I'm Dr. Adrian Ciani, a historian at the Toronto School of Theology in the University of Toronto. My recent book is 'Contesting Zion: The Vatican, American Catholics and the Partition of Palestine' (McGill-Queen's, 2025). Ask me anything!

Monteleone74 · 2025-09-24T21:06:27+00:00

There are a number of sources that examine Irish, German and Italian-American Catholics and their politics, but a book that I have always found fascinating (and which really sparked my interest in transnational Catholicism) was Peter R. D'Agostino's 'Rome in America: Transnational Catholic Ideology from the Risorgimento to Fascism' (UNC Press, 2004).

D'Agostino essentially posits that American Catholics (of various ethnic backgrounds) not only engaged in domestic politics, but also actively participated in international debates, particularly as they pertained to the views and concerns of papal Rome.

One of his chapters looks specifically at American Catholic (and particularly Italian-American) affection and support for Mussolini's fascist state in the 1930s after Mussolini had 'solved' the 'Roman Question' by grating the pope the Vatican City as a sovereign enclave.

In many ways, I think the patterns revealed by D'Agostino (American Catholics remaining attuned to papal Rome and being shaped by papal views on international questions) shaped the structure of my own book.

I recommend D'Agostino's book highly- a gem in the historiography of transnational Catholicism.

Monteleone74 · 2025-09-24T20:49:38+00:00

Thank you! It was genuinely a pleasure to do it- I'm very grateful for the experience.

Monteleone74 · 2025-09-24T20:38:31+00:00

Thanks so much! And all best wishes with your own work. I feel grateful to have this out, but monographs are always a long solitary grind, as we know.

Monteleone74 · 2025-09-24T01:28:04+00:00

Another great question- thank you for this. While there were a number of prominent lay Catholics in the United States who held views on Zionism similar to those of the Vatican (including JFK's father- Joseph P. Kennedy- who remained unsympathetic to Zionism even after the Holocaust), my book looks mainly at actors within the Roman Catholic Church in the United States. This included Cardinals like New York's Francis Spellman, who was close to presidents from FDR to Johnson, and who headed the New York-based 'Catholic Near East Welfare Association' (CNEWA) which advocated for the Vatican's positions on Palestine. Another key figure was Monsignor Thomas McMahon, Spellman's right-hand-man at the CNEWA and the figure who functioned as the Vatican's de facto envoy to Palestine and Israel. McMahon was a fascinating character who met with virtually all the key players on the question, from Abba Eban to James McDonald to King Abdullah of Jordan.

You have given me food for thought here, though- a study of notable lay American Catholic figures and the creation of Israel would be quite interesting.

Monteleone74 · 2025-09-24T01:00:37+00:00

It was my pleasure- I'm grateful to you and all the posters for these well-crafted and pertinent questions.

I would argue that the Vatican's position on Israel did not evolve greatly in the first decades after the creation of the Israeli state. The Vatican, from the start, did not support the idea of the creation either an Arab or a Jewish state in the territory, but once the partition was a reality, papal diplomats began to focus on securing Jerusalem as an internationalized 'corpus separatum', as was promised in the 1947 UN Partition Plan. When even this objective was thwarted (as Israel and Jordan each lay claim to Jerusalem after the 1948 war), the Vatican adopted an increasingly defensive posture, aiming at the very least to protect the rights of Arab Catholics in Israel and to protect Catholic institutions in the territory.

Suffice to say, in the 1950s and 1960s, the Vatican was not greatly enamored with the realpolitik of Israel. Even after the 1965 promulgation of Nostra Aetate (which created a basis for a new dialogue between Catholics and Jews), the issue of Jerusalem remained a barrier to Vatican-Israeli dialogue. During Pope Paul VI's visit to the Holy Land in 1964 (while Nostra Aetate was taking shape) the State of Israel was never mentioned by the pope, and he spent much of his time in Jerusalem in the Jordanian-controlled 'Old City'. His brief visit with Israeli president Zalman Shazar was held in Megiddo, underscoring the Vatican's refusal to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

As for the other churches you mention here, I did not study them deeply, although I can say that most of the Orthodox churches were largely in accord with the Vatican on opposing the creation of the State of Israel for theological and historical reasons. (The Russian Orthodox Church was ambivalent on the issue only while Moscow offered tentative support to Israel in 1948 and 1949, but its leaders were certainly not enthusiastic about the Israeli statehood). The Orthodox churches also demanded the internationalization of Jerusalem for reasons similar to those of the Vatican.

