For a long time now, there have been intense conflicts over issues related to the nation-state of Israel, the Jewish people more broadly, and the religion of Judaism in particular. This has been true globally, nationally, and—our focus here—within Catholic circles. Such conflicts have recently reached a boiling point.
A contributing factor to the controversies is the difficulty of disambiguating those three categories. While there is of course overlap between them, they are not, strictly speaking, identical. There are observers of Judaism who are not ethnically Jewish. There are ethnic Jews who are not religious. Most people who identify—religiously or otherwise—as Jewish do not reside in the nation-state of Israel. (According to a 2023 estimate, approximately 46 percent of Jews lived in Israel at that time.) Furthermore, a significant portion of Israelis are not Jewish.
To make matters even more confusing, a report from The Times of Israel notes that “strikingly, a large portion of [Israel’s] population is secular,” adding that “most Israeli Jews are not diligent observers of Judaism.” The basis of this report is as follows: “An Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics survey published in 2021 found that among Israeli Jews over the age of 20, about 45 percent identified as secular or not religious, while 33% said they practiced ‘traditional’ religious worship. Ultra-Orthodox Jews, known as Haredim in Hebrew, made up 10%.” The status of the remaining 12 percent is not given. (Do self-identified Christians fare any better? I’m not sure.)
All too often, however, imprecise language is used when talking about Israel, Jews, and Judaism. The distinction between these categories can get lost during commentary, especially in discussions about either Zionism or anti-Semitism.
Accordingly, I would like to address issues regarding Zionism, anti-Semitism, and Israel, drawing substantially from an article penned by then Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI: “Grace and Vocation Without Remorse.”
Zionism is probably the most convoluted of the terms. It is used in a variety of ways, and it is both supported and opposed for a number of disparate reasons. For our purposes, we can start with the movement as founded by Theodor Herzl. In the face of persecutions (including pogroms) against Jews in various lands, Zionism sought “to give a home to the displaced, poor, and suffering Jews” (178). Herzl’s wishes were not immediately realized. Eventually, two factors—the Shoah and the downfall of the Ottoman Empire—converged, leading world leaders to establish a Jewish state in the Holy Land in 1948.
Not everyone involved had precisely the same motives, however. As Benedict XVI notes, “A majority of Zionists were unbelievers, and it was under secular conditions that they made the land a home for the Jewish people. But religious forces were also always at work in Zionism” (178). In other words, some but not all—and ostensibly not even most—of the Zionists at the time of the modern nation-state of Israel’s founding were involved for theological reasons.
The predominant view among Catholic theologians has been that the modern nation-state of Israel that began in 1948 has nothing to do with either biblical prophecies or the promises made to Abraham.
Early Zionism was controversial within the Catholic Church. “From the beginning, however,” Benedict XVI reports, “the dominant position was that a theologically-understood acquisition of land (in the sense of a new political messianism) was unacceptable. . . . At its core is the conviction that a strictly theologically-understood state—a Jewish faith-state [Glaubensstaat] that would view itself as the theological and political fulfillment of the promises—is unthinkable within history according to Christian faith and contrary to the Christian understanding of the promises” (178). In other words, the predominant view among Catholic theologians has been that the modern nation-state of Israel that began in 1948 has nothing to do with either biblical prophecies or the promises made to Abraham.
This Catholic view contradicts the views espoused by certain Christian Zionists, such as Paula White-Cain, who has served as the first leader of the White House Faith Office since February 2025. She also serves as a member of the Religious Liberty Commission. According to an article on the Paula White Ministries website, she believes that God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:3 (“I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you”) “relates not only to the Jewish people but also to the nation of Israel. . . . We are called to STAND with ISRAEL! This isn’t about politics; this is about living in harmony with the WORD of God!”
This view was also endorsed recently by Senator Ted Cruz during an interview with Tucker Carlson. From this vantage point, these figures think that supporting the modern nation-state of Israel and its political actions is a biblical mandate. Their position seems to be even more religiously motivated than that of the majority of the original Jewish Zionists themselves. Again, this type of Christian Zionism is not the Catholic view.
