The “State of Israel has every right to exist in safety and prosperity” and an “outright attack on the State of Israel is also anti-Semitism,” stated Pope Francis on October 28, 2015, at the Vatican to visiting World Jewish Congress leaders. Such remarks reveal an ongoing, historic sea change in Catholic views on Zionism, in contrast to more traditional Catholic criticisms of Zionism such as those of the previously discussed late Catholic priest and commentator Vincent P. Miceli.
The harsh views on Zionism in Miceli’s 1981 book, The Antichrist: The Final Campaign Against the Savior, recently reprinted by Sophia Institute Press, remain pertinent today. Any of his readers could have predicted the recent October 6 statement by Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nichols, the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales. Both on his website and on Twitter, Nichols expressed opposition to British Prime Minister Elizabeth Truss’ suggestion of moving the United Kingdom’s embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Nichols contrasts with his fellow Briton, University of Bristol Catholic theology professor Gavin D’Costa, someone whom Nichols presumably knows, for D’Costa advises the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales. Nichols has been a harsh critic of Israel while ludicrously suggesting that the jihadist terrorist group Hamas rules a “pluralistic” Gaza Strip, where merely a few hundred beleaguered Christians exist amidst two million Muslims. Meanwhile D’Costa advocates “repudiation of a long history of Catholic anti-Jewishness.”
As D’Costa’s graduate student Alex J. Bellew wrote in his 2021 masters thesis, “beginning in 1948, the Catholic Church began to radically reinterpret its tradition of Supersessionism” or Replacement Theology. According to this doctrine, with the coming of the Jew Jesus as messiah, Christians supplanted Jews as God’s chosen people. A key milestone in this reversal was the October 28, 1965, declaration Nostra Aetate from the Second Vatican Council. As D’Costa summarized in 2020, the modern “Catholic Church thus sees contemporary Judaism as remaining in a covenant relationship with God: heir to the gifts, promises, and callings of God.”
As Pope John Paul II stated during his April 13, 1986, Rome synagogue visit, the “Jews are beloved of God, who has called them with an irrevocable calling.” Noting how the Jewish scriptures are sacred to both Jews and Christians, the pope tenderly observed:
The Jewish religion is not “extrinsic” to us, but in a certain way is “intrinsic” to our own religion. With Judaism, therefore, we have a relationship which we do not have with any other religion. You are our dearly beloved brothers, and in a certain way, it could be said that you are our elder brothers.
Yet the historic hostility of Catholic doctrine to Judaism had grave effects for Zionism as well. As Middle East analyst Julian Schvindlerman wrote:
The idea of a Jewish state challenged the Vatican psychologically, theologically and politically. The notion that the Jewish people could have a right to self-determination—and even more so in the Holy Land—was anathema to Vatican understanding of the role of the Jew in history.
Miceli’s views on Zionism were therefore no exception, and pro-Zionist Catholic clergy, such as Cardinal Willem Marinus van Rossum (1854-1932), remained the exception. As Schvindlerman observed:
The Vatican held an unfavorable view of the Balfour Declaration and the creation of the British Mandate in Palestine and instigated diplomatic efforts contrary to the interests of the Zionists. The Papacy viewed the Jewish nationalists as anti-religious Bolsheviks and feared that their way of life would result in the desecration of the Holy Land.
Accordingly, the day after Israel’s declaration of independence, May 15, 1948, the Vatican’s official newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, coldly rebuffed Israel. The “Holy Land and its sacred places belong to Christianity, which is the true Israel,” and “modern Zionism is not the true heir to the Israel of the Bible, but a secular state,” the publication stated. As Villanova University theology professor Massimo Faggioli noted, this policy continued during Pope Paul VI’s 1964 Holy Land visit to Israel and Jordan. Paul VI “was very careful never to utter the word ‘Israel,’ thus avoiding even the suggestion of recognition.”
Such views affected Nostra Aetate’s development, Faggioli noted, as “Arab states and Arab Catholic bishops and patriarchs at Vatican II were strongly opposed to anything that sounded like a recognition of the State of Israel.” Accordingly,
questions of who should control the Holy Land and whether to recognize the State of Israel were not addressed by Vatican II’s Nostra aetate, whose drafting was closely scrutinized not only by bishops, theologians, and the Vatican Secretariat of State, but also by diplomats, spies, and Arab and Jewish observers.
“In a sure sign of its contentiousness,” D’Costarecalled, Nostra Aetate’s substance was leaked to the New York Times—despite every Council member’s having taken a solemn oath of confidentiality.” “Most Middle Eastern governments, as well as the leaders of those countries’ Christian communities, quickly expressed their opposition to the draft,” he noted. Although Nostra Aetate’s “positive statements” on Jews “were addressed only to ‘religion’—that is, Judaism,” they “were interpreted instead for support of the state of Israel.”
