For Zion’s Sake: Why two Catholic theologians are taking a stand for Israel

“For Zion’s Sake: A Catholic Appeal in Support of Israel” is a coordinated Catholic response to what the authors describe as a disturbing post-October 7 trend: the delegitimization of Israel framed in both political and theological terms. The trend is not uniquely Catholic; however, it cannot be ignored in the Church and among some prominent adherents.

Villeneuve, a biblical scholar and founder of Catholics for Israel, and Lévy, a Dominican theologian and author, explain that the appeal emerged from frustration with Catholic voices portraying opposition to Israel as a moral and even doctrinal imperative.

This narrative combines political accusations (apartheid, colonialism, genocide) with a revived supersessionism that denies any theological significance to the Jewish people or the Land of Israel.

The document rejects the notion that the Church has “replaced” Israel. Drawing heavily on biblical verses ranging from the Tanach to the New Testament, Lévy and Villeneuve affirm God’s irrevocable covenant with the Jewish people and highlight the biblical foundation of that, as well as the enduring biblical connection between the people and the land.

For instance, citing Romans 11, the document rejects “every posture of arrogance or condescension toward the Jewish people – the ‘natural branches’ whom St. Paul calls beloved and whose calling he declares irrevocable.”

Referring to the January 1904 meeting between Theodor Herzl and Pope Pius X seeking Catholic support for a Jewish homeland in what was then Ottoman-controlled Palestine, Lévy noted that “the conversation between Theodor Herzl and Pope Pius X... started very, very badly.”

As recorded in Herzl’s diary, the pope said, “We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem, but we could never sanction it.... The Jews have not recognized our Lord; therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.”

Villeneuve added, “You... constantly find memes online from the anti-Israel activists who constantly bring this up... present[ing] this as the timeless Catholic doctrine, forgetting or omitting that... [the statement attributed to the] pope [comes] from Theodor Herzl’s diary. So, it carries zero authority in Catholic tradition.”

Therefore, even presuming the meeting and conversation took place exactly as Herzl depicted, that the Catholic Church never commented on, much less affirmed, it means such views cannot be ascribed as Church doctrine. Nevertheless, both Catholics and Jews have used this as a cornerstone to highlight division.

Since then, Lévy suggested, there has been a trend that fluctuates like a pendulum. “There has been a succession of popes who have been much more sensitive to the history of Jews and what they have been try[ing] to achieve... until the... the recognition of the State of Israel, etc. And now we’re in another phase... where [the position] of the church regarding Jews is being questioned in the light of what is happening in Israel and in the Middle East.”

Sometimes, silence can work in a positive way, in this case with the Church never publicly affirming as doctrine the comments attributed to Pope Pius X, even if that silence is misinterpreted.

However, sometimes silence has a very damaging effect. Specifically in this regard, in the wake of the war against Hamas, the Vatican has been criticized for statements seen as imbalanced at best and overtly critical of Israel, while remaining largely silent on the threats Israel faces, the atrocities it has suffered, and the proliferation of antisemitism.

Today’s silence conjures memories of past pontifical silence during the Holocaust. For Jews and Christian Zionists, the silence of Pope Pius XII during the Holocaust remains a harrowing memory and even an indictment.

A central section of the document addresses the pivotal question: Can a faithful Catholic be a Zionist? The authors define Zionism as the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in its ancestral homeland.

Catholic Zionism, they explain, recognizes God’s faithfulness in the return of the Jewish people, while acknowledging Israel as a human, fallible state subject to moral scrutiny, just like any other state.

They explicitly reject caricatures of Christian Zionism as end times-motivated, ethnic supremacism, or an unconditional political endorsement of any Israeli government or policy.

Both Lévy and Villeneuve emphasized that anti-Zionism functions as a contemporary form of antisemitism, and that is also part of their motivation.

Villeneuve noted the theological inconsistency in affirming God’s irrevocable gifts to Israel while denying any significance to the Jewish return to the land.

Lévy highlighted how the existence of the State of Israel forces the Church to confront its own identity and mission.

As much as neither Lévy nor Villeneuve claims to speak for the Church, there is a troubling trend of leading detractors of Israel speaking out as Catholics as though their views represent Catholic doctrine. Not only do they not do so, but it’s offensive for them to make these claims.

Candace Owens is a chief offender. Since converting to Catholicism, she has become one of the most hostile media figures criticizing Israel, Zionism, pro-Israel advocacy organizations, and Jews – invoking a wide range of antisemitic tropes.

Carrie Prejean Boller is a model, former Miss California, and a recent Catholic convert. She has become a media personality who became known after declaring that Catholics should not embrace Zionism. She has criticized “Zionist” influence in America.

While these pundits most certainly do not represent the Church, the Vatican’s overall silence on such things allows these voices to fill the void.

It’s one of the main reasons that “For Zion’s Sake: A Catholic Appeal in Support of Israel” is so important and timely, and that voices like those of Lévy and Villeneuve should be amplified.

The document has garnered numerous signatures, including those of theologians, priests, and other prominent figures. There is also a “Friends of” section for non-Catholics to lend their support.

The authors expressed encouragement at the positive response from many who felt isolated in supporting Israel. They view this as contributing to necessary theological development and dialogue. At one point, a parallel was made to traditional Jewish Talmudic debate.

Lévy and Villeneuve acknowledged that genuine solidarity with Palestinian Arabs need not negate recognition of Israel’s covenantal significance. They hope the document will encourage open discussion rather than polarized condemnation.

At one point, the issue of the delegitimization of Israel as being rejected by God and His “punishing” the Jews by sending them into perpetual exile came up.

Lévy referred to this as “the deepest theological core of this whole issue.” Because if the delegitimization of Israel is centered on the Jewish people’s exile, that alone emphasizes the truth that undermines the very delegitimization of Israel to begin with: that the Jewish people are indeed indigenous in the land.

Villeneuve emphasized that the document quoted the Jewish prayer for the State of Israel, referring to Israel “as the first fruits of Israel’s redemption, which I think is a beautiful expression.” To that we can all say amen.