Catholic Zionism: An Impossible Path?

This paper was presented by the author at a webinar hosted by the Ecumenical Theological Research Fraternity in Israel on February 25, 2026.

Writer's block. The anxiety about saying something new often comes from the suspicion that everything has already been said. When I received an invitation a couple of months ago to deliver this lecture on the Catholic Church and Zionism, I admit I felt some embarrassment. Much has been written on the subject, including a few things I have authored myself. The major conferences marking Nostra Aetate's sixtieth anniversary, held here in Israel last year, seemed to suggest that the topic had been laid to rest with full honors. Then came January 17, 2026. The recent controversy surrounding the declaration on Christian Zionism issued by the local Patriarchs and Heads of the Churches serendipitously raised the matter from its grave. Based on what has happened since, I tend to think it was never really dead. We are not finished discussing Catholicism and Zionism. In fact, this may just be the beginning of a crucial debate—if not for Israel, then certainly for the Catholic Church, and possibly for other Christian denominations as well. My purpose here is to uncover what I believe to be the true theological core of this critical discussion. I shall proceed in three stages.

First, I will endeavor to formulate the question from a Catholic perspective, examining the recent declaration in light of the Catholic magisterium. Second, I will discuss the theological rationale for condemning what the declaration calls "Christian Zionism." Third, I will attempt to lay out the foundations for a positive appreciation of Christian Zionism from within the Catholic tradition—an effort that requires exploring the deepest roots of the Catholic Church's, shall we say, "problem" with the State of Israel.

I. The State of Israel as a Catholic Question

In the January 17 statement, we read: "Recent activities undertaken by local individuals who advance damaging ideologies, such as Christian Zionism, mislead the public, sow confusion, and harm the unity of our flock." The authors do not specify what they mean by "Christian Zionism."

In The Land, The Bible, and History (2007), two Catholic clerics and scholars based in Jerusalem—Alain Marchadour, A.A., and David Neuhaus, S.J.—borrow a definition of Christian Zionism from Donald Wagner without acknowledging their exact source.^[1] Upon investigating, I found this definition on Miftah's website, a far-from-unbiased pro-Palestinian organization. Allow me to quote several elements from this definition:

"In developing a working definition of Christian Zionism, one can say it is a nineteenth and twentieth century movement within Protestant fundamentalism that supports the maximalist claims of Jewish political Zionism, including Israel's sovereignty over all of historic Palestine, including Jerusalem… There are two distinct and parallel covenants in the Bible, one with Israel that is never revoked and the other with the Church that is superseded by the covenant with Israel. The Church is a "mere parenthesis" in God's plan and as such will be removed from history during the Rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:13–17, 5:1–11). At that point, Israel, as a nation, will be restored as the primary instrument of God on earth… The establishment of the State of Israel, the rebuilding of the Third Temple, the rise of the Antichrist, and the buildup of armies poised to attack Israel are among the signs leading to the final battle and Jesus' return."

This derogatory characterization of Christian Zionism clearly alludes to the various forms of Darby's dispensationalism common in parts of the evangelical community. While some aspects of this definition may align with what the authors of the January 2026 statement mean by "Christian Zionism," it's clear they are not targeting the evangelical world. The authors speak as pastors responsible for their congregation, which faces disunity caused by certain members who seem to be taking on roles they should not: "The Patriarchs and Heads of Churches in Jerusalem reiterate that they alone represent the Churches and their flock in matters pertaining to Christian religious, communal, and pastoral life in the Holy Land."

It is more than probable that the unnamed individuals to whom the statement refers were the guests of Mike Huckabee, the United States Ambassador, at a meeting that took place on January 9th: principally Shadi Khalloul, a Maronite former IDF spokesman and leader of the "Israeli Christian Aramaic Association", an organization promoting the integration of Oriental Christians into Israel's civic life; and especially Ihab Shlayan, a retired IDF colonel and Eastern Orthodox Christian who founded the "Forum for Christian Enlistment in the Israeli military". I do not know the extent to which Mike Huckabee adheres to dispensationalism in the Darbyian sense, but one thing is certain: his two doctrinally suspect guests do not. What, then, is the connection between the activities of these two individuals and the "damaging ideology," to quote the statement, called "Christian Zionism"?