As Schvindlerman concurred, Nostra Aetate “was attacked by ultraconservative Catholic sectors and by Arab delegates, resulting in a minimization of its centrality and a final, less auspicious version than the original draft.” Analyzing this compromise, D’Costa noted:
The American bishops came to the rescue of the draft proposal, and Pope Paul VI (who in 1963 had succeeded John XXIII) came up with a solution: nothing touching on politics must be said in the document, and whenever anything was said in section 4 of Nostra Aetate about the Jewish religion, something must also be said about Islam in (the much smaller) section 3.
Ultimately, the Vatican did not recognize the state of Israel until December 13, 1993, and Zionism remains a contested issue within the Catholic Church today, as the final article in this series will discuss.
Walter Sieruk says
Pope Francis is very much for the “two” state solution ” for the Jewish State of Israel. which is actually no “solution” at all.
Furthermore pope Francis must not really believe in , trust or take seriously the teachings of the words of Jesus . Who taught “If a kingdom is divided against itself , that kingdom cannot stand.”
Mark 3:24. [N.E.B.]
haroldpom says
Now if they could only convince the Palestinians to believe in the two state solution so they could live in peace next to a Jewish state the Israel-Palestinian conflict could be resolved.
I AM THE INFIDEL YOUR IMAM WARNED YOU ABOUT says
First of if you go way back in history… they were no ‘palestinians’ … there were Israeli arabs. The name ‘palestinians’ is an invented name given to the arabs for political purposes. The so-called ‘palestinians’ are arabs who over the years moved in from other regions. Yasser Arafat by birth is an Egyptian… he was born in Cairo.
The Catholic church full of shit. The Catholic is has committed crimes against the Jewish people. The Catholic Church has numerous stolen Jewish artifacts hidden away in the Vatican vaults
gravenimage says
+1
Daniel Bielak says
• In 1917, “Palestine” was occupied by Britain after Britain defeated Germany-aligned Turkey during World War I.
• In 1919, in Paris, Arab leader Emir Faisal ibn Husseini and Zionist Jewish leader Haim Weizmann signed the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement to create one Arab State in, and one Jewish State in, “Palestine,” which included what is now Jordan, what is now Israel, what is now called “the West Bank” (Judea and Samaria; the “west bank” of the Jordan River), and what is now called “the Gaza Strip.”
• In 1920, British officials renamed “Palestine” to “the British Mandate of Palestine”
• In 1920, at the San Remo Conference, all of the British Mandate of Palestine was mandated by international law to become the Jewish National Home, in contravention to the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement. (Emir Faisal ibn Husseini probably felt betrayed by that and probably became disillusioned.)
• In 1920, Jew-hating Haj Amin al Husseini began a campaign of terrorism against the Jewish community in the British Mandate of Palestine.
• In 1924, British officials created the Arab state Transjordan out of two thirds of the British Mandate of Palestine in contravention to the San Remo Conference of 1920, and explicitly excluded Transjordan from the terms of the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement in contravention to the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement.
• In 1946, Britain granted independence to Transjordan, and gave rule of Transjordan to the Hashemites, and Transjordan was renamed Jordan.
• The Palestinian Arab political leadership were offered a Palestinian Arab state in 1938, 1948, 1967, 2000-2001, and 2008, and the Palestinian Arab political leadership refused all of those offers.
Jordan is the Palestinian Arab state.
Daniel Bielak says
“Emir Faisal ibn Husseini probably felt betrayed by that and probably became disillusioned.”
Haj Amin al Husseini became empowered after that.
Haj Amin al Husseini was the founder of the Palestinian Arab movement, and was the mentor of Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, and was an early leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, and organized multiple Muslim Arab riots against, and massacres of, Jewish people in the British Mandate of Palestine starting in 1920, and resided in Germany from 1941 to 1945 as an official of the Nazi regime of Germany, and was a confidant of Adolf Hitler, and supported the Nazi “Final Solution,” and planned a “Final Solution” in the Middle East, and was a friend of Adolf Eichmann and Heinrich Himmler, and established Muslim Nazi S.S. divisions in the Balkans, and broadcast genocidally anti-Jewish Islamic radio programs in Arabic to all of the countries in the Middle East from the shortwave radio station, Radio Zeesen, in Germany.
gravenimage says
Jordan is the Palestinian Arab state.
…………………………………….
Spot on, Daniel.
Walter Sieruk says
Pope Francis had revealed his total lack of wisdom about the State of Israel when he said that “We still need a two-state solution. It is the only answer.” Biden had by saying that fool statement has shown what an ignorant man he actually is. On that other hand, maybe he’s just evil, a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Pope Francis sure is the divider and chief and not just when comes to him dividing the American people into different political and social “camp.” For even on the international foreign level Biden is that awful divider’
For Biden backs and supports the awful scheme to divide the State of Israel into two. Meaning the so called “two state solution” is not really a valid idea and not a genuine solution. It will definitely not stop this awful Israeli –Muslim land conflict.
