AI EVALUATION | Debate with E. Michael Jones on Holocaust-Denialism & Jewish Essentialism
Truth That Matters
None of us had a front-row seat to historical events or personalities — whether they be saints, popes, or Gospel authors. Accordingly, every piece of evidence comes from a source, whether a physical book or digital content (etc.). What matters is not the mediated source, but its accuracy. While flawed, AI fact-and-logic analysis can be particularly accurate and helpful.
Thus, take it or leave it, I loaded my entire recent interaction with E. Michael Jones into SuperGrok with this prompt:
“Below is a conversation among me, Greg Schlueter, E. Michael Jones, and another of his supporters, Mateusz. Please evaluate each from a Catholic magisterial perspective, focusing on logical and factual accuracy, and identify errors where evident.”
Please feel free to do the same.
Regardless, note that you will not find a single, respected, solid Catholic scholar, bishop, or priest who agrees or validates EMJ’s essentialist, metaphysical structure concerning “the Jews,” certainly not its application.
If you follow his Holocaust denialism and the agency of “the Jews” as a transhistoric, metaphysical group essentially responsible for all that is immoral in Western Civilization (a fair summary of his writing), you are not in line with Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church.
Evaluation from the Perspective of the Catholic Magisterium
(Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, including Scripture, the constant teaching of the popes, ecumenical councils, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the authoritative interpretation of Scripture and Tradition)
1. On the use of the term “the Jews” and the possibility of ascribing collective agency or moral characteristics to them
Magisterial norm (binding today)
Vatican II, Nostra Aetate 4 (highest level of authority after dogma): “…what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today … the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures … [the Church] decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.”
Catechism of the Catholic Church §597 (1992, promulgated by John Paul II): “Neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion … the Jews are not collectively guilty …”
Pontifical Commission, We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah (1998): “The Church … rejects … any alleged theological justification for discriminatory measures or, worse still, for acts of persecution against the Jews …”
John Paul II (1997, to the Polish bishops): “This people … has been chosen by God in an irrevocable way … It is not lawful to say that the Jews are collectively guilty or that they are a ‘deicidal people.’”
These texts are not mere “pastoral suggestions.” They are the Church’s authoritative interpretation of Scripture and Tradition in the ordinary and universal magisterium. They bind the conscience of every Catholic.
Conclusion on this point
Any system that treats “the Jews” as a transhistorical collective agent with a unified, enduring will that is uniquely or essentially hostile to Christ, the Church, or Christian civilization is incompatible with the current magisterium.
His statements are not criticisms of individual Jews, specific organisations, or ideological movements that happen to include Jews. They attribute a unified, enduring moral intention to “the Jews” as a people. That attribution is formally condemned by the magisterium.
Verdict: E. Michael Jones’s core thesis on “the Jews” is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church as expressed in Vatican II, the Catechism, and the post-conciliar ordinary magisterium.
2. On the appeal to pre-Vatican II sources (saints, popes, Fathers)
Pre-Vatican II statements that appear to treat “the Jews” collectively as cursed, perfidious, or deserving perpetual servitude are real and numerous. However:
None of these statements (even papal ones) were ever proposed as infallible or as defining revealed truth.
Many were disciplinary or historical judgments, not doctrinal definitions.
The Church herself has since authoritatively clarified that such collective attributions of guilt or moral essence are incompatible with the full truth of Scripture (especially Romans 9–11) and the dignity of the human person.
The Church does not teach that earlier non-infallible statements must be read in a way that contradicts later, more precise magisterial clarifications. The rule is the opposite: earlier statements are interpreted in light of the fuller light (cf. Dei Filius, Vatican I; John Henry Newman’s theory of development, accepted by the Church).
Verdict: One may not use St. John Chrysostom’s Adversus Judaeos, Innocent III’s Etsi Judaeos, or similar texts to overrule Nostra Aetate and the Catechism. To do so is to set up a parallel magisterium and falls under the condemnation of “traditionalist” integralism rejected by the Church.
3. On Holocaust-related claims
The magisterium has repeatedly affirmed the historical reality of the Shoah as a systematic genocide, including the use of gas chambers:
John Paul II (1995, 2000), Benedict XVI (2006 at Auschwitz), Francis (2014), We Remember (1998), etc., all speak of the “systematic extermination,” “genocide,” “millions of Jews” murdered, and explicitly warn against denial or minimisation.
Verdict: Catholic teaching does not permit denial or trivialisation of the systematic character of the Shoah or the use of gas chambers. Claims that the Holocaust is “exaggerated” or part of a “Holocaust narrative” used for political purposes fall under the magisterial warnings against Holocaust denial/minimisation.