In an official meeting with King Abdullah of Jordan on March 11, 2025, William Shomali, Auxiliary Bishop of the Latin Patriarchate, provided a simplified explanation of Christian Zionism. During that meeting, he "...reaffirmed the Catholic Church's rejection of any interpretation that seeks to claim the land of Palestine for the Jewish people based on the Torah, as promoted by Christian Zionism in the United States."^[2] However, there is a key difference between Darbyian Christian Zionism and Bishop Shomali's definition: evangelical Zionism presents a vision of the purpose and destiny of the State of Israel, while Bishop Shomali's explanation addresses the religious justification for the very existence of the State of Israel—calling it purely ideological and false. In fact, this seemingly American "Christian Zionism" seems to overlap with what former Patriarch Michel Sabbah describes in his 1993 Pastoral Letter as the understanding of Zionism held by some Jews:

"Though many other Jews have different views, some of them, by what they say and sincerely believe, seem to confirm the fears and anguish of the Palestinians. They maintain that the land has been given to them by God. Such is their title to the exclusive ownership of the whole of the Promised Land."^[3]

Apparently, the sin of American Christian Zionists lies precisely in adopting this Israeli religious version of Zionism. In this context, Christian Zionism is unrelated to Darbyian dispensationalism. Besides, if Shomali's definition indeed reflects what the Patriarchs and heads of Churches have in mind when they condemn 'Christian Zionism,' then the conclusion reads: any activity promoting the welfare of the State of Israel in its present form—such as those undertaken by Khalloul and Shlayan—would amount to supporting an entity founded upon a theological lie. Note that the condemnation of this kind of Christian Zionism combines two claims: first, that the ultimate justification for Israel's right to exist is theological, based on an interpretation of Old Testament promises to the Jewish nation; second, that this interpretation is mistaken from a Christian perspective.

I leave the Patriarchs and Heads of the local Churches free to accept, deny, or correct my interpretation of what they imply by "Christian Zionism" in their statement. What I wish to interrogate is the Catholic Church's position on this very matter. Is it true that the Jewish concept of Zionism is unacceptable from a Catholic point of view? Or is it possible to be at once a faithful Catholic, true to the teaching of one's Church, and a genuine Zionist in the Jewish sense of the term, without thereby becoming an ecclesial outcast?

There seems to be some confusion about the Latin Patriarchate's role in the January 17 statement. Some online sources confirm it,^[4] while others question this account.^[5] The confusion may be intentional, designed to appease both sides in the conflict at once. That said, I argue that this hesitation reflects a doctrinal "grey zone" regarding the legitimacy—or lack thereof—of the State of Israel in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Nothing is more intriguing than grey zones, since truth often hides within them. Let us therefore examine the current Catholic stance, both magisterial and less magisterial, starting with the most obvious and undeniable elements.

From this perspective, the first thing to note is the 1993 signature of the Fundamental Agreement between the Holy See and the State of Israel. Whatever concrete provisions give substance to the document—the establishment of the Catholic community and its activities in Israel, questions of taxation, and so forth—this agreement in itself constitutes an ipso facto recognition of the legitimacy of the State of Israel: not of a particular regime, as canon law specifies, but of the entity that transcends the succession of regimes claiming to embody the state. Since this document concerns the relationship between two sovereign states, its Preamble implicitly recognizes the Jewish character of this state that partners with the Holy See. We read: "Aware of the unique nature of the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people, and of the historic process of reconciliation and growth in mutual understanding and friendship between Catholics and Jews…" Significantly, the document refers to Israel's 1948 Declaration of Independence in Article 1: "The State of Israel, recalling its Declaration of Independence, affirms its continuing commitment to uphold and observe the human right to freedom of religion…"

As is well known, the Declaration of Independence does not ground the state's right to exist on a theological claim, such as God's promises, but on historical fact and human social reality. The opening sentence recalls that "the Land of Israel [Palestine] was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here, their spiritual, religious, and political identity was shaped." To claim that God's promises serve as the ultimate justification for Jews to inhabit this land would be disputable in the eyes of those who do not share the Jewish faith in these promises. However, to assert that the historical fact of the Jewish presence in this land provided the setting in which the memory of these divine promises was recorded is undeniable—and this is precisely one implication of the Declaration's second sentence: "Here [Jews] first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books."

Clearly, a presence more than two thousand years old, followed by a period of less than perfect absence, does not automatically justify establishing a political state based on the return of the alleged descendants of the original population. If that were the principle, Manhattan Island would have to be returned to the current descendants of the Algonquin-speaking tribes who once inhabited it—and that absence dates back barely more than four centuries! Aware of this objection, the authors of the Declaration also pointed to a social reality: "The catastrophe which recently befell the Jewish people—the massacre of millions of Jews in Europe—was another clear demonstration of the urgency of solving the problem of their homelessness by re-establishing the Jewish State in Eretz-Israel." We must conclude that, for the nations that supported the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, the tragic situation of the Jews after the Holocaust was a sufficient reason for their return to their historical and spiritual homeland. Whether these nations were justified or not in their decision, the fact remains that it had no theological basis—it claims validity regardless of beliefs about the truth and ongoing relevance of God's promises to the Jewish people.