But here is where confusion is liable to enter. Just because Catholic doctrine does not view the modern nation-state of Israel as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy or promises does not mean that Catholics must be against the nation-state of Israel as such. On this point, we return to Benedict XVI’s article. After clearly stating that the Catholic view does not understand the current nation of Israel as a theological entity, Benedict adds, “At the same time, however, it was made clear that the Jewish people, like every people, had a natural right to their own land. . . . In this sense, the Vatican has recognized the State of Israel as a modern constitutional state, and sees it as a legitimate home of the Jewish people, [even though] the rationale for which cannot be derived directly from Holy Scripture” (178). The modern nation-state of Israel is not what the Bible is referring to when it speaks of Israel, but the nation of Israel can be supported for other reasons.
Thus, when one speaks of “the right of Israel to exist,” one ought to differentiate the reasons one asserts this right. Claiming that the nation-state of Israel has a right to exist because the Bible says so is something entirely different than claiming that the Jewish people have a right to their own nation according to natural law. The fact that Zionism can be used to describe either position only exacerbates the confusion.
Hence, definitional clarity is paramount. I suspect that when they hear the term Zionism, many people nowadays immediately presume biblical and theological motivations. Perhaps the term is not very helpful for that reason. For other reasons, Adam Gregerman, professor of theology at St. Joseph’s University, concurs regarding the term’s limited utility. As Gina Christian quotes him, “‘Zionism is the name for the movement for Jewish national self-determination and sovereignty in the land of Israel,’ [Gregerman] said. ‘It is actually moot in the present and a largely useless term, since that’s over, unless one is contesting whether the movement’s accomplishments are currently illegitimate,’ which he said ‘is a whole other discussion, and not about Zionism but about morality and the lives of Israelis today.’”
A fortiori, it would be erroneous to hold that Christians must support any and every means that the Israeli government uses for its political ends.
Practically speaking, Catholics are free to differ on the prudential and political question as to whether Israel should have been constituted when and where it was in 1948. Given that it was established and has existed since then, however, the Vatican does recognize it as a sovereign nation with rights proper to all nations.
Simultaneously, Benedict XVI was insistent that others in the region also had a right to their own land. With respect to the enduring conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people, Pope Benedict XVI supported a two-state solution. In a 2009 address in Tel Aviv, he said, “Let it be universally recognized that the State of Israel has the right to exist, and to enjoy peace and security within internationally agreed borders. Let it be likewise acknowledged that the Palestinian people have a right to a sovereign independent homeland, to live with dignity and to travel freely. Let the two-state solution become a reality, not remain a dream.”
Given recent military conflicts, it must be added that the right to exist and to protect one’s nation does not equate to absolute freedom to use any means whatsoever. One could even be a religious Zionist without supporting the current Israeli administration’s policies. A fortiori, it would be erroneous to hold that Christians must support any and every means that the Israeli government uses for its political ends. The principles of just war theory with its two major components—jus ad bellum (right to war) and jus in bello (justice in war)—apply equally to Israel as to every other nation. Israel’s actions ought to be assessed on those bases.
Even from a biblical perspective, it would be absurd to support every directive of Israel’s government a priori. Throughout the Old Testament, prophets were sent precisely to admonish against the actions of Israel’s leadership. If the actual biblical Israel was not immune from criticism, then how could one deny the possibility of criticizing Israel or Israel’s government today?
Hopefully the foregoing—despite its complexity—is sufficiently clear, even though it is admittedly not exhaustive. Yet, another issue needs to be addressed: anti-Semitism. Even among certain people who insist on distinguishing modern Israel from biblical Israel, there nevertheless can be a practical equation of the two in their rhetoric. At the very least, some of them can exhibit a tendency to combine opposition to Israel’s actions with vitriol for Jewish people in general. Hence, opposition to the actions of Israel’s government—even if legitimate—can quickly devolve in anti-Semitism, which is not legitimate.
