the killing of Jews, even when “their grave defects rendered them
odious to the nations among which they were established....” All this
makes us think that the Jews are the most active artisans for the
coming of Antichrist.34
Nor has their record been confined simply to making statements. In 1989,
Paul Touvier, a fugitive charged as a Nazi collaborator who had ordered the
execution of seven Jews in 1944, was arrested in a priory of the Fraternity of St.
Pius X in Nice, France. The fraternity stated at the time that Touvier had been
granted asylum as “an act of charity to a homeless man.” When Touvier died in
1996, a parish church operated by the fraternity offered a requiem Mass in his
honor.35
Prior to the Williamson controversy, the SSPX website had featured two
postings that reflected and summed up the SSPX’s position on Jews and
Judaism, documents subsequently expunged from the website. In one essay, the
Vatican II teaching that “the Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or
accursed as if this followed from Holy Scripture” is described as
“outrageous.”36 The other essay claimed that “Judaism is inimical to all nations
in general, and in a special manner to Christian nations” and that “the
unrepentant Jewish people are disposed by God to be a theological enemy, the
status of this opposition must be universal, inevitable, and terrible.” There are
claims that “the Talmud, which governs Jews, orders enmity with Christians”
and that the “Jewish people persecute Christendom” “conspire against the
Christian State,” commit “usury” and even “are known to kill Christians” (!).
Thus the essay defends the notion that Jews should not be “given equality of
34 Ibid.
35 See New York Times, 18 July 1996, http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/
Holocaust/touvier-obit.html on Touvier’s connection with the SSPX.
36 “Can it truly be said that the Jewish race is guilty of the sin of deicide, and that it is
consequently cursed by God, as depicted in Gibson’s movie on the Passion?” Featured

in the Q and A section, Mar. 2004. The March and June issues are missing from the
Angelus’ website’s library, but the article is now available on the tradionalist Catholic
forum, CathInfo.com, http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Are-the-Jews-guilty-of-
Deicide, accessed 7 Sept. 2014.
12 | Mark Weitzman
rights” but rather that Jewry should be forced into ghettos (“isolated into its
own neighborhoods”).37
Similarly a 1959 letter from Lefebvre’s close ally, Bishop Gerald Sigaud
claimed that “Money, the media, and international politics are for a large part in
the hands of Jews…Those who have revealed the atomic secrets of the USA
were...all Jews. The founders of communism were Jew [sic]” This letter was also
posted on the SSPX website.38
As of early February, 2009 the Canadian SSPX website still hosted an
archive of Williamson’s antisemitic letters, one of which complains that “Jews
have come closer and closer to fulfilling their...drive toward world domi-
nation....” Other SSPX officials sounded similar notes. After the Williamson
controversy broke out, Fr. Floriano Abrahamowicz, a pastor and spokesperson
for the SSPX in Northern Italy, defended Williamson and said he, too, was
unsure if gas chambers were used for anything but disinfection or whether six
million Jews were really murdered. He called the Jews a “people of deicide.”
Abrahamowicz was later expelled from the Society. More recently, in Oct. 2013,
Abrahamowicz officiated at the funeral of convicted Nazi war criminal, Erich
Priebke.39
DENIS FAHEY, CHARLES COUGHLIN,
AND TRADITIONALIST THEOLOGY
Such positions are not original, nor are they a theological innovation for ex-
treme Catholic traditionalists; indeed they bear a striking similarity to the
writings of a somewhat forgotten Irish priest, Denis Fahey, whose work is one
37 Frs. Michael Crowley and Kenneth Novak, “The Mystery of he Jewish People in
History,” The Angelus (Apr. 1997), http://www.sspx.org/against_the_sound_bites/
mystery_ of_the_jews.htm, accessed 29 Jan. 2009. Archived versions of the original
SSPX postings of both this and the preceding article can be found at
http://www.salvationisfromthejews.com/m1.html, a site run by a Jewish convert to
Catholicism who has spoken out against what he described as the “most virulently anti-
Semitic teachings” of the SSPX.
38 A copy of this letter is in my possession. It can be found at http://globalfire.tv/nj/
09en/religion/sspx_on_jewry.htm.
39 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/erich-priebke-funeral_n_4101902.
html.
of the most frequently cited by SSPX members and similar believers. Mary
Christine Athans, in her important study, The Coughlin-Fahey Connection: Father
Charles E. Coughlin, Father Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp., and Religious Anti-Semitism in the
United States, 1938–1954 thoroughly explored Fahey’s life and thought and how
his theology of antisemitism made its way from Ireland to the United States.40
Fahey was born July 2, 1883 in Kilmore, County Tipperary, Ireland. In
1900 he was a novice of the Holy Ghost Congregation in France, adversely
affected by the results of the Dreyfus Affair and the French government’s anti-
clerical Associations laws of 1905 that required religious congregations to be
recognized by the government. At that time, France was an incubator of
ecclesiastical antisemitism. As David Kertzer wrote, “In the cauldron of
Catholic resentment toward the republican state in the 1880s, the Jews, visible
in national politics, in the civil service and in the economy, served as a lightning
rod for all that was wrong with modern French society.”41 This was a struggle
that began with the French Revolution, which the Catholic reactionary, Leon de
Poncins, described as “the greatest event of history for over 1800 years.”42 For
all sorts of ultra-conservatives of this ilk, as well as for fascists and Nazis, the
French Revolution marked the moment when the world was turned upside
down. Historian Richard Wolin stresses the significance of this point:
As Goebbels pithily observed a few months after Hitler’s rise to
power: “The year 1789 is hereby erased from history....” They
elected to combat the values of the French Revolution.... Thereby
they ushered in an alternative vision of modernity, one that was to
supersede the standpoint of the philosophes and the political
champions of 1789.43
40 Mary Christine Athans, The Coughlin-Fahey Connection: Father Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp., and
Religious Anti-Semitism in the United States, 1938–1954 (New York: Peter Lang, 1991).
41 David Kertzer, The Popes against the Jews (New York: Knopf, 2001), 170.
42 Vicomte Leon de Poncins, Freemasonry and Judaism (New York: A and B, 1994), 29.
Originally published in 1929, this book is now released by a publishing house with an
apparently African-American orientation.
43 Richard Wolin, Seduction of Unreason: The Intellectual Romance with Fascism from Nietzsche
to Postmodernism (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2006), 3, cited in David

14 | Mark Weitzman
Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp. (1883–1954),

an Irish priest whose writings
influenced Father Charles Coughlin
and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
In 1908, Fahey had gone to Rome, where he received doctorates in

philosophy and theology, and lived at the Seminaire Française.44 Ordained in
1911, he returned to Dublin in 1912. Except for the period 1916–1920, when
he was in Switzerland for health reasons, he remained in Dublin, teaching at the
Holy Ghost Seminary until his death on January 24, 1954. Fahey was a
prominent voice in Ireland, maintaining a high profile as a public intellectual, as
evidenced by the fact that upon his death, Irish Prime Minister Éamon de
Valera attended his evening funeral Mass.45 While there is a question as to the
direct impact that Fahey had on Irish society during his lifetime, there can be
no doubt that in some cicles he found receptive ears. Mervyn O’Donnell, in his
research on Jewish immigration to Ireland in 1933–1939, has pointed out that
during this period “Many Irish civil servants betrayed negative preconceived
notions about the Jews.”46 While de Valera was generally seen as being
relatively moderate toward Jews at that time, and thus his attendance at the
Dennis, Inhumanities: Nazi Interpretations of Western Culture (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard

University Press, 2012), 491, n. 1. Dennis also cites Fritz Stern’s similar observation that
“they (the Nazis) appropriated something from every intellectual tradition of modern
Germany, except one. They consistently warred against the ideas of the Enlightenment
and the French Revolution....” Stern, The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of
the Germanic Ideology (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1974), 277.
44 Mary Christine Athans, “A New Perspective on Father Charles E. Coughlin,”
Church History 56, no. 2 (1987): 226.

45 Athans, Coughlin-Fahey, 59.
46 Mervyn O’Donnell, “The ‘Jewish Question,” Irish Refugee Policy and Charles
Bewley, 1933–1939,” in Racial Discrimination and Ethnicity in European History, edited by

Guðmundur Hálfdanarson (Pisa: University of Pisa, 2003), 148.
funeral Mass might have been a matter of protocol, it certainly reflected on