This position echoes the Catholic Church's 1985 document, Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism: "The existence of the State of Israel and its political options should be viewed not from a solely religious perspective, but in relation to the common principles of international law" (IV,1). In a 1993 interview, John Paul II confirmed that this reference to international law implies the legitimacy of the State of Israel in the eyes of the Catholic Church: "It must be understood that Jews who for 2000 years were dispersed among the nations of the world had decided to return to the land of their ancestors. This is their right, and this right is recognized even by those who look upon the nation of Israel with an unsympathetic eye. This right was recognized from the outset by the Holy See, and the act of establishing diplomatic relations with Israel is simply an international affirmation of this relationship."^[6] One might also cite Benedict XVI's warm, albeit carefully chosen, words on the occasion of the accreditation of Israel's ambassador in 2009: "The Holy See joins you in giving thanks to the Lord that the aspirations of the Jewish people for a home in the land of their fathers have been fulfilled."^[7]

In summary, the idea that, from a Catholic perspective, only theology can provide a valid justification for the existence of the State of Israel is mistaken, pace Bishop Shomali. The question must therefore be reframed: in addition to Israel's recognized legal right to exist under international law, can the state also claim a valid theological basis for its existence? Certainly, no political state except the Holy See would bother to settle such a matter. However, since the Holy See represents the Catholic Church—a Church that asserts it is established and organized according to God's will as revealed in Jesus Christ—it cannot avoid addressing this issue seriously. Moreover, the Church has been engaged, at least since the Second Vatican Council, in significant theological dialogue with certain Jewish religious authorities. It happens that, for most of these authorities, the fact of the Jewish state's existence and continued existence—the conatus sese conservandi, to borrow Spinoza's phrase—is viewed as an effect of God's providence toward Israel. Bishop Shomali's 2025 statement was, in a sense, a response to a rabbi's invitation, a member of an official delegation hosted at the Vatican, for the Pope to recognize Israel as "the Jews' eternal homeland."

Here, on the theological justification of the state, the position of the Catholic magisterium is far less clear—or far more cautious, if you prefer—than on the purely political justification. This is the grey zone I mentioned earlier. Let us now venture into it.

II. Discussing a Catholic Theological Justification for the Existence of the State of Israel

The 1975 Statement of the Conference of United States Bishops on Catholic-Jewish Relations, a declaration issued on the tenth anniversary of Nostra Aetate, underscores the necessity for Christians to apprehend the ancestral bond between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel: "Whatever difficulties Christians may experience in sharing this view they should strive to understand this link between land and people which Jews have expressed in their writings and worship throughout two millennia as a longing for the homeland, holy Zion." (par. 3). Yet in the same breath, the statement draws a careful distinction between empathic understanding of this Jewish attachment and theological endorsement of it: "Appreciation of this link is not to give assent to any particular religious interpretation of this bond." Paragraph 6 of the 1985 Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism, a document emanating from the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews to which I referred earlier, voices the same position in nearly identical terms: "Christians are invited to understand this religious attachment which finds its roots in Biblical tradition, without however making their own any particular religious interpretation of this relationship."

What these two statements mean, I take it, is that Catholics ought not to deploy the resources of their own theological tradition to justify any particular political implementation of the bond between Jews and the Land of Israel—even when the Sacred Scriptures they share with Jews attest to the divine origins of that bond. If this is so, the existence of the State of Israel, which constitutes the most consequential mode of such a bond's political realization, must remain extraneous to any Catholic attempt at theological justification. The 1975 US statement indicates why such an endeavour is deemed unwelcome: "This affirmation [of the link between the Land and the Jewish people] is not meant to deny the legitimate rights of other parties in the region, or to adopt any political stance in the controversies over the Middle East." In other words, the apprehension is that a theological justification of the State of Israel would ultimately compromise the principle of equal justice for all the region's inhabitants. Here, distinct theological registers—the biblical and the social—interfere with one another, producing a palpable tension within the documents.

The 2015 document "The Gifts and the Calling of God Are Irrevocable", issued by the Vatican Commission, reaffirms the stance outlined in the 1985 Notes: recognition of the State of Israel based on international law, not religious grounds. At the same time, it goes beyond previous declarations in its recognition of the strong connection between the Jewish people and the Land. The document not only refers to this bond as an aspect of Jewish ancestral faith that Catholics should respect but also describes "the permanence of Israel" as "a historic fact and a sign to be interpreted within God's design" (5; also 1985 Notes, section VI, 1). This suggests that God—the same God Catholics worship—is involved in the ongoing existence of the Jewish nation. Now, if the permanence of Israel is, as the document states, more than a simple fact but a sign of God's providence—and one might think of the Hebrew word "sign," ot, which also implies a miracle—then what more powerful sign of this permanence could there be than the creation and even more, the survival of the State of Israel following the Shoah? The inference is my own, of course. Still, we should remember that the document celebrates "the eternal validity of the divine covenant with the Jewish people," emphasizing that the First Covenant, between God and the Jewish people, remains in effect even after the establishment of the Second and eternal Covenant, that between Christ and all of humankind.