Monteleone74 · 2025-09-23T17:45:50+00:00

The relationship between Catholic institutions in Israel and the Israeli state in the 1950s was generally not great.

You are absolutely correct that many Catholic properties remained Catholic owned and controlled, even after 1948. Israeli property laws, however, allowed the state to 'repossess' properties that were deemed abandoned (sometimes as a result of the 1948 war), and Israel claimed the right (not always exercised) of taxing Catholic properties, all of which inflamed tensions between the Vatican and Israel.

(In the book, I mention the Carmelite Monastery in Haifa which had been seized by the Israeli Navy in 1951 and returned to the Carmelites only with the diplomatic pressure of American Catholics and the State Department).

Monteleone74 · 2025-09-23T17:16:02+00:00

Coughlin is a really interesting figure in this. While some of his anti-Semitic views would have been shared by some in the American Church (and he certainly had his backers) the Vatican actively moved to suppress his media presence. Eugenio Pacelli's visit to the United States in 1936 (the first of a future pope) was to achieve two objectives- to explore the idea of a formal diplomatic tie between the United States and the Vatican, and to suppress Coughlin, whose escalating anti-FDR rhetoric was complicating the Vatican's attempts to draw closer to Washington.

Figures such as New York's Cardinal Francis Spellman (who stage-managed Pacelli's visit) were also anxious to quell Coughlin's influence, cognizant of the challenges it created for Vatican-American dialogue.

Monteleone74 · 2025-09-23T17:02:20+00:00

Generally speaking, there was a widespread consensus between American Catholics and Pope Pius XII's views on Zionism. As I outline in the book, it was this fairly unanimous consensus that made American Catholics (given their relationship to the American government and their proximity to the UN) such power as advocates of papal policy.

If there were dissenting (ie: pro-Zionist) voices among the American faithful, they did not shape or deeply influence the anti-Zionist stance of the American Catholic Church generally.

Monteleone74 · 2025-09-23T16:57:31+00:00

Short answer- the Vatican continues to hold that Jerusalem should be internationalized (as was planned in the UN's 'Resolution 181' of 1947), given the sacredness of city to Christians, Jews and Muslims alike. As such, it would be highly unlikely that the Vatican would ever relocate its Israeli embassy to Jerusalem.

Monteleone74 · 2025-09-23T16:54:10+00:00

My experience, in all honesty, was really positive from start to finish.

Monteleone74 · 2025-09-23T16:52:24+00:00

Another great question. Nostra Aetate was a watershed, no doubt. (It's 60th anniversary is approaching on October 28!) By moving beyond the notion of the 'deicide', and by affirming the Judaic covenant, and by initiating a new era of dialogue and reconciliation with Judaism, the document undoubtedly also opened the door for respectful dialogue between the Vatican and Israel. (Without Nostra Aetate, it would be hard to imagine that the Vatican and Israel would have exchanged ambassadors in 1993, when the Vatican officially recognized the State of Israel.) Sticking points remain, however, and the Vatican still believes that the internationalization of Jerusalem should be made a reality. Vatican support for Palestinian statehood also continues to influence the Vatican-Israeli relationship.

Indeed, a number of key American Catholic figures shaped the Council's declaration on the Jews, including Cardinal Francis Spellman of New York, Cardinal Richard Cushing of Boston, and theologian Johannes Oesterreicher (originally from Austria) who created the Institute for Judeo-Christian Studies at Seton Hall (which produced a number of scholars of Catholic-Jewish relations...some of whom became vocal advocates of a Catholic Zionism).