Fahey’s high stature at the time of his death.
While in Rome, Fahey was heavily influenced by Father Henri l’Floch, the
Superior of the Seminaire Française (Pontifical French Seminary). L’Floch
stood firmly in the French antisemitic tradition at the end of the nineteenth
century linked to anti-republicanism, a strong feature of Catholic politics at the
time.47 L’Floch’s impact during the heyday of French and Italian Catholic anti-
modernism has been described as follows:
L’Floch had substantial influence on Fahey.... He was later removed
from his position as Rector because of his relationship to the
controversial and anti-Semitic Action Française movement which was
finally condemned by Pius XI in 1926.48
L’Floch was also a revered mentor of Lefebvre. Athans, who interviewed a

number of Fahey’s students and younger colleagues in Ireland wrote that
“Some (priests) believe that L’Floch’s influence can also be traced to Arch-
bishop Marcel Lefebvre...founder of the dissident traditionalist move-
ment...known as the Fraternity of SPX.”49 Lefebvre himself acknowledged his
debt to l’Floch. In the English version of his memoirs, he describes l’Floch as
one “To whom I owe much of my formation as a seminarian and as a priest,”
and recalls that he chose to speak “of Père l’Floch at my consecration.”50 This
influence is still attested to in traditionalist circles. A current traditionalist writer
claims of Lefebvre that “His seminary training at the French College in Rome
47 Vicki Caron, “The Path to Vichy: Antisemitism in France in the 1930s” (J. B. and
Maurice C. Shapiro Annual Lecture, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum,
Washington D.C., 20 Apr. 2005), 3; http://www.ushmm.org/research/center
/publications/occasional/2005-07-02/paper.pdf.
48 Athans, Coughlin-Fahey, 22–23; Julie Kalman, Rethinking Antisemitism in Nineteenth Cen-
tury France (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009) gives an extensive overview
of the French Catholic antisemitism that nurtured such thinking.
49 Athans, Coughlin-Fahey, 62–63, n. 25; cf. Yves Congar, Challenge to the Church: The Case
of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (Huntington, Ind., Our Sunday Visitor Press, 1976), 16, 88–
90; see also http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/rutler/07849.html.
50 Michael Davies, Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, part 1 (Dickinson, Tex.: Angeles Press,
1979).
16 | Mark Weitzman
under the celebrated Père le Floch [sic] had vaccinated him forever against
Liberalism in all its shapes.”51 Another resident of the French Seminary was the
future Archbishop of Dublin and Primate of Ireland, John Charles McQuaid,
who studied under Fahey and later wrote the preface to Fahey’s first book in
1931.52 McQuaid’s biographer, John Cooney, has asserted that L’Floch’s
“combination of theological rigidity and political conservatism rubbed off on
the seminarians, among them...Marcel Lefebvre.”53 Having been nurtured in the
same intellectual milieu, it is no surprise that Fahey and Lefebvre shared much
of the same Weltanschauung.
Among other sources, Fahey also drew on the Revue International des Sociétés
Secretes.54 This journal was founded in 1912 by Father Ernest Jouin, described
by Kertzer as “the main champion of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and the
best known exponent of Catholic antisemitism in the 1920s” in France.55 Other
scholars have noted that even in the highly charged atmosphere of French
antisemitism Jouin stood out for combining both religious and racist elements.
He was a striking example of a priest who held that Jews cannot be converted
because of their racial origin.56
51 John Daly, Pro-Sedevacantism Quotes from Abp. Lebefvre, http://www.

fathercekada.com/2012/09/04/pro-sedevacantism-quotes-from-abp-lefebvre/, posted
4 Sept. 2012. The article appears to have been posted originally on the radical
traditionalist site The Four Marks, http://www.thefourmarks.com/. Daly is identified
there as an “author, translator...president of Catholic publishing house Tradibooks,” an
online bookseller whose catalogue includes one of Fahey’s books.
52 John Cooney, John Charles McQuaid: Ruler of Catholic Ireland (Dublin: O’Brien Press,
1999), 72. Cooney (p. 162) notes that by 1942 McQuade was distancing himself from
such overt antisemitism, writing in a letter “I have been obliged to watch carefully his
remarks upon the Jews. Fahey will frequently err in good judgement, and this error will
take the shape of...where Jews are concerned, remarks capable of rousing the ignorant
or malevolent.”
53
Ibid, 53.
54 Ibid., 129.
55 Kertzer, Popes against the Jews, 267.
56 Alan T. Davies, Infected Christianity: A Study of Modern Racism (Montreal: McGill-
Queen’s University Press, 1988), 142, cited in John Connelly, From Enemy to Brother: The
Revolution in Catholic Teaching on the Jews 1933–1965, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 2012), 303, n.4.
Jouin and his work were not isolated on the fringes of Catholic life. Pope
Benedict XV, who headed the Church from 1914 to 1922, gave Jouin the title
of “Prelate of His Holiness,” which Jouin used to add papal authority to his
works, and he received further blessings from Vatican Secretary of State
Gasparri in 1919 and later from Pope Pius XI as well. Jouin even claimed credit
for originating the term “Judeo-masonic” in 1920, and additionally he claimed
to have been told by Pius XI to “Continue your Review...for you are combating
our mortal enemy.”57 Jouin also influenced the prominent Italian fascist
Roberto Farinacci, who in 1939 repeated some of these familiar themes in
urging harsher anti-Jewish measures in Italy, claiming that the French
Revolution had created a great wrong by proclaiming the rights of men that
grew into the rights of Jews. Farinacci isuggested following the paths laid out by
the Jesuits in the pages of La Civiltà Cattolica (described as “the most influential
Catholic publication anywhere in the world”) whose publisher, Enrico Rosa
wrote approvingly in 1928 of a “healthy evaluation of the danger emanating
from the Jews” (in contrast to “an un-christian type of antisemitism”). Rosa
also fulminated against the Jews as revolutionaries, blaming them not only for
the French revolution of 1789, but for the July Revolution (1830), the German
Revolution (1848), and finally, the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.58 The
importance of these writings for contemporary Catholic antisemites is
immense. As an example, one traditionalist website posted in 2009 an entire
three-part article from the October 23, 1890 edition of La Civiltà Cattolica (in
English) entitled On the Jewish Question in Europe. The focus of the article was on
“the invasion of the Israelites into every sector of public and social life,” leading
to the “necessity of stopping and combating the spread of this plague and
57 Ibid., 267–69.
58 Ibid., 283–84. Farinacci was described as “one of the country’s most vocal Jew
baiters,” in Susan Zuccotti, The Italians and the Holocaust (New York: Basic Books, 1987),
49. For Rosa’s antisemitism and the Jews as revolutionaries, see Hubert Wolf, Pope and
Devil (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2012), 116–17. The description of La Civiltà Cattolica,
in Kertzer, Popes against the Jews, 134.
18 | Mark Weitzman
stressing its most pernicious consequences.”59 Thus the antisemitism of the late
nineteenth century is brought forward electronically into the new millenium.
Fahey was a prolific writer, publishing a series of books and pamphlets,
many with repetitive titles and similar themes. The titles included The Mystical
Body of Christ in the Modern World (1935), The Rulers of Russia (3rd American ed.,
1940), Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked as the Secret Power Behind Communism.
(1950, a republication of George F. Dillon’s work, with a foreword by Fahey),
The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation (1953).
For Fahey, the world was a simple, but very dangerous place. In his
manichaean perspective he believed that God was only accessible through the
Catholic Church which in turn was “supra-national and supernatural”; however,
God was locked in a cosmic struggle with Satan—a very real antagonist for
Fahey. Although Judaism was the Church’s prime opponent, Satan’s agents in
this world included
Bolshevism, as the most recent development in the age-long struggle
waged by the Jewish nation against the Supernational Messias, our
Lord Jesus Christ, and his Mystical Body, the Catholic Church.
Fahey followed that depiction with a comparison of Catholicism and Judaism,
to the detriment of the latter. According to his theology, through the rejection
of Jesus as Christ, Judaism was seeking to “recast (the world) in the mould of
Jewish national life.” Fahey concluded by asserting that this rejection “cannot
but mean the complete undoing of the Catholic organization of society,” which
in his view, embodied the appropriate order of things.60
Communism, for Fahey, was in this Catholic perspective simply a tool used
by the Jews. “The real forces behind Bolshevism in Russia are Jewish forces,
and...Bolshevism is really an instrument in the hands of the Jews for the
59 Ignis Ardens, http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=

3768. The article appears on a number of other traditionalist sites, such as http://
www.biblebelievers.org.au/jq1.htm, and http://www.romancatholicism.org/pdf/
civilta-jews.pdf.
60 Fahey, Rulers of Russia (Detroit, Mich.: Social Justice Publishing, 1940), 44–45.
establishment of their future Messianic kingdom.”61 Fahey’s contrast between

Judaism and Catholicism reflected different concerns, some of which
transcended theological issues, exhibiting clear social and political implications.
For example, in his tract The Rulers of Russia, Fahey spells out the differences
between Jews and Catholics regarding what he terms “citizenship”:
Here it will be well...to contrast the Jewish idea of citizenship with
the Catholic idea.... As members of their own “messianic” nation,
they must strive for the domination of their nation over others, as
thus [only] they hold, justice and peace can be achieved on earth.
The Jew would fail in his duty to the Messias to come if he did not
subordinate the interests of other nations to his own.... But the
Catholic Church, being supra-national and supernatural, does not
aim at the obliteration of national characteristics and qualities by the
imposition of a national form, but at their harmonious development
by the elimination of the defects due to original sin.62
This reading of theological history viewed Judaism as a religion committed
to ruling over the other nations, and its adherents as not possessing the qualities
of eligibility for equal citizenship. Catholicism by its nature (and despite
historical evidence to the contrary) was, however, seen as less restrictive and the
proper dominant authority in society.
Fahey evidently believed that the world had reached its peak in the
thirteenth century, when the Church was its essential ruler—at least in Europe,
which appeared to be all that mattered to him. However, that state of affairs did
not last long. For Fahey, there was no concept of religious liberty—a tool of
the devil used to take state and society away from the true worship of God—to
be found solely in the Catholic Church. An echo of this belief can be found in
61 Ibid., 22. See Caron, Path to Vichy, 7–8 for illustrations of similar themes in 1930s
France, including in Catholic circles. She points out the “ambivalence” that existed in
those circles about Jews, in contrast to the “extreme antisemitism of the Dreyfus era,”
10.
62 Fahey, Rulers, 72.
20 | Mark Weitzman
Williamson’s thought. In comments on Pope Benedict XVI’s December 2005

address to the Curia, Williamson wrote that:
What is wrong with freeing States from any obligation to Christ the
King is that implicitly you are denying that Jesus Christ is God.... Religious
liberty means in effect, a declaration of independence from God,
which is directly opposed to the first Commandment.... However,
where Catholics are in a sufficient majority, the State may physically
prevent the public practice of false religion while tolerating their
practice in private.63
This was a fundamental tenet for Lefebvre as well. In the biography by de

Mallerais he is quoted as saying that the acceptance of the doctrine of religious
liberty is “a scandal to Catholic souls (that) cannot be measured. The Church is
shaken to its very foundation.”64
In January 2008, SSPX theologian Matthias Gaudron repeated this theme
in “Catechism of the Crisis of the Church,” addressed to the church
membership. After posing the question “Is there, then, no right to the free
exercise of religion?” he states:
The true religion possesses the absolute right to develop and to be
practiced freely, for no one can be impeded from serving God in the
way He Himself has prescribed. It is an exigency of the natural law.
The false religions, to the contrary, have no real right to be practiced
precisely because they are false and erroneous. Error can never have
any right; only the truth has rights.65
63 http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.php?topic=893264.0, accessed 7 Sept.