John Paul II was the first pope to declare that the "Old Covenant" had never been "revoked by God," in his 1980 address to the Jewish community of Mainz. This teaching was later included in the 1991 Catechism of the Catholic Church: "The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked" (CCC 121). Building on this, the authors of the 2015 document drew inspiration from Paul's Epistle to the Romans. The gifts to the people of Israel that Paul describes as irrevocable in Romans 11:29 are listed in Romans 9:4: "Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises."

If these gifts are truly irrevocable—whatever they may be—then by the permanence of the First Covenant in the age of the Second, it no longer seems so outlandish from a Catholic perspective—nor so "American evangelical," to borrow Bishop Shomali's phrase—to believe they might produce divinely willed effects in our own time, despite their ancient origins. Specifically, what does Paul include among the irrevocable "promises" made to the Jewish people? Could these promises include the Land? If so, it would mean that the return of the Jews to the Land of Israel fulfils the promise God made to Abraham. We are then not far from the theological justification of the State of Israel, which causes such anxiety among our local Patriarchs and Church Leaders. However, as I mentioned earlier, the Catholic magisterium stops short of affirming this. The 2015 document, while celebrating the irrevocable nature of the gifts to the Jewish people, refrains from endorsing the establishment of the State of Israel from any perspective other than that of international law.

The question arises: how should we interpret this hesitation? Is there a Catholic theological explanation for it? Or does it come from somewhere else?

Several hierarchs and scholars have tried to show that God's promise to Abraham cannot be the basis for the existence of the State of Israel, according to solid Catholic theology. The book by Marchadour and Neuhaus, The Land, the Bible, and History, which I mentioned earlier, can be considered among them in many ways. Notably, when discussing Romans 9:4, the authors state rather abruptly and without further explanation that "…in his list of divine gifts to Israel, eternally valid according to the plan of God, Paul makes no mention of the Land, despite it being a promised gift in the Old Testament" (p. 80). Yet what are these promises if not, primarily, the gift of the Land to His people? In the Book of Deuteronomy alone, God repeats this oath thirty-four times. On the same page, referencing the "spiritualization of the Land" they see in the New Testament, the same authors write: "The body of Christ replaces the Land as the source of food that nourishes and gives life (cf. 1 Cor 10–11; my emphasis)."

In general, it is hard to shake the feeling that all such attempts partake of what R. Kendall Soulen has defined as "economic supersessionism": "…the view that according to God's plan…, the carnal household of Israel served as a temporary and provisional model for the international household of the church. With the coming of Christ, the carnal household has been replaced by the spiritual household, and the former no longer enjoys any special status in God's sight."^[8]

The main message of Marchadour and Neuhaus's book is that the tangible land given to a specific people in the Old Testament has been both spiritualized by Jesus Christ and his followers—transformed into the Kingdom of God, which we must seek and wait for at the end of times—and universalized to include all of humanity: Israel's promises are now fulfilled in the Church, the Body of Christ. To summarize: Jewish particularism and Realpolitik give way to Christ's universalization and spiritualization. One wonders, of course, what role remains for the Jews in the age of the New Testament.

However, one is entitled to ask: For what reason should the ideas of a spiritual Kingdom of God and a community of disciples proclaiming Christ's salvation to the four corners of the earth override the unique bond between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel? Jerusalem exemplifies the Jewish connection to the Land. In the Book of Micah (1:5), we read "…what are the high places of Judah? Are they not Jerusalem?" The least one can say is that Jerusalem, in all its concrete and physical dimensions, is part of the New Testament—and not merely as a place that Jesus occasionally visited and in which he happened to die. Jerusalem has a future, even if a dismal one, according to the words of Jesus recorded in Luke 21:24:

"…Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

Who, then, is meant to come—or rather to return—to Jerusalem when the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled? Does not Paul echo the very words of Christ in Romans 11:25–26 : "…a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved"?

Tellingly, Marchadour and Neuhaus, writing about the Book of Acts, claim that "Jesus' life and teaching have altered the concept of the Land." (pp.81-82, my emphasis). Here is how they comment on the answer of the risen Christ to the question of the apostles in Acts 1:6—"Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?" I quote: "Formed by the glorious, earthly representations of the kingdom, the disciples understandably expect the restoration of Israel's kingdom and want to know when it will come about. However, Jesus invites them to renounce this feverish anticipation of the end times and calls on them to receive the kingdom and proclaim it." (p. 82, my emphasis).

In point of fact, the answer of Jesus reads: "It is not for you to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority" (Acts 1:7). How, I ask, can anyone interpret this answer as an exhortation to "renounce" the hope of a Jewish restoration of the kingdom, and instead join a spiritual, dejudaized kingdom already at hand? Indeed, what should prevent the one and true heavenly King from restoring the earthly kingdom of Israel when, as he himself declares, the appointed times and periods have come; that is, after the message of salvation has been spread to the four corners of the earth, as he indicates in the same passage?

