What the Heck Is Antisemitism, Anyway?

(A Socratic Dialogue)

I recently posted this quotation from Pope Paul VI to Youtube:

“Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.”

And, oh man, was the feedback fun. Within minutes, I was accused of everything from cozying up to The Daily Wire to desperately chasing subscribers to—and maybe I shouldn’t be surprised—being under the influence of Jewish money.

But one question kept coming up: What is antisemitism? One commenter put it this way:

“How about having a clear definition of what the word means? Is that too much to ask? Because quite frankly, every time I look it up, it's never really clear. Words have meaning. Or at least they should. If the M word for taking a life was used, and someone is accused of it, everyone knows what it means. But imagine it's not clear what it means. And someone out of nowhere accused someone of it, but the definition keeps changing or is not clear—what then?”

Fair enough. So, to help clarify, I’ve written a Socratic dialogue exploring what antisemitism is—and what it isn’t.

One quick note before you read on—I assure you, I’m writing this in good faith. I know this topic is deeply important to many people, including my fellow Catholics. This article is simply my attempt to articulate what seems obvious to me, not a middle finger at those who disagree.

---

John: Leo, I keep hearing people accuse Catholics—especially traditional ones—of antisemitism. But I can’t help but think this is just another term weaponized to shut down debate, like accusing everyone of racism. Can you even define what you mean by antisemitism?

Leo: Fair question. At its core, I would say, antisemitism is irrational hostility toward Jewish people as Jews. That could mean believing they are collectively responsible for societal ills, assuming bad faith in all Jews, or even treating them as an inherent enemy of Christianity.

John: But that’s my issue—doesn’t “antisemitism” get thrown around so broadly that even basic Catholic beliefs, like the necessity of Jewish conversion, are called antisemitic? If I say “Jews need Christ,” some would say that’s antisemitic, but that’s just Catholic doctrine.

Leo: True, and that’s why we need to be precise. It’s not antisemitic to say Jews should convert. Christ Himself was a Jew, and the apostles were Jews themselves, who were sent first to the Jewish people. But there’s a difference between desiring someone’s salvation and treating them as an enemy.

John: But that’s just it—many accusations of antisemitism boil down to nothing more than a knee-jerk defense of Jewish power and influence. If I point out that Hollywood, finance, or media are disproportionately Jewish, am I suddenly an antisemite?

Leo: Not necessarily, but it depends on how you do it. If you’re simply observing demographic representation, that’s one thing. But if you take that observation and turn it into a narrative of Jewish malevolence—suggesting they control the world in a conspiratorial way—that’s where it crosses the line.

John: Okay, but is that really antisemitism? Or just acknowledging real Jewish influence? If they hold powerful positions, why is it wrong to notice it?

Leo: The problem isn’t noticing influence; it’s the assumption of sinister coordination. You can find Jewish individuals in powerful positions, just like you can find Catholics, atheists, or Mormons in others. But an antisemitic mindset takes a partial truth—some Jews have power—and weaves it into a totalizing narrative that treats Jewishness itself as the key to corruption.

John: But don’t the Jews themselves sometimes act as a collective, especially in opposing the Church? Look at how Jewish organizations react to Catholic teachings, especially on conversion.

Leo: There are certainly Jewish organizations that oppose Catholic doctrine, just as there are Catholic groups that oppose secular Jewish ideologies. But do you see what you just did? You moved from “some Jewish groups” to “the Jews.” That’s a categorical error, and it’s how antisemitic thinking creeps in.

John: Fine. But can you really blame people for being skeptical? After all, Jews rejected Christ, and they did conspire against Him.

Leo: Yes, the religious leaders in first-century Judea conspired against Christ. But they weren’t all Jews. His disciples, His Blessed Mother, the earliest Christians—they were all Jews. And if you use the Jewish authorities of Christ’s time to condemn all Jews today, how is that different from blaming all Italians for the actions of Pontius Pilate?

John: But let’s be honest—doesn’t Scripture itself say that the Jews killed Christ? 1 Thessalonians 2:15 explicitly states, “The Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all men.” And in Matthew 27:25, the Jews themselves say, “His blood be upon us and upon our children.” If they accepted that curse, who are we to deny it?

Leo: You’re assuming that God ratifies every statement made by men in Scripture. If the crowd at Jesus’ trial had said, “We will never be forgiven for this,” would we take that as a divine decree? Of course not. Scripture records many statements that reflect human ignorance, not divine truth.

John: But St. Paul still says, “The Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus.”

Leo: Yes, but who is he talking about? “Hoi Ioudaioi,” often translated as “the Jews,” has a broad range of meanings. In many places, it refers not to all Jews but specifically to the Judean leadership that opposed Christ. That’s why in John 7:1, it says, “Jesus would not go about in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him.” But Jesus Himself and all His disciples were Jews—so clearly, it doesn’t mean all Jews.

John: So you’re saying Matthew 27:25 doesn’t mean what it says?

Leo: I’m saying it doesn’t mean what you think it says. Pope Benedict XVI points out that this verse should be read in light of Hebrews 12:24, where it says Christ’s blood does not cry out for vengeance but for reconciliation. The Church has never taken Matthew 27:25 as a justification for collective Jewish guilt—Vatican II, the Catechism, and even the Council of Trent all affirm that our sins, not the Jews alone, put Christ on the cross.

John: So what do you make of the hardships Jews have suffered throughout history? If it’s not divine punishment, how do you explain it?

Leo: The same way I explain Catholic persecution under Communism or Protestant persecution under Muslim rule—sinful men will always target those who are seen as outsiders or as threats to power.

John: Alright, but let’s talk modern history. There’s no denying that many of the architects of Communism were Jewish—Marx, Trotsky, and others. That’s just a fact.

Leo: Yes, and many of the strongest opponents of Communism were also Jewish. Rabbi Meir Kahane was an ardent anti-Communist. The idea that “Jews created Communism” ignores the Catholic priests and intellectuals who were also involved in early socialist thought. And it ignores the Jews who were persecuted under Communist regimes.

John: But don’t you see why people make these connections? When one group is disproportionately involved in a movement that harms Christian civilization, shouldn’t we take notice?

Leo: Yes, but without falling into the fallacy of collective guilt. If a Catholic politician promotes abortion, should I blame Catholicism? Or should I blame that individual for his error?

John: Alright, but even if I grant that, don’t Jewish groups often work against Catholic interests? Just look at the ADL, which routinely attacks traditional Catholics.

Leo: Yes, some Jewish organizations do oppose the Church. But here’s the key: opposition to Catholicism doesn’t make someone part of a Jewish conspiracy. Protestants and secular humanists have opposed the Church, too. Would you call it a WASP conspiracy if a Protestant group attacked Catholicism?

John: No, because they don’t work as a united front.

Leo: Neither do Jews. There are secular Jews, Orthodox Jews, liberal Jews, conservative Jews, Jews who hate the ADL, and Jews who support it. The Jewish world is just as divided as the Catholic world.

John: So where does that leave us?

Leo: It leaves us with clarity. Catholics should be free to critique individuals or movements, Jewish or not. But once we start assuming essential Jewish culpability, we’re no longer dealing in reason—we’re dealing in resentment. And that resentment leads to real injustice.

John: So you’re saying antisemitism is possible and bad, but we should be careful about throwing the term around too loosely?

Leo: Exactly. The danger is twofold—on one hand, real antisemitism is evil and needs to be opposed. On the other, crying antisemitism over any and all criticism of Jewish individuals or groups makes it harder to call out actual antisemitism.