2014.
64 Quoted in “Rome-SSPX, Background to the Doctrinal Discussions,”
http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page18/page18.html, which is a traditionalist website).
65 Matthias Gaudron, “Catechism of the Crisis in the Church,” Angelus Press, 31, no. 1
(16 Jan. 2008): par. 37, http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&

subsection=show_article&article_id=2671.
The same Catechism succinctly summed up the SSPX’s stance on tolerance: it is

simply “the patient endurance of an evil.”66
For Fahey and similar thinkers political freedom, religious freedom, can
only be found in the Church; and so the right order is one in which the Church
reigns supreme, and delegates those freedoms she desires for her benefit only.
Outside of the Church there are no rights and no freedom; and all those in
opposition or in a state of non-belief are agents of Satan.
Contemporary traditionalists who share such views clearly think that Pope
Benedict XVI betrayed the Church. According to one of the more prolific
traditionalist writers, John Vennari,
It is certainly difficult to reconcile Cardinal Ratzinger’s words to the
teaching of Pope Pius VII, who in his Apostolic Letter Post tam
diuturnas denounced indifferentism and the new concept of religious
liberty: “By the fact that the indiscriminate freedom of all forms of
worship is proclaimed, truth is confused with error, and the Holy
and Immaculate Spouse of Christ is placed on the same level as
heretical sects and even as Jewish faithlessness.”
Vennari credits Fahey for this insight.67
Fahey traced it all back to the original fall of humanity in the Garden of
Eden, followed by later historical events, such as the Reformation and the
French Revolution, with equally disastrous results. As he wrote, the
Protestant Reformation...broke the unity of European subjection to

the supranational, supernatural Church of Christ.... It did not
however install a naturalistic international organization.... That was
reserved for the French Revolution...[which began] the domination
66 Ibid.
67 John Vennari, “Judaism and the Church: Before and After Vatican II,” http://
sspx.org/en/news-events/news/judaism-church-after-vatican-ii-1342. Vennari is editor
of Catholic Family News, one of the most prominent radical traditionalist monthlies.
Vennari gives his source as Pope Pius VII, Post tam diurturnas (1814), quoted in Denis
Fahey, The Kingship of Christ and Organized Naturalism (1943; republished by the Christian
Book Club of America [Palmdale, Calif.: 1987]), 10. The quote also appears in Fahey,
Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation, 12.
22 | Mark Weitzman
of the world by Masonic Naturalism.... Behind Masonry, however

[was] the other naturalistic force of the once chosen people.... The
Jews everywhere made use of Freemasonry to secure the rights of
becoming citizens of the once Christian states.68
Even the horrors of the Holocaust did not mitigate such deep-rooted
antisemitism. But Fahey did find it necessary after the Holocaust to attempt to
draw a distinction between unacceptable antisemitism, which was defined as
“hatred of the Jewish nation” and “opposition to the Jewish and Masonic
naturalism,” which he endorsed as a vital aspect of Catholicism.69 For Fahey
naturalism was a source of evil precisely because it inevitably led to rejection of
belief in God or any other form of supernaturalism. The revulsion felt by the
world to the horrors of the Holocaust created the necessity for Fahey to try and
distinguish his brand of antisemitism from that of the Third Reich. In the
forward to his 1953 book, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish
Nation (the body of the book was written before the war, but published
afterwards) he wrote of
the confusion created in minds owing to the use of the term “anti-
semitism.” The Hitlerite naturalistic or anti-supernatural regime in
Germany gave to the world the odious spectacle of a display of
Anti-Semitism, that is hatred of the Jewish Nation. Yet all the
propaganda about that display of Anti-Semitism should not have
made Catholics forget the existence of age-long Jewish Naturalism
and Anti-supernaturalism. Forgetfulness of the disorder of Jewish
naturalistic opposition to Christ the King is keeping Catholics blind
to the danger that is arising from the clever extension of the term
68 Fahey, Rulers, 50–51, section titled “ʻDemocracy” versus “Fascism.’”

69 Fahey, “What Really is Anti-Semitism,” originally posted on the SSPX website at
http://www.salvationisfromthejews.com/sspx_what_really_is_anti_semitism.html, and
now at http://www.salvationisfromthejews.com/w1.html. The description that he
quoted approvingly was taken from a review published in La Civiltà Cattolica (Mar.
1947) of his book The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation.
“Anti-Semitism” with all its war connotation to the mind of the

unthinking.70
In maintaining this position, Fahey was staying true to the teachings of the
church in which he grew up. In France, even after Kristallnacht, a leading
Catholic journalist could write that “The Church accepts the fact that Christians
need to adopt measures of defense against the Jews’ invasion into civil or
political life.”71 Hubert Wolf has recently written the following assessment in
regard to the 1928 Vatican decree dissolving the group Amici Israel: “In the
opinion of these cardinals, this meant that only racial antisemitism was con-
demned, whereas theological antisemitism on the part of the Church would be
considered legitimate and even necessary.”72 As some scholars have already
noticed, this was a distinction without a difference; in Birgit Gregor’s words, it
“trivializes the fact that the ‘racist antisemitism’ grew out of the ‘religious anti-
Judaism.’” 73
70 Fahey, Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation, 5–6.
71 Caron, Path to Vichy, 12.
72 Hubert Wolf, Pope and Devil, 111. Wolf also links the opposition to the Amici Israel,
spearheaded by the influential Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Merry del Val, to the
Vatican’s “antimodernism,” as reflected in del Val’s use of “code words (that) had been
just two decades earlier used by Pius X in his condemnation of modernism.” (p. 107)
Connelly, From Enemy to Brother, 170, quotes del Val’s 1928 statement that “Hebraism
with all its sects inspired by the Talmud continues perfidiously to oppose Christianity,”
a statement mirrored in Fahey’s works.
73 Birgit Gregor, “Zum protestantischen Antisemitismus Evangelische Kirchen in der
Zeit des Nationalsozialismus,” in Beseitigung des judischen Einfluss: Antisemitische Forschung,

Eliten und Karrieren in Nationalsozialismus, edited by Fritz Bauer Institute (Frankfurt:
Campus Verlag, 1999)), 174–77, cited in Wayne Meeks, “A Nazi New Testament
Professor Reads the Bible: The Strange Case of Gerhard Kittel,” in The Idea of Biblical
Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James Kugel (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 539, n. 68. Meeks also
refers there to Paul Lawrence Rose’s insight that “racist thinking was predicated on the
notion of ‘a national character’ that is central to the evolution of modern antisemitism”
(and thus there was no major demarcation between religious and racial antisemitism),
Paul Lawrence Rose, Revolutionary Antisemitism in Germany from Kant to Wagner (Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990), 15. Uriel Tal had earlier made a similar point,
asserting that “ʻracial’ antisemitism was totally dependent on religiously inspired
antisemitism for its appeal.” See Uriel Tal, “Religious and Anti-Religious Roots of
24 | Mark Weitzman
In the body of his book Fahey went so far as to justify Nazi actions against
the Jews on theological grounds, and to imply that the Catholic Church was
even more of a victim. In Fahey’s words,
One can readily conclude that the National-Socialist reaction against