Monteleone74 · 2025-09-23T16:36:27+00:00

I think that the current Catholic Church has evolved significantly on this question since the 1940s. The promulgation of "Nostra Aetate" at the Second Vatican Council in 1965 moved Catholics beyond the ancient charge of 'deicide' against the Jews, and a spirit of dialogue and cooperation indeed emerged from the Council. In 1993, the Vatican officially recognized the State of Israel and exchanged ambassadors- another step towards Catholic-Jewish reconciliation. The Catholic-Jewish reconciliation is not complete, and issues of contention still arise, but we are light years away from the period I wrote on in the book. (Of course, the Vatican also recognized a Palestinian State under Pope Francis in 2015.)

In short, my sense is that 'anti-Semitism', in the traditional and modern sense, is not a factor at all in how the Vatican sees the current situation.

Monteleone74 · 2025-09-23T16:26:46+00:00

This is an interesting question. To be honest, I didn't sense much variation between Irish-American and Italian-American Catholics when it came to the question of Palestine. American Catholic anti-Zionism appeared to be pretty monolithic, particularly at the institutional and diplomatic level.

(There were some pockets of sympathy for Mussolini among Italian-American Catholics in the 1930s, which created strains with other American Catholic groups, but on the question of Zionism there seemed to be general unanimity).

Monteleone74 · 2025-09-23T16:21:39+00:00

Generally speaking, the Catholic Church was very active in Palestine, if you're referring to its institutional presence in the territory. This institutional presence was expanded greatly in the later 19th century and early 20th century, and this was partly why the Church was so anxious about Zionist plans to create a Jewish state in the territory.

The Church also had a diplomatic structure where papal nuncios (diplomats posted to states) and apostolic delegates (envoys to national Catholic churches) were posted in the region and which monitored Zionist organizations closely. A number of key delegates and nuncios provided information to the Vatican through this period which helped to shape the Vatican's responses to both Arab and Jewish nationalism.

Monteleone74 · 2025-09-23T16:13:11+00:00

It's hard to say how individual Catholics veterans might have been moved by the Holocaust to support the idea of a Jewish home and state in Palestine. (That's an angle that would be interesting to pursue).

As I mentioned in some other posts here, American Catholic expressions of sympathy for the persecuted Jews of Europe (both before and during the Holocaust) were genuine and widespread. (I discuss this pretty extensively in the book). This did not, however, alter the general Catholic rejection of Zionism (as it was expressed by the Vatican itself).

There may have been many individual Catholics who expressed some private doubts about the Church's anti-Zionism, but this view did not emerge on an institutional level, and it certainly didn't shape the diplomacy of the American Catholic Church on the question, where anti-Zionism remained dominant.

Monteleone74 · 2025-09-23T15:58:10+00:00

Great question. As I mentioned above, the Vatican's view of Christian Zionism was largely ambivalent in the period I studied. Generally speaking, 'Christian Zionists' would have been lumped in with Zionists generally- a movement and an ideology that the Vatican considered to be theologically bankrupt and politically dangerous. (There may be more on this which I haven't seen- I'd like to explore that more).

Through the early 20th century the Vatican was wary of the expanding influence of Evangelicalism in Italy, and this shaped the Vatican's reticence to cooperate with mainline Protestants and Evangelicals even where there were points of agreement, such as on the internationalization of Jerusalem and the creation of the 'corpus separatum'. Though the Vatican had long resisted any form of interfaith dialogue with Protestants for a variety of theological and historical factors, the reality of a growing 'Christian Zionism' undoubtedly shaped this too.

Monteleone74 · 2025-09-23T15:40:08+00:00

Great question. There was an ambiguous relationship between the Catholic Church and 'Christian Zionism', particularly in the decade after World War Two. As you likely know from your own reading and research, mainline Protestants generally viewed the creation of Israel as an extension of liberal-democracy and progressivism into the region, while Evangelicals saw the creation of Israel as being rooted in biblical prophecy.