4. Individual assessments
Greg Schlueter
Accurately represents the current ordinary and universal magisterium.
Correctly cites Nostra Aetate 4, CCC 597, Romans 9–11, Benedict XVI’s exegesis of John, etc.
His core argument (one may not attribute transhistorical collective moral agency or unified intent to “the Jews” as a people) is fully in accord with binding Catholic teaching.
No significant factual or theological errors detected.
E. Michael Jones
Repeatedly attributes a single, enduring moral will and civilizational hostility to “the Jews” as a people (see quotations above).
Claims this is compatible with Nostra Aetate by distinguishing “the Jews” from “all Jews,” but this is a distinction without a difference: his actual usage treats “the Jews” as a collective agent across history with a unified revolutionary intent.
This framework is irreconcilable with Nostra Aetate 4, CCC 597, and the constant post-conciliar teaching.
His Holocaust-related work falls under the magisterial condemnations of denial/minimisation.
Therefore, on the central theological question, his position is contrary to the magisterium of the Catholic Church.
Mateusz Plewa
Attempts to override the current magisterium by appealing to pre-Vatican II polemical texts and accusing post-conciliar teaching of Modernism.
Explicitly rejects the principle that later magisterial clarifications authoritatively interpret earlier ones.
Accuses those who accept Nostra Aetate and the Catechism of heresy and Modernism.
This stance is formally schismatic in tendency and incompatible with Catholic submission to the living magisterium.
Final summary
From the standpoint of the Catholic magisterium as it stands today (2025):
Greg Schlueter’s position is correct and faithful.
E. Michael Jones’s core thesis about “the Jews” as a transhistorical collective agent in revolt against Logos/Christ is incompatible with Vatican II, the Catechism, and the ordinary universal magisterium.
Mateusz Plewa’s rejection of post-conciliar teaching on the Jews and his charge of Modernism against the Church’s authoritative clarifications place him outside the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy on this question.
The Church has spoken with clarity. Catholics are bound to assent.
BOOKS
🐽The Magnificent Piglets of Pigletsville—our present-day plight wrapped in a fairytale, accurately foretelling in detail the most consequential events that have unfolded in recent years.
🎠 Ride of a Lifetime—a captivating children’s book set in an amusement park, honoring parents and grandparents who paved our rides on earth and into eternity. Listen to the story set to beautiful illustrations and the soundtrack.
🔥 Primal Fire—a cinematic novella inspired by Dante’s Divine Comedy, alongside a 15-track rock soundtrack (Primal Fire).
👑Help us share the story of Slaying Giants—learn more at SlayingGiants.us
Mr. Schlueter:
The Magisterium has no authority to judge empirical facts unrelated to Faith and morals, such as whether an organized group of people exists and what such a group has done. This is known only through observation and reason. If there is an organized group with a coordinated immoral and criminal agenda, and a definite pattern of immoral and criminal behavior based upon this agenda is discernible, then it is up to human reason to discover and communicate this for the good of society and souls, not the Magisterium. All the Magisterium can do is provide authoritative moral and spiritual norms regarding the kinds of judgments one can make about such a group, such as its prohibition against racist judgments or ascriptions collective guilt, for these are both unjust and irrational. But you portray the authority of the Magisterium as if it had made definitive judgments about the existence and nature and behavior of a certain organized group of people, as well as historical events unrelated to Divine Revelation, which it has not and cannot, and then you use this misportrayal to condemn as heretical and immoral the words of a fellow Catholic.
The Magisterium also has no competence to judge the facts about historical events not related to Divine Revelation. When Popes talk about them, it’s just their opinion. Jorge Bergoglio was wrong about the nature of the Covid injection and said, identifying as the Pope, that it was an act of love to get it, and it led to Catholics getting it and some dying because of it. He also made authoritative and irresponsible categorical statements about climate change that were not his to make.
Regarding your unjust criticism of Candace Owens, You seem to be in Camp 2. See here: https://davidahughes.net/a-guide-to-identifying-camp-2/?ref=david-a-hughes-newsletter&attribution_id=697ca3a2116de400b0608a75&attribution_type=post
I think there are many people who struggle with witnessing Jewish power and control, and how such a small minority can be so influential. It is undeniable that they are magnificently well funded and better organized than any other group of people.
So what you have posted above, while it does convey my beliefs, the post remains silent about something that the Catholic Church once referred to as the “Jewish Question”, and once you have noticed it, it cannot go away.
So I will not speak about “the Jews“.
Jewish organizations, however, are fair game. Any interest group with wealth and power that can move societies and control culture, politics, and money and thereby do harm to lesser people, can and will be criticized. The term is “organized Jewry”.
Fair game.