the corroding influence of Jewish Naturalism on German national
life leads, not only to measures of repression against the Jews but to
a dire persecution of the Catholic Church. The deified German race
has attacked the rival natural deity, the Jewish race, directly, and has
proceeded systematically to get rid of it as corrupting the very fount
of deity, German blood.74
In other words, the Nazis were only reacting to the Jewish threat, and their
major fault was not in the reaction, but rather the form it took. In the same
work Fahey spelled this out in even greater detail: “We have seen that the Nazi
movement in Germany is one of a number of national reactions against the
naturalistic Internationalism of the Jewish Nation and of Freemasonry.”75 Thus
in Fahey’s vision of the Third Reich, the innate Jewish “naturalism” was some-
thing recognized by many as a danger which would lead inevitably to defensive
reactions, but it was the Church that was the ultimate opponent and the ulti-
mate victim of the Nazis.76 In a very real sense, if the results of the French
Revolution — modernity and liberalism — were both successfully erased then
there would be a need or opportunity for a Weltanschauung that could dominate
the world. Recognizing this, Pius X, del Val, and Fahey all hoped that the
Church would fill that vacuum, while the Nazis obviously saw themselves as
the new vanguard. There was even agreement in the Church, or at least among
Modern Antisemitism,” in Religion, Politics and Ideology in the Third Reich, edited by idem
(London: Routledge, 2004; the essay was first published in 1971), 177.
74 Fahey, Kingship of Christ, 44–45. According to Wolf’s account of the Amici Israel
incident, Pope Pius XI had by this time recognized the dangers of racial antisemitism
and wanted to refer to it by using “the term anti-semitism, which del Val apparently
wished to delete.” Wolf, Pope and Devil, 113.
75 Fahey, Rulers of Russia, 57.
76 For a convincing argument demonstrating the overwhelming obsession of the Nazis
with antisemitism as a driving force for World War II and the Holocaust, see Jeffrey
Herf, The Jewish Enemy (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006).
some of its high-ranking elements, that the results of 1789 had to be rolled
back; and if the Nazis held a similar view, then there might be opportunity for a
modus vivendi, or even common ground between the two.77
One who attempted to build such a bridge was Bishop Alois Hudal who
“staunchly defended the German state’s discrimination against Jews because of
the dangers they posed for the ‘German Volk spirit.’” 78 For such reactionaries,
the division was over which ideology would be able to successfully fill the
vacated space and dominate the Western world.79
77 Wolf, Pope and Devil, 236–37, gives an illuminating picture of the position of del Val
and Pacelli on these issues: “In a letter dated December 9. 1926, Merry del Val...praised
Pacelli’s September letter to the German bishops as zelante, which from his perspective
was an expression of the highest possible praise. This is surprising, at first glance
because the word zelante has rather negative connotations and is usually translated as
zealot. But in the Curia, the term zelante is associated with something considerably
greater.... The zelanti...were religious hardliners who opposed all political compromise....
Not only had the zelanti taken up the cause against the Protestant heresy; they had at
least since the French Revolution been in complete opposition to anything that even
remotely smacked of liberté, egalité and fraternité.... One of the most important avowed
twentieth-century zelanti happened to be Merry del Val, who as Pius X’s cardinal
secretary of state had been made responsible for rooting out modernists in the Catholic
Church. Democracy, the emancipation of the Jews, and ecumenism were deeply abhor-
rent to him. By ‘honoring ‘ Pacelli as a zelante, Merry del Val was acknowledging him as
a member of his party of fighters, unflinching in their advocacy of Catholic truth.”
78 Connelly, From Enemy to Brother, 26. Connelly also described Hudal as a “Catholic
bridge builder to Nazism.” The Austrian-born Hudal was appointed bishop of Aela in
1933. He fell out of favor with the Vatican following publication of his book on the
foundations of National Socialism in 1937 since his thinking contradicted Vatican
policy towards Germany at that time. Following World War II, he was a major figure in
the notorious “rat line,” — the escape route for Nazis on the run from Europe to
South American or Arab countries. See Gerald Steinacher, Nazis on the Run: How Hitler’s
Henchmen Fled Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). Another such figure,
Robert Grosche, is discussed by Donald J. Dietrich, “Catholic Theology and the
Challenge of Nazism” in Antisemitism, Christian Ambivalence and The Holocaust, edited by
Kevin P. Spicer (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2007), 81–87.
79 Wolf, Pope and Devil, 205, notes Papal Nuncio Orsenigo’s memo to the Vatican on
his 1933 meeting with Hitler, where he reports that Hitler “assured us that he viewed
the Jews as vermin, and recalling the position of the Catholic Church up to the end of
the fifteenth century, regretted that liberalism had not seen this danger.” Susannah
Heschel, The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany (Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2008) is a thorough study of the German Protestant
26 | Mark Weitzman
Fahey, like most conspiratorial antisemites, relied uncritically on highly

questionable sources for his information, for example citing Arnold Leese (The
Fascist, May 1939) who had claimed that “Jews are the chief owners of urban
real estate in Poland.”80 Leese was one of the best-known radical antisemitic
figures in England in that period. Among his writings was a work asserting that
the blood libel was real. He served a number of prison sentences connected to
his activities, which included aiding Waffen-SS POWs in escaping from
England. Fahey also drew upon the classic Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Athans
has compared Fahey’s attitude to the Protocols to that of Henry Ford, Charles
Coughlin, and Nesta Webster (antisemitic figures much admired by Fahey) who
“all admitted that (while) they could not prove the veracity of the Protocols...(but)
what was described in the Protocols was what was going on in the world.”
Increasingly Fahey relied on the Protocols in his own work as well.81
And, again like many other conspiratorial antisemites Fahey was prone to
seeing conspiracies of Jews everywhere. In one of his books he even claimed
that Jews were attempting to eliminate any religious meaning from the
celebration of Christmas. The proof for this insidious plot was
Christmas cards that have nothing to remind the recipient of what
the rejoicing is for.... In this process of eliminating the supernatural
Messias from the celebration of the anniversary of his birth...the
largest firm of Christmas card manufacturers, have certainly played a
great part..... All three directors appear in the communal Directory
of the Jewish Year Book (and other Jewish communal activities).82
Thus the Jews, through the ownership of a greeting card company by three
Jews, were alleged to be plotting to strip Christmas of its sacred meaning!
In other works Fahey published lists of Jews in the Russian Communist
leadership, as well as a list of “Members of the Jewish Nations in the United
collusion with Nazism with a pertinent discussion (133–36) of the Catholic role in this
effort to create a “nazified Christianity.”
80 Fahey, Rulers of Russia, 70, n. 1.
82 Fahey, Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation, 51.
Nations Organization.... As of last year (1951) this tiny but powerful group of
Zionist nationalists hold the following key posts.” This list comprised eighty-six
names, spread over five pages.83 A forerunner of many conspiracy theorists
today, Fahey wrote that “The real purpose of the UN is to pave the way for a
‘World Government’ to which all nations (but one?) surrender their sovereignty
and independence.”84
For Fahey, this global threat from Jews meant that the Church had to fight
back by all available means. This included depriving Jews of their civil rights,
denying them the latitude and freedom they were using to undermine society
and rejecting their national aspirations in Zion. He believed that
A step to be taken to undo the naturalism of the French Revolution
and, at the same time, prevent onslaughts on the Jews, is to with-
draw citizenship of other States from all of them, and limit them to
citizenship of some other State, their own. That State must not be
Palestine, for the Jewish claim to Palestine is implicitly a denial that
they have disobeyed God and missed their vocation by the rejection
of the True Supernatural Messias.85
Finally, after the Holocaust he was worried that Catholic sympathy for Jews
because of their terrible suffering would create a lessening of Catholic anti-
Jewish vigilance. And, despite the growing awareness of the Nazi Holocaust,
those crimes did not begin to compare to the ancient Jewish crime of deicide,
whose result should have ordained the structure of society ever since. “Some
Catholics seem to forget that the Jews...in their terrible opposition to God...
were intent on the most awful crime ever committed, the crime of deicide.”86
83 Ibid., 169–73.
84 Ibid., 174.
85 Fahey, Rulers, 75.
86 Fahey, Kingship of Christ, 53.
28 | Mark Weitzman
FROM EUROPE TO AMERICA:

DENIS FAHEY AND CHARLES COUGHLIN
Fahey’s theology was clearly formed in and reflective of the prewar reactionary
Church. However, as the Catholic Church began to change after World War II
his teachings might well have faded into obscurity, had he not found a powerful
ally in the United States in the person of Father Charles Coughlin who brought
Fahey to the attention of a receptive audience across the Atlantic. As
Coughlin’s aura dimmed, Fahey’s teachings also seemed to wane; but in reality
they had been well-planted and were lying dormant, germinating and waiting
for the right circumstances in which to flower.
Mary Christine Athans in the Coughlin-Fahey Connection and other writings
has shown that “the ‘theologian’ whom Coughlin quoted most frequently
was...Father Denis Fahey.”87 Coughlin did not just quote Fahey or base his
thought on the Irish priest’s writings. He took an even more active role,
especially by reprinting and distributing Fahey’s tract, The Rulers of Russia,
through his Social Justice Publishing Company in 1940, when Coughlin was still
at the height of his powers. Coughlin even boasted in a 1940 letter to Fahey
that he had circulated 350,000 copies of the pamphlet thus ensuring Fahey’s
introduction to a mass American audience.88
Coughlin was undoubtedly the most prominent Catholic antisemite in the
United States at that time.89 “Not only did he reach millions with his weekly
radio broadcasts, but he also disseminated his extremist messages through his
widely read magazine Social Justice, which claimed 200,000 subscribers.”90 The
result was that he popularized an antisemitism that had a significant impact on

88 Coughlin to Fahey, 20 March 1940, Fahey Papers, cited in Enda Delaney, “Political
Catholicism in Post-War Ireland: The Revd. Denis Fahey and Maria Duce, 1945–54,”
Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 52, no. 3 (July 2001): 495.
89 Donald Warren, Radio Priest: Charles Coughlin, the Father of Hate Radio (New York:
Free Press, 1996), 188–89, 305, cited in Joseph W. Bendersky, “Dissension in the Face
of the Holocaust: The 1941 American Debate over Antisemitism,” Holocaust and
Genocide Studies 24, no. 1 (Spring 2010): 96.
90 Ibid.
U.S. popular discourse and even spurred antisemitic acts — often led by his
followers, which threatened public safety.91
By bringing Fahey’s writings to an American audience, Coughlin enabled
Fahey to become a bridge between the Vatican-inspired and the French
Catholic antisemitism of the early twentieth century and extreme right groups
in America.92
Father Charles Coughlin (1891–