I believe that Patriarch Sabbah's fourth pastoral letter carries us a step further along the path travelled by Marchadour and Neuhaus. Here, biblical supersessionism begins to shade into Marcionism—not in the technical, heresiological sense, but in the common, as it were, "natural" Marcionism that continues to pervade the minds of good Christians six decades after Nostra Aetate. Sabbah denounces the notion of "holy war," which he associates with the Old Testament, while noting that it still has followers in our age. I quote:

"By 'religious war', the believer claims he is using force or violence to defend the rights of God. He maintains he is acting in God's name, and he allows himself to destroy or to kill in God's name. … This phenomenon closely resembles certain manifestations of violence in the Old Testament, is a frequent occurrence in the history of all religions, and is still present in people's psychology in our day. It is not only in biblical times that violence is attributed to God; the same mentality continues in our times as well." (§44)

Evidently, Sabbah has the local situation very much in mind. I quote again:

"In the conflict which is now coming to an end [Sabbah wrote after the conclusion of the Oslo Accords], it would appear for some people in the Holy Land today that the same violence is being repeated in the name of the Bible. There are indeed some who wish to continue using the Bible to justify their struggle."

One genuinely wonders who these wicked people might be.

Meanwhile, the "holy war mentality" supposedly inherited from the Old Testament is presented as directly opposing the teaching of the New - which is exactly why the latter broke with the former. I quote: "The law of love replaces the 'lex talionis' (eye for eye, tooth for tooth), and brings about a revolution which demands love even of our enemies" (§41).

As a matter of historical record, the notion of "holy war" is a Christian invention, not a Jewish one. One must look to Emperor Heraclius's campaigns to reconquer Jerusalem and salvage the Holy Cross from the Persians in the seventh century for its origins. Around the same period, the concept of jihad emerged in the Islamic world. As for the medieval Crusades, waged in the name of "the religion of love" extolled by Patriarch Sabbah, they remain the consummate instance of what "holy wars" truly are. Admittedly, this concept might be retrospectively extended to the conquest of Canaan under Joshua. But we are not talking about the Israelite conquest in itself; we are discussing its application to the contemporary phenomenon of Zionism. The key question is whether and to what extent the "Christian Zionism" denounced in the recent declaration by the Patriarchs and Heads of the Churches should be equated with the apology for "holy war" in this Christian sense of the term.

The truth is that between unilateral pacifism and "holy war," the Catholic tradition has developed and maintained a third concept: that of "just war." Observing that neither Jesus (Matthew 8) nor John the Baptist (Luke 3:14) nor any New Testament writer had questioned the necessity of legitimate armed forces, Augustine formulated the principle that a war is just when essentially defensive and, in some cases, punitive (The City of God, Book XIX). The supporters of Michel Sabbah's "religion of love" who fought against Arab forces at Poitiers in 732, Ottoman armies at Lepanto in 1571, and defeated the Ottoman siege at Vienna in 1683 harboured no doubt that they were exercising their legitimate right of self-defence. There was no "holy war" here—only "just war." Over the centuries, canon law has naturally refined this concept, including, among other elements, the requirement of proportionate force, as seen in article 2309 of the current Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Let us turn now to the implementation of the Zionist ideal and ask whether it is legitimate to apply to it the contentious label of "holy war" rather than the —if I may—"Catholically kosher" designation of "just war."

Following Edward Said, and especially in our disorienting and perilous times, it has become commonplace to compare the creation of the State of Israel to the biblical conquest of Canaan, with the added suggestion that this time the conquest was not just carried out by a band of Jewish wanderers, but was the result of a colonial conspiracy orchestrated by the Western world. However, when discussing the military aspect of the Land's conquest in a strict sense, it is difficult to blame the mostly impoverished Zionist pioneers. By 1948, the British had laid the groundwork for nearly two decades. And before the British, allow me to ask, who had conquered this piece of land in ages past, wresting it from the Byzantines? Indeed, if any imperial power, through a succession of dynasties, ever elevated the notion of holy war—that is, aggressive military action in the name of God—to the rank of a religious imperative, I submit that this ethos does not adequately describe the Jewish nation during its two thousand years of exile. Or was it the State of Israel that, relying on surprise, suddenly launched attacks on Arab nations that were in a military alliance in 1948, 1967, and 1973? To this catalogue of surprise attacks, I would of course add a certain 7th of October, 2023.

Now, if the State of Israel responded militarily in each of these instances, was defending its very existence and future not enough justification, without the additional necessity of cloaking itself in the mantle of a jealous and exclusive biblical deity?