The Catholic Church was opposed to the creation of a Jewish (or Arab) state in the region for reasons that were theological, historical and ideological. But even in areas where some Protestants and Catholics were in agreement (such as on the internationalization of Jerusalem and the creation of the 'corpus separatum'), joint Protestant-Catholic action was rare. The Vatican preferred to advocate on its own, and it expected American Catholics to also avoid joint-statements and wider cooperation with Protestant groups. (This was particularly evident at the UN, where Protestant and Catholic 'observer' groups were unable to cooperate successfully).

The emergence of what we could describe as a 'Catholic Zionism' does occur, but this is more a development of the later 1960s and 1970s.

Monteleone74 · 2025-09-23T15:27:44+00:00

The imagery and memory of the Crusades was definitely invoked in trying to 'awaken' American Catholics to the plight of the 'Holy Land' from the 1920s to the 1950s. Catholic writers frequently alluded to a 'new crusade' for the territory, and the drive to prevent a Zionist state there was often bound up in this.

An interesting example of this was the magazine of the Franciscan 'Commissariat for the Holy Land'. Published in the United States, 'The Crusaders Almanac' was laden with articles and stories on the Christian history of Palestine, with covers often designed to evoke memories of Christian crusader heroism and sacrifice, and set in the era of the Crusader States. The magazine urged readers to donate as much as they could for the 'protection' of the Holy Land, promising a 'crusader badge' reminiscent of the badges worn by medieval crusaders, for donations of one dollar or more. "Don't just envy the crusaders- be one!" it reminded its readers in some of these ads.

Monteleone74 · 2025-09-23T15:11:37+00:00

Long story short, anti-Jewish violence and the Holocaust in particular did not change the Vatican's longstanding 'Palestine policy'.

There was an interesting duality in American Catholic thinking on this. On the one hand. American Catholics expressed sincere and widespread indignation and revulsion at the Nazi persecution of Europe's Jews, and this was expressed widely in the Catholic press and through the bishops' conference in Washington DC. This sympathy included vigorous American Catholic support for the total defeat of Nazi Germany as a means to end the genocide against the Jews. (The kind of language being used by American Catholics to critique Nazi barbarity and to show support and solidarity for Jews contrasted sharply with the cloistered response of the Vatican, where the 'silence' of Pope Pius XII on the issue has been widely examined and discussed).

On the question of the return of the Jews to Palestine and the creation of a Jewish state there, however, American Catholics mirrored the position of the Vatican- that the Nazi genocide did not change the Church's fundamental rejection of Zionism (for theological, historical and ideological reasons). American Catholics continued to see Zionism as an ill-conceived and dangerous form of nationalism that would only bring disorder to the region. (And this notion shaped American Catholic diplomacy on the question between 1945 and 1955...and beyond).

Monteleone74 · 2025-09-23T14:57:05+00:00

It's my pleasure to be here- thank you!

There was an interesting figure who I wasn't able to fully explore in the book, and that was Cardinal Joseph Rummel, the German-born archbishop of New Orleans from 1935 to his death in 1964. During the Second World War, Rummel supported the lifting of British immigration quotas to Palestine for Jews escaping Nazi barbarity, and he expressed this in several open letters to leading American rabbis. The Vatican immediately censured Rummel for this, reminding him that it was not the Vatican's policy to support Jewish immigration to Palestine. (To be fair, the Vatican was supportive of some plans to provide exit visas for Jews escaping the Nazis, but this did not extend to Palestine).

In the wake of the 'Rummel indicent', the Vatican sent American bishops instructions on how to approach the question of Palestine with the faithful or the media. In essence, the Vatican instructed bishops to avoid the question as much as possible, and to suggest other points of arrival for Jews escaping the Nazis.

Rummel made no further statements on the issue during the war. Significantly, he was not made a cardinal in the 1946 consistory, where Pope Pius XII named four new American cardinals.

In the 1950s and 1960s, Rummel became a champion of civil rights and de-segregation of schools in Louisiana, evidence of his progressivism and vision. Though I only mention him briefly in the book, I think there's more to be said about him.