1979), an enormously popular
radio preacher from 1926 until
1942, with an audience of some
30,000,000. His journal, Social
Justice, had a wide readership for
ten years before its suppression
in 1942.
According to Esther Feldblum, in Coughlin’s world-view, “Christianity and

America represented Christ, [while] Communists and bankers represented the
Antichrist. And conveniently, the two evils were linked together in the Jewish
race.” She added that although
a number of the hierarchy were displeased with Coughlin’s ravings,
he, nevertheless, found a receptive and supportive audience in the
diocesan press. One of his key supporters in the eastern press was
the [Brooklyn] Tablet. In a typical defense of Coughlin’s
antisemitism, the editor (Patrick Scanlon) remarked “Fr. Coughlin
has fearlessly and courageously discussed the Jewish problem that
others would pass by in cowardly silence.... [No Catholic can
91 See, among many, David Bennett, The Party of Fear (New York: Vintage, 1995) 263–
66.
92 Athans, Coughlin-Fahey Connection, 211. Delaney also points out that Fahey’s works
were translated into French by Adrien Arcand, the leader of the Canadian fascist Blue
Shirts organization and cites direct communication between Arcand and Fahey.
Delaney, Political Catholicism, 496 and n. 56.
30 | Mark Weitzman
honestly criticize] Fr. Coughlin’s very temperate reference to the

part that a Jewish Weltanschauung contributed to the untoward world
conditions.93
What Scanlon called a “temperate reference” was translated by some of

Coughlin’s followers into the formation of a militant group called the Christian
Front. Its members were implicated in a series of disruptive and violent anti-
semitic acts in the late 1930s and early 1940s that disturbed the peace and
threatened the security of Jews throughout cities such as Boston and New York
which had a large Irish Catholic presence. In both cities the wave of anti-
semitism was often ignored by sympathetic Catholic policemen, and eventually
had to be countered through official action by Massachusetts Governor
Leverett Saltonstall and New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia.94
Even before the wave of antisemitism became overt, public discourse had
become sufficiently heated and the issue politically sensitive enough that it even
reached the White House. In a 1941 memorandum to Myron Taylor, his
personal representative to the Vatican, President Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote,
I forgot to mention that when you get the chance, you might
express the thought that there is a great deal of anti-Jewish feeling in
the dioceses of Brooklyn, Baltimore and Detroit and this feeling is
93 Brooklyn Tablet, 4 Feb. 1939, cited in Esther Feldblum, The American Catholic Press
and the Jewish State 1917–1959 (New York: Ktav, 1997), 46. Coughlin did have some
sympathizers amongst the hierarchy. Suzanne Brown-Fleming, in her significant study
of Cardinal Aloisius Muench, whom she described as “the most powerful American
Catholic figure and influential Vatican representative in Occupied Germany and
subsequent West Germany” between 1946–1959, refers to Muench’s positive reaction
to Coughlin. According to Brown-Fleming, Muench, who was also the bishop of Fargo,
North Dakota through that period, had no issues with Coughlin’s antisemitism in 1935
(“Coughlin’s scapegoating of Jews…did not strike Muench as problematic; indeed,
Muench believed it had positive effects”). Suzanne Brown-Fleming, The Holocaust and
Catholic Conscience: Cardinal Aloisius Muench and the Guilt Question in Germany (Notre Dame,
Ind: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006), 33.
94 Leonard Dinnerstein, Antisemitism in America (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1995), 120–23, 132–33; Philip Jenkins, Hoods and Shirts: The Extreme Right in Pennsylvania
1925–1950 (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1997) examines the
Christian Front and similar groups in one state.
said to be encouraged by the church. The point to make is that if

anti-Jewish feeling is stirred up, it automatically stirs up anti-Catholic
feeling and that makes a general mess.95
Taylor did raise the issue but found the Vatican essentially non-responsive; it
was the Vatican’s resident American expert, Father Joseph Patrick Hurley,
himself a virulent antisemite, who advised the Vatican to ignore Coughlin’s
antisemitism.96
While the Coughlin-Fahey correspondence continued in the same vein
even after Coughlin’s official silencing in 1942, Fahey’s public profile also
diminished.97 Nevertheless, Fahey’s influence had become entrenched in certain
circles, and his association with Coughlin almost certainly allowed his influence
to spread even wider, especially among Coughlin’s associates and allies like
Gerald Winrod and Gerald L. K. Smith, Protestant antisemites who were
foundational figures in American Christian right-wing extremism. Smith
95 FDR Papers, President’s Secretary’s File, 1941, Box 51, FDR Archive, Hyde Park,
N.Y.
96 Charles R. Gallagher, Vatican Secret Diplomacy: Joseph P. Hurley and Pope Pius XII (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 68–70; idem, “A Peculiar Brand of Patriotism: The
Holy See, FDR, and the Case of Reverend Charles E. Coughlin,” in FDR, the Vatican,
and the Roman Catholic Church in America, 1933–1945, edited by David B. Woolner and
Richard G. Kurial (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), 272–75. Gallagher also
points out that Hurley “became the only bishop of the entire Second Vatican Council
to officially and publicly protest the signing of Nostra Aetate.”
97 For example, see Coughlin’s letter to Fahey “while anti-Semitism is to be abhorred
in so far as it is related to hatred for the Jews as individuals and racials, nevertheless,
anti-Judaism, which means opposition to the Judaic concept of life, is not to be so
condemned....” Rev. Charles Coughlin to Denis Fahey, 5 Mar. 1941, quoted in Mary
Christine Athans, “A New Perspective on Father Charles Coughlin,” Church History 56,
no. 2 (June 1987): 224–35, quote appears on p. 233. Richard Williamson commented on
the silencing of Coughlin in a 1987 letter: “Dear Friends and Benefactors.... A great
American priest, Fr. Cahrles E. Coughlin, as the famous ‘Radio priest’ of the late 30’s
and early 40’s of this century, swung into action and took the Catholic battle right out
into the public arena until the Church’s own enemies had him silenced — through the
Church’s own hierarchy!” Richard Williamson, letter from St. Thomas Aquinas
Seminary, Ridgefield, Conn., 10 Aug. 1987, Box 192, 8, 11, American Catholic History
Research Center and University Archives, (ACUA), Catholic University, Washington,
D.C.
32 | Mark Weitzman
exchanged letters with Fahey in the late 1940s and early 1950s. In a letter to an
Irish follower, Fahey wrote that
the programme of Gerald L K Smith as taken from his paper The
Cross and the Flag...declares unflinchingly and unequivocally for the
Rights of Christ the King. Are his detractors and smearers for Christ
the King or against Him? The Judaeo-Communists tried to brand
every man who stood for American nationalism and against Com-
munism during the war as pro-Nazis.98
Another such figure, Francis Parker Yockey, published an article in
Coughlin’s Social Justice magazine in 1938, in which he lamented that an “alien’’
control of the media “resulted in the spiritual enslavement of American
youth.”99 Yockey would leave a powerful impression on the godfather of Amer-
ican Holocaust denial, Willis Carto, who visited him in prison shortly before his
suicide.100 They were both great admirers of Father Coughlin. The historian
George Michael who noted Coughlin’s influence on Carto, who has been
perhaps the most important and influential figure in the American radical right
over the past half-century. Carto recalled the priest as a seminal figure from his
childhood to whose broadcasts he would listen with his whole family.”101 He
described him as a “spellbinding orator.”102 Carto remembered “Coughlin as a
genuine populist” and cited “opposition from Jewish organizations...as evi-
dence of Coughlin’s bona fides as a true American hero.”103
Not surprisingly, Bishop Richard Williamson has found himself taken up
by various strands of the far right, and especially the Holocaust deniers. Among
98 Denis Fahey to unknown member of the Maria Duce group (3 May 1949, quoted in
Athans, Coughlin-Fahey Connection, 213. The Maria Duce group was a small, Fahey-
inspired Irish ultra-traditionalist Catholic group. See Enda Delaney, “Political
Catholicism in Post-War Ireland: The Revd. Denis Fahey and Maria Duce 1945–54,”
Journal of Ecclesiastical History 52, no. 3 (July 2001).
99 George Michael, Willis Carto and the American Far Right (Gainesville, Fla.: University
Press of Florida, 2008), 76.