Thus a “two state solution” is out of the question. This is actually just right and fine. This is because a “two state solution” not really a “solution” but an Islamic ploy of deception, a smokescreen and hoax and a fraud.
For example, those Hamas rocket attacks into Israel from Gaza reveals that even the idea of some people of dividing Jerusalem as well as other parts of the State of Israel between the Jewish people of the Muslim/ Arabs is nothing but folly. To engage the madness of such “talks” is a hoax and a farce. This is because in the so called “negotiations” between the heads of the Jewish nation of Israel and the leaders of the “Palestinians” the Muslim /Arabs the “Palestinian” leaders will speak the truth only when in happens to fit their agenda. The rest of the time they will be speaking half-truths and outright lies. For their goal is to obtain all of the land of the State of Israel. Even in it takes much time and it means getting the land piece by piece. So those “peace talks” are a hoax.
For the “Palestinian” leaders are employing what is the Islamic doctrine of Taqiyya. Which is the Islamic dogma that lying, and deception are good things to do as long as it’s done for the cause of the advancement of Islam. The insidious scheme is part of the stealth jihad. Otherwise known as “Islamic Gradualism.”
This sly and something subtle strategy of disingenuous speech, lying deception of achieving the goal of all the land of Israel a war ploy that will be a disaster if the heads of the State of Israel are foolish enough to agree to divide the land of Israel with Muslim /Arabs, the “Palestinians.” For if such a “peace dialogue” results in a divided land, the outcome will literally be murder. For “Palestinian” leader will allow the jihadists use that land as a base to launch murderous rocket attacks into Israel. As for example, Hamas of Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Such false hopes for peace which are based on the foundation of lies are nothing new when it comes to Israel. For example, the Bible in Psalm 55:20, 21. Reads “Such men do violence to those at peace with them and break their promised word; their speech is smoother the butter, but their thoughts are of war.” [N.E.B.]
Walter Sieruk says
This following essay of mine is a correct version ofthe one above which contains two errors
Ho how would like to always be error free, sady that is not the case.
Therefore here it is…”Pope Francis had revealed his total lack of wisdom about the State of Israel when he said that “We still need a two-state solution. It is the only answer.” Biden had by saying that fool statement has shown what an ignorant man he actually is. On that other hand, maybe he’s just evil, a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Pope Francis sure is the divider and chief and not just when comes to him dividing the American people into different political and social “camp.” For even on the international foreign level Francis s that awful divider.
For the pope backs and supports the awful scheme to divide the State of Israel into two. Meaning the so called “two state solution” is not really a valid idea and not a genuine solution. It will definitely not stop this awful Israeli –Muslim land conflict.
Thus a “two state solution” is out of the question. This is actually just right and fine. This is because a “two state solution” not really a “solution” but an Islamic ploy of deception, a smokescreen and hoax and a fraud.
For example, those Hamas rocket attacks into Israel from Gaza reveals that even the idea of some people of dividing Jerusalem as well as other parts of the State of Israel between the Jewish people of the Muslim/ Arabs is nothing but folly. To engage the madness of such “talks” is a hoax and a farce. This is because in the so called “negotiations” between the heads of the Jewish nation of Israel and the leaders of the “Palestinians” the Muslim /Arabs the “Palestinian” leaders will speak the truth only when in happens to fit their agenda. The rest of the time they will be speaking half-truths and outright lies. For their goal is to obtain all of the land of the State of Israel. Even in it takes much time and it means getting the land piece by piece. So those “peace talks” are a hoax.
For the “Palestinian” leaders are employing what is the Islamic doctrine of Taqiyya. Which is the Islamic dogma that lying, and deception are good things to do as long as it’s done for the cause of the advancement of Islam. The insidious scheme is part of the stealth jihad. Otherwise known as “Islamic Gradualism.”
This sly and something subtle strategy of disingenuous speech, lying deception of achieving the goal of all the land of Israel a war ploy that will be a disaster if the heads of the State of Israel are foolish enough to agree to divide the land of Israel with Muslim /Arabs, the “Palestinians.” For if such a “peace dialogue” results in a divided land, the outcome will literally be murder. For “Palestinian” leader will allow the jihadists use that land as a base to launch murderous rocket attacks into Israel. As for example, Hamas of Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Such false hopes for peace which are based on the foundation of lies are nothing new when it comes to Israel. For example, the Bible in Psalm 55:20, 21. Reads “Such men do violence to those at peace with them and break their promised word; their speech is smoother the butter, but their thoughts are of war.” [N.E.B.]