One may, of course, object that the denunciation of "Christian Zionism" is mainly aimed at extremist views held by certain Israeli politicians allied with the settler movement. Very well: let us consider the worst-case scenario. Let us imagine a government controlled entirely by such religious extremists—a government freed from the tensions that continue to strain relations between settlers on one side and the Israeli police and the IDF on the other, a government that feels entitled to violate all international agreements and commit every manner of exaction against the Palestinian population in the name of its God-given right. I ask: What does this have to do with Christian Zionism? Claiming that the God of Israel stands behind the existence of the State of Israel and its policies as long as they remain legitimate and faithful to His covenant does not entail that God will continue to endorse those policies once they cease to be such. The thing is, Christian Zionism has never suggested that. One can criticize specific policies of the current government without abandoning a deep commitment to the cause of Zionism. On the contrary, it is precisely because one believes in genuine Zionism that a Christian, just as so many Israeli Jews, may feel compelled to criticize certain governmental policies.

I believe the real question lies elsewhere. I strongly suspect that the underlying issue with Zionism, in the eyes of its critics, is not that Jews are eager to wage wars in the name of their putative biblical God. Rather, it is that they tend to win these wars—especially when they are just, in the Catholic canonical sense of the term. In fairness, I understand this winning-habit is quite unforgivable. At the same time, there is something interesting in the half-baked narrative that refuses to hear about it. I am not merely referring to the degree of Judeophobia and antisemitism that is closely linked to it. I am talking about Jewish victory as a genuine theological problem from a Catholic point of view. With this observation, I arrive at the final point of this presentation.

III. Ecclesial Supersessionism

In an article published in a 2018 issue of the journal Communio, Pope Benedict XVI expressed concern that recognizing the theological dimension of the state of Israel would legitimize a form of Jewish theocracy, a Glaubenstaat. I quote: "...a Jewish faith-state [Glaubenstaat] that would view itself as the theological and political fulfilment of the promises—is unthinkable within history according to Christian faith and contrary to the Christian understanding of the promises."^[9] There is much to unpack in this statement, and I will do so gradually.

What I want to discuss at this point is the notion of theocracy. It is not sufficient for a state to be linked to a particular religious persuasion to be called a theocracy – otherwise, the United Kingdom and so many archetypal modern democracies should be designated as such. I would argue that a state can be called theocratic to the extent that its connection with a specific religious persuasion is such that it precludes freedom of religion, both legally and practically. Even if problems arise here and there, I hope nobody will dispute that the current state of Israel is not a theocracy in this sense. Now, let us consider the following declaration by a synod of the German Lutheran Church in 1978. It states that "...the realization that the continued existence of the Jewish people, their return to the land of promise, and also the establishment of the state of Israel are signs of God's faithfulness to His people."^[10] Obviously, the nature of this recognition is theological and not merely political. Yet at no point does it provide legitimacy to Israel as a theocratic state, a Glaubenstaat. Once again, that the creation and survival of the state of Israel should be considered as "a sign of God's faithfulness to His people" does not amount to giving this state a blank check to implement blatantly unjust and discriminatory policies. The Church should feel free to denounce policies that do not accord with the state of Israel's high calling. This has particular importance in regard to the Palestinian citizens of Israel, a population to which the Catholic Church has been variously connected throughout her recent and more distant history. However, if the simple fact of the existence of a Jewish state is conceived as an impingement on the legitimate rights of the Palestinian population, a violation of equality in the name of a false Biblical God, then all policies toward Palestinians, even the more benign ones, will always be liable to the accusation of manifesting the theocratic nature of the state. Hence, the necessity of establishing the right of a Jewish state to exist not only on political grounds, but also on correct and precise theological ones.

As I said earlier, the latest developments of the Catholic magisterium all push in this direction. When the Church affirms the permanence of the First Covenant in the age of the Second, she can no longer endorse the various forms of biblical supersessionism I mentioned earlier. The promises to the uniquely blessed nation that would stem from Abraham's womb are still valid. So why all the promises except the promise of the Land? The step that would see the Catholic Church issue a statement similar to that of the Lutheran Church I just quoted seems so small and so logical – a small step for the Catholic Church, yet a giant leap for all humankind, beginning with its Jewish component – that one cannot but wonder at what appears to be a perfect avoidance tactic.

I understand that the Catholic hierarchy fears the reactions that such recognition would inevitably trigger among the Palestinian population and the entire Arab world. I would like to offer two responses. The first can be summed up in a single question: Will the Church of Jesus Christ and all the prophets of Israel, the Church of John the Baptist and Paul, the Church of the apostles and all the martyrs, truly give in to the fear of a public backlash when the truth of what she believes in is at stake?

The second point directly connects to the issue we are discussing. I would argue that the threat of a backlash, although it might occupy the minds of those in charge, obfuscates something else—a much deeper theological concern. This concern, in my view, is at the heart of the Catholic "problem" with the current state of Israel. Allow me to highlight another aspect related to Benedict XVI's earlier statement: "…a Jewish faith-state [Glaubenstaat] that would see itself as the theological and political fulfilment of the promises—is unthinkable within history according to Christian faith and contrary to the Christian understanding of the promises." What exactly is this "history according to Christian faith" that Pope Benedict refers to as the "Christian understanding of the promises"?