100 Ibid., 74.
101 Ibid., 20.
102 Ibid.10
103 Ibid., 154.
those who have adopted the bishop are the notorious neo-Nazi and profes-
sional Holocaust denier, Mark Weber, director of the Institute for Historical
Review (who in a March 2009 article entitled “Bishop Williamson and
‘Holocaust Denial’: Why the Uproar?”), concludes: “The Williamson affair
underscores a well entrenched Jewish-Zionist bias in the cultural life of modern
Western society, and reminds us, once again, of the power behind that bias.”104
Robert Faurisson, the French academic Holocaust denier, who has squab-
bled with Weber over the future of Holocaust denial, also sprang to William-
son’s defense. According to a posting on his blog,
The height of his enemies [sic] misfortune, and for the traditionalist
Catholic he is...if he ever did fall to his knees before the new
Inquisition he would immediately remind everyone of Galileo, the
man whom science and history ended up acknowledging to be right
despite his abjuration. Even if he wound up losing, Richard William-
son would thus have won.105
Links between the Holocaust deniers and Catholic extremists are not
limited to Williamson. In 1993 the Journal of Historical Review, the house organ of
the Institute of Historical Review, the central organization of Holocaust deniers
in the United States, published in its September–October issue “The Holocaust
Issue: Three Christian Views.” Two entries were by traditionalist Catholics
(including the late Joseph Sobran, who had been fired by William Buckley from
the National Review because of his antisemitism) and the other by Bishop Louis
Vezelis, described as the “editor of The Seraph, a traditionalist Catholic
monthly.” According to Vezelis “the preponderance of objective and factual
evidence shows the promoters of the Holocaust story to be libelous frauds.”106
Sobran was defended by the IHR as far back as 1987, and later spoke at the
104 http://ihr.org/williamson_march09.html.
105 http://www.robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/2009/04/mark-weber-must-resign-
from-institute.html.
106 Louis Vezelis, “Examine All the Evidence,” Journal of Historical Review 13, no. 5
(Sept.–Oct. 1993): 34–35; on Sobran’s antisemitism, see William F. Buckley, In Search of

Anti-Semitism (New York: Continuum, 1992). His conclusion there was that Sobran had
indeed “written anti-semitic articles” (118–19).
34 | Mark Weitzman
IHR’s 2002 conference.107 Thus, despite the denunciations of Williamson’s

Holocaust denial and even some pro forma condemnations of antisemitism
from the SSPX, based on their own writings, there can be no question that the
antisemitic teachings espoused by Fahey and repeated by Williamson still
permeate the heart of the theology of the SSPX and of similar Catholic tradi-
tionalists.
Even though the SSPX has tried to be more circumspect about such
aspects of their theology following the negative fallout from the Williamson
affair, they have not succeeded in completely expunging their record. For
example, still available on the Asia SSPX website is an article from March–April
2000 by Bishop Salvador L. Lazo entitled “My Return to the Traditional Latin
Mass: Autobiography of a Traditional Catholic Bishop.” In it Lazo lists some of
the books that inspired him on his spiritual journey, including Fahey’s Kingship
of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation, as well as others about the dangers
of Freemasonry. Lazo was very open about their impact on his thought, writing
that
Reading these books gave me a better idea of the crisis and con-
fusion in the Church today. It became clear to me who are the real
enemies of the Catholic Church. Father Denis Fahey pinpointed
them when he wrote: “The enemies of the Catholic Church are
three. One invisible, Satan, and two visible: a) Talmudic Judaism,
and b) Freemasonry....” That Judaism is the visible chief enemy of
the Catholic Church, is evident from the Church history, from
words and deeds of individuals, and groups and the teachings of the
Talmud of which the Kabalah constitute the basis of Judaism.”108
Williamson has long held up Fahey as an authority on which to rely. On the
website of the SSPX’s U.S. seminary in Winona, Minnesota, one can find a
107 Mark Weber, “Joseph Sobran and Historical Revisionism,” http://www.ihr.org/

jhr/v07/v07p373_Weber.html; and Joseph Sobran, “For Fear of the Jews,” http://
www.ihr.org/conference/14thconf/sobranconf.html.
108 http://archives.sspx.org/bishop_salvador_lazo/my_return_to_the_traditional_
mass_part_1.htm.
letter by Williamson from 1983 in which he advised his readers to keep to

sound Catholic doctrine and to proven authors, “for instance, the excellent Fr.
Denis Fahey.”109
FAHEY’S INFLUENCE TODAY

Finally, it must be recognized that Fahey’s baleful influence is still alive today
not only in the SSPX, but in similarly-minded groups. E. Michael Jones, who
has been a significant figure in the radical Catholic movement over the past few
decades, is one who relies on Fahey’s distinctive definition of antisemitism.
Jones, who holds a doctorate in English and American Literature from Temple
University in Philadelphia, was described by Cuneo in his 1999 book as a
“flamethrowing author...who employs a take-no-prisoners, slash-and-burn
approach.”110 Over time Jones’ target has increasingly been Jews and Judaism;
and in his journal, Culture Wars, he follows Fahey in drawing the distinction
between “racial hatred” of Jews which he claims to abhor, and hatred of the
Jewish religion which is attempting, in his view, to overthrow Catholicism’s
natural position. In an article entitled “The Conversion of the Revolutionary
Jew,” Jones quotes Fahey’s definition and then sums up his own opinion that
Opposition to Jewish ambition “to impose its rule on other nations”
is not anti-Semitism, even if the Jews want to portray it that way.
The Christian must oppose anti-Semitism, defined as hatred of the
Jewish race, but he must also oppose the Jewish agenda of
opposition to Logos. As many Catholics have done in the past, the
Catholic must oppose the agenda of the revolutionary Jew, even
now—nay, especially now— when Jews have adopted the tropes of
conservatism to disguise their true aims.111
109 Originally found at http://www.sspxseminary.org/publications/rectors-letters-

separator/rectors-letter/64.html and now available at http://www.leofec.com/bishop-
williamson/64.html, accessed 7 Sept. 2014.
110 Cuneo, Smoke of Satan, 40.
111 Jones, “The Conversion of the Revolutionary Jew,” http://www.culturewars.com/
2006/Conversion.htm.
36 | Mark Weitzman
In 2006, Jones posted an interview linked to his 1,200-page book, The Jewish
Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History, in which he stated that:
Insofar as they rejected Christ, the Jews rejected Logos, and in
rejecting Logos, they rejected the order of the universe, including its
moral or political order...,” “Judaism is not the religion of the Old
Testament. Catholicism is the religion of the Old Testament.... The
Talmud is a systematic distortion of the Torah...whose purpose is to
keep the Jewish people away from Logos and in bondage to Jewish
leaders.112
Jones’ antisemitism has led him into some strange company — including that
of the radical Palestinian-American activist Hesham Tillawi, on whose cable
television program Jones appeared in 2008. Tillawi’s show has become a con-
venient forum for numerous antisemites, including such notorious figures as
David Duke, Ted Pike, Texe Marrs, Mark Weber, and fellow Holocaust deniers
Bradley Smith, Frederick Toben, and Willis Carto.113
Another noteworthy figure in this gallery is Robert Sungenis, who has been
one of the most active internet proponents of radical Catholic antisemitism.
Sungenis, whose writings appear on Jones’ website, is a polemicist whose early
writings were contra Protestantism, but like Jones he has moved to targeting
Jews. Jones was a featured speaker at Sungenis’s First Annual Catholic Con-
ference on Geocentrism, held in South Bend, Indiana, the home of Notre
Dame University, one of the most prominent Catholic universities in the
United States.114 Reacting to accusations of antisemitism, Sungenis posted a
page on his website entitled “Ask Your Question about the Jews, Judaism,
Zionism, etc.,” where he presents his own revealing answers to obviously set up
112 http://www.culturewars.com/2008/JRSInterview.htm.
113 See Mark Weitzman, Magical Logic: Globalization, Conspiracy Theory and the Shoah
(Posen Papers in Contemporary Antisemitism, no. 10, Vidal Sassoon International
Center for the Study of Antisemitism, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2008), 18,
where I point out how Tillawi’s antisemitism and anti-Zionism is an example of
bridging the gap between extremists on the far left, the extreme right, and radical Islam.
114 Ironically, given Sungenis’s title, the French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson
defended Williamson by comparing him to Galileo (see note 91 above)!

questions. For example, Sungenis asserts he is no Holocaust denier, yet he

states that “I do not deny that Jews were killed by the Nazis. The Nazis killed
many people. What I question is whether 6 million Jews were killed by the
Nazis.”
Sungenis believes that Jewish–Catholic dialogue is part of a broader Jewish
plot. He asserts that the reason for it “is philosemitism, a cultural malaise fos-
tered by the semitically-dominated political and religious groups in America.”
Indeed, he even defined philosemitism as a form of “Jewish racism” and a
“serious sin” enforced because “the Jews control much of the politics, wealth,
academia, media, sciences, arts, and culture today.” Their main weapon of
control is “to brand someone who criticizes them as an ‘antisemite,’ publicize it
at will in the media which they dominate, and the damage will be practically
irreparable.”
Sungenis even blamed Jews for forcing Nazi Germany into World War II:
[W]e should read accounts from people who see the events of
World War I and II from a different angle. One of these issues con-
cerns Germany’s relationship with the Jews. According to various
accounts, the Germans treated the Jews very nicely when the Jews
were excised out of Russia and migrated to Germany. As the story
goes, however, the Jews turned on the Germans because they got a
better deal from someone else. This made the Germans very bitter
against the Jews.
He repeats the traditional supercessionist theology, but also makes sure to use it
against Zionism.
Conversely, any view of the Jews that sees them today as an ex-
clusive and divinely blessed people whom God favors over other
races and nations, or as a people who, based on selected historical
events, still possess the deed, as it were, to the land of Palestine, is
one the purest forms of racism. The Jews no longer are the Chosen
38 | Mark Weitzman
People; the Church is. The Jews no longer own Palestine; the world
does.115
In another posting Sungenis acknowledged his debt to Fahey, writing that “Fr.
Fahey has a lot of good things to say. He was a faithful priest who would not
compromise with the latest fads in politics or culture.”116 Sungenis also has a
positive view of Williamson. In an introduction to a 2004 interview with
Williamson posted on his website, Sungenis stated that
Although we do not subscribe nor endorse the present schismatic
state of the SSPX, nevertheless, Bishop Williamson’s comments
about the state of the Church and what he calls the “New Religion”
are quite correct. Every Catholic, whether you are liberal, con-
servative or traditional, needs to read what he says.
Sungenis did part with the traditionalist bishop over what he described as
“Williamson’s insistence that Vatican II taught that man had the moral right to
choose his own religion.117 The interview appeared originally in The Remnant,
one of the earliest and most important traditionalist publications in the United
States. Interestingly, in a column posted on the online Remnant on January 26,
2009 devoted to the Williamson affair, one of their major writers and another
follower of Fahey, Christopher Ferrara, pronounces himself “mortified” by
Williamson’s reliance on the discredited “Leuchter Report” (whose author,
Fred Leuchter, asserted there had been no gas chambers in Auschwitz). Ferrara
concluded: “In this defining moment we are being asked to define ourselves by
declaring what we stand for, and what we will not stand for. To answer that
115 Robert Sungenis, “Ask Your Question about the Jews, Judaism, Zionism, etc.,”
http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/Ask_Your_Question_about_the_Jews.pdf.
116 Idem, “Q&A’s,” (April 2005), http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/qa_2005_04april.
htm.
117 “An Exclusive Interview with Bishop Richard Williamson,” http://www.
catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/williamson-interview.htm. The version