As Nostra Aetate states, “The Church . . . decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone” (4). Lest some people assert that this is just some post-Vatican II irenicism, let me cite some older sources. Pope Pius XI, in a 1938 address to a group of Belgian pilgrims plainly stated, “Anti-Semitism is unacceptable.”
If that is not considered ancient enough for some readers, perhaps the words of Pope St. Gregory the Great (d. 604) will suffice. Jews in the Italian city of Naples had issued complaints about being mistreated. In his letter to the bishop of Naples, Gregory responded to these grievances:
Those who sincerely desire to bring those outside the Christian religion to the correct faith should be earnestly engaged in displays of courtesy, not harshness, lest hostility drive far away those whose minds a clearly thought out reason could challenge. For whoever acts otherwise . . . is shown to be more concerned with his own interests than with those of God. . . . This, then, is the agendum: by being encouraged more by reason and gentleness, they are to wish to follow, not flee from, us, so that by showing them what we affirm from their Scriptures, we may be able, with God’s help, to convert them to the bosom of Mother Church.1
Yes, as Catholics, we want everyone—including the Jewish people—to become Catholic and to recognize Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament. This desire is not born out of hatred but out of love, which should be manifested in our treatment of them. Do we really think that insults and anti-Semitic slurs are going to win them over for Christ? Or, as St. Gregory suggests, do such approaches reveal that one’s real motives are selfish (e.g., to sound “based” and gather a following) and not motivated by supernatural charity and concern for their salvation?
Not every Christian who supports Israel holds to Christian Zionism; not everyone who opposes Israel’s actions is an anti-Semite.
When it comes to anti-Semitism, as with Zionism, there can often be a failure to make any sort of proper distinctions. Does one oppose decisions and actions of Israel’s government for objective reasons? Or because one just hates ethnic and/or religious Jews in general? If the former, then why does one need to bring in ethnicity or religion at all? Would it not be more accurate to speak of Israel’s policies and tactics rather than to invoke “the Jews”? Similarly, even if there were any truth to particular conspiracies ascribed to people who happen to be of Jewish descent, why would one have to claim that “the Jews” have done X, Y, or Z, as if such actions are attributable to anyone and everyone who shares their lineage? I have Sicilian ancestry, but I have nothing to do with the mafia. Opposing the mafia is not “anti-Italian,” but it would be such to ascribe mob activity to “Italians” in general rather than to specific perpetrators.
On the flip side, people can also be falsely accused of anti-Semitism. One could hold that it was imprudent to establish the modern state of Israel when and where it was for reasons other than anti-Semitism. Likewise, people can decry specific actions of Israel’s government without being anti-Semitic. Christians can discuss biblical history and the theological implications of ongoing Jewish denial of Jesus as the Messiah without thereby being guilty of anti-Semitism.
Unfortunately, in this day and age, when soundbites, simplistic narratives, and heated emotions often drive public discourse, epithets and accusations can overshadow the real issues at hand. Confusion is compounded by the fact that people can support or oppose the actions of the Israeli government for a wide variety of divergent reasons. Not every Christian who supports Israel holds to Christian Zionism; not everyone who opposes Israel’s actions is an anti-Semite.
Public discussion over the grave unrest happening in the Holy Land and surrounding region is extremely important. Yet, effective discussion can be thwarted when arguments over labels overshadow thoughtful consideration of the objective circumstances and political actions themselves.
Name-calling should not take precedence over sober ethical and political analysis. If one is concerned about Israel’s actions in Gaza or Iran, then one is more likely to gain sympathy if one discusses the factual reasons without mixing in ethnic and religious slurs. Conversely, if one supports Israel’s actions, then one is more likely to be heard if one avoids accusing all who disagree as necessarily anti-Semitic. The diverse opinions on these complex political issues ought to be judged on the merits of the arguments provided, not on some predetermined a priori support for or opposition to Israel purely based on race or religion.
1 Gregory I, Qui sincera, letter to bishop Paschasius of Naples (Nov. 602), in Denzinger: Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals, 43rd ed., ed. Peter Hünermann (Ignatius, 2012), no. 480.