We have all read about the response that Pius X gave to Theodor Herzl in January 1904, when Herzl asked the Pope to support relocating part of the European Jewish population to Palestine: "The soil of Jerusalem is sacred in the life of Jesus Christ. As head of the Church, I cannot say otherwise. The Jews did not acknowledge Our Lord, and thus we cannot recognize the Jewish people. Hence, if you go to Palestine and if the Jewish people settle there, our churches and our priests will be ready to baptize you all." ^[11] This understanding has long shaped the Vatican's stance towards the Zionist movement. In 1943, a note prepared by the Secretary of State for the Pope stated: "the Holy See has always been opposed to Jewish control of" Palestine. [Pope] Benedict XV took successful action to prevent Palestine from becoming a Jewish state."^[12] Hence, the Vatican campaign to dissuade UN member-countries from voting in favour of establishing the state of Israel in 1947. One day before the proclamation of Israel's statehood, the Osservatore Romano published the following lines: "Modern Zionism is not the true heir of biblical Israel...Therefore, the Holy Land and its sacred sites belong to Christianity, which is the true Israel."^[13]

Let me ask: Where is the concern for the Palestinian population here? As Pope Pius X's words to Herzl indicate, the underlying argument was strictly theological and touched on the parallel destinies of Christianity and Judaism. If Christianity is true, then the Jews who rejected Christ were wrong, and they had been punished by God. Their dispersion and banishment from Jerusalem were manifestations of their divine punishment and the ongoing proof of their error. This was nothing if not arch-traditional Christian doctrine. I would argue that this fundamental view was also behind the Vatican's vocal concerns about the Christian sacred places in Jerusalem and in Palestine if they fell under Jewish control – an attitude that gave rise to a protracted and unsuccessful campaign to internationalize Jerusalem and the Christian sacred places. All the reassurances provided by the new Israeli authorities that Church properties would be safeguarded and that freedom of worship would be strictly respected did little to assuage the Vatican's concerns. Indeed, this was not so much a material issue as a question of principle. Jewish control meant Jewish control. The Jews would regain the upper hand in Jerusalem, with a position of authority over the Christian clergy and Church properties, a prospect that was hardly acceptable according to the official theological narrative of the Catholic Church. At the very end of the 1950s, on the eve of the Second Vatican Council, Mgr Tardini, the leading Vatican negotiator with the Israeli authorities, could confide to Cardinal Tisserant that 'there is no possibility of contact or negotiations with the killers of God.'^[14]

Viewed in the longue durée of history, this initial Catholic response to Zionism has deep roots. The anxiety that Jews might regain control over Jerusalem is palpable at key moments of Byzantine history, such as when Emperor Julian the Apostate invited Jews to rebuild the Temple toward the end of the 4th century. According to John Chrysostom, Julian, "courting the Jews", was "...hoping to cancel out the sentence passed by Christ which forbade the rebuilding of the temple. But He who catches the wise in their craftiness straightway made clear to him by His action that the decrees of God are mightier than any man's".^[15] Two and a half centuries later, following rumours that the Sassanides had allowed the newly appointed Jewish governor of Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple, Christians announced the advent of the Antichrist, as in the Apocalypsis of Ps. Methodius. This is the moment when, as I mentioned earlier, Emperor Heraclius launched the first Christian Holy War and subsequently had all the Jews of the Empire forcibly baptized, a measure upon which Pope Pius X would have looked favourably, according to his own words to Theodor Herzl.

As is well-known, the 1965 Nostra Aetate declaration significantly dented this traditional Christian narrative regarding the punishment of the Jewish nation, scattered worldwide without a home due to their critical infidelitas. Still, one must consider not only the physical re-establishment of Jews on the Land, but also what its theological justification would mean for the Catholic Church. Benedict XVI does not speak of "history according to Christian faith" and "the Christian understanding of the promises" without reason. What we are dealing with is the Church's fundamental self-understanding from the beginning of the Patristic era. Actually, I could go as far back as the Epistle of Barnabas and Justin's Dialogue with Trypho in the second century. I will be satisfied with quoting St. Jerome, at the beginning of the fifth century, because he summarizes this doctrine in the simplest way possible:

"Therefore, after the synagogue, through its infidelity, had been cast off, the Gentiles succeeded in its place; and to them was transferred, in full measure, every grace that had been given to the synagogue."^[16]

This is no longer the Biblical supersessionism I discussed earlier; that is, the idea that the teaching of Christ modifies the teaching of the Old Testament in order to reveal its perfect accomplishment. This is what I would call ecclesial supersessionism: the establishment of the Church worldwide is the demonstration that she henceforth carries God's blessing, by contrast to the currently derelict Jewish nation. In this configuration, how could the Church theologically justify an event, the creation of the state of Israel, that seems to undermine the very theological narrative on which the Church rests? As Yakov Herzog, then involved in the negotiations with the Vatican, dryly stated in 1953: "[It was the Jews'] prophecy [which]... stood the test of time. The essence of [the] church's dogma in its relation to the Jews was being shattered before [the Pope's] eyes... [Hence] if reality would not conform to his dreams, it would have to be destroyed."^[17]

Pope Benedict XVI saw in the Church the accomplishment of all the Biblical promises as his 2018 article in the journal Communio made clear. He was also deeply worried about the direction of world history, especially the galloping process of secularization in the Western world. How could he have made room for a historical process that was no longer "according to Christian faith" because, this time, it pointed towards an eschatological achievement that could no longer be identified with the Church of Jesus Christ and even highlighted the decline of the latter's global influence? At a more fundamental level, if the Church is willed by God, because Christian faith is the true faith, how could God at the same time be behind the establishment of a state run by those who inherently dismiss the true faith?

I do not think any Catholic theologian has addressed this issue with the seriousness that it requires. One option is to claim that the whole Zionist idea and its apparent success are deceptive, that they are the work of the Antichrist, the implication being that, in truth, the Jews can only momentarily escape the divine punishment sealed by their denial of Christ's messiahship. Apparently, several self-styled Catholic theologians are busy propagating these views. However, I cannot begin to fathom how these opinions could be reconciled with the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. Now, if we decide to be faithful to the latter, I believe we have no choice but to revise a theologoumenon that, as I said, goes back to the origins of the Church. This is not to say that the Church is deprived of God's favour, but that this favour does not exclude God's ongoing providence toward the nation that He chose first.

To those who ask how God could grant His favour to those who dismiss the true faith, the only possible reply is another question: how could God have preserved the nation of the First Covenant otherwise? If the Church is really destined by God to be a universal body, how could the Jewish nation not have dissolved in it, had all Jews become its members? We are led back to Paul's teaching in his epistle to the Romans. Do not pride yourselves over Jews, Gentiles, because it is through the stumbling of the Jewish nation that you have been integrated into the heritage of Israel: "... through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!" (Rom 11:11-12).

What emerges here is a two-voice eschatology. Not only the Jews, not only the Church, but both the Church and the Jewish nation at the same time. It might well be that the fate of the world hangs upon their mutual recognition as brothers. This has nothing to do with cold international agreements. What I have in mind is the mutual recognition of two sons of one and the same Heavenly Father. We remember the words that John Paul II pronounced upon meeting the chief rabbi at the great synagogue of Rome in 1986: "I am Joseph, your brother". As true as I believe these words to be, I think they reflect only one side of this bi-millennial conflict between brothers. Joseph is the figure of Christ rejected by his Jewish brothers, for sure. But what about the boundless, bottomless wounds inflicted by the Church on the Jewish nation throughout her almost 2000 years of existence? How does that differ from the murderous inability to recognize the face of Christ in the nation of his Jewish brothers and sisters? The truth is that innocent Joseph stands on both sides, the Catholic and the Jewish ones, just like his unworthy brothers.

As in the biblical story, there must always be one side of the conflict, one brother among the brothers, to be the first to recognize and acknowledge the others. On the path opened by the Second Vatican Council, the ultimate acknowledgment of the Jewish nation by the Catholic Church is the theological recognition of their right to exist as a state and to defend their collective existence. How can you say that you are my brother, the one I lost a very long time ago, if you do not acknowledge that I exist, that I have survived the pit where you left me—because God did not abandon me? How can you say that you care about my life if you dismiss my right to exist, to survive, and to thrive?

The right of the state of Israel to exist is not based on theology, but on a series of historical, political, and social reasons. This, however, does not mean it lacks genuine and legitimate theological foundations. Beyond political recognition of the state of Israel, the Catholic Church must acknowledge God's given right for the state of Israel to exist and flourish. Being a Christian and a Zionist is not a heresy. It is not even a possibility. It is a necessity if the Church wants to remain faithful to her Lord and God. I sincerely hope my Church will take this step. If she does, it is not impossible that, after some unpredictable years, decades, or centuries, Jews will eventually recognize the face of Joseph, their brother, hidden beneath the strange robes of the Catholic Church: the purple of a foreign royalty blended inseparably with the redness of Jewish blood.

Antoine Lévy was born in Paris in 1962. He joined the Dominican Order in 1991. A priest and Doctor in Theology, he worked as an adjunct professor at the Univ. of Helsinki and Eastern Finland. He is the author of several books and numerous articles. He is currently established in Jerusalem and conducts research at the Department of Philosophy at the University of Tel Aviv.

• Netanyahu, Genghis Khan, and Catholic Doctrine
• Childlike Innocence or Just War? Reconciling the New Testament with the Old
• The Pope and the Cheshire Cat
• Load more articles from this author