with Sungenis’ comments is now unavailable online, the original interview can be found
at http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X/Interview_with_
Bishop_Richard_Williamson_2005.htm.
question by rejecting what the Bishop has said is not to show weakness before
the Church’s foes.”118
Like Fahey and Williamson, Sungenis also seems to have no problem rely-
ing on hardcore antisemitic sources. An entire blog by William Cork critiques
Sungenis’s writings on Jews and Judaism, showing how often he plagiarized
Nazi authors like Robert Ley, modern antisemites like Jack Mohr, or Holocaust
deniers like Mark Weber. Sungenis significantly praised the Holocaust-denying
Journal of Historical Review as a “highly prestigious and credible magazine....”119
Another blog on that website posted by David Palm accused Sungenis of
plagiarizing from Fahey directly.120
Fittingly enough, the SSPX and other antisemitic traditionalists found
themselves defended by what is probably the most pseudo-academic far right
website in the United States, the Occidental Observer, an offshoot of the
Occidental Quarterly. This journal is edited by the California State University
professor, Kevin MacDonald, who testified on behalf of David Irving during
Irving’s failed lawsuit in 2000 against historian Deborah Lipstadt. MacDonald
has written extensively on Jews and Judaism from an “evolutionary
perspective,” most notably in a trio of books.121 George Michael, a leading
118 Christopher Ferrara, “Triumph and Tribulation: Pope Under Fire for Lifting
Excommunication of SSPX Bishops,” http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives
/2009-0131-ferrara-triumph_and_tribulation.htm. For Ferrara’s reliance on Fahey, see
http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/covenant_and_mission.html, which cites a 30 Sept.
2000 Remnant article by Vennari. On the Leuchter Report, see Robert S. Wistrich, A
Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad (New York: Random
House, 2010), 637.
119 See William Cork, “Sungenis and the Jews on the Page, Antisemitism and the
Catholic Right,” originally at http://wquercus.com/sungenis/#sources and now

archived at http://archive.today/ja8fS. Cork presents a side-by-side comparison of
Sungenis’s writings and the original uncredited sources.
120 David Palm, “Sources, Schoeman, and Sungenis,” http://sungenisandthejews.
blogspot.com/2007/02/sungenis-and-jews-sources-schoeman-and.html. Palm identi-

fies himself as a traditionalist Catholic.
121 Kevin MacDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism As a Group Evolutionary
Strategy, With Diaspora Peoples (Westport: Praeger 1994), The Culture of Critique: An
Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political
Movements (Westport: Praeger 1998) and Separation and Its Discontents Toward an
Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (Westport: Praeger, 1998). MacDonald, now retired
40 | Mark Weitzman
scholar of right-wing extremism in the United States, has described

MacDonald’s work as having “been well received by those in the racialist right,
as it amounts to a theoretically sophisticated justification for anti-Semitism,”
with the result that MacDonald “has attained a near reverential status and is
generally considered beyond reproach” by extremists.122 In his article, “The
Church and anti-Semitism—again,” first published in February 2009,
MacDonald defended the SSPX and other extreme Catholic traditionalists by
describing how
The Catholic Church has played the role of ethnic and cultural
defense in the past. It is certainly not surprising that Jewish
organizations are alarmed by any suggestion that it might be
returning to its historic self-conception.
And he concludes by hoping that “the traditionalists don’t give in to what will
be a furious onslaught to prevent any glimmer of the resurgence of traditional
Catholicism.”123
from his teaching position, is devoting his time to the extremist movement. He was a
professor of psychology at the California State University, Long Beach. Both the
University Senate and his own department have formally disassociated themselves from
his positions.
122 George Michael, “Professor Kevin MacDonald’s Critique of Judaism: Legitimate
Scholarship or the Intellectualization of Anti-Semitism?,” Journal of Church and State

(2006): 779–806, available online at http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/JC&S48-
2006.pdf.
123 Kevin MacDonald, “The Church and anti-Semitism—again,” Occidental Observer,
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-SSPX.html. MacDonald
refers approvingly to claims by James C. Russell which asserted that, in MacDonald’s
paraphrasing, “the Church was influenced by German culture.” Russell’s writings
became a matter of public controversy in 2010 when he won the Republican and
Conservative parties nomination to run against a long-term Democratic Congressional
incumbent in a suburban New York district. However, when an article he had
published in the Occidental Quarterly in 2001 was exposed, the Republicans tried to drop
him as their candidate. See Leah Rae, “Westchester GOP drops candidate over inflam-
matory essay,” Journal News, 22 Sept. 2010, and related stories available at http://
www.lohud.com/article/20100922/NEWS01/9220350/Westchester%20GOP%20dro
ps%20candidate%20over%20inflammatory%20essay.
Finally, one quote about Jews from Fahey, used by today’s extremist
Catholics, sums up not only the traditional reliance on Fahey’s theology, but
their positive embrace of antisemitism as well. Fahey’s original statement is
found in the writings of John Sharpe, a U.S. Naval Academy graduate and rabid
traditionalist Catholic who has his own distribution house. In a 2003 article in
the SSPX magazine, The Angelus, he gave a negative assessment of the 2001
Vatican document, “The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the
Christian Bible,” which he concluded with a quote from Fahey’s Mystical Body of
Christ and the Reorganization of Society (pp. 277–78) that “may we all have the
courage to respond with the words of Fr. Fahey: ‘In that sense, every sane
thinker must be an anti-Semite.’” 124
Later Sharpe sued a local paper for libel when it publicized his antisemitic
beliefs. In the decision against him the judge wrote:
No reasonable person can read Sharpe’s individual writings and con-
clude that he espouses anything other than a deep, abiding and per-
vasive suspicion of and hostility toward Jews, whether considered as
a collective people, religion, nation or ethnic group.125
RADICAL TRADITIONALISTS, JUDAISM, AND THE CHURCH TODAY
The SSPX has been quite open about its goals. Speaking in 2009 about the
efforts by Rome to bring the group back into the Church, Bishop Tissier de
Mallerais was blunt, declaring that “we do not change our positions, but we
have the intention of converting Rome, that is to lead Rome towards our
positions.”126
Historian Guy Stroumsa has noted that Christianity began as a universaalist
faith, marked by openness to others, and then turned into an institution that
tried to stamp out other religions and coerce all humanity into embracing the
new majority religion. Rejection, as with the Jews, resulted in an “ecumenical
124 (Sharpe, Judaism and the Vatican, http://webarchive.org/web/20031012011638/;

http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/2003_June/Judaism.html.
125 http://www.icourt.info/Opinions/judge/Thomas/Sharpe-v-Landmark-Opinion.
pdf.
126 http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/02/tissier-de-mallerais-speaks.html
42 | Mark Weitzman
inclusivism” which entirely delegitimized the other’s existence.127 Contemporary

Catholic extremists certainly view themselves as the legitimate inheritors of this
Christian tradition of supercessionist theology. By embracing myths like that of
a Judaeo-Masonic conspiracy, they have tried unsuccessfully to politicize this
medieval theology. Even when condemning racist or Nazi antisemitism, they
are insistent on the validity of the Catholic tradition of hostility to Jews and
Judaism.
The distinction between “good” and “bad” antisemitism did not vanish
from Catholic teaching even after the Holocaust.128 It took the document
“Nostra Aetate” to create what the Catholic scholar, Gregory Baum (who con-
tributed to this historic change) described as “the most radical transformation
of the Church’s ordinary magisterium to emerge from Vatican II” by confronting
the heritage of antisemitism within the “teachings of contempt” and its horrific
results.129 The impact of “Nostra Aetate” on Catholic antisemitism and the
acceptance of religious liberty have caused what John Pawlikowski called “the
127 Gedaliahu G. Stroumsa, “Early Christianity As Radical Religion: Context and

