For Zion’s Sake: Why two Catholic theologians are taking a stand for Israel
Summary
The article reports on “For Zion’s Sake: A Catholic Appeal in Support of Israel,” an initiative discussed by biblical scholar André Villeneuve, founder of Catholics for Israel, and Dominican theologian Father Antoine Lévy. The appeal seeks to challenge what its authors describe as growing anti-Israel sentiment and supersessionist theology within some Catholic circles after October 7 and the subsequent war against Hamas. They argue that the Church has not replaced Israel, that God’s covenant with the Jewish people remains significant, and that Jewish self-determination in the historic land of Israel can be supported without endorsing every Israeli government policy. The initiative also condemns violence, acknowledges Palestinian suffering, and calls for justice for all inhabitants. The speakers criticize perceived Vatican imbalance and silence regarding threats to Israel, antisemitism, and the October 7 atrocities, while referencing historical controversy surrounding statements attributed to Pope Pius X and criticism of Pope Pius XII’s Holocaust-era silence. They contend that anti-Zionism can function as contemporary antisemitism and criticize public Catholic converts, including Candace Owens and Carrie Prejean Boller, for anti-Israel positions. The appeal has attracted signatures from Catholic and non-Catholic supporters and aims to encourage Catholic-Jewish dialogue and theological reflection.
Watchmen Signals
Biblical Context
The article makes a direct theological appeal to the New Testament, especially Paul’s discussion of Israel in Romans 11. The cited passage warns Gentile believers against arrogance toward the Jewish people and describes Israel’s calling and God’s gifts as irrevocable. This provides a legitimate basis for the article’s criticism of supersessionist contempt and its call for humility in Christian attitudes toward Jews. However, Romans 11 does not by itself determine the legitimacy of every policy of the modern State of Israel, settle territorial disputes, or require unconditional support for any government. The article’s broader claims about the modern state, Jewish national self-determination, and the meaning of Israel’s return involve theological interpretation and political judgment beyond what can be established from the supplied passage alone. No specific contemporary event can responsibly be identified here as a certain fulfillment of biblical prophecy.
Biblical Sources
Scripture references supporting the biblical context above.
Paul portrays Gentile believers as grafted into an existing covenantal tree, warns them not to boast over the Jewish branches, and states that God’s gifts and calling are irrevocable. This directly supports the article’s discussion of humility toward the Jewish people and its rejection of supersessionist contempt, while not settling modern political questions.
Comments
No comments yet.
Sign in to join the conversation.
Sign In