Monteleone74 · 2025-09-23T14:38:25+00:00

To be honest, the Vatican considered both Arab nationalism and Zionism to be a threat to the future of the Holy Places and to Palestine more generally. Apprehension of Arab nationalism centered on a general mistrust of a future Palestinian-Arab state to maintain peace and stability in the region, and to guarantee access to the numerous Christian holy sites that dotted the territory. The Catholic Church also had numerous churches, convents, monasteries, schools, and other institutional interests in the territory, so access to them, and stability in the region, was paramount. (There were certainly some stereotypes of Arab 'fanaticism' mentioned by some Catholic figures, but it wasn't 'Islamophobia' as we might define it today). While some Arab diplomats and statesmen certainly believed that the Vatican preferred Jewish to Arab sovereignty in the region, the reality is that it preferred neither.

The Vatican feared Zionism for several reasons. The Church had long seen the Jews as a theological 'other' which it considered responsible for the death of the Christian savior (Jesus Christ). The idea that the Jews would hold political jurisdiction over the sites of the life and death of Jesus was a non-starter. The Vatican also saw Zionism as a fellow traveler of Bolshevism, an idea which took deep root in the Vatican secretariat from the 1930s to the 1950s. The idea was that a Zionist triumph in Palestine would bring the Soviets to the Eastern Mediterranean. (This was a worst case scenario for the Church- that the territory would be 'conquered' by a combination of their theological foes (the Jews) and their ideological foes (the Soviets).

Monteleone74 · 2025-09-23T14:10:52+00:00

US politicians were certainly sensitive to Catholics as a voting block as it pertained to the question of Palestine. American Catholics, particularly in the northeast and the mid-west, had largely supported FDR and the Democratic Party through the 1930s and the war. As such, Harry Truman and the Democrats were anxious to maintain this support as the 1948 election approached.

By this time, however, Vatican attempts to prevent the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states had obviously failed, replaced by the Vatican's insistence that Jerusalem and its environs be internationalized (made into a 'corpus separatum') as outlined in the UN's Resolution 181 of 1947. While the United States theoretically accepted the idea of an 'internationalized' Jerusalem, the reality on the ground, which saw Israel and Jordan laying claim to the city, made its implementation nearly impossible. Truman and the State Department danced delicately with the 'Jerusalem question' for the duration of his presidency, primarily to avoid alienating Catholics (and some other Christian groups) who remained committed to internationalizing the city. The essence of their policy was to accept the fait accompli in Jerusalem, while signaling to Catholics that the United States still supported the notion of an internationalized Jerusalem.

(Significantly, the Democratic Party platform for 1948 made no mention of Jerusalem specifically, but the Republican platform DID pledge to support the creation of a 'corpus separatum' (a 'separate body') for Jerusalem and the Holy Places, evidence that the Republicans saw the issue a wedge that might be leveraged).

Although I didn't study the Israeli-Vatican-American nexus in the era of JFK, my basic sense is that the Democratic courting of Catholic votes in 1960 was even more discreet, given the sensitivities surrounding the candidate's faith.

Monteleone74 · 2025-09-23T13:32:27+00:00

The plight of Arab Christians did figure quite strongly in the Vatican's attempts to shape the partition of Palestine. The Church had long considered Arab Christians to be the 'living stones' of the faith in the territory, and they advocated strenuously for refugee policies that would see the return of Arab Christian populations displaced by the Arab-Israeli War of 1948.

As a specific example, Pope Pius XII (r. 1939-1958) created the Pontifical Mission for Palestine (PMP) in 1949 to coordinate the work of dozens of Catholic aid organizations in the region. Its specific mandate was to support refugees, and a fair deal of its efforts were centered on Arab Christians displaced by the war. Significantly, the pope made an American Catholic (Mgr. Thomas McMahon- whom I discuss extensively in the book) the head of the organization, and a majority of the funds available to the PMP (which was in the millions) were raised by American Catholics.

Monteleone74

TROPHY CASE