Implications,” Israel Oriental Studies 14 (1994): 173–93.
128 Elena Mazzini, “The Presence of Antisemitism in the Catholic World: The Case of
the Enciclopedia Catholica (1948-1954),” Quest: Issues in Contemporary Jewish History, no. 1
(Apr. 2010) points out that the entry on antisemitism in the authoritative 12-volume
Enciclopedia, after condemning the crimes of Nazism, concludes by describing how
“Only on these bases…is anti-Semitism legitimate in the field of ideas, and aimed at the
watchful protection of the religious-moral and social heritage of Christianity.” The
author of the entry, the Catholic priest-scholar Antonino Romeo also referred to his
1951 article in which he claimed “[t]hat many Israelites today...see His Kingdom in
modern ‘progress,’ or they identify it with the triumph of the principles of the French
Revolution.” My thanks to Dr. Natalia Indrimi for this reference.
129 Gregory Baum, “The Social Context of American Catholic Theology,” Proceedings of
the Catholic Theological Society of America 41 (1986): 87, cited in John T. Pawlikowski.
“Vatican II’s “Nostra Aetate”: Its Impact on the Church’s Theological Self-
Understanding, New Theology Review 25, no. 2 (Mar. 2013). My thanks to Father
Pawlikowski for this reference. Journalist Adam Gopnik illustrated this point when he
noted in regard to the English Catholic writer G. K. Chesterton: “The insistence that
Chesterston’s antisemitism needs to be understood ‘in the context of his time’ defines
the problem, because his time — from the end of the Great War to the mid-thirties —
was the time that led to the extermination of the European Jews.” Adam Gopnik, “The
Back of the World,” New Yorker 7/14 (July 2008).
fundamental reorientation on the Christian-Jewish question.”130 Under Pope

Benedict XVI, even during a conservative retrenchment of the Church on
doctrinal and liturgical issues, and despite his heartfelt desire to heal the schism
with the SSPX, the Vatican ultimately stood against those who would turn back
the clock. All indicators so far are that Pope Francis will continue on that path,
as he recently stressed the importance of Vatican II and strongly rejected the
demands of the traditionalists who want to see the Council’s reforms revoked.
In a homily in Rome (April 2013), shortly after his elevation to the papacy,
Pope Francis appeared to target the radical traditionalists by firmly asserting:
The Council was a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit.... But after 50
years, have we done everything that the Holy Spirit said to us in the
Council? In the continuity of the growth of the Church which was
the Council? No, we celebrate this anniversary, we make a
monument, but that does not bother us. We do not want to change.
What is more: there are voices that want to go back. This is called
being stubborn, this is called wanting to tame the Holy Spirit, this is
called becoming fools and slow of heart.131
Pope Francis’s words were echoed forcefully by Archbishop Gerhard Müller,
the top doctrinal official in Rome, who reinforced the Vatican’s stance that all
priests must accept the authority of Vatican II, including “Nostra Aetate.”
130 Pawlikowski, “Vatican II’s ‘Nostra Aetate.’”

131 http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=17610. The
SSPX has criticized Pope Francis, both for his “informal” style, which they consider
“humiliating” and an affront to the dignity of the Church (South America SSPX head,
Rev. Christian Bouchacourt in Tom Heneghan, “Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) Criticizes
Pope Francis,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/society-of-st-pius-x-sspx
_n_3112125.html); and for substance (Fellay claimed that Francis’s views threatened
“to allow souls to perish because they no longer learn sound doctrine,” Tom
Heneghan, “Catholic Rebel Group Criticises Pope Francis’s Focus on Service to Poor,”
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2013/04/19/catholic-rebel-group-criticises-pope-
franciss-focus-on-service-to-poor/.
44 | Mark Weitzman
Müller summed up the issue by observing that “whoever does not recognise
this [Vatican II] is not a Catholic.”132
____________________________________
My thanks to Mary Christine Athans, BVM, who so generously shared

both her important work on Denis Fahey and Charles Coughlin, as well her
encouragement and incisive criticism on an earlier version of this paper. I
also owe thanks to John Connelly, Jeffrey Herf, and Suzanne Brown-
Fleming for their encouragement and suggestions; to Heidi Beirich for
sharing her research on radical Catholic traditionalists; and to Maria
Mazzenga and Beverly Geller for their research assistance. Finally I would
like to express my appreciation to Prof. Robert S. Wistrich, for graciously
sharing his deep knowledge of the history of antisemitism with me on
many occasions.
132Heneghan, “Society Of St. Pius X (SSPX) Criticizes Pope Francis.” Abp. Müller’s
position is Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Mark Weitzman is Director of Government Affairs at the Simon Wiesenthal Center in
New York. He was co-editor of Antisemitism, the Generic Hatred: Essays in Memory of Simon
Wiesenthal, which won the 2007 National Jewish Book Award for Best Anthology and
has appeared in French, Spanish and Russian editions. He also co-auhored Dismantling
the Big Lie: the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a detailed critique of the infamous Protocols,
which has been translated into Arabic and Japanese. Other publications include his
essay “Magical Logic: Globalization, Conspiracy Theory and the Shoah,” which
appeared in the 2012 volume Holocaust Denial: the Politics of Perfidy, edited by Robert S.
Wistrich (an earlier version was published as a Posen Paper by the Vidal Sassoon
Center for the Study of Antisemitism at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem in 2009).
His paper, “Antisemitism and Terrorism on the Electronic Highway” appeared in the
book Terrorism and the Internet: Threats — Target Groups — Deradicalisation Strategies (IOS
Press for NATO, 2010). Mark Weitzman is a member of the official U.S. delegation to
the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, where he chairs the Committee on
Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial. He is also a member of the Advisory Panel of
Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief of the Organization for Security and Co-
operation in Europe (OSCE).

Acta 38

Uploaded by

Acta 38

Uploaded by

Jews and Judaism in the Political Theology

of Radical Catholic Traditionalists

2 Alessandro Speciale, “SSPX, Benedict XVI’s Unfinished Business,” http://www.

6 “In letter to SSPX, Vatican archbishop appeals for unity,” http://www.

number of followers for the decade 1988–1998, http://www.catholicculture.org/news/

Traditionalism from a French Perspective,” http://sthughofcluny.org/2011/11/

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre,

Bishop Richard Williamson,

Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, but none of them in gas

/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0, accessed 17 Aug. 2014.

Williamson’s antisemitism was neither new nor hidden. In a letter posted

it is indispensable to stir up the people’s relations with their

other course open to them than to take refuge in our complete

27 Richard Williamson, letter of 3 Nov. 1991, copy in my possession. It can also be

long, troubled history with Judaism,” http://ncronline.org/news/lefebvre-movement-

31 Thomas C. Fox, “Lefebvre Movement: Long, Troubled History with Judaism,” 26

consequently cursed by God, as depicted in Gibson’s movie on the Passion?” Featured

to Postmodernism (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2006), 3, cited in David

Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp. (1883–1954),

In 1908, Fahey had gone to Rome, where he received doctorates in

Dennis, Inhumanities: Nazi Interpretations of Western Culture (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard

Church History 56, no. 2 (1987): 226.

Bewley, 1933–1939,” in Racial Discrimination and Ethnicity in European History, edited by

funeral Mass might have been a matter of protocol, it certainly reflected on

L’Floch was also a revered mentor of Lefebvre. Athans, who interviewed a

51 John Daly, Pro-Sedevacantism Quotes from Abp. Lebefvre, http://www.

59 Ignis Ardens, http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=

establishment of their future Messianic kingdom.”61 Fahey’s contrast between

Williamson’s thought. In comments on Pope Benedict XVI’s December 2005

This was a fundamental tenet for Lefebvre as well. In the biography by de

63 http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.php?topic=893264.0, accessed 7 Sept.

(16 Jan. 2008): par. 37, http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&

The same Catechism succinctly summed up the SSPX’s stance on tolerance: it is

Protestant Reformation...broke the unity of European subjection to

of the world by Masonic Naturalism.... Behind Masonry, however

68 Fahey, Rulers, 50–51, section titled “ʻDemocracy” versus “Fascism.’”

“Anti-Semitism” with all its war connotation to the mind of the

Zeit des Nationalsozialismus,” in Beseitigung des judischen Einfluss: Antisemitische Forschung,

One can readily conclude that the National-Socialist reaction against

Fahey, like most conspiratorial antisemites, relied uncritically on highly

FROM EUROPE TO AMERICA:

87 Athans, Coughlin-Fahey, 224.

Father Charles Coughlin (1891–

According to Esther Feldblum, in Coughlin’s world-view, “Christianity and

honestly criticize] Fr. Coughlin’s very temperate reference to the

What Scanlon called a “temperate reference” was translated by some of

said to be encouraged by the church. The point to make is that if

Press of Florida, 2008), 76.

(Sept.–Oct. 1993): 34–35; on Sobran’s antisemitism, see William F. Buckley, In Search of

IHR’s 2002 conference.107 Thus, despite the denunciations of Williamson’s

107 Mark Weber, “Joseph Sobran and Historical Revisionism,” http://www.ihr.org/

letter by Williamson from 1983 in which he advised his readers to keep to

FAHEY’S INFLUENCE TODAY

109 Originally found at http://www.sspxseminary.org/publications/rectors-letters-

defended Williamson by comparing him to Galileo (see note 91 above)!

questions. For example, Sungenis asserts he is no Holocaust denier, yet he

catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/williamson-interview.htm. The version

Catholic Right,” originally at http://wquercus.com/sungenis/#sources and now

blogspot.com/2007/02/sungenis-and-jews-sources-schoeman-and.html. Palm identi-

scholar of right-wing extremism in the United States, has described

Scholarship or the Intellectualization of Anti-Semitism?,” Journal of Church and State

124 (Sharpe, Judaism and the Vatican, http://webarchive.org/web/20031012011638/;

inclusivism” which entirely delegitimized the other’s existence.127 Contemporary

127 Gedaliahu G. Stroumsa, “Early Christianity As Radical Religion: Context and

fundamental reorientation on the Christian-Jewish question.”130 Under Pope

130 Pawlikowski, “Vatican II’s ‘Nostra Aetate.’”

My thanks to Mary Christine Athans, BVM, who so generously shared

You might also like