How can the Church let a public figure who professes to be Catholic spread the vile, antisemitic tropes that Catholicism disavowed decades ago?
ed note–another eye-opener that every war-weary Gentile with a vested interest in his/her own future survival needs to read, understand, and take deeply to heart.
Firsto, ladies and Gentile-men, despite our inclinations, we will forego the usual verbose commentary in favor of something ‘short & sweet’ as the old saying goes.
Remember as you read the following, with this anti-Christ Jew pretending to reverence Canon Law, the sanctity of Holy Communion and all the rest of the schtick which he proffers, that as an anti-Christ Jew, he believes with every fiber of his crocodile heart that Jesus was a pervert, a sorcerer, and at this very moment, finds Himself eternally condemned to hell for the ‘anti-Semitism’ which He preached and practiced in His own day.
David Nekrutman for the Times of Israel
In the digital age, the reach of a microphone can extend further than the acoustics of any cathedral. But for a public figure who professes a Catholic identity — often with a crucifix positioned prominently in her studio — Candace Owens has consistently used her platform to disseminate the ancient poison of antisemitism. She speaks of ‘tradition’ while systematically trampling upon the very Gospel that tradition is built to protect.
The Church must be clear: one cannot hold the Eucharist in one hand while clutching a script of hatred in the other.
A voice from the dialogue
As an Orthodox Jew who has dedicated my life to the sacred calling of Jewish-Christian relations, I view this rhetoric not just as a political flashpoint, but as a profound spiritual tragedy. For decades, theologians and community leaders from both our faiths have labored to bridge the chasm of history, replacing the ‘teaching of contempt’ with a ‘theology of brotherhood.’
This dialogue is a fragile and holy endeavor. To see a personality like Owens, who commands a massive platform, recklessly ignite the embers of medieval tropes is to witness the deliberate undoing of years of positive cooperation. Her words do more than offend; they threaten to poison the well of mutual respect that both Jews and Catholics have worked so tirelessly to purify.
The myth of ‘just asking questions’
Ms. Owens frequently hides behind the guise of ‘courageous inquiry’ and ‘anti-establishment’ rhetoric. However, by using her Catholic identity as a shield for antisemitic tropes, she is not merely engaging in debate; she is committing calumny — the grave sin of spreading malicious lies to destroy the reputation of an entire people.
Her rhetoric has crossed a line from political commentary into the realm of the grotesque. By labeling the State of Israel ‘demonic,’ she echoes the most dangerous spiritual libels of the past. Even more chilling is her move to minimize the horrific Mengele experiments of the Holocaust, treating the systematic torture of Jews as a subject for ‘edgy’ skepticism. Perhaps most egregious is her flirtation with the ‘Blood Libel,’ the baseless and bloody medieval myth that Jews consume the blood of Christians.
The Catholic Church, through the landmark Vatican II document Nostra Aetate, definitively broke with the ‘teaching of contempt.’ It affirmed that the Jewish people are the ‘elder brothers’ and that any form of antisemitism is a sin against God Himself. For a layperson to publicly defy this teaching while claiming to represent ‘authentic’ Catholicism is a perversion of the faith.
The canonical necessity of refusal
It is time for the Church to impose the penalty of Canon 915 in this case. The refusal of Communion is not a weapon of personal dislike or political disagreement; it is a medicine of last resort designed to protect the Sacrament from sacrilege and the faithful from scandal.
Under Church law, a minister has a duty to withhold the Sacrament from those who ‘obstinately persist in manifest grave sin.’ When a personality broadcasts to tens of millions, their sin is no longer a private matter between them and a confessor. It meets the three critical criteria for refusal:
Grave: It violates the fundamental dignity of the human person and the theological roots of Christianity.
Manifest: The rhetoric is not whispered in private; it is published, archived, and monetized for a global audience.
Obstinate: The behavior continues despite the clear, public teaching of every Pope for the last sixty years.
A call to justice and reparation
To a personality profiting from the ‘edginess’ of hate: the path back to the altar is always open, but it is narrow. In the Catholic tradition, if you steal a person’s—or a people’s—reputation through slander, a private prayer in a dark confessional is insufficient.
Justice requires reparation.
True repentance would require a period of public retractions as loud as the original broadcasts. It requires a humble admission that the tropes peddled for clicks—from Blood Libels to Holocaust revisionism—were a betrayal of Jesus, who, as the Church teaches, is eternally a Son of Israel.
The Eucharist is the ‘source and summit’ of the Catholic life—a sign of radical unity and sacrificial love. To transform it into a badge of ‘standing one’s ground’ while leading a campaign of hate is more than a mistake; it is a sacrilege.
Until the microphone is used for truth, the Catholic Church must refuse the Bread of Life for Candace Owens.
Perhaps Candace Owens is saving the Catholic Church’